Men's Clubs, And Watches

For no reason whatsoever, I shall be talking a little about old gentlemen's clubs - well they will need to be 'old' because I am trying to refer to things which no longer exist anywhere except perhaps in my front rooms...!

I regularly take a look at magazines and internet magazines about the so-called 'world of the luxury consuming and wealth-possessing elite' - and all I get is a bunch of stuff about Singapore, or brand-name restaurants and hotels in New York well and truly past their prime. The Singapore stuff is, albeit definitely full of cash and property-rich people, just a parody of 'ideas' from the olden days about what constitutes the 'luxury lifestyle.'

It's at a men's club somewhere,
I don't know where

Do men's clubs have women members? Well yes, they do and may do, except the women ought to dress properly - which in fact means they can wear tuxedos and pants. Not many people know that women are permitted to wear tuxedos to formal or semi-formal affairs and it does not or need not imply they are lesbian.

Some of -, no no all of the world's best bespoke men's suite-makers make trouser-ed attire for women clientele. 

Even the Milanese men's fashion platform - Pitti Uomo - has examples of clothing for women that consists of ostensibly, or otherwise, male fashion styles.  

And what has this got to do with anything? Nothing at all. It's just that I feel it is another one of those things which appears to be going along with my recent theme about popular expectations and perceptions of 'truth' and 'reality.' Many people might think I'm wrong about the above stuff. And they won't be the people within the social circles in which there are these kinds of things worn:

$800,000 watches!

Separated Minds

You have to realize, that is, if you have a truly independent and intellectual mind - that today's highly criss-crossed world of 'information' and 'thoughts' contains the danger of mass-scale error and fatal mistakes taken into some form of action.

But by 'truly independent' I mean able to think away from the apparent consensus and the common cant.

When a popular entertainment - say like a movie - appears and takes a firm hold of people's beliefs and outlook, then it becomes next to impossible to shake the 'truth' that the common man thinks he now 'has' on account of this latest 'thing' which gave him his newest latest unshakable confidence...

The assumption that is all too easily made these days - and you hear it in many quarters - is that information is everywhere and widely available and easily accessible and virtually everything (factually knowable) is 'out in the open' if you search enough.

Here is a very short list of things that everyone is convinced are 'facts:'

• There are no independent records of the existence of Jesus Christ
• There are no actual 'originals' of the Gospels
• Most Western religions are based on pagan season traditions, and astrology
• Zeitgeist, the movie, is a relatively modern, new, work
• Atheism means not having a belief in god, or not believing there is a god, or is a scientific, practical perspective that uses proof and evidence to come to a 'knowledge.'
• Christmas as it is practiced now, is based on a pagan festival
• the young boy who died with his face downwards in the sand, was fleeing to Europe

However none of these things are true.

The word that people ought to be using when they say 'atheist' is 'opo-theist.' Which is also, not the same as 'apotheos!'

What people mean is that they are OPPOSED to religion and to 'god' or the need for a god.

'A-theist' is similar in construction to a word such as 'a-moral...' If you see what I mean.

To be an atheist is a political thing these days, and so what people should say is that they are 'opotheist.' In other words, politically opposed to religion and to god. Not that they 'don't know whether there is a god,' or that they have proven that there isn't one. That would be: 'agnostic,' and 'protonihignotheist.'

The young boy who died on the beach was turned away by Talal Al Waleed from seeking refuge in Saudi Arabia and received no money or support from Al Waleed - but Al Waleed spent several billion dollars taking large stakes in the media companies who took the picture and spread it around, and, he spends billions of dollars establishing foundations and research grants at Harvard and other Universities where people like Reza Azlan get their degrees. I don't care whether there is or isn't proof of the existence of 'Jesus.' I don't like Reza Azlan trying to tell me.

If you see what I mean.

I will say this: never one single time, have I ever floated a story, or canvassed one, here, without facts and proof to back everything I said up. Not one single time. Ever.

Can't Argue With Wikipedia or TED

The photographs in this post were taken this year without any enlargement lenses or any kind of modification inside or outside of the camera, of what was visible to the ordinary human eye at the time.

Supermoon - evening in New York

But if you go to the Wikipedia entries about the apparent size of the Moon to human vision, you will wade through long passages of turgid pseudo-science and jargon that basically contradict what people's actual experiences are. Namely, that they do not in fact (according to Wikipedia) 'see' the Moon as being larger at the horizon and smaller when higher in the sky, and that this is just an illusion inside their heads (rather than actually an optical illusion in the sky) although of what exact nature no one is agreed upon 100%.

And as far as the Supermoon is concerned it is more or less the same thing - on the one hand the Moon is physically closer, but that doesn't alter the original human mind trickery that makes it only seem as if it is visually - that is, optically - incredibly large at the horizon.

San Fancisco, 2016

Good luck to you if believe that.

The wonder of today's world is that no sooner had the human race harnessed the power of computers and computer memory, than they altogether gave up thinking through anything, being able to rely on mechanical iterations and re-iterations of processes and 'things' they need or consume without having to really be so concerned that they actually knew how these things happened...

So then we also have Chris Anderson, the founder of TED Talks, who claims to be a Christian or something akin at least, and to appear on the surface, to be racially or ethnically English, and to own and run this 'not-for-profit'/'NONPARTISAN' organisation that promotes interesting, usually academic, talks. He calls them 'powerful' rather than my word - 'interesting.'

Indians - a lot of them - call him a Bangla, though. And what they mean is laden with political import not readily understood by outsiders. When Bengal was ceded by the declining British Empire, part of it became part of India (West Bengal) and another part of it became what is now called Bangladesh, and another part of it went to Pakistan.

And she's not Chinese, either! But she is a spy,
at least in a Bond flick anyway

Under the processes of 'partition' people who could establish they owned land in Bengal, and were moving to the new Islamic nation of Pakistan, would receive money and land both from the British and in Pakistan itself from the new government of Pakistan. The way they 'established' they had previously owned land in Bengal was the exact same way Barack Obama established that he was born a US citizen: they went basically to expert Indian forgers who forged amazing documents 'proving' whatever it was they could afford to 'prove.'

Chris Anderson in my view is more or less the same thing as a Janissary - he is a Muslim who was 'captured' by means of money or force originally as a white person and a Christian, and then converted to engage in Fifth-Column activities and spying and sabotage in the West.

You don't need to believe me though. But if you go and trust TED Talks or Chris Anderson and wonder why you had ended up with a knife in your back (figuratively, of course...!) then on your own head be it, which it probably will be.