La Plenitude

Here is some Australian music for you:

Well, actually, it is a collaborative effort between the lyricist and (American) singer, and the musical arranger and composer who goes by the commercial name of 'Elypsis' (happens to be a young Australian fellow).

Any American-Australian cultural link-up has the chance of some quite harmonic characteristics: both places are departures from the squandered British Empire, remnants of the types of people and personalities from that modern culture, mixed up with the very ancient and ineffable features of indigenous cultures (Aboriginal in one case, and American Indian in the other). I don't think the end results are 'all mixed up,' but rather they do find unique ways of blending the very old with the recent.

And of course, when we speak of British, we speak of Europe too; of 'Roman Civilization...'

'Plenitude' is the French expression used these days among the Champagne cognoscenti, to describe the three waves of 'fullness' in the aging of Champagne wine - I mean I would personally definitely use the same word for something like the mighty Penfolds Grange (a red wine), which also goes through these phases where the wine is said to be 'closed' and doesn't completely render its fullness of flavor potential.

'P2' - a second plenitude Dom Perignon (about 14 years old)

And I think we might do well to consider cultures such as the American, and the Australian, in a similar light to do with times and phases: we are, in my estimation, at the very beginning of a great Second Age of the post-British Empire 'modern' culture. 

On the one hand, living as an intellectual inside either of the American or the Australian culture is a highly isolated thing - there is a total lack of intelligence and thoughtfulness in both places, among the presumed 'leading edges' of society. There were early shoots in Australia during the time of Don Dunstan and Gough Whitlam and these were vigorously and quickly destroyed by both Left and Right sides of the political spectrum.

Where the 'destroyers' got things wrong - which they inevitably always do when it comes to these huge questions of great historic Epochs, really - is that they never themselves understood or fully grasped what the underlying economics of their cultures were all about. As indeed the modern Chinese will now also soon discover, that they too, are lacking in fundamental wisdom about economics.

And you can see this in recent idiotic remarks by people like Warren Buffet - who for years and years I told everyone I knew, was always but only living on the wisdom donated him by his early mentor, the great Benjamin Graham. Buffett recently called Bitcoins 'rat poison to the tenth power squared...' Or something like that.

In the modern world you have to specialize
in intellectual isolationism

This is just resentment speaking, it's not intelligence. And let me be the first person you ever heard say that Buffett is not now nor was he ever, quite the brilliant genius that everyone else makes him out to be...

The Bitcoin is unquestionably, at least it is in my mind anyway, because of its characteristic revolutionary, walk-away-from-tradition, very Australian vibe - the invention and creation, as indeed the current mythology is - of an Australian, some guy who called himself 'Satoshi' and who has disappeared off the planet. More or less.

The trouble with all those who want to decry digital cryptocurrency is that they fail to examine that it is functioning as money in the most ancient traditional way there is: namely, people use it in accordance with the obtaining technology of the day. And the obtaining technology is not paper, nor roads, nor buildings - it is electronics and iPhones and other similar gadgets.

Spears, boomerangs, woomeras - mollusk shell and paper-bark money. Buildings and vaults -  gold bricks and piles of paper.

iPhones and USB vaults - digital transaction tokens. Period. Bank it. It ain't happening any other way, sorry Warren. All money is rat poison, anyway; that's one of its standard definitions. Warren Buffett is an idiot. It's a waste of time listening to people like him - he's fixated about himself and about the past, which has moved by and gone now. Is he still rich? It simply doesn't matter. He will never be wealthy in tomorrow's world. He will be a constant loser, if he indeed even lives on for a few more years.

For My Friend Bill

I have plowed, desperately, around and around the internet, to find a pic somewhere, of the absolutely correct formation of the tuxedo protocol actually on someone.

There are one or two - not more than that - photographs which are indistinct in key sections, and which could possibly show someone wearing a tuxedo correctly, or, that is to say, the absolutely totally correct form of this particular attire; but as I say, these photos are indistinct and may not in reality be the real thing. Samuel L. Jackson has a photo that is perfect as long as one concedes those areas that are not distinct in the pic itself. But otherwise, his tie, his lack of collar gap, and a range of other elements, are all perfect.

Completely perfect tuxedo style

And this is quite at a distance from what has become commonplace now.

Not even Connery's Bond ever fully complied with tuxedo etiquette at its absolute peak of ordinary formal tradition. His beautiful white jacket iteration is totally acceptable but it is a form of 'sea rig' evening dress, meant for hotter climates, and not exactly a standard tuxedo.

If you ever consulted those 'style guides' you will come across this kind of phrase: 'usually there are no side-pockets but if you have them...' What is this 'but if you...' thing all the time? ...How about just don't.

And so, rather surprisingly, you could think, the one person who carried it off as close to complete perfection as is required by the etiquette, was Pierce Brosnan!

You like this, Billy, Billy, Billy-Baru...?
(Paraphrasing Ted Knight in 'Caddyshack').

He wears the correct attire, of: off-white or ice-white shirt with placket-covered buttons, no side pockets on the jacket, no vents, peak lapels, grosgrain SQUARE EDGED bow-tie, proper french cuffs, jacket single-buttoned in front. And on one occasion he wore the birds-eye buttoned shirt version. One stripe 'galon' down the sides of the trousers. Black patent pumps. 

All correct. 

Nothing else is 'correct.'

And there are significant reasons why someone of genuine breeding and class must adhere to the virtues of the absolutely conventional, strict traditional format, for wearing a tuxedo.

...I have to run along in a second to go to a show in the city, and so, I shall pick this all up after a few hours, and revisit things and complete this little post. For now, remember the old adage. You know, any old adage.

: )
  
Okay anyway, so now I'm back...

So what's the point of 'tuxedo etiquette?' The tuxedo was invented by Griswold Lorillard - now don't let anyone pretend things are otherwise! The story they trot out now about James Potter is a fabrication designed to cover up a social indiscretion, which we cannot go into here - and even though I have made a habit recently of committing the crime of revealing state secrets, I shall stop at revealing the promiscuous incidents to do with, or the habits of, members of authentic society. Anyway, Potter's ex-wife Cora Brown, became a famous actress who played the Comtesse De Winter on stage in The Three Musketeers.

The Lorillards were not only moguls of tobacco, but the younger Lorillard brothers were among the two or three really large tea merchants in the United States at the time, owning at least 40 ships at sea transporting tea. Consequently, the Lorillards were personally known to one of my own ancestors, a certainly particular lady, who owned the largest, and the fastest clippers ever to sail; ever. Her half-sister was the very famous Princesse de Caraman Chimay, Clara Ward.

A gown by Worth, owned by the sister of Clara Ward

Now there is a great secret about tuxedo etiquette, and no amount of purchasing of mansions on Lake Como next to the actor George Clooney, will ever give one access to such inner knowledge. 

So yes you can fiddle around with exact specifications for tuxedo etiquette, but don't do it.
  
Tuxedos are not about conformity or conservatism at all - after all, they were a departure from the standards of the day when they were first shown. And the fact that we maintain the exact same specifications to correctly wear (Elizabeth Barrett Browning split infinitives often, so shall I) tuxedos even now, has nothing to do with conformity or having a conservative mentality necessarily.

You can go surfing all you like, disporting your buff torso to all the eligible ladies to your heart's content. And they say that attending a British Public School attaches an automatic brand of status and supposed class to a young person. But this is the very soul and meaning of the nouveau riche -  for neither are these people from actual aristocratic society when there really was such a thing in Great Britain, nor are they honest about the sources of what appears to be 'their money' now, and certainly, these are the strata who have absolutely no clue at all about why men of genuine substance and worth stick to exact specifications when donning the attire known as 'the tuxedo.' Sven Raphael Schneider the style guru goes around the bull's eye closest of anyone, but even he refrains from publicly going deeply into the real lore of it.

  

  

The Spy Book Names David Solomon

Any of you who by now have downloaded the 'free excerpts' PDF from the 'covertly'-sponsored 'Invulnerable Missiles and Extreme Tactical Insertions,' will already have realized that there is probably more to this whole 'Russia collusion' atmosphere in the West than meets the eye.

Certainly there's no collusion between Donald Trump or anyone involved with him, and the Kremlin. That is categorically the truth.

But that is not to say the Kremlin does not know exactly what is going on, and why. They have always known - and that is the specific problem for people like Hillary Clinton and Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller and Sidney Blumenthal and others in that camp. Mueller and Rosenstein and that crowd are all acting out of fear, not anything else. They are deeply inveigled in corruption and aiding in covering it up. 

...Now it's going to be very hard to convince those people who have long-held, and cherished beliefs, in some kind of 'Jewish/Zionist' criminal conspiracy, and by virtue of that stance want to thrust everything into the same box. Why I say this is because I am therewith predicating my next statements: Goldman Sachs is not the villain of the piece. What happened was they took advantage of Bill and Hillary Clinton's need for money after the Monica Lewinsky situation took shape - but then, seeing how much money could be made by selling influence, Hillary Clinton went a lot too far!

She didn't sell out to Goldman Sachs - she sold out to everyone! Sure she sold out to the Russians over a number of things. Goldman Sachs facilitated - and resolved - the 'theoretical' moral situation because they already had a role advising in Russian privatizations following the collapse of the Soviet system. The moral position of the US administration regarding selling uranium to Russians who might have been proxies for the Russian government itself - was that this was just an allowable part of the 'privatization' process of formerly State assets, and that technically, anyone could buy into the corporate entities that owned the US-sourced uranium. The part about 'might have been proxies for' was the tricky bit.

Goldman Sachs does not recognize that Russia, or the Russian government, is in any way a problematic partner... What they know inside their closed rooms, is different to what they 'know' when asked for a State-side public view.

Now here's the point you're not going to necessarily like - Goldman Sachs took a firm view, that Barack Obama was a problematical character, and that Hillary Clinton was as well. The top executives inside Goldman Sachs, are some of the people responsible for putting together a US Military shadow secret service that enabled Trump to win.

Now this also means that Goldman Sachs is NOT part of the 'globalist elite/NWO/NATO/Eu' geopolitical phenomenon; although it might look like they do things that align with that group, the reasons they are doing them are not at all shared reasons, and the goals are not shared either. For example, Goldman Sachs London has been shifting all its top layers of staff to Frankfurt, and the business media covers this as due to negative concerns about Brexit - the reality is that Goldman Sachs recognizes London as a source of too much 'interest' in things that are none of their business - Goldman Sachs doesn't want another 'Christopher Steele' to suddenly turn on them and their early involvement in the corruption of Hillary Clinton, as a way of hurting their relationship with today's White House! THAT is why Lloyd Blankfein is 'retiring.' That is why Goldman Sachs is pulling out of London.

(Here is a repeat link to the downloadable PDF: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uW7p1fk0thQm0LXceAi4mZya20MV3BIz)

There is no possible way you can trust London, and by that I mean the UK Intelligence establishment - they are acting for themselves and no one else. Goldman Sachs has a stunning new profile in Saudi Arabia and this could be a cause of much jealousy in London.

The book 'Invulnerable Missiles...' asserts there is an entirely private, highly organized, and completely 'in the shadows' group that is comprised of higher ranks inside the US Navy and Military Intelligence, as well as some highly-placed bankers such as individuals in places like Goldman Sachs. And the book names David Solomon, as, if not an actual policy-maker and leader of this covert group, then most certainly an active member.

David Solomon will take over as CEO of Goldman Sachs, when Lloyd Blankfein retires and leaves presently.

Insights Into Real 'Mind Control'

The only possibility to create 'impressions' that are false compared to objective outside reality, by means of some kind of remote 'beam' is if you develop sufficient energy, and which is directed very precisely, so that lesions are formed in parts of the brain; especially so-called 'unilateral temporal lobe lesions.' You can definitely create hallucinations in that way. And permanent damage, of course.

Every now and then, you get some phrase that turns up in a body of science, and it is repeated over and over in many sources, basically because it is an excellent description of something.

Here is one of those: 'the temporal lobe is a part of the brain that is used in processing sensory input into derived meaning.'

Trust me -  I'm about to do some 'mind control' on you...
So watch your step.

One of the most important and valuable areas of neural science these days is 'neural encoding.' All neural encoding comes from so-called 'temporal rate signaling.' The fact is - or, has very recently been ascertained - that the rates and packets of waves and spikes that networks of neurons perform when in various stages of action, are able to encode both digital as well as analog information. And the information is highly discrete, and we don't fully know how it is done. I mean, some people do know, but this is not knowledge available in published studies as yet. And it is a contested area because the leading-edge research demonstrates there are iterative templates pre-existing inside memory cell structures that provide feed-back for types of 'spike count rates.' Richard Dawkins has tried to say that such advanced complex (for one  instance - 'moral' meaning...) 'templates' which are there before birth are due to 'memes' being part of evolution. I mean this is probably the most hotly contested subject there is in modern science debate.

Anyway, here is the point you might look at in terms of what this Blog is usually about: designers, and I mean fashion designers, architects, design engineers and design planners - they all realize (the best of them, that is) that the human brain already contains very highly advanced and complex, sophisticated frames of reference; be it aesthetically, as well as why we 'think' a thing is utilitarian or not. That is to say, even human concepts about utility relate to weight we GIVE to meaningfulness of objects and desired activities - that is not really there in an objective sense at all. The train tracks go past the stadium BECAUSE we play football matches THERE. And football is important. In fact it is a matter of life-and-death. ?? And dominates our economic thinking due to that reason.

Could be, I suppose. And we are thus a bizarrely ornate evolved species, if so.

Watch it now, it's happening under your nose...

Real 'mind control' engages in temporal encoding strategies which play on our pre-existing templates of emotional significance. Theoretically. Because as I say, not a lot of the leading-edge material is published in standard academia.

'Temporal' does mean the signals themselves have timed rates of firing, and they also go in waves that have spikes and troughs. It can mean assigning meaning to sensory inputs, and it also deals with itself like a 'clock rate' inside any modern computer, in that there are ways to 'fudge' our own individual personal sensations of time passing.

Tchaikovsky is probably one of the most clear-cut manipulators (using beats and sound) of how we sense time - he has music that will give you the feeling of time slowing, or you moving more slowly, whereas Camille Saint Saens is the opposite and appears to always be rushing about; I mean even his famous danse macabre is an example of that when everybody else's danse macabre is a slow thing.

Smell sense is signaled, neurally-speaking, also through temporal encoding once the stimuli is picked up in the olfactory organs. Everything is signaled in the brain via temporal encoding. And so - at least in theory - there might be some connection in the spike count rates, perhaps some harmonics or harmonic ingredients, in common in Tchaikovsky music, and say, olfactory signals from vanilla (which has the property of making people feel that 'time is slowing down').

Now the key to what is picked up by the hypothesized memory structure templates, is in spike drop-offs, those distinct differentiation features in any run of rate average - and these are the things which eventually lead to distinct patterns forming which theoretically link up to the discrete emotional 'memex' or template (categorized, logged archives of discrete appropriate emotional responses). 'Edge detection' is a crucial area of modern computing and signal processing.

Now this all does NOT mean that merely because something is being repeated via your daily media - such as in a normal advert rotation, for example - people are seriously in a deeply and modern scientific way trying to 'mind control you!

In fact it's not about repetition at all. It's about playing on templates already existing within human beings - but which are beneath the surface. Human beings have been playing at the game of 'mind control' forever. The technique of how we do it, is known as 'art.'

'Mind Control' - Really??

The recent 'disclosure' in the wider press about some kind of documented methodology a covert (US) government department has, to do with the capability of exerting 'mind control' over selected members of the public - has a few problematic aspects.

Firstly, the 'research' or at least 'documentation' that was released under an FOI application by the US journalist Curtis Waltman, to the Washington Fusion Center - involves nothing but a litany of ways to do damage to someone, remotely, using electronic fields and waves and so on; nothing to do with actual mind control as such.

Secondly, the whole thing fits in neatly to the YT channels dedicated to disaffected individuals complaining about 'how the government is attacking them using remote beams...'

Remembering that it was Vannevar Bush, and not Richard Dawkins, who originally coined the term 'memex,' as well as the actual concept behind the word, which has now been modified to the word 'meme' - then, we can presume there could be some kind of 'meme' being effected here, rather than there actually being either any technology which delivers thoughts, ideas, and feelings, and images, into people's brains. (I should add, 'via extra-sensory means!').

Mind control technology...

Even if there were a technology that 'beamed' an idea, or an image, or coherent sound, into someone's brain, how does this equate to 'mind control' unless there is an accompanying tool which alters how they feel about that sudden 'image' or purely neural-activated 'auditory signal?'

It doesn't.

Typically, all we are looking at are another bunch of destructive things - sure, using remote transmission techniques and... ...well, so what, but?

Complex propaganda, and highly sophisticated whole systems and layers of data or information might be able to be used to manipulate people's emotions - that seems reasonable enough. It may well be that at some future stage, there could be highly-integrated micro-sized but very complex electronics, adapted into 'wearables,' which provide a sensory atmosphere or 'environment' or 'sense bubble' to the individual wearer. That's possible. And that is not what is constituted by the details in the 'accidental release' of documents to do with government technology on 'mind control.'

There are kinds of advanced prototypes that are down this research path - but they are not in government hands, and they are not destructive instruments.