Showing posts with label metaphysics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label metaphysics. Show all posts

Saturday, November 25, 2017

Welcome To 2030. I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy... And Life Has Never Been Better

Authored by Ida Auken, Member of Parliament, Parliament of Denmark; via The World Economic Forum"s Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils,


Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city – or should I say, “our city”. I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes.


It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city.


Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.


First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore, because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes. We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way when public transport became easier, quicker and more convenient than the car. Now I can hardly believe that we accepted congestion and traffic jams, not to mention the air pollution from combustion engines. What were we thinking?


Sometimes I use my bike when I go to see some of my friends. I enjoy the exercise and the ride. It kind of gets the soul to come along on the journey. Funny how some things seem never seem to lose their excitement: walking, biking, cooking, drawing and growing plants. It makes perfect sense and reminds us of how our culture emerged out of a close relationship with nature.


“Environmental problems seem far away”


In our city we don’t pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.


Once in awhile, I will choose to cook for myself. It is easy – the necessary kitchen equipment is delivered at my door within minutes. Since transport became free, we stopped having all those things stuffed into our home. Why keep a pasta-maker and a crepe cooker crammed into our cupboards? We can just order them when we need them.


This also made the breakthrough of the circular economy easier. When products are turned into services, no one has an interest in things with a short life span. Everything is designed for durability, repairability and recyclability. The materials are flowing more quickly in our economy and can be transformed to new products pretty easily. Environmental problems seem far away, since we only use clean energy and clean production methods. The air is clean, the water is clean and nobody would dare to touch the protected areas of nature because they constitute such value to our well being. In the cities we have plenty of green space and plants and trees all over. I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete.


The death of shopping


Shopping? I can’t really remember what that is. For most of us, it has been turned into choosing things to use. Sometimes I find this fun, and sometimes I just want the algorithm to do it for me. It knows my taste better than I do by now.


When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people. The concept of rush hour makes no sense anymore, since the work that we do can be done at any time. I don’t really know if I would call it work anymore.


It is more like thinking-time, creation-time and development-time.


For a while, everything was turned into entertainment and people did not want to bother themselves with difficult issues.


It was only at the last minute that we found out how to use all these new technologies for better purposes than just killing time.


“They live different kinds of lives outside of the city”


My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.


Once in awhile I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. No where I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.


All in all, it is a good life. Much better than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realised that we could do things differently.


Author’s note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading – for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.









Saturday, November 4, 2017

All Of The World"s Money And Markets In One Visualization

Millions, billions, and trillions...


When we talk about the giant size of Apple, the fortune of Warren Buffett, or the massive amount of global debt accumulated – all of these things sound large, but they are actually extremely different in magnitude.


That’s why, as Visual Capitalists" Jeff Desjardins explains, visualizing things spatially can give us a better perspective on money and markets.


How Much Money Exists?


This infographic was initially created to show how much money exists in its different forms. For example, to highlight how much physical cash there is in comparison to broader measures of money which include saving and checking account deposits.


Interestingly, what is considered “money” depends on who you are asking.


Are the abstractions created by Central Banks really money? What about gold, bitcoins, or other hard assets?


A New Meaning


However, since we first released this infographic in 2015, “All the World’s Money and Markets” has taken on a different meaning to us and many others. It’s a way of simplifying a complex universe of currencies, assets, and other financial instruments in a way that people can understand.


Numbers represented in the data visualization range from the size of the above-ground silver market ($17 billion) to the notional value of all derivatives ($1.2 quadrillion as a high-end estimate). In between those two extremes, we’ve added many other familiar measures, such as the GDP of California, the value of equities, the real estate market, along with different money supply metrics to give perspective.


The end result? A visually pleasing, but enlightening new way to understand the vast universe of global assets.



Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist


*  *  *


To get “All the World’s Money” in book or poster form, go to the Kickstarter page now. Deadline: Oct. 31, 2017









Saturday, September 30, 2017

Studies Confirm, Free People are Happier

Via The Daily Bell


If you don’t feel free, chances are you don’t feel happy either.


Both of these words, free and happy, are pretty loose in their official definitions. Scientific studies have used various metrics to measure happiness; self-reporting, brain waves, psychological evaluations, and family member surveys. As for freedom, the studies mainly use the self-reported metric, how free a person feels.


When people feel less restrained by outside forces, when people feel that their life is their own to do as they please, they are happier.



Even when holding income, sex, education, race, religion, politics, and family status constant, we find that people who felt free were about 18 percentage points more likely than others to say that they were very happy.



Even people who think that the government should be less involved in daily life are happier than people who think society needs more rules. And it might be tempting to chalk this up to people who are poor feeling unhappy, regardless of freedom. It makes sense to think they would want the government to intervene in order to make them more wealthy, and thus happier.


But when you look at countries overall, you still find that freer countries are happier countries.



…in 1990, at the end of the Communist era, one cross-country survey found that 41 percent of Americans said that they were very happy—contrasted with just 14 percent of East Germans, 6 percent of Russians and Czechs, and 2 percent of Latvians. Of course, regimes behind the Iron Curtain were not just economically unfree; they were politically unfree as well.



Of course, this could also just point to the fact that the freer the country, the more prosperous the people. So you could say that being prosperous makes you happy. Except this would prove that free economies deliver more prosperity. So no matter how you slice it, more freedom means more happiness–even if prosperity is a necessary step in between.


But another study found that even prosperity might not matter as much as freedom when it comes to happiness.



Swiss economists Bruno Frey and Alois Stutzer made this point convincingly in the 1990s, comparing happiness levels across various Swiss cantons, which vary dramatically in how much political participation they afford their citizens. Cantons that allowed citizens more direct democratic rights, as well as meetings with leaders to discuss political and financial matters, proved significantly happier than cantons where political access was more restricted.



Now there may very well be some very special people, who even in a prison cell would still mentally “feel free.” But for most of us, factors of our environment come into play as much as our mental attitude.


But then we get to the chicken or the egg thing. If you don’t feel free, is it because of your environment? Or does your environment not feel free because of your mentality? Either way, you can fix this. You can either change your environment, or you can change your attitude. But it takes recognizing the root of the issue.


If you don’t feel free, and it is making you unhappy, you should start getting specific. Identify exactly what is making you feel unfree. Not “government” but “high taxes or illegal marijuana.” You can legally set up your finances to drastically cut your tax rate. And you can move to a place where marijuana is legal.


And don’t say “society” makes you feel unfree. Is it watching the news or scrolling facebook? Stop. Living in a city with a country heart? Move. Is it Sunday dinner with terrible relatives? You’re under no obligation, although the choices they force on you may be tough. Still, it is their choice how to react. You have the ability to make yourself free of things that keep you constrained.


Let’s address the claim that people who have too many choices are less happy.


Some studies have found that when given too many options, people get freedom overload, and are more anxious, finding it harder to make any choice at all. In one instance, two sample booths were set up to sell jam. One gave away 24 samples, and that one attracted more tasters. Another booth gave away 6 samples, and even though fewer people stopped to try the jam, they actually sold more.


The idea is that people are attracted to freedom, but in the end, it makes them stagnate and shut down with an overload of choice.


But there are a couple factors to consider.


One is that people are naturally constrained by their circumstances to some extent. Maybe you are technically free to do anything you want. But at any one point in your life, there are really only a few choices to be made.


It gets overwhelming to think, I could move anywhere I want, start a business or get a job, find a lover or play the single life, or hike the Appalachian Trail and write a book. That train of thought makes it seem like there are too many choices. You may choose to stay in a situation that doesn’t make you happy because you have no idea what choice of the infinite possibilities will actually make you happier.


But you don’t really have that many choices right now. Do you want to move, or do you like where you are? That is only two choices.


If you choose to move, that clearly opens up more choices. You say, where should I move? Is every square inch of the earth truly an option? No. You should be able to identify why you want to move. Then you simply need to make another series of small choices that are not overwhelming when you take them one at a time. Warm or cold? City or country? Coastal or inland?


Second, most people are naturally constrained by their own unique morality. Some people adopt moralities from religion or spirituality, and some people create their own. It doesn’t really matter, there are some things you will be willing to do, and some things you definitely will not. You probably don’t truly have a choice between becoming a doctor, lawyer, teacher, meth dealer, or pimp. Some of those options probably don’t align with your morals–like becoming a lawyer.


When you break things down to a step by step process of where you are going from here, the choices for what to do with life become much less overwhelming. It is great to have a 5 or even 10-year plan, but things are going to change. Most choices don’t require a steadfast decision in the present. Your smaller choices in the present will instead present new opportunities to choose from later.


And if you have some general philosophy or morality that you live by, certain choices are off the table altogether.


So by if you limit your own choices, you may very well be happier. But if someone else limits your choices for you, you are likely to feel less free, and thus be unhappy.


But again, don’t let the feeling of being unfree convince you that you are actually unfree. If you aren’t convinced that you have this much control over your own life, start by reading the 1973 classic, How I found Freedom in an Unfree World, by Harry Browne.


Friday, July 28, 2017

Have You a Positive Personal Practice? (Part Two)

Have You a Positive Personal Practice? (Part Two)


By


Cognitive Dissonance




My apologies for how tardy Part Two of this article is. It is now mid summer and the garden has begun to produce prolifically. Which means we have begun to can almost as prolifically. Plus I have taken on several outside jobs for friends of several week"s duration to put some fiat in the wallet and this has taken some precedence over my writing.


This theme (Positive Personal Practice) has expanded into at least three parts and maybe more. I don"t plan out my writing, but rather let it flow where it wants to go. Sometimes it goes further than I expect and this is one of those cases.


In addition, this iteration appears a bit more lumpy than usual. I blame it on Mrs. Cog, who introduced me to lumps in my mashed potatoes. After great protestation on my part (mashed potatoes are by definition mashed) to my surprise I found I like them. My writing seems to like them too.


That"s my story and I"m sticking to it.  ;-)


Cognitive Dissonance



The first step to returning to health is to acknowledge you are sick. The second step to getting better is to treat the cause and not the symptoms. Only the insane or someone who doesn’t actually recognize their illness or symptoms as a problem might argue with the above supposition.


In other words, if something is perceived as normal and natural, there ain’t nothing to fix. And mama always told me not to fix what ain’t broken. Perfectly reasonable, wouldn’t you say?


Of course, if everyone is ill (or insane) than ‘normal’ is simply what the majority are doing at that precise moment in space and time. On the flip side, abnormal would be defined as anything the collective hive mind believes is contrary to normal. This is the ultimate in a positive feedback loop, a self reinforcing pattern that only grows stronger with each successive loop until the moment of self destruction arrives.


While rarely expressed by individuals in this precise manner, essentially what many people think and say about their lot in life is that they’re doing pretty well, even very good, in adjusting to a difficult and slightly crazy world they were born into when measured against the symbols of success promoted by ‘society’.


Of course, it is everyone else who is crazy and definitely not the speaker (or thinker) in question.


Setting aside the question of how society goes about measuring its health, I am constantly reminded of a well known quote by Krishnamurti that goes something like this.


“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”


Take a long hard look around you, at our so-called society and its inhabitants (that would be you and I) and tell me we are healthy in every sense of the word.


I dare you. I double dare you. ;-)


If you answered yes, that society is healthy, then I strongly suggest you are basing your assessment solely upon the fact society reflects back to you what you have been taught are values society prizes as a measure of health and happiness.


Keep in mind we all alter our own perceived personal reality to fit our worldview and mindset. We seek out information that confirms our point of view and we reject just about anything that refutes our preconceived notions. Also note this exercise in self deception is very fluid and flexible and extremely adaptable to changing conditions in real time and on the fly.


How else could we justify and rationalize all the murder, mayhem and injustice “We the People”, through our ‘leaders’, inflict upon others…including our neighbors and ourselves.


On the other hand, if you said no and agree that society is unhealthy, do you include yourself in this assessment? If not, why not?


Drop an otherwise healthy Goldfish into a bowl of dirty filthy water, wait 48 hours and then rationally and logically explain to me how the fish remains healthy while totally immersed within that environment.


There is an old adage among natural healers that postulates that other than superficially (meaning minor ailments) the healer can only help those who truly wish to help themselves. One cannot force health upon anyone just as one cannot force unhealthy upon anyone. Free will is required as an integral component of the equation.


Fair warning to the casual reader; trigger words are most definitely being used in this piece. Please strap on your helmet and fasten your seat belt because the going most definitely will get rough.


/sarcasm


What many miss when discussing this subject is ‘belief’ is an exercise in free will. Belief supplants doubt and promotes either active or passive ‘action’, also known as free will. Belief comes about either naturally via personal experience (aka learning) and wisdom or unnaturally via (often external) manipulation and coercion. 


Please understand exercising ‘free will’ doesn’t necessarily mean making a decision to implement your will. Passive acceptance, as well as the belief you have no choice, is an exercise of your free will by omission rather than commission. Not making a decision is, in and of itself, a decision. The same applies to being ‘forced’ to make a decision, regardless of whether that force is ‘real’ or perceived.


We can always say no, even when a gun is pointed to our head. This is a simple fact that will no doubt infuriate some readers who will argue that life is paramount and anything agreed to in order to prolong life is reasonable and not necessarily via ‘free will’.


I would counter one is arguing about the consequences of the decision to justify making the decision. I do not dispute there are potentially severe, even mortal, consequences, only that ultimately the person makes a conscious decision to comply and that is the act of free will. A decision not to comply is also an act of free will.


While freely and willingly tendering our ‘free will’ is of immensely greater value to the recipient, since the rules of the game require consent, by hook or by crook consent will be obtained. And by ‘game’ I am speaking about so much more than simply systems of money and social organization.



Dominoes


You don"t really think society is organized to benefit the individual.....do you?



OK, so by now either you have abandoned reading (thus I am no longer talking to you) or you still retain enough curiosity to continue on down the rabbit hole.


Or possibly you have been triggered to such an extent you have skipped down to the comment section and are furiously typing a response to refute my utter nonsense and ridiculous poppycock. There is a reason I selected Cognitive Dissonance as the name of my online presence and you just confirmed its effectiveness. 


/humor


Let us turn our attention now to the cause of the problem rather than the symptoms. It is sometimes extremely difficult discussing certain subjects with otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people simply because their cultural conditioning precludes even considering such things…or at best engaging in nothing more than a superficial conversation about the subject.


While the western world may be quite diverse with regard to race, ethnic background, religion, governmental organization and so on, even though many may hold divergent opinions only discussed among like minded cohorts, to discuss these subjects in public is practically verboten. You just don’t go there.


I consider this phenomenon not just ‘conditioning’, but conditioning of the Imperial kind. Empires ‘think’ a certain way and are terribly self centered and narcissistic, at least during the late stages of Imperial expansion and population subjugation. And I’m not speaking solely about its leadership, but its captive ‘citizens’ as well.


While I expect my characterization to be vehemently rejected by those of the Imperial mindset (or matter-of-factually agreed with as just the way it is) the Imperial mindset is quite similar to that held by the high school head jock or big-man-on-campus as he troves the halls looking for victims to terrorize.


However, the jock doesn’t frame his behavior as terrorism per se, but rather as actions befitting someone who perceives himself as sitting at the top of the human food chain…if only on a local level. Basically he does what he wants because he can do what he wants. Ego and self will have run riot.


While endless argument back and forth about my stated supposition regarding Empire can be had for the asking, I don’t wish to engage in such senseless debate. Regardless of what America once was, it is now little more than an overly muscled bully walking the halls looking for anyone to pick a fight with. And as is the case with all bullies, this behavior springs from a deep seated inferiority complex combined with an aging Empire who hears the clock ticking and the walls closing in.


Like a cornered wild animal, this is when Empires are most dangerous.


What interests me more is not the death throes of a dying Empire, but rather the mindset of average Jane and Joe from being immersed within the Imperial conditioning from birth. While it is pretty common these days for people from all walks of life to express concern with the direction of the country/leadership etc, rarely do I hear, see or read much discussion on the state of the people within the crumbling Empire other than passing reference to degrading (financial, physical etc) conditions mostly among the ‘middle class’.


There is plenty of ink spilled on the state of ‘other’ people in the country. But of course the author or interviewee isn’t affected by these issues since they are above the fray and immune from the degradation because they are aware of it.


To believe one is immune from contagion simply because one is aware there is a contagion is nonsensical and demonstrates little more than magical thinking.


Cultures more rooted to the Earth and to the Self tend to recognize the white man as seriously ill and even insane. And I’m not just talking about North American natives, but indigenous cultures from every continent on Earth.


And the term ‘white man’ should not be interpreted literally, at least no longer, since the dis-ease permeates all of the so-called Western Civilization. Worse, it is presently infiltrating the Eastern cultures as well as those in the southern hemisphere. In fact, disease may not be the proper term here since this madness is a feature and not a bug of the culture.


Ancient history, much of which has been actively suppressed, altered or simply wiped clean, indicates that man was not always insane. The study of comparative mythology/history drawn from nearly all ancient cultures seems to indicate a turning point, the point of infection one could say, right about when ‘official’ history informs us man became sophisticated enough to grow his own food and settle down into a collaborative society.


Personally I think the Empire’s officially sanctioned history lessons are little more than overall controlling memes along the lines of Nineteen Eight-Four’s “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.” A soul lost and disconnected from its ‘self’ seeks guidance from external sources since it no longer comprehends that all ‘knowing’ springs from within.


But why would controlling entities wish to alter what is known about the distant and recent past? The answer is surprisingly simple and amazingly effective. So much of our present day perspective, our worldview and mind set, is based upon what we believe is our past, both individually and as a collective society.


If there is one overriding theme presented over and over again in the history books, particularly modern history, both subtly and with overt declarations, it is that “We the Humans” are steadily progressing physically, mentally, medically, socially, technologically, politically and spiritually.


Nearly every succeeding generation over the last several hundreds of years has felt they were smarter, more technologically adept and clearly superior to the generation before. This has enabled all manner of abuse to be heaped upon the population in the name of forward progress and innovation.


If improving standards of living is the primary measure of progress, then it is reasonable to think we have progressed radically. But what exactly is an improved standard of living if you are being bombed back into the Stone Age just so your neighbor can maintain or accelerate theirs? Or poisoned by manufactured foods and pharmaceuticals? The question actually applies to those on both sides of this murderous activity.


This is forward progress?



Truthful Lies


Imperial Truth......full of lies.



What if it is all a carefully choreographed and cultivated lie designed to hide the fact we have actually been regressing over the last five or ten thousand years? How would you feel about your present situation and the conditions under which you live if you knew people ten thousand years ago lived to be 400 years old, had mastered human metaphysical technologies we can’t even begin to comprehend, let along duplicate, and lived in relative peace and harmony with nature and each other?


I didn’t say what if this were possible, but what if you knew it to be true the same way you know others historical facts are ‘true’ simply because they are declared truth by historians and the cultural authorities?


A person living today cannot imagine surviving, let along thriving, without immediate access to health and dental care on demand. Life is tough on flesh and bone we are told. Modern conveniences command compromise, at least until the technology advances enough so our medicines and machines no longer maim and kill us.


And we just assume this is progress, that the only way forward is the way we presently travel. For example, once we could only travel at best a few miles by foot, then 30 miles a day on horseback, then 100 miles a day via stagecoach, then 400 miles by train and now thousands of miles by plane. How could this be construed as anything but a good thing, of massive progress on a grand scale?


So while our technology is making our lives ‘better’, that same technology seems to make us sicker emotionally, mentally and spiritually. We are steadily moving away from a spiritual grounding and a centered, mostly self sufficient lifestyle, and into living in a constant state of physical and psychological stress in every way possible.  


While there is no doubt some people appear to flourish under such conditions, I can only emphasize the word ‘appear’.  An incandescent light bulb of 60 watts may appear much brighter (therefore ‘better’) when driven at a higher wattage. But exactly what is the cost for such abusive behavior? Just because I have adapted well to a sick society doesn’t mean I’m in good health.


Mrs. Cog and I traveled to Northern Virginia a few weeks back for an overnight stay in order to take care of some personal business. Quite frankly we were a bit shocked how dysfunctional and downright miserable nearly everyone seemed. Casual smiles were not only far and few between, but people were rude and unfriendly and the prevailing energy was terrible.


According to Forbes, five of the ten richest counties in America are clustered around Washington DC, with the three richest counties located in Northern VA where we visited and stayed overnight. By this measure alone we were smack dab in the middle of modern nirvana.


And yet from our perspective, based solely upon people’s physical appearance and emotional demeanor, there were not a lot of happy campers in nirvana.


Collaborative effort is supposed to yield a sum greater than the total returned by its individual components. This is the concept behind the term ‘synergy’. If a society drains its inhabitants at a rate faster than it is replenished by the individuals, what exactly is the purpose of the society other than to be a corral for the chattel?


When the sum total returned is less than the sum total contributed, society becomes a Vampire Squid draining the life from its host on an exponential basis.


In order to prevent the host from expelling the parasite, the blood sucker must give something back to the host in order to create the appearance of a mutually beneficial relationship. Failing that, it must drug the host into submission, or at least into such a failed state of health (defined as much more than physical) the host is powerless to do much more than exist solely to feed the vampire squid.


Sound familiar?


Condition a person to need something, then fill that craving but never sate it (an addiction can never be more than temporarily sated) and you have the recipe for near total control over that person. Condition a society and the results are the same. Drug dealers, pimps, addicts, governments and central banks know a little about this subject if you have any questions.


So if you suspect the world, or at least the western world is mad as a hatter, and if you think you might be insane as well since it’s nearly impossible to stay clean in a mud pile, what are you to do?


Well, for one, stop doing what you are doing now. Einstein had something to say about doing the same thing and expecting different results. Just because we are aware of the insane asylum doesn’t mean our limited awareness bestows upon us the magical ability to suddenly become sane simply because we see the insanity.


Knowledge doesn’t automatically lead to changes in our thinking and behavior. In fact, quite often knowledge is an impediment because we use it to rationalize our inaction. Frequently we ‘know’ what to do and don’t act on it. Our ‘knowing’ often presents as a gut feeling or intuition, something the Imperial culture has taught us to disregard.


We are caught in a cycle of destructive reasoning and behavior, most which are believed to be pleasurable, wholesome and therapeutic because our culture tells us this. Our actions (or inaction) are both conditioned into us from birth and/or they are imposed upon us as incremental changes springing naturally from the hive mind.


You know, like Pet Rocks, a completely natural consumer product that springs from our innate desire to take common rocks into our household as pets. 



Pet Rock


These can still be bought on eBay. Hurry, quantities are limited.



Here is the intellectual problem we face. If we are all insane, how do we recognize our insanity and what do we do to become sane. It’s sort of like asking how to stay clean while in the mud pile.


It’s impossible, at least if we only pursue the intellectual route.


While I readily acknowledge the presence of Buddhist monks living, working and playing in the middle of New York City, they have decades of rigorous training supporting their sanity while walking within the insanity. To think an untrained and still thoroughly conditioned mind and spirit can simply flip a switch and be sane is the ultimate in denial.  


Ideally we should withdraw from areas of the most intense madness and seek shelter among those who are less infected. Quite frankly this is difficult for those addicted to all the pleasures and vices of sin city. My withdrawal process was a step by step relocation, first physically to a more distant suburb that still remained a community of slightly less insane people rather than a teaming mass of mad humans. The move further away to the mountain came later.


But even being further away from the center of the infection, I still faced the conundrum of carrying with me the Imperial conditioning, the worldview and mindset of the Empire. This, by the way, is why geographic cures rarely work for people with (or recovering from) drug and alcohol addiction. While the physical location may change, the corrupted mind remains the same.


This also applies to people who decide to move to an isolated place (often cutting the cord by going off grid) and deprive themselves of all the reinforcing distractions under of guise of becoming self sufficient. While certainly a noble endeavor, written word and even word of mouth simply doesn’t prepare the average person for the grueling physical and emotional labor they are subjecting themselves to.


The net result is many (but not all) fail to break free and wind up returning to the Empire’s fold with hat in hand and most likely worse off for their effort. Many flew the coop in the first place in a semi panic after waking to find they have been sleeping with the beast, a maniacal mass murderer of untold depravity. Nearly all speak of feeling they have been accessories by ignorant complicity.


The bottom line is that living with, and within, the beast is draining emotionally, physically, mentally and, most importantly, spiritually. And I am specifically NOT speaking of spirituality in a traditional religious sense.    


I shall continue exploring this thought process in Part 3.


07-28-2017


Cognitive Dissonance



Physical appearance is only a small part of what encompasses "healthy". The Imperial mindset tries to convince you otherwise.


Eyes

Monday, May 22, 2017

Centralized "Truth" - 13 Ways To Fight Fake News (And The Big Problem With All Of Them)

Will humans or computer algorithms be the future arbiters of “truth”?


The following infographic from Futurism sums up the ideas that academics, technologists, and other experts are proposing that we implement to stop the spread of fake news.


Below the infographic, Visual Capitalist"s Jeff Desjardins raises concerns about each of these methods.




While fake news is certainly problematic, the solutions proposed to penalize articles deemed to be “untrue” are just as scary.


By centralizing fact checking, a system is created that is inherently fragile, biased, and prone for abuse. Furthermore, the idea of axing websites that are deemed to be “untrue” is an initiative that limits independent thought and discourse, while allowing legacy media to remain entrenched.


CENTRALIZING “TRUTH”


It could be argued that the best thing about the internet is that it decentralizes content, allowing for any individual, blog, or independent media company to stimulate discussion and new ideas with low barriers to entry. Millions of new entrants have changed the media landscape, and it has left traditional media flailing to find ways to adjust revenue models while keeping their influence intact.


If we say that “truth” can only be verified by a centralized mechanism – a group of people, or an algorithm written by a group of people – we are welcoming the idea that arbitrary sources will be preferred, while others will not (unless they conform to certain standards).


Based on this mechanism, it is almost certain that well-established journalistic sources like The New York Times or The Washington Post will be the most trusted. By the same token, newer sources (like independent media, or blogs written by emerging thought leaders) will not be able to get traction unless they are referencing or receiving backing from these “trusted” gatekeepers.


THE IMPACT?


This centralization is problematic – and here’s a step-by-step reasoning of why that is the case:


First, either method (human or computer) must rely on preconceived notions of what is “authoritative” and “true” to make decisions. Both will be biased in some way. Humans will lean towards a particular consensus or viewpoint, while computers must rank authority based on different factors (Pagerank, backlinks, source recognition, or headline/content analysis).


Next, there is a snowball effect involved: if only posts referencing these authoritative sources of “truth” can get traction on social media, then these sources become even more authoritative over time. This creates entrenchment that will be difficult to overcome, and new bloggers or media outlets will only be able to move up the ladder by associating their posts with an existing consensus. Grassroot movements and new ideas will suffer – especially those that conflict with mainstream beliefs, government, or corporate power.


Finally, this raises concerns about who fact checks the fact checkers. Forbes has a great post on this, showing that Snopes.com (a fact checker) could not even verify basic truths about its own operations.


Removing articles deemed to be “untrue” is a form of censorship. While it may help to remove many ridiculous articles from people’s social feeds, it will also impact the qualities of the internet that make it so great in the first place: its decentralized nature, and the ability for any one person to make a profound impact on the world.

Monday, February 6, 2017

The Unpoisoning: Two Proposals To Rescue The US Educational System And Federal Workforce From Liberal Indoctrination


If ever one needed better evidence of failed liberal ideology, look no further than the complete mental breakdown and kneejerk arrogance programmed into a nation of tantruming pseudo-intellectual children of all ages. I"ve never seen so many overly-dramatic sore losers who can"t manage to look inward and move on with their lives.


In light of the fact that so much of America is woefully unequipped with facts, critical thinking skills, or the ability to absorb divergent opinions without having an existential crisis, it"s time to address perhaps the most important swamp of all; the hyper-liberal US educational system and the people responsible for influencing the future of our nation.


Submitted for consideration by an attorney and educator who wishes to remain anonymous [emphasis mine]


-----------------------


I’d like to submit two proposals concerning what President Trump could do to “drain the swamp.”  The first proposal concerns the flagrant political discrimination that plagues almost all of academia, both k-12 and college level. Virtually all of these institutions have become the sole haunt of left wing ideologues.  Everyone knows this, although some liberals may try to deny it.  The result has rendered most of our colleges and grade schools veritable liberal ghettos where conservatives need not apply and are certainly not welcome if they try.


The proposed solution is to give these institutions one year to balance their teaching staff so that fully half of them are registered Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, or otherwise conservativeOnce that year had elapsed, President Trump could decree by Executive Order that funding for any educational institution receiving federal funds would be cut by a percentage equal to the disparity between liberals and conservatives in their teaching staff.  For example, if only 5% of their teaching staff were Republican or Conservative after a year’s recruitment then the institution would receive only 10% of its prior federal funding. Institutions that raised their Republican representation to 40% would receive up to 80% of their prior federal funding.  This approach would motivate biased liberal institutions to at least abate their political discrimination, and American taxpayers wouldn’t continue to pay for left wing bigotry poisoning the minds of our children.


In America today, Christian bakers can be forced out of business for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, but nobody blinks an eye when Spike Lee announces he’s firing a singer simply because she sang at Trump’s inauguration.  This type of selective discrimination, rampant in academia, is as wrong as any arising from race, religion or sexual preference.  The First Amendment rights of speech and association are not a right to discriminate, however the Left continues to do so based purely on political persuasions they disagree with.


By signing an Executive Order defunding politically discriminatory educational institutions, President Trump could at least begin to end this problem.


I’m sure you can anticipate my second proposal.  That is, again by Executive Order, require that two-thirds of all federal employee hires have to be ideologically conservative until similar balance is achieved.  As with the prior proposal, no new laws have to be introduced through Congress, this is something President Trump could do on his own through Executive Order to begin to heal the rampant discrimination that is also demonstrably present in the federal workforce.


-----------------------


Thoughts?


Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com * Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow

Saturday, January 21, 2017

The Epidemic Of Bad Ideas

Submitted by David Galland via GarretGalland.com,


Our education begins within a few minutes of arriving on planet Earth. That’s when we begin to learn that crying and carrying on is rewarded with coddling and nourishment.


That particular lesson stays with us throughout our lives, more so with some people than others. I especially love watching red-faced yuppies trying to argue canceled airline flights back into service.


We also are educated by the physical world. Running barefoot and stepping on a tack/bee/piece of glass/thorn/etc. teaches us the importance of protective garments. As does our first time staying out too long shirtless in the sun.


Of course, our family members and friends also play an important role, teaching us the difference between wrong and right. Of course, as often as not, those concepts are subjective. Is it really “wrong” to question your elders? Or “right” to fall to your knees in prayer to an invisible superhuman at bedtime?


Maybe, maybe not. But not being privy to the hard data proving either point in our formative years, we are expected to take these various ideas on board without questioning. And, for the most part, we do.


It is also clear that having a poor role model can have long-term deleterious results. A single mother on welfare who is addicted to crack is unlikely to instill in Junior a strong moral compass or the work ethic needed to get ahead in a competitive world.


Regardless, while still in the proverbial short pants, we are one day bundled up and sent off to begin our formal education. This is where things get interesting.


Moving along, it seems appropriate to drop the virtual needle on Pink Floyd’s classic, Another Brick in the Wall.


Bricks in the Wall


Once our parents hand the keys to our brains to professional teachers, any number of factors come to play in our education.


For starters, every graduating class of future teachers contains those who sit in the front and those who hide at the back. If you’re lucky, your formative years won’t be shaped by a guy with “Dopey” as a college nickname.


And that’s not the worst roll of the dice. In my early schooling, I had a perennially pissed-off teacher by the name of Mr. Hirata. That I still remember his name is the direct result of his pulling a handful of my hair out by the roots in front of the class. My crime? Tossing a small glob of rice at another student during lunch break.


Likewise, in the education of my own children, there was an intensely passive-aggressive female teacher (at least I think she was female) who clearly disliked boys. Not the best setting for my son, and another brick in the wall that ultimately led my wife and me to homeschool the kids.


But stupidity, an excess of emotions, or gender bias are not the worst traits an educator might possess. While those may affect a subset of the student body, leaving them with a poor opinion of their educational experience, the real threat comes from bad ideas accepted by academics as good ideas.


I subscribe to the theory that ideas are like living viruses: a strong idea, once released into the ether, will take hold and gain currency. The stronger the idea, the more likely it is to spread.


Unfortunately, even terrible ideas can spread virulently. The classic of the genre being Karl Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”


That particular idea has literally cost millions of lives. Incredibly, despite having been proven false time and again since its first utterance, it continues to spread.


Violence as Policy and Other Insanities


Throughout history, bad ideas such as those espoused by Marx have taken hold in the public arena and become institutionalized. This despite the inherent violence required by a system where individuals are forced to be subservient to the state.


The iconic socialist revolutionary, Che Guevara, made the case that in a true socialist revolution, large swaths of the population had to die.


“Is it possible or not, given the present conditions in [the Americas] to achieve socialist power by peaceful means? We emphatically answer that, in the great majority of cases, this is not possible. The most that could be achieved would be the formal takeover of the bourgeois superstructure of power and the transition to socialism of that government that, under the established bourgeois legal system, having achieved formal power will still have to wage a very violent struggle against all who attempt, in one way or another, to check its progress toward new social structures.”  


Che Guevara, Tactics and Strategy of the Latin American Revolution, 1962


You may recognize that doctrine being applied eight years after it was written in Pol Pot’s regime. More than 20% of the population died horribly in the reeducation camps where they were sent to learn how to think correctly. Or die. Actually, mainly die.


If mass murder as policy isn’t about as bad an idea as ever stalked the land, I don’t know what is. Yet, there is still a large demand among the clamoring masses for T-shirts and posters emblazoned with Che’s beret-bedecked cabeza. You know, because he’s sooo cool.


But I drift.


The point I am laboring toward is that once bad ideas infest the educational system, they invariably jump the intellectual barriers and end up in the political system.


It is thus that the low-information processors have so tightly embraced the Chicken Little idea that the sky is falling due to the degradation of the environment, and that the governments of the world have responded by spending hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a fiction.


This despite all the flashing fluorescent signs that the idea holds no water. If it did, why the pivot from “global warming” to the catch-all broader notion of “climate change”? And why is there a steadfast refusal by leading climate alarmists to publicly debate scientists who dispute the theory?


But that is just one small example of a long list of bad ideas that have crossed the blood-brain barrier.


Here’s another. Not all that long ago, some bright light decided that voluntarism should be injected into the schools. For example, making it a class project to read to old folks or play with stray dogs down at the local animal shelter. Harmless enough activities designed to “teach” the young to be more civic-minded. Well, that idea has morphed from a one-off activity to being mandatory for graduation.


And rather than providing the simple lesson that people can do a bit of good in their local community by volunteering, it has become indoctrination to advance Marx’s mantra.


We know a nice enough family back in the States that can never just go on vacation. Rather, they feel compelled to head off to some backwater to do good works, paying for their “holidays” with donations dunned from friends and family members.


The Epidemic of Bad Ideas


Slapping together an abbreviated list of the bad ideas now sweeping aside intelligent thought across the land—both in the US and in most countries where people have too much time on their hands, we come up with:


  • Mother Earth Is Dying. What a dismal and stupid perspective. And doubly stupid because the same morose idea has infested the human imagination time and time again over the millennia. In the past, Gaia’s purported assassins have taken the form of overpopulation, a new ice age, air pollution, swine flu, holes in ozone layers, dying bees, or whatever the hell.

    Speaking as someone who has visited all points of the compass on planet Earth, if there’s a problem humanity faces, it is underpopulation. Case in point, my partner Olivier Garret’s sainted mother lives in the countryside about 20 minutes from Paris. Despite the area being populated since men and apes were dating, there are rolling green hills and forests as far as the eye can see.


    Dear readers in England might get a kick out of this illustrative quote from Paul Ehrlich, the dimwitted father of modern doomsday predictions:


    “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
    Speech at British Institute for Biology, September 1971


    Proving how hard it is to kill off bad ideas, to this day Ehrlich remains the president of Stanford University’s Center for Conservation Biology.



  • Capitalism Is Bad. Wake up and smell the Starbucks! Or some other brand determined to unseat Starbucks by offering better coffee at a better price. Though far from perfect—and, sorry to break it to you, but like Santa Claus, there is no such thing as a perfect economic system—minimizing government interference in the free exchange of goods and services works best at elevating the quality of life for the greatest number of people.

    Conversely, despite Marx’s quip, the systems that work worst are invariably based on some group of elites using the cover of “public good” to pull the levers on a command economy.



  • Political Correctness. Talk about a slippery slope. Today, virtually any action or word can be seen to “micro-aggress” against some sensitive soul. In response, universities and governments feel compelled to take active measures to protect those same souls.

    The end result has to be a Gordian knot of soul-draining policies, regulations, and other complexities. Oh wait, why should it be a Gordian knot? Why not Gordiana or some other gender-neutral name? Sexist bastards!



  • White People Are Bad and a Dying Breed. And that goes double for white men, eeeww! Sorry toots, but in the US 75% of the population is Caucasian, and just under half of that number are men. And it’s not just in the US that whites make up the demographic majority, by a wide margin. That is also the case in Canada, Australia, the UK, Europe, Russia, and many other countries. It may surprise you to learn that here in Argentina, the number is closer to 90%, and it’s even higher than that in Costa Rica, among many others.

    The idea that white people will effectively fade away anytime soon crashes and burns in the face of demographic facts. Regardless, focusing on the color of a person’s skin in making policy is, per my comments above, looking for ways to separate us humans, and so I am 100% against it. As far as the notion that white people are somehow bad, that’s just naked racism.



I could go on. However, as the sun is high in the sky, it is time to move on to other tasks.


As I slide toward the exit, I will sum up by expressing my concern that parts of the world, in particular the United States, are now cartwheeling down the slippery slope toward disaster. A disaster caused by the epidemic of bad ideas that have germinated in the educational system and subsequently taken root in the halls of political power.


Of course, not everyone has been equally infected. Individuals with common sense and an inclination toward facts and the scientific method are largely immune and can only view with alarm the zombie-like madness caused by bad ideas.


With the body politic so deeply divided, I really don’t see how a serious sociopolitical crisis can be avoided.


Trump’s inauguration, happening today, very well may serve as a starter pistol in unleashing the physical manifestation of the extraordinary conflict in the ideas held by approximately equal contingents of the population.


I will watch this particular parade closely and with deep concern, but very definitely from afar, here in the warm and pacific climes of the Argentine outback.


Don’t forget to duck.


(For those of you who want to read a scholarly dissertation about the takeover of the US educational system by socialists and progressives—two sides of the same coin—the National Association of Scholars recently released a comprehensive study entitled, “Making Citizens—How American Universities Teach Civics.” It’s long, but worth a scan.)


Here Come the Clowns


Mother, May I? Our clowny entry this week provides additional support for the contention that an epidemic of bad ideas has spread across the land.


In the United Kingdom where the bureaucrats have, at least until recently, seemed keen to pattern their regulatory regime to achieve a society that rhymes with Orwell’s 1984, a woman was called to the bench and made to pay a fine of £80 (US$98) for the offense of pouring a cup of coffee down the drain.


One can only hope that, with Brexit, the dogma-blinded cretins in the bureaucracy there will be chased back into the shadows.