Oligarchy and Science, Philosophy, Politics

According to this talk, the Venetian nobility were responsible for a great shift in philosophy, with regards to the Catholic church, the noble societies and well-regarded scientists in Britain, France, and Italy, as well as the resulting wars between Britain and France, culminating in the French Revolution.  They were responsible for Newton’s rise to permanent prominence in Western science and scientific history and they were responsible for the Enlightenment in France.  The perceived purpose, was to create animosity between Britain and France, and, I assume, topple the French monarchy, for defying the will of the Venetian nobility during the reign of Louis XIV.

I find this interesting, only with regards to many of the grenades lobbed by the author.  In short, factions are formed, with scholastic philosophers (?–Do your own research as I did some cursory checking myself to try to put some context around this) on one side, like Leibnitz, and reductionist materialists on the other side, like Isaac Newton.  Hypotheses and a different approach to the scientific method, as well as a reliance on “formalism and authoritative professional opinion.”

“Since the days of Aristotle, they have attempted to suffocate scientific discovery by using formalism and the fetishism of authoritative professional opinion.  The Venetian Party has also created over the centuries a series of scientific frauds and hoaxes, which have been elevated to the status of incontrovertible and unchallengeable authorities.  These have been used to usurp the rightful honor due to real scientists, whom the Venetians have done everything possible to destroy.”

Of additional note is the metaphysics of the primacy of existence vs.  the primacy of consciousness paradigms.  If I am reading correctly, these men promoted the primacy of existence, by supporting a change in methodology.  Instead of reasoning from first principles, and creating hypotheses from existing relationships, they promoted a devotion to the results of experimentation (empiricism) and reasoning from what could be demonstrated and observed objectively.  Being born several hundred years later, of course I am not surprised or in any way bothered by the latter approach.  However, I do not take issue with the former approach, either.  This is where it gets fairly complicated, at least in my view.  In short, I believe Plato’s approach relied on the primacy of consciousness.  Aristotle’s was the primacy of existence.  Aristotle was more of a materialist and believed in objective observation.  Plato started in the mind, in the ‘forms.’ Plato’s overall intention was likely comprehensive, while at least the Venetian/Newtonian camp was individual.  So a ‘descendant of Plato’ might take an idea or a relationship found in one scientific field, and then hypothesize about that relationship in a different field or application.  Then use that hypothesis as the beginning of his exploration.  The ‘descenandt of Aristotle,’ the Newton/Galileo/Descartes …  it is unclear to me the exact approach they would take.  Perhaps they would simply test every permutation and combination of two (or more) variables, looking for reproducible observations, that held consistently.  If so, they would only hypothesize (perhaps) after they began to experiment and record data.

The Venetians were responsible for the rise of Rene Descartes in France, Newton in England, and Galileo in Italy.  Galileo’s views steered scientists overall, away from Kepler’s, and Newton’s away from Liebnitz’s.  Descartes were not covered in the source.  I am inclined to assume similar meddling in the affairs of the scientific community occured in France, to bring Descartes to prominence there.  Newton was described as a charlatan, and a cultist kook, who plagarized the work of Leibnitz.  Galileo was also criticized as having plagarized Kepler’s work.  All in all, while the politics is interesting, I find the science more interesting, and if I am to summarize with little information, it appears the Venetians manipulated the scientific community, for its access to other groups, particularly the nobility and their impact on public support for various causes, and with this manipulation, succeeded in attaining their political objectives.

Personally I am more interested in the scientific implications.  Another writer adds to Tarpley’s work, labels the Venetians as satanists, and points out the ‘principle of poverty’ and the suppression of scientific achievement by the infiltration and subsequent takeover of the scientific establishment.  I am inclined to believe that this is what has occured…as I have observed a deliberate suppression of innovation and human activity that would have eradicated poverty a hundred years ago or more.  What value was lost in the trajectory of scientific inquiry turning away from Kepler and Leibnitz? I have heard of a similar turning away occuring in the history of the Germ Theory vs the Terrain Theory.  Pasteur supposedly plagarized the work of Beauchamp and promoted the germ theory over the terrain theory.  However, in my analysis, and I would say this across all of these controversies, it is unclear what value was lost by turning away from the theory the leaders in each field left behind.  If you ask me, terrain theory makes sense some of the time, it overlaps with germ theory, and sometimes each one comes to the same conclusions.  We know that reductionist Newtonian physicists also often come to the same conclusions as non-reductionists, in some cases.  A brief reading of Newton and a comparison of some of his work to Kepler’s shows that his calculations were derived from Kepler’s.  The quote below addresses some overlap between both Newton and Kepler and Galileo’s work.  With regards to reductionism, the impact is positive (source).

“Theory reduction is the process by which one theory absorbs another.  For example, both Kepler’s laws of the motion of the planets and Galileo’s theories of motion worked out for terrestrial objects are reducible to Newtonian theories of mechanics, because all the explanatory power of the former are contained within the latter.  Furthermore, the reduction is considered to be beneficial because Newtonian mechanics is a more general theory—that is, it explains more events than Galileo’s or Kepler’s.  Theoretical reduction, therefore, is the reduction of one explanation or theory to another—that is, it is the absorption of one of our ideas about a particular thing into another idea.”

Science is ultimately about productivity.  It is about making human energy more efficient.  The only places I see reductionism as counterproductive are when it is applied to human agency and intuition…the notion that we are all just automatons deep down, runs counter to civilizations and human values.  Reducing individual people to complicated computer programs only serves to distract us from improving civilization.  The better our values and relationships with one another, makes us that much more successful, i.e., more peaceful, prosperous, and beneficial to the rest of mankind and our physical environment.  The other place is with respect to religion.  If you believe there is a soul, have at it.  I do not believe theorizing about a soul is necessarily the province of science.  I cannot say for sure whether it is the province of rational philosophy.  The problem there is the scope of rationality.  How can one observe and reflect on something which they are incapable of observing? This is why I do not see the value in philosophizing about the existence of an immortal soul.  I may be echoing the views, interestingly, of a reductionist.  From that I wonder whether there is a non-reductionist perspective on this.  Perhaps that speaks to some of what was lost by these manipulated revolutions in the scientific community.  Overall, if we gain productivity when applying reductionist science, then it may be useful to apply it, assuming all our courses of action are otherwise equivalent in morality and ethics.

Coexistence with SJWs, Mrs. America, and Other Thoughts

I’m inclined to disagree with this post.

I’m also inclined to agree with this post. It is impossible to coexist with a group of people who wants to replace your value system with their own, to destroy your customs or replace them with their own, and to remake the society you share with them, in their image. For this reason, people who consider themselves woke should be looking for new communities in which to live. People should stop trying to live with people who don’t share their value system. It’s tough, because on the one hand, people probably locate in places, stay in places, that is, or move to other places, because of things like family and money. Less likely is it that people relocate because of their personal values.

People cannot be ruled peacefully. I’m sure every government has slaughtered someone for a crime with no victim, or at the very least threatened someone to part with their person or property but never had to follow through on the threat because whatever was demanded was given. In that case, they used the threat of violence, can we consider that peaceful? No. It’s inevitable that if you live with people who do not agree with you ideologically, under a government, you run the risk of them gaining control of that government and using it to enslave you. It’s possible to at least enjoy slavery under a government whose edicts you agree with or at least tolerate. But if you see those edicts become increasingly difficult to stomach over time, then the situation grows increasingly untenable. It also, as it becomes more tenuous, becomes less likely to have both outcomes, one being a peaceful outcome and the other being a coexistent outcome. My advice. Leave. GTFO while you can.

This is a good article, and it brings up excellent points. The FX TV show Mrs. America, villainized Phyllis Schafly, an incredibly influential woman who lead a conservative, anti-communist campaign in defense of the American family and traditional women’s roles in American society, during the 70s. Cate Blanchett plays Schafly and the writer of this article picked up a post from FX of a speech Blanchett’s character gives on one of the episodes, and some of the twitter responses. First off, the speech is excellent and everything in it is true. Second, the writer links to an excellent article about Phyllis Schafly, assuming it’s all true…wink, wink, you have to be skeptical and get the full story. Check out the article.

But if true, Phyllis Schafly was an incredible woman. She lead a campaign not just to effect change in the political sphere, but also to protect the heart of American society. That’s fantastic work, and something few people could understand the importance of, I think. In part because we all spend so much of our time working, or trying to recover from work. We spend so much time pedaling a mouse wheel, we have little time to reflect and think of our world and effect change in it, real lasting change. Survival both socially and materially are important, but so is the inidivudal legacy. The mark we make on the world, that makes it a better or worse place. This woman left the world better than she found it. Again, assuming the article is true. Equally incredible, this woman lived to the ripe old age of 92, and made it to the year 2016. So she was born in 1924! Her parents may have been part of the generation (or at least her grandparents) that enjoyed a classical education. For more on that, see here.

Another excellent point he makes: Women in modern society, how unhappy they are, specifically in the years since the second wave of the feminist movement. And of course, because the point of the movement was not to liberate women, but to weaken them, and drive a wedge between them and men, and ultimately weaken society so it is easier to dominate and control. Such a slow process. I have to give credit to the banksters and propagandists and other tricksters and cowards for being so dedicated, so disciplined, and so effective.

I may start following this blog, because of this article. Now to my criticisms. We can certainly coexist, although I believe a certain strength and brutality of character is needed. Let me be clear on the context for this brutality. We must be clear about who and what we are dealing with. Ideas are very much enemies in this time, maybe in all times. And the way one deals with their enemies must always end with either they themselves avoiding them, defeating them, or their enemies withdrawing, defeated or destroyed. So the thing that needs to happen here is no different. These ideas are our enemies, not necessarily the people wielding them. We’ve got to be brutal as we attack the ideas and destroy them or get the people wielding them to withdraw, otherwise we’re not upholding our values. Maybe this is not for everyone. There are ways of handling conflict, one way is to engage it directly and speak out against it, one way is to avoid it, and I’m sure others exist. This is another good topic.

For those in our community, we can shame, ridicule, gently tease, or outright shun to let people know their ideas are not welcome. If we’re not doing this, we’re not properly defending our community. Ideas can work like viruses and can destroy the fabric of one’s mind, one’s relationships, one’s community, society, etc. This is what we’re facing in the world today. People apparently didn’t know or didn’t care and did little to contain and defeat the bad ideas that are now shouted in the media from all directions. But I like avoiding. I support GTFO, women not sleeping with men who follow bad ideas, and likewise with men not sleeping with women who follow bad ideas, instead shunning them and shaming them for having stupid notions about the world, or about people, or about life. This SJW xyz-shaming nonsense is nonsense. Virtue signaling is a good call out for people who try to call someone out for [insert issue here]-shaming, like slut shaming, or some other type of shaming. Nothing wrong with pointing out shaming, however, when the shaming is done nonsensically. An example of this is free will shaming. People shaming other people for not listening to the authorities and trusting their own judgement. This is stupid and needs to be called out.

Society would be stronger if people just started doing this with confidence. In a free society, people associate voluntarily. The current society has forgotten what it means to associate with people in your own community. Like attracts like. Perhaps opposites attract on some level, but ‘birds of a feather,’ and you can judge people ‘by the company that they keep,’ are useful phrases here, because in the current system, people are forced into a ‘melting pot,’ beginning at schools, and continuing with shopping in public, standing in lines, waiting in traffic, using public transportation, which by the way is going to be an incredible cluster after the “new normal” finishes working its way through those wonderful (dismal, retarded, commie) cities with well developed public transport systems (not including taxis and ridesharing…mainly buses, trains/subways). Holy hell, I’d love to see how they plan to implement the social distancing b.s. with regards to that situation.

This isn’t 100% true, you still see people associate with their own people in community and racial and sometimes various social groups. But the attitude for a lot of people is we’re all just people and we just move in and out of relationships and there aren’t any groups and we’re all ‘the same,’ whatever that means. So “who are we to judge each other?” And so on. Judging others is rational and healthy and another thing missing. Shaming, teasing, judging, shunning, and calling people out are all things that absolutely need to be done in the current situation and in past and present as well. This is how individual people defend themselves from destructive ideas on a social level. This defense is necessary to preserve or restore any community to a healthy, functioning one, and is frankly the only way I can see healthy people coexisting with SJWs. Hopefully with enough encounters with appropriate negative feedback behaviors, they’d look into their ideas more and change them. If not, they would find their own clan and associate with it. I need to add ignoring as well. Ignoring bad ideas followed by avoiding the ideaholders is a great way to deal with this issue also.  In all cases, bad ideas bring negative outcomes, which is why they deserve negative reinforcement.  Don’t get me wrong, you should hear someone out, until you understand them.  Keep an open mind.  But once you understand them, you are not obligated to agree, coddle, sugarcoat, tolerate, or whatever you’d do with some outsider that you’re stuck with in a work situation or other such temporary brief encounter you just want to get through so you can move on with your day.  We’ve all had those.  Inside your community, be it your school or your church or sports team or friend group or work or wherever… you have to decide for yourself what your community is.  Inside that zone, stand up for your values, again, even if only by ignoring and shunning.  Something that overlaps well here (and is another good topic) is the difference between non-assertive versus assertive behavior.  Most of the interactions we have might be (if we’re workers or school attendees) some form of (quasi) forced association, anyway.  With regards to that, there’s no shame in not being assertive.  Without it every person’s community is doomed to more of the same, slow erosion and destruction by the vultures and hyenas and useful idiots that mindless zombie representatives of a political agenda are.

How to Destroy the Human Race

Someone posted on Reddit a question about how to destroy the human race.  This is not a 100% answer to the question, but a sarcastic reply to provide some insight into what is happening on Earth right now.

Pay them. Offer a massive amount of gold to world leaders and business leaders and convince them to manufacture a fake drama where the nations of the world are all against one another. Then use that drama to create a “weaponized” virus outbreak. Test for a real virus that really exists, but isn’t all that harmful. Use the money to convince medical authorities and media to go along as well. Promise them fame, insider knowledge, and a share of the spoils. Use world leaders’ influence to buy off state/provincial and local governments complicity as well (ala Federal funds).
Convince the public through mass media and Orwell style propaganda messages to fear one another and avoid each other for ‘health reasons.’ Use ‘health’ as an excuse to subvert fundamenal human rights in each nation (to organize, to practice religion, to speak freely on any topic, due process before law, presumption of innocence, freedom from unreasonable searches, etc.) while using your media connections to create fake assent and generate real assent from useful idiots supporting the subversion because it’s the responsible thing to do.
Then when you’re satisfied the fools are properly doing your bidding, offer a vaccination to protect them from the next “pandemic.” Make it mandatory to access services you’ve coopted, such as shopping in state approved stores, (socially distanced of course), or sending their children to state run schools (i.e. state brainwashing centers). Lace the vaccine with a deadly virus that eventually kills its host, perhaps only those who take the vaccine, so you remove the most gullible of the herd, or perhaps worse, one that spreads and kills indescriminately. Within time the entire race will be destroyed. Simply have the good sense to create a virus that cannot survive unless the host is alive, and when all the hosts (humans) have perished, your evil plan will be complete.
My reply to the question ends above, and the rest are my further thoughts that I didn’t post…
I started midstream. A slow plan is better so you meet minimal resistance along the way. Use a communist/socialist policy and government influence to nationalize the country’s currency. Use this to generate unlimited fake currency and use this to bribe governments, create insider industry groups, and generally fund your subterfuge. Indoctrinate generations of useful idiot followers through the school system, funded federally as well, and continued complicitness with the media until you have an indoctrinated race of automatons who believe whatever they are told, as long as it comes from the official channels. The same race will do what they are told as long as the official channels say so.
Fastforward back to the present. Use the weaponized virus crisis to institute a digital tatoo that can be read electronically and verified in a secure database (blockchain). Use this tatoo to keep tabs on who everyone is and whether they’ve received approved innoculations. As part of continued safety measures, expand this to include more information on the users of this tatoo, and tie it into everything digitally related to the person. Implement a “social credit score” system in the most authoritarian of the nations where economic and personal restrictions are placed on a person if they do not follow the dictates of this system. This allows for automated authoritarian controls, that can now be visited on a person in the most petty forms of bureaucracy imaginable.
Once the entire race is accounted for, and all authoritarian measures are in place, use the digital system you’ve created to eliminate people by changing their requirements so they work themselves to death, then spend all their money in the healthcare system before they die, or take a vaccine that gives them cancer, then spend all of their money and die, etc.