Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

How Fast Does Psi Move?

Posted by Bob on January 10th, 2007 under Coaching Session, Musings about Life


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
  1. #1 by Dave on 01/10/2007 - 7:52 pm

    NOT SPAM
    NOT SPAM

    This business of self-hood and consciousness is another area where people have entirely forgotten that is used to be a big subject.

    I have heard that the explanation is Walt Disney and his anthropomorphic Mickey Mouse cartoons. I put a lot stock in that because it astounds me that it is so widely taken for granted that animals have human-like consciousness.

    What nonsense. There is an autistic consultant to the feedlot industry who uses her autism to gain insight into cow consciousness and then she advises operators on how to modify their fencing and shoots so as to not rile the cows.

    The essence of autism is a lack of “human feeling”, so some autistic people have a leg up on seeing the truth of animal perception. Animal perception isn’t pretty, and our “new-age” eco-spiritualists who now dominate this subject will have none of it (truth, that is). Also, these spiritualists hate autistic people because autism gets in the way of their consolations.

    But, of course, the other reason this subject is off limits is that is leads right into racial and human origin theories, and we can’t have that, can we?

    But BW is simply reminding us that this subject is forbidden. Myself, I believe that animals are not really conscious, only seemingly so, as they are really just stimulus and response systems. The intriguing thing is how they are able to completely fool us in their emulation of consciousness. Nature has a great story to tell in that.

    Probably consciousness stems from walking erect with the head at the top, and not in middle or elsewhere. That is a very old idea, but one that seems plausible to me, but science must get back to working on this despite the prevailing PC religion forbidding it.

  2. #2 by Pain on 01/10/2007 - 10:16 pm

    NOT SPAM
    NOT SPAM

    Shared selves work like this. Imagine you are at a party with a lot of people scattered over the ground floor. You are sitting down sipping punch. You are carrying on a conversation with the woman sitting next to you. You are also evesdropping on your best friend’s conversation that he is having while standing up sipping champagne. A football game is on TV, and in the next room someone is playing some music.

    If you focused on all of this at once, you would have hard time making intelligent conversation. So you focus on what thing at a time and filter out all the other noise. Each change of focus, you walk into another mini world.

    If there are multiple shared selves and you were able to step back in the network just far enough to catch each at the same time, it would be like watching a TV screen split into multiples section, each with its own program. When you focus on one program, the other programs partially disappear from your mind. But if you try to watch every program at once, you wouldn’t get as much from each program.

    But a funny thing happens when you switch from focus to focus. You develop an almost independent line of memory. When you switch from conversation to conversation or from program to program, you remember what was going on there, although when focussed elsewhere, it seemed like you forgot it.

    This is how shared selves might look like. Each self is like an iPod hooked to a computer. Each iPod may be unaware of the other iPods, but if you hooked each up to the same desktop computer, at the computer you could monitor each of the iPods. If you regard the computer as your primary or hub self, then each iPod is just a subset, a different focus, a different aspect of your personality.

    Yes there is evidence that twins share the same soul, or self. But some twins, although they are identical, do not seem to share the same personality; although their bodies and brains are the same, something is clearly different at a deeper level. Thus identical twin studies that suggest the same personality or a very different personality underscore that underneath what we see as “us,” there is a very real self. This self is natural and exists on its own. All identical twins have the same abilities because they have the same bodies and brains. But some identical twins show remarkable differences in how they chose to use those abilities; they different preferences, different personalities.

    I know two twins who at 14 are 6’7″ blond and smart. I wish I could have been like them at 14. Both are good at basketball and both are also creative. However one twin prefers to play basketball above all other things in life, whereas the other prefers to write and indeed has already made good progress on a book. Their mother tells me their personalities are surprisingly different.

    They have the same environment. Their differences would have to be explained by something besides environment or heredity, and the concept of self would explain the differences completely.

    More interesting are those twins that Bob was speaking of. There are many anecdotes of twins sharing pain, feeling each others emotions, knowing each other’s thoughts. This sharing in some instances could be explained by their sharing a close psychic link by reason of their sharing the same body chemistry and a deep emotional bond. But some of these twins have so many feelings and sensations in common that could be better explained if they are in fact the same person split in two different bodies.

  3. #3 by YearningForFreedom on 01/10/2007 - 10:41 pm

    NOT SPAM

    NOT SPAM

    I read this post twice, so I will attempt to comment on it — at the risk of sounding like an anti.

    We are dealing with the unknown, but I think if the other races had a higher sociopathic element it would be noticeable in a generation. It would also be noticeable in their nations of origin. You might be able to make a case for blacks, as they riot from time to time. Maybe Mexicans too, considering what I heard about them in the past year. What about people from the large, diverse continent of Asia? Any reason to believe their sociopathic rate would be higher than 2%?

    You seem to be considering them more than non-White — actually non-human — like they are zombies living among us. I’m not sure you could get many white people to believe that non-whites are Ted Bundies that are gonna get them one day — except the ones who look forward for that Race War. We could make a lot of What-if scenarios — what if they have some superpowers or some other nonsense? Any reason why your scenario should be taken very seriously?

    In your 12/25/2006 post you say, ” the astounding number of psychopaths in our society and the Politically Correct view of skin color. I pointed out that two percent of the people who look just like us are psychopaths, and we don’t know it until too late.”

    Well, you might be suggesting that separate races living among each other will awaken the psychopath within the introduced race. Possible, or it could be ethnic conflict — since neighbors tend to fight. Or could be more race war fantasy.

    Continuing, you say, “Now here is the point. If you cannot tell that a person who has his entire evolutionary history in common with you [is a sociopath], how do you then turn right around and insist, “No matter what the color of the skin, all humans think and feel alike.”

    This has to be a strawman. This is not even said by politically correct multiracialists. Even they admit differences among the races, although they describe the qualities of the non-white races in complementary ways (ie: in the workplace, blacks are empathic, asians are methodological, etc).

    To be fair, here is what one politically correct multiracialist says: “Most of this racial-differences mumbo-jumbo is wormed over human genetics stuff that was analyzed, dissected, and ultimately deemed irrelevant to running a compassionate democracy about two decades ago. Sure, books like the Bell Curve have brought the subject all over again. But, for most Americans, it’s a big yawn.”

    Anyone find Bob’s argument compelling? I have trouble understanding it.

    -Al Parker

  4. #4 by Alan on 01/11/2007 - 2:01 am

    NOT SPAM

    NOT SPAM

    Its funny, here on Earth where communication is almost instantanous, what usefull information we do exchange is often disregarded or swep under the rug by an establishment that thinks it already has all the answers. This same establishment would rather immagine news being relayed back to earth from another solar system, it never dawns on this person that any news that arrives is already old news to the sender, really old news. We continue to debate issues that came under debate decades ago, the only problem IS, we never came to any scientific conclusions that put the debate to rest. A coon dog is no good if it chases after a deer every chance it gets.

  5. #5 by Pain on 01/11/2007 - 2:16 am

    NOT SPAM
    NOT SPAM

    “Now here is the point. If you cannot tell that a person who has his entire evolutionary history in common with you [is a sociopath], how do you then turn right around and insist, “No matter what the color of the skin, all humans think and feel alike.”

    In other words, “he not only looks like you and me, he even shares most of our genes. But inside he is a totally different character. Where I feel compassion for others, he is empty; where I feel pain, he feels confident; where I feel joy, he can only pull he edges of his lips up into a smile. Inside this body of a man is no man.”

    “If the man who looks like exactly you and me can be entirely different, how utterly alien are the blacks, yellows, and reds who do not even look like you and me and have a different genetic history.”

    “If a man who looks just like you and me can be so utterly unlike us on the inside, how can anyone claim that those unlike us are just like us on the inside?”

  6. #6 by Bolg on 01/11/2007 - 5:42 am

    NOT SPAM

    NOT SPAM

    “…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…”

    Serves me right for imagining I’d be smart enough to push your buttons…

    Common sense: jews matter only as much as they could hurt us. Not more, no less. The “Jared Taylor approach” is dangerous – he thinks he’s using them. This is very cheeky and very stupid.

    What is there must be acknowledged, not swept aside. Nothing “mono” about that.
    Once in a while.
    Just to make sure.
    I know it’s boring. You cannot play your grand piano all the time. You need to wash the dishes once in a while, lest you forget where the kitchen is.

    That’s it. I am forever done with the “jewish question” (in here).

    Emotion adds to a presentation, makes it compelling. It’s the аbility to speak in pictures. An example: Kurt Vonnegut. Ever wondered why his books were never filmed (two exceptions, both crappy)? That sums it up on “agonizing”.

    I’m here to learn. Slight jabs won’t make me go away.

You must be logged in to post a comment.