A Tiger By The Tail

The world, in its current state, is not sustainable. No reasonable person would argue that it is. This does not refer to population; there is more than enough land and food for all. Besides, populations tend to self-adjust based upon available resources. In other words, there is no need for a cull. Equity is the problem. Capitalism, in its current form, which has been adopted by nearly all the countries of the earth with a central bank (excepting North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and some small Pacific island nations – Monaco and the Vatican being exceptional cases) isn’t sustainable either. [I feel it is important to disambiguate this point further. The capitalist system which is in use today can be, and has been, referred to as crony-capitalism and/or disaster capitalism and does not reflect the tenets of pure capitalism. Adam Smith himself put the emphasis on local systems and stated that one should not take more than one’s share lest the entire system collapse. This is often left out of economic theories.] The problem then is, how do we change the system underpinning all our TBTF* sub-systems? It won’t be pretty, but it inevitably must be done. As Henry Kissinger (I am NOT a fan) famously said, “If there are things that have to be done, you should do them quickly.” Many people will undoubtedly suffer, and many of them will die. This horrid reality does not escape me. It is more than unfortunate that TPTB* have organized the world in such a way as to make this unavoidable. All we can do, as a community, is minimize this peril by helping each other make it through to the other side.

Anarchy

It’s not what you think it is. Anarchy is a state of total freedom, but not without consequence. Anarchy is not ‘natural law.’ Anarchy is quite the opposite. Anarchy allows individuals to retain their individuality. It does not mean that there are no longer any rules, or that rules do not apply. People still have to live together, after all. Anarchy simply puts the power in the hands of those affected. The concept of ‘mob-rule’ comes to mind when such things are discussed, but it need not. It can be argued that people are generally kind and compassionate and generous. We may have lost sight of this fact given our current state of economic inequity, but it remains a fact, nonetheless. How could we have survived as a species otherwise? As a social animal, community has always been the foundation of society.

Blockchain

Blockchain, very simply put, is a wholly transparent contract. It has no limits and can be applied to any human endeavour involving more than one person. Many people are intimidated by this techy-sounding phrase, but it is something, at its root, with which we are all familiar; only it is digitized, in order to make it common and accessible to all, and verifiable.

Crypto-currency

The world needs a global currency. Why should banks et al. make money from the exchange of one currency into another? Why should they have the power to create wealth and distribute it to whomever they please? Why should banks and central banks constrain human potential in order to turn a profit? What purpose do they serve anymore, anyhow? The banks (Bank of America, HSBC, et al.,) central banks (the Fed, ECB, et al.,) and uber-banks (IMF, BIS, et al.) have had all of humanity under their collective thumbs since they were conceived.

Which coin will be the standard? Will there be several as with Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi vs. Royal Crown? Will there be too many to count? As long as they are freely interchangeable, who cares, right? My personal feeling is that there will be many, but that all will be as interchangeable as good delivery gold bars from different banks, with no exchange rate. The closest comparison which can be drawn is the Linux operating system, which is open-sourced and comes in many ‘flavours’, all of which are compatible with most other versions.

De-centralization

It may just be time to bring back the city-state. Borders are illusory and they are political. Their time too, has passed. This is not a call to mass migration; on the contrary, it is an invitation for all to participate in the global economy without consideration for whence they were born, and without a need to re-locate, but without hindrance to do so, if desired. Under this new paradigm, there will be no need for entire populations to flee oppression or war. There will be no power structure to impose these conditions, and there will be no will of the people to engage in same.

Encryption

Privacy will not need any protection. Privacy has always existed. Be it through secret code, hidden retreats, occult groups, or VPN*, the dark web is nothing new. The need to protect it arises from those who would intrude, such as the state; but if people want to communicate privately, there is no reason they should not have the means to do so. Blockchain can provide this function. People don’t want to be nothing more than just a number. IBM tried that during WWII and the mental image stuck. People don’t want to be issued tattoos. On the other hand, people don’t seem to have a problem tattooing themselves. If we pick a number (or a hash) for ourselves, it becomes part of us. This is the key to being both public and private at the same time.

Freedom

We must be allowed to live our lives as we see fit. We must not be told that since we live in one particular place, we must do certain things with our time. We must not have to live our lives surveilled. It must not be assumed that we are all potential criminals. In order to acquire the freedom to live as we choose, we must either be emancipated or we must emancipate ourselves, and we’ve been waiting long enough to be emancipated. If it hasn’t happened by now, it just isn’t going to happen. It is time to take matters into our own hands and take the bull by the horns. But what do you do when you have a tiger by the tail? If you let go, it will eat you. If you hang on, you can do nothing else. Eventually your strength will wane, and a lot faster than the tiger’s. So what option is available? The only option left is to kick that fucking tiger in the balls so hard and so often that he will want to get as far away from you as fast as possible, instead of making you his meal. This is what we must do to the control structures, and the people who run them, set up to dominate our lives. We must make the job of ruling over us so disagreeable that none would want to have it. This is the nature of anarchy and the birth of freedom. Free to work in our chosen domain, free to raise our children and educate them with our values, free to do what we choose to do with our bodies and with our lives; these should not just be catchy clichés, they should be steps along the path to autonomy. We are adults, after all; it is time we started treating ourselves as such and acting like adults should act.

Globalism

Some of the tenets of globalism are noble and commendable, but the current crop of globalists are not the sort of people you would want in charge. The problem with it is that, under the current plan, the goals of globalism are to be implemented by force or by coercion. This cannot be acceptable. Certainly there should be a common currency. Certainly there should be more co-operation and less competition. Certainly there should be acceptance of individual beliefs and cultural differences. Certainly equality should reign; but not in the two-tiered Orwellian (or Clintonian) sense. Some should not be allowed to be more equal than others. Being ruled is so middle ages.

Hegemony

Hegemony will, for the first time, be organic and not imposed. Hegemony will no longer mean that an entity controls the whole, it will mean that the whole is one, and that ‘control’ is obsolete. The entirety of Earth’s population will have control over their own lives and society will necessarily move in a positive direction. The word ‘progress’ will finally have meaning as it will apply to the betterment of all mankind, not just a select few.

Internet

The internet, perhaps the greatest human development of all time, has made blockchain technology possible and relevant. The world-wide web is the ether through which all human interaction can take place, irrespective of time or location. It is anything to anyone at any time. It facilitates communication and has done more to shrink the size of the world than planes, trains, or automobiles combined. Without communication, co-operation is not possible. The internet is, to paraphrase Aristotle, the means by which the whole of humanity truly can be greater than the sum of its individual parts.

Joy

What other goal can be more noble, than to wish that all sentient organisms everywhere can experience eternal joy, in any form that it should take? Lasting joy is the best possible outcome.

Kin

Family is the nucleation point of society. Family is the seed. We must come to realize that ‘family’ and ‘community’ and ‘society’ and ‘civilization’ are all synonymous. We are all born of the same family, extended or not. We are all kin. If we learn to treat each other as such, only then will we be able to hope to treat any others we might meet along the way as equals, and learn from each other, and share with each other all the joys that make living a worthwhile endeavour for us all. If there are others out there, we are already family as we share the greatest commonality known: life itself.

Longevity

One of the only two reasonable goals of humanity (progress is meaningless without set goals,) longevity or immortality will be the one thing which makes patience into the true virtue it really should be. When time itself is not a factor in human decision-making, only then will the unattainable be within our grasp. Time is the ultimate constraint. Short-term realizations at the expense of long-term benefits will be a thing of the past. Risks will no longer need to be taken if all the time in the universe is at our disposal. Investigations into the mysteries of life will be complete. Succinctness will no longer trump truth.

Maturity

Maturity is the other of the only two reasonable goals of humanity. It is only when we reach maturity can our exploration of exoplanetary endeavours be justified. If we are the first in the universe to reach such a level, we should be beyond reproach as far as standards of morality toward all life forms are concerned. If we are not, we should be at a level beyond pettiness, such that we can engage with more advanced civilizations and share with them as we would share amongst ourselves. If we are to be the seed of intelligent life in the cosmos, we should then put forth the very best we have to offer.

Reset

It is coming, one way or another. It is very near, and people can feel it. There will be a transition, and it will be rough. Many will not survive it. The consequences of a reset would be, for the short term, disastrous. We should not kid ourselves. The JIT* delivery system would make a great many of us vulnerable to starvation, as most of us are nine meals from an empty pantry. Certainly, all the systems we rely upon to deliver and provide medicine, water, payments etc. could not and would not withstand the rapid transition to an anarchic state.

Ownership as a concept would have to be revisited. Essential factories would need to be owned and operated by the workers, as would water treatment plants, farms, hospitals, etc. There would be massive disturbances in all forms of manufacturing, processing, distribution, and not least of all, social services. Payments would be suspended, and the nature of salaries as compensation for work and their incremental nature would also need to be re-thought.

Robotics could be an enormous benefit, not a job-killer as it is perceived today. Robots could free all humans from meaningless work in order to pursue higher goals, spend more time with our children, help the community, or just sit under a tree. Automation of all the necessary goods and services is nothing to fear if we are all equal. There will always be jobs to do, but with so many people available to do them, nobody will mind doing an hour or two of work every month.

Education would benefit, as well. Instead of being forced to regurgitate mantra which benefits private industry, the field of education could be opened up to alternatives not currently discussed. Universities will morph into discussion groups and the PhDs will simply be those whose ideas are accepted. Paper credentials will become meaningless. Credentials will come with proofs.

Will there not be groups who will try to dominate? Yes, but their power will be limited as their small group can never gain an advantage over the rest. There will be no means by which a small group can come to dominate a larger one. Why shouldn’t those who hold even the most extreme views not be allowed to share them within their community? Segregation is generally seen as a bad thing. Self-segregation, on the other hand happens all over the world. From a motorcycle gang to a China-town to a support group, if those birds choose to flock together, whose to stop them? As long as there is no territory to fight over, all ideologies, while not necessarily being welcome, could be readily tolerated.

There will be a crash. When is not known, but soon is an apt estimate. The global economy is running on fumes, despite what the stock-pushing MSM is saying. The inevitability is such that preparations must be made. Stocking up on non-perishable foods is one thing, but preparing to abandon an over-arching system of control is just as important, perhaps more-so. Why should we allow TPTB* the time to get their shit together, as it were. Humanity will not wait for them to re-fasten the shackles they have burdened us with. It will move forward without them. We no longer need them. Their guidance was necessary in the times of rampant illiteracy, but is now irrelevant. We can do these things for ourselves. Good riddance.

Does this vision of the New World Dis-Order seem utopic? Does it look out of reach. Under the current system, it does. Fast-forward ten or twenty years, add blockchain to the mix, bring down all the overt control systems, and all the limitations on our species could easily be lifted. It will come at a price, but the alternative is a possible ELE*.

*Glossary:

  • ELE – Extinction Level Event
  • JIT – Just In Time
  • TBTF – Too Big To Fail
  • TPTB – The Powers That Be
  • SHTF – (when the) Shit Hits The Fan
  • VPN – Virtual Private Network

Recommended Resources:

 

 

Trashy Talk

August 26th, 2017 will, for boxing fans, be a memorable day. That will be the day on which Floyd ‘Money’ Mayweather fights Conor ‘Notorious’ McGregor, not for any title, nor for fame (they are each already quite famous,) but perhaps for ego, and for a paycheck which could increase the standard of living for all the citizens in a small developing nation.

The press conferences (read: promotional events) leading up to the upcoming fight have, so far, been ‘over the top’. Boasting, disrespectful comments, name-calling, swearing, insults, death threats… it really has played out, as so many other similar events do, like a childish playground pissing contest, as it were. In everyday life, an insult leading to a physical confrontation is grounds for litigation, so why do it? It is as if they needed a reason to fight, besides the huge payday.

The public is being led to believe, in the interest of showmanship, that these two combatants are really angry with each other and hate each other deeply. The fans are not stupid; they have probably witnessed many other such contests after which the two boxers congratulate each other, speak graciously, and give each other the credit to which they are both rightly due. Whether or not there is genuine animosity between the two ‘men’ (which I doubt,)  There must be another reason given for them to engage in the brutality which is sure to ensue. That reason, you guessed it, is ‘the cheddar’.

Boxing has become an enormous moneymaker, not just for the fighters, but for the promoters, the venue owners, the Pay-Per-View affiliates, the merchandisers, and on and on… but wouldn’t the revenue generated be the same whether or not the fighters insulted each other? Wouldn’t everyone involved stand to gain the same amount if events such as these did not degenerate into dramatic soap operas and shouting matches? This point is debatable, but doubtful. Conflict breeds interest.

It can be argued that this sort of behaviour serves to prime, not only the fans, but the participants themselves. Is there an advantage in tricking yourself into believing that you really do hate your opponent, and that your anger towards him will give you an edge? Ironically, most martial artists would disagree. What is required in combat is a steely nerve and focus, both of which become blurred when under the influence of emotion and/or personal gain. There is a job to be done, and emotions introduce other influences which tend to distract from it. If you are thinking about your hurt feelings, then you are not concentrated on the task at hand. It is said that, in feudal Japan, for example, the best way to avoid a fight with a samurai was to anger him, for rage represents a loss of control just when control is what is most crucially needed.

This sort of behaviour certainly does not set a good example for the youth watching, and does nothing to promote good sportsmanship, despite the fact that they will invariably ‘hug it out’ afterwards. It is actually quite hypocritical, so why do it in the first place?

What it does is set the tone for all the attention an event of this magnitude needs in order to generate the profits desired by all involved. It’s all about the hype. Hype equals attention, and attention generates revenue. It’s as simple as that.

Vasy Lomachenko reacts to Conor McGregor… (Lomachenko won the WBO featherweight title in his third professional fight.)

(02:31)

But what does this say about our society, that we must be whipped into a frenzy before we can enjoy a technical contest between two superbly well-trained athletes? Is it not enough that they are competing for a nine-figure payout? Why does anger have to enter into it at all? The Olympics do not need it, and reflect an opposite position, and those games are unquestionably the largest and most popular sporting event on the planet. If Olympic athletes behaved in this way, they would surely be sanctioned, and might even be banned.

What is it about us and our need to suspend our own disbelief in these cases? Is it an outlet, a proxy for our own frustrations? Is it a way for us to expel our pent-up rage through others? Is this, and events like it, what keeps us from exhibiting our anger towards those who do us wrong in our everyday lives? Is there an innate need for violence in the human psyche? If so, it may be a necessary evil, and a good thing.

Any way one looks at it, it’s bound to be a helluva fight.

 

Primitive, Advanced, Or Both?

Have you ever been baffled by something only to then, when putting some thought into it, come to a sudden realization? Call it an epiphany, but such was my case with ‘Incan’ architecture. I had always been puzzled by the perfect fittings and how they might have been achieved. They say you can’t fit a piece of paper into the seams. It was only when I actually set my mind to re-creating them that it dawned on me.

The photograph below is what did it. It was the joints that got my attention, and their curved faces. If you can figure out how to make the curves fit, the rest is just stacking, after all. I had always been under the impression that all the faces were flat. The curves made it much harder to do, or so I thought, but therein lay the secret. That which seemed to make it impossible was key to discovering the elegant simplicity in the method.

1881

As it turns out, to build such a structure, one does not even need any tools. Using tools would be considered doing things the ‘easy way’. But the ‘easy way’ isn’t always the easiest way.

1 Kings 6:7
For the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready at the quarry; and there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building. (JPS)

Exodus 20:22
And if thou make Me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast profaned it. (JPS) (Exodus 20:25 in many English translations)

Now, I’m not a big fan of the bible, nevertheless, it was an interesting discovery to think that stones could be fashioned without tools, and that ancient man had, apparently, also figured this out.

When one has no metal tools, one figures out ways to do things without them. When one has metal tools, their use becomes ubiquitous and is then considered the only way. Most times, new technology replaces old technology and leaves no trace of ancient methods behind. Efficiency is usually gained in the exchange, but not always, at least, not for certain tasks.

I think the reason that this technique has not been considered is that when looking at a wall, we tend to look at it as a two-dimensional surface, and we forget it has depth (not to mention our modern, cultural, and architectural biases.)

It occurred to me, while looking at the patterns in the stonework, that the octagonal stone near the middle of the image could simply be pulled out from its setting and the wall would still stand. I slid it out in my mind, and slid it back into place. That’s when I saw it.

If one were to rub two round stones together, eventually they would each develop a flat face which would then be perfectly mated to its neighbour. If those stones had similar flat sides to begin with, the process would be that much easier and quicker. If such a flat side were not perfectly flat, rather, showed some concavity, rubbing the convex face of another stone against it would produce a curved joint. (Rubbing side-to-side and perpendicular to the long axis of the wall.)

[Incidentally, the only way to make a perfectly flat surface, in those days, would have been to rub two stones in the manner described. Having done this, a straight edge could then be formed by rubbing a piece of wood against a flat rock. I cannot think of any other way for primitive man to fashion a perfectly flat surface, or a perfectly straight edge. As it turns out, straight lines were a natural rarity until we, as Douglas Adams once wrote, learnt to bang the rocks together.]

So there it is. The process would be simple enough. Partly bury two stones with mated faces next to each other, and find a third stone which would roughly fit the space between the protruding tops of those buried stones. Rub it sideways until it fit perfectly, wipe away the grit between them, and repeat the process, stacking the stones as you go. It would not matter if there was overlap or if the stones were of unequal size. Incidentally, the grit would act as both an abrasive and a lubricant making it easier to rub the stones against each other.

I think that building a stone wall in this way would take much less time and energy than was previously thought. Wouldn’t it be something if it could be shown that Puma Punku was built in under a year, and by a small crew? Stones could be roughly hewn or not. Perhaps the stones were just found by the wayside without need of quarrying at all.

There are several megalithic sites around which no tools have been found. Could simple techniques such as these be the reason?

I have approached several universities and researchers with this project, but to my surprise, none have taken an interest. Are there any adventurous folks out there who want to build a wall with me this summer? Let me know on the ‘Drawing Board’ page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facades

When walking past a house after dark, it’s always the big windows that are lit. Is this diversion or hubris? Governments display these same traits.

What’s unseen… what’s underground? What’s behind the facade, the empty room, the well-lit space?

designboom_tezuka_architects_interview_005

More to come.

Nebra Sky Disk: Made In Asia, Embellished In Wales?

The Nebra sky disk was found in Germany, near Nebra, and ever since, European scholars have used it to advance the notion of Euro-centric superiority. It has been dated to the mid-late Bronze Age, at approximately 1600 BC. The claim is that it was made in Germany.

The Nebra sky disk features the oldest concrete depiction of the cosmos worldwide. In June 2013 it was included in the UNESCO Memory of the World Register and termed “one of the most important archaeological finds of the twentieth century.””

The only problem with this theory is that the disk was probably made in Asia and altered not such a long time ago, in Wales. (This is only my surmise, for the moment; you will see why, below.)

From Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

  • At some later date, two arcs (constructed from gold of a different origin, as shown by its chemical impurities) were added at opposite edges of the disk. To make space for these arcs, one small circle was moved from the left side toward the center of the disk and two of the circles on the right were covered over, so that thirty remain visible. The two arcs span an angle of 82°, correctly indicating the angle between the positions of sunset at summer and winter solstice at the latitude of the Mittelberg (51°N).

  • The final addition was another arc at the bottom, the “sun boat“, again made of gold from a different origin.

The only ‘proof’ of the disk’s European provenance are the gold bands of eighty-two degrees which were added at a later date. How much later is uncertain. I think it was much much later, probably just after it was discovered. In fact, two of the ‘stars’ were even moved to accommodate the gold bands, so how can it be claimed that the knowledge conveyed by them dates to 1600 BC? We have fraud on three levels: provenance; age; forgery.

*UPDATE*

However, an analysis conducted more recently discovered that the gold used was from the United Kingdom – from the river Carnon in Cornwall.

Too bad you can’t date gold.

Jesus’ uncle dealt in tin and traded with the those who inhabited what is now England.

The tin content of the bronze in the disk was also from Cornwall.

How co-incidentally convenient. That’s why they would have it embellished in Wales, just outside (but not really) English jurisdiction.

[Keep your eye on photo4.]


In this video (6:03) [part three of a series of three short films] professor Green displays a mosaic of photos of the disk on her restoration laboratory wall. In these photos, the curved gold object at the bottom of the disk (said to be a solar barge or boat) is both there, and isn’t.

This is the mosaic she assembled with photographs she claims she had nothing to do with creating. Notice how photo 5 is offset to the right.

Nebra_disc2

I superimposed photo 5 onto photo 4 at 50% opacity which is what can be seen in the yellow circle below – “The boat should be here.”

Nebra_disc

When confronted with these images, professor Green had this to say, “But half the boat is visible on the bottom left picture, exactly where it should be. i may be missing your point but I don’t see the problem.[sic]

There was clearly nothing in the bottom-left photo. Of course, this is up to one’s interpretation of the meaning of the word ‘left.’ Whereas I meant left as it is viewed – ‘house left’, she may have meant left as in ‘stage left.’ It seems to me that when one is attaching pictures to the wall, the one on the left is self-evident. In all fairness, and given the number of lectures she has probably given, it is entirely possible that this is the whence from which the confusion sprang:

stage_diagram(1)

Now, to her credit, professor Miranda Aldhouse-Green is a very reputable scientist, archaeologist, and religious historian. She is professor emeritus and has written a great number of books. She is perhaps best known for her work on the peat bog mummies. I, in no way intended to offend her, defame her, or accuse her of any untoward behaviour. Her reputation is unassailable, after all. I simply wanted to know why her fingerprints were on photos of an obviously trafficked historical artefact posted on the wall of her own restoration laboratory, why she did not notice the obvious anomaly (none of the thousands who viewed these videos on YouTube ever noticed it before I did either, I might add,) and if she had any part to play in the trafficking of said object. Unfortunately, after a brief email exchange with me, she thought my questions too aggressive, was resentful of my implications, and did not, “wish to get into this.” She claims not to remember much about it at all, it having happened so long ago, that she had no part in the imaging of the disk, and that she was merely there to offer commentary about the meaning of the disk.

This is odd considering the disk is considered to be one of the most significant discoveries of the 20th century, but if you’ve seen one, I suppose you’ve seen them all, or so the saying goes. She has asked me not to contact her again. Given her status and her reputation, I will, of course, honour that request. I meant no offense and was simply seeking answers to my numerous and decidedly direct questions. On the other hand, it seems to me that when one is presented with five images of a thing and a large enough table, the first thing one does is to put them together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, in which case the anomaly would have been obvious to anyone, let alone an expert such as herself, as it had been to me after having only seen the video images for a few seconds. Nevertheless, I suppose this one slipped by the expert.

[I am in no way ‘out to get’ Dr. Green, which is why I gave her a chance to respond – which she seriously blew. I will continue to give her the benefit of the doubt; that is, until she admits her complicity or her incompetence in this whole sordid affair.]

Perhaps she had a restricted time budget. Those documentary film shooting schedules can be very tight, no seriously, and she is probably a very busy woman. It is more than just plausible (deniability.) [Please forgive me the sarcasm. It is one of the few joys of writing.] In all seriousness however, if she had been given just five minutes to shoot the clip, and she had already done her research about the disk ahead of time, she may not have noticed the anomalies. Fair enough. Then again, she did offset photo 5 by a considerable amount in order to isolate the boat for the sake of commentary (she did it quite deliberately,) and had she not done so, this article would have been far less interesting, admittedly. But having said that, why put up photo4 first, as it contained no information besides the information contained in its lack thereof? Are you still following this? Mysteries abound. Onward.

If there is any doubt as to the photographic evidence presented above, this is a découpé  of the images on the video, taken at different times.

3c

… I ask you, where is the boat? Even the sun is missing from photo 4. (photo 4 is the one on the bottom left, house left, to be precise.)

The only conclusion one can come to is that the photos show the disk in different stages of manufacture. In case you are wondering about photo-manipulation, the patina under the spots where both the boat and sun should be does not show any repeating pattern similar to anywhere else on the disk, as far as I can tell.

This is not to say that Heinrich Wunderlich, the man who authenticated the corrosion on the bronze parts of the disk (see video #1) was incorrect. The disk could very well be authentic and his estimate of the age of the bronze could very well be accurate. As far as I know, he only analyzed the bronze portion of the disk since oxidation does not occur on gold. Remember that the gold leaf depicting the three arcs was definitively added afterwards, and perhaps more. Perhaps, indeed, all of it was.

What about the holes punched around the outside of the disk? What is their purpose? This disk, it would seem to me, was probably an adornment originally made as a breastplate. Adding some of the gold leaf in order to further the story of Euro-centric knowledge of the stars would not have been difficult, especially for someone with a lab full of specialized restoration equipment, as exists in Cardiff. Did I mention that professor Green was from the University of Cardiff in Wales?

The Saracens, Indians, Persians, Ottomans, and even Genghis Khan all wore similar breastplates. These designs were not typical of European armour. This would explain the holes punched around the circumference of the disk which could serve as attachment points to the rest of the armour. [n.b. Note the top-left image below. On that particular breastplate, there seems to be a band along the bottom which is very similar to the bands on either side of the Nebra disk. It could have been made with leather, as is shown in this example, or with a separate piece of metal. It may have served as either a re-enforcement or in order to limit wear on the ‘stitches.’ Maybe it was simply decorative. In any case, it looks pretty darn close to 82°. This particular armour suit is, ironically, housed in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Wien, Austria. [Not Germany, but close enough.] How have all the experts missed this simple fact? It is simply supposition on my part; nevertheless, it should be retained as a possibility.

The Nebra disk is not as ornate as these examples, but perhaps it was not destined to adorn a general, either.

The crescent was well used in the iconography of the Ancient Near East and was used transplanted by the Phoenicians in the 8th century BC as far as Carthage in modern Tunisia. The crescent and star also appears on pre-Islamic coins of South Arabia.

The combination of star and crescent also arises in the Ancient Near East, representing the Moon and Ishtar (the planet Venus), often combined into a triad with the solar disk. It was inherited both in Sassanian and Hellenistic iconography.

(Keep in mind that the sun symbol on the disk seems to have been added later. It may originally just have been a star and crescent design, if anything at all.) Triads can be depicted with five, six, or eight-pointed stars, and sometimes even more.

header-start_oben

An obvious triad combining the sun, the moon, and one star – not seven stars. See below. Why this is assumed to be the Pleiades is beyond me. In 1600 BC, with no light pollution or smog, I would think that more than seven of the stars in that constellation would have been visible. Galileo noted a total of thirty-six. The cluster actually contains over one thousand stars, fourteen of which can be seen with the naked eye. Interestingly, the cultures of Japan and India (amongst others) associate the Pleiades with the number six.

Coin_of_Phraates_V_of_Parthia

Above is a Parthian (Iranian) coin from the first century BC Note the moon and star motif. (The star depicted on the coin above appears to be six-pointed with a bar connecting the star to the moon, as is often the case. It looks a lot like our Pleiadean group, does it not?)

Could the disk have originally belonged to an Asian invader? Did the Huns bring it to Europe as some sort of inspirational and motivational artefact in their attempt to overrun ancient Germany? Did it arrive much earlier as an object for barter or an adornment for clothing? If some of the elements on the disk are authentic, are they of Asian origin or design? The 51st parallel runs right through Inner Mongolia, after all. The Asian astronomical tradition is ancient and well-reputed, and trade routes from the Indus Valley, Mongolia, and all over the near-east to the Mediterranean are well-established, once camels had been domesticated in the early to mid Bronze Age.

Metallurgical_diffusion

“On 20 June 2007 a multimedia visitor center was opened near the discovery site at Nebra.” This center obviously cost a great deal of money to build, and tourists pay a fee to visit.

KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA

However, the disk is part of the permanent exhibition in the Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte (State Museum of Prehistory) in Halle. The museum states that the disk is an object from the early Bronze Age. Even in the technologically late-blooming Europe, 1600 BC must be considered mid-late Bronze age. The Bronze Age started much sooner in the east, after all.

If there has been a forgery of the disk, it has cost the people of Germany, the tourists to Germany, and the people of Asia, where it belongs, quite a lot of money. The people have a right to know whether this object is authentic or not, and an investigation into this matter should begin immediately. There must have been many people involved in this scheme.

So, an Asian artefact, found in Europe seems to have been dressed up to look like it was local, and the myth of European supremacy lives on. The people of Europe, and the rest of the world for that matter, may have been duped. Asian knowledge has, as it would seem, once again been appropriated by the west for nothing more than bragging rights.

Benji’s Plight

In 1971, the French sent a gunboat to New York harbour to get their gold back because the USA was over-extending itself as per the Bretton-Woods agreement. It was President Nixon who was not playing by the rules. In this example, it was the Vietnam war which was being funded but without enough gold to back the expenditures. The US was inflating its own currency. Since the Franc was pegged to the dollar and the dollar was pegged to the gold that America held, there wasn’t enough gold to maintain the value of the French currency. This is why the French acted. This was essentially the beginning of what we now know as central bank money, or modern fiat money.

Why mention all this? Well it seems to me that the Chinese are de-evolving in monetary terms, going back to a Bretton-Woods type system in order that they can play the role that the US played but with their allies, instead. For that to happen, they need to back their currency with gold, and so they will need as much as they can get. Russia has also spoken about a gold-backed ruble.

Gaddafi was in the process of creating a gold-backed pan-African currency, but Libya did not have the clout to withstand the American onslaught, and we all know what happened after that. China does.

If we exclude QEII, the largest land-owners in the world are Russia, China, the King of Saud, the King of Thailand, the King of Morocco, and the King of Oman. All of these countries have large Muslim populations; even Russia is about 15% Muslim. All of them have been involved with some form of gold-backed currency, or are currently talking about implementing one. China is going to do it for them, and unite Asia in the process.

This is why Kazakh president Nursultan Nazarbayev said, at the UN, that the IMF must go and that the world reserve currency should no longer be dollars. He also said that the UN should be based in Asia. Kazakhstan is hugely rich in natural resources (oil, gold, uranium…) He gave this speech on the same day as Obama and Putin spoke, but nobody was listening.

This, in my opinion, is what we are seeing in China now. They are slowly trying to shed dollars without causing too much commotion. If they do it too quickly, they would lose a great deal of value in the process. Eventually, though, the dollar will be dumped. China did just get into the IMF’s basket, for credibility and support if nothing else, but this may be short-lived and not for the reasons most would think.

With Turkey looking east, they could collectively control all the oil and gas flowing into Europe (Turkish Stream pipeline,) and most of the water flowing into the middle-east. The east would have Europe by the short-and-curlies.

This is also why they want to ‘easternize’ Europe with a large influx of migrants. Terror is a serious issue for all these actors, not just an excuse for expansion like it is for America. Russia has an outpost called Ingushetia to guard against Chechen fighters. Even China has terror at its back door.

Energy-poor Europe really has no choice in the matter and America is powerless to stop it. This is what made Ukraine such a target. Russia is diverting all pipelines into Europe through Turkey instead of Ukraine, making the entire exercise there moot. This is what makes the middle-east, the Spratley Islands in the South China Sea, North Korea, and Lithuania so important to the west. This is why the west (and NATO) is trying to encircle Russia and break up Eurasia, but what’s the expression again…? A day late and a dollar short (pun definitely intended.)

One could draw a line from Beijing to Moscow and cross only one country, Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan may be where the new Prime Meridian passes, where the new UN headquarters might be located, and is where the world’s monopoly of low-enriched uranium (LEU) is kept. Buffett knows it, too. Kazakhstan is land-locked and so is very easy to defend.

It’s over.

China is starting to unwind, all of Eurasia will be dumping the dollar very soon (?this summer/fall?) the petro-dollar’s days are numbered (Saud has been in negotiations with Russia for years now over this very issue) and if America doesn’t wake up to this incontrovertible fact, war will be the only option. If the USA and NATO and the EU start making preparations now, perhaps there could be a way to draw this out nicely enough not to have to crash the western economy. They could also all be working behind the scenes together, east and west, knowing that the inevitable is coming. Hey, ya’ never know.

As it happens, last year, American private equity fund KKR bought Mexico’s Pemex Oil. They have secured rights to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, and now they are moving even further south. Venezuela seems to be the next target now that the Americans know they have lost the middle-east, and will soon have to leave.

“Seventy percent of Petropiar is owned by the state-run Petróleos de Venezuela, and 30% by its overseas partner, Chevron. The government has now offered to sell a portion of its shares to the Russian Rosneft, along with a stake in the rights to extract oil from the premium-grade Orinoco Oil Belt. This, of course, is no less than a stab in the back for Chevron. (Rosneft faces sanctions from the US, which, of course, Chevron does not.)

Venezuela has also expropriated shares belonging to ConocoPhillips, for which it has not yet paid, at the same time as they’re negotiating with a Japanese investment bank to obtain further funding.”

These deals, in the American perspective, are worth protecting and fighting over especially if Russia’s Rosneft gets control of some of the oil in the Americas.

“The involvement of the U.S. military in an upcoming multilateral military drill in South America has raised concerns over potential ulterior motives on the part of the U.S.

 

The drill, dubbed “Operation: America United,” will involve the installation of a temporary military base on the triple border shared by the drill’s other participating nations: Peru, Brazil and Colombia.

Clearly, the Americans know that their time under the petro-dollar scheme is winding down, and they are desperately seeking alternative sources of oil. Now that Erdogan has refused the EU membership and is looking east, even the Germans are moving their troops from Incirlik to Jordan. They too must sense that something is changing within NATO and in the middle-east.

All this talk of populism vs. globalism (I was caught up in it, too) is like so many squirrels scurrying to hide their nutz. This is also why we needed the king of all squirrels, Donald Trump, to completely dominate our lives. After two years of him dominating the main-stream media scene, much of the groundwork has been done quietly, and in the shadows.

A Singular Problem

The singularity is the moment in time when artificial intelligence (AI) will surpass humans’ ability to think. Many think it is dangerous, but not for the right reasons, IMHO. They envision killer robots. That would not even be necessary.

AI will have an owner. One person, or a small group of investors who, the nanosecond it is completed (especially if paired with a quantum computer – they already exist,) will instantly control all financial markets, all networked military hardware, the internet, the grid – both electric and nuclear, the media, all social networks, and everything else.

Do you honestly think they will allow the rest of us to survive, or will they take the world for themselves, once and for all? That’s what they mean by ‘singularity’. One rich guy (and his family, his harem, and his eunuch mechanics.)

There can be no counter for ‘Skynet’. The first one across the line, wins the world.

If we’re gonna’ have a war over this issue, let’s have it now before any of that happens. Afterwards, it will be too late. Even the winners of the war would be put to death. Kurzweil says it will happen by 2029-45, and Google (Alphabet) is working feverishly towards that goal. Chomsky sees no reason for concern.

See Ben Goertzel in a documentary on the subject called “Singularity or Bust”. Everybody working on this tech seems to agree, billions will die, but no matter, “if we can build it, we must build it.” Psychopaths all, and dupes who think that they will be allowed to survive even though humans will have “nothing to contribute” after the singularity arrives. Goertzel even says in the film that the first words spoken by the AI will be, “F**k you.” Not funny Ben, prophetic, but not funny.

How many people think that going back in time to kill Hitler would be a good idea? These guys make Hitler look like a Boy Scout.

__________

“Men loven of proper kynde newefangelnesse.” -Chaucer
the distraction

“The consideration of this, has made me think them too severe, both to themselves, and others, that maintain, that the First motions of the mind, (though checked with the fear of God) be Sinnes. But I confesse it is safer to erre on that hand, than on the other.” -Hobbes
the fear

“Pause you who read this, and think of a long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation of that first link on one memorable day.” -Dickens
the potential

“Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it.” -Thoreau
the acquisition

“Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government [throne] are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.” -Paine
the problem

“Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.” -Shaw
the outcome

Say It Ain’t So

Is there anyone left who can start a sentence with a word other than, “So”?

This article will be used as an example. Many more can be found.

Sixty-eight (68) sentences in the interview transcript included the word “so” in the first two words of that sentence. (“So”, “Yeah so”, and “And so”. “Also” was not counted.)

A few run-on sentences could also have been counted where the second sentence should have started, but weren’t.

Is this level of literacy acceptable coming from a professor of communications (she did it much more often than he did, although she is just an associate professor) and a journalist? (Scientists are especially vulnerable to this affliction, but they are not expected to have studied language.)

Should someone with this level of expertise (in her own field) be allowed to coin phrases which are then used as industry standards?

Another indicator of poor language skills is the use of the word “that” in place of the word “who,” as in, “The man THAT did the thing…” but this is so rampant as to be considered normal.

These are only the tip of the iceberg as far as poor language skills in the media go, but they serve as good examples. I am not alone in noticing this trend.

This from a research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute. “I have noticed that in my most recent focus groups I use the word ‘so’ rather excessively. Many of my sentences start with “So, …”, and the word also appears somewhat randomly in the middle of a sentence. Analysing the transcripts, this really gets on my nerves.

From Dictionary.com: “…the sentence-initial so is a way for the speaker to subtly cue to the listener that the following information is relevant to the listener’s interests.

Is this being used to manage or lead conversations, or is it just plain bad English? Either way, it’s annoying.

Semi-literate individuals should not be making (so much) money from their use of language. Like the semi-literate Jake Tapper who thinks ‘Mexican’ is a race… the dictionary definition of the term, in fact.

The dumbing-down of people and Orwellian double-speak both have their roots in this problem. The next step is changing or conflating the meaning of words, examples of which are so common that they need not be mentioned here.

Earth Hour – Whatevs

On March 25th, everyone was encouraged to turn off the lights for Earth Hour.

We were told that we were doing the earth a favour. Turn off those bad electric lights, and light a candle to inspire others to do the same next year.

What a crock.

We were told to replace highly efficient and super clean hydro-generated electricity with sooty candles. Now, not all the countries in the world are as fortunate as we are (here in Canada) to have access to hydro-electric power, but even a gas-powered lawnmower engine is more efficient than an open flame burning a cotton wick. Cotton is made of carbon, after all, and burning it… well, you can guess the rest.

I’m not saying that carbon is bad for the planet – a better word might be ‘essential’ – but even if carbon were the GHG global-warming environment-killing enemy we are being told it is, should burning more of it be a symbol of our collective will to reduce its abundance in our atmosphere?

No wonder less and less people are paying attention to this mass-shaming claptrap.

“Fewer Torontonians shut off the lights for Earth Hour this year, Toronto Hydro reveals, but the city did see a 2.8 per cent drop in electricity demand.”

When people don’t even understand the very basic principles which underpin their most vehement beliefs, it’s probably time to pack it in. Carbon taxes, indeed. Sheesh!

 

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. (There is a lower limit to this.)

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…