♫♪ ( ( ◙=◙ ) ) ♫♪ @soundwave@qoto.org

Is the Russian invasion of Ukraine at its core: a money grab by the Russian Oligarchs - is it in fact simply a "hostile takeover" with human lives being one of the metrics of "acceptable losses"?

Or is it more a case of Putin being a megalomaniac and is flexing to maintain leadership among those Oligarchs?

A person with "Dysfunction, Exec"
Said "I must have a hole in my neck!
Since my thoughts just leak out
No matter how much I shout,
'Oh drat!','Fiddlesticks!', 'What the heck!'!"

I'll try to do Frank's thoughts justice. I am not as clever or as articulate as he is, but I will do my best to explain what I think is his main point, by using a real-world example.

In almost all democracies, the system has gravitated (settled down) into a two-dominant-party system: the Conservatives versus the Progressives. You could think of this as the embodiment of the two major types of human personalities - a) Selfish; and b) Social. (It's the "ME" versus "US" debate).

The Conservatives (the Voters and the Politicians) are all selfish people. They are all about "hoarding" and "protecting" which is just greed, based on fear of loss/fear of not having enough.

The Progressives are all about "safety in numbers" - ie. what's good for all of us is naturally good for me - so we should all take care of each other and that will automatically be the best outcome for all of us - which of course includes me - so it's based on hope for the future - it's based on emotional investment - ie. self-sacrifice for the short-term because it will pay off for all of us (including myself) in future.

But, no matter which type of political party is in power at the time (and now we are talking about ALL types of governments - not just democracies) - the only type of "power" that the ruling government has, is to relax the rules for some people - and tighten them for other people.

So eg. when Conservatives rule - they relax the rules (ie. they give exemptions, etc.) for rich people/businesses, because they think that will help them to achieve their agenda.

And when Progressives are in power - they relax the rules for the Unions and for Working Class people because they thing that's what will help them to achieve their agenda.

Of course, what we mean by "rules" is the Law.

Have you ever noticed how, the richer a person is, the more they are convinced that the Laws don't apply to them? Same for businesses. In fact, the richer a person/business is, the more influence they have on the Lawmakers (the government) to change the ACTUAL Laws, to let them do even more of whatever the hell they want.

The only difference between Conservative governments and Progressive governments is their lists of people/businesses for whom they are willing to relax the rules (and their lists of people/businesses for whom they want to tighten the rules).

What (I think) Mr. Wilhoit is trying to say - is that this situation - where ALL governments squeeze/suppress/restrict/oppress one "type" of citizen while relaxing/supporting/nurturing other "types" of citizens is fundamentally flawed, and is not based on equality of human rights. Even if Progressives THINK that they are all about "equality" in fact they are not - because they are equally as guilty of preferential restriction & relaxing of the rules for some citizens, as the Conservatives are, the only difference is in their choice of whom they are going to suppress and whom they are going to nurture.

I love this comment by Frank Wilhoit on a blog post.

Frank Wilhoit 03.22.18 at 12:09 am
There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

I think body modification surgery is perfectly acceptable for people to do to themselves, or consensually to each other.
Just, try not to do it on public transport, though.
The cleaning bills can be unpleasant.

PROVE IT.
It should be a basic Human Right that everybody, everywhere, should have the right to demand that anybody who makes any claim should be required to PROVE IT when asked, or otherwise to retract the claim.

There is no such thing as a "soul".

"Souls" don't exist.

However, there is an observable phenomenon called "consciousness".

Most people are not very "conscious". In that sense, most people are not much more of a superior organism than any of the higher mammals.

Most people are living life in a constant state of being in an instinctive, animalistic, biological "ground state". They are usually so "un-conscious" that they are effectively trapped in a semi-hypnotic trance, most of the time. In that sense, most people are not fully "awake" - they are mostly "asleep".

To grow a "soul" is to get steadily more practiced and skillful at actively maintaining your mind in a state of "consciousness".

MINDFULNESS is one extremely effective way of achieving heightened state of consciousness.

If you can maintain constant Mindfulness, you can maintain constant consciousness.

Another word used to describe the state of living in a sustained state of Constant Consciousness is "ENLIGHTENMENT".

Some quotes on what it means to stay in a state of heightened awareness, hyper-consciousness, or "enlightenment":

"Before Enlightenment: Chopping wood and carrying water. After Enlightenment: Chopping wood and carrying water."

Kuòān Shīyuǎn's "Ten Bulls"
Verses by Kuòān Shīyuǎn translation by Senzaki Nyogen (千崎如幻) and Paul Reps

The Ten Bulls:
1. In Search of the Bull
In the pasture of the world,
I endlessly push aside the tall
grasses in search of the Ox.
Following unnamed rivers,
lost upon the interpenetrating
paths of distant mountains,
My strength failing and my vitality exhausted, I cannot find the Ox.

2. Discovery of the Footprints
Along the riverbank under the trees,
I discover footprints.
Even under the fragrant grass,
I see his prints.
Deep in remote mountains they are found.
These traces can no more be hidden
than one's nose, looking heavenward.

3. Perceiving the Bull
I hear the song of the nightingale.
The sun is warm, the wind is mild,
willows are green along the shore -
Here no Ox can hide!
What artist can draw that massive head,
those majestic horns?

4. Catching the Bull
I seize him with a terrific struggle.
His great will and power
are inexhaustible.
He charges to the high plateau
far above the cloud-mists,
Or in an impenetrable ravine he stands.

5. Taming the Bull
The whip and rope are necessary,
Else he might stray off down
some dusty road.
Being well-trained, he becomes
naturally gentle.
Then, unfettered, he obeys his master.

6. Riding the Bull Home
Mounting the Ox, slowly
I return homeward.
The voice of my flute intones
through the evening.
Measuring with hand-beats
the pulsating harmony,
I direct the endless rhythm.
Whoever hears this melody
will join me.

7. The Bull Transcended
Astride the Ox, I reach home.
I am serene. The Ox too can rest.
The dawn has come. In blissful repose,
Within my thatched dwelling
I have abandoned the whip and ropes.

8. Both Bull and Self Transcended
Whip, rope, person, and Ox -
all merge in No Thing.
This heaven is so vast,
no message can stain it.
How may a snowflake exist
in a raging fire.
Here are the footprints of
the Ancestors.

9. Reaching the Source
Too many steps have been taken
returning to the root and the source.
Better to have been blind and deaf
from the beginning!
Dwelling in one's true abode,
unconcerned with and without -
The river flows tranquilly on
and the flowers are red.

10. Return to Society
Barefooted and naked of breast,
I mingle with the people of the world.
My clothes are ragged and dust-laden,
and I am ever blissful.
I use no magic to extend my life;
Now, before me, the dead trees
become alive.

In a Democracy, the Right to Protest must be sacred, it must be defended tooth and claw.
Any attempts by a government in a democratic country to reduce or restrict the right to protest must be resisted and fought.
Like it or not - the dangerous, ridiculous, foolish, deranged idiots who are protesting against lockdowns and vaccine mandates, are exercising their Democratic Rights.
It's a difficult thing to accept, but in fact: Democracy is nothing more than Mob Rule.
If the majority of the population were joining in those demonstrations, then by definition - they would be able to influence Government Policy and thereby also indirectly have the Laws changed to suit their demands. That is Democracy, because the Elected Representatives roles are literally to represent the will of the majority of people.
Eg.: if your friends want to jump off of a cliff, you don't have to join them. But in a Democracy, if the majority of people demand that we ALL jump off a cliff - then Democracy MUST obey.
It would be an error to think of this as a "flaw" of Democracy. It's not true that Democracy is the "best" type of Government, it's not true that Democracy is an "almost perfect" type of Government that regrettably has a few flaws.
The truth is that Democracy is deeply, fundamentally flawed.
The Inmates are already running the Asylum, and they always have been.

What is better than Democracy? I don't know. It seems that the world has not yet invented a better system.
But Democracy is very far from perfect.
If humanity and the Earth are to survive, we need to invent a better system of Government than Democracy.
I don't know what it would look like.
But it needs to look better than the sight of streets full of deranged idiots demanding that they be allowed to put everyone (including themselves) in serious danger.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Now, stop and think about that, and realise that most people make their voting decisions based on a little bit of knowledge about current affairs and a little bit of knowledge about the election candidates' policies, aims and ulterior motives.

And most elected leaders make their decisions based on their own limited knowledge and their biased predilections.

The IQ of a mob is lower than the IQ of the dumbest member.
This is the main problem with Democracy.
Democracy is literally Mob Rule.
The problems that the world faces today are complex.
Comprehending them requires a person to have a basic understanding of science, economics, history, and humanism.
Democracy means that the people who decide our actions to approach and tackle these problems are in fact the least qualified to lead our efforts.

I'm sorry, I don't have an alternative form of government to advocate in preference to Democracy.

All I do know, is that Democracy dooms us to be collectively no smarter than Lemmings. In that sense, Democracy is no better than any other form of rulership in its ability and probability that we might avoid a similar fate.

Opinions are like assholes: everyone's got one.

This is what almost everyone does about almost every topic:
* Take in some information. By necessity, it will be a limited amount of information. Contemplate it. Consider it. Let their cognitive biases loose upon it. Arrive at a conclusion (ie. conclusion means to STOP. So, now, Conclude the Thinking = Stop Thinking. Stop considering additional information.).
* ASSUME that the conclusion that they have reached is the SAME conclusion that they would have reached, if they'd had additional information.
* Frame and display on the wall of their mind's eye's hall of memories, "The Conclusion" for future reference.
* Discard memory/stored copies of the input information.
* Cease allowing input of additional information for further consideration.
* In all future situations related to that topic, read and speak the words written in the Framed Thing On The Wall of Their Mind, verbatim. Loudly.
* Defend the Framed Words with barbed wire fence, crocodile-filled moat, and machine-gun towers.
* Never, ever, EVER take the framed thing down off the wall and contemplate if it might perhaps need revision, updating, or to be burned at midnight in a ritual of mental cleansing.

Hi. All helpful comments & constructive criticism are welcome:

Observation: “Scientism” shares some commonalities with religions.

Speculation: “Scientism” is effectively a type of religion.

H0 (Null Hypothesis): “Scientism” is not a type of religion.

H1 (Hypothesis to be tested): “Scientism” is effectively a type of religion.

Aim: Disprove the Null Hypothesis.

[If H0 is demonstrated to be NOT true, then H1 is implied to be true]

Task: Design experiment(s) to disprove that “Scientism” is not a religion.

Test: Approach a Science-ist (one who behaves as though they are an adherent of “Scientism”). Challenge their open-mindedness and willingness to re-consider their righteousness. Probe the Science-ist with a series of Aristotlean-style questions to test the robustness of their weltanschauung. The Science-ist should be posed with a series of thought experiments designed to bypass, stealthily penetrate or neutralise a weakness in their cognitive scaffolding and mental shielding. If their defensive counterarguments sooner or later devolve into logical fallacies such as Ad-Hominem attacks, then H0 will have been disproven, and it will be implied that H1 should be accepted as True.

People who do not understand what science is, think that it behaves like everything else in the human world - that you can tell how "truthful" something is by the way that it makes you feel. That is - people who do not understand science, think that they can choose what they want to be true, based on how they want to feel.

So, it is unfortunate, but necessary - that the scientific community MUST communicate the dire circumstances of the environmental catastrophe that Climate Change is - by making the public afraid of the inevitable changes to come. That is the only way to convince the public that the situation is incredibly serious and important - we have to make them afraid of what will definitely happen if they don't decarbonise.

Only if they are motivated by fear, only if they are terrified, will they actually do anything to save themselves. We have to convince them that decarbonisation is imperative, by convincing them of the Truth of Climate Change - by manipulating their feelings - by making them afraid of what their inaction will most assuredly result in.

Lamentably, in Australia the scientifically untrained populous typically votes for the scientifically ignorant Parties - the ones who think that money is some kind of magical force that can always solve every problem.

And tragically, because those Parties believe that fairy-tale so blindly, they have allowed and supported the Media to become almost all-powerful in controlling what the people are told to believe is True.

They believe this delusion so completely, that - not only do they allow the privately-owned media free reign to manipulate people's feelings - and thus also what they believe - that they also pointedly and deliberately attack and tear down the one precious media organisation whose sole and only purpose was to the the ACTUAL truth. The publicly owned broadcasting news service wasn't actually doing anyone any harm - all they were ever allowed to do from day 1 forevermore - was report the facts. No manipulation of Truth allowed - ever.

But that was a threat to the Parties who want to decide what is True based on their ideological agenda. So they felt compelled to set fire to the ABC. An act that is - sociologically - pretty much the same as having book-burning bonfires in the town square.

In those situations, the scientists typically sit in their homes with their doors locked for fear that they, too, might become fuel for the fires.

But wait - there's more.
Those same Parties also decided that the CSIRO - a publicly funded research organisation - studying Climate Change - was also inconveniently not agreeing with their scientifically illiterate fairy-tale ideological agenda.
Unsurprisingly, all of those scientists were unceremoniously thrown onto a metaphorical pyre.

Please, don't vote for any Party or Independent that doesn't understand decarbonisation is our most desperate, urgent priority, as a country and as a species.

I think - a cool way to reverse climate change and also burst humanity into a new age of amazingness - is if we invent nano-robots and/or genetically engineer some artificial bacteria or algae, etc - to suck carbon out of the air and chemically spin it into strands of diamond. And we use that diamond rope to build space elevators. We could turn the Earth into a wheel with diamond spokes and build solar-powered cities in space with diamond hulls and diamond transport tubes. Build gigantic diamond mirrors to control how much sunlight arrives on Earth.

We could also dispose of our poisonous waste by flinging it into the Sun, for free (because space elevators use centripetal force to launch stuff - you don't need rockets).

And we could also just simply remove the root cause of the Earth's problem ... ie. us.

Let's go & live in Space!!!

OK Scientists - hurry up and get inventing!!

Religion is all about denying your biological instincts, Pavlovian-conditioning and Stockholm Syndrome, so that they can control your thoughts, emotions, speech and deeds. Religion is all about control. Control of absolutely every aspect of your life. It is about taking a natural organism (you) and forcibly changing you into something that serves the Organisers of the religion. Religion is anti-freedom and anti-life. It is anti-naturalness. That's why it focuses so much on your ego - your sense of self, your sense of identity, your self-definition. Because your ego is only a fictional image that you have painted in your mind, and they want to be the ones to tell you what to paint. That's why they so desperately want to start molding you while you are young - as young as possible - the younger the better.

That's also why the Abrahamic Religions 2.0x and 3.0x have given a name and a face to Nature and have brainwashed their believers to hate that face and that name.

The Pagans called that force of nature, the naturalness of our biology the name of Pan.

It represents the fact that we are not separate from Nature, that Nature is inside of us, and they we are nothing but animals. We are animals, with the exact same needs.

Find Food. Feast. Fight. Fuck. Flee.

Religions know that if we accept who we truly are: just naturally selfish animals, then we don't need them.

So they portray the natural energy of our being as something to be scared of and shun, they train us to ignore our instincts, and instead, train us to pretend that we are something completely unnatural.

If there was a purely objective, scientific test using only machines, chemistry, electricity and magnetism - that could test how happy and natural a person is - on a biological level - then it would find that the more religious a person is, the more utterly miserable that person is.

Living a life that is completely unnatural is literally and purely exactly the wrong way to live.

And that is what religions want us to do.

The Unscientific way of judging whether something is True or not, is to let your feelings decide for you. The catastrophic danger of this method is that your feelings are influenced by what you want to be true. It is also easier for me to convince you that something is True if I know how to manipulate your feelings.

The Scientific way of judging what is True or not is to let the facts convince you. Observable, testable, repeatable facts.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair