1) If you never lie, you don't have to expend energy remembering to who you told which lie.
2) An intelligent person never needs to lie.
3) Using words deftfully and with skill is an art and a skill needing to be practiced, not unlike fencing, wrestling or games of strategy.
4) If you can advance never having to practice and train while being challenged, you never develop neither skill nor intelligence.
5) Words shape thoughts; this enables you to put your thoughts into words, thoughtfully.
So if the above is taken as true, both in a "farmer's wisdom"-sense and as true in the logical sense, what does that say about politicians and constituents both as a majority?
Well, that makes Ms. Faeser and her ilk exceptionally ill-suited for the task, eh?
This comes to the fore w/respect to 4) on your list: obviously, I think, Ms. Faeser never had to be good at these things to advance.
As regards 5), what do you want me to say? Apart from 'sigh', to believe that 'good people' in gov't won't screw you over is tantamount to the world-view of a significantly impaired person. Trust, but verify--and add solid penalties for transgressorts.
That it can be repaired and that we - meaning any and all opponents to the current Regime of Lies ruling the Occident (soon to be renamed 'the Accident'?) - are helping to usher in a new Renaissance?
Perhaps we as a civilisation must first undergo something aking to the AD 800 to AD 1200 period, only at much more advanced tempo?
While I do think it ('the system') can be repaired, theoretically speaking, it would require sustained civic participation on part of the citizenry; if history is any guide, there is but a small share of the overall population who is willing (and able) to do so.
Perhaps you are correct about the cyclical nature of social affairs; it certainly looks like it.
Sep 11, 2023·edited Sep 11, 2023Liked by epimetheus
Yet we're expected to unflinchingly swallow that these ill-suited individuals were somehow capable of rising to the very top of the "system" unaided and of their own accord, despite being so poorly formed as to be incapable of even the most basic leadership skills beyond being convincing liars standing in front of a camera...?
In other words, just more actors. Puppet theater. Which continues to offer the most lucid (only?) explanation for the continued ascension of the most popular and powerful prevaricators to positions of power -- despite a distinct lack of abilities beyond... a convincing delivery on camera.
Not a difficult conclusion to arrive at, or so I once thought in my earliest years when the naivete and misplaced trust were not yet completely purged from my the psyche.
That said, if we push aside this clearly ludicrous set of contradictory assumptions, what remains...?
Personally, I've been using the sock puppet analogy to explain politicians and politics for the better part of four decades now, and nothing has happened (yet) to convince me otherwise.
Here's the thing : the historical record is chock full of conspiracies. Likely only a small percentage of the total, as a successful stratagem would necessarily remain unknown but to the actual conspirators.
A key aspect of small-S science -- a process, a subject, not a singular object one can hold and trademark -- is forming theories and knocking them down until the outlines resemble actual observations. Remind me how theorizing -- formulating, considering, measuring, assessing (rinse, repeat) -- is a bad idea again.
Meanwhile, the "good people" rarely advance beyond the lower strata in government, as they're simply incapable of swimming with sharks for that long without losing a limb and/or their faith.
A comment by Catherine Austin Fitts comes to mind: history if full of conspiracies, if you fail to see that, you're not in on the game.
'Good people' rarely advance, don't bother applying, or leave on their own; those who remain become corrupted to such a degree over time that it's a wonder there are not more 'shaving accidents', I suppose.
As to your quip about science--well, 'doing one's own research', which 'The Science™' expressly told everyone who cared to listed not to do, used to be called 'reading'.
Preaching to the choir there I suppose, in hindsight. A genuine "second cup of coffee" moment.
Occasionally my frustration with the inability of so many perceptibly intelligent individuals I've met and known -- many atop their respective fields -- to see past the gaping contradictions in so much of what passes for "western thought" bubbles to the surface.
Apparently, surviving into one's late 50's as an iconoclast who values independent thought and responsible freedom of action isn't meant to be an easy row to hoe.
In my book, he's called a fraud and impostor, as well as a personal failure second perhaps only to his fellow huckster, Mikhail Bakhunin: while the latter was an aristocrat and the former of middle-class origins, both were dependent on the charity of fellow-travellers, which isn't exactly a hallmark of adulthood. It is hard, if not outright impossible, not to note that Marx misinterpreted Hegel's pseudo-metaphysical ramblings, hence, I consider Marx more of an evangelist or the like than anything else. Your point, Mark, stands.
Who was Marx married to -- and what were her familial ties, I wonder...?
Repeating the same old tropes about Marx as a poor struggling writer are about as valuable as an old pair of threadbare socks at this stage. Not disagreeing with the assessment of his person and character, or Bakhunin's for that matter, but until one is willing to step outside the steady, circular drumbeat of orthodoxy and join the dance, one's allegiances are just as suspect as those of the beardy guy from Trier.
Hint : he married a daughter of great wealth -- yet they somehow struggled financially. Who funded the Bolsheviks? Why do all the older Russians I've ever met, known or partied with repeat the same joke about Soviet-era "communism" : "...sounds nice, let us know when it happens..."
An interesting parallel observation, based on this ex-pat child of the Pacific Northwest, having hauled ass off to a rural farm in Europe in the wake of a certain spectacle in NYC some years ago which gifted the wife with her own "eyes wide open" moment... (I've amassed a proper experiential list over the years, which includes familiar acronyms)
Why is it that the greater "west" and the "expert" class would have us believe so many things about Russia and the Russians (or the Chinese, or...), yet when I began meeting fellow ex-pats from elsewhere in person not only were the stereotypes poorly formed, most are WAY off target.
Funny thing is, the common thread uniting their stories is that they've already survived a certain dystopia, often having lost a great deal along the way.
Now that you mentioned '9/11', well, I refer to my commentary on the 'do your own research' above: trust, but verify is a good notion, esp. when it comes to 'experts' and the like babbling stuff about 'other places'.
Having never been to either Russia or China, I cannot comment on 'them'; I can, however, comment on how 'Westerners' portray these countries and peoples. And *that* sight isn't exactly pretty…
Issuing a brief public apology here, as the 'Stack was apparently misbehaving. It appeared my comments here were being removed moments after posting, and I kept getting kicked to the previous article linked near the top. Post re-boot, things are loading correctly -- and with any luck I'm about to remove the disappointment expressed on the linked thread. File under: technical difficulties.
Hi Doug (if I may), thanks for reading and engaging.
I'm writing you, however briefly, to inform you that whatever happened to your comments was not my doing. The only comments I (ever) removed were spam stuff. Thank you for bearing with me.
Mostly embarrassed here, as someone steeped in technology with a background in problem-solving. Said disappointment expressed elsewhere successfully de-rezzed. I'll spare you the time-sink of further replies by signing off this stub of sub-thread with the same sentiment that closed my now-defunct comment : here's hoping you're enjoying life in your new digs, which sound vaguely similar to my own evacuation strategy back in '02.
1) If you never lie, you don't have to expend energy remembering to who you told which lie.
2) An intelligent person never needs to lie.
3) Using words deftfully and with skill is an art and a skill needing to be practiced, not unlike fencing, wrestling or games of strategy.
4) If you can advance never having to practice and train while being challenged, you never develop neither skill nor intelligence.
5) Words shape thoughts; this enables you to put your thoughts into words, thoughtfully.
So if the above is taken as true, both in a "farmer's wisdom"-sense and as true in the logical sense, what does that say about politicians and constituents both as a majority?
Well, that makes Ms. Faeser and her ilk exceptionally ill-suited for the task, eh?
This comes to the fore w/respect to 4) on your list: obviously, I think, Ms. Faeser never had to be good at these things to advance.
As regards 5), what do you want me to say? Apart from 'sigh', to believe that 'good people' in gov't won't screw you over is tantamount to the world-view of a significantly impaired person. Trust, but verify--and add solid penalties for transgressorts.
"...what do you want me to say?"
That it can be repaired and that we - meaning any and all opponents to the current Regime of Lies ruling the Occident (soon to be renamed 'the Accident'?) - are helping to usher in a new Renaissance?
Perhaps we as a civilisation must first undergo something aking to the AD 800 to AD 1200 period, only at much more advanced tempo?
While I do think it ('the system') can be repaired, theoretically speaking, it would require sustained civic participation on part of the citizenry; if history is any guide, there is but a small share of the overall population who is willing (and able) to do so.
Perhaps you are correct about the cyclical nature of social affairs; it certainly looks like it.
Yet we're expected to unflinchingly swallow that these ill-suited individuals were somehow capable of rising to the very top of the "system" unaided and of their own accord, despite being so poorly formed as to be incapable of even the most basic leadership skills beyond being convincing liars standing in front of a camera...?
In other words, just more actors. Puppet theater. Which continues to offer the most lucid (only?) explanation for the continued ascension of the most popular and powerful prevaricators to positions of power -- despite a distinct lack of abilities beyond... a convincing delivery on camera.
Not a difficult conclusion to arrive at, or so I once thought in my earliest years when the naivete and misplaced trust were not yet completely purged from my the psyche.
That said, if we push aside this clearly ludicrous set of contradictory assumptions, what remains...?
Personally, I've been using the sock puppet analogy to explain politicians and politics for the better part of four decades now, and nothing has happened (yet) to convince me otherwise.
Here's the thing : the historical record is chock full of conspiracies. Likely only a small percentage of the total, as a successful stratagem would necessarily remain unknown but to the actual conspirators.
A key aspect of small-S science -- a process, a subject, not a singular object one can hold and trademark -- is forming theories and knocking them down until the outlines resemble actual observations. Remind me how theorizing -- formulating, considering, measuring, assessing (rinse, repeat) -- is a bad idea again.
Meanwhile, the "good people" rarely advance beyond the lower strata in government, as they're simply incapable of swimming with sharks for that long without losing a limb and/or their faith.
A comment by Catherine Austin Fitts comes to mind: history if full of conspiracies, if you fail to see that, you're not in on the game.
'Good people' rarely advance, don't bother applying, or leave on their own; those who remain become corrupted to such a degree over time that it's a wonder there are not more 'shaving accidents', I suppose.
As to your quip about science--well, 'doing one's own research', which 'The Science™' expressly told everyone who cared to listed not to do, used to be called 'reading'.
Preaching to the choir there I suppose, in hindsight. A genuine "second cup of coffee" moment.
Occasionally my frustration with the inability of so many perceptibly intelligent individuals I've met and known -- many atop their respective fields -- to see past the gaping contradictions in so much of what passes for "western thought" bubbles to the surface.
Apparently, surviving into one's late 50's as an iconoclast who values independent thought and responsible freedom of action isn't meant to be an easy row to hoe.
Marx was a tragedy, and a farce.....
In my book, he's called a fraud and impostor, as well as a personal failure second perhaps only to his fellow huckster, Mikhail Bakhunin: while the latter was an aristocrat and the former of middle-class origins, both were dependent on the charity of fellow-travellers, which isn't exactly a hallmark of adulthood. It is hard, if not outright impossible, not to note that Marx misinterpreted Hegel's pseudo-metaphysical ramblings, hence, I consider Marx more of an evangelist or the like than anything else. Your point, Mark, stands.
Who was Marx married to -- and what were her familial ties, I wonder...?
Repeating the same old tropes about Marx as a poor struggling writer are about as valuable as an old pair of threadbare socks at this stage. Not disagreeing with the assessment of his person and character, or Bakhunin's for that matter, but until one is willing to step outside the steady, circular drumbeat of orthodoxy and join the dance, one's allegiances are just as suspect as those of the beardy guy from Trier.
Hint : he married a daughter of great wealth -- yet they somehow struggled financially. Who funded the Bolsheviks? Why do all the older Russians I've ever met, known or partied with repeat the same joke about Soviet-era "communism" : "...sounds nice, let us know when it happens..."
An interesting parallel observation, based on this ex-pat child of the Pacific Northwest, having hauled ass off to a rural farm in Europe in the wake of a certain spectacle in NYC some years ago which gifted the wife with her own "eyes wide open" moment... (I've amassed a proper experiential list over the years, which includes familiar acronyms)
Why is it that the greater "west" and the "expert" class would have us believe so many things about Russia and the Russians (or the Chinese, or...), yet when I began meeting fellow ex-pats from elsewhere in person not only were the stereotypes poorly formed, most are WAY off target.
Funny thing is, the common thread uniting their stories is that they've already survived a certain dystopia, often having lost a great deal along the way.
Hi, fellow rural farm-dwelling fellow human!
Now that you mentioned '9/11', well, I refer to my commentary on the 'do your own research' above: trust, but verify is a good notion, esp. when it comes to 'experts' and the like babbling stuff about 'other places'.
Having never been to either Russia or China, I cannot comment on 'them'; I can, however, comment on how 'Westerners' portray these countries and peoples. And *that* sight isn't exactly pretty…
Precisely.
Issuing a brief public apology here, as the 'Stack was apparently misbehaving. It appeared my comments here were being removed moments after posting, and I kept getting kicked to the previous article linked near the top. Post re-boot, things are loading correctly -- and with any luck I'm about to remove the disappointment expressed on the linked thread. File under: technical difficulties.
Hi Doug (if I may), thanks for reading and engaging.
I'm writing you, however briefly, to inform you that whatever happened to your comments was not my doing. The only comments I (ever) removed were spam stuff. Thank you for bearing with me.
Mostly embarrassed here, as someone steeped in technology with a background in problem-solving. Said disappointment expressed elsewhere successfully de-rezzed. I'll spare you the time-sink of further replies by signing off this stub of sub-thread with the same sentiment that closed my now-defunct comment : here's hoping you're enjoying life in your new digs, which sound vaguely similar to my own evacuation strategy back in '02.