Archive for January 10th, 2007

Alan

NOT SPAM

NOT SPAM

Stalin had little use for intellectuals, Stalin was a man from the street and a thug, he used manipulation and force to accuire his aims. Intellecuals were usefull idiots in his view and when they wore out their usefullness he would dispose of them, they feared Stalin and here he was a thug with average intelligence ans a speaker who was duller that John kerry. Stalin is only remember because of his ruthlessness, he collectivised the farms and saved communism from fascism, life meant lettle to Stalin and intellectuals were at the bottom of his food chain.

Comment by Alan

ME:

Alan apparently glanced at what I wrote, say the name “Stalin,” and wrote what he would have siad if I had never been born.

If you will take a look that piece you were commenting on, Alan, you will notice that the entire thing was dedicated to why we are trained to think of Stalin as “Stalin was a man from the street and a thug” as opposed to the “intellectuals.”

I stated SPECIFICALLY why Stalin was no more a thug than Lenin or Trotsky. There was nothing intellecutal about either of them. They were peabrains who couldn’t handle the big leagues when Stalin came after them.

Hey, gang, try READING an article before you comment on it!

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

No Comments

How Fast Does Psi Move?

For many years Duke University had the only program dedicated to proving or disproving ESP, extra-sensory perception. Actually the term extra-sensory perception is misleading, because if we have a sixth sense, it is not extrasensory.

Identical twins have an interrelationship for which we have only anecdotal accounts. There is evidence that, to a certain extent, identical twins share the same “self.” We have not the slightest idea why we have this “I” inside us, whereas as far as we know a computer has no more realization of its own existence than a rock does.

It may or may not be googable, but it would interesting to find out whether Duke ever tested this identical twin identity.

I wrote around this subject of “self” below, when I said that, since we can’t even recognize the 2% of our population, which means you know a number of them, which consists of pure sociopaths, people with no guilt feelings at al, how can we say that people of other RACES have the same feelings inside that we do.

We know NOTHING about the self. All of our sciences tell us flatly that the “selfhood” possessed by every man, woman, do and cat and bird on this plant CANNOT EXIST. I am talking about this whole experience you and I live with every day, the one through which we feel pain and joy and boredom and the only thing that really MATTERS in the universe.

But science tells us that this is no more real than ghosts.

Than GHOSTS!

I am not getting mystical on you here. It is very hard to discuss this and keep people from sliding off the deep end about me hinting at something. I don’t hint. I believe that science works just fine. I believe that the self is simply something that is preternatural; something that we simply know exists, since we are US, but cannot be demonstrated by present-day science.

But when you say that all people are the same beneath their skin, you are presuming knowledge nobody has any inkling of. That was the point I mad, and it was an important one.

But when I make a point, somebody goes toddling off on something they are used to thinking about. One reader, whom I jumped one, went right into how everybody was the same under the skin and assimilation and so forth. As far as the point I actually made, he simply didn’t hear it.

Ted Bundies lawyer friends thought he was just like everybody else. They SAID so. They TESTIFIED to it. But inside Ted was as alien as any Martian. But the reader didn’t see that point at all. He just went into the usual flitter about how his colored friends bathe and speak good English so they must be just like him.

It makes me tired all over when someone acts like he is commenting when he is just repeating his tape recording.

Anyway, back to this ESP business. Our speed of communication in space is limited by the speed of light. But if two identical brains were developed, identical twins, would communication between THEM be limited the same way? If identical twins have any shared selfhood, it is completely outside of science as we know it. So if twin A is on Alpha Centauri 4.6 light-years away, his connection with the other twin may still be instantaneous. After all, this is not two people communicating, this is the same person.

If we ever found that was true, then we could simplify it until all communications in space were handled this way.

Already this speed of communication is problem is noticeable. You watch a reporter in Iraq being asked a question, and then the noticeable delay before he starts to answer. Each side of the talk must go up 14,000 miles to the satellite, then back down to him. That is a fraction of second, but normal conversation occurs at about 240 words per minute, so this break is noticeable, since it goes on BOTH ways.

I remember when Nixon talked to the first astronauts to land on the moon in 1969. We didn’t use satellites then, and we were used to radio and telephone. So it seemed like a HUGE delay when he and the astronauts had to wait three second for the telephone comment to get to the moon and back at light speed. And the moon is next door astronomically. When the satellite passed Jupiter we had to wait something like an hour for the pictures to get back here.

Alpha Centrauri is our next door star, and a question and answer would take ten years to travel there and back. So how fast does Pi, this shared self, move, if it exists at all?

It used to be ridiculous for people to worry about things like the speed of light. But every day the theoretical becomes practical, and what used to be practical becomes as outdated as using a whole computer to add and subtract.

I am sure someone will tell me that Psi moves just as fast for people regardless of the color of the skin, but that is not what I am writing about.

I did a whole piece about the specific problem I had with monomaniacal anti-Semites who interrupted a point I was making to blame it all on Jews. I received an agonized reply about how I was calling anyone a zithead who talked about Jews.

This is the old “So you are saying my mother is ugly” bit I keep talking about. I go to a lot of trouble to make a SPECIFIC point and then the person I am talking to, who seems to have been in a coma while I talked, looks angry and says, “So what you’re saying is that my mother is ugly!” When I made my living at this I had to put up with crap like that and try to calm the person down and try to understand HOW my comment on the economics of Pakistan somehow could be construed in his mind to refer to his mother.

But I don’t HAVE to do crap like that any more.

AND by now my commenters should be able to do it FOR me, though their silence in the latter case disgusted me.

No, I am not interested in your Mommy or your colored friends. It is hard enough to get my point if you pay attention. The time you spend defending Mommy or Sambo would be better spent looking back over what I actually said and trying to USE Mantra Thinking.

I did not start this blog so we could go on endlessly getting tangled into what I meant and standard ideas you were thinking about before you read what I said. The world is crammed with publications and online stuff for you to do that with.

I want commenters who read, read again, think, and then come up with something productive. There are very, precious few people who can do that. Others are welcome. But that few are the ones I am LOOKING for.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

6 Comments

Mantra Logic II

To avoid lawsuits, let me make this theoretical.

When cable television was first getting started, most cities licensed somebody with pull to have a city monopoly. Reader’s Digest had a feature article telling how cities which did NOT give our monopolies got much better service and lower prices.

DUH!

In any given city, the people with the head start set up the bureaucratic, rigid, inefficient and expensive cable systems we have today. Today they are one solid mass of monopolies.

Some cable systems had a problem. Someone had read the Reader’s Digest articles and some towns made room for start-up, efficient cable. In such cities, an advisor was called in and he said what Bob’s Mantra logic says, “You want to protect your monopoly. Start a campaign against monopolies.”

This gentleman called a Ralph Nader-type consumerist group which took on such matters. The consumer group was a biggy, and their agenda is making government bigger, using consumers as their excuse as similar groups with t heir own agenda use the environment or minorities.

So the TV monopoly’s advisor called them up, as he had before, and asked their help in fighting the town monopoly. Lawsuits were brought, regulation was increased. The cable monopoly was part of a national chain. So when the consumer group came to town, all this big company had to do was turn this paperwork over to its legal staff. They had dealt with the whole thing before and everything they needed was already in the file.

But for the tiny start-up cable groups all this paperwork was entirely new. They were good at CABLE. They knew how to set up a cable system, but they had no idea what to do about the lawsuits or how to deal with the city, state, and county governments, community groups, the Federal Communications Commission and everything else a “consumerist” group could throw at them. They could not afford to hire lawyers by the hour to catch up on this stuff for them.

All competition with the monopoly folded.

So the bottom line was what it always is. In the name of anti-monopoly, we now have monopoly cable in every jurisdiction I know of.

By the way, the cable monopoly showed how it did not mind consumers watching it by making a huge contribution to the anti-monopoly watchdog group. Such good deeds never go unrewarded. The city approved a rate increase to cover the monopoly’s legal and paperwork costs and the contribution.

Hate is routinely promoted in the name of anti-hate.

But back to monopolies. In the 1880s the monopoly aspect of the railroad industry, the price agreements made openly, caused a reaction. The South was kept in absolute poverty until after World War II by agreed-on freight rates that absolutely prohibited industry in the South. No one mentions this today, of course. Historians say the South was poor because it was Evil.

So the government took action on railroad freight states. It set up the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate those rates. The ICC then made those price agreements into law. Every regulatory agency belongs to the industry it “regulates.” What the ICC did, as anti-monopoly movements usually do, was to give the worst aspects of the gougers a matter of law.

Once the ICC was under way, railroad magnates never had to worry about competition in the railroad industry again. Reagan finally abolished the ICC after almost exactly 100 years of existence. He did so specifically to allow competition. The ICC had been keeping any other means of transportation from competing with the railroads by using the rails. For example, they made it difficult to piggyback trucks.

The National Association of Manufacturers, which represents big business, is more liberal, or “reasonable,” about government regulation than is the Chamber of Commerce, which has a small-business constituency. Whe ti comes to Federal regulation, the CC comes off as a bunch of greedy fanatics, whereas the NAM is good and solid and moderation incarnate.

If anybody were able to think, they would realize that the NAM is more than moderate about these things. Big government means that nothing but big business is viable. No company with less than several billion dollars in assets can get into the auromoboile industry today. Environmental regulations dictate the exact shape of every car. The list of agencies at every level to which a car company must report is endless, and each one has plenty of reasons to make things hard on them.

The public cheers. The NAM “gracefully accepts” the government regulation while laughing up its sleeve.

This is ALWAYS the case. This is the most standard tactic on earth, but nobody gets it. You won’t read about it anywhere but here.

The National Association of Manufacturers, which represents big business, is more liberal, or “reasonable,” about government regulation than is the Chamber of Commerce, which has a small-business constituency. When it comes to Federal regulation, the CC comes off as a bunch of greedy fanatics, whereas the NAM is good and solid and moderation incarnate.

Jerry Fordism triumphs again.

If anybody were able to think, they would realize that the NAM is more than “moderate” about increased government regulation. Big government means that nothing BUT big business is viable. No company with less than several billion dollars in assets can get into the automobile industry today. Environmental regulations dictate the exact shape of every car. The list of agencies at every level to which a car company must report is endless, and each one has plenty of reasons to make things hard on them.

The public cheers. The NAM “gracefully accepts” the government regulation while laughing up its sleeve.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

4 Comments