1. In Defense of Walking Through Walls 

    ©March 17, 2017 (19:51p),


    Because of Major General "Bert" Stubblebine's gonzo credentials, folks who support the official 9/11 conspiracy theory don't like him very much. It's his take on the 9/11 Pentagon attack. THIS take: 



    The folks who want everyone to believe the official story like to bring up a scene from Jon Ronson's seriously entertaining flick, The Men Who Stare at Goats 


    Looks bad for Maj. General Stubblebine doesn't it? It seems that's him trying to run through that wall! 

     Here's how one proponent of the Official Conspiracy Theory casts him and the hypothesis you might be able to walk through walls -- without using a door, that is - - -
    Mr. X: "Scientists hypothesize when experimental data doesn't easilly fit into established facts. They don't go around making wacky assumptions out of thin air, as Gen. Stubblebine did. That is reserved for 3 AM bullshit sessions."
    L. Reichard White: And here I thought you understood science, there Mr. X. Nice exposition though. 

     Indeed, scientists "hypothesize when experimental data doesn't easilly fit into established facts" but that's not the only time. How do they decide what experiments to do to generate that experimental data? 

     That decision of what experiments to perform is where the exciting part of science begins -- and, as Sir Karl Popper points out, it starts from the first and under appreciated decision of what to observe. Which often originates in "3 AM bullshit sessions." 

     That's also where Nobel Prizes are likely to originate rather than from more mundane science. 

     So scientists "making wacky assumptions out of thin air, as Gen. Stubblebine did" -- they do it all the time. Then they test them.  As Gen. Stubblebine did. 

    Einstein for example with the nature of light. That was finally verified by Eddington's famous experiment, despite universal skepticism -- and asserted "wackiness." How could light WAVES possibly travel through a vacuum after all? Virtually everyone knew and accepted the then current "scientific" fad, namely the existence of the "luminiferous ether" through which light traveled. 

     But in Major Gen. Stubblebine's case, apparently you missed the quite mundane basis of a quite logical if edgy hypothesis. It's directly based on an understanding of basic physical science that even you must be aware of. Particularly the Atomic Theory of Matter. Like this from science writer Bill Bryson - - - 
    "When two objects come together in the real world -- billiard balls are most often used for illustration -- they don't actually strike each other: "Rather," as Timothy Ferris explains, "the negataively charged fields of the two balls repel each other ... Were it not for their electrical charges they could, like galaxies, pass right through each other unscathed." --Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything, pg. 141
    And perhaps you're also aware of the famous double-slit experiments where merely observing electrons passing through the slits changes their behavior. 

     NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology] itself did some ground-breaking work on an equally mysterious and related phenom, "quantum entanglement." Which should make folks wonder: If they can do such really good work, why does NIST hide those 74,777 key 9/11 Building 7 collapse files so other researchers can't check them for logic, rigor, mistakes, and fibs etc.? 

     So, given The Atomic Theory of Matter and the double-slit anomaly, compared to Einstein's "wacky notion" that light waves could pass through a vacuum -- not to mention E=mc² -- it would only take a rather mundane 3 AM bull session to connect the double-slit experiment -- where the mere act of observation affects what electrons do in the real world -- with billiard balls -- which, "were it not for their electrical charges ... Could pass right through each other unscathed" -- and come up with the hypothesis that it MIGHT be possible to "walk through walls." 

     Now test it as Maj. General Stubblebine did. 

    I expect some readers -- mostly those with limited imaginations, a misunderstanding of science, and especially 9/ll related cognitive disonance -- will be imitating comedian Tim Allen's famous monkey noises about now. 

     Now the best you could have hoped for Mr X, was to prove that one extremely solid so-called "truther," who deflates the Original Conspiracy Myth which is why you don't like him -- namely Major Gen, Stubblebine, a West Point grad with a Masters in Chemical Engineering from Columbia and a 32 year distinguished career in the U.S. military -- including redesigning INSCOM and a member of the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame -- had one wacky idea. 

     Except it wasn't wacky.  And wacky or not, it's not relevant to his skills. 

    And it wasn't Maj. General Stubblebine who reportedly tried to walk through a wall either. It was another officer under him who was acting on his own initiative. And apparently the interview which enshrined that case of mis-appropriated identity may have been designed to discredit Stubblebine. 

     So, one way or another, attacking Maj. Gen. Stubblebine on the basis of this parapsychology work has no relevance to his extreme experience and expertise at interpreting photographic evidence.  Which leaves the 9/11 official defenders with a pretty serious problem claiming it was an airliner that hit the Pentagon on 9/11.  

    On the other hand, BRAVO! If you'd succeeded, you would have authored a strong candidate for the nit-pick hall of fame. 

     Unfortunately you failed. However in the attempt, you have revealed that you entertain the absurd notion that if someone has one wacky idea all their ideas are wacky. 

     That's silly. In fact, ludicrous, and if you apply that wacky standard to yourself, logically all thoughts and ideas you've ever had -- especially the ones above -- are all clearly wacky and should be totally disregarded. 

     I can live with that. 

    < C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\BLOGS\LSLITTLE>

    P.S. The CIA and DOD carry on the research begun by Maj. Gen. Stubblebine to this day - - - 


    Posted by
    0

    Add a comment

  2. This letter is RE: The Strangest Fires Ever Told, by yours truly.

    Hi folks!
    "i'm sure you must have looked at the rebuttal of conspiracy theories about building 7. they seemed to have a reasonable explanation for that. By the way I seem to recollect that the trade centres used the outside steel cladding to support the building and that is why it collapsed. Not sound building practices." --John
    Keep in mind, the official version of 9/11 is also a conspiracy theory so the question is which one is less believable.

    As far as "rebuttal of conspiracy theories about building 7," no one denies the building could be brought down with explosives. The only critique of demolition that I've seen is that it would be difficult to "wire" the buildings without being detected. That's a paper tiger at best. Ask me.

    And it would have to have been done prior to 9/11. Which is why no one wants to take a closer look.

    On the other hand, as far as the official conspiracy theory, I haven't seen any convincing defense of the quite frankly unbelievable NIST "most probable initiation sequence" hypothesis which, they assert, began with the collapse of Column 79.

    And remember, an hypothesis isn't proof, it requires proof.

    Let's see what proof they can muster - - -

    In fact, I instigated a whole herd of "debunkers" to find even one explicit endorsement of NIST's Column 79 conjecture starting in May, 2016. They're motivated folks and so far (October 1, 2016) they've completely failed in that quest.

    On the other hand, just lightly perusing the literature asserted to support NIST, I stumbled on these:
    "The Council [on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat -- CTBUH] does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a result of the buckling of Column 79." --CTBUH_NISTwtc7_%20DraftReport.pdf
    "Arup's review of NIST's findings and its own analysis led it to conclude that NIST has not satisfactorily demonstrated its main conclusion but that the impact-induced loss of fireproofing was the deciding factor in the collapse." --ARUP Associates, an independent firm of designers, planners, engineers, consultants and technical specialists
    And this general critique of NIST's 9/11 work:
    "I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable..." --NIST's former Fire Science Division head, Dr. James Quintiere
    Chief NIST investigator Sunder tried to explain it during a NIST Tech Briefing like this: "...the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures." In that report you find out that those "lower temperatures" were a paltry 400C.

    This completely ignores that steel-framed buildings have been designed to resist high-temperature thermal expansion for over 100 years. With virtually 100% no 9/11 type complete progressive collapses. And in fact, with one exception in Mexico from an 8.2 magnitude earthquake, no such collapses from any cause or combination of causes.

    And it was explaining the progressive collapse, not how it started, that was the challenge. And, offering no explanation, NIST shrugs that off.

    And they only came up with this Column 79 turkey after a three-year plus delay -- using non-validated computer simulations -- and hiding 74,777 (~80%) of the simulation files, thus making replication of their work impossible.

    So to sum up Building 7: Completely ignoring the demolition collapse signature, we have a poorly supported hypothesis, based on non-validated computer simulations, delayed for three years, unable to show how the actual collapse occurred, and hiding the files that would enable replication of it's work. And we have no specific support but specific disagreement from its own community on its main (Column 79) conclusion.

    Why not apply Occam's Razor and keep it simple. What's this look like to you?



    So, as to which conspiracy theory is less believable, well, that's for you to decide.

    Health, happiness, & long life,
    Rick

    P.S. For the BIG picture, see The Strangest Fires Ever Told, by yours truly.

    As far as the Towers practicing unsafe construction - - -
    With all of its structural redundancies, "the World Trade Center was probably one of the more resistant tall building structures," [Robert] McNamara [president of the engineering firm McNamara and Salvia] said, adding that "nowadays, they just don't build them as tough as the World Trade Center." His statement is bolstered by the fact that the support structures of both twin towers withstood the initial hits of the two kamikaze airliners despite the breaching of many levels of framing. --When the Twin Towers Fell - Scientific American
    < C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\ARTICLES.NEW\WHYFIRE>
    Posted by
    Labels: 9/11 911 911 myth conspiracy conspiracy theory controlled demolition debunk false flag WTC Building 7
    0

    Add a comment

  3. Re: Where "Liberal" and "Conservative" REALLY Come From
    It makes me think some of the stuff I've heard before in a college anthropology course ...redistributive feasting which involves big parties thrown by tribal leaders engaged in popularity contests with each other. ...that sounds a lot like what goes on in Congress ...Could the consequences of the bourgeoning national debt be our version of the wasteful behavior of tribal chieftains who brought the society on Easter Island to ruin? --Jeff F.
    Hi Jeff F!

    Hadn't considered the national debt that way, but add that today the cost of those popularity-buying "feasts" is passed on to the kids, grand kids and the yet unborn, and the analogy is nearly perfect.

    And there you have the basis of intergenerational warfare. Which is happening in nearly every developed "nation" -- and some not so developed ones as well.

    Also, our politically egalitarian small-group ancestors were quite aware of hierarchically inclined folks' tendencies to parlay almost anything -- including hunting etc. skills -- into positions of political power. And they had ways to handle those tendencies. It was almost certainly instinctive and genetic.

    In that regard, you might find this interesting:
    Hierarchy and Leadership? Not in MY Group You Don't!
    When groups got larger than, say, Dunbar's number, folks couldn't keep track of the power junkies very well. Once they get out of control, eventually what happened on Easter Island -- and to the socialist (communist) societies seems to happen to pretty much all societies. Like this - - -
    What Went Wrong With The Worldwide Socialist Revolutions - LewRockwell
    Thanks again for your interest, feedback, and insights!

    Health, happiness & long life,
    L. 

      < C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\BLURBS\BLURBS01.WP6>
    Posted by
    Labels: Easter Island Intergenerational warfare national debt politics socialist revolutions THC03
    0

    Add a comment

  4. Not to excuse governments of any kind, but under Gaddafi, Libya was one of the wealthiest and most progressive populations in the area, the other notable one being Iraq under Saddam. He was regarded by most of the population as "The Hero of The Revolution." 

    Gaddafi tried to dissolve the Libyan government at one point and go back to "tribal." Those invested in that institution simply refused to dissolve. 

    Probably his biggest crime was to actively promote gold backed trade. Which is probably what got Hitlery, the Republicans, et.al. and their Goldman-Sachs etc, cohorts out for his blood -- and got Uncle Sam to fund rag-tag fringe government-wannabes -- and Uncle's war machine -- to send the men, women, and children of Libya back to the stone age.
    Posted by
    Labels: banksters Gadaffi gold gold standard Hillery Hitlery Libya Republicans war crimes
    0

    Add a comment

  5.  
    There are two questions at the top of the [Pearl Harbor] foreknowledge list: (1) whether President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his top military chieftains provoked Japan into an "overt act of war" directed at Hawaii, and (2) whether Japan's military plans were obtained in advance by the United States but concealed from the Hawaiian military commanders, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short....
    The latter question was answered in the affirmative on October 30, 2000, when President Bill Clinton signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act. ...Congress was specific in its finding against the 1941 White House: Kimmel and Short were cut off from the intelligence pipeline that located Japanese forces advancing on Hawaii. ...these congressional findings should be widely seen as an exoneration of 59 years of blame assigned to Kimmel and Short.
    But one important question remains: Does the blame for the Pearl Harbor disaster revert to President Roosevelt? --December 7, 1941: A Setup from the Beginning: Robert B. Stinnett, Newsroom: The Independent Institute
    That question was answered when Mr. Stinnett's persistent FOIA requests finally obtained the key documents, which, as he puts it, had been "Immediately after December 7, 1941, ...locked in U.S. Navy vaults away from the prying eyes of congressional investigators, historians, and authors."

    In getting these key documents, Mr. Stennett got slightly lucky: They had been transferred from the Navy to the National Archives which hadn't recognized the, ah, "sensitivity" of the material yet. His final FOIA went to the The National Archives.

    How long does it take to expose a major conspiracy? To uncover the Pearl Harbor conspiracy, it took luck and approximately 59 years of persistent effort. With Uncle Sam kicking and screaming all the way.

    < C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\BLOGS\LSLITTLE>
    Posted by
    Labels: 9/11 CAG: CT: conspiracy conspiracy theory FDR McCollum Pearl Harbor Stinnett
    0

    Add a comment

  6. The following letter is in response to the view that wiindigos/kunlangeta/psychopaths, since they're a product of biological evolution, likely serve a useful purpose in human society.

    That view was ably put forward by Joe O'Donnell in response to What Went Wrong With The Worldwide Socialist Revolutions, L. Reichard White, - LewRockwell

    This is an essential topic because the character of human nature is at stake -- along with all the attendant political implications.

    = = = =

    Hi Joe O'Donnell! [Lew]!

    Thanks for that intense email!

    The problem is, after ~three decades, the population genetics models don't work in explaining humans. They're missing a key point.

    We humans are indeed talented predators but for obvious reasons -- and like nearly all species -- we have strong built-in genetic inhibitions against killing our own kind.

    Even so, we can still be violent and dangerous when the situation calls for it -- and even when it doesn't because we are also guided by non-genetic factors, usually called "culture," as well. Culture can be captured and morphed by genetic minorities -- and financial interests. The ~one percent (1%)~1% of us which are psychopaths -- and Eisenhower's "militaryindustrialcomplex," for example.

    When asked, "Are humans more murderous than other animals?" E.O. Wilson himself shed significant if indirect light on our reluctance to kill our own kind -- despite these negative psychopathic/economic influences in modern "Western" cultures. Like this:
    Edward O. Wilson: No. The data from long-term behavioral studies of groups such as lions, hyena's and chimpanzees show that the per capita murder-rate in animal-societies that do engage in murderous aggression is much higher than in human beings. ...I believe that is true even if you throw in the rate of mortality due to direct aggression during war in the modern area. ... --Interview with Edward O. Wilson, "father" of sociobiology, March 27, 1997
    Wilson's observations -- despite our "western" cultures being hijacked by psychopaths (and some of us learning to be "situational psychopaths") and thus far more murderous than most of our small-group ancestors -- are likely the indirect result of the extreme down-side in killing our own kind -- which is much more damaging to us than suggested by the older exclusively genetic models most folks still subscribe to.

    Because we survive mostly by brains not brawn. And those brains each contain unique knowledge, experience, and information which if lost could be fatal to the entire group. Jesarad can find that water hole for the semi-annual desert crossing, for example.

    Tellingly, that older population genetics camp has missed this point and thus been struggling with a few intractable stumbling blocks for several decades. Particularly "altruism" and free-riders. And genuine heros. Here for example: The Carnegie Hero Foundation http://www.carnegiehero.org

    Genetics alone simply can't reconcile these phenomena with a purely genetic explanation. The best effort, as far as I'm aware, was the totally inadequate attempt to apply "kin selection" to us humans.

    Attempts to cast our small-group ancestors as inherently violent as depicted in film and fable also miss the point that key information existed only in perishable brains which must be kept alive and intact for the good of the group. So we instinctively attempt to keep each other alive. Even folks we don't like. [Bill Maher interviews Sebastian Junger] Usually, even strangers -- who have really unique information, knowledge and experience. Marco Polo, perhaps.

    The notion of inherently violent tribes was being fiercely debated awhile back and is as misguided as the Fallacy of the Chief.

    Even when exacerbated by the "enclosure movement" from hunter-gatherer to farming, the pro-violence side was, IIRC, losing badly. (When you farm, you can't just leave if another group shows up, you may have to stand and fight to protect your crops.)

    A few clues - - -
    Speaking in terms of evolution, we find that war is not a permanent institution of mankind. ... The chaotic brawls, the internecine fighting of the lowest savages have nothing in common with the institution of war. --Polish-born anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, Harvard, September 17, 1936 [1]
    Desmond Morris, in his fascinating book Manwatching, for example, shows that the instinctive fighting style of human beings seems to be rather carefully optimized to keep us from injuring one another. Films of street scuffles show that "instinctive" fighting consists largely of shoving and overhand blows to the head/shoulders/ribcage area. --Eric S. Raymond, The Myth of Man the Killer
    Here's an example:


    Pakistani police slap protesters into police van

    Democracy NOW!, Nov. 14, 2007

    -- or watch a couple of Jerry Springer shows. AND his Security guys exhibit what appears to be a refined technique used in some tribes to break up fights.
    New England's first Indian war, the Pequot War of 1636-37, provides a case study of the intensified warfare Europeans brought to America. Allied with the Narragansetts, traditional enemies of the Pequots, the colonists attacked at dawn. ... The slaughter shocked the Narragansetts, who had wanted merely to subjugate the Pequots, not exterminate them. The Narragansetts reproached the English for their style of warfare, crying, "It is naught, it is naught, because it is too furious, and slays too many men." In turn, Capt. John Underhill scoffed, saying that the Narragansett style of fighting was "more for pastime, than to conquer and subdue enemies." Underhill's analysis of the role of warfare in Narragansett society was correct, and might accurately be applied to other tribes as well. Through the centuries, whites frequently accused their Native allies of not fighting hard enough. -James W. Loewen, LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME, (New York, NY: Touchstone 1996), p. 118
    Reflected by this, for example - - -
    ...we preferred hunting to a life of idleness on our reservations. At times we did not get enough to eat and we were not allowed to hunt. All we wanted was peace and to be left alone. Soldiers came and destroyed our villages. Then Long Hair (Custer) came...They say we massacred him, but he would have done the same to us. Our first impulse was to escape but we were so hemmed in we had to fight. - Crazy Horse/Tashunkewitko, ibid.
    However, I've noticed lately what I subjectively interpret as a desperate attempt to resurrect the "human-as-violent-and-dangerous" meme, which has an active economic constituency in the law-and-order industry -- and Eisenhower's "militaryindustrialcomplex."

    When I was following things more closely, Lawrence Keeley was the hit-man for those cinema staples.

    The latest effort I'm aware of -- I have it somewhere -- is an attempt to interpret the remains of something like 30+ dead, including children, as some sort of intertribal warfare. Even if true, given the percentage of the total population over history, not terribly alarming -- and about par for the "human-as-violent-and-dangerous" course.

    Cowboys and Indians & War. Fun when video games. But when you have real skin -- or real kin and/or friends in the game, then permanent disability, PTSD, etc. And that's in small groups. Do it the "modern" way, add huge debt, etc. And millions of motivated enemies.

    So no, our small-group ancestors had things right: Psychopaths have at best a VERY limited usefulness. As suggested in What Went Wrong With the Worldwide Socialist Revolutions, possibly when "wars" (which they like and cause) can't be avoided. And they need to be recognized and watched VERY closely. Better to follow the Yupik tradition.

    Health, happiness & long non-violent life,
    L. Reichard White

    P.S. Has anyone other than Marvin Minsky and the cognitive science folks recognized the non-genetic -- or perhaps meta-genetic is a better phrase -- and central role memes play in previously misunderstood "group selection?"

    This role explains so-called altruism, heros, why the purely genetic arguments don't work well with humans, why our ancestors might well push psychopaths off the ice when no one was looking, and why even baboon troops are better off without them.



    Marvin Minsky: I adore Richard Dawkins' conception of memes--that is, structured units of knowledge that are able, more or less, to reproduce themselves by making copies of themselves from one mind to another. A few million years ago, some of our ancestors evolved some brain machinery that was specialized for representing knowledge in a serial and "explicit" fashion, rather than in a parallel and "implicit" manner. These early primate ancestors of ours began to be able to transmit the fruits of their experience by vocal signals--and eventually that led to rapid advances both in already existing abilities to learn and represent knowledge and, perhaps more important, in the social evolution of new ideas. By improving each brain's ability to do serial processing, the entire society was enabled to accumulate knowledge in parallel. Consequently, the very nature of evolution has changed. In the Darwinian scheme, we can evolve only at the level of genes; however, with memes, a system of ideas can evolve by itseelf, without any biological change. Yet still, we see many of the same phenomena, with evolutionary fitness struggles and all--as when some philosophy evolves a new and convincing argument about why its competitors may be wrong. The interaction of meme propagation with Darwinian evolution has given rise to a new order of things. In particular, it makes possible such phenomena as "group selection" that are less well supported in simpler species. I don't see this much appreciated in the thinking of most other evolutionists, but I and many of my friends consider it an idea of tremendous importance. --Marvin Minsky on RICHARD DAWKINS' "A Survival Machine" in John Brockman, The Third Culture, (New York, NY: TOUCHSTONE 1995), p. 87
    ALSO of INTEREST?
    It's not who or what you think - - -
    You're NOT the way they told you you are!
    What You Mean 'We,' Paleface? - LewRockwell
    Semantics vs. Slavery | GoldenSources
    The Story of Your Enslavement -- Are YOU a cash crop? - YouTube
    NOTES:

    [1] Of course, notice Malinowski unconsciously hierarchically places our ancestors well below him on the totem and further disses them when he refers to them as "lowest savages." return

    < C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\BLOGS\LSLITTLE>
    Posted by
    Labels: altruism E.O. Wilson genetics group selection kunlangeta Minsky psychopaths sociobiology wiindigo
    1

    View comments

  7. You raised some good questions from UNCOMMON SENSE: Freedom and the Indians Don! Reminds me of Jared Diamond's questions from "Guns, Germs, and Steel." FWIW, let me take a shot at answering them - - -

    1. "What is the explanation for the greater technological progress of the less civilized Euros?" --Don Duncan

    Trade. The main thing pale-face contributed to the world was the mastery of trade including "money" and double entry bookkeeping which enabled specialization and division of labor, and thus the extremely efficient production of "stuff" as George Carlin was apt to put it.

    This didn't come without extreme down-side effects, however.

    Also the "scientific method," basically a simple technique for asking questions -- and finding and checking the answers.

    2. "Why are native Americans poor, suicide prone, and alcoholic, more than all other ethic groups?" --Don Duncan

    I'm not sure "all other ethic groups" applies. As far as "alcoholic" apparently there is a genetic predisposition.

    As to the rest, more than likely because their basic culture -- the culture of egalitarian hunter-gatherer freedom -- was forcibly replaced with regimented, fenced-in, pale-face hierarchy. Like this:
    "The white world puts all the power at the top, Nerburn. ... When your people first came to our land they were trying to get away from those people at the top. But they still thought the same, and soon there were new people at the top in the new country. It is just the way you were taught to think."
    "In your churches there is someone at the top. In your schools, too. In your government. In your business. There is always someone at the top and that person has the right to say whether you are good or bad. They own you.
    ... "When you came among us, you couldn't understand our way. You wanted to find the person at the top. ... Your world was made of cages and you thought ours was, too. Even though you hated your cages you believed in them. ...
    "Our old people noticed this from the beginning. They said that the white man lived in a world of cages, and that if we didn't look out, they would make us live in a world of cages, too." --Lakota elder Dan, Kent Nerburn, Neither Wolf nor Dog, New World Library, 2002, pg.157
    3. "Why doesn't a freer, happier life translate into material wealth?" --Don Duncan

    Well, to a certain extent, that question is backwards. The more important question is, why doesn't "material wealth" translate into a freer happier life?

    At what might be called the "spiritual" level, there's a conflict between material goods and freedom. First, producing "stuff" requires self-discipline and takes hours from free spontaneous behavior. Further, a surplus of material goods requires not only time but also stable locations. Farms and factories for example. And then you have to maintain stuff.

    Then there are the "addictive" properties of the newest I-phone, the latest movie, hot showers, etc. which tends to "encourage" folks to spend even more hours of their lives accumulating "stuff." And/or "money" to buy stuff later.

    At some point, the production of stuff should be efficient enough to free most people from the necessity of spending much time acquiring even an advanced level of "stuff."

    At a talk he called, "I Dreamed I Was A Libertarian In My Maidenform Bra," L. Neil Smith suggested an 8 hour work week -- and that was July 31, 1982, at The Nevada Libertarian Party "CANDIDATE'S CONVENTION" in Las Vegas.

    What went wrong? I'm sure you know. On the surface, it was this:
    In the 1930s, Lord Keynes predicted that some day everyone would have a four-bedroom house, at which point, the American dream having been fulfilled, people would lose their incentive to work. Keynes believed that peoples' affluence would eventually outstrip their appetites--that their demand for goods and services would reach a plateau, beyond which the amount of money they spent would represent a smaller and smaller percentage of their income. Therefore, he argued, the government would have to adopt fiscal policies designed to keep people from hoarding too much of their income. --Unlimited Wealth by Paul Zane Pilzer, pg. 17
    The banksters along with their government-gangster cronies just used that argument as another excuse to loot folks.

    That affluence is exactly what's supposed to happen. But as you well know, Don, the "government" -- along with it's brown-nosers, suckups and hangers-on -- particularly the bankers -- have done quite well with adopting "fiscal policies designed to keep people from hoarding too much of their income." Translated, that becoms, "steal peoples' money -- and thus the hours of their lives spent earning money -- using taxation and inflation."

    L. Neil was right but over-estimated the necessary work week.  The difference between that even shorter work week and your real-world work week is what the government/banking axis costs the average "citizen" who buys into the establishment bullshit.  Bastiat nailed it:
    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." --Frederic Bastiat
    There are now two "forces" that I see likely to seriously disrupt the current "order."

    1. Income disparity caused by the "Reverse Robin Hood" effect of fiat money and fractional reserve banking, and

    2. Increasing automation which will make most jobs obsolete, possibly reaching a tipping point in maybe 10 years according to Pew Research -- and maybe sooner according to gonzo futurist Ray Kurzweil.

    And, closely related, will the robot revolution result in R2D2 or Terminator 2?

    Your guess is as good as mine as to how this will all turn out.

    < C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\BLOGS\LSLITTLE>
    Posted by
    Labels: division of labor happiness hierarchy L. Neil Smith Lakota Elder Dan pale-face scientific method specialization time accounting trade tribes wealth
    0

    Add a comment

  8. According to the Liar-In-Chief's latest, his Government will try to hunt down anyone "it" unilaterally decides threatens it anywhere in the world. "It" will call them "terrorists" of course.

    Obama warns the world



    If 70 year old crippled-up farmer Mohammed in backwoods Pakistan gets a splinter trying to gather fire wood and NSA over-hears him cussing the U.S., possibly because drone strikes mistakenly killed his family who were keeping him alive, he may be a "threat to national security," Or, perhaps, just a threat to "the national interest," neither of which has anything to do with "we the people."

    Either way, Mohammed could be targeted by Hellfire Missiles or even fuel-air "Daisy Cutters" if the Einsteins in D.C. or Centcom are having a bad day. Or a U.S. Liar-in-Chief, well, lies about him, his village,  or his country. Or his sub-liars do.
    Valiant V: Never said that it wasn't "out of control" L, merely that "spontaneous order" is fiction and anybody who has *ever* worked with groups of people knows that from experience.
    That [people] are too STUPID to elect leaders remotely worthy of the responsibility given them shows that these people are incapable of running their own lives, much less participating in a "self-directed" society.
    Val, you've just aptly indicted the opposite of "spontaneous order," and done it very well. See, what's different in "spontaneous order" society is that only folks who have a direct stake in a particular activity get involved, NOT everyone. Like in a business organization instead of a political party.

    That direct stake -- and direct easily revocable voluntary involvement makes all the difference. If a group wins, only those involved win, ditto if they lose. Either way, if they discover something useful, sooner or later, everyone wins.

    And there's no dilettante-attracting tax-money lottery from the tax-pool created as a result of previous winner-take-all "democratic" votes.

    We moderns have devolved so far that "we" can't even conceive of how that works.

    But here's a clue you've seen before - - -
    "People [native Americans] who do not vote for an issue -- whether they abstain or vote against it -- often resent having to abide by it and insist that they should not be affected by the final decision since they did not themselves affirm it. A number of Indian groups -- such as the Hopis here in the Southwest -- are still divided over the issue of their constitution, those who voted against it or who did not participate in the constitutional election, insisting that they should not be bound by the vote of the others." -James E. Officer, Journal of American Indian Education, Volume 3 Number 1, October 1963, INFORMAL POWER STRUCTURES WITHIN, INDIAN COMMUNITIES
    Here's how that will work in the not too distant future:
    Bitnation Announces Crowdsale to Fund Decentralized Governance Projects
    The extremely subtle -- to we moderns at least -- and malevolent aberration to the true voluntary democracy practiced by the Hopi, etc. (and likely soon everyone), is coercive "winner-take-all" democracy, foisted on us by the hierarchical controller mentality.

    In coercive "winner-take-all" democracy, you attempt to dragoon everyone who votes -- or even theoretically could vote -- into going along with the majority.  Everyone is forced to go along, even those who couldn't vote.  You've heard it thousands of times: "The majority rules." Why? Why try to lump ~319 million extemely diverse individuals into one imaginary group -- and then call it USA? Etc.?

    The hierarchical establishment uses "the majority" -- more honestly phrased "the majority of those who vote" -- as an excuse to rule you, repress you, and rip everyone off. That simple winner-take-all con enables them to use you as tax and cannon fodder. I bet they even have YOU believing in it - - -

    The operational difference between the two "democracies" is that with winner-take-all democracy, the hierarchical rulers, their brown-nosers, suck-ups and hangers-on (bankers for example) play with OPM (Other Peoples' Money), that is taxpayer money, rather than with their own money. This means, among other things, they take much bigger risks -- and regularly put all our eggs in one basket.

    Here's what's really going on:
    What those calling themselves planners advocate is not the substitution of planned action for letting things go. It is the substitution of the planners own plan for the plans of his fellow-men. The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. He aims at the one thing only: the exclusive absolute pre-eminence of his own plan." --Ludwig von Mises
    And, with the evolution of Extortion Futures (U.S. Treasuries etc.) -- which must be paid-for by future taxpayers -- they are now gambling, not only with your present earnings but with the future earnings of you, your kids, grand kids, and the yet unborn.

    Intergenerational warfare anyone?



    < C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\BLOGS\LSLITTLE>
    Posted by
    Labels: democracy Extortion Futures hierarchy Hopi Intergenerational warfare Liar-In-Chief Mises national interest national security Obama winner-take-all democracy
    0

    Add a comment

  9. Hi D!
    "So, does this mean that you like and support ISIS (or ISIL or whatever)?"
    Thanks for asking!

     First, if you read my article, it's fairly clear that ISIS is largely a fantasy creation of the U.S. War Party (Democrats + Republicans) and the MilitaryIndustrialCongressionalComplex that Eisenhower warned against in his farwell address.

     Clearly it's been hyped beyond all reason. For example, IF ISIS is real and the beheadings weren't completely staged, Saudi Arabia beheaded at least 8 people last month. So shouldn't "we" bomb them?

     At any rate, ISIS is none of my business -- nor is it Washington D.C.'s business. Remember George Washington's admonition in HIS farewell address to avoid foreign entanglements.

     The reasons used to be crystal clear. Even as late as 2001, Americans understood:
    ~"You could kill all the terrorists in Afghanistan, all the terrorists in the world. You could hang Osama bin Laden in sight of the White House. You still wouldn't have solved the problem because you will have created a whole new generation of terrorists." --Col. Richard Dunn writing in the Washington Post, quoted on ABC THIS WEEK, October 21, 2001
    ISIS is direct proof that Col. Dunn got it exactly right.

    Remember the idiots (I'm being kind) in D.C. got "us" involved in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq (twice so far) etc. by mistakes and lies. Which is directly responsible for the current mess.

     They're busy creating our childrens' children's war.

     So, "approve" or "disapprove" has nothing to do with it. "It's none of my business" is the operational phrase. Who, knowing the history, would want to get "us" involved again?

     What do you think?

     Health, happiness & long life
    L.

      < C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\BLOGS\LSLITTLE>
    Posted by
    Labels: Childrens' Children's War Col. Richard Dunn ISIL ISIS MIC No Cigar terrorism war war induction war scripts
    0

    Add a comment



  10. It wasn't till maybe a year later that I finally realized what COULDN'T have happened in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001. I'd seen the demolition of the Dunes Hotel in Vegas in person in 1993, and, because of the news coverage and advance PR, knew implosions -- or even just controlled demolitions -- couldn't be done without weeks of engineering and preparation.

    I also knew steel-framed structures, because of "local structural integrity" -- like those commercials dropping a bowling ball on a mattress without spilling a neighboring glass of water -- simply don't collapse as the buildings did on Sept. 11, 2001. Unless engineered and prepped. Especially Building 7, which wasn't even hit by a plane.

    And I knew of Building 7 because Bob Pisani covered it all afternoon on CNBC, and kept saying they were considering "bringing it down." And CNBC had cameras on it when they "pulled" it. So I knew, because of the way it collapsed -- and that CNBC knew when it was coming down -- that it was an implosion.

    Here's what it looked like - - -



    OK, an implosion, big deal, those happen all the time -- and I went to sleep about the whole thing. DUH!

    It didn't occur to me that it simply couldn't have been engineered and rigged to be "pulled" at ~5:30 PM in the ~eight hours since the WTTC towers came down, let alone in that chaotic 9/11 disaster zone. Ergo, it HAD to have been set up ahead of time.

    Which finally occurred to me about a year later. I sat up in bed, realizing, "Son-of-a-bitch -- someone had to have wired Building 7 ahead of time!"

    Certain things proceed from that realization - - -

    Sometimes enlightenment is a slow process.

    < C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\BLOGS\LSLITTLE>
    Posted by
    Labels: 9/11 911 911 myth Building 7 CNBC controlled demolition Dan Rather Dunes implosion Pisani WTC Building 7
    0

    Add a comment

Loading