Brains or Thumbs?

This article is not about texting.

Most anthropologists agree, at least, this is my understanding of that which I learned in school, that despite weak defenses, humans evolved to dominate the world because of big brains; more sophisticated might be a better term, or it might not.

Many animals have bigger brains than we.

It has been shown that animals are capable of language and that their math skills are far superior to ours. Dolphins and gorillas especially, but who knows how many animals can outwit us? IQ tests are said to be unfair because it is difficult to design them without some cultural bias. How different, then, must an animal’s IQ environment be? Street-smarts over book-smarts, one might say. Who’s to say how many species are more cleverer than us?

The problem, perhaps, isn’t one of intelligence but simply communication.

Some would say that the reason we took over was our thumbs (opposable digits.) Thumbs allowed for tool-making which quickly devolved into an arms-race that goes on to this day.

But, other animals have thumbs, too. So, why not them? Maybe they know love.

Maybe they had the good sense to know that ‘less is more.’ They traveled light. They had the power to defend themselves, but they lacked the desire to dominate, to take everything over. They saw that growth (1 of 8 – 09:17) would only lead to their eventual demise. They had the courage to face the world and its dangers, to do things the hard way, without seeking to insulate themselves more and more from the hardships which make life interesting. Are they foolish or wise? Asian cultures consider that animals kept in captivity are ultimately happy, like they won the lottery of life. The western view differs, thinking it cruel to deprive animals of their freedom (to face danger,) although western culture, strangely enough, reflects this way of thinking by isolating itself from the ‘dangerous’ natural world. Is it in our very essence to imprison ourselves and to weaken ourselves to the point of total dependence? Desmond Morris thinks so.

Instead of spending hours growing food we can eat, we now spend hours growing grass which we throw away. That’s a big red flag.

So maybe there is something else which allows us to dominate, another quality which permits us to lord over all we see, to the point of writing it into our gospels. Maybe it’s a moral quality or a primal arrogance, maybe we are just so physically weak that we have become a paranoid species. “Humanity No# 1 !” Discipline through fear seems pretty natural to humans on many levels.

As Gunnery Sergeant Hartman said, “It is a hard heart that kills.” I would distinguish that it is either a hard heart, or an empty stomach. Killing everyday to eat makes one a pacifist by nature. You don’t want to have to kill during your breaks, too. Killing is hard and it’s dangerous. You only do it when absolutely necessary. Does never killing anything besides a mosquito or a spider cause a buildup of whatever it is that got us here, in the first place? Does not killing result in us not being able to control the urge to kill? Do we need to kill? That would explain a lot. Maybe it isn’t the killing we need, maybe it’s the risk of being killed. That would explain extreme sports.

Maybe it was the combination of language, technology, and hubris that got us here. Maybe it was dumb luck. I wonder what animals must think of our stewardship. After seeing an interesting episode of the CBC’s “The Nature of Things,” I thought about [when a translation device is invented] what kind of questions animals will want to ask us. I also wonder about the answers we will have for them. I also wonder if the government will be involved to put the proper ‘spin’ on the first official inter-species communication. Government, industry, the military, and religion will probably all be represented and involved.

It might be good practice for when the aliens arrive. Come to think of it, it’s probably just hubris… and it’s all down-hill from here.

Why Racism Is Like Smoking

My father smoked four packs of cigarettes per day. The first five years of my life were lived in a smoke-filled environment. I was addicted to smoking before I ever became a smoker. Now I smoke socially – very little.

Donald Sterling was raised in a racist environment. So were most of the older rich white men in the USA. Because of social pressures (and common sense,) most are now only ‘social racists’ if at all. They probably wouldn’t deny visible minorities a job in their companies, but they would probably laugh at an off-colour joke at the country club. They might think twice if their daughter were to marry a black man.

I was raised in a household and a school and a town in which racism was never an issue. I had childhood friends of all sorts, and all were welcome in our house. Racism is as foreign to me as smoking is to the vast majority of people who don’t. I’ve told jokes, socially, which could be considered beyond the pale. I’m not trying to defend the practice, but nobody who knows me would consider me a biggot on any level.

The prevailing opinion is that one is either racist or not. This duality is rather ironic. There are many shades in between. Labelling people as racists because of an off-the-cuff remark or a bad joke would be akin to saying someone is an alcoholic for simply having had a drink.

We all have biases. We might think and have all said that our country is better, our gender is better, our sports team is better, our religious beliefs are better, or our political choices are better for any number of reasons. I find it disingenuous, from a purely philosophical perspective, to label people so quickly and so decisively, especially considering the long-term effects such a moniker can now have, given the pervasiveness of social media. Sadly, our definition of people as we see them (sometimes based only upon a snapshot in time) can over-ride all the good they have done. We are actually depriving ourselves of another acquaintance with much to teach, even if they have some things to learn.

“But it’s not who you are underneath, it’s what you do that defines you.”

Rachel Dawes – from Batman Begins

I’m not saying that injustices haven’t been committed, I’m not saying that there isn’t a privelege to being a majority (from which I have undoubtedly benefitted,) and I’m not saying that denigration due to skin tone is acceptable. I simply think we should lighten up (figuratively speaking) just a little bit.

 

Don’t Believe ANYTHING You See, Hear, or Read

The “Code of Ethics” of the Society of Professional Journalists states: “Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting. Journalists should support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”

In the spirit of transparency and openness, which is touted by the mainstream media, wouldn’t it be in the best interest of everyone involved for journalists (read: reporters,) when doing a political piece, to state which party or candidate they support beforehand? If a reporter has a vested interest in the outcome of an election, and does a hit piece on one of the candidates, a conflict of interest necessarily arises.

The politics of journalism are pervasive in every election cycle. Cenk Uygur, in a recent interview on CNN, said it loud and clear. He accused CNN of bias in its reporting. There is no such thing as the concept of ‘fair and balanced’ in the mainstream media anymore. There hasn’t been for a long, long time. Media outlets have long distorted their stories, fabricated the news, misrepresented facts, and tried to dumb-down the population by spoon-feeding them un-truths, half-truths, and outright lies.

There are many examples of this, even outside the realm of politics. Photos are routinely re-labeled for use in completely unrelated stories. Many articles about military actions, political demonstrations, government coups, and even environmental effects, have photos attached which were taken months or years before in different countries portraying different events, altogether. Photos attached to a story about the consequences of a Russian bombing campaign in Syria could actually have been taken from an American sortie in Iraq. Photos of a mass student rally in South America could be used to make it look like a mass uprising in the middle-east. Photomanipulation also plays a key role in some instances.

Ambiguous retractions (offered only when the evidence is publicly debunked) are often buried or said in passing, and only once. For example, after days of non-stop coverage of ‘Assad’s chemical weapons strike,’ CNN aired an interview with a man (who could hardly speak any English) refuting the claim that Assad’s forces were responsible, based on a report from Médecins Sans Frontières. The report was aired once and at 4am EST. They did not, based on this new evidence, change their tune. The MH-17 tragedy was reported on in much the same manner, neglecting to mention conflicting reports simply because John Kerry (based on no evidence) proclaimed it to be so. Most of the information about the situation in Ukraine and Russia’s ‘incursion’ into the Crimea is also suspect. Is the western news media beholden to the State Department? It would appear so.

An excellent article from Global Research with many examples on the subject can be found here.

Many examples of government lines being spun by the media in order to further a political agenda can be found. There are almost as many examples of those stories having been proved biased, mis-leading, incomplete, out of context, or just plain wrong. Stories about 9/11, terrorism, Ukraine, Russia, China, Israel, the Federal Reserve, economics, the middle-east, ISIS, the environment, refugees, prominent suicides, plane crashes, and anything involving John Kerry seem disproportionately affected.

Vocabulary is another tool which the media use to villify others and push their version of the truth. Jake Tapper recently categorized Donald Trump’s ‘attack*’ of an American judge of Mexican descent as being, “…the definition of racism.” He (Jake Tapper) specifically said that ‘Mexican’ was a race. Trump did not. Trump was also accused of ‘attacking’ Latinos and women when he commented that because of a tripling in food stamps, the governor (who is both) should do a better job. I do not support Trump, (nor do I support Clinton,) but none have had their words twisted to the extent that he has. Many bastardizations, miscategorizations, and ignorance of context and nuance are used routinely to bend the words of guests, pundits, and newsworthy individuals. The ‘loose’ translations of speeches and statements by foreign dignitaries is an easy way to achieve this goal, as well. (Religious scholars have been using this trick for millennia.) The word literally, literally, has a new meaning. Words are often mis-pronounced in order to show who’s on which side of the debate. Divisive (div/iss/ive vs. div/ice/ive) is a classic – btw, the former is correct.

Case in point:
*attack
verb
take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war.
noun
an aggressive and violent action against a person or place.
note: If words are defined as weapons, this definition might be true, but it certainly goes against the spirit of the definitions presented.
 The financial news is perhaps the area in which the most manipulation and cherry-picking occur. Negative stories about the state of the economy are played down, positive stories are played up, and complexities are never truly examined or explained (mostly because of the lack of financial knowledge on the part of the reporters.)

The complete story behind the markets, the American economy, the global economy, the actors involved, and much more can be found here, on ZeroHedge.

And then there is the stuff they just make up.

a1b

Television news has been corrupted. Bought and paid for by corporate and political interests and financed through advertising by these same entities. “Support our candidate or we will advertise on another station.” “Portray the new congressional bill in a positive light or we will cut your funding.” “Support our wars of conquest or you will be labeled as subversive, or worse.” Scratch our backs and we will scratch yours is the mantra that pervades that which passes itself off as news.

Of course, they mainstream news tries to blame the prevalence of fake stories on the internet. “How the internet misled you in 2015”-BBC. This is certainly a valid point. The reality, though, is that much of what is viral first came from a news desk. Not all their mistakes are attributable to conspiracy theorists and subversive forces. Fake social media stories can easily be ignored; those from reputed (Reuters, AP etc) and state-run news agencies (CBC, BBC etc) cannot. The implications are far too important.

News agencies must vett their sources, check their facts, verify their media, do their own research, and double-check everything otherwise the 1st Amendment (and other statutes similar to it) are left hollow, bereft of any meaning in a free and democratic society. Either that or they should admit to being an entertainment program and lose the ‘News’ moniker, altogether. Either way, honesty and integrity need to find their way back into the daily lives of the masses. They simply don’t have time to check.

Is it any wonder why news media outlets are so mis-trusted? Is it any wonder why politicians often use distrust of the news media to deflect, to distract and to deceive? And for those of you who think that this used to happen, but doesn’t anymore…

CNN_Busted_For_Faking_Satellite_Interview__151708

Both these people still make regular appearances on the cable news network. I guess their budgets are not what they used to be. I wonder why.

…do a search with these terms, “cnn fake parking lot.”

Actually, just watch this short video. (26:11)

Some more images (some viral, some from the news) for your consideration.

Lincoln Lied

This is a placeholder. I have been working on an article (perhaps in several parts) which will be posted here as soon as possible.

Lincoln, contrary to popular opinion, did not free the slaves. Slavery exists in many forms and is prevalent in every corner of the globe, even especially in the Western world.

Slavery must be ended; there is no doubt about that. “How?” is the question.

There are many aspects to this issue. Be it for labour (chocolate workers in Ivory Coast, construction workers in Dubai, textile workers in India, etc,) domestic help (in Washington diplomatic circles and embassies around the world,) baby factories (in Nigeria,) or in the sex trade (Kenya, Thailand, Nigeria, eastern Europe, etc.,) slaves are being used and moved around with impunity.

The simple fact is that it is the trade routes which must be taken down. This is even more crucial than going after the people who use these slaves. We saw Boko Haram take girls from Chibok and sell them. How do a gang of local African hoods get these girls into Europe to be used as sex slaves? Networks. These networks have been active for centuries (since colonial days) and have been used to smuggle animal parts, drugs, guns, and people. It is high time to burn down the very foundations of this practice and put an end, once and for all, to the crimes being committed to our brothers, sisters, and children all around the world. No place is immune.

The revelations on this subject will absolutely shock most of you to your core, to your very essence. Some of the names will leave you speechless.

Please stay tuned as there is much more to come on this crucially important issue.

Photo-Reality Show

Jason De Graff paints in a style called photorealism.

Acrylic on canvas, if you can believe that!

The following painting, “Eight” is an example of his work.

Eight

“My paintings are about staging an alternate reality, the illusion of verisimilitude on the painted surface, filtered so that it expresses my unique vision. Though my paintings may appear photoreal my goal is not to reproduce or document faithfully what I see one hundred percent, but also to create the illusion of depth and sense of presence not found in photographs. I try to use objects as a vehicle to express myself, to tell a story, or hint at something beyond what is actually painted. Therefore I try to choose subjects that have meaning to me or are artifacts from my life. I choose colours and composition intuitively with the intent of infusing my paintings with mood and mystery. Throughout, I try to remain open to new ideas as the painting unfolds.”

Stunning. There must be a trick to it.

Here’s “My8”

I didn’t redo his work, I just joined the ends.

my8

©laphotoshoppe[at]gmail 2016

‘Guns’ and ‘Violence’ Are Not Synonymous

President Obama just went over congress’ heads, again. It’s going to get harder and harder for Americans to aquire firearms.

The missing link in all gun (firearm) stories portrayed on the MSM is mental health. The issue of mental health is often mentioned as some sort of justification but never examined.

There is no difference between having one’s firearms confiscated for no reason and having them confiscated for an accusation of mental health. In some cases, the claim may be legitimate, nevertheless, when an accusation of failing mental health is all that is needed in order to strip someone of their rights, who is to say that this power cannot and will not be used arbitrarily. Indeed, there have been many instances in which it has. Mental health issues have been used to take people’s children, lock people up indefinitely, and have the very basis of certain legal cases discounted and thrown out. There are certainly those who are a danger to themselves and others, but using this argument against everyone in order to limit the public availability of firearms is disingenuous and unreasonable.

[This point is brought to light when one considers that very large multi-national corporations such as Serco control the mental health industry, the prison system, as well as adoption and child services, all at once. A military contractor, they also control Britain’s entire nuclear arsenal, their airports, and a good deal of the British economy. It helps that they have contacts with parliament.]

The notion of ‘pre-crime’ goes against all the democratic foundations of our system of government. The case of Sammy Yatim demonstrates this perfectly. One can be in a restaurant with thirty other people holding a steak knife and not be considered a threat, but on a bus it is a whole different matter. Even though everyone was let off the bus safely, Sammy Yatim was killed for exposing himself and holding a three inch knife in a threatening manner. He was obviously not there to kill anybody. He was clearly frustrated, distressed, and crying out for help. Isn’t helping people in that situation what the police are supposed to do? There were many different non-lethal options available to the armour-clad police, and none of them were in any danger. This begs the question, why was he shot eight times before being tasered.

Clearly, a great deal of gun violence is attributable to suicide, as are a great many police shootings. It must be assumed that this would have been accomplished with or without guns. Most young people don’t shoot themselves, anyway.

Guns are offensive weapons. Unfortunately, the only way to defend against them is to shoot back. The Swiss have a high rate of gun ownership and a very low murder rate. Swiss army chief André Blattmann advises the Swiss people to arm themselves in the face of social unrest. The US is doing the opposite. Why? Over 99.9% of all ammunition is expended in non-criminal and non-violent (unless you are a deer) activities. Guns, therefore, must serve a useful purpose. Cars are more dangerous. The environmentalists will have their hands full taking people’s cars away, too.

Besides, do you really think that a young adult with social issues and no friends whose violence was attributed to video games can’t pull off a hit rate better than 17%?


From ZeroHedge: Wed, 01/06/2016

NoDebt

“I’m going to be talking to a good friend of mine in about half an hour.  He’s got an FFL (Federal Friearms License) and he’s going to give me the straight poop on what this new Executive Order means in the real world.I think the most dangerous part of these rules revolves around the “mental illness” part.  Defined by who?  To what degree?  Is ANY doctor or therapist going to be able to file a report (rightly or wrongly) and you won’t ever pass a backround check again?  What if you have to go back to him and ask him to sign off that you’re OK now?  Do you think there is even a single doctor who would put their career on the line by backing off and saying “yeah, this guy’s OK to tote around a .357 now”.  What if that person is involved in a shooting later?  I bet the doctor gets his ass sued off.

What if you suffer from aspergers syndrome?  Alcoholism (even if you are in recover for many years)?  What about a guy who sees a shrink for a few months after, say, a messy divorce or…. you’ll love this one…. loss of a good paying middle class job?

Your doctor or therapist is now being FORCED to be a government snitch just to cover their own ass in case something happens later.  Even if it’s years distrant.  They’ll over-report “mental illness” if they get even the slightest whiff of potential trouble and they’ll NEVER reverse course after that.

You act like gun sales are the end point in this.  WRONG.  This is government intrusion by deception and coercion, as per the usual for Obama.  He doesn’t give a shit about gun sales, he cares only about implementing more government control.”


 

Knowlege vs. Intel’gence

Knowledge from Your Dictionary:

“Knowledge is defined as what is learned, understood or aware of.”

A collection of definitions of ‘knowledge.’

.

think
.

Intelligence from Wordsmyth:

“-the capacity to learn, reason, and understand
-the demonstration of such capacity”
.
A Collection of Definitions of Intelligence.

Knowledge is the awareness of information retained.
Intelligence is the ability to manipulate and use said information.
If knowledge is learning the alphabet and knowing words, intelligence is crafting sentences and communicating efficiently.

“In an organizational context, knowledge is the sum of what is known and resides in the intelligence and the competence of people.”

Intelligence, indeed, has many components, but it can also be seen as a process.

  • attention
  • memory
  • pattern recognition
  • discretion
  • synthesis
  • manipulation
  • usage
  • speed
  • recall
  • interpretation
  • implementation
  • evaluation

Not only is intelligence complex, it is as broad as it is tall.

“E=mc^2” has become something of a badge of intelligence although it displays nothing but information. It was arrived at, however, using nothing but pure intelligence (and lotsa’ chalk.)

“Achieving complex goals in complex environments” B. Goertzel

In AI terms, intelligence means accomplishment of a mission. This implies that success is an integral part of intelligence. Truly, if it didn’t work, it wasn’t an intelligent conclusion to have reached, or supposition to begin with.

The only thing necessary for something which is wrong to be accepted is agreement (faith, consensus, belief.)

“What a misfortune it is that we should thus be compelled to let our boys’ schooling interfere with their education!” Grant Allen

Genius describes one who knows more about a particular subject (or subjects) than almost everybody else in the world, or is seen to. The knowledge behind the intelligence to put it all together is very vertical in nature. It needs to be. Like a focused beam of light, it can reach farther. In this case, a narrower base builds a taller tower. A genius can often experience serious failings in other areas, though. Genius is relative.

.

serveimage4
.

Wisdom is something else altogether. Wisdom has more to do with judgement.

“Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.” -Evan Hardin

So, one could say that wisdom comes from a lack of wisdom.
But that would be stupid.
Stupid does not mean ignorant, in the same way that intelligent does not mean knowledgeable.

Ignorant simply means not knowing. Everyone has a similar capacity to learn, it is simply that we are not all interested by the same things, and so if I am ignorant in your particular field of expertise, you view me as a moron; but you are equally ignorant in my field, and so who is stupid? Both of us? Neither? Remember that we all think we are good drivers yet we think most others are not.

And then there’s just looking smart.

.

dilbert

.

Dumb – not being able to say and having nothing good to say are seen as equivalent… but that is another subject, altogether.

Cloud Atlas – Freedom or Collectivism?

(The quote in the above image, as was said by several characters throughout the movie, was actually, “I will not be subjected to criminal abuse.”)

It is always odd to see such a movie as this get so little press. Even the reviews have been bereft of any deep interpretation. What is it about ‘Cloud Atlas’ which elicits such hesitation, such muted detachment, such reverence?

Normally, a Hollywood movie (directed by Tom Tykwer and the Wachowskis) with an A-list cast (Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Susan Sarandon, Hugo Weaving, Hugh Grant,) based on such an excellent book (by David Mitchell,) commanding such an enormous budget, and with arguably one of the best, most innovative screenplays (Tom Tykwer and the Wachowskis) in a long time would be hyped ad nauseum. Normally, the reviews of such a film would tear into the plot, dissecting it, explaining every motif, exposing every hidden nuance. Normal does not seem to be a word one can easily associate with this film.

Roger Ebert had nothing to say. The New Yorker review read like a history of the Wachowskis and only mentioned the plot in the second paragraph of a much too long article, going on to drop names of other great movies for lack of any constructive analogies. Salon broke the movie down chronologically and descriptively, did an FAQ style article, but failed to give any meaningful interpretation of the plot. Why such hesitation on telling an admittedly confused public what the movie was really about?

The New York Times, surprisingly, does a better job. At least it uses the words others shy away from using: freedom; slavery; deprivation; political; humanity; hope. Perhaps here are we getting closer to the ‘true-true’ reasons for such quiet praise.

There is one common thread in this movie and that is freedom. It underlies each scene and every word. Every character is at once a subject and a master. Confinement and escape are in every action. Even gravity is portrayed as an oppressive force, as well as one which brings everything together (the bridge, the cliff, the walkway, and the comet.) Yet, in the end, all are bound to each other, to the universe, and to time itself.

Collectivist ideals are rampant throughout the film through cliques, tribes, classes, and societies, yet the individual struggle to affect the whole is put front-and-center.

The film is highly politicized, as could be expected from the Wachowskis, but the lack of pre-release hype is itself telling. In this world of geo-political duplicity and main-stream propaganda, has Hollywood shown its hand as far as support for political agendas goes? It is obvious that the media wants us to feel, not think, and that subdued masses are what is needed to further the goal of societal change on a global level. One wonders if the film would have been shown at all had the story-line been any less confusing.

The film ‘Cloud Atlas’, much like ‘The Matrix’, is as close to a call-to-action as one could hope to find in a film of this scope. Truly the world needs more block-busters like this, if only to feed the divide between those who know and those who believe. Division is, after all, the goal of any socio-political movement. The modern politics of Washington are no different in this respect. Even the fabricants’ hair displays a red and a blue striped marking (which Sonmi is shown cutting off when her understanding grows.) Hopefully, there are still those amongst us who will look deeper into the message than just ‘stunning visuals’ and ‘an all-star cast.’ Hopefully, there are those who will heed the call to act when individual liberty and state sovereignty are the prize at stake.

“The weak are meat, and the strong do eat.”

Divisiveness

Everything in life which has been given importance works to divide us.

Capitalism leads to competition, it divides us into competing groups (corporations) or competitive entrepreneurs, who must each compete with each other by increasing service while decreasing cost. It is conflict which drives each market, sector, and industry. We must even compete for our jobs. We must all be better by working more and getting less value for our own time, and all for the greater good of society. Time is, after all, the only thing with which we are all born. Time is the ultimate non-renewable resource. Good is also a relative term. The more time we spend working for the good of our family, the less time we have to spend at home to raise our families properly. Since we cannot do it ourselves, the state must do it for us. Through babysitters, day-care workers, teachers, tutors, coaches, mentors, religious leaders, and nannies do we educate our children by using their morals, values, ethics, and philosophies as proxy to our own. Is this actually good? Does this lead to the betterment of society or simply a ‘lowest common-denominator’ way of looking at education. Does this improve the independance, empowerment, and decision-making ability of our kids or does it hinder their development? Increased competition has led to both parents being away from their children just to maintain the same level of comfort our parents enjoyed. We also have less time for our friends, of which we have more now. Can this be considered inflationary economics vis-a-vis relationships and familial life?

Thanks to the hightened sense of capitalistic values (or the negative view on communistic ones,) committee work is sneered at. A committee is considered to result in the lowest common denominator of the decision process instead of leading to a greater coverage of the areas involved. Ayn Rand had much to say on this subject. Capitalism has always been pitted against communism (democracy and socialism are terms of governance) as if there were no alternatives other than those two, as either can lead to fascism (which is a state solution to competition as it eliminates all forms of conflict through authoritarian rule, much like Monarchy.)

Democracy, which has become synonymous with capitalism in the west, also leads to factions: there’s the right and the left, the red and the blue, the Republicans and the Democrats, all very Jungian. Factions of factions are also present and evolving; centrist (fence-sitting,) center-right, center-left, and all the attendant sub-categories lead to more and more levels upon which to disagree. Whether you’re an elephant or a donkey, it’s always a fight against the other team (or combination of other teams) instead of working together to find common solutions.

Religious sects are a perfect example of this be they Catholics versus Protestants, Sunni versus Shia, Reform and Orthodox Judaism, or Hinduism, which is a veritable cacaphony of conflicting ideologies.

Sports, either individual or team, also bring the dualistic paradigm into sharp focus. Even reality shows are a competition. Sure, the teams must work together at times, but the end result is always the elimination of certain members such that in the end, there can be only one, the so-called winner. Victorious and alone, like the Highlander, confined to a life of solitude. This is better?

Sex is the ultimate competition. Whose genes will be passed on? What is the goal here, to solely populate the earth with one gene pool? This is surely not better. We all compete for the best mate but then lose interest after a decade or so only to start competing again, but this time with lesser resources. This has less to do with progeny than with ego, though. But ego has led to many people bringing competition in this market to the level of changing themselves physically, often with terrible consequences. Is fake ‘perfect’ better than real unique?

Everything, it would seem, is a war now. The war on terror, the war on drugs, the battle for the environment, it would seem as though the competition has been brought to its ultimate level in all aspects of our lives. Advertising displays this violent mentality better still – “We must beat the competition to bring you the best.” Wouldn’t working with the competition bring about a better deal in the end?

A good example of this is the automotive industry. It can be argued that without cars, there would be no pollution, no oil dependancy, no wars, and a lot less stress. This may be stretching things somewhat, but a case could be made. The point is that public transport would be at a far higher level than it is at today because if all those companies that try to build a ‘better’ car would have worked together and pooled their resources from the start, we’d be able to go anywhere in the world in an hour, and for a pittance. The basic structure of our thinking which has produced this economy that glorifies our duality and competitive ‘nature’ is at fault.

Is it in our nature to compete or is it more akin to humanity to work together? Different societies will have differing views on this, but beneath all that, beneath the modern constructs and psychological affectations, have societies and whole civilizations not arisen by working together? Is that not what is meant by community?

The truth of the matter is that we have been influenced, to a great extent, by those who would have us working more such that they may work less. They don’t want us working together, that’s how revolutions happen. They want us focused on bringing each other down so that we cannot climb upon our brothers’ and sisters’ shoulders for a glimpse at our own emancipation. The lazy rise to the top in our society, not the hard-working. It is always through top-down pressure that terms like team-player, overtime, austerity, trickle-down, and company-man find favour. We have been conditioned to think like those we wish to emulate. We have forgotten, it would seem, that it does tend to be lonely at the top. When team-work is given the true status it deserves, it can get to be quite dangerous there, as well.

 

 

 

Knowledge Is Power

ipsa scientia potestas est”

Meditationes Sacrae (1597) – Sir Francis Bacon

Physics tells us that power equals work over time (P=W/t.) If knowledge is power and time is money, we can substitute: knowledge equals work over money. Therefore, the ratio between knowledge and money is inversely proportional. Ergo, the more money you make, the less you probably know; or conversely, the more you know, the less you are likely to make.

Possibly also, the more money one has, the less one needs to know.

High-paying jobs are usually very pointed, very specific as far as knowledge goes. In this case, a broader base does not a taller tower make. More like a laser beam, a narrow base creates a more focused and distant reach.

This is why schooling equals ‘success’ and education equals freedom.

Furthermore, work is defined as force times distance (W=F*d.) Work, therefore, requires exertion and movement.

Work is also the product of power and time (or knowledge and money,) but since they are inversely proportional, it is a zero-sum. In other words, all work is equal in value, unless it requires no exertion, in which case it isn’t work at all.

A telling point is that the combination of knowledge and money portends force at a distance.

So the next time someone with soft hands tells you they’ve worked hard to get where they are, or that they’ve earned everything they’ve gotten through being smart, either they don’t understand the facts, or they’re lying. Maybe both.

This isn’t just an opinion; it’s math, it’s physics, it’s science!

A Pound of Flesh?

The Canadian, Dick Pound, seems to have gotten his revenge. Spurred on by several Canadian athletes, and despite every country in the world using some form of performance enhancing drugs in their athletics programs or in some of their athletes, whether they know it or not, Dick focused almost entirely on Russia, and in peculiar particular, on Putin. Everyone knew. Putin must have been aware, complicit, and complacent. Will Russia be banned from the Olympics for this conspiracy of athletic terror? Gold medals are good for the economy, and if medals are stolen, so too is the cash with which they come. This has economic implications. What doesn’t? The Israelis used the same economic terror argument against Gaza.

Remember Sochi? Wow, the opening ceremonies were just… wow! And all they ever talked about was that malfunctioning snowflake. Sour grapes.

Ben Johnson (Canadian,) Lance Armstrong (American,) and thousands of others have been found to use steroids; what is interesting here is the timing of these releases. Ben was quickly stripped of his medal in favour of his American counterpart, and Lance revealed everything at the end of his career in order to sell more books.

This story is not a story about doping. This is a story of intimidation, coercion, strong-arming, and pretending-to-not.

Continue reading “A Pound of Flesh?”

On Sea World:

If it weren’t a whale; what if it were a man? If you kept a man in a cage, even a big comfortable cage, and told him to do tricks for you, and if he didn’t do the tricks he would go back into his cage without any food, he’d probably do the tricks; and if you asked him if he was happy to do tricks for his food, he would thank you for the privilege, and bow to you, and speak highly of you, and curse you ’til the day he dies.

How could he do otherwise? You will have taken the world from him.

There is nothing further to say on this subject.

There is, however, plenty to say on the subject of modern slavery, but more on this elsewhere, soon.

Return of the City-State

Is this what the ‘globalized’ world will look like? Many thousands of separate and distinct megalopoli or city-states all operating under the same laws and all governed by a global parliament. Will there be a place for nationhood? How will people be made to abandon their flags and their armies? Have we come this far only to regress?

“Members of the [Strong Cities] network will join in the network’s first annual summit in Paris in spring 2016. The network will be led by a steering committee of about 25 cities and regions, and will be run by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, described in the press release as a “leading international ‘think-and-do’ tank” that fights violent extremism.”

Of course cities co-operate in many ways, and have for a long time, but for an organization of corporate cities to do away with the executive is still treason, and a coup d’état, whether it is to the cause of global terror or not.

It’s as though the middle class (the national executive) in world government were also being excised. Left behind are the regional elected, and the international un-elected. It’s like getting rid of Hoffa. In this way, it is turning a strong nation of [insert population here] into a set of much weaker individual cities [divide by 10 to 1000] in order to have more influence over each. It’s what every corporation has wanted to do with every trade union ever formed, and will now get their chance to do it. Off with their heads!

Combine this with the power which the UN already exercises over climate treaties, food production, medical intervention, land rights, disaster relief, etc. and we no longer need imagine a ‘New World Order’ or an ‘International Order,’ it is already upon us.

It seems that the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau wants to cross the rubicon. He was working on something else right before he was elected ‘Minister Prime.’ (The homepage has since been changed to this.)

“The Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly is a global network of parliamentarians and non-governmental organizations advocating for citizens’ representation at the United Nations.

A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) would be the first parliamentary body directly representing the world’s citizens in the United Nations. It is envisaged as first practical step towards the long-term goal of a world parliament.

Wouldn’t this put the Prime Minister out of a job? And what does the Queen think about all of this?

It would seem that Mr. Trudeau (true to his father’s image) wants to play with the big boys. What’s he gonna’ hafta’ do and who’s he gonna’ hafta’… Nah, he’ll prolly get a free pass. You see, Pierre Elliot Trudeau (Justin’s father) was the man who privatized money creation in Canada. He ushered in the era of private central banking and huge national debt. The Canadian national debt when he took office (April 20, 1968) was $14B. When he left office (June 30, 1984,) it had reached $130B. That’s a factor of nine within sixteen years. At that rate, the debt would have been over $11T by 2016. <sarc>Thankfully, it’s only $613B now.</sarc> No wonder his son, as a liberal, likes to spend, spend, spend.

Each and every denuded cities’ largest export will be its own management. Will there be a global currency at that point, or will that be moot, as well? If it smells like feudalism…