Why your family does not understand your positions on covid

Family members who do not understand your positions on covid are probably victims of Fifth Generation Warfare, 5GW.

A good way to understand what is happening to them is to understand that they are being attacked on four levels. These levels are:

1. linguistic

2. intellectual

3. psychological

4. spiritual

The linguistic level in many ways is the most basic and easiest to understand. Stated very briefly, 5GW works at the linguistic level by exploiting interpersonal non-FIML linguistic problems. Problems of this sort can be very serious and virtually always delay or prevent intellectual and psychological growth and understanding.

The intellectual level is gravely hindered by the linguistic level because ideas can only be developed and communicated through the accurate and cooperative use of language. 5GW attacks at this level include fake news, falsified data, telegenic role models who advertise covid remedies that are harmful, and much more. All mainstream discussions of covid are profoundly twisted and disturbed by 5GW attacks at this level. It is very difficult for your family members who do not understand what is going on to even conceive of themselves as being the enemy, let alone an enemy who is surrounded on all sides by a ruthless opponent who seeks to exploit them and would think nothing of killing them.

At the psychological level, 5GW encourages dependency and fear and obedience to authority figures. Since levels one and two above are already characterized by a paucity of ideas and ways to communicate, your family members both feel and believe they have no other recourse, no other way to protect themselves and their loved ones. Rather than see their true enemy as an enemy, they see you as their enemy.

At the spiritual level, many are forced to founder on limited beliefs. Christians in particular are taught to be obedient, to love their enemy and their neighbor as thyself. This makes it extremely hard for Christians and people who have been raised in a Christian culture to understand an enemy who is also their neighbor and a hostile infiltrator. Loving such an enemy is catastrophic at spiritual and cultural levels. Objectively, it does appear that Christianity was designed to make Christians blind to infiltration and parasitic attacks. In this sense, 5GW is nothing new.

Each of these points can be expanded. I offer them as an aid to understanding how our family members are being attacked, why they appear to be captured or hypnotized, and why they cannot break free. This outline does not make it easier to free them. It only describes what has happened to them and that almost whatever you do on any one of the above levels will fail because all four levels are working together to hold them in.

Of course, we all are also being attacked by covid, covid malpractice, harmful therapies, lockdowns, economics, and much more.

Comment on a worthy article on modeling excess deaths caused by vaxxes

I’m a simple guy. If you’ve developed a 95% effective vaccine that’s a safe preventative for the 3rd leading cause of death in your society, then total deaths CANNOT increase. Any attempt to attribute that increase in death to something else is farcical because, sure, it’s possible, but it’s blatantly unreasonable. I’m an attorney, and I remind people that we don’t execute criminals based on proof; we execute them based on proof BEYOND a reasonable doubt. When you start vaccinating & total deaths increase, you have no reasonable doubt – the vaccines must end. Over-intellectualizing, over-thinking are extremely dangerous trends, especially for the intelligent. It’s very easy to persuade yourself that there’s some universe in which these vaccines work, or there are 73 genders, or that socialism just hasn’t been tried, but none of these beliefs are reasonable – they’re all nuts.

It’s really very simple: if you “cure” the third leading cause of death, then total deaths MUST decline. Anyone claiming there’s an exception to that rule must present extraordinary evidence, not speculation. Indeed, the exception would be obvious (like CA fell into the ocean & drowned millions). It’s not some BS about masks make people sad, which makes them sick…such subtle things are not plausible in light of the obvious: you’ve “cured” the 3rd leading cause of death but deaths increased.

Please stop taking the world “reasonable” out of your analysis/discussions. It’s great that you have theories about how the vaccines might not be to blame, but are those theories reasonable? That’s the threshold question we must demand our adversaries answer. (You reason from what you know to what you don’t, not from what you don’t know. We know deaths are increasing despite the cure; what do we infer from that? Granted, we don’t know why deaths are increasing, but so what? Uncertainty drives INACTION, not action. That is, you don’t vaccinate until you know it’s unsafe; you STOP vaccinating until you KNOW it’s safe.

link

The full article is well-worth reading and can be found here: A Weltanschauung causal model of excess deaths. This article provides an excellent overview of the factors in a statistical model and how to consider them. Many readers may already appreciate the problems. I am glad I read the whole thing because it is valuable confirmation. But the comment above is more or less how I felt at the end. Next to all the science arguments is an argument about rhetoric. How do we best present our case so it is noticed but not so sensational or oversimplified it can be easily refuted with concomitant simplifications? In my view, we need to be brief and forceful in what we say. Some amount of error, oversimplification, and sensationalism must be tolerated if it communicates with more people and/or gets them to research the topic and discover supporting complexities themselves. We have the winning argument and should sound like it when addressing a wide audience. Lives are at stake. My own brother was deeply affected by Died Suddenly. That’s an example of the power of rhetoric. He has done more research and reading since viewing that film than anything else. ABN

Why We Hide From Ourselves | Nietzsche

Our “true self” or, as I prefer, “authentic being” can be revealed through FIML practice, which requires two people each of whom provides a check on the other’s beliefs about what they are thinking or feeling. Personas are for people who have never experienced their authentic being. Without FIML the individual mind is plagued by doubt, suspicion, error, fantasy, conceits and delusions both pleasant and unpleasant. All of us are raised in conditions like that. Our parents, families, caregivers all were like that. FIML will fix all of it and show that your “true self” is not scary. It is simply not known to you. It is also not a self but a state of being, a dynamic state of being. It is much more complex and also much simpler than any persona. The hardest part about FIML is finding a partner to do it with. FIML is something you do. It is not a static doctrine. I am coming to the belief that the West is failing because Westerners see the emptiness of personas but cannot see the fullness of authentic being. It’s quite possible FIML practitioners are the “philosophers of the future” that Nietzsche wrote about, the “free spirits” who go not beyond good and evil but beyond confinement within fallacious personas. ABN

Jordan Peterson with Joe Rogan

Suggested by a friend. ABN

UPDATE: I have only watched about 20 min of this but what I watched confirms my view that JP suffers from the inevitable hubris that arises from fame and his conspicuous talent for verbal explication. The hubris that accompanies fame appears to be inevitable and we can see this in JR as well. He speaks like an ordinary person and yet that ordinary person also knows he is speaking to millions of people while also making millions of dollars for doing that. I do not see how it could be different for either of them. Both are talented in ways that are popular. JR is everyman while JP is a thinker with great verbal facility. For JP, this means his analyses, even when fairly simple-minded, take on a grandiosity they do not deserve. Overblown stories from the Bible, rehashed Jungian archetypes, strong condemnation for people who do not agree with him are avenues he goes down fairly often. I like and support both of these guys and believe they are doing some good. But I also want to point out their limitations and the dangers of fame and fortune. The eight winds of Buddhism are real and are a fundamental source of suffering and error. In this way, JP’s elaborate fluency and probable spiritual confusion can mislead his audience as much as him. ABN

A bit of infighting

There are very good reasons why I have nothing to do with Jane Ruby or Stew Peters.

This is one of them.

Ryan Cole got one thing wrong early on but acknowledged his error and has been 100% dedicated to the truth. This is what we do.

link

Not a pleasant subject but something that can happen. I do not have any other info on this spat but wonder why both Malone and now Cole are being attacked over seemingly non-issues. I tend strongly to believe Cole and Malone over Peters or Ruby. That said, I think Peters’ tendency to sensationalize is not all bad given the deceitful information environment established by mainstream news and government, which needs a good shaking once in awhile. I know people who were red-pilled by Died Suddenly. I rarely listen to Ruby because she does not seem credible. Somewhere in the wider fracas among covid scientists and personalities, the adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity applies. Died Suddenly is an example, imo, of some bad publicity that also does some good; more good than bad. I see Peters as a topical artist not too different from Alex Jones. There are many good people who respond to voices like theirs and need to hear truths in that way. ABN

UPDATE: More discussion available here. To be clear, I almost never post Alex Jones or Stew Peters but sometimes I do and I know there are many who respond to voices like theirs. Attacks against either of them do not need to be too sharp. Sensationalism is a type of communication and it has a place in the real world. If we all talked and wrote like Dr Clare Craig, who would hear us? (BTW, she’s great but so soft-spoken she’s on the other side of this spectrum.) I just noticed that Ruby is a defendant in Malone’s defamation case along with Breggin. We have been consistently losing to a decades-long psyop because the perps relentlessly use information for its greatest effect on the public. They lie and cheat all the time because those tactics work. This does not mean we should lie or cheat, but it does mean we need to accept less than perfect presentations of facts in some cases, from time to time. ABN

UPDATE: See this: Robert Malone and Ryan Cole on the nuances of covid science for more on the topic of rhetoric and communication. ABN

Reason is signal organization

If we view the universe as being made up of signals rather than matter, what we call “reason” looks very much like a method for organizing signals.

We can visualize this and from our visualization imagine other ways signals organize.

We say something is reasonable when we cannot find elements that do not seem to be in place among elements that do seem to be in place.

In this respect, the term “aesthetic reasoning”—musical, visual, poetic, etc.—makes good sense. It explains how the elements of an artwork are put together, how they are organized.

Engineers generally reason in more utilitarian ways then artists, but there is a great deal of overlap between these pursuits.

Not all reason works only with tangibles and how to organize them. We also fit things  together in our minds by what we normally think of as reasoning, inference, intuition, purpose, and so on.

In many cases, it is simpler and easier to think of signals than matter.

Signals organize into networks that signal other networks and receive signals from them.

A more “reasonable” network organization will work better than a less reasonable one. This type of network will tend to evolve.

first posted MARCH 8, 2017

Edit 12/26/23: We can also see how our fractured world today, divided but not yet conquered, cannot come together. From almost every angle it is unreasonable or simply savage. Signals do not align, we do not even know who is in control or what they want. ABN

‘There’s enough money in play for people to lie about it. That’s just the truth’ — Stew Peters on Damar Hamlin

direct link

Very good analysis by Peters. You have to admit he is an excellent speaker, whether you like his style or not. He lands on the main point in every sentence and almost never allows extraneous anything to enter in. He also is able to maintain a flawless telegenic focus on the topic or the person he is speaking with. I don’t know about the glitter in his eyes, maybe that’s the only thing slightly off but even that works if you don’t notice it. From a linguistic, rhetorical point of view, Peters is an exceptionally talented speaker of American English of a certain type. I see strains of preacher, carny barker, Alex Jones, and huckster, but he has well-transcended all of those forms and made a style unique to himself. And that’s just the truth. ABN

Making Sense of the Mental Universe

Try reading the following paper while keeping the Mind Only Buddhist interpretation of our world in mind.

In 2005, an essay was published in Nature asserting that the universe is mental and that we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things. Since then, experiments have confi rmed that — as predicted by quantum mechanics — reality is contextual, which contradicts at least intuitive formulations of realism and corroborates the hypothesis of a mental universe. Yet, to give this hypothesis a coherent rendering, one must explain how a mental universe can — at least in principle — accommodate (a) our experience of ourselves as distinct individual minds sharing a world beyond the control of our volition; and (b) the empirical fact that this world is contextual despite being seemingly shared. By combining a modern formulation of the ontology of idealism with the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, the present paper attempts to provide a viable explanatory framework for both points. In the process of doing so, the paper also addresses key philosophical qualms of the relational interpretation. (Making Sense of the Mental Universe)

Edit: The explanation offered in the linked paper, without saying as much, provides a very reasonable way to see Buddhist rebirth occurring without there being any soul or pudgala being reborn. Nothing need fly out of the body or transmigrate anywhere.

Instead, the classic Buddhist description of karma alone giving rise to a new life works perfectly. Rather than conceive of ourselves as fundamentally material beings, we can conceive of our personal individuality as being (a part of a “mental universe”) enclosed within a Markov blanket.

If there is still karma, a new Markov blanket or bodily form will be “reborn” or rearise after the extinction of its prior existence. In Kastrup’s way of putting it, our physical bodies are themselves Markov blankets causing or allowing us to arise as forms separate from the wholeness of the mental universe.

I suppose we might venture to say that enlightenment occurs when the karma, or reason for our separation in a Markov blanket, is gone and “we” remain the whole (of the mental universe) without being reborn (in a body).

first posted JANUARY 29, 2020

Stew Peters — There is no immunity for murder

The problem is there is no authority or institution or power that will get there. Everything in USA and the West has been taken over, infiltrated, usurped. My words are not complicity, agreement, or defeatism. They simply describe how it is. We are today living as serfs in a dictatorship, the top of which is invisible to most of us. USA is hardly different from Ukraine in that nothing works and no one in power tells the truth or is not corrupt (with very few exceptions). This is how people have always lived. What is different today is we have more information and can see a little more clearly. Top powers are influenced by public moods and understanding, insofar as there is such a thing. But top powers also influence and control public moods and understanding with a power that is much greater and infinitely more agile than the sum total of the individuals that make up the public. ABN

“The anti-vaxxers clearly won, you’re the winners!” — Scott Adams

Adams lost but still hedges as if it had been a bet. People I know who did not accept the vax did not accept it because we researched it. The evidence against it was much stronger than the evidence for it. That alone demanded at least delaying getting the shot. By July of 2021 it was obvious the vaxxes were shit. Our position was never the weakest. With health, always err on the side of caution so at least delaying vaxxing for a few months was the obvious best analytical position. Even as he admits “defeat”, Adams shows he is either unable to think properly or he is so narcissistic he cannot take the full, actual, real loss he incurred. The future is not a roulette wheel we bet on. It was not our “heuristics” that won against your (shitty) “analytics”, it was our analysis which was better than yours. ABN

Hierarchies evolve to reduce connections (and confusion)

Large social systems, especially those with many members who do not know each other, evolve into hierarchies because the number of connections is reduced.

When the number of connections that hold a group together is reduced, it is less costly to maintain the group and thus such groups are more likely to survive.

Military organizations, companies, religious organizations and schools are usually organized into hierarchical structures. Creative, independent modules can relieve some of the formalism of hierarchy but these modules will still fit into the hierarchical structure somewhere.

Hierarchies are (always?) organized around a purpose—money for corporations, winning for militaries, belief and organizational systems for religions, food for animals and so on.

You can even see the hierarchical principle in plant structures.

A research project on this topic as it applies to artificial intelligence demonstrates that biological networks evolve into hierarchies:

…because hierarchically wired networks have fewer connections. (Research showing why hierarchy exists will aid the development of artificial intelligence)

If we accept this principle behind the development of hierarchies, I would submit that we can also apply it to how language has developed as a hierarchy in and of itself and also as a support system for the social hierarchy within which it is used.

Language and culture are held together by a system of hierarchical categories.

These categories are what we think of as beliefs, values, codes, stories, political systems, who’s who in the group, and so on.

Hierarchical systems based on general categories of that type typically also exist between individuals within any society. Indeed, we can find the same sort of hierarchical system within the individual.

This is an efficient and very reasonable way to maintain a society and a language.

Problems arise in this system, however, when the individual does not know any other way of organizing themself or of communicating with others.

An individual who exists and communicates only within a hierarchical structure will be alienated from the great mass of idiosyncratic perceptions, responses, thoughts, and emotions that exist within them and others. I think that this causes a great deal of psychological suffering and is a major part of what the Buddha meant by delusion.

FIML is designed to fix this problem between individuals.

first posted

‘AI will take 20% of all jobs within five YEARS’: Experts explain how bots like ChatGPT will dominate the labor market

The launch of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence chatbot, late last year marked a new era in AI – and sparked widespread fears over the effect of artificial intelligence on the job market.

Its abilities to write poems, screenplays, take exams and simulate entire chat rooms have led some to suggest it could rapidly take over jobs in customer service, copywriting and even the legal profession.

Microsoft invested $10 billion in ChatGPT and said that the technology will change how people interact with computers.

‘I believe that ChatGPT could replace 20 percent of the workforce as is,’ AI expert Richard DeVere, Head of Social Engineering for Ultima, told DailyMail.com.

‘ChatGPT is no fad – it’s a new technological revolution.

‘Robots aren’t necessarily coming for your jobs, but a human with a robot will do. 

link

In principle, I believe any improvement in communication, information handling, inference, or clarity of response is a good thing. We’ll see how this turns out. ABN