pretzelogik

I'm trying to make this thread two cents richer. Unfortunately, the metaphorical pennies are words and if the recipients cannot be bothered to read them, so the poorer they stay. One man's bullshit is another's challenge with comprehension. I am apathetic towards voting and politics, not apathetic to a site that claims to be the greatest feel-loss-of-fee conversation in the world that involves itself with the most irrational and errant nonsense as if there were any truth value to be found there. The devolution astounds and concerns but my apathy towards politics abides. So long as the owners control the questions, the answers are irrelevant. Any critique or praise of Trump or Hillary of any other puppet that is paraded before the ones that actually make things and provide services is music to their ears. The Trump deconstruction saturation level of FDR (although, Stef somewhat disingenuously, claims it not to be an endorsement) is for all intents and purposes a confirmation of the system itself. Stef himself has said as much: (I'm paraphrasing but can reference the listener call if no one remembers this) Trump may be the last great white hope as the 100 year peaceful parenting ancap timeline may be annihilated in it's infancy if a political savior doesn't roll back the tide of collectivism for long enough to allow its gestation. Meh. Plus ça change...

I don't know that religion has ever succeeded as providing examples for morality other than to create a system of oppression that maximizes returns for the priest class (productivity stalls when violence is rampant, orderly transfer of capital to successive generations is compromised when parties are adulterous, etc.). I think government and science (or scientism) are doing a far more effective job of maximizing resources for the controllers of late. In the scenario that was detailed above the best case would be to determine who the murderer is before hand and take steps to prevent it, which is and always has been the problem. I think most people have an innate aversion to harming others and as a result have difficulty recognizing when that aversion is absent. The problem is compounded when there are massive institutions in place that are tasked with obscuring the fact that the controllers are devoid of empathy. As far as death goes, we all die at some point, life is not risk free. Until we have a sure fire method of identifying psychopaths, the first trade will always be a risk with each subsequent trade being less risky as trust develops based on experience. None of these ideas require an appeal to morality.

An argument against preemptively killing someone in their sleep could be about unintended consequences. Preemptively killing someone in the deserted island scenario will prevent that person from killing them, sure, but they may end up dying anyway from a situation that two people could have defended against, an accident or a herd of wild animals, etc. Historically, humans benefit the most through trading with one another. Cold calling is generally recognized as a more promising business strategy than cold killing. Morality is a tool used by those who make up the rules to exploit those who follow those rules. Stef has done a great job with UPB of defining morality in terms of consistency. Perhaps the term "morality" should be abandoned all together as it only muddies the water. It's easy to demonstrate whether an action can be universalized and consistently applied, much more difficult with morality. Which, I think is a way of restating what was said above while eliminating the idea of "morality". I think I have heard Stef say that everyone wants to be "good", that gaining control of morality can be a tremendous tool for advancement of the species. I am not so sure everyone wants to be "good", even those we suspect of abiding by noble lies. I can easily imagine people devoid of empathy who have no concern whatsoever about being good and use pragmatism as a guide to their interactions with others. Perhaps they just play the odds: most people shrink from violence, violence can be used to frighten and intimidate, as a strategy it cannot be universalized, but in their hands it can benefit them in transactions 85 out of 100 times. No morality, no consistency, but good enough odds to make it worthwhile. I am sure the owners of this plantation have pretty good data on how this works. I have been thinking lately about Varys' (Game of Thrones character) riddle about power. That's the ticket...

Are you the self appointed arbiter of who posts what and where or has that responsibility been conferred to you from on high? Thank you for setting me straight. Do you have any other words of advice, such as how often I should blink or which shoe lace goes under which when I tie my sneakers?

I have no answer other than to be apathetic to the entire political system. I have no interest in which Crip, Blood or Mafia Don has killed or stolen the most, I don't see why I should be interested in any other gangs and their plans to dominate or ration condolences. The same goes for the mainstream media narrative. I have long since given up believing that the MSM has any sort of objectivity whatsoever and there is no reason to doubt that they frequently create stories of whole cloth. That said, apathy is the appropriate response to the MSM, as it is obvious by the amount of effort and resources poured into it that it is important to them that people are absorbing it. Which by default means that it is in my self interest to ignore it. Critiquing and analyzing the narrative, which much of the time is like as not to be entirely fictitious, is a flavor of endorsement, as the answers do not matter to the plantation owners since they are controlling the questions. Steps toward striking at the root would be to ignore everything emanating from the MSM and to shun the polling places. Sadly, we are still a ways from that yet, like a married couple who watches television as a way of avoiding the unpleasant truth that they have nothing to say to each other.

Who is responsible for conferring the stamp of validity on the material that emanates from the MSM? If it's a tautology, it's a tautology...

I hear Dancing w/the Stars is a perennial favorite, along with American Idle

Smedley Butler thought otherwise. This site has become an echo chamber of mainstream narrative and programming. I should just don a NASA t-shirt and a Make America Great again ball cap while I sit quivering with indignation in my Barcalounger as Jeanine Pirro entreats me to "Bomb them." The difference in logic and consistency would be statistically insignificant.

Of course, by contrast, US Marines are free thinking individuals who carefully weigh the ramifications of their orders prior to executing them.

The controllers of the perception matrix most refer to as reality are likely not so out of touch with the psychological motivations of the herd that they would institute a static as opposed to a dynamic system. So Trump may be one of a number of potential "nominees" that could be tested and confirmed or rejected depending on that data that is harvested as a result of the media generated for/against Trump. Ditto Bernie, Hillary, Cruz, et al. The owners will milk the herd whether the pumps are diesel or solar powered. The number of unchallenged assumptions involved in this political farce is mind-numbingly staggering, yet most of the commentary leads me to believe that people are emotionally invested enough to believe they have a choice and their choice will somehow make a difference. Perception is the only thing of value to the controllers. People maintain the idea that the system is legit and even though they may grumble about taxes, they ultimately trust the system to sort itself out. Voila! Welcome to another eight years of violation and pillage under the wise and faithful leadership of Trum-hillar-nie-cruzio. The only thing any of the psychopaths behind the curtain fear is apathy. The kleptocrats will take notice when no one shows up at the polls, not before.

How does anyone here know if the votes are even counted? Are if they are counted whether the result is ignored? If they are counted and the result is used to place a particular person into a particular "office", does that person have any accountability in abiding by campaign promises? If he chooses to abide by them, does he have any power to affect change? Since the system is fundamentally set up to harvest the productivity of the human capital in a particular geographical region, aren't elections analogous to cows on a ranch voting for better living conditions? The ranchers will provide the cows enough food and medicine to make sure they are turned into bigger steaks, but it has nothing to do with the preference of the cows. In all likelihood, the outcome of the 2016 presidential race was decided years ago and will follow a script that has been written by the owners of Ranch USA. In the script for Ranch USA, the human capital is encouraged to make their support for the system that harvests them known to the harvesters as it gives them valuable feedback about where the fences need reinforcement. So, by all means vote and brighten the day of a kleptocrat. I would avoid standing in line to do so, unless you really enjoy standing in lines.

Is this conclusion any different than saying we should be correct because it's moral?

That's right you charlatans! if you don't swallow the stories fed to you by the main stream media whole, with no skepticism or due diligence, you are a bunch of basement dwelling, cheez doodle eating, neck beards who deserve the full wrath of the true believers. Away to the dunking pond with all o' ye!

Touche! Edit: After having a prolonged and no doubt politically incorrect laugh about my upbraiding, I realized it may have been at the expense of insensitivity toward those with more than the median level of melanin in their skin. I don't think it would be going out on a limb to suggest that the ethnic groups listed above may be demographically underrepresented in Mensa, but I don't know that would hold true for libertarians/anarchists. (Why even bother with libertarians? I'd as soon play just the tip) My experience with those who would be identified as "white" has been near 100% rejection of anarchy, so I am not sure that assuming a near 100% anarchy rejection rate of those who would be identified as being "of color" is instructive. It sure is funny, though. La Raza Panthers of ISIL for Abolition of Government - LRPIAG for short. I'll keep an eye out.

Would that I had ancaps in my real life social circle. The ones that i have connected with virtually have evidenced an ability to critically evaluate things with consistency in a way that I have not necessarily seen demonstrated by those that identify themselves as having a high IQ, especially in regard to statism. i would hazard a guess that this is due to the relationship of academia to the state. I would be curious to know how many Mensa members have not matriculated through academia. As far as IQ and race, I don't see any value in generalizing.

Let us know when you find a Mensa meeting full of anarchists.

I heard Karen Straughn say that rape is a crime that depends on the state of mind of the parties: The victim has to be opposed and the perpetrator has to be aware of the victim's opposition and proving these states of mind can be challenging for the courts. As far as responsibility goes, if victims, (which is a misnomer if we ascribe blame to those parties) are to blame, that would mean that the perpetrators have no responsibility for using force to have their way. This makes no sense whatsoever.

I scanned through the article looking for the relevant bits to the initial question and the information there seemed to support the implications behind the question regarding evidence about whether the wishes of the informed matter to those who implement. The article pointed out the failures of observation of laws and lack of consequences for those failures. It may be beyond the author to understand the selection of Japan as a site for the Olympics, but my understanding is that the owners of the ranch care not about the desires of the herd.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that what you (as well as many people as can be convinced to share your concerns, even if it is a groundswell) think is important or not concerning nuclear power can have any influence over those who decide whether to use or not use nuclear power? Also, a few years back I got all wound up listening to Alex Jones and bought some iodine tablets (at some probably drastically inflated price,as everyone was prepping) that are still collecting dust on a shelf to do what little I could to keep my organs intact once the killer wave of radiation made it across the Pacific. Well, that didn't happen. Since you have done the research, can you explain how such a monumental threat disappeared into the ether perhaps never to be heard from again? Also, have you ever been to one of the contaminated sites or do you know anyone that has?

This could be a race issue after Barack is out of office... https://youtu.be/JrFcuk5WDM4?t=32s

Government Conspiracies Are Impossible No, there is no mistake in the title. Before all the tin foil hat nutters rush from the woodwork with citations about Operation Paper Clip, Northwoods, Mockingbird, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and of course JFK, 9/11 and the plethora of media events that crop up on what seems to be a daily basis, we should start with definitions and context. Let us tackle them in order of difficulty. By difficulty, I mean the ability to achieve clarity about the terminology, which may be in stark contrast to the terminology as it is currently understood in common parlance. Wikipedia defines conspiracy thusly: Conspiracy (civil), an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights or to gain an unfair advantage Conspiracy (criminal), an agreement between persons to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement Conspiracy (political), an agreement between persons with the goal of gaining political power or meeting a political objective The common thread between the various types of conspiracies is that they are defined in terms of legality. Although the third definition does not use the words legal or law, politics exists only within a legal framework. Merriam-Webster defines conspiracy as: “a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal” Although, it may be argued that the government could conspire to do something harmful, governmental adjudicators will be the arbiters of what constitutes harm, so we are still conspiring within a framework of legality. Moving on to the second definition, that of government. What exactly is government? There are a great number of people who identify themselves as government: postal workers, police, military, legislators, public service agencies of every stripe. To reference Wikipedia: A government is the system by which a state or community is controlled. This is still a bit ambiguous as the words community and state are not clear. The word control is operative, yet not concise. Merriam-Webster defines the term as: the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc. a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc. Once again, we see the words control (not concise) and state. Wikipedia has this to say: A state is an organized political community living under a single system of government Here we are faced with a tautology, where synonymous words are used to define one another. We may gain some understanding by introducing those that comprise the state, the citizens, into the equation (although this is also unclear, as the state is both simultaneously comprised of and separate from, the citizens). Merriam-Webster has this to say about citizens: “a person who legally belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country” Some may take exception to the idea of legally “belonging” to a country (I certainly do) so Merriam-Webster’s alternative definition below may offer something more palatable: “a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it” This may seem more equitable if not for the fact that in every single instance where the failure of the state to protect has been challenged, the state courts have ruled, unsurprisingly, in favor of the state. The fact of the matter is, that there are no such things as a states, countries or governments. The ground does not change alchemically when one steps across the imaginary line between the USA and Mexico. Borders exist in the imagination, along with the supposed countries bounded by them. I prefer to understand government in terms of the way those identify themselves as such operate and provide funding for themselves, which was elocuted in a rare moment of candor by Barack Obama here. Whatever our desires and expectations are regarding government and the state, and to whatever degree those expectations and desires are met, it is always important to understand that those services are funded by violence or the threat thereof. Those identifying themselves as the state may build roads (or direct funding to private contractors who build roads) whether you have requested them or not, and you will pay for them whether you like it or not. There may be a net benefit, but it will be unmeasurable, as the benefit will have come at the expense of something that may have been more beneficial had it been consented to by all the concerned parties. A great number of so-called government conspiracies have been involved with the idea of spurring the government into protective action in response to some perceived threat, be it real or fabricated. What is often overlooked is that there is no such thing as protection by government in the first place regarding life, liberty and property, as we are coerced into relinquishing these on a regular basis by the very same entity tasked with providing protection for them. As far as the law goes, is it possible for those in government to break laws? A broken law is not analogous to a broken vase, where the evidence of the infraction is obvious and inescapable. A law breaker is simply one who is not acting in accordance with what someone else proscribed as acceptable behavior. If no one is there to witness the contrary behavior, that is as far as it goes; the only evidence of the law being broken is the degree to which the proscribed consequences of breaking it are enforced. If there is a law against jaywalking at a particular intersection and someone walks through it in opposition to the signal in full view of enforcement officers on a regular basis with no reaction or response, it is the same as if the law does not exist. Similarly, it is important to understand that all laws are selectively enforced and do not apply equally to everyone. This is wholly compatible with something that is conjured by an imaginary entity to begin with. Anyone with any familiarity with the legal system knows that there is a great deal of latitude and discretion in how laws and their consequences are applied. In fact, the entire system is based on the idea that the laws cannot and should not apply equally to everyone. So, in terms of conspiracy, if those identifying themselves as government were to conspire to break the law, some other person or group of persons would have to observe the infraction and impose consequences. This may or may not happen, but there are absolutely no mechanisms in place to insure that it does happen. There are by contrast a number of mechanisms in place to make sure that certain “governmental” types are impervious to the consequences of breaking laws, such as sequestering of evidence, national security restrictions, FOIA requirements, etc. If it is a bridge too far to imagine that the government would prosecute itself, surely public outrage over governmental lawbreakers would provide the impetus for the “honest” government types to sanction the bad actors - provided the public were aware of the blatant and willful violation of the laws created by some government types by other government types. This is where we pay homage to the ever watchful and objective media, who exist to inform the public and corral the rogue elements. Or do they? While we are questioning fundamental assumptions, such as the fundamental nature of government and/or the state, we should also question the assumption of whether the forms of mass communication that are commonly referred to as “the Media” exist to inform. Considering the vast number of people in the world, as well as those no longer with us (today’s media accounts are tomorrow’s history books, after all) who are constantly engaging with one another and creating their own current and historical narratives, the very act of deciding which stories are worthy of the focus and mighty distribution apparatus of the media is in itself a filter or lens. For the filter or lens to have any merit as a disseminator of truth, it must first and foremost be objective (inasmuch as objectivity is possible, which it isn’t, as focusing the lens creates bias) and disinterested. There are numerous examples that point to the symbiotic nature of government and media. Any cursory examination of any major newspaper will reveal this particular bias simply by the sheer number of pages devoted to government related issues. Deciding where not to focus the lens is also of similar importance where credibility is concerned as is evidenced by David Rockefeller when speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle), who had this to say about the subject: "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years." He went on to explain: "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." Another example of how media is less invested in the role of watchdog than facilitator can be illustrated here by Walter Cronkite when he said the following when accepting the 1999 Norman Cousins Global Governance Award: “It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government [emphasis mine] patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a l ot of faith in the new order. But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen.” The Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California receives federal grant money to promote government agendas: "We know from research that when people watch entertainment television, even if they know it's fiction, they tend to believe that the factual stuff is actually factual," said Martin Kaplan of the University of Southern California's Norman Lear Center, which received the grant. Every branch of the US military is open to negotiation for featuring components of its arsenal in films and television programs in exchange for promotional content as can be ascertained by the viewing of any recent blockbuster action offering. The repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act removes a hurdle to domestic propaganda, which may have been an obstacle to some if such laws were applied and enforced, although no more. And of course, there is the simple fact that there are no real obstacles to the media in regard to presenting false information as real. According to the FCC: As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated publicly that "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest." The FCC may act to protect the public interest when it has received documented evidence, such as testimony from persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene. They MAY intervene? When those who have perpetrated the lie come forth with documented evidence of the lies they themselves perpetrated? Fox (CNN, NBC, ABC, et al.) and the henhouse, I say. Aside from questioning the fundamental assumptions surrounding government, conspiracy and the media, there is one final objection that is often cited by those who cling to official stories, which is the “there would be too many people involved, someone would talk” objection. It is generally accepted that there are secret government programs operating in the present, as well as those that have fulfilled their secret objectives in times past for some “legitimate” purpose. The Manhattan Project is an example of a supposedly large number of people, somewhere in the neighborhood of half a million, who kept their mouths shut as directed, for as long as they were directed to do so. This is an entirely different subject which deserves its own detailed examination in terms of so-called conspiracy, but that is better left for another time. Of course, this assumption is based on the idea that there would be an outlet that would welcome such information. It may be instructive to examine the success ratio of Serpico types of individuals who have attempted to report the misdeeds of their fellow police officers to see an example of this type of whistle blowing in action. Of course, failing corrective action being taken by the enforcement apparatus of the organization being exposed by the whistle blower, he would have the option of going to the state supported and funded media outlets. Once again, a comparison of the infractions committed by police officers available at Copblock.Org or FilmingCops to those reported by mainstream media outlets is instructive. So, in consideration of government conspiracies, fundamental assumptions must be evaluated. Governments and states do not exist, except in the imagination. By extension, neither do their laws, which have only as much power as deterrents as do their interpretation and application, which rely on the same people that are committing the infractions to be the enforcers. The assumption that government is tasked with protection is purely a result of public relations, as it should be obvious that safety cannot be provided by the entity that has a mandate to violate it. Finally, in regard to public relations, this is the primary purpose of the media, whether in creating the current narrative or reprising the historical one, always with the aim of promoting the sanctity of the state. Sure, there may be some bad apples, but rest assured the system is working tirelessly and effectively to root them out and keep us safe. The government/media apparatus surely is working tirelessly and effectively (sadly) through a near continuous parade of manufactured narratives that have all the narrative creation tools of Hollywood at their disposal. Although it is no conspiracy, the mainstream version of the narrative presented by the media has as much to do with reality as any Hollywood production and probably less. In the immortal words of Mark Twain: “The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible.”

Are you of the opinion that individuals tasked with confiscation of resources using whatever force is necessary up to and including murder and are exempt from the laws they create and use to control and coerce are above lying? Also, were you referring to the guy below? Or were you talking about the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

That's a fair response, Ribuck. The Saturn photo struck me as something that could in no way whatsoever be a film capture of an actual object, thus the evidence of it being a composite (of something) was simply confirmation. The experience of our senses is subjective and as it is admitted to being a composite, then it is proof of nothing if your sense data interprets it as an actual object. If you do not find it questionable whether NASA has lenses available to resolve images such as that from 13,000,000 miles that is your prerogative. I find it curious that NASA does not use the advanced technology at its disposal to provide real, or near real time pictures of earth or the discarded moon hardware, but perhaps it could be explained as a lack of priority. The lack of priority also is evident in the fact that one would have to look long and hard to find any evidence of things that NASA does that provide observable benefits to humanity as opposed to things that advance the agenda of the state. As it is a military institution, this is to be expected. What it boils down to is authority and belief and we all choose what to believe or which authorities to trust. Empiricism only extends to what we take in through our own senses, anything else amounts to trust in whoever is providing the narrative and whatever "evidence" is used to support it. The quotations were not sarcastic, images are merely that, it is up to us to decide whether they are worthy of our trust. The same goes for moon rocks and the rest, if I did not pick them up , they are just matter. If a scientist tells me they do not contain enough water to have been formed on earth, well, that is what he told me. I have come to the conclusion that the tax farm is largely managed through the manufacture of consent, to borrow from Chomsky (not a fan, BTW, but the phrase is appropriate), and consent is more easily and efficiently achieved through fraud and deception than direct force. I see no particular reason to limit the discussion to NASA, as the deception has been going on for much longer than they have been around and is getting more prevalent by the day. The sooner we become aware of the methods of control the sooner we can extricate ourselves. Exposing media manipulation at a site where critical thinkers congregate seemed like an opportunity to nudge things toward a tipping point, but we all do things in our own time. Thanks for your due diligence and response.

Does this give them credibility in terms of climate change? Big fans of the IPCC, apparently. There are a number of scientists who would dispute the facts listed on the NASA climate change evidence page. Should they be dismissed because NASA?

So, are we to infer that the field of view from 13,000,000 miles is too narrow to encompass the entire planet, thus requiring the montage?