Men starving in the Ukraine in the 1920s, owing to genocide by Bolsheviks, Photo from the movie Darkness Descends
This series is making use of a concept, eusociality, which I had found in a 2015 book by Edward O Wilson, entitled Genesis. It became my tool for thinking in general about the problem of human action and decision-making. Who gets to do it? Are they acting to the benefit of humanity? Where can we step in to improve the situation?
The ten parts of the Eusociality series, so far, are:
- Adam and Eve and EO Wilson
- Is the Great Reset Biologically Inevitable?
- Does the Elite Really Want the Great Reset?
- Ideals and the Loss of Them
- Jerrybuilt in the Pleistocene and Loving It
- Leadership with Love
- Law Is the Dictate of Reason (with notes on Sandy Hook)
- Is Evil Inevitable?
- Quorum Sensing and Puppetization
- Words, Lies, Media, Courts, and Truth
Words. I can state the gist of Part 10 now and perhaps spare you from having to read it. It is that human language is very flexible and bad guys can always find ways to thwart your corrective efforts just by their use of words. Indeed it’s likely that you have personally wiggled out of blame occasionally, by throwing in some sweet words.
Some innate trait of ours makes it embarrassing to call someone a liar. We have no problem saying it behind their backs, but it is exceptionally hard, when talking to an acquaintance, to say “Liar.” (At least I find it so.) Even in a courtroom, where yelling “Liar” is de rigueur, the recipient of the epithet can easily duck out of it by making up a counter-lie. “No I did NOT leave the house before 7pm.”
The Lies of Covid
By this point in the series, it is clear that I am concentrating on the actual main issue of the present day: the apparent genocide that is being carried out worldwide, on the pretext of a health crisis caused by a virus, “Covid 19.”
During 2020 and 2021, I’ve been subscribing to receive headlines from several newspapers such as the New York Times and the NY Daily News. It is astonishing to a reader like myself who realizes there is no such thing as, say, a “super-spreader” to see it being talked about, in detail, as if it were a solid fact.
It has been shocking to find the mainstream press not mentioning protest rallies that reach tens of thousands in the street of the capital cities. And, much worse, network television refuses to show the videos of eminent doctors who criticize the testing methods, the masks, or the vaccines.
Of course another feature of language is that one can put a moral spin on something that is anti-moral. During Covid, the unmasked or the unvaccinated are cast as selfish and dangerous; clinics and Big Pharma are good.
Beware Your Neighbor!
For years we Americans have been prepped to doubt our neighbor. Government makes announcements at the airport that talks about looking out for your neighbor’s welfare by reporting anything suspicious. “Government is your friend; citizens are violent nutters. Why, some of them plan to ride this very plane and bomb it mid-flight.”
It was sad for me as a native Bostonian to see millions of Bostonians absorb whatever nonsense was posted in The Boston Globe about the Marathon bombing. Again, there was the two-way sin: reporting things that did not happen, and failing to report things that did.
The media has amazing power which it can use as it pleases: It can interview people on the street, cherry-pick the bits it wants, then flash this back to us as OUR voice, the voice of the people. Right now, I’ll bet most Americans have an impression of a much higher number of persons being happy with the mandates than is accurate. (But I really don’t know. How can I know?)
Media: Repetition and Journalistic Recidivism
The persons who are out to harm us today live off the benefits from Tavistock research. An important thing they’ve learned is that repetition wins. If you drum a message into someone all day, they will come to accept it even if, at first, they may have been skeptical.
I don’t mean they “come around” to thinking they had probably been wrong. I mean, as Tavistock knows, that the human brain is built to pick up the norm from the surrounding culture. A repeated thing must be real — you can’t resist absorbing it.
When I moved from the US to Australia there were some terms that were foreign to me. I did not like using of the word “dear” to mean expensive. I resolved never to use it that way. But after about ten years, the word dear, for expensive, just popped out of me. The same happened with the pronunciation of the letter Z. I wanted to say “zee.” but the locals were saying Zed. Finally, I caved.
“Journalistic recidivism” is a term I made up to indicate the media’s intentional repetition of something long after it has been disproven. The media always refer to Lee Harvey Oswald as having killed JKF, but that is not true, and even a congressional committee in 1992 agreed that there was most likely a conspiracy in Dallas in 1963. Textbooks also practice “textbook recidivism” along the same lines.
You could also say that the press and textbooks practice “negative recidivism.” Having left out major events, such as the starvation of the Ukrainians by the Bolsheviks (see photo above), it can’t be admitted now. (Can it?)
Courts
In this eusociality series, Parts 4 on Ideals, and Part 7, “Law Is the Dictate of Reason,” contained the standard Maxwell panegyric on law. And law was seen to be biological, like an exoskeleton. I quoted Frederic Bastiat from 1850. His theme is that law is justice. Its purpose is to make conflicts amenable to sorting out.
But today’s topic, Part 9, is about words and lies. It is tragic that courts have become the vehicle for lies. That immediately screws justice, pardon my French. Consider, as one of the shames of Australia, the Martin Bryant case. This man is still in jail after 25 years, for conducting a massacre which he was not capable of conducting, and had no motive.
The interesting thing is not that police and lawyers, and finally a prosecutor and a judge — respectively, Damien Bugg and William Cox — did the wrong thing. (They did.) It is that the people have not been able to undo this. Don’t we have enough coordination of the brains of good citizens to deal with the tricks of the powerful?
Mind Control
Meanwhile, starting perhaps with Pavlov’s experiments with dogs in 1890, psychologists and biologists have been working — mostly behind the scenes — to learn the tricks of how the brain works. Pavlov got his laboratory dogs to associate a bell with a steak and thus condition the dog to salivate, which it should have done in the presence of a steak, when it heard a bell.
In a famous experiment in the 1950s, Harry Harlow compared infant rhesus monkeys that were fed by a real mother rhesus with those whose “mom” was a metal substitute. Although both mothers gave milk, the infant did not attach properly without maternal warmth.
We did not know that a major CIA project had given rise to such a study until we learned that Morton Prince at Harvard had already sought ways to break the bond between a human child and its mother. My friend Blanche Chavoustie (1938-2016) was one of the victims of the Mousetrap Experiment. When she hurt her finger, in a mouse trap planted for her to touch, she went to get Mom’s help and sympathy, but Mom closed the door to her room.
Another famous example by Martin Seligman is called “learned helplessness. Seligman saw to it that a dog got an electric shock from the bottom of its cage, and any attempt it then made to escape was met with frustration. The dog quit trying as it could see no way out. The “brilliant” takeaway here is that if you make humans feel helpless, they will stop trying.
In Canada, Dr Ewan Cameron, from Scotland, and in Sydney Dr Harry Bailey at the Chelmsford Hospital were allowed to give depressed patients a “deep sleep” treatment. But really this was an experiment in wiping the person’s memories and learned skills. Persons were subjected to sensory deprivation. Lawsuits were eventually brought.
In Vermont, as we recently learned from Karen Wetmore’s book, Surviving Evil, Dr Robert Hyde, MD who worked at Boston Psychopathic Hospital, was the man of the hour, learning how to mess up minds, sometimes with LSD, in the 1950s and ’60s. He published his work in medical journals, but readers did not realize that his claim to be finding a cure for schizophrenia was never as advertised. It was entirely sinister.
Some doctors tortured children with such pain and terror that the child was forced to split off part of her consciousness. That split-off part may become a new personality or “alter” living inside the child’s brain. You can read about this in the writings of Kathleen A Sullivan, Carol Rutz, Trish Fotheringham, and many others. Some information about this became official during 1975 hearings in the US Senate.
To recap, I have touched upon words, lies, media, courts, and mind control. In all of this, a person is presented with a reality that is not actual reality. It is not “true.”
Truth
So what does the word “truth” stand for? I think it is the remedy to the fact that, as explained above, we lie a lot. Granted, it’s not only humans that lie. In some animal species there is deception, as when a creature puffs itself up to look bigger and more threatening than it really is. But we humans externalize the lies into words that can spread around by themselves.
The lies even get into books in libraries! They get into legislation and foreign policy. They get into rules for how individuals should treat one another. I think there has probably never been a time in history when it was so hard as it is today, to identify what’s real and what’s nonsense. In my seven-decade lifetime I’ve seen it worsen.
I have also seen the praising of truth take quite a dip. So this is what we need to concentrate on. Truth needs to be valued for the gorgeous thing it is. Truth restores balance. Luckily for us today, truth diminishes the power of the few over the many. After all, the few used lies to get that power; they conjured up myriad ways to cheat us of our fair share.
To see what others are thinking I googled for “quotes about truth and was taken to the website BrainyQuotes.com. Here is the downlow on truth:
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye. — Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Truth exists; only lies are invented. — Georges Braque
If you shut up truth, and bury it underground, it will but grow. — Emile Zola
There’s a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure the truth. — Maya Angelou
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth. — Oscar Wilde
By doubting we are led to question, by questioning we arrive at the truth. — Peter Abelard
Sometimes the truth hurts. And sometimes it feels real good. — Henry Rollins
Never apologize for showing feeling. When you do so, you apologize for the truth.– Benjamin Disraeli
There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting. Buddha
Thank you Mary – we are blessed with your writing skills – when do you rest?
Democracy
Three items come to mind …
‘1. “DEMOCRACY: it is controlled by capitalist ownership and control of the media, grants from tax-free foundations and favoured press coverage for favoured political candidates. Wide franchise to vote is given to the people to make them easier to control by making them think that “the people” are responsible for the inevitable distortions and negative consequences of the policies the super-rich mattoids impose in order to serve their selfish interests. Democracy separates authority from responsibility, this making it virtually impossible for the voters to reform the system. Those in authority (the mattoids) have no responsibility. Those responsible (the politicians) have no authority except that which is lent to them by their controllers.“
Source:
W. A. Carto. May 20, 2003 in “Populism vs Plutocracy: The Universal Struggle” and cited in ”Publisher’s Note” in “The Third Rome: Holy Russia, Tsarism and Orthodoxy” by Matthew Raphael Johnson (first published 2003 – Third Edition 2010)
‘2. The great falsehood of our time (Lie of Democracy) Konstantin Pobedonostev
‘3. “I went to the Parliament whenever I had any time to spare and watched the spectacle silently but attentively. I listened to the debates, as far as they could be understood, and I studied the more or less intelligent features of those ‘elect’ representatives of the various nationalities which composed that motley State. Gradually I formed my own ideas about what I saw.
“A year of such quiet observation was sufficient to transform or completely destroy my former convictions as to the character of this parliamentary institution.
[…]
“Democracy, as practised in Western Europe today, is the forerunner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding ground in which the bacilli of the Marxist world pest can grow and spread.
“The parliament passes some acts or decree which may have the most devastating consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibility for it.
“This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. […] Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them accordingly.”
… from Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
.
http://praxeology.net/LS-LB.htm
.
A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard:
CHALLENGING HIS RIGHT – AND THAT OF ALL THE OTHER
SO-CALLED SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS –
TO EXERCISE ANY LEGISLATIVE POWER WHATEVER
OVER THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES (1882)
by Lysander Spooner (1808-1887)
To Thomas F. Bayard, of Delaware:
LB.1 SIR – I have read your letter to Rev. Lyman Abbott, in which you express the opinion that it is at least possible for a man to be a legislator (under the Constitution of the United States) and yet be an honest man.
LB.2 This proposition implies that you hold it to be at least possible that some four hundred men should, by some process or other, become invested with the right to make laws of their own – that is, laws wholly of their own device, and therefore necessarily distinct from the law of nature, of the principles of natural justice; and that these laws of their own making shall be really and truly obligatory upon the people of the United States; and that, therefore, the people may rightfully be compelled to obey them.
LB.3 All this implies that you are of the opinion that the Congress of the United States, of which you are a member, has by some process or other, become possessed of some right of arbitrary dominion over the people of the United States; which right of arbitrary dominion is not given by, and is, therefore, necessarily in conflict with, the law of nature, the principles of natural justice, and the natural rights of men, as individuals. All this is necessarily implied in the idea that the Congress now possesses any right whatever to make any laws whatever, of its own device – that is, any laws that shall be either more, less, or other than that natural law, which it can neither make, unmake, nor alter – and cause them to be enforced upon the people of the United States, or any of them, against their will.
LB.4 You assume that the right of arbitrary dominion – that is, the right of making laws of their own device, and compelling obedience to them – is a “trust” that has been delegated to those who now exercise that power. You call it “the trust of public power.”
LB.5 But, Sir, you are mistaken in supposing that any such power has ever been delegated, or ever can be delegated, by any body, to any body.
LB.6 Any such delegation of power is naturally impossible, for these reasons, viz: –
LB.7 1. No man can delegate, or give to another, any right of arbitrary dominion over himself; for that would be giving himself away as a slave. And this no one can do. Any contract to do so is necessarily an absurd one, and has no validity. To call such a contract a “Constitution,” or by any other high-sounding name, does not alter its character as an absurd and void contract.
LB.8 2. No man can delegate, or give to another, any right of arbitrary dominion over a third person; for that would imply a right in the first person, not only to make the third person his slave, but also a right to dispose of him as a slave to still other persons. Any contract to do this is necessarily a criminal one, and therefore invalid. To call such a contract a “Constitution” does not at all lessen its criminality, or add to its validity.
LB.9 These facts, that no man can delegate, or give away, his own natural right to liberty, nor any other man’s natural right to liberty, prove that he can delegate no right of arbitrary dominion whatever – or, what is the same thing, no legislative power whatever – over himself or anybody else, to any man, or body of men.
LB.10 This impossibility of any man’s delegating any legislative power whatever, necessarily results from the fact that the law of nature has drawn the line – and that, too, a line that can never be effaced nor removed – between each man’s own interest and inalienable rights of person and property, and each and every other man’s inherent and inalienable rights of person and property. It, therefore, necessarily fixes the unalterable limits, within which every man may rightfully seek his own happiness, in his own way, free from all responsibility to, or interference by, his fellow men, or any of them.
LB.11 All this pretended delegation of legislative power – that is, of a power, on the part of the legislators, so-called, to make any laws of their own device, distinct from the law of nature – is therefore an entire falsehood; a falsehood whose only purpose is to cover and hide a pure usurpation, by one body of men, of arbitrary dominion over other men.
LB.12 That this legislative power, or power of arbitrary dominion, is a pure usurpation, on the part of those who now exercise it, and not “a trust” delegated to them, is still further proved by the fact that the only delegation of power, that is even professed or pretended to be made, is made secretly – that is, by secret ballot – and not in any open and authentic manner; and therefore not by any men, or body of men, who make themselves personally responsible, as principals, for the acts of those to whom they profess to delegate the power.
LB.13 All this pretended delegation of power having been made secretly – that is, only by secret ballot – not a single one of all the legislators, so-called, who profess to be exercising only a delegated power, has himself any legal knowledge, or can offer any legal proof, as to who the particular individuals were who delegated it to him. And having no power to identify the individuals who professed to delegate the power to him, he cannot show any legal proof that anybody ever even attempted or pretended to delegate it to him.
LB.14 Plainly, a man who exercises any arbitrary dominion over other men and who claims to be exercising only a delegated power, but cannot show who his principals are, nor, consequently, prove that he has any principals, must be presumed, both in law and reason, to have no principals; and therefore to be exercising no power but his own. And having, of right, no such power of his own, he is, both in law and reason, a naked usurper.
LB.15 Sir, a secret ballot makes a secret government; and a secret government is a government by conspiracy; in which the people at large can have no rights. And that is the only government we now have. It is the government of which you are a voluntary member and supporter, and yet you claim to be an honest man. If you are an honest man, is not your honesty that of a thoughtless, ignorant man, who merely drifts with the current, instead of exercising any judgment of his own?
LB.16 For still another reason, all legislators, so-called, under the Constitution of the United States, are exercising simply an arbitrary and irresponsible dominion of their own; and not any authority that has been delegated, or pretended to have been delegated, to them. And that reason is that the Constitution itself (Article 1, Section 6) prescribes that: –
“For any speech or debate [or vote] in either house, they [the Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned [held to any legal responsibility] in any other place.”
LB.17 This provision makes the legislators constitutionally irresponsible to anybody; either to those on whom they exercise their power, or to those who may have, either openly or secretly, attempted or pretended to delegate power to them. And men who are legally responsible to nobody for their acts, cannot truly be said to be the agents of any body, or to be exercising any power but their own; for all real agents are necessarily responsible both to those on whom they act, and to those for whom they act.
LB.18 To say that the people of this country ever have bound, or ever could bind, themselves by any contract whatever – the Constitution, or any other – to thus give away all their natural rights of property, liberty, and life, into the hands of a few men – a mere conclave – and that they should make it a part of the contract itself that these few men should be held legally irresponsible for the disposal they should make of those rights, is an utter absurdity. It is to say that they have bound themselves, and that they could bind themselves, by an utterly idiotic and suicidal contract.
LB.19 If such a contract had ever been made by one private individual to another, and had been signed, sealed, witnessed, acknowledged, and delivered, with all possible legal formalities, no decent court on earth – certainly none in this country – would have regarded it, for a moment, as conveying any right, or delegating any power, or as having the slightest legal validity, or obligation.
LB.20 For all the reasons now given, and for still others that might be given, the legislative power now exercised by Congress is, in both law and reason, a purely personal, arbitrary, irresponsible, usurped dominion on the part of the legislators themselves, and not a power delegated to them by anybody.
LB.21 Yet under the pretense that this instrument gives them the right of an arbitrary and irresponsible dominion over the whole people of the United States, Congress has now gone on, for ninety years and more, filling great volumes with laws of their own device, which the people at large have never read, nor even seen nor ever will read or see; and of whose legal meanings it is morally impossible that they should ever know anything. Congress has never dared to require the people even to read these laws. Had it done so, the oppression would have been an intolerable one; and the people, rather than endure it, would have either rebelled, and overthrown the government, or would have fled the country. Yet these laws, which Congress has not dared to require the people even to read, it has compelled them, at the point of the bayonet, to obey.
LB.22 And this moral, and legal, and political monstrosity is the kind of government which Congress claims that the Constitution authorizes it to impose upon the people.
LB.23 Sir, can you say that such an arbitrary and irresponsible dominion as this, over the properties, liberties, and lives of fifty millions of people – or even over the property, liberty, or life of any one of those fifty millions – can be justified on any reason whatever? If not, with what color of truth can you say that you yourself, or anybody else, can act as a legislator, under the Constitution of the United States, and yet be an honest man?
LB.24 To say that the arbitrary and irresponsible dominion, that is exercised by Congress, has been delegated to it by the Constitution, and not solely by the secret ballots of the voters for the time being, is the height of absurdity; for what is the Constitution? It is, at best, a writing that was drawn up more than ninety years ago; was assented to at the time only by a small number of men; generally those few white male adults who had prescribed amounts of property; probably not more than two hundred thousand in all; or one in twenty of the whole population.
LB.25 Those men have been long since dead. They never had any right of arbitrary dominion over even their contemporaries; and they never had any over us. Their wills or wishes have no more rightful authority over us, than have the wills or wishes of men who lived before the flood. They never personally signed, sealed, acknowledged, or delivered, or dared to sign, seal, acknowledge, or deliver, the instrument which they imposed upon the country as law. They never, in any open and authentic manner, bound even themselves to obey it, or made themselves personally responsible for the acts of their so-called agents under it, They had no natural right to impose it, as law, upon a single human being. The whole proceeding was a pure usurpation.
LB.26 In practice, the Constitution has been an utter fraud from the beginning. Professing to have been “ordained and established” by “We, the people of the United States,” it has never been submitted to them, as individuals, for their voluntary acceptance or rejection. They have never been asked to sign, seal, acknowledge, or deliver it, as their free act and deed. They have never signed, sealed, acknowledged, or delivered it, or promised, or laid themselves under any kind of obligation, to obey it. Very few of them have ever read, or even seen it; or ever will read or see it. Of its legal meaning (if it can be said to have any) they really know nothing; and never did, nor ever will, know anything.
LB.27 Why is it, Sir, that such an instrument as the Constitution, for which nobody has been responsible, and of which few persons have ever known anything, has been suffered to stand, for the last ninety years, and to be used for such audacious and criminal purposes? It is solely because it has been sustained by the same kind of conspiracy as that by which it was established; that is, by the wealth and the power of those few who were to profit by the arbitrary dominion it was assumed to give them over others. While the poor, the weak, and the ignorant, who were to be cheated, plundered, and enslaved by it, have been told, and some of them doubtless made to believe, that it is a sacred instrument, designed for the preservation of their rights.
LB.28 These cheated, plundered, and enslaved persons have been made to feel, if not to believe, that the Constitution had such miraculous power, that it could authorize the majority (or even a plurality) of the male adults, for the time being – a majority numbering at this time, say, five millions in all – to exercise, through their agents, secretly appointed, an arbitrary and irresponsible dominion over the properties, liberties, and lives of the whole fifty millions; and that these fifty millions have no rightful alternative but to submit all their rights to this arbitrary dominion, or suffer such confiscation, imprisonment, or death as this secretly appointed, irresponsible cabal, of so-called legislators, should see fit to resort to for the maintenance of its power.
LB.29 As might have been expected, and as was, to a large degree, at least, intended, this Constitution has been used from the beginning by ambitious, rapacious, and unprincipled men, to enable them to maintain, at the point of the bayonet, an arbitrary and irresponsible dominion over those who were too ignorant and too weak to protect themselves against the conspirators who had thus combined to deceive, plunder, and enslave them.
LB.30 Do you really think, Sir, that such a constitution as this can avail to justify those who, like yourself, are engaged in enforcing it? Is it not plain, rather, that the members of Congress, as a legislative body, whether they are conscious of it or not, are in reality, a mere cabal of swindlers, usurpers, tyrants and robbers? Is it not plain that they are stupendous blockheads, if they imagine that they are anything else than such a cabal? or that their so-called laws impose the least obligation upon anybody?
LB.31 If you have never before looked at this matter in this light, I ask you to do so now. And in the hope to aid you in doing so candidly, and to some useful purpose, I take the liberty to mail for you a pamphlet entitled:
“NATURAL LAW; OR THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE; a Treatise of Natural Law, Natural Justice, Natural Rights, Natural Liberty, and Natural Society; Showing That All Legislation whatsoever Is an Absurdity, a Usurpation, and a Crime. Part 1.”
LB.32 In this pamphlet, I have endeavored to controvert distinctly the proposition that, by any possible process whatever, any man, or body of men, can become possessed of any right of arbitrary dominion over other men, or other men’s property; or, consequently, any right whatever to make any law whatever, of their own – distinct from the law of nature – and compel any other men to obey it.
LB.33 I trust I need not suspect you, as a legislator under the Constitution, and claiming to be an honest man, of any desire to evade the issue presented in this pamphlet. If you shall see fit to meet it, I hope you will excuse me for suggesting that – to avoid verbiage, and everything indefinite – you give at least a single specimen of a law that either heretofore has been made, or that you conceive it possible for legislators to make – that is, some law of their own device – that either has been, or shall be, really and truly obligatory upon other persons, and which such other persons have been, or may be, rightfully compelled to obey.
LB.34 If you can either find or devise any such law, I trust you will make it known, that it may be examined, and the question of its obligation be fairly settled in the popular mind.
LB.35 But if it should happen that you can neither find such a law in the existing statute books of the United States, nor, in your own mind, conceive of such a law as possible under the Constitution, I give you leave to find it, if that be possible, in the constitution or statute book of any other people that now exist, or ever have existed, on the earth.
LB.36 If, finally, you shall find no such law, anywhere, nor be able to conceive of any such law yourself, I take the liberty to suggest that it is your imperative duty to submit the question to your associate legislators; and, if they can give no light on the subject, that you call upon them to burn all the existing statute books of the United States, and then to go home and content themselves with the exercise of only such rights and powers as nature has given to them in common with the rest of mankind.
LYSANDER SPOONER
BOSTON, May 27, 1882
See the Second Letter
Phew! you blokes are a hard act to follow.
It seems to me that the Synagogue is more than a bit nervous and the conditioned Mud Minds are coming out trying to subliminally reinforce the necessary prerequisites for a “Brave New (eusocial) Humanity”. The main ideological prerequisite is that Everything (including humanity and notions of truth and virtue) is in a process of “becoming” by a dialectical process of competition. (No, Hegel didn’t invent dialectics. It’s a notion that can be found in classical Greek philosophical musings. Essentially, it means that “good and true” is determined by a synthesis of contrasting or opposing ideas; a thesis and an automatically generated antithesis. The resulting synthesis becomes the new thesis which begets its antithesis, and the process continues ad infinitum).
Anyhow, continuing the above theme of “enlightenment democracy”. I coined a new word a while ago “demolatry”. It comes from the Greek “demos”, the (common) people and “latria”, which is worship due to the supreme deity, as differentiated from “dulia” which is honour paid to some honourable.
Without trying to take up the whole comments with a book length submission I’ll propose a few things to peruse in your own time.
Here’s something I knocked up a few years ago:
https://fifthestatepress.com/stories/civil-authority-and-treason-20210306
Here’s Thomas Aquinas’ take on the nature and purpose of civil authority:
https://isidore.co/aquinas/DeRegno.htm
I have more on this theme of “demolatry” but I’ll have another crack at it later so as to not to be too intimidating to a casual reader.
Love your work oldude – thank you
Nikolai Berdyaev -About democracy
… And I think the people would all agree with me
That’s good. Nikolai Berdyaev hit a few nails dead on.
G K Chesterton once said something like “If democracy had any meaning our grandfathers ought to always have the deciding vote.”
I don’t have time at present but I intend to put my boot into that epitome of institutionalised social relativism called Americanism.
above my pay scale but you might find this interesting (or direct me). Sounds very informative and non-threatening …
Father Denis Fahey: Apostle of Christ the King w/ Bro Andre & Douglas Bersaw
Thanks for that, Joolyers, I didn’t know about that one, but I had been fairly familiar with Denis Fahey having had at least three of his books from way back in the ’70’s. I haven’t seen those books for many years, I dunno what happened to them but I’m pleased to be reminded about him.
Govern – ment = ruling minds.
Parlia – ment = talking minds.
Voters = zombies
“Truth needs to be valued for the gorgeous thing it is. Truth restores balance.”
“The demand for an open space dedicated to the study, discussion and public presentation of the era of Stalinist oppression can be felt especially keenly now. The history of 20th century Russia is tragic and complex from a moral and humanistic standpoint; to this day, there is no distinct. Commonly accepted interpretation. At the same time, without a thoughtful and dispassionate analysis of the past, it is impossible to build a contemporary society with a conflict free national identity.“
From “Return to Moscow” by Tony Kevin regarding the mission of the Gulag Museum in Moscow.
“Truth needs to be valued for the gorgeous thing it is. Truth restores balance.”
Reconcile….. Dwight David “Ike”(flip bro) Eisenhower was an American military officer and statesman who served as the 34th president of the United States from 1953 to 196 and did bad stuff.
sorry the zombie picture stirs my ire – …
Thanks Mary, not quite a spoon full of sugar.
1956 – I like Ike for President
“Truth needs to be valued for the gorgeous thing it is. Truth restores balance.”
M. W. Maxwell, “Eusociality, Part 10: Words, Lies, Media, Courts, Mind Control, Truth” (2.01.2022)
https://gumshoenews.com/2022/01/02/eusociality-part-10-words-lies-media-courts-mind-control-truth/
Trends In Scientific Fraud – Tony Heller
1:35 “That’s the whole foundation of science. If that foundation is breached, well then you have nothing left because everything you build upon it is building upon sand – it is meaningless. ”
(reminds me of Gerard Menuhin in “Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil” regarding the holohoax)
or Alexander Dugin …
“When we read scientific literature written in the 70s, liberal, left, and right, we’re immersed in a world of openly honest people. They can be mistaken, say untrue things, but they are all genuinely dedicated to the logos. And then there’s some kind of frontier, when they all started to lie, which in my opinion is connected to a shift of liberals to the left. Suddenly, Western society began to become very stupid; it became narrower and narrower.“
Alexander Dugin (31 August 2017):
Source:
• Fascinating interview with Russia’s conservative philosophy icon Alexander Dugin
http://russiafeed.com/fascinating-interview-russias-conservative-philosophy-icon-alexander-dugin/
From – http://www.spinonthat.com/ which is no longer available.
In order to single out certain atmospheric gases and demonise them as the culprits responsible for atmospheric warming, it was necessary to attribute certain characteristics to the so called “Greenhouse Gases” with regard to radiant heat which would set them apart from the two most abundant atmospheric gases, Oxygen and Nitrogen.
https://archive.org/details/contributionsto00tyndgoog
In his memoirs entitled “Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat”,
detailing a series of experiments conducted at the Royal Institution, Tyndall fallaciously states with regard to Oxygen and Nitrogen that they are both quote:
“practically transparent to radiant heat.”
Thus laying the foundations of AGW fraud.
This statement by John Tyndall is the origin of such claims as “the science is settled” and the “greenhouse effect is 150 year old established physics.” In terms of radiant heat it is the only factor that would differentiate between the various atmospheric gases.
After all, Oxygen and Nitrogen constitute 99% of the atmosphere. If these two gases are shown to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, what would make so called “Greenhouse Gases” like CO2, such a threat to the environment at only 0.0385% of the atmosphere?
So the basis for the “Greenhouse Effect” is that incoming and out going IR is not absorbed by Oxygen and Nitrogen which instead passes straight through these gases. According to this unsubstantiated hypothesis, only those gases which are termed “Greenhouse Gases” posses the capability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation.
The problem for the hypothesis of the “Greenhouse Effect” and of course AGW itself is that the basic premise on which the hypothesis is based is false.
Firstly, Oxygen and Nitrogen both have higher specific heat capacities than CO2.
For verification see here:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html
Secondly and above all, Oxygen and Nitrogen, of course do indeed absorb infrared radiation:
https://www.coe.ou.edu/sserg/web/Results/Spectrum/o2.pdf
It is absurd to imagine that completely transparent gas like carbon dioxide with a relative density of about 1.6 times the normal mixture of nitrogen and oxygen in air could rise up and form a “blanket” to trap heat in the troposphere.
Not only that but the idea that one molecule of CO2 mixed with 10,000 other similarly transparent molecules could do anything at all except make plant photosynthetic respiration easier and more efficient. (One extra molecule in 10,000 is roughly the difference between a CO2 concentration of 300 ppm (parts per million) and 400 ppm). At about 200 ppm terrestrial plants practically cannot grow.
For almost 100 years farmers growing crops in controlled conditions (e.g. greenhouses) have been improving growth in their crops by enriching the (daytime) atmosphere with CO2. It would seem evident that the more sunlight that is trapped in plants to make carbohydrates the less sunlight there would be available to just heat the Earth surface.
There’s lots more to this argument but that’ll do for now.
Wild Horses
I was just contemplating a herd of wild horses. They have existed for generations – new ones being born and old ones passing away. They are majestic to behold and free to roam untamed [cue pictures and music]. Some group or species comes along and corrals them and makes many of them sick. The herd stagnates darkness descends [sad music]. Then after several more generations of humiliation, submissiveness and stagnation the fence is broken and they become a herd of wild horses again [Wagner music].
How do they know? – Who is their leader?