And Critical Thinking

This is addressed to all of those younger people who may be reading here.

There is a difference between someone telling you what to think, and the possibility that there is actually a genuine authentic 100% constant source of truth. And I do mean 'truth' as opposed to just 'true information' or 'correct/accurate information.'

Someone telling you what to think is quite likely to be an indication of that someone also trying to control you. And that is not a good thing. Even if you are that young you are under the control and authority of parents - even then, responsible parents are going to guide you towards, or at least give you enough opportunity, to discover firstly good and accurate information, and then also moral and ethical examples so that you will make your own good judgments about various things.

They're going to try and take you here - to the world
of AI. But you will be prepared for it.

When people are not secure in their own ideas and a sense of what sound knowledge really is, then they turn into little dictators and resort to telling, rather than soliciting critical thinking in other people.

The absolute worst, and most misleading thing you are ever going to hear (and numerous hugely famous world figures have said this misleading thing and are often quoted on it), is 'no one has a monopoly on truth.'

That is not only the stupidest thing you can be told, it is outrageously false.

What those people who have voiced the notion - and who are sincere people - might really mean, is that you shouldn't just swallow what someone is telling you without yourself being able to make clear, objective, independent judgments on those things. 

The good side of modern technology.

The rest who swing the phrase around are being dissemblers - that are saying it to impress you that they are open and honest and ought to be trusted since they are encouraging you to think skeptically... ...but then they always mean that you are to be skeptical about others, and not about themselves.

'Critical thinking' means you have to search by yourself to find a sound, objectively correct basis for making a particular judgment about something. 

Often there are important matters that can have two opposite ways of being morally a-judged: should I lie to someone who has a serious life-threatening condition in order to relieve them of counter-productive anxiety - or should I tell them the truth because one should never lie...? These things are sometimes characterized as 'black or white' issues. They need not in actuality be only one thing or the other, what I'm talking about is simply when these are considered as 'black or white' issues; having only two, usually opposite 'values' in terms of the way you are expected to judge them.

And then there are those matters where there could be a multiplicity of varied potential judgments - and these things are treated as 'matters of degree.'

But in all of these situations there is an initial uncertainty about something that requires it to be judged by the human mind applying moral values or complex utilitarian yardsticks, or 'best possible educated guesses' such as when an experimental scientist has to take a certain risk before he or she can find out with authentic certainty what an outcome, usually a potentially dangerous outcome will be. The testing of the nuclear bomb would be an example of that.

The good side of Paris restaurants - the real side; this
is a real high class place.

Critical thinking means that in the end, you are required to make judgment yourself. If such 'judgments' are only you blindly following someone else's edict, then you are being manipulated and mind-controlled.

The Universe, however, and its underlying physics are a total and complete monopoly of truth. They will do 'their thing' regardless of what you only think, or 'believe.'

The really big and malicious liars, will take you right up next to reality and truth, so so close, but not sufficiently close to actually breach the necessary and vital boundary conditions allowing whatever it is they are saying to be inside the definition of the thing they are telling you about.

Is the Universe 'the Source?' Can you vibrate into a magnetic attraction any particular thing you want, because this is some kind of 'law' of physics?

Or is only some word, some 'holy name' the thing alone, that, without visible process or scientific mechanism, makes or allows things to happen?

If you look at someone as the only source of truth, that is close to a cult phenomenon. 

Now here's a thing - let's say you're a Christian, and you therefore know and or believe, that Jesus is the ONLY source of Truth, the ultimate source of Truth, in fact, the Truth - the relevant scriptural texts actually tell you outright you don't need to rely on that as dogma or mere doctrine: your job is to stick your fingers into the bleeding palms without which personal experience you need not just believe it, because in fact you might not have the faith to believe it.

The complexity of Bouillabaisse... 

But the complication, the complexity of these kinds of 'high end' epistemology discussions is that in the obverse, if you just then suppose personal experiences, are the sole necessary factor, then you are feeding sensory stimulation which can very rapidly turn into a form of addiction - so once again, you are being 'mind controlled.'

The truth is (see what I mean, there is a truth as you will now find), that it is a very subtle, balanced combination of all of our available tools - the mind, logical thinking, and personal sensory, physical, experience/s, and as much objectivity and independence as possible that we can muster, that gives us the way to a reliable outcome of our judgments as to what is true and what is good or bad.

So, despite that Nelson Mandela said 'no one has a monopoly on truth' he was completely wrong because what you just read above in the immediate above paragraph is the absolute monopoly mechanism and pathway to truth.

Use it.

Truth has a monopoly on Truth. Truth is a thing. I'm not necessarily sure what kind of a thing, but it is a definite 'thing' in the sense that it is both a 1. process path and 2. an outcome and 3. a definition of reality. All at the same time. ; )

Truth is Reality.

...They're both Bouillabaisse, they're both good,
but they are different.

Reality can be very very complex. But that is no excuse to suggest there is no such thing as absolute reality. There is an absolute reality, and we are living in it.

'Monopoly' in economics always means it is exchanged expensively. You get truth and you will be rich. You get it. Though you have to get it yourself. 

'No one has a monopoly on truth.' Totally wrong, but I'm not explaining it beyond the limit that I went to just here in this post. I gave you the process path. And that's way enough to get you to where you want to go.

The oldies around here already know this stuff. They use it all the time. It doesn't necessarily make them totally happy all the time, and it doesn't make them rich all the time or enough of the time as much as they want - and that's because we're all only human and we can make mistakes, or be too slow, or too lazy or whatever.

But we're not stupid though. And you shouldn't be either. There are absolutely no reasons whatsoever for you to be stupid. So don't be.

You don't look, you won't find.

All the good stuff is hidden stuff.

...Definitely Use Your Brains!

I think I remember saying a short while back in this immediate series of posts and articles that it is not for everyone, and that maybe some people will find certain aspects objectionable.

If you are a kid, or someone less than a whole lot of years of experience on this planet(!), then go to source texts and study them. Maybe there will be source texts mentioned here from time to time but actually go to those and read them yourself; you cannot rely on just reading commentaries. And this does not mean I am deliberately telling lies or making things up about various source materials, but it does mean that you should read the whole things as well yourself.

'Listen kid, you can't come in here...'
LOL

Why am I saying this (again)?

Because in case someone has 'expectations' and those expectations fail to be 'delivered' in reality to them actually, then in the first place the whole point of what I have been saying and why, was lost, misunderstood.

This message is the delivery.

Things are going to happen, in your life, on the world stage, throughout wider society and my aim is to prepare you for them.

We live in an extraordinarily sinister place, an extremely sinister world - of other people, their behavior and intentions, of rulers, or ideas and ideologies.

To underestimate any of this is a 'fatal mistake,' potentially fatal. And it will destroy your mind and your personal self in many ways, if you misjudge certain things as a mature adult.

'Moral imperative' - moral ethos and thus 'idea dominion' - is the contested space; not the actual material world itself.

As we come up upon realized 'AI' into our lives, we are being confronted, if however subtly, with moral relativism versus absolute moral prescription as defined by some, usually religious set of ideas.

'...Unless you go to Morty Sills, the tailor.'

You may not realize this yet, may not have genuinely even perceived it, but everything in human life has two different representations existing alongside each other...

And you can even use a word, employ its generic meaning - and end up with widely differing results or consequences nevertheless.

Okay let's say, for example and for argument's sake, that you are a fundamentalist Christian or an Evangelical Christian or a 'Pentecostal' Christian or a 'any other style' of Christian - and you are suddenly told next week by NASA and the US government, 'oh well, yes it's true we have been contacted by ET aliens...'

Some of the interior of the Hagia Sophia.

Half the world of Christians will say these are 'fallen angels' the other half will automatically say 'demons masquerading as little green-skinned beings,' David Icke will say 'see, I told ya: Reptilians!!' ...And half the Muslims in the world will say 'the Jinn' and the other half 'Shaytan!'

Michio Kaku will say 'no problem, just a statistical certainty come to visit us at last.' Dawkins will say 'ordinary evolution max'd out across the ambit of Cosmic Time and Space.' deGrasse Tyson will just laugh because he is plain nuts anyway.

...And you might go 'oh, I'd better hedge my bets and go - Jesus, if you are out there, I believe, okay?'

And then that will save you, right?

Here is a picture of something. And it is not 'the Blue Mosque.'

This square bit is the Blue Mosque.

The Blue Mosque is a building Sultan Mehmet Ali built alongside the Hagia Sophia to rival the temple, and to exceed it, to demonstrate the supremacy of Islam - which it doesn't and by some distance too.

But that has not prevented you having been misled by the media and by everyone else as to what 'the Blue Mosque' actually is.

Soon, we simply must step away from all of this silly nonsense talk and go back to things like - the lunch scene from the original 'Wall Street' for which we are indebted to Tao-of-Jonz for reminding us about:

Ya Think?

Friends in low places. We all have those, right?

Well you should. 

Yesterday at my local shopping center people were a bit amazed when this old African woman, who usually asks for coins, came up to me, had a few words and then 'high five'd' me.

Great great actress - actually pretending not
to know how to wink and still winking anyway.

...I had noticed earlier that she had this brand new coat on.

So what do you think? Can you guess?

Anyway, years and years ago - many years ago - when there was still a real commodities futures market, this trader for National Australia Bank, who traded for Will Buttrose (Ita Buttrose's brother) by name of 'Wayne G.,' well, we had this competition between us over who would develop this program first that would be able to 'make a million bucks in thirty minutes.'

Prominent Australian, Ita Buttrose - occupies all of the media's attention and you can't get her off the Google Images pages - is currently head of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

In those days it was basically all about the technology, the screens, the live-feeds - and even the Telex private direct lines. Computer processing speed was a thing.

It's all different now and at any rate, even back then, I would prefer to do things the really old fashioned way, by doing direct trades with Mocatta and Degussa and Norilsk and only then, list stuff afterwards on CBOT or COMEX. And I had a Platts membership account. Well most of these things don't even exist anymore (except for the Russians, of course, who have been buying gold bullion like there is no tomorrow for paper junk). Just as a side note, in those days, we thought Bernie Madoff was this private bit-player who maybe had some inherited real estate in slum areas of Chicago - he had a really small, miserably-lit old, old, office in the main city block under some overhead rail tracks...

Argh! We don't remember this! But,
he was dressed by Alan Flusser.

If you had good hand-eye co-ordination and you could think rapidly, you stood a chance of becoming quite proficient taking some scalps in the screen action.

There was one guy, literally a burn-out from Air-Traffic Controlling, who turned his hand to this stuff and within one year ended up owning a large local real estate company, which is still around and still 'big.' But he was also pretty OCD, I thought. 

'A million bucks in thirty minutes' is about the structure, the template, not even the algorithms - and in the end it's also a little bit about 'your belief' because if you believe the Fed will indeed underwrite junk corporate bonds well anyone can still 'make a million' at least on paper and realizable 'on delivery/maturity' whichever comes first. I mean it's just a given that a large amount of deep discounts will be met at 100 cents on the dollar...

'Belief' is eventually linked to 'opportunity cost' choices.

Would you buy Boeing, Ford, Caterpillar, v. pure gold bullion? One will make you a million, and the other will definitely not but it will rise and it will be safe every step along the way.

Who knows? Who knows what choice sits well with any particular individual? If it's only about choice.

But we want BOTH; we want all outcome opportunities fully delivered. That's what we really want. With equivalent risk which is preferably running at 'no risk at all' or near enough to.

So was Roger Stone taking any kind of risk?

'Go to work, Bud.'

He didn't do anything wrong - unless you think him running his mouth is particularly wrong...

I mean Robert Mueller claims that he (Stone) lied to him. 

And this is on the amazing 'proof' that one 'log-in' by Guccifer 2.0 was from the GRU in Moscow, or some IP address said to be used by them. And that was because, 'probably' the GRU officer 'forgot' to use his VoIP security scrambler.

Which then somehow means that Stone necessarily knew that Guccifer was a Russian agent and who had hacked Hillary Clinton's emails.

Yet Roger Stone says he knew/knows who 'Guccifer' is and has offered to say who it is, and that he was not the person from whom Stone had gotten his actual information.

Theoretically, 'Guccifer' is a hacker, called 'Marcel Lehel,' currently in a US prison.

And, I happen to know that this is only very partly correct. But so what? No one cares.

I even asked Lionel Nation to comment on Stone's tailor, the esteemed Alan Flusser, and he literally said to me: 'Who?'

$1,500 a pair. What?!! Yep, and not even by Alan Flusser, either.

But no worries, right; the general media knows more than what we all talk about freely here.

Yeah, so... ...Alan Flusser. Dressed Gordon Gekko.

'Who?' 

Okay so listen to me very carefully - the US Military is not able to deny, that they had a small, highly secretive program, many decades ago, that was intended to monitor, what people like Wernher von Braun had claimed, were, as in literally were, either 'merely' the Lebensborn, albeit a very very clandestine segment of those, or actual human-alien hybrid children 'made' in that project of the Germans during the War.

John Ratcliffe would not be able to deny it, if he were asked about it. Because there are files about it.

Except that no one, so far as I know, at any high level, really treated any of it too seriously after about the Seventies. All the same, you should know, that CIA continued the monitoring, as a soft exercise for their people who were close to retirement from active field operations, and who had previously been well, the very active people... ...as in, you know, blew up bridges in Yugoslavia under cover of being priests and nuns by day; those kind of people.

CIA, nothing if not diligent over time.

And then. And then. Something happened in Florida, see.

More on that when we are allowed to say.

Meanwhile...

It is what it is. 

Ancient Rhum... The Devastation Begins

Sometime ago, a long time ago, in a Galaxy far far away...

A group of people stole a book of war, a book on warfare. And it was stolen from a temple of books, a place no man can go.

And in that book it says that for a time, the Primordial Titan of War, Apollyon, that is, Mars, or Ares, if you will, shall hold the world of human people in his thrall, slaughtering millions and causing DESOLATION. But then, after a long time, his reign will come to an end, and he shall be halted at 'the Gates of Ancient Rhum.'

This is a symbol of hatred, rage and war...

He is appalling, and all of his acts and all the results of what he does are appalling. He is the cause of all Desolation, and his Sacrifice is the sacrifice of arms, the sacrifice of War. He is very sinister and 'double-tongued.' And he manages to convince billions on the Earth that he is in fact himself 'God.' And they begin to love war. And they make war. 

At some point he is refused further entry into Olympus.

He has lost his mind and cannot see his own end, and persists in all of his ways until at last, he moves against 'Ancient Rhum' where is he utterly destroyed, creeping back, mortally wounded, in the black of night into a hole in the dusty desert ground from where he first came.

Modern Islamic scholars have opined that 'Ancient Rhum' means Syria, or Rome, or even Russia.

It is, in Turkey. And it is, very specifically, the Temenos ('place belonging to') the Goddess of Wisdom - 'Sophia' or 'Saga' or any number of other names.

Hubert de Givenchy - related to whom I
cannot say... Okay, I can: JFK

There, at the Temenos, a final fatal action is taken by the Demon, and by which action he seals his own doom. A rock, hits him in the middle of his head, and he dies, albeit slowly.

The word, 'Rhum' means 'Rhomaioi;' the Greeks -, although it specifically means 'Classical people who establish and maintain the civilization of Rome.'

When the Sacrifice of Desolation is set up in the Sacred Place, then you will know, that the End has come.

Run, then into the hills, and hide yourselves, for never before since the Dawn of Mankind, has Mankind ever faced a more terrible time.

Ivan the Terrible. Just means 'awesome.' And between the two, it is the Goddess of War who is the more awesome. 

...Look I mean we can replay this over and over if you like. At least in the modern world we have digital files of stories and of movies and books and histories and actual records of real events.

Pretty soon once your mind no longer sees only in 2-D, you will begin to get a grasp of things as they really are.

'They look and look with their eyes,
but they do not see...'

A lot of people, a lot of identities all the time, harbor this secret inner ambition to rule over everyone they encounter. It is a spiritual forceful 'idea' they have within. 

In the same way, a lot of people make huge - vast - sums of money, and they increase in wealth massively. This is an unseen force, a sweeping tide of fortune that takes them, almost regardless of their skills and talents, up to the highest Earthly places. If you immerse yourself in these forces, get swept along by the power of their tides... ...you will drown.

But if you construct a vessel, that can ensure you are able to withstand the immense power of such sweeping currents and the environment that you cannot breathe in yourself with your human mortal lungs, you will survive, and be taken at last to the top of the very mountain peaks themselves. Where you will look down upon all there is here, and you will see also, what is yet overhead.

If you don't employ drugs, and you don't lose your mind in a trance, even though you can feel the power, you will have your eyes open, and you will see all that you need to see... 

And when you see, with all the available instruments that you have - your mind, your memory, your determination - you will discover what you had never even believed before.

But if you cling on, to what you are insisting is true and real... You will perish.

That surely has to be the Floridian, Emma Kapotes, in there below, dancing and prancing around and trying, to give a hand signal... At about 1:08. The rest are all damn 'out of it!'

David Was A Moabite

So, the Moabites were these ancient people, right, as you know, who were 'the enemies of God.' The legend is that they were the descendants of Lot and his oldest daughter. Lot got away from the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, but it seemed like he was going to be the last of the line of people from those places that had been totally wiped out - until his daughters got him drunk and 'had their way' with him.

Again, to me it's a waste of time worrying about what all this has to do with 'sinning and morality' because the key aspects go once again, missing, when people get onto this 'sin/sinning' bandwagon like they always do. Apparently, in their minds, God is incapable of intervening against ordinary human women and in this case, Lot's daughters - He seems to know many things, but all of a sudden, every now and then, He just goes to sleep or something and some 'bad' or untoward, undesired thing 'happens' under His sleeping nose. And then, instead of wiping out the Moabites - since apparently they were 'bad/evil/against God' - like He did to the S & G's, no, He can't do this again and He has to use 'the Nation of Israel' to go wipe them out... ...eventually. And for some reason He can destroy whole cities but He cannot procure some female for Lot to continue his line with.

The Moabite Stone - aka 'Meshe Stele'
of King Meshe of Moab, around 1000BC.

It's just all a lot of mixed up notions that people have about things that were said to have happened in the ancient past.

Actually, this story is another one of these 'post-Atlantis' narratives. There is one in Greek culture, wherein, the survivors were lucky to live at all, and were pretty traumatized and by the second generation after the catastrophe, all they retained from their original culture, were their names - which the Greeks later said were not 'Greek' in origin and attested to the 'fact' that these people were indeed survivors from the Great Flood of Atlantis. These stories are basically everywhere - American Indian, Sub-Continent Indian, Nordic, they are everywhere.

The Moabites were the survivors from the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah.

So then we're really looking at something that completely pre-dates 'Israel.' 'Lot' means 'veiled.'

So what's veiled within the human race, or the over all genetic pool, so to speak?

'Israel' ends up entirely killing off the 'Moabites.'

Except not, right? Because David was a Moabite.

Now, if you want to 'get' what is there in this short video clip, it's required to take on board that this music is made by Irish fairies... This is straight-out Celtic or Gaelic folk music.

Wikipedia does not deliver the common tale about 'Oh Danny Boy' and how it was composed but it does mention that one of the Irish bards went to Eglinton Castle, in Scotland, and that there are poems there about the 'guid wee green folk' who hide in the bluebells and the foxgloves in Eglinton Woods.

Like an 'elf,' right?

But what I want you to do, is think about the Star Wars 'Death Star,' rather than some run-down moss-covered wooden shack hidden in the glens, with just a thin line of smoke from a small peat fire in the hearth, to show evidence of habitation. Because the music is just too clever by half.

...With us, we all stand around and wait, to see if someone has heard us, when we are deep in the woods, whistling to the fairy folk, asking for a piece of the action from whoever has the pot of gold, or from the silver dancers by the moonlight. It's damp and the light is failing from the end of the day. And there's no one there.

The bluebells of Eglinton Woods...

No one, right.    

At 1:30 in - the fairy stray. ...And watch your step. Because they know exactly, what they are doing.