Debt Rattle January 14 2023
- This topic has 97 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I am not in favor of the Great Reset, or of the events that are being used to implement it. Those interested may contact me at [email protected] .
Today I had the pleasure of visiting one of the few places in the world where the last Great Extinction Event marker -a thin layer of high iridium-content and high iron-content dust- is exposed at a reasonably easy to access site. No, I don’t currently have access to the equipment to test the iridium concentration. Mass spectrometers don’t come cheaply.
How cool is that! Rocks 65 million years old there to be seen by anyone with a bit of willpower and physical fitness. I also found a few very interesting rocks -geology being another of my fields of study.
As for the CO2-induced meltdown deniers. I really cannot be bothered with their bullshit and anti-scientific rhetoric anymore. I have far better things to do than keep pointing out well-established scientific facts to idiots who refuse to accept them. They will learn the hard way. Quite soon.
Should *anything* on this here gotten-to darpaNet be trusted?
Good question; my solution is; trust (little t) but verify…
The degree sign° is gotten via “alt codes”: write the temp 37; then alt key 0176 for the degree sign 37°c…add the c or f after…
Interesting! I’m not sure I fully agree with Todd, … this part:
“Putin made a big mistake early on, which is [that] on the eve of the war [everyone saw Ukraine] not as a fledgling democracy, but as a society in decay and a “failed state” in the making. […] I think the Kremlin’s calculation was that this decaying society would crumble at the first shock. But what we have discovered, on the contrary, is that a society in decomposition, if it is fed by external financial and military resources, can find in war a new type of balance, and even a horizon, a hope.”
All one has to do is review diplomatic exchanges between U.S./NATO and Russia in a dying days of year 2021.
… other than that, Todd’s pronouncement, “it’s obvious that the conflict, which started as a limited territorial war and is escalating to a global economic confrontation between the whole of the West on the one hand and Russia and China on the other hand, has become a world war.” is spot on!
Anyway, . … link to article:
Emmanuel Todd On The Third World War
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/01/emmanuel-todd-on-the-third-world-war.html#more… further to above, Emmanuel Todd ( … it’s all in French, sorry.)
Emmanuel Todd – Crise de la société occidentale et guerre en Ukraine
Man’s hubris is that everything is his creation – you can assume changes in the environment are due to man but even if it’s true nothing you can do will change it. Even if everyone in the West stopped driving vehicles, would everyone else do the same? Nope. We in the West have the luxury to contemplate “Green” technology, non-Western countries just want to escape poverty. There is no escape unless you expect people to volunteer to revert to pre-industrial life and mass death. Stop bashing your head against the wall on that one – it’s sinking – make your peace, try to enjoy life and prepare.
For those who watch the face of the sun, it is freckled right now. It has lots of fairly regular marching spots in both north and south hemispheres. This is new to me in my 25 years of watching the sun online and my six decades of watching it through lenses. With a 22 year solar cycle, I can make no further comment.
The sun changes. Hold your head high before the materialistic deity of our existence. It wants to kiss your face.There have been so many unusual 4+/- earthquakes in the remotest northern latitudes I have to ask: how often do you have to test a nuke to make sure it still works?
So many Expert Online Explainers.. I trust, provisionally, those who don’t know.
The other boys are jerkoffs.Yes, it is obvious that World War III has commenced. So far it is still a proxy war but it keeps escalating.
NATO since 2014 has been intent on forcing a regime change in the Kremlin to gain access to Russia’s resources. If the NATO stands down, it will be isolated from the rest of the world’s resources and goods within BRICS. The US dollar will crash due to the trillions in unsupported debts. This war is existential for all the participants. It is replaying like WWI since nuclear weapons haven’t been used yet and the contesting neoliberal empires are too corrupt from exploiting its peoples and assets. The Regimes are incapable of raising mass armies and manufacturing sufficient armored vehicles and air support needed for maneuver warfare. With all of the West’s energy, draftees, and weapons in WWII, and most of the German Army in the East, it still took General George Patton three months to break out of Normandy. It will be years, if ever, before Russia could march again into Berlin.
Transportation in North America is collapsing. There are shortages of medicine and food. Millions no longer can work due to Long-COVID. California is flooding in an extreme drought. Public health systems worldwide have collapsed. Corporate propaganda hides all of these inconvenient truths. Change is inevitable. The question is will good government by and for the people be restored or will chaos and lies prevail.
The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that he always studied his adversary’s case with as great, if not with still greater, intensity than even his own. What Cicero practised as the means of forensic success, requires to be imitated by all who study any subject in order to arrive at the truth. He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty. Ninety-nine in a hundred of what are called educated men are in this condition; even of those who can argue fluently for their opinions. Their conclusion may be true, but it might be false for anything they know: they have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them, and considered what such persons may have to say; and consequently they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrine which they themselves profess. They do not know those parts of it which explain and justify the remainder; the considerations which show that a fact which seemingly conflicts with another is reconcilable with it, or that, of two apparently strong reasons, one and not the other ought to be preferred. All that part of the truth which turns the scale, and decides the judgment of a completely informed mind, they are strangers to; nor is it ever really known, but to those who have attended equally and impartially to both sides, and endeavoured to see the reasons of both in the strongest light. So essential is this discipline to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them, and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful devil’s advocate can conjure up.
—John Stuart Mill, Chapter 2 “Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion” in On Liberty
The person who deprives others of the sincerity, strength and style of the arguments and viewpoints that encouraged this person to adhere to what they hold as the truth not only deprives them of the opportunity to correct themselves and find out the merits and demerits of their own quality of thinking and resilience of mind, but deprives self of all opportunities to rejuvenate one’s own thinking and clarity on this most important aspect of the truth held so dear, to learn anew how to communicate with others and teach as among equals lessons that change and reform minds and hearts, and to fall in love again with that part of truth who amorously seeks out lovers of wisdom from among the mundane and who elevates them in erotic joy towards such climax of arousal that, with great expulsion of good feeling and resonant sympathy, such beloved have no other way of being among others than to share their ardor for this truth whose unconditional love has brought them to a transformation birthing new praxis and responsibility, and such a depriving person marvels at how long a man might compose a sentence, even a paragraph, never having known or appreciated the thrill of being in the mind and even the body of another so unlike one’s self, only knowing the solitary but lonesome task of knowing he is right in his own mind, his own habits, his own hand.
@Polemos The debating society at school would draw a topic and stance for the members to debate. The debates lasted six minutes, three minutes per participant, two per debate. Yes, they often repeated old debates we had done before, but each time there would be different participants on that debate. Yes, all very high level but in those three minutes you had to convince and entertain. Typical subject would be “Is lying to a loved one valid if it protects their feelings”. You would be amazed how you can cut to the chase and isolate the problem within a few minutes and how funny the debates could be, everybody knowing that the funnier you are, the more votes you are likely to win in the end. Helped by the fact that in those days comedy was permitted in society.
To no one for we have moved on, but I really need to check before I post and see what mischief has been wrought by the spellcheck genie.
“materialistic” should read “material”. Kinda changes the meaning.No doubt, aspnaz. Dr D, TAE Summary, my parents said know, D Benton Smith: good examples of people who use comedic effect and timing to add quality to their comments. I also add zerosum here, who I think has achieved the zen state of hypercondensing information analysis with a layer of subtle humor I very much appreciate. Antidote once asked who I thought was likely an AI, and with great honor I’d say zerosum is most like someone who has reduced ego to a bare surface over an impressive algorithm, processing information to get to the point. Precious.
I have watched videos, though, of some contemporary school (high/college) debates where they “debate” by talking extremely fast —spreading. And there was also this viral video that ignited a lot of its own debates, triggering people in different ways.
But, yeah, there’s a way a person who has the capacity to laugh at themselves and humor others will move and sway many others along, disarming defenses, making friends, humanizing the process of sharing difference. Friendly debates over a beer in a bar come to mind. Maybe if we had that kind of camaraderie among us, we’d hear less complaints from Bill7, wondering after the thoughts of someone long gone.
@Polemos Those videos are disturbing, that is not debating, that is projectile vomiting in sound. I guess it’s the American style, each to their own, but it doesn’t look to me like fun.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.