even more musings from the memory castle

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Humans are blinded by pre-existent beliefs. They argue about them as if they matter, rather than avoid them and build upon new, unique and original ideas of their own. The debate between pantheism and monotheism is a prime example, because theism in general is an unprovable, and thus irrelevant, premise. Likewise, people blame the State because of unethical Laws, but do not think to separate the State from Laws in general. If there can be no such thing as an "ethical Law," there can still be such a thing as an "Anarchist State" in the form of a governing body of "philosopher kings" whose dictates are considered voluntary suggestions and not enforced by coercion or violence. People bemoan the existence of inconveniences, yet accept them as necessary in reality, when in truth they are not. Voting for the "lesser evil" is no different from coming to a complete stop for a yellow traffic light. Due to our confusion by falsely valuing past "traditions" that hinder our individual progress, we are cursed to myopic, short-term considerations, failing to see the "big picture" or to imagine the scope of current history beyond the concerns of our own life-times. If we cannot imagine a better world because we are so blinded by the concerns about this one that are right before our eyes, then no better world can ever be brought into existence and made functional in material reality. Debating "what really happened" when all we have to go on is the "official story" and we all agree that it is a lie is no different from evangelizing one mythology as "the one truth" at the expense of all others of equally zero value. Until we overcome our faith in a "zero value economy," we cannot hope to harness "zero point energy" to construct a better tomorrow. Peace is not only "passive resistance" to injustice. Peace also means actively developing unique, new ideas that bypass modern social problems.

on face-book, I belong to a group called "humans from the future created ancient advanced super-civilizations" because I BELIEVE in the premise. On this group, a poster asked, "are there any humans from the future here tonight?" to which I replied, being as how I BELIEVE myself to be FROM the future, "yes, but it's day here." WHY do I BELIEVE myself to be FROM the future? It is because, sometimes (when I have the free time in which to free my mind to do so), I imagine what the world will be like in 5 or 10 years from now, and then, projecting myself ahead to this future point of view, I look back and imagine the series of events that would have had to have occurred to transform the world of today into the world I imagine it to be like 5 or 10 years from now. When one imagines a VERY different world in the future from the way the world is now, today, one must imagine a much more drastic series of events occurring to transform the world from how it is to such a VERY different kind of place, especially if one wishes to reach this VERY different world as a goal in a shorter period of time, such as only 5 or 10 years.

How does an "idea grow"? An idea begins in the mind of an individual, and by that individual sharing their idea with other individuals in their social or contactable proximity, the popularity of the single idea becomes a social movement, and eventually this "viral" memetic effect spreads at an asymptotic rate until the individual "idea" snow-balls into the "dominant social paradigm" and a unanimity, or at least majority, all know of and believe in the validity of the originally individual's idea. But the original "idea" in itself has NOT "grown." An idea does not "grow" by being shared. It does not change form or shape, size or scale at all in this way; this method of expansion, even if asymptotic, is irrelevant to the original value and scope of the idea itself. In this way, the individual idea MAY expand, and yet stay the same size, simultaneously; and in this way, an individual idea is like the "singularity" of our local cosmos itself.

the value of an idea is NOT based on whether or not it will "grow" in this "viral" memetic manner from an individual's expression into a "social movement" and become the "dominant social paradigm." The "collective unconscious" of mankind's un-utilized potential for conscious awareness is a "blank slate" and reduces all ideas it absorbs, like a deadening sounding board, to their lowest common denominator form of expression, in order for them to be the most easily understood by the most number of people. But, from the point of view of the averaged, drooling groundling plebian masses, there is no more nor less intrinsic value to any idea, taken at this stage from this lowest of IQ levels, relative to any other idea; the idea "E=Mc^2" is of equal value to the idea "the Seahawks scored 16 points in the football game last night" to the average fool.

However, from a perspective elevated above this "collective unconscious" level, an idea MAY have more value than another relatively, due to its impact on longer-term history. One idea (such as the ex. regarding the score of the football game) has less value, from the perspective of future historians, than another idea (such as Einstein's equation for special relativity), even if, to the mind of the average modern fool, blinded as they are to such considerations by their own current surroundings, these two ideas have the same value, and this value amounts to zero.

If no one ever considered the "value" of an idea beyond its immediate, viral memetic appeal to the averaged foolish masses, then there would not be the possibility for "social progress" and only social regression could occur; what we have built would seem arbitrary at best, and ultimately the score of last night's football game would become MORE important information than Einstein's mathematical equation. Thus, the "value" of an idea is NOT based on how popular it can become, or how rapidly it may spread. The "value" of an idea can ONLY be properly measured OVER TIME, and, at that, only over VERY LONG, Historical durations of time.

So, what is the moral? what is the "value" of the idea to "avoid irrelevancies," and to simply "ignore modern social problems?" How can this end be achieved in a way that is useful and beneficial to us all? If we tune in to the modern news media, to learn about the world events going on around us now, we are confronted with the filter of the pundits' bias first, and must overcome this sieve of information if we wish to learn any actual facts. But this is not enough either, because not all events are even reported by the modern news media. So many bypass this method by researching using the alternative telecommunications technology method of the internet. Combining these two and filtering out the personal biases of the news mediators themselves, we may learn a decent amount about the "world around us," and think ourselves "awake" to it; but we still are blinded by its perplexing preponderance of ills and apparently insoluble problems. The idea of ethics apparently cannot prevail, and this is the moral of the news media about events in the "world around us;" but this moral has no value. Therefore, it is not enough to simply switch from one channel to another, or to even turn off one form of "empathy box" (as Phillip K Dick called them in "do androids dream of electric sheep") only to turn on another. If you dislike the news on one channel, and simply switch channels, you have not learned more by doing so; likewise substituting internet for television or even newspaper and magazine sources only degrades the validity of those less popular sources and further historically marginalizes their potential usefulness and benefits. On one channel: "Terrorism..." Solution: "Click." On another channel: "Racism..." Solution: "Click." But this process is never-ending. If we "ignore" social problems only one by one, we will never reach an end of their listing themselves to us. We have to not only AVOID ALL these problems by bypassing any form of mediated "empathy box" to learn about events in the "world around us," but we also have to find a way to learn about these events that does not involve the addictive and harmful telecommunications technology that already exists. To do this, we must turn off these methods of telecommunications technology altogether, and seek an alternative method to learning about events in the world around us.

Modern news-media is all lies. There is no ISIS, no ISL, no "Islamic Statist" group at all; they are CIA. There are no "homegrown" or "domestic" terrorists in US borders; they are FBI. When American leaders say they are protecting "freedom" or "democracy" abroad, they really mean they are forcing the people there to trade their local resources (mainly oil, but also gold, gems, drugs, even fresh water) for worthless, debt-backed US "dollars." When American leaders say they are protecting "freedom" or "democracy" at home, they really mean they are forcing the people here to accept unjust laws that are enforced by "police brutality" against them "for their own good." To say that even 1% of all humanity (70 million would be 1% of the over 7 billion alive now) are responsible for this publicized farce is an over-estimation. Of 7 billion people alive today, exactly zero believe the "official story," this publicized farce, to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yet it perpetuates, like all great myths, because people, by "opting out" or general indifference individually, refuse to refute it en masse. Apparently, we simply have no "better" idea about how to do things than the way things are done now. Individuals complaining about it online accomplishes no change at all, and other world leaders attempting to replace the US empire's form of economics with their own, similar format, will only exchange one evil for another, identical evil, simply located elsewhere. Until a "better" format is imagined, we have no real hope nor right to expect anything will improve or change for the "better" on its own.

minarchists and anarchists may not agree on all things, but they both agree that government, in any form, is evil. Minarchists may see it as a "necessary" evil, while anarchists see it as "unnecessary" at all, but both agree it is undesirable on the whole. Government, both anarchists and minarchists alike would argue, is poison. It is like a drug that allows one the aphrodisiac of the proverbial power-trip. "Politics," it has been said, "is just showbiz for ugly people." While all this remains the case, minarchists and anarchists remain in disagreement with one another only over how to approach and address this social disease. If "official authority" is like a drug, then there are only two ways to approach getting "clean" after being "hooked" on it. One is to quit "cold turkey," and this is the anarchist / revolutionary approach. "Down with all halls of government," and "let the chips fall where they may," because unregulated progress will rapidly exceed the successes of progress hitherto regulated by the State; such is the thinking of modern anarchist activists. I, personally, side with the minarchist approach, which is to "titrate down" the levels of the "junk" the addict is "hooked" on. If we engage in a campaign of "scaling back" the size and function of government, we can ultimately have even a single group, responsible in name only for the entirety of "government" on a global scale, but without the authority to enforce their dictates by force, and thus an essentially free mass populous. Such a disempowered "think-tank" replacing the role associated modernly with "government" would be preferable, I would imagine, for all parties involved, and would provide an option with less blood-shed than a direct attack, advocated as so-called "Anarchy." The only debatable point about all this would be the nature of the smaller, disempowered "governing" group's rules of conduct, the so-called "constitution" for such a "global government;" all else besides the finer points of such a "better" option should be considered inarguable.

imagine that 1% of the world's population really do control the entirety of the world's debt-backed or fiat "wealth" and that the so-called "powers that be" are, in reality, a tightly-knit conspiracy of no more than 70 million human beings, all dispersed across the globe, each in a position of massive social authority, each living in the lap of luxury, able to pay for their real assets with their fiat "wealth," etc. etc. etc. Let us say, then, there are 70 million "rich elites" who "run the world" (there are not; there are, in truth, far fewer). So, for the sake of argument, let's say this "NWO" conspiracy is comprised of as many as that: 1% of the modern human population. Now, to overthrow this elaborate conspiracy, to uproot its members in all their various nations, to oust and expose them all to their last conspirator in public, to explain their crimes, etc. would require a group dedicated, specifically, to doing so that would have to have at least as many members as the "NWO" conspiracy does itself. If there are 70 million (1%) conspirators, then all it would take to oust and overthrow them, to thwart their schemes for a "globalist dictatorship" / "NWO" etc., would be for a second group, of equal sum of members, diametrically opposed to this "NWO" conspiracy, to stand up against them and publicly state their claim as to why. If the conspiracy were as large as only 1% of the whole human population, it would only take another portion of the whole human population equal in scale to that 1% who were dedicated to doing so to overturn the "NWO" conspiracy of 1%. But there is not such a group, of whatever scale of membership numbers, who constitute such an "organized opposition" to the "NWO" conspirators, and thus, even though no one agrees the "NWO" conspirators are running the world "correctly," no one else has stood up with any "better" idea about how to do so and organized a group equal to the task of supplanting the "NWO's" globalist conspiracy with a different global agenda. All it would take would be a group of the same size dedicated to doing so to overturn the "NWO." And yet, no such group exists. Let that sink in, because it's true.