Talk to me for my research into hegemony and truth regimes!

[emresearch]

Hi everyone,

 

I’m new to this forum and I have a bit of a weird request and I thought it would be better to create a public thread instead of messaging people in private.

 

My name is Maia and I’m an undergraduate student of cultural anthropology in the Netherlands and am currently conducting an ethnographic study into hegemonic truth regimes (so basically how power hierarchies or relations can lead to the establishment of an exclusive framework of determining what is ‘truth’ and what isn’t, which often is inherently based on what will help those in power remain in power) and how people deal with the feelings of disillusionment that may arise out of recognising these.

 

I know I probably have slightly different opinions than a lot of people on this forum, and the reason I landed here is because the threads here feature such a variety of different perspectives that the debates are extremely productive and lively without being as polarised as they would be on e.g. Facebook or Twitter (that’s at least what I would expect). This forum is a really good example for different ‘communities of inquiry’ outside of the dominant system.

 

This is a study that I am conducting for my Bachelor at University, but it’s also a deeply personal inquiry. I understand reservations that you may have with the University setting (I also have some) but am hoping that some of you would want to share your insights with me anyways.
Maybe an important point to add is that I’m not trying to uncover any ‘hidden secrets’ or stuff like that whatsoever. My ethnographic methodology is about observing everyday-interactions, and about having productive exchanges with people who are able contribute important insights.

 

So, generally, I’m not trying to trick you into telling or showing me something you wouldn’t tell or show me by yourself.

 

Furthermore, I definitely do not claim any expert status or higher ground, which is why I’m trying to rid myself of pre-existing notions of truth that may make me preoccupied in this study (which is hard and maybe impossible to do fully, but should at least make me slightly more receptive for different world-views). I know that some people see studying something in the academic setting as the ‘only’ way of acquiring knowledge and I disagree. Academia is deeply biased and science is always also a product of wider circumstances and relations. I think it is important that alternative ways of acquiring knowledge become normalised and taken seriously, also so that there’s a space for dialogue between people of different opinions  and perspectives (much like this forum already does on a smaller scale).

 

Lastly, everything I have said in the above are things I cannot take back. I am ethically required to stick to reassurances I make, but I am open to discussing this and changing it on your own terms. I will also keep every informant I am in contact with completely anonymous, and I would also prefer not to know your citizen name or the place you live in or any other personal details that could disclose your identity.

 

So I was wondering whether there are any people here that would want to talk to me about their beliefs and their notions of truth? I’m specifically interested in your quest for the truth – how you determine which sources are relevant and legitimate and which one’s aren’t and how you discuss these things on the forum but maybe also irl. And maybe about how thinking about these things has changed your lives (for the better or worse?). Ultimately, it’s all up to you. If topics are off-limit that’s fine and if there are things you would like to tell me that’s also great.

 

I can adapt to whatever you find most comfortable: We can continue talking publicly via this thread (so also with other people involved), but we can also communicate via PMs or somewhere else. Ideally I would also like to do some interviews, but we would obviously have to find a way that doesn’t make anyone feel uncomfortable.

I think talking to people who are more used to the kind of conversations that happen on this forum would be really helpful for me, as I have read through some threads and sometimes find it hard to completely understand arguments (probably because there’s a lot of information that I missed out on). 

 

So also if you’re not interested in talking to me but have some recommendations for books/articles/documentaries/podcasts that would be really helpful, too! I also have an ICKONIC subscription.

 

Thank you for reading , if you did, and if this is an invasion of the privacy of anyone on here I’m deeply sorry.

[rideforever]

If an engineer builds a bridge and that bridge works, then you can tell from that that his theories are truthful or relatively truthful ... because they are tested in the natural world.  He has theories about the natural world, tests them and if they succeed then that is the test.

So the theories are truthful, or correctly represent the natural world.

 

In many parts of human society, office jobs and talking jobs ... nothing is ever tested so there is little truth required in those jobs.

 

Going back to the engineer, he may have come up with the theories himself and makes bridges with them.

Or he may have a book with theories that he then uses like a robot.

The theories are the same in both cases, they are both truth, however in the first case the engineer himself owns the truth inside himself ... in the second case he is a robot that mechanically copies true ideas.

 

So this points to the development of a person.  Whether that person lives like a robot, or whether he himself investigates things and develops his own experience wisdom and knowledge.

 

Today many people like to talk about science.  But how many scientific experiments do they do themselves?
None?
People just read stuff on TV.

But you are a scientist only when you yourself do experiments.

 

Say a mother bakes  birthday cake for a child.  And when the cake comes out of the oven it has faied, the cake did not rise, or tastes wrong.  Now the mother carefully considers the steps she made in creating the case.  She thinks about it, and concluded that the failure might be due to not enough bicarbonate of soda, or possibly that the oven was too hot.  So she tries again, and this time changes the recipe.

In this way the mother is learning, she is acting scientifically.

 

In the same way in nature animals are very scientific.

For instance if a fox changes a rabbit into a thorny bush, then the fox will get hurt, he will get thorns in the face and they will bleed.

So he will learn.

In nature you have to learn, because otherwise you die.

So animals are naturally always learning.

 

Humans however do not have to learn, they have some jobs which are office jobs where it's mostly ... just talking about nothing.

Humans don't like to do hard work or to learn, they like to eat Doritos.

So many human beings do not become intelligent.

Instead they have an education system them allows them to copy information from other people, in books, or technology.

They borrow information so that they themselves do not become wise.

 

So if we look at these examples we can see that firstly, truth can be tested.  And if you test your ideas then you will see if they are true or not.  Otherwise you cannot know.

For instance if you have ideas about bridge, you can test them.  If they fall down you know the idea was untrue.

 

Secondly and importantly, are you yourself intelligent?  Did you do any real work?  Did you yourself test anything?  Try anythign?
Or do you just borrow knowledge because you are lazy?

So ultimately you are talking two kinds of people.   One kind is making real effort in his life to become intelligent and create knowledge.

The other kind is a lazy robot.

 

So there are some ideas.

[emresearch]

@rideforeverthanks so much! This is really helpful and definitely something to consider. I think I have to digest this a little bit, especially because I have so much to do with studying and reading abstract theory/theories and it's therefore difficult to get used to the whole trial and error approach.

 

So would you say that it is impossible to have knowledge about things that cannot directly be tested into being either true or false? For example (sorry, I can't come up with anything better) if humanity wants to find out whether "God" (whatever we may conceptualise God as) exists or not, or the question of the classical "brain in a vat" speculation, is that something that we can ever find out or not?

 

And you say that animals are very scientific, which is an interesting thought, because I think many people say that what makes humans different from animals is 'reasoning' or 'science' or 'insight'. What would you say makes us different from animals?
 

And would you personally say that you only believe in the theories that you tested and yourself found to be true? Or are there people/groups that you do trust to say the truth (for example about having tested theories)?

 

[rideforever]

@emresearch

You have many interesting questions on your mind, I will give them a go another time.

But there is a very good book "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky, this really blew my mind 30 years ago.  You see mostly all this corruption is only about money at the end of the day, it's boring but most of the nasty things on the planet are in the end after all the words, in the end it is just about money.  It's a good book.

[EnigmaticWorld]

3 minutes ago, rideforever said:

@emresearch

You see mostly all this corruption is only about money at the end of the day

 

More power in my opinion. The corrupt control our money anyway, and I don't expect Chomsky to name who they are.

 

 

[rideforever]

20 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

More power in my opinion. The corrupt control our money anyway, and I don't expect Chomsky to name who they are.

 

"The world's political and financial elite are now operating almost totally unconstrained by the so-called democratic structure."

NC in "Who Rules The World"

 

 

[EnigmaticWorld]

7 minutes ago, rideforever said:

 

"The world's political and financial elite are now operating almost totally unconstrained by the so-called democratic structure."

NC in "Who Rules The World"

 

 

 

Isn't that just stating the obvious though?  I'm more interested in who these people are and what motivates them.

 

I have friends that have literally have said to me "watch Noam speak - and if you cant find anything wrong then he's right". Then Noam goes into a twelve minute long diatribe to say what could have just been said in four words.

"Sometimes capitalism is harsh."

 

Then I'm just sitting there thinking that I don't defend Marxism or Capitalism, so they need to come up with a new argument.

 

His analysis of the American foreign policy and its disastrous consequences is mostly correct but the notion that America controls Israel is laughable and subversive. There are multiple American policies that contradict this because they don't benefit America in any manner. He could have said Israel is a strategic ally in the region during the cold war but now its completely useless to America. I think he's right about many of the problems caused by capitalism, but he refuses to admit you can't have a multicultural society in which socialism works because people don't sympathize with one another.

[rideforever]

@EnigmaticWorld

Yes ... knowledge comes from experience and effort.  It is personal.  You have had your journey, your studies, your learning.  Nobody is 100% right ... I learned that if you need a life raft you even take it from the devil.  You just always make a profit.

So with NC he is obviously a certain type of left wing jewish intellectual ... but some things he does know very well, and he is learned.

In that book Manufacturing Consent his knowledge of how advertising owns schools media and whatever ... his specific knowledge of many difference cases and types of corruption ... is outstanding.  It's not just general ideas, he knows specific cases, many of them.  He knows the history of the development of industries and corporations.  So take from him what is good, and leave the rest.

 

Knowledge is a journey, it is an effort, there is no ready made answer, only the answer that you can learn and you can work to learn for your own reasons.

 

An interesting things is ... about blood lines and corporations ... is that ... are we against family ties?
Blood ties?
No, there is something very healthy and natural.  A family helps each other, and a nation meaning an large extended family helps each other.  And as for corporations the principle should be that of the guild ... a guild like bricklaying or barristers ... these guilds contain knowledge and knowledge chains, lineages of knowledge.  And everyone starts at the bottom and becomes part of the chain knowledge.

And if society is like that then it contains huge knowledge all contained in knowledge chains, in guilds, like a large permacutlure forest.

It is full of knowledge, living knowledge in living people.

But the banks and corporations have destroyed the permaculture western world .. now it is just Amazon wharehouses and robotic people.  Knowledge is dying replaced by iphones.   These companies use violence force and power to kill the opposition, they use marketing to oversell their phones, and other things. 

So .. it is not that blood lines or enterprises are wrong ... but when they become insincere or greedy then you have a big problem.

For every issue ... you can point to "how it should work" or the original purpose and meaning of this part of society ... and then you can point to how is corrupted.

This fine discrimination is important, that is when you understand things ... it's much better than just wiping off the table and saying that's all wrong ... which doesn't explain much.

 

[Macnamara]

1 hour ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

Then I'm just sitting there thinking that I don't defend Marxism or Capitalism, so they need to come up with a new argument.

 

His analysis of the American foreign policy and its disastrous consequences is mostly correct but the notion that America controls Israel is laughable and subversive. There are multiple American policies that contradict this because they don't benefit America in any manner. He could have said Israel is a strategic ally in the region during the cold war but now its completely useless to America. I think he's right about many of the problems caused by capitalism, but he refuses to admit you can't have a multicultural society in which socialism works because people don't sympathize with one another.

 

The problem with Noam from a conspiracy perspective is that he is too vague. For example he will speak in vague terms of the 'power elite'. But a conspiracy theorist wants to know who the 'power elite' are. We want names and specifics!

 

Noam will also blame 'the US' for things but is the US a homogenous entity with a cohesive identity or is it riven with factionalism? What is 'the US?' Is it the 'power elites' who have their hands on the levers of power or is it joe and jane bloggs on the street who care about their jobs, their family, their past times and the safety and security of their neighbourhood and by extension their country because they want to raise their children in a safe environment? Because clearly the interests of the 'power elite' and the interests of joe and jane bloggs on the street are NOT the same

 

So Noam has some of the broad strokes but never turns up the microscope any further

 

We could speculate about why this is. At best he doesn't want to name certain families for some reason and at worst he is covering for them whilst trying to heap the blame for their crimes at the door of 'the US' which by extension then places the guilt at the door of everyone who identifies with the US including joe and jane bloggs

 

For this reason i have come to see him as a left wing gate keeper of the NWO....which is sad

[Macnamara]

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

An interesting things is ... about blood lines and corporations ... is that ... are we against family ties?

Blood ties?
No, there is something very healthy and natural.  A family helps each other, and a nation meaning an large extended family helps each other.  And as for corporations the principle should be that of the guild ... a guild like bricklaying or barristers ... these guilds contain knowledge and knowledge chains, lineages of knowledge.  And everyone starts at the bottom and becomes part of the chain knowledge.

 

with corporations we have to consider if the model itself is beneficial to society

 

In reality we can see that the model of 'the corporation' has no checks and balances to rein in immoral behaviour in its pursuit of profit. The state then assumes the role of policeman but then we find the state regulators being corrupted by the people behind the corporations and we often find a 'revolving door' situation occuring between the politicians and the corporations with people passing back and forth between the two which of course merges them because if someone leaves say 'goldman sachs' to go and work in say 'the central bank' and behind the scenes they are still bound through their interlocking interests with goldman sachs and/or the network of people behind goldman sachs then we can clearly say that is a 'conflict of interests'

 

After seeing a certain amount of examples of corruption occur a 'conspiracy theorist' may conclude that corporations (in their current format) are in fact nothing more than a legal entity created by powerful private interests to shield them from public scrutiny and from legal ramifications for their actions

Edited April 4, 2021 by Macnamara

[Macnamara]

29 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

So Noam has some of the broad strokes but never turns up the microscope any further

 

We could speculate about why this is. At best he doesn't want to name certain families for some reason and at worst he is covering for them whilst trying to heap the blame for their crimes at the door of 'the US'

 

I once watched a debate between dershowitz who most would no doubt representing a 'rightwing' perspective and chomksy who most would say represents a 'leftwing' perspective and the debate was over the idea of creating a palestinean state

 

There was one interesting moment where dershowitz appeared to be baiting chomsky by asking him for clarification of who the power elites were (i'm paraphrasing there....he used different language) and chomsky kind of awkwardly blustered his way past the issue. Neither dershowitz nor chomsky will ever go into the specifics of who the 'power elite' are which is a shame because if you want to understand the situation on palestine you most definately need to turn over that rock

 

Speaking of which gilad atzmon who renounced his jewishness and now identifies as a philosopher has spoken about the need to turn over rocks others won't look under if you are in pursuit of truth. Atzmon has accused 'the jews' of controlling difficult areas of debate and discussion by creating BOTH sides in a debate or when an issue arises which i guess conspiracy theorists would term 'controlled opposition'

 

Atzmon argues that by doing this they are able to then steer the debate and control the outcome. I guess this would be termed as creating the 'overton window'. So for example if we look at that debate between chomsky and dershowitz as objective bystanders we can ask the very obvious question: 'where is the palestinean voice in this debate?'

 

But the palestineans don't get a voice. Instead we have two jewish 'intellectuals' debating within certain parameters. So in terms of identifying 'the truth' we would then have to do some research to see if what gilad is saying carries any water. Does this phenomenon he discusses exist or is he just being a 'self-hating jew' who is stirring the pot for some unknown reason?

 

In the clip below is gilad atzmon setting out his thoughts on the matter and why is this relevant in a discussion about what 'the truth is'? Well if information is being controlled by a 'power elite' who control for example the media and the education system then we need to be able to see through the theatre that they create and that requires an understanding of the methods used to shape that theatre.

 

What is the purpose of the media-theatre? Some people have used the analogy of plato's cave and David Icke speaks about a 'perception deception' because how people perceive reality then affects how they then engage with that reality. If you are in a movie theatre and someone shouts 'fire' and creates a panic when there was in fact no fire then they have created a perception in the minds of the people there that there is a threat that does not exist. The people then start bolting for the exists and maybe someone falls over and is trampled to death. The perception was false but had real world consequences by shaping peoples behaviour

 

This could be used by the 'power elites' (lol now i'm using that vague term!) to, for example, get the public to aquiesce to a war that is illegal under UN laws by convincing them that a country has weapons of mass destruction that they intend to use for evil purposes when in fact they don't

 

Or if you want to reshape the economy you could create a perception of a deadly virus that either doesn't exist at all or does not exist in a deadly form so that society then agrees to the changes that the power elite want to impose:

The 'covert tactics' used to scare Britons into staying at home: How SAGE document called for increase in 'perceived threat' of Covid using 'hard hitting emotional messages'

• Downing Street accused of using 'covert psychological strategies' during Covid 
• Experts point to document handed to SAGE as the pandemic took off last March
• It allegedly said that people 'still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened' 

By Faith Ridler For Mailonline

Published: 15:46, 3 April 2021 | Updated: 16:03, 3 April 2021

A document presented to SAGE called for an increase in the 'perceived threat' of Covid using 'hard-hitting emotional messages', reports claim today. Psychologists have accused Downing Street of using 'covert psychological strategies' to emphasise the threat from Covid-19 without contextualising the risks, the Telegraph reported. It was said this created 'a state of heightened anxiety', adding many people became 'too frightened to attend hospital'. Experts fear Britons have been the subject of an experiment in the use of tactics which operate 'below their level of awareness,' it was said.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9432939/The-covert-tactics-used-scare-Britons-staying-home.html

 

Gilad Atzmon in NYC: Jewish Controlled Opposition

 

 

[rideforever]

@Macnamara

Yes I agree, corporations are a disaster and the laws of corporation should be rescinded and these large companies broken apart with a upper  threshold for the size of businesses.

If I remember correctly corporations were created about 100 years ago for a reason to do with munipal services like the fire department, and not for the purposes that they are currently used for.

 

As for the Jews, a Jew is somebody who follows Moses' tradition which has several parts.  Not many do this any more and so they are not Jews.  Only the Orthodox or hassidic groups are Jewish, and nobody else.

 

Everything is like this ... once people use the label but do not do what is inside ... then it is false.

 

As for NC, he has unparalleled knowledge of the US foreign policy for instance, and without reference to any books can cite countless specific meetings, power players and events.  Such a man is an incredible repository of knowledge.  He deserves credit and is useful, even if I don't agree with his trajectory at all.

 

Not many people any more have his depth of knowledge in a specific field.

 

Edited April 4, 2021 by rideforever

[Macnamara]

Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper

 

[Macnamara]

  

Just now, rideforever said:

@Macnamara

Yes I agree, corporations are a disaster and the laws of corporation should be rescinded and these large companies broken apart with a upper  threshold for the size of businesses.

 

There are RICO anti-trust laws that exist in the US for that reason and of course the rockefellers standard oil company was famously broken up using RICO anti-racketeering laws. I have heard it said however that this did not solve the problem as those separate fragments then kind of formed a disembodied hydra that then spread its influence in new areas.

 

THE conspiracy has basically involved a certain network of people consolidating their power and creating monopolies through the control of the state apparatus which you could term 'state-capitalism' but which David has termed 'cartelism'. The federal reserve bank is one such example because it is not a government body. It is a cartel of private banks who work in partnership with the government treasury department. It creates money out of thin air through 'fractional reserve banking' so its name is a misnomer as it is neither 'federal' nor does is hold anything on reserve. The name is a deception to fool joe and jane bloggs on the street.

 

The US federal reserve is then, in turn, networked with the central banks in other countries through the central banks OF central banks, the Bank for international Settlements in basel switzerland

 

Just now, rideforever said:

If I remember correctly corporations were created about 100 years ago for a reason to do with munipal services like the fire department, and not for the purposes that they are currently used for.

 

yes and then laws were passed by, lets just say it: corrupt and complicit politicians,  that changed the role and nature of corporations for example through the creation of legal personhood

[Macnamara]

26 minutes ago, rideforever said:

@Macnamara

As for the Jews, a Jew is somebody who follows Moses' tradition which has several parts.  Not many do this any more and so they are not Jews.  Only the Orthodox or hassidic groups are Jewish, and nobody else.

 

This is why David is speaking about a conspiracy by a cult called the sabbateans who hide within religions like judaism so that to the outer observor it appears to be 'the jews' doing certain things when in fact it is the sabbatean cult.

 

Is for example the current jesuit pope of the catholic church really a christian as most would understand it or is he a sabbatean pursuing a globalist agenda?

 

Quote

As for NC, he has unparalleled knowledge of the US foreign policy for instance, and without reference to any books can cite countless specific meetings, power players and events.  Such a man is an incredible repository of knowledge.

 

Sure but what is the point of countless examples of wrongdoing if they are then placed at the door of the wrong people? Isn't that just a repackaging (or 'reframing') of history to then mislead the listener?

 

As gilad atzmon has put it 'history is an attempt to narrate the past'

 

We see this same trick being used with for example 'critical race theory' where simplistic narratives of history are being sold to people that then demonise a vague thing which they term 'whiteness' which then by extension places that guilt at the door of any white person because it is a catch-all term that doesn't dig down into the specifics of who did what, when, where and most importantly WHY

 

I'll give you an example of this i saw recently on this forum. There was a poster who was blaming the white 'common man' for the east india company. I corrected them and pointed out that the common man was barely even literate when then east india company was formed and they certainly didn't have a political vote and did not own shares in the east india company!

 

So are you going to blame modern white people whose ancestors were quietly tilling their fields for the actions of the rich conspirators who formed the east india company with devilment in mind? That isn't truth as it isn't an accurate representation of what actually, objectively happened

Edited April 4, 2021 by Macnamara

[EnigmaticWorld]

6 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

Sure but what is the point of countless examples of wrongdoing if they are then placed at the door of the wrong people? Isn't that just a repackaging of history to then mislead the listerner?

 

This.

 

We see it with this Covid crap too. People will bitch and moan about those that rule over us and what they're currently doing to us, but the same people will believe our oppressors about history. I take most shit written after the world wars with a pinch of salt these days as it's stupid to believe people that want me extinct about who is pulling the strings on this planet.

[rideforever]

10 hours ago, Macnamara said:

east india company with devilment in mind?

 

Yeah, everybody is always moaning and begging.

What was wrong with the East India Company, it was great wasn't it?

Fantastic, new legal system, new personal wealth, exploration and expansion.

Fantastic, in India there was the preceding Mughal (Persian) dynasty that was falling apart and begged the British to take over which they did and they administered the country,  All good, at least in the beginning.

The British administration was about as good as you can imagine with extremely high standards and a high ethos.

 

So, I think the way to sort all this out is for people just to be brave and do the thing they want to do.

No more moaning or blaming or grovelling.

 

Jews should worship as Moses directed and that's all good.

Businesses should not form themselves into totalitarian social engineering armies.

And English culture with its emphasis on new legal forms of personal freedom and enterprise should just do that.

White people should marry white people and like white people and continue their whiteness which is very good.  Just like everyone else.  And yes they will be racists because they prefer their families and other white people.

And the "black people" should do exactly the same with other black people.

And so on.

 

And this will leave the devil with very little.

 

 

[rideforever]

21 hours ago, emresearch said:

So would you say that it is impossible to have knowledge about things that cannot directly be tested into being either true or false? For example (sorry, I can't come up with anything better) if humanity wants to find out whether "God" (whatever we may conceptualise God as) exists or not, or the question of the classical "brain in a vat" speculation, is that something that we can ever find out or not?

 

Now let's see if I can come up with some good analogies to have a hope of communicating something !

 

Okay, with concepts ... for instance a map of a mountain, it's a concept a technical representation with contour lines and the compass drawn on a piece of paper.  But it is not the mountain.  The correct way to use this, is to read the map a bit and then climb the mountain, climb nature a bit.  Then you can connect the map to the mountain, you see how this contour means this shoulder of rock.  Maybe it's just what you expected, maybe it isn't ... and you learn.  So there is the concept, and the is the reality, and there is the learning of reality, the exploration.  From concepts to reality through your learning.  It's very beautiful.

 

But, if you talk to much about concepts, you stare too much at the map ... then you think too much about these things, and there is no reality is sight.  To climb you must be brave, take risks, go to the unknown ... it's easier to hide in the kitchen and read a book.

 

---

 

Sometimes I have heard people talk about ... boats, or architecture, cooking, or anything. ... and when they talk it's so boring.  It's like listening to a machine.  Someday boringly repeating recipes or opinions or whatever.  I feel like I am dying listening to it.  Just a machine.

 

But other people when they talk ... you feeel you feel something.   Maybe you feel their soul, because they are alive ... maybe when they talk about boats you start to feel the wood in your hands, they are communicating something, it's as if you are there with them.  What they say is alive, and you are alive with them.

 

So what is true is alive, it's a living thing.  If it dies it is just a robotic copy.

 

Many people in this world end up caught in words, in dead things, they get entangled and stop living, stop going out there and being fresh, talking from the heart and sharing heart to heart and learning and growing.  Don't get caught in that.

 

[rideforever]

21 hours ago, emresearch said:

nd would you personally say that you only believe in the theories that you tested and yourself found to be true? Or are there people/groups that you do trust to say the truth (for example about having tested theories)?

 

Well ... we have to live right now, even without perfect knowledge.  So we can have a ... pretty good idea of things that works for today.  Maybe if I've got time I will look into it a bit more and learn a bit more and then improve my ideas.  Things are true if they work.

And sure there are some people I trust ... with a lot.  Maybe not everything, but I like to hear them and they refresh me.

 

Perfect knowledge is a spiritual thing, if you are in deep meditation then you can feel the One which is whole  or holy.  And the One is not dead it's not fixed, it journeys like we journey ... God is alive like a great comet of Light and we journey towards him, we never catch him but each step more of the star dust from the comet tail becomes part of us, and then we start to shine too.

 

---

 

In Physics there are Constants.  Like the gravitational constant, planck's constant and so on.  These are meant to be constant and they are used in formulae.  But actually when you measure things in real life they are not constant.  Rupert Sheldrake talks about this, about how when scientists measure these constants with sensitive machines the results are always different.  And actually ever 10 years or so the biggest scientists in the world have a big meeting, where they compare all the measurement for the constants ... and they decide what the new value will be of a constant, they have a meeting and they decide on a particular number.  In other words the constants are not constant.

 

Why ?  Because everything is alive.  Even the atoms of the universe are alive ... at a very very very low level, but still something in them is not just mater.  This is why there is a the Uncertainty Principle which means that you can never measure anything absolutely, even if scientists measure a tiny particle they can never be exactly sure where it is.  Why?  Because it is alive and living things are never completely predictable.  Of course the life inside an atomic particle is so small it is barely even recognizable, but then not entirely dead.

 

 

[emresearch]

18 hours ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

I think he's right about many of the problems caused by capitalism, but he refuses to admit you can't have a multicultural society in which socialism works because people don't sympathize with one another

I don't mean to argue for socialism here, but I sometimes feel like capitalism is what makes people competitive and lack sympathy and empathy, so I would hope that if money wouldn't 'rule' us as much, we would automatically find ways to sympathise and cooperate peacefully. Obviously that wouldn't rid us of conflicts of interest, but maybe at least smoothen them out a little bit. What are your thoughts?

 

17 hours ago, Macnamara said:

We want names and specifics!

Are there people who do the work Chomsky does better and do give the names and specifics, in your opinion?

 

17 hours ago, Macnamara said:

Noam will also blame 'the US' for things but is the US a homogenous entity with a cohesive identity or is it riven with factionalism? What is 'the US?' Is it the 'power elites' who have their hands on the levers of power or is it joe and jane bloggs on the street who care about their jobs, their family, their past times and the safety and security of their neighbourhood and by extension their country because they want to raise their children in a safe environment? Because clearly the interests of the 'power elite' and the interests of joe and jane bloggs on the street are NOT the same

This is really interesting. I'm a little familiar with Chomsky's work (not too much, though) and this never really occurred to me. Do you think that the 'power elites' (who/whatever they may be) are actively trying to influence the interests of average Americans (i.e. do they profit off of a rhetoric such as Chomsky's because he makes it sound like it's all of the US which divers attention from specific people)?

 

16 hours ago, Macnamara said:

But the palestineans don't get a voice. Instead we have two jewish 'intellectuals' debating within certain parameters.

Do you think it's generally a problem that 'intellectuals' are given the voice and position in society to discuss about other people's issues?

17 hours ago, Macnamara said:

Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper

Thanks! I have only watched 1/4 of it so I'll comment on that later.

 

16 hours ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

people that want me extinct

Who do you mean with this?

[emresearch]

47 minutes ago, rideforever said:

But, if you talk to much about concepts, you stare too much at the map ... then you think too much about these things, and there is no reality is sight.  To climb you must be brave, take risks, go to the unknown ... it's easier to hide in the kitchen and read a book.

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying!

 

47 minutes ago, rideforever said:

But other people when they talk ... you feeel you feel something.   Maybe you feel their soul, because they are alive ... maybe when they talk about boats you start to feel the wood in your hands, they are communicating something, it's as if you are there with them.  What they say is alive, and you are alive with them.

very nicely said. I might quote you on one day this if that's okay.

38 minutes ago, rideforever said:

Perfect knowledge is a spiritual thing, if you are in deep meditation then you can feel the One which is whole  or holy.  And the One is not dead it's not fixed, it journeys like we journey ... God is alive like a great comet of Light and we journey towards him, we never catch him but each step more of the star dust from the comet tail becomes part of us, and then we start to shine too.

Are you speaking of God in a Christian sense or a more 'universal' context (or different)? How would you describe your spirituality/spiritual belief? Sorry if this is too personal, I'm just interested in the language people use to describe this kind of experience.

 

38 minutes ago, rideforever said:

Rupert Sheldrake talks about this, about how when scientists measure these constants with sensitive machines the results are always different. 

Oh I heard about Sheldrake and then completely forgot about him! His theories are interesting, they seem to go into the spheres of life that mainstream sciences often do not 'dare' to touch upon. I don't know enough about him but 

 

38 minutes ago, rideforever said:

Uncertainty Principle which means that you can never measure anything absolutely, even if scientists measure a tiny particle they can never be exactly sure where it is.  Why?  Because it is alive and living things are never completely predictable.  Of course the life inside an atomic particle is so small it is barely even recognizable, but then not entirely dead.

Yes, this is so intriguing. I also understand it in the way that no one can possess entirely truthful knowledge, that there's always a chance of things being completely different. Would you say it's more important to know and investigate the truth or to understand yourself and other people and be comfortable with your own existence?

 

and thanks for coming back to the questions!

Edited April 5, 2021 by emresearch

[emresearch]

17 hours ago, Macnamara said:

This is why David is speaking about a conspiracy by a cult called the sabbateans who hide within religions like judaism so that to the outer observor it appears to be 'the jews' doing certain things when in fact it is the sabbatean cult.

Also, I was wondering, do you have a source for this or know where I could find it? I remember David Icke's lectures being on youtube but it seems that they were removed, or at least I can't find them anymore.

[emresearch]

21 hours ago, rideforever said:

@emresearch

You have many interesting questions on your mind, I will give them a go another time.

But there is a very good book "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky, this really blew my mind 30 years ago.  You see mostly all this corruption is only about money at the end of the day, it's boring but most of the nasty things on the planet are in the end after all the words, in the end it is just about money.  It's a good book.

also thanks for this reference! I never read the book, so I guess this is my call to do it...

[Grumpy Owl]

50 minutes ago, emresearch said:

Also, I was wondering, do you have a source for this or know where I could find it? I remember David Icke's lectures being on youtube but it seems that they were removed, or at least I can't find them anymore.

 

The second half of Icke's book "The Trigger" covers this subject in extensive detail.

 

As for his videos, yes his channel was purged from Youtube, see the following thread for links where to find them now:

 

[emresearch]

19 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

The second half of Icke's book "The Trigger" covers this subject in extensive detail.

 

As for his videos, yes his channel was purged from Youtube, see the following thread for links where to find them now:

 

thank you!