My Epitaph

If you don't question everything, you will know nothing and believe anything!

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Another overall disappointment

and my continuing disappointment in the subpar quality of content still spewing from the source.

What I happen to find most hilarious in the introduction spoofing the intellectual train wreck of Flat Earthers seems to be the obliviousness of the author in recognizing that "Mike Hockney" wrote to the very caliber and quality of intellect {["intelligent but lacking a mathematical background" - sounds like the perfect definition of Eric Dubay (apparently possessing a Bachelor's in Philosophy from some university in Maine), one of the apparent "pillars" of the modern Flat Earthers] my background in mathematics should be obvious to those "in the know" by the usage of the proper signs in their proper places as I was taught over 30 years ago in some high school math class} seduced into feeding the Archons with their belief that our host planet cannot be spherical.  I see the gathering of the online tribe of those believing we inhabit a flat plane as belonging to the very same target market/audience/demographic as Mike Hockney's audience being people who consider themselves intelligent, but have an inability to prove any merit in mathematics via any transcript from any school.

I have yet to engage in any social media with the Flat Earth community, but in the comments I have read the past few years on YouTube (and the videos of "content creators" promulgating the Archon-food of Flat Earth belief) it seems that there are many parallels between the Flat Earth believers and the typical "Hockneyite".  If we exchange general pronouns for the specific nouns in the comments (i.e. "thing" or "it" instead of "mathematics" or "Flat Earth") or in replacing the words with the signs of symbolic logic and compare thousand of comments, it sadly appears as though I have an objective observation concerning both groups of believers and the essentially equivalent intellects among both the typical "Hockneyites" and Flat Earthers.  Both groups consider themselves to be intelligent.  It would seem likely that being literate equates to "intelligence" among both groups: their abilities to read and write, although in the history of mankind literacy generally has been restricted to those of demonstrable intellectual merits, the ability to read and write today should never be considered evidence of true intellect and/or intelligence!  As I hammered home in my page concerning the Armageddon Conspiracy/Mike Hockney books, what exactly was the target audience of Mike Hockney when he stated that the target market he wrote for was "intelligent but lacking in a mathematical background"?  

I can't help but think of all the people I have tutored and/or engaged in remediation in an attempt to help the student in mathematics (and I have been good enough in 1-on-1 remediation to find a way to make the student begin to grasp the content at hand).  I especially imagine all the nameless and faceless teenagers from various states in the United States whose No Child Left Behind standardized tests I have scored (in particular the approximate 2/3rds of students that lack mathematical merits but can, to some fashion, communicate in a written form about things they've read, albeit possibly failing to demonstrate the reading comprehension necessary to comprehend what's asked of them in the test's problem: "intelligent but lacking a mathematical background").  But, having taken a Marketing Research class (marketing classes utilizing mathematics were my route to a diploma instead of learning to better manipulate the ignorant in Advertising or Public Relations classes), no wonder why the intended audience for Mike Hockney appears to overlap the same general demographic seduced into Flat Earth belief.

Oswald Spengler

Again, we see the author quote another author, but fail to provide any citation, whether via hyperlink or an actually page number and book name.  When I searched for "Second Religiousness Spengler," the first thing I did, as anyone seriously pursuing true scholarship, was to ignore the Wikipedia articles.  Instead, the first link I went to under this search led me here.  According the the brief blurb concerning this article, it was originally presented at a professional conference of the International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations.  I do hope that you, dear reader, at this time recall the supposed dedication of the "Pythagorean Illuminati" associated with the Armageddon Conspiracy website to the idea of a meritocracy.  Thousands of words from these supposed same sources have been published about how the world should be run by professionals electing their peer with the most "merit".  It shouldn't be too difficult to determine which of these discussions concerning Spengler's notion of Second Religiousness should be considered to be of superior merit.  One source fails to provide a reference for a single quote (although the "..." may indicate that this collection of thoughts was not in a continuos thought/paragraph, it remains impossible using only the Armageddon Conspiracy website to verify this quote and the context it originally belonged), the other source linked above (the underlined "here" above) was presented by a professional to other professionals in the same field of expertise on the same subject.  Upon reading both presentations of Spengler's notion of Second Religiousness, it should be easy, even for the least mathematically competent Hockneyite, to discern which source should be considered to possess any serious merits in discussing Spengler's idea of Second Religiousness (but to the cult-like followers who cannot scrutinize anything their idols proclaim from on high, they likely would take the Armageddon Conspiracy as infallible as a Catholic would the Pope or a Flat Earther consider the likes of Eric Dubay as being infallible).

For a source so consistently demanding "merit" in and among every aspect of human life, this would seem to be like most any other religious believer: do as I say and not as I do.  If I wanted to harp on and on ad infinitum about "merit" and some mythical utopian "meritocracy" I would do all within my abilities to insure that the sources I would cite would be of the highest demonstrable merits and finding a source of greater "merits" being next to impossible to all but the most "meritorious" of any specialization.  Hell, I strive to only cite the sources I find most meritorious in this blog.  The only reason I have typed anything about the Armageddon Conspiracy has been to apply the same scrutiny to their dogma as I applied to anything read from The Catholic Encyclopedia, or any other source - no source INCLUDING MY OWN SUBCONSCIOUS BIASES can be held as sacrosanct and infallible: every source has its agenda.  That, and I have a lifelong dedication to being an iconoclast, and I sure can't turn off my intellect just because a supposed secret society (the Illuminati) that preaches "merit" fails to live up to the merit they preach about ad infinitum.
"Science is held in contempt. Scientists are no longer trusted." 
This statement seems to conflict with another thing in common among the "Hockneyites" and Flat Earthers: these are the only people I have ever encountered proclaiming "scientism" to be a religion.  As much as Mike Hockney, et al, hold science and scientists in contempt for holding an opposing philosophy underlying their expertise (i.e. the materialism and reductionism that act as the two philosophical pillars of science today), and remain adamant about why science cannot be trusted to provide any of the big answers to the big questions, how could any serious intellect that's kept up with the AC website for about a decade not smell these two short sentences as reeking of hypocrisy?  This is like when a Flat Earther actually shows a calculation to defend their mistrust in mathematics.  Am I supposed to believe the current editor/author of the AC website to belong among the top intellects in the world when they can't seem to remain consistent with the primary messages pushed over the past decade?  I used to think it was source of demonstrable "merits", but it seems like sales of ebooks have become far more important than actually setting the upper limits defining "merit" and although no direct referencing of Wikipedia has been committed thus far, they do seem to love the least meritorious source ever created by man as some form of human intellectual pinnacle.  As I have discussed before, I have never considered Wikipedia as being a credible secondary source; however, the Internet Archive would appear to being among the greatest accomplishments in this age of man as the ultimate online "library".  I long ago developed these opinions about Wikipedia and the Internet Archive and AC has done little but reinforce my assertion of which source possesses the greater merits by proving any source to only being a reflection of their sources - even the differences in the quality of commentary by the academic on Spengler's "Second Religiousness" to the AC screed screams a vast chasm of true merit between the sources.
"The Second Religiousness presages the collapse of a civilization into an ahistorical state, where everyone is awaiting the birth of a New Culture that can invigorate everyone and create a new historical trajectory. The Second Religiousness occurs in tandem with Caesarism, whereby brutal warlords fight it out for dominance, to become the single ruler, the emperor."
"... where everyone is awaiting the birth of a New Culture that can invigorate everyone..."  My focus, my meme, whatever you wish to use to define it has been about preparing and planning for the creation of this new culture (Please Use The Evolving Door!).  It was what I was about when I graduated from university in 1993, and has only become more developed through the years.  Sure, I am not finished (even though I have more typed up than what I have thus far published), but birthing a New Culture has been among my motivations (I don't want to start a business, I want to create an entirely new economy) to even attempt to update for our age both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Quite honestly, I really haven't seen the Armageddon Conspiracy actually present more than just "meritocracy" and "ontological mathematics/zero" as what would actually create the birth of a New Culture to invigorate everyone.  I don't think anyone associated with the AC website (and the ebooks for sale) has any idea, let alone have ever taken a class on market research.  If the original AC authors had been preparing a business plan for a loan, something tells me it would be akin to the Underpant Gnomes' business plan from South Park because they obviously don't know much about finding, and reaching target markets.
For all their preaching about how "merit" should be viewed as "holy" they sure don't seem to have any interest in persuading those with any actual demonstrable merit in any field, but instead focus on appealing to someone dumb enough to believe that "8 inches per mile squared" can actually be a formula for the curve of a sphere.  Anyone with any mathematical merit will know that that "formula" quoted by so many Flat Earthers describes and defines one shape: a parabolic curve, but anyone considering themselves intelligent, yet rather inept in mathematics wouldn't automatically recognize the formula for a parabolic curve, hence Hockney's intended demographic overlaps the Flat Earthers.

It appears to me that the main difference between a Flat Earther and a Hockneyite would be the individual's (who obviously sucked in math and most likely hated mathematics courses) attitude towards mathematics.  Those convinced something they have thus far failed to easily comprehend as now having real merit would become Hockneyites, while those convinced that mathematics still cannot have any bearing of the real world because they aren't intelligent enough to grasp mathematics would lean towards believing in the Flat Earth hypotheses (there are multiple hypotheses about a Flat Earth).

It would appear as though Korzybski's wisdom appears needed more now than ever before because could anyone believe in the Flat Earth if they lived knowing that the map can never be the territory?  But Korzybski's ideas on language and sanity would force a radical overhauling of AC/Hockney's writing style as well - to a style that might actually engage those with a minimally demonstrable merit in mathematics to begin to entertain Platonic idealism in regards to mathematics.  If we consider the bell curve of intelligence, "intelligent but lacking a mathematical background" would seem to be targeting the three standard deviations (out of six s.d. under the bell curve) that exclude the two smartest s.d. as well as the dumbest standard deviation.  Sure they are targeting more people in that demographic, but they are intentionally avoiding those that finished their high school math career in either "pre-" or in an actual calculus course.  They are more interested in targeting the high school dropout who can't even demonstrate merit in algebra or geometry than everyone alive who has ever taken a derivative.  I assert that there appears a huge overlapping between Mike Hockney's target audience and those tempted and/or seduced into believing the Earth to be flat - neither segment of the populace appears to have passed trigonometry/analytical geometry nor physics as teenagers in high school (I know many readers aren't in the US, so secondary school if you don't know high school = approximately 14-18 years of age).

I don't claim to have the greatest mathematical merits in the world, but there were several times at university that my score was either thrown out to establish a more accurate bell curve (both for perfect scores and insuring I failed Intermediate Accounting I to "F/X" with an easier professor, do minimal work and get a C+ - the only class I ever failed and I had every intention of failing it to take a different teacher the next fall), or that my score was the upper limit to the bell curve.  When I had to take Finite Mathematics, it was in a class of about 300 people.  It was my only class on Tuesday's and Thursday's that semester, and was at 9:30 in the morning and became my blowoff class for the semester.  Tuesday's and Thursday's were the days I would be leaving campus and driving the hour back home for physical therapy having had surgery on my right shoulder in late July.  I knew my mathematical abilities well enough to know that I wouldn't have to put forth any effort in the class to get in the middle of the bell curve of 300 students.  I think I put forth about 5 minutes of study for the midterm and about 10 for the final and, sure enough, I got a straight C for those 3 credit hours (the 4 classes/12 hours on M,W,F I missed having straight A's by one question on every final and ended up with 4 A-'s and a C; I was also leading a study group and am convinced that I missed my A by 1 question because my study group was large enough that they all did that much better to make my score the highest A-, especially after teaching those 6-8 females statistics, I knew that I helped too many to keep my straight A).  Basically, if I was interested in a mathematically based topic, I could set the curve (or be thrown out because no one else was close to the perfect exam); if I wasn't interested in the content I didn't do very well (i.e. the semster I intentionally failed Intermediate Accounting I, I made sure I passed Cost Accounting with a D just so I wouldn't have to take it over - another teacher wouldn't make the topic more likable or easier for me - I wanted to be done with the topic forever because that kind of "knowledge" wasn't something I desired to know, let alone do in any capacity outside of that course).

Money and Democracy

This might be the "best" part of this article, but that doesn't mean it remains without blemish.  For reasons soon discussed, maybe this author isn't writing from the British Isles, but from the United States?  But, then again, you don't have to be the typical dumbed down "American" (I know that not all "Americans" belong in the United States of America, but I have also owned a passport and had it stamped outside the US, unlike the vast majority, so bear with me if you are from Argentina, for example, you probably aren't nearly as dumbed down as those living in the USA) to be deceived into believing and calling the USA a "democracy".  I cannot begin to explain how many times I have asked my fellow citizens to cite the Pledge of Allegiance only to stop them when they state "... and to the republic for which it stands..." and ask them how that childhood conditioning of reciting the pledge in class has been superseded by the inundation amongst the media (and the puppets in office or running for office) to believe that the founders ever intended the United States to being a democracy instead of a republic.
"It's amazing how the conservatives of today are even viler - even more selfish, greedy and self-serving - than the old generations of conservatives, who at least had a strong sense of public service and devotion to the State, which they wanted to be as big and powerful as possible, and not run by grubby, rapacious Jewish financial markets and globalist international financiers with no loyalty to any State but purely to profit."
Even in all their vitriol against Goldman Sachs in the original website (including an article entitled Goldman Sucks), I can't recall ever seeing the Jewish angle of "rapacious" financial markets ever expressed before now.  Sure they have railed against the "god" of Abraham (correctly so) on many occasions, but I don't recall them specifically stating "Jewish" in any way that could have caused the ADL to call them anti-Semites.  My first real experience with "Jews" was when one Jewish fraternity stole the first semester of Accounting's final and then, being true to their stereotype, sold the final to the other two Jewish fraternities (fuck the goyim, even their money isn't good enough to buy the final we stole!).  I should not have seen any Jews from those three fraternities the very next semester, let alone two years later in 400 level classes, but I guess that state university just couldn't say no to the out-of-state tuition those Jews paid, even after it was well known all over campus that those three Jewish fraternities' members should have been expelled for cheating on a final examination.
"They have been corrupted to a staggering degree by a succession of Jewish predatory capitalist economic theorists."
I haven't cared for any Jew's opinions and ideas about much, but most especially economics since about the time I learned "they" cheated on that accounting final.  About the only topic I care to read anything by any Jew would be the likes of the Sabbah brothers' book.  I don't care if the simple-minded believe me "anti-" anything - I am pro-proportionality, which means I am far more interested in even Japanese ideas on economics because there are far more Japanese in the world than Jews.  I would rather study Chinese and Indian economics because those are the two largest markets in the world and proportionally should be studied about 10-1 to the works of Jewish economists.  They may be railing against the wealthy and the media, but they still won't address the disproportionate influence of Jews among shaping public opinion via all media, even including such insane online commentary such as Ben Shapiro's nasally whine.
"Every point made by Hayek was the opposite of Spengler's idea of a conservative."
Spengler was a German, Hayek was a Jew.  Spengler, apparently like damn near every other ethnic German of his time, realized that the primary duty of all Germans was to be a loyal servant to the state.  This idea appears to have been anathema since the supposed "historical" diaspora of the Jews and seems to be among the most influential reasonings for centuries of expulsions from lands the diaspora Jews refused to assimilate: they - the Jews - have no apparent regard or respect for the states that have granted them (temporary) sanctuary through the centuries.  A reason communism was defeated in Germany by the National Socialists seems the very idea of being a loyal servant to the state first and foremost (versus loyalty to an economic "class"); therefore, agitating unions were no longer needed because both worker and owners were dedicated to what was in the best interests of the state and not the individual (and the state appeared to be dedicated to what was in the best interest of all Germanic peoples).  And that loyalty to the state also became more important than private profiting by those possessing capital: it was a civic duty to pay a worker a living wage to all Germans.  My point is to demonstrate the cultural differences between Hayek and Spengler, and how those cultural differences create different reality tunnels.  But, comprehending cultural differences seems about one of the few things the original British authors and most my fellow US citizens equally fail to grasp!  What may work in one country/culture will not in another.  The US culture is far more individualistic based than the German culture.  The German culture is more "masculine" than the French culture.  (I wish I would have kept the intercultural communications book I had when I studied in Maastricht in 1992: I would especially like to compare the 4 polarities used for culture with those of the MBTI.)  The AC authors have shown a dedication to the MBTI, although they generally demonstrate grossly inferior reading comprehension skills to anyone that has actually studied anything about the MBTI from sources of recognizable merits, yet they clearly have failed in their millions of words to demonstrate any comprehension of how different cultures create different reality tunnels, yet I was instructed in those when I was 21 years old and overseas for my first time.  If only traveling were a part of this supposed Illuminati sect they might have a better chance of actually finding some true illumination, but their authors seem as well traveled as the typical Flat Earther.
"The Nazis wouldn't hesitate to exterminate most right wing Americans as open enemies of the State."
A lifetime of either CIABCNNBCBS Fox or BBC indoctrination rears its hood like the cobra of conditioned beliefs and reveals a seriously flawed intellect absorbed into a wartime propaganda too sacrosanct to scrutinize.

If you don't question everything, you will
 know nothing and believe anything!

This AC author obviously fears to question everything.
"They obviously have no concept that the Nazis wanted the biggest, most powerful State you could possibly get, and for every Nazi to do what was best for the State, not for themselves."
And yet there remains evidence that the NSDAP state between 1933 and 1939 exemplifies the "positive liberty" where the NSDAP state wanted what was best for all its citizens, which was why both labor union and profit motive became secondary desires to what was in the best interest of the German people.  Number one was getting the third of able bodied men back to work from the depression, and building up infrastructure was in the best interests of the unemployed as well as the German state and its peoples.  If we scrape through the propaganda about the NSDAP Germany of 1933-1939, it can appear as though the ideal "meritocracy" of "positive liberty" existed in that state.  This remains especially difficult the more one has been conditioned into the winners' propaganda and fails, or refuses, to question those conditioned beliefs.
"Old conservatism was about pro-State positive liberty and was driven by duty and self-sacrifice. Modern conservatism is about anti-State negative liberty and is driven by money and self-interest."
I think we can easily replace "old" and "modern" with "Germanic" and "Jewish" respectively, especially when one examines the position of Hayek and other Jewish economists of the supposed "Austrian" school of (Jewish) economics and their nefarious influence (especially via Ayn Rand) among the new breed of "libertarians" in the USA.  When your culture is defined as in-group versus out-group/the world as Judaic culture appears the worst example, how can anything but "anti-State" attitudes prevail amongst the supposed intellectuals of the in-group?
"No Nazi would ever have been clamoring for tax cuts, zero inheritance tax, and a small, constrained, impotent Constitutional State with weak, pathetic leaders, incapable of doing anything, and entirely bought and paid for by lobbyists, banks, corporations and the super rich."
The simplest explanation for this would seem to be that the NSDAP was not afraid of speaking against the machinations of the 1% of their day: and Jews made up 1% of the population of Germany in 1933 and the NSDAP sure weren't afraid to discuss the Jewish International Financiers and their lackeys.  And, if you actually listen to Hitler's speeches with accurate translations, he seems to only talk about international organized Jewry, especially among the international banking dynasties from what I have seen, and nothing about the local deli owner.  But, I have attempted to question all I was conditioned to believe about that period in time long before AC published the 4 Hockney novels about a decade ago and have found every AC related author to remain in a state of belief that facts cannot justify concerning WW2 - if one can seriously question everything that is.


Since I first heard Jeff Foxworthy's "You might be a redneck" standup routine, this has been mine:
The one Jeff Foxworthy is too scared to say: "If Lynard Skynard is your favorite band... you might be a redneck!"
He knows if he'd say that that someone in the audience would stand up and yell
"Ya'll can say whach ya wan 'bout me, but how dare ya tok bad 'bout Skynard!"
as he pulls out his pistol and shoots the comic.

The AC want to whine on about people still flying the Stars and Bars of the Confederacy, but they aren't smart enough to realize that the Lynard Skyanrd fans are among the most likely to even have a tattoo of the Confederate battle flag!  This song makes me hope the author is still located across the pond because I can't imagine any North American to fail to associate the Confederate flag with Lynard Skynard fans, even Mexicans should know that rednecks love their Skynard!

Salem Witch Trials?!  Seriously?

Okay, maybe the author of this article is from the United States because those are really the only people I imagine to try and make a point about the Salem Witch Trials of the late 17th Century without bothering to mention how 1690 was at the tail end of the European witch hunts that even the conservative estimates are about 50,000 people were killed for supposedly practicing witchcraft.  If we really want to examine the sociology of that, we just might have to conclude that witch hunting among your neighbors was only the next "logical" step after the Crusades to the Middle East, but especially after the Albigensian Crusade and the creation of the Inquisition to seek out heretics.  If we really want to understand the Salem Witch Trials, first we have to grasp the culture they fled from Europe where hunting witches was commonplace and had been for at least a few centuries, but historical context seems only one flaw in Wikipedia articles, so what should be expected of someone citing Wikipedia as though it were taken as a credible source for even a middle school book report?
"In an earlier age, they would not have shouted "Lock her up" at Hillary Clinton, but "Burn the witch". Scratch the surface, and that's exactly what these people still believe and want."
Does this author really believe that Hillary Clinton has not been an active agent for the global plutocracy?  If they are writing from inside the USA, then I would expect them to be in their early 20s and not very intelligent with this statement.  I think the absolute ignorance in the above statement (how can we not logically infer that this author thinks Hillary Clinton to not be an active agent for their nefarious "Old World Order") clarifies this author to still be commenting on the USA without any firsthand knowledge of my nation, its "culture" and/or the diversity of peoples living here.  The main difference between Hillary Clinton and the age of witch trials is that there remains ample evidence of her being completely corrupted (for decades) and it only took accusations of witchcraft, without any evidence, 500 years ago.  Most of the people who likely voted for Trump have likely never been to NYC in their lives and even if they did, they probably believe it's as honest a place as their small towns.  They've seen Trump for years on television and perceive him as a business man instead of coming from a line of slumlords because they don't realize that NYC seems to be the heart and soul of "the swamp".  The best things I can see coming from the next three years of Trump is for the rest of the USA to realize that you can literally never trust anything a NYC business man says, and the ability to seriously question the disproportionate influence on all aspects of our society by an extreme minority of an extreme minority (most Jews aren't seeking to corrupt the places and peoples of power, especially not the one who owns the local deli, but I think Kushner is a MOSSAD agent controlling the President of the United States and that influence needs to become public discourse for the survival of life on this planet).

I refuse to engage in simplifying the millions who voted for Trump into any such simple keyholes of labels.  Sure, some might have been so upset we just had 8 years of a black man that they couldn't stand the thought of 4 years of a woman, but even in my most cynical hatred of human stupidity among my fellow citizens, I can't imagine those numbers being much more than one or two million who voted against Hillary (let's be honest, anyone voting in that situation is voting against someone and not really voting for their opponent) and no issue would matter in the least other than having a white penis to those simpletons.  Even the legal Mexicans who have their Green Cards to legally be in the US to work that I have talked to want to insure only legal immigration happens, they came here legally and don't want the guilt by association for the criminals that sneak into the country to commit crimes.  But, by and large, I believe the majority that voted for Trump did so because he portrayed himself to be an outsider and provided the correct rhetoric about fighting the corruption that permeates both parties (because both parties seek NYC money - both parties love swimming in the swamp!)  Only the most brain-dead could fail to perceive the corruption inside the USA.  The very same people in the targeted audience of Mike Hockney were the ones who were willing to trust the man claiming to oppose corruption and claiming to be an outsider to said systemic corruption: at best they fell in the standard deviation above average intelligence, but most likely are smart enough to recognize corruption, just not wise enough to not recognize a tycoon who corrupts because they thought they "knew" him from "The Apprentice".  If the AC authors possessed true illumination, they might realize that the majority who voted for Trump might be ready for their agenda because those masses consider themselves intelligent but surely most lack any mathematical merits or background - Trump and Flat Earthers are two other segmentations of the same part of the populace being sought and fought over by Mike Hockney, et al.
"All of America's problems lie in the refusal of right wing Christians to get off the stage. They've had their time. They failed dismally. Now it's time for Anti-Christianity, for the Dechristianization of America."
For a source supposed dedicated to the eradication of all things "Abrahamic" (and that's something I can agree with being necessary for human consciousness to further evolve), the eradication of all Christianity from the USA won't change the world for the better because so long as the root of Abrahamic religions survives (as both a in-group culture as well as an actual religion), especially in New York City in Hassidic communities that refuse to assimilate into the Great Melting Pot and the stereotypical greed of all Wall Street Bankers (but most especially in the primarily and predominantly Jewish Goldman Sachs) and the influence of secular Zionists and religious Jews in influencing the culture and conversation via the NYC TV media and Hollywood, why does this author appear to believe that running the lawn mower over the patch of dandelions will stop them from spreading across the yard, let alone grow back next week?

Now, more than ever, the USA needs to be completely Anti-Abrahamic: pruning back the branches won't kill the root.  The best possible situation of Trump's administration might be the ability to discuss the disproportionate influence and extreme minority of an extreme minority exercise over the vast majority without caring how many Jews cry wolf (or Wolff's cry wolf).  Especially since the culture of the extreme minority seems to create an insane hatred and distrust for the out-group, the influence of any of this extreme minority should be minimized, especially of their most insane extreme minority of their already extreme minority.

Again, I am very pro-proportionality: any disproportionate influence remains detrimental to the whole.  This comes from my comprehension of mathematics and having observed a few decades of disproportionate influence by an extreme minority of an extreme minority and its negative effects upon the culture at large.

The Absolute Worst "Debunk" Video on YouTube
"The darling of the Alt-Right, their philosopher du jour (insofar as they know what "philosophy" means), is Dr. Jordan Peterson, Professor of Stone Age Attitudes, Antediluvian Anti-Thinking, and Lobsterism at Toronto University. Like all of the Alt-Right, he hates being called Hitler, even as he plans his 1,000 year Alt-Reich dedicated to the Rise of the white Master Lobsters!"
I have heard Jordan Peterson in a few videos.  If we really wanted to present the highest quality discussion about him, we would first have to admit that he's a Clinical Psychologist - that's his area of expertise.  Any time he says anything outside his expertise, it's not considered an expert opinion.  It might be an opinion of an expert about something outside his area of expertise, but it would never be admissible in court as an expert opinion unless he was speaking specifically about psychology, and/or clinical psychology.  However, knowing his area of expertise, we can scrutinize his other opinions based upon the biases and conditionings of his area of expertise.  Now, I can't say this to hold true for all, or even a majority of people with a Bachelor's in Psychology, but when I was at university the psych majors I knew didn't seem the kind of people questioning the nature of consciousness types, but the types trying to learn why they felt so different.  I don't know if I would have felt that way about Jordan Peterson had I known him as an undergrad, but I didn't hold too high an opinion of psych majors when I was an undergraduate.

Now, concerning the video, I assume, even with the wallaby or kangaroo face that the person making the video is a fellow citizen of the USA from his accent.  First, it seems as though I belong to a minority of people that think Quentin Tarentino probably needs a few years inpatient psychiatric care more than he needs the money to make another pointless movie so he can express his insanity via filmed violence.  To each their own, but I don't watch movies by someone I believe to be seriously and severely mentally ill.  I don't mind violence in a movie so long as it supports or is needed by the script, but I've failed to ascertain any serious attempt at a script as anything other than an afterthought, almost in post-production, attempt to tie two hours of pointless violence into a "story".  Feel free to disagree, but don't expect me to care.  Fans of his films seem to drop a notch or two of the respect I've given them, just as I give a little more to, say, someone who claims 2001: A Space Odyssey as being their favorite film/greatest one made.  Evolution or extinction: and the messages between 2001 and any Tarentino film are as diametrically opposed as evolve or die!

Dear lord, may all those pursuing extinction, whether consciously or sub/unconsciously, find success in their endeavors before they wakeup tomorrow!

Too bad those even actively and consciously pursuing extinction don't say a similar prayer for the few mutants chasing the dream of evolving further!

But back to video, I don't know the context of the interview, but if the person seriously started off with the very first question being to put the Professor on the spot about Christianity without Peterson having felt anything out about the person interviewing him, the evasive answer is the smart choice.  If this were the first question I was asked and I was unawares of the beliefs of the one enquiring, I would try to feel them out before answering.  Well, if it were raining and I didn't want to really be talking to anyone, I probably wouldn't care if I offended someone with my heresies right out of the gate.  However, I have been in other situations where I strive my hardest to not offend someone.

I believe it may have been the 26th, but after getting back from taking a friend's band on tour a decade ago (almost, it was late 2008), my friend picks me up and takes me to a Christmas dinner in someone's house that's apparently well-to-do in South Orange County, California.  After having my fill of prime rib for Christmas dinner, I get put on the spot by a believer.  Although I may not "celebrate" Christmas, if a Christian invites me in for a holiday meal the absolute last thing I have in mind is to offend them and, if I were effective in describing my research and experiences as I have typed out (sometimes/usually in the third person in "My First 100 Days") - to shatter their religious faith.  Especially to have a discussion about the Nag Hammadi texts proclaiming that the "god" of Abraham to being the antithesis of anything truly divine... in other circumstances I sure don't shy away from being offensively honest.  However, being invited for a Christmas dinner of prime rib a year I saw no family for Christmas, I greatly appreciated being invited into a Christian's home and the last thing I wanted to do was to offend or upset.  After at least a half an hour of doing my best to evade any specific question because I believed any honest answer would have offended my host, he finally gave up after claiming I could dodge a question like a politician (or maybe he said better than a politician, can't recall definitely).  It was a few months later, however, that my same friend would hear about my being offensive to a devout believer.

He was playing percussion in a church band, in a church located in an industrial park I would park my motorhome at night anyways, but with the risk of being ticketed without permission to "camp" there.  My friend gets me permission to park at the church where he's playing percussion, and I stay there on a Friday night.  Before I pull out on Saturday morning, I see people arrive at the church and I go in to introduce myself (and grab a cup of coffee).  I was informed that it was the church's annual beach day where I was going to go park of the day and so I offered to park my motorhome to reserve where they wanted to be for the day.  A few hours later, I believe it might have been the youth pastor arrived as pretty much the first person there.  I moved my rig to open up the spots I had reserved and he and I began to pitch some horseshoes.

I specifically stated 3 times that I really didn't want to talk about Christianity for the expressed purpose that I wasn't there to offend anyone.  I had already explained how I was just given permission to "camp" in the church parking lot without fearing being ticketed (I had already ran out of settlement money so I couldn't afford tickets in the first place) and was only trying to help reserve where they wanted in the state beach - I was not there with the intent to offend anyone, and had asked him at least three times to let it drop because I didn't want to offend him.  Of course, what "good" pastor can let the topic of Christianity drop, even at the warning of "I don't want to offend you."

Sure enough, this young man in his 20s sure called his pastor to complain about how I picked holes in what he thought was a water-tight belief.  My friend calls me almost in a panic about what I said.  I got the main preacher's phone number to call and explain myself and I began with asking him if the young pastor had bothered to tell him that I emphatically refused to discuss the issue on three occasions for the expressed purpose that I didn't want to offend his beliefs.  This most pertinent fact had not been conveyed to his superior.  I apologized to the pastor that I had offended his underling, but I also emphasized that maybe, just maybe, the younger pastor should take it as a life lesson to not push the issue when someone thrice repeats an emphatic aversion to offending the other's beliefs.  I think I may have asked him how upset he'd have been if it had been a rattlesnake, shaking its rattle three times and calming back down before finally striking when aroused a fourth time.

Having presented my side of the story (in which I tried my best to not offend someone I knew would be offended by my input) to the head pastor, I was still allowed to park there overnight without being hassled.  Then, I sure made a point to explain to my friend why I had been so evasive after Christmas dinner - I knew I would have offended someone whom I had no reason to offend and a good enough reason to not offend: that prime rib was probably $100 for the slab of meat and was delicious.  I don't have to believe in any existing religion to be invited to a believers' house for that religion's primary holiday feast and be thankful for their hospitality.  Had it been a religion of which I was ignorant, I would have been trying to learn all I could about not only the religion, but of the nature and point of the feast being celebrated without feeling under any obligation to convert just because I was asking questions about the holiday and religion being celebrated.  However, the last thing I wanted to do was to wear out my welcome after that Christmas dinner.  I can't remember what he might have said, but I at least think my friend understood why I was avoiding a question like a politician after Christmas dinner (and respected that I tried to warn off the youth pastor three times explicitly stating I wasn't there to offend anyone) eventually.

Jordan Peterson might very well hold views about Christianity that most Christians might find heretical, but I can see why his reaction to what's presented as the first question (maybe it was, or maybe it's taken out of context, don't know nor really care to sift through to find out, but it could very well have context edited out, or maybe the interview began as presented) would seem to be trying to get a feel for the other person's beliefs to not start out as offending them from the beginning.  Remember, his specialty is in clinical psychology, so striving to not agitate someone you are just meeting is probably part and parcel to his area of expertise and the tone behind the question seemed on the offensive immediately, but not as bas as another interview I saw with starting out with Peterson on the defensive.

If I faced the same question, I could claim to being a Gnostic Christian, but if I didn't know the belief system of the one asking, I could give the exact same answer as Dr Peterson gave until I could feel safe enough to mention Gnostic Christianity, or maybe even claiming to be a Cathar Christian before getting into gnosticism.  Heretics may not get burned at the stake today in the West, but you can still become a pariah for your heresy, and the smart thing to do is test the waters before jumping into the water without knowing how deep it is.  Of course, hiding behind a marsupial avatar essentially nullifies the actual interpersonal skills needed for polite conversation, and seems to confirm that this person critiquing the video may not even be out of their 20s, or even out of their teens for that matter.

Then the Brit (or at least non-North American English accept speaker) begins to reveal his own skepticism towards Christianity.  I would also suspect that this marsupial doesn't grasp that "parable" and "parabola" derive from the same root, and just like a parabola can have two answers, so too would the use of parables seem to have more than one answer/understanding, and that there can be other interpretations of the Bible other than the literal.  I believe Jesus is even claimed to have given an inner meaning to the disciples that the masses hearing him speak wouldn't have gotten in the canonical Bible.  And then, something this marsupial wouldn't know, would be the Masonic key to unravelling what was occulted in the Bible, let alone the literal parts to the Masonic key to the Bible are things this marsupial will most likely never ever read about, let alone taste from personal experience).  Nor has this marsupial obviously heard about or understand the "zombie" drug of Haitian voodoo that can simulate death to the untrained until the drug (venom from a fish if memory serves) wears off allowing the "dead" to rise again.  Nor does he seem to have discovered that, apparently, the final degree of initiation in ancient Egypt involved a drug-induced "death" while tied to a cross, until, after about 3 days of an out-of-body entheogenic trip, the neophyte was "resurrected" from the dead.  (This is part of the "literal truth" in the Bible - to those who know the "literal truth" about the symbolic death and rebirth.)

But, I wouldn't have known these things in my teens or 20s, either, which I strongly suspect this marsupial avatar to be.

We should consider the "joke" about taking the 5th Amendment as evidence that this marsupial to be a citizen of the United States, as well as an indication of just how typically dumbed down this "American" to be.  He was unable to discover that Jordan Peterson is a Canadian professor, and as a Canadian, has no such recourse to try and claim the 5th Amendment.  If he were ever on trial for a criminal prosecution in a US court, he might be extended the right to not self-incriminate, but I suppose a US court could somehow legally argue to not extend that protection since he's not a citizen of the United States.

Peterson stating something about what is meant by "Jesus" wouldn't be mocked as a concept from me because I tend to find "Jesus" to be about the ultimate Rhorshach Test upon which damn near every absurdity has been projected upon, so I would want to define which Jesus was being discussed.  Especially in the New Age section of a bookstore, how many titles are dedicated to another projection upon Jesus?  I have a few in my library and it seems as though Jesus has become the ultimate myth of the ages because of the variety of projections upon the myth.  Peterson still seems trying to fish out the person he's talking to at this point because there might be a projection upon Jesus of the Brit (like maybe that Jesus came to Briton with his uncle as a youth because the Brit may believe in British-Israelism).  I am not sure if Peterson is a Jungian, but even if only studied without becoming one, the archetype of the redeemer existed long before the perversion of the Egyptian Mysteries into the Bible.

The demanding for a "Yes or No!" by our American marsupial again demonstrates another poor/"unsane" mind in need of Korzybski's help in understanding that the Aristotelian either/or does not accurately describe the observable structure of the universe.  I don't want to enter the SWJ territory of "emotional" genders, but there are people born that do not clearly fall into "male" or "female" anatomically by, for instance, being born with both sets of sexual organs, either both with the chance to fully develop or with one set never fully developing, but even more importantly than human anatomical mutations concerning the reproductive organs has been mathematical and scientific confirmation that the observations of the structure of the universe do not follow Aristotelian logic, but at least a 3-value, if not an infinite-valued logic.  (Especially from a source that's railed against Ayn Rand in the past, Science and Sanity was published before any of her novels, had she read it and understood Science and Sanity, she wouldn't have had the same philosophy because she would have evolved beyond the ancient two-valued logic of Aristotle, would the original AC authors have linked this video?)

I wonder if this ignorant American marsupial would claim, just because I am being critical of his critique, that I would be one "riding his dick" - the pronoun referring to Peterson, but at least this fool acknowledges Peterson as "the Canadian Emperor" - too bad he couldn't be smart enough to know that NAFTA didn't extend the 5th Amendment above the northern border!  However, although this marsupial just admitted Peterson was Canadian, he begins to try and belittle a Canadian because of how they pronounce certain things.  If he hadn't tried to say shit himself, but instead used a South Park clip, like where everyone in the UN is laughing at a Canuck saying "about" I would have at least laughed because of South Park, as it stands, pretty much the rest of this video only demonstrates why if I had power to radically change something in the USA, I would FORCE EVERYONE to travel outside this country for at least two years after high school and before they truly enter adulthood.  If I were so inclined I would count how many times this piece of shit thinks he's making intellectual points against Peterson in this video for how Canadians pronounce words differently than south of their border.  Seriously, where did the original authors go?  At least they seemed to be serious intellectuals that would never use a clip like this except to point out just how fucked the USA is because most people here never get a passport or leave the country: most here don't even see most of the states in their lives because they have little to no desire to go much more than a few miles from where they were born, and this damn marsupial seems to exemplify why every "American" needs to literally be kicked out of the country around the age of 18 or 19 and not be let back in for at least 2 years and at least 6 countries.
"Who talks body?"
Obviously he doesn't care to edit his own videos to make sure he doesn't say anything that makes him sound like he's maybe 16.  The correct verb would have been "says", but it seems more than apparent that this culturally sheltered retarded marsupial can't grasp that CANADIANS "talks body" - that's who.  Get the fuck out the USA and go travel extensively for a few years and maybe you might gain some real wisdom, or just hop the fuck along and store stupidity in your pouch!

Again we see a demonstration of the complete ignorance as to just how many titles exist of books that claim that Jesus was and/or did something well outside the Biblical narrative.  I bet a hop through any major metropolitan library might prove reality-tunnel shattering to this ignorant adolescent marsupial because he might find out that Jesus pretty much did everything 2000 years ago and played a part in damn near every major world religion... according to books that have been published.  Not all who proclaim a belief in Jesus limit their belief system to the canonical gospels; the existence of gnostic branches of Christianity should be more than suffice to prove this stupid animal's ignorance, like the Pistis Sophia and the Nag Hammadi texts should be the very next thing read by this ignorant marsupial, or even anything about the Council of Nicea in 325 AD and how "canonical" gospels were elected and how far more were left out than included.  How many "secret societies" began as a non-canonical /Catholic version of interpreting/projecting the Jesus myth?  I so would have expected more than this circa 2008-10ish by the AC website than this linked video.

Then, although it appears as though the Canuck remains consistent with pronouncing his "o's", our ignorant, likely flea-infested marsupial tries mocking his intellectual superior's Canadian accent like an ignorant hillbilly that has no interests or desires of experiencing life outside the cultural ignorance they were born into.  "Malignantly retarded" ... this entire video seems to add confirmation to the youth and worldly inexperience of this marsupial: he seems to be a product of lifelong "social media" interactions that were so denounced earlier in this AC page as part of the Second Religiousness.  But, I suspect if the new author at AC is also young, maybe that explains how they weren't just as critical of the marsupial as any other source: anyone born after social media's advent may lack adequate communicative skills to ever agree to disagree and thinks hiding behind an avatar to be as snide as social media comments/debates/arguments demonstrates "merit" of one's intellect.

It would appear as though our marsupial has also never attended an accredited university.  From the videos I have seen of Peterson, I have no doubt he could lecture for 6 hours on his take on just the New Testament in "Biblical Lectures" (especially as a semester-long class about the psychology of the Bible, or something where he examined the Bible via his Clinical Psychology background).  I already mentioned having finite mathematics on Tuesday's and Thursday's; those classes were 75 minutes long, which would mean 4 lectures, or two weeks of class time equates to about 6 hours.  Even three days a week for a 50(+) minute class would be about two weeks of lectures to get to 6 hours.  I suspect our little marsupial might think those 6 hours being in a single lecture because, well because he's 17 and in high school seems highly plausible by about 8:30 on the time stamp.  Trying to simplify something he can and does talk for hours at a time about into a soundbite simple enough for our furry commentator again seems to indicate the flaws in US culture because he's seeking soundbites like he's working for 60 Minutes and mocking the thought of a professor being able to talk/lecture for about 6 hours on a topic.

If the strangest thing this person has seen has been Jordan Peterson in this clip, maybe he should get a deep breath of some crisp, clean sanity and take a serious look at the fucking avatar he uses: a marsupial head on a human in a suit holding a gun... I should just be thankful it's not another Morgue video, I guess.  What demonstrable merits in anything does this marsupial possess?  You don't have to agree with Peterson, especially on anything outside of Clinical Psychology, but at least we know what voice goes with what face as well as what his actual area of expertise has been - far more than anything truly known about the authors associated with the Armageddon Conspiracy.  At one time they had authors that I respected, but that's been more than a few years.

How Hot?

I must admit that this AC article just helped me lose a little respect for Marshall McLuhan (haven't read firsthand and lost enough respect I probably never will read him now).  I verified the quote from an interview he gave in 1977, but I figured he knew as much about the history of television as I was taught in a Telecommunications 101 course at university in the fall of 1989.

Whether or not Hitler looked good on early German TV, not all the work being done by the National Socialist Democratic Workers' Party was manual labor, they also began creating the electronic world we inherited (more likely stole as war loot).  The pride the German culture placed in honest work appears to be one of the reasons behind the incessant slandering with wartime propaganda that has yet to cease because the true enemy of the German perception of the healthiness of honest labor appears to have now practically conquered the world, and that clique of international financiers can't be more offended at any other worldview than one whose foundation remains honest work for honest pay; for can there be anything more anathema to the global financial systems than the notion of honest work, let alone honest pay?
"If this universe is rational, it is maximally rational. If it not maximally rational then it is not rational at all … it is maximally irrational. Well, which is it? Do we live in a Cosmos or a Chaos? If it is maximally rational, it is mathematical."
It appears as though this author has little to no information concerning Chaos in systems.  I will finish will a link to a site by a very well known and respected mathematician's entry on Chaos.  I trust that this link to WolframMath will suffice to indicate that "Chaos" is yet another mathematical model trying to best approximate the observable universe.  Pay close attention to the 3rd characteristic and follow that through until you comprehend that "Chaos" is mathematical since it's topologically transitive.

Old habits die hard and I keep hoping to get the next intellectual rush from the Armageddon Conspiracy website like any addict hopes their next hit feels exactly like their first.  Why would I ever purchase an ebook from a website where what they give away for free has become grossly inferior to what once was before the ebooks for sale?  Should I think any of my criticisms would evaporate if I paid for an ebook, or would I only get upset I paid money to read an inferior book that didn't have an editor insure that the academic flaws contained therein were removed (i.e. an academic advisor making sure a thesis doesn't contain a myriad of internal inconsistencies)?

Rest assured I still lean towards idealism over materialism, however, I have little doubt that the Hockneyites would burn me for my heresy that questions their dogma if only they could and get away with it.  Their attitudes also equate to the Flat Earthers when confronted with someone refusing to believe in something easily discredited by those possessing true intelligence (usually including some form of transcript indicating competency in mathematics).
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...