James True, Revising History |536|

Sounds like a Rock-em, Sock-em "good" time.
You both have points, but the reaction to blm and minimization is pointless. I agree, there were Irish and others that were shafted, but the bigger picture will have to be inclusive.
ALL life matters. Black, white, yellow, blue, dog, cat, horse, tree...
There aren't any sides to take. The old bullshit has to go. When everyone unanimously joins in that agreement, we can move forward with a better system. One that doesn't erase or try to forget. One that no longer attempts to cancel or revise or rewrite. There are plenty of blanks to be filled in, but we do still have lots of personal accounts and records.
It's coming out now that more are looking into things. Patience!

You always have interesting points to make. Most people do not behave like all lives matter. I agree with you that a better system would be one in which all unanimously join in agreement, but only in theory. In practice, that sounds like the world of a tyrannical government, or some kind of meta-verse, singularity nightmare. The fascinating thing about people is the process of "agreement." I know that modern psychology wants us to believe that we are just products of our environment, but that doesn't mean anything except excuses if you start to pick it apart.
 
I don’t know any of those CT presenters you name there! They certainly are spreading like mushrooms. But I think the issue so far as I experience it is there needs to be a ‘trickle up’ and around the gatekeepers. Real academics need to take this up, not dabblers.

The issue is that "real academics" are not "real thinkers," as they will cater to the narrative perpetuated, rather FUNDED, by all the universities, which are in turn doing nothing but cater to trust fund kids. You might as well ask your calculator to make pico de gallo.
 
Arnold's message to Russians

thx. great. wow, he is a fantastic communicator... how did any of us ever doubt his acting ability.

Of course, it seems to me that 1/6 has been exposed as an op. havn't the agent provocateurs been exposed?
https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/m...the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/

so I guess this vid would have to be viewed in that context... i.e. highly suggestive that whatever else ukraine is... it's certainly an OP... so where does Arnold fit in?
 
thx. great. wow, he is a fantastic communicator... how did any of us ever doubt his acting ability.

Of course, it seems to me that 1/6 has been exposed as an op. havn't the agent provocateurs been exposed?
https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/m...the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/

so I guess this vid would have to be viewed in that context... i.e. highly suggestive that whatever else ukraine is... it's certainly an OP... so where does Arnold fit in?
Get to the choppa! Get down! Get down!
He's the Terminator. We'll just send him in.
 
Get to the choppa! Get down! Get down!
He's the Terminator. We'll just send him in.

One concern I have about universal statements like "1/6 has been revealed as an Op" is that it's back to the old binary thinking model, I think we all agree we need to get out of.
1. Were there some three-letter agencies involved in 1/6? Yes, as it turns out.
2. Were there people there from the right with the genuine intention to take over the government and/or change the results of the election? Yes. Obviously. We know there were.
3. Do we believe that people have the agency (mind the pun) to make good and bad choices on their own? In other words, were the three-letter agencies holding a gun to peoples' heads to go and commit illegal actions by entering and destroying property and harming people? Yes. Absolutely
We can hold both things to be true. We can ask questions and demand answers as to why the three-letter agencies were involved. We can also hold people responsible for their own actions.
After all, personal accountability has always been a part of the American experience, right?

 
One concern I have about universal statements like "1/6 has been revealed as an Op" is that it's back to the old binary thinking model, I think we all agree we need to get out of.
1. Were there some three-letter agencies involved in 1/6? Yes, as it turns out.
2. Were there people there from the right with the genuine intention to take over the government and/or change the results of the election? Yes. Obviously. We know there were.
3. Do we believe that people have the agency (mind the pun) to make good and bad choices on their own? In other words, were the three-letter agencies holding a gun to peoples' heads to go and commit illegal actions by entering and destroying property and harming people? Yes. Absolutely
We can hold both things to be true. We can ask questions and demand answers as to why the three-letter agencies were involved. We can also hold people responsible for their own actions.
After all, personal accountability has always been a part of the American experience, right?

Personal accountability and integrity are the currency of the future. The MONEY.
The other labels are superficial at best.
 
When has it been not so?
J

I am quoting Starmonkey: "Personal accountability and integrity are the currency of the future. The MONEY. Other labels are superficial at best."

Jack, you are asking when this has not been so. Let's explore this:

When has it not been so? Let's see.....Walmart, The Home Depot, every insurance agency that exists, our entire medical system in the US, certainly every "mainstream" religion in the world, and just about every government on earth.

By the way, I still owe you a custom mug. I am designing it specifically for you!
 
I am quoting Starmonkey: "Personal accountability and integrity are the currency of the future. The MONEY. Other labels are superficial at best."

Jack, you are asking when this has not been so. Let's explore this:

When has it not been so? Let's see.....Walmart, The Home Depot, every insurance agency that exists, our entire medical system in the US, certainly every "mainstream" religion in the world, and just about every government on earth.

By the way, I still owe you a custom mug. I am designing it specifically for you!

Looking forward to it. Thanks so much :)
I think the concept of capitalism has always had this assumption of moral intentions. But there's no requirement for people to be decent to each other. Of course, there's no economic system where that works out either. At least with well regulated capitalism you can provide some laws to stop most of the theft.
Was watching "The Dropout" on Disney+ and I was thinking how awful the system can be broken. The only reason Elizabeth Holmes was arrested was because she stole from rich people. If she had made money for them, and still the product didn't work, she'd be CEO today.
We need good- TRANSPARENT- and clear-minded government regulations to protect from the worst impulses of corporate capitalism as well as those that encourage great local businesses to thrive.
J
 
Of course, there's no economic system where that works out either. At least with well regulated capitalism you can provide some laws to stop most of the theft.
This is the rub though, right?

Its like the argument about extreme wealth. Study after study seems to show that its all relative. An overwhelming chunk of the population thinks that billionaires have too much money, too much power, etc. Okay, so a billion is too much. What about 750m? 100m? 10m? The funny thing is that folks start to push back on the "its too much wealth" when its gets close to their personal wealth.

I know a lot of proverbial 1%ers who don't consider themselves wealthy; certainly not extremely wealthy. They are often self aware enough to realize their are fortunate, whether through good fortune, good genetics, or hard work.

So where does the line get drawn?

This relates back to your notion of "stopping most of the theft". What is theft in this context? After all, capitalism and life in general is competitive. There are winners and losers. Often, the losers consider the tactics of the winners to be somewhere on a continuum from somewhat unethical to down right malicious. Again, who's going to regulate this?

I'm not trying to defend large scale, runaway, megacorporate capitalism. There's something broken there for sure. But the question is the remedy. What's the real-world, working model? I've never seen one proffered that appears to hold water.
 
Looking forward to it. Thanks so much :)
I think the concept of capitalism has always had this assumption of moral intentions. But there's no requirement for people to be decent to each other. Of course, there's no economic system where that works out either. At least with well regulated capitalism you can provide some laws to stop most of the theft.
Was watching "The Dropout" on Disney+ and I was thinking how awful the system can be broken. The only reason Elizabeth Holmes was arrested was because she stole from rich people. If she had made money for them, and still the product didn't work, she'd be CEO today.
We need good- TRANSPARENT- and clear-minded government regulations to protect from the worst impulses of corporate capitalism as well as those that encourage great local businesses to thrive.
J

Jack Ward, my warrior and friend! I just don't think that any system is any kind of solution to the problem. Also, to me, "anarchy" is a system as well. Systems do not help people. The only system that I can contribute to, in your honor, is the coffee industry by means of a good ol' mug. I am also pretty good at designing T-Shirts.
 
Jack Ward, my warrior and friend! I just don't think that any system is any kind of solution to the problem. Also, to me, "anarchy" is a system as well. Systems do not help people. The only system that I can contribute to, in your honor, is the coffee industry by means of a good ol' mug. I am also pretty good at designing T-Shirts.
Anarchy just means "self rule". Pagan just means "country folk".
SO "good" those spin doctors are in muddying up language to keep everyone suspicious and confused.
 
Which means nothing; literally.

Name an example of a civilization beyond the size of a village that lives strictly by a code of "self rule".
I don't care what you say EITHER.
Name a time you've ever SERIOUSLY considered anything anyone's written that's outside your ken (understanding).
Rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top