Ricky Varandas, Is Fake Science Evil? |530|

[Alex]

Ricky Varandas, Is Fake Science Evil? |530|
by Alex Tsakiris | Dec 7 | Skepticism
Share
Tweet

Ricky Varandas, interviews leading medical scientists… many who are now banned from speaking out.

 

[Eric Newhill]

Great interview/great discussion.

I like listening to pod casts while I work. Definitely going to check out Ricky's thing.

Slavery in the South started when slavery was normal; practiced by all people at all times. By the time we became a country the founders knew it was evil and had to go, but there was the question of how to make that happen without destroying the economic power of the South and, indeed, the entire country. It wouldn't be a greater good to free the slaves all at once on day one and make the country weak and vulnerable at the same time, because then no one would benefit from the great experiment. Actually, the country may have never formed at all if the south didn't enjoy the concession of slavery. This is all in the founders' notes and exchanges. By the decade of the Civil War, slavery was on the way out anyhow because the industrial revolution was producing machines that replaced the need for slaves and at lower cost. John Brown was a superfluous bloody minded wack job.

Also, the North with its sweat shops, child labor in factories, etc. really wasn't so morally superior.

People will oppress others given an in road to do so.

I'm glad you both noted that the situation was "complicated". That is the truth. It's almost always a question of trade-offs and costs/benefits when you're responsible for leading large numbers in big endeavors. The moral absolutist usually loses in the long run.

Liked the discussion on evil.Good points made there too, IMO

 

[Starmonkey]

Corbett not Corvette.
Bots...
Good show. Podcasts, podcasts, and more podcasts!
Acceleration.
Maybe get Clif High on if he's not too busy and discuss THE BUG.
You just can't stop pushing on that EVIL button, so...

 

[Robbedigital]

I enjoyed the episode.
Speaking very generally, It felt casual, and I caught vibes kinda like both Alex and Ricky were aiming for agreeability.

To mirror Starmonkey's energy above, I think we need to get to a place where we (anyone attempting to stay awake in 2021) can just go out on any given limb assuming that we have the benefit of the doubt. In the last 2 years we've really learned the we're going to thoroughly disagree with highly valued teammates.
Part of my thought experimentation with FE, and Terrain Theory, was to see how much those disagreements matter to the social fabric.. For instance, I'm a lot more nervous giving the wheel to someone who believes in giving carte blanche to Anthony Fauci, than I am giving the wheel to someone who doesn't have the extra bandwidth to allocate the complexity of planet/star-system/galaxy/cluster/super-cluster/etc.

Evil Matters. I'd bet my money it matters to social fabric more than science. But if I asked my Dad (75 y/o) he'd probably let me know his answer by way of hint in updating me that he had just finished moving an elderly neighbor, or helping with flood damage, or fixing someone's electrical something-or-other.. Service stuff

 

[Starmonkey]

I enjoyed the episode.
Speaking very generally, It felt casual, and I caught vibes kinda like both Alex and Ricky were aiming for agreeability.

To mirror Starmonkey's energy above, I think we need to get to a place where we (anyone attempting to stay awake in 2021) can just go out on any given limb assuming that we have the benefit of the doubt. In the last 2 years we've really learned the we're going to thoroughly disagree with highly valued teammates.
Part of my thought experimentation with FE, and Terrain Theory, was to see how much those disagreements matter to the social fabric.. For instance, I'm a lot more nervous giving the wheel to someone who believes in giving carte blanche to Anthony Fauci, than I am giving the wheel to someone who doesn't have the extra bandwidth to allocate the complexity of planet/star-system/galaxy/cluster/super-cluster/etc.

Evil Matters. I'd bet my money it matters to social fabric more than science. But if I asked my Dad (75 y/o) he'd probably let me know his answer by way of hint in updating me that he had just finished moving an elderly neighbor, or helping with flood damage, or fixing someone's electrical something-or-other.. Service stuff

It's ACTUALLY, if we want to further derail or detract...
EXPANDING earth with some advanced civilizations within.
Sorry, pardon me, I try to stay out of that debate. But Al on Forum Borealis had some excellent interviews about that sort of thing.
I like Clif High's newest about the orchestrated takedown through pedo abuse implications. And DUH, all those idiots will keep fighting and fearing and dismantle themselves.
When it start really pouring out, it will be like in Heavy Metal when he brings the Loc-Nar home and the little girl is horrified by what she sees.

 

[Monkey99]

Ricky’s style and attitude make for some “easy listening”, and if it wasn’t necessarily “hard-hitting truth” at least it wasn’t a “hard-hitting disinfo fire hose”. And I don’t mean to drag the discussion away, but Alex mentioned a few things regarding Civil War history on which I thought I could offer a few little-known items for adventurous intellects. If you’re satisfied with the “North = good, South = bad” narrative and don’t think you’ve ever been deceived by the mainstream, you should probably scroll away. For the remaining….

Frederick Douglass was a propagandist, paid to sell the idea that the war was about ending slavery. How would we know that? Check out this speech: (1864) Frederick Douglass “The Mission Of The War”. In it, he hammers home the point that everyone knew the war was about ending slavery.

But hold the phone—this was in 1864, three years into the war. Why would he need to tell them what should have been common knowledge? Why did they think their sons and brothers and husbands were going off to kill other Americans? Well, clearly they did not know that which Freddy was telling them they already knew. And how do you know today what that war was about? Douglass and a long train of others told you what they were instructed to make you believe, or were propagandized themselves into believing along the way.

This is reinforced when you read up on the Corwin Amendment, with which seemingly very few are familiar. In short, it came very close to giving us permanent slavery in the United States in the time just before the Civil War (which derailed it, ironically). And oh, it came courtesy of the North and mostly Democrats, like Representative Thomas Corwin (Democrat from Ohio) who introduced it, President James Buchanan (Democrat from Pennsylvania) who signed it, and five states (all Northern) which ratified it.

But the story gets stranger because it was introduced to the Senate by William H. Seward of New York, a Republican, who we are told was a “determined opponent of the spread of slavery in the years leading up to the American Civil War”. Curious, eh?

And what did the man from the “Land of Lincoln” have to say? “Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln sent a letter to each state's governor transmitting the proposed amendment, noting that Buchanan had approved it.” Even curiouser.

There is much (much) more along these lines, but it is cleverly hidden from you by simply not bringing it to your attention. And that’s just the “mainstream” stuff. Any shot at true (at least “truthier”) history is much harder to come by, but when you do it is far more fascinating. As an example and since he was mentioned by name, let me give you this: How I Know the Hanging of John Brown was Fake.

Finally, as Alex brought up the Civil War in the context of good vs. evil, I would propose as evil those who engineered a calamitous war of fraternal aggression, then painted it as virtuous, and then perpetuated their deception to this very day. Evil, and quite dangerous.

 

[Starmonkey]

Ricky’s style and attitude make for some “easy listening”, and if it wasn’t necessarily “hard-hitting truth” at least it wasn’t a “hard-hitting disinfo fire hose”. And I don’t mean to drag the discussion away, but Alex mentioned a few things regarding Civil War history on which I thought I could offer a few little-known items for adventurous intellects. If you’re satisfied with the “North = good, South = bad” narrative and don’t think you’ve ever been deceived by the mainstream, you should probably scroll away. For the remaining….

Frederick Douglass was a propagandist, paid to sell the idea that the war was about ending slavery. How would we know that? Check out this speech: (1864) Frederick Douglass “The Mission Of The War”. In it, he hammers home the point that everyone knew the war was about ending slavery.

But hold the phone—this was in 1864, three years into the war. Why would he need to tell them what should have been common knowledge? Why did they think their sons and brothers and husbands were going off to kill other Americans? Well, clearly they did not know that which Freddy was telling them they already knew. And how do you know today what that war was about? Douglass and a long train of others told you what they were instructed to make you believe, or were propagandized themselves into believing along the way.

This is reinforced when you read up on the Corwin Amendment, with which seemingly very few are familiar. In short, it came very close to giving us permanent slavery in the United States in the time just before the Civil War (which derailed it, ironically). And oh, it came courtesy of the North and mostly Democrats, like Representative Thomas Corwin (Democrat from Ohio) who introduced it, President James Buchanan (Democrat from Pennsylvania) who signed it, and five states (all Northern) which ratified it.

But the story gets stranger because it was introduced to the Senate by William H. Seward of New York, a Republican, who we are told was a “determined opponent of the spread of slavery in the years leading up to the American Civil War”. Curious, eh?

And what did the man from the “Land of Lincoln” have to say? “Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln sent a letter to each state's governor transmitting the proposed amendment, noting that Buchanan had approved it.” Even curiouser.

There is much (much) more along these lines, but it is cleverly hidden from you by simply not bringing it to your attention. And that’s just the “mainstream” stuff. Any shot at true (at least “truthier”) history is much harder to come by, but when you do it is far more fascinating. As an example and since he was mentioned by name, let me give you this: How I Know the Hanging of John Brown was Fake.

Finally, as Alex brought up the Civil War in the context of good vs. evil, I would propose as evil those who engineered a calamitous war of fraternal aggression, then painted it as virtuous, and then perpetuated their deception to this very day. Evil, and quite dangerous.

And that ain't the HALF of it.
Gated communities in the north...
So many holes in "history", and wars always circumspect for their TRUE purpose.
"Founding fathers" SO gloriously wonderful. Little evils, eh? They didn't discover or found anything, they took it. Divine right.
Did hit on that "enslave" thing though. There's a clue there. Many different ethnicities were already here. Even black. Confederacies are dangerous, because they don't allow for a completely centralized power. Join or die, bitches! Same message that various NE states got before, when they wanted autonomy.

 

[Eric Newhill]

Ricky’s style and attitude make for some “easy listening”, and if it wasn’t necessarily “hard-hitting truth” at least it wasn’t a “hard-hitting disinfo fire hose”. And I don’t mean to drag the discussion away, but Alex mentioned a few things regarding Civil War history on which I thought I could offer a few little-known items for adventurous intellects. If you’re satisfied with the “North = good, South = bad” narrative and don’t think you’ve ever been deceived by the mainstream, you should probably scroll away. For the remaining….

Frederick Douglass was a propagandist, paid to sell the idea that the war was about ending slavery. How would we know that? Check out this speech: (1864) Frederick Douglass “The Mission Of The War”. In it, he hammers home the point that everyone knew the war was about ending slavery.

But hold the phone—this was in 1864, three years into the war. Why would he need to tell them what should have been common knowledge? Why did they think their sons and brothers and husbands were going off to kill other Americans? Well, clearly they did not know that which Freddy was telling them they already knew. And how do you know today what that war was about? Douglass and a long train of others told you what they were instructed to make you believe, or were propagandized themselves into believing along the way.

This is reinforced when you read up on the Corwin Amendment, with which seemingly very few are familiar. In short, it came very close to giving us permanent slavery in the United States in the time just before the Civil War (which derailed it, ironically). And oh, it came courtesy of the North and mostly Democrats, like Representative Thomas Corwin (Democrat from Ohio) who introduced it, President James Buchanan (Democrat from Pennsylvania) who signed it, and five states (all Northern) which ratified it.

But the story gets stranger because it was introduced to the Senate by William H. Seward of New York, a Republican, who we are told was a “determined opponent of the spread of slavery in the years leading up to the American Civil War”. Curious, eh?

And what did the man from the “Land of Lincoln” have to say? “Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln sent a letter to each state's governor transmitting the proposed amendment, noting that Buchanan had approved it.” Even curiouser.

There is much (much) more along these lines, but it is cleverly hidden from you by simply not bringing it to your attention. And that’s just the “mainstream” stuff. Any shot at true (at least “truthier”) history is much harder to come by, but when you do it is far more fascinating. As an example and since he was mentioned by name, let me give you this: How I Know the Hanging of John Brown was Fake.

Finally, as Alex brought up the Civil War in the context of good vs. evil, I would propose as evil those who engineered a calamitous war of fraternal aggression, then painted it as virtuous, and then perpetuated their deception to this very day. Evil, and quite dangerous.

Agree. War propaganda is as old as war.

Abolition was only introduced as the casus belli when the North was losing and couldn't get enough volunteers to re-fill the depleted ranks. There was a draft instituted, but there were major riots against it; especially in NYC. Something needed to be done to label those who didn't want to get killed or maimed, for something they didn't care about, to appear to be on the wrong side of God's will. Cannon fodder and their family got to be motivated. Glory Gory hallejuha.

You can't assess or judge history from current attitudes. Slavery and racism was the norm in those days, as it had been from the dawn of history in all lands. Only some outliers in this country were against it hard enough to want to fight in the lead up to the war - these were the same kind of puritan radicals that brought about the disastrous prohibition that made the nascent American mafia wealthy. New England, a grey, damp, dreary, dreadful region, about as awful as the UK climate-wise, has a heritage of radical religiosity that began with the witch killing puritans arriving there. It's deeply imbedded in New England culture.

These same fervent puritan protestants had no qualms against deplorable conditions and wages in the factories they owned.

It's all bull shit.

Anyhow, the war was not started as a moral crusade. That is revisionist history. It was merely the federal government imposing its dominance on the South, illegally. There was no law stating that secession was illegal. Prior to the CW, it was understood that the union was a voluntary agreement by each state.

Ah well, as usual history is written by the victors and people are taught to robotically repeat what the victors teach them to. Even the conspiracy theorists fall into zombie like adherence to information hierarchies. As usual our host takes the stance that colors America in a bad light, as CTists are wont to do. If China, Russia, Islam and the socialist movement aren't paying these types, they ought to be.

It's all bull shit

Funny though when a self-proffessed BS caller spews BS - as they always do.

Stories, man. Stories. That all our reality is. The fight is who's story gets heard and accepted.

 

[Jack Ward]

This feels more of an interview than a full discussion (in the first half that is. I look forward to listening to the last half at lunch).
However, my biggest concern continues to be a similar one.
I think Alex and my American cousins continue to lose the plot.
It's NOT about the corruption of money in the American system on its own.
It's that the American system leans hard on lessons in history that allow for so much corruption.
More social-democratic brakes need to be applied to the American experience to allow for an effective and not failed state.

When Americans have found corruption, they have tended to remove regulations thinking that business will "regulate itself". Something that has NEVER operated effectively since the beginning of the human experience.
Because of a simple truth... larger organizations of any type will tend to corrupt.

The binary may think therefore that I'm in favour of BIG GOVERNMENT instead of BIG BUSINESS. But that's a ridiculous simplification that only supports the greater corruption of all.
What is needed are hands-off Ombudsmen who are empowered by the people to be constantly making certain that corruption is not engaged.
One might argue that in time the Ombudsmen themselves will become corrupt, but that is where you have two options.
1. Provide a changing group of Ombudsmen who are effectively a series of accounting firms whose employees have experience with forensic auditing and must continue to make the process entirely transparent to the people.
2. Provide a private rotating firm that will consistently "watch the watchers".

Before someone bemoans about Banana Republics that call themselves social democracies. I argue, that while America is quickly becoming a Banana Republic, and that is true, it is disingenuous to suggest that countries that have NEVER had a history of non-corrupt governments- be they capitalist or socialist- is a good example.
I would point instead to the Scandinavian models who have hundreds of years of stable social democracies that are not operating in vast deficits. Do not give away their citizen's monies to corporate raiders, and have jailed the bankers (like Iceland) who have caused economic crashes in the past through Ponzi schemes.

 

[Hurmanetar]

Great interview/great discussion.

I like listening to pod casts while I work. Definitely going to check out Ricky's thing.

Slavery in the South started when slavery was normal; practiced by all people at all times. By the time we became a country the founders knew it was evil and had to go, but there was the question of how to make that happen without destroying the economic power of the South and, indeed, the entire country. It wouldn't be a greater good to free the slaves all at once on day one and make the country weak and vulnerable at the same time, because then no one would benefit from the great experiment. Actually, the country may have never formed at all if the south didn't enjoy the concession of slavery. This is all in the founders' notes and exchanges. By the decade of the Civil War, slavery was on the way out anyhow because the industrial revolution was producing machines that replaced the need for slaves and at lower cost. John Brown was a superfluous bloody minded wack job.

Also, the North with its sweat shops, child labor in factories, etc. really wasn't so morally superior.

People will oppress others given an in road to do so.

I'm glad you both noted that the situation was "complicated". That is the truth. It's almost always a question of trade-offs and costs/benefits when you're responsible for leading large numbers in big endeavors. The moral absolutist usually loses in the long run.

Liked the discussion on evil. Good points made there too, IMO

The notion that being a human being alone is enough to automatically earn you a basic level of respect, rights, and decent treatment or that society should care about your pain seems to me to be a uniquely modern thing. In some ways it is a good thing and in some ways it is a pathological metastasis of empathy.

This is partly a result of Western Christian values and Protestantism, but that alone was not enough to create this most unnatural situation where any human is expected to be exempt from predation by virtue of being human.

Clearly Christian Protestantism was not enough as was discussed in the show, the founding fathers are monsters by modern standards. Hitler was simply bringing to Germany the eugenics policies that were in vogue in protestant early 20th century America. The Old Testament contains many verses advocating slavery and subjugation or genocide of lesser races.

The New Testament does contain verses that promote egalitarianism, but what really allowed these notions to bear fruit was the mechanization of farming and agriculture which increased urbanization and divorced most of the population from their food supply and all the gruesome realities associated with the breeding of livestock and cultivation of crops.

People who lived on farms and bred animals tended to see humans the same way. You don't assign a basic value to pigs just because they are pigs or refrain from prejudice upon a weak broke-back horse just because it is of the equine species. Different individuals and different breeds have desirable or undesirable qualities and the farmer makes a conscious effort to exterminate or limit reproduction of the stock with undesirable qualities so that the herd is improved. To a farmer this "eugenics" effort with his livestock is not evil - it is normal.

Now that most people are insulated from agriculture they don't see things this way and this has allowed the seeds of New Testament egalitarianism to finally bear fruit... But I think the fruit went rancid and now the woke mob is drunk on the strawberry whine.

How do we correct the overemphasis on empathy and eliminate the weakness in society and individuals without a complete return to the pain and barbarism of the past?

 

[Jack Ward]

"People who lived on farms and bred animals tended to see humans the same way. You don't assign a basic value to pigs just because they are pigs or refrain from prejudice upon a weak broke-back horse just because it is of the equine species. Different individuals and different breeds have desirable or undesirable qualities and the farmer makes a conscious effort to exterminate or limit reproduction of the stock with undesirable qualities so that the herd is improved. To a farmer this "eugenics" effort with his livestock is not evil - it is normal."

Would I EVER like to see anything resembling evidence accompanying this statement.
As someone who grew up in a rural community, I would argue that family farms and their farmers were a whole lot more humane than those living in a city disconnected from nature. No one I've ever known who grew up on a farm would equate breeding animals and eugenics as the same thing.
Wow. Just wow.
I guess eventually you hear everything I suppose.
J

 

[Hurmanetar]

"People who lived on farms and bred animals tended to see humans the same way. You don't assign a basic value to pigs just because they are pigs or refrain from prejudice upon a weak broke-back horse just because it is of the equine species. Different individuals and different breeds have desirable or undesirable qualities and the farmer makes a conscious effort to exterminate or limit reproduction of the stock with undesirable qualities so that the herd is improved. To a farmer this "eugenics" effort with his livestock is not evil - it is normal."

Would I EVER like to see anything resembling evidence accompanying this statement.
As someone who grew up in a rural community, I would argue that family farms and their farmers were a whole lot more humane than those living in a city disconnected from nature. No one I've ever known who grew up on a farm would equate breeding animals and eugenics as the same thing.
Wow. Just wow.
I guess eventually you hear everything I suppose.
J

The rural community you grew up in was after WWII and after all the eugenics laws were removed and after the civil rights movement, so it was still a culture that was influenced by modern ideals which were a combination of New Testament egalitarianism and urban collectivism.

I agree that being on a farm closer to nature has a lot of benefits and can in many ways make you a lot more "humane" than an urban counterpart. It can also make you tougher and harder in some ways.

My grandparents who grew up during the great depression had a farm and I was frequently out there as a kid so I have some experience with the difference in urban and agrarian mindsets. Many farmers and ranchers have no issue shooting "varmints" or diseased animals or things that city dwellers would consider pets. Being closer to nature also brings you closer to the harshness of nature.

I am by no means saying the modern urbanite and his values is superior to the agrarian farmer. If anything I'm saying the opposite: being away from nature has resulted in absurdities. I am glad the civil rights movement happened and that we now treat all races with respect and human decency, but I think we've overcorrected and this is partly a result of our loss of connection with nature.

 

[Jack Ward]

The rural community you grew up in was after WWII and after all the eugenics laws were removed and after the civil rights movement, so it was still a culture that was influenced by modern ideals which were a combination of New Testament egalitarianism and urban collectivism.

-- Again. #citationneeded The rural community I grew up in has been a rural farming community for almost a hundred and fifty years.

I agree that being on a farm closer to nature has a lot of benefits and can in many ways make you a lot more "humane" than an urban counterpart. It can also make you tougher and harder in some ways.

--- How do you figure this? The farmers I know have more connection and love for their animals than city people do for their pets.

My grandparents who grew up during the great depression had a farm and I was frequently out there as a kid so I have some experience with the difference in urban and agrarian mindsets. Many farmers and ranchers have no issue shooting "varmints" or diseased animals or things that city dwellers would consider pets. Being closer to nature also brings you closer to the harshness of nature.

- Yes, one has to shoot an animal mostly because of things like distemper and rabies. I lived on a hobby farm (my parents were teachers) and rabies was a real threat to our chickens and horses.

I am by no means saying the modern urbanite and his values is superior to the agrarian farmer. If anything I'm saying the opposite: being away from nature has resulted in absurdities. I am glad the civil rights movement happened and that we now treat all races with respect and human decency, but I think we've overcorrected and this is partly a result of our loss of connection with nature.

- I will go even further to suggest that living in an urban area drives a human being crazy. We're meant to be connected to the land and the animals. Look as far back as you want. Even the Bushmen who kill for food talk over the bodies of the dead and thank them for their sacrifice. Prayer for what the farm brought us is a mainstay in the farms in my area (how do I know? I hayed for most of them in the late summer through my teenage and twenties)
Not only that, you know your neighbours. You look out for each other. You care and help each other. When one of them hits hard times, those in the rural area pick up the slack. We have a better understanding of who we are as humans.
I know I went to visit my sister in one of her suburban houses once, and they all looked the same. I forgot the number and rapped on a door. The person opened it and when I inquired, they never heard of my sister or her family and had lived there for five years.
They were two doors down.

Would we all lived on family farms. We'd be a whole lot more humane to each other, I think.
Not evidence. But, my lived experience.
J

 

[Eric Newhill]

- I will go even further to suggest that living in an urban area drives a human being crazy. We're meant to be connected to the land and the animals. Look as far back as you want. Even the Bushmen who kill for food talk over the bodies of the dead and thank them for their sacrifice. Prayer for what the farm brought us is a mainstay in the farms in my area (how do I know? I hayed for most of them in the late summer through my teenage and twenties)
Not only that, you know your neighbours. You look out for each other. You care and help each other. When one of them hits hard times, those in the rural area pick up the slack. We have a better understanding of who we are as humans.
I know I went to visit my sister in one of her suburban houses once, and they all looked the same. I forgot the number and rapped on a door. The person opened it and when I inquired, they never heard of my sister or her family and had lived there for five years.
They were two doors down.

Would we all lived on family farms. We'd be a whole lot more humane to each other, I think.
Not evidence. But, my lived experience.
J

My farming experience is more in line with Hurmanetar's. And I've been a city slicker and agree that pure urbanites are clueless about many facts of life.

My farm was a thoroughbred horse operation, mostly for the race track. My neighbors were dairy and commercial crops. My wife grew up on thoroughbred farm that was pretty primitive and they grew their own food and raised and slaughtered everything from chickens to beef cattle and pigs. She really thinks city folk are retarded.

I learned that nature is a ruthless bitch and not all are born equal. I've put down injured horses with a bullet to the brain, buried foals and mares that died in the birthing process, shot varmints, the whole nine yards in the grisly aspects. My neighbors helped us when needed and vice versa, but they were tough crude people that you needed to watch because they'd rip you off in a heart beat if allowed to (always tough times and money is tight).

But yeah, the main attitude I developed is a acceptance that life is hard and an individual life means little.

 

[Eric Newhill]

The notion that being a human being alone is enough to automatically earn you a basic level of respect, rights, and decent treatment or that society should care about your pain seems to me to be a uniquely modern thing. In some ways it is a good thing and in some ways it is a pathological metastasis of empathy.

Yes. Exactly. We cannot judge people and societies of the past by our modern standards and notions. These things have be assessed relative to other societies at the time.

How do we correct the overemphasis on empathy and eliminate the weakness in society and individuals without a complete return to the pain and barbarism of the past?

Great question. Everyone is so soft and spoiled and self-centered these days.

Military service is one way, especially in the combat arms.

 

[Jack Ward]

My farming experience is more in line with Hurmanetar's. And I've been a city slicker and agree that pure urbanites are clueless about many facts of life.

My farm was a thoroughbred horse operation, mostly for the race track. My neighbors were dairy and commercial crops. My wife grew up on thoroughbred farm that was pretty primitive and they grew their own food and raised and slaughtered everything from chickens to beef cattle and pigs. She really thinks city folk are retarded.

I learned that nature is a ruthless bitch and not all are born equal. I've put down injured horses with a bullet to the brain, buried foals and mares that died in the birthing process, shot varmints, the whole nine yards in the grisly aspects. My neighbors helped us when needed and vice versa, but they were tough crude people that you needed to watch because they'd rip you off in a heart beat if allowed to (always tough times and money is tight).

But yeah, the main attitude I developed is a acceptance that life is hard and an individual life means little.

Well I do think that Americans are very different from Canadians in broad generalizations.
Canadians take a pride of being part of a community.
J

 

[Hurmanetar]

- I will go even further to suggest that living in an urban area drives a human being crazy.

A couple of years ago I went from 12 acres surrounded by cattle ranches where every evening there was a beautiful sunset accompanied by a chorus of gunfire from hunters and plinkers and rednecks in their swamp boats... from that to a downtown Austin high rise apartment. I'm glad to have had both experiences. The downtown urbanites are nuts in different ways than the country folks are nuts.

People go nuts when their existence and purpose is not refined by the necessity to address a set of problems. The environment provides a problem set to which we adapt to achieve our goals. The organism (and mindsets) are shaped by the environment.

We're meant to be connected to the land and the animals. Look as far back as you want. Even the Bushmen who kill for food talk over the bodies of the dead and thank them for their sacrifice. Prayer for what the farm brought us is a mainstay in the farms in my area (how do I know? I hayed for most of them in the late summer through my teenage and twenties)
Not only that, you know your neighbours. You look out for each other. You care and help each other. When one of them hits hard times, those in the rural area pick up the slack. We have a better understanding of who we are as humans.
I know I went to visit my sister in one of her suburban houses once, and they all looked the same. I forgot the number and rapped on a door. The person opened it and when I inquired, they never heard of my sister or her family and had lived there for five years.
They were two doors down.

Would we all lived on family farms. We'd be a whole lot more humane to each other, I think.
Not evidence. But, my lived experience.
J

Again, I agree with you that being closer to nature - our biologically adapted environment - has many benefits for body mind and soul.

But being closer to nature means you see a lot more death and do a lot more killing and have to make a lot more value judgements and decisions about the quality of an animal and its breeding. This in turn makes it easier to accept the notion that humans, like animals, require some maintenance of the stock and culling of the herd and it makes it easier to accept that killing the vermin to protect the farm is the right thing to do. To Andrew Jackson the native Americans were equivalent to the foxes that raided the hen house. They had to be exterminated to protect the farm.

 

[Hurmanetar]

"People who lived on farms and bred animals tended to see humans the same way. You don't assign a basic value to pigs just because they are pigs or refrain from prejudice upon a weak broke-back horse just because it is of the equine species. Different individuals and different breeds have desirable or undesirable qualities and the farmer makes a conscious effort to exterminate or limit reproduction of the stock with undesirable qualities so that the herd is improved. To a farmer this "eugenics" effort with his livestock is not evil - it is normal."

Would I EVER like to see anything resembling evidence accompanying this statement.

I haven't heard anyone else make the assertion as I am doing that the mechanization of agriculture and shift from rural to urban populations is what enabled the latent egalitarianism in the traditionally protestant West to fully come to fruition... and that that fruit has now rotted.

So I don't have any sources to cite... original thinking here... but I'm sure someone must have said something similar before. It isn't that hard to make this connection.

 

[Jack Ward]

A couple of years ago I went from 12 acres surrounded by cattle ranches where every evening there was a beautiful sunset accompanied by a chorus of gunfire from hunters and plinkers and rednecks in their swamp boats... from that to a downtown Austin high rise apartment. I'm glad to have had both experiences. The downtown urbanites are nuts in different ways than the country folks are nuts.

People go nuts when their existence and purpose is not refined by the necessity to address a set of problems. The environment provides a problem set to which we adapt to achieve our goals. The organism (and mindsets) are shaped by the environment.



Again, I agree with you that being closer to nature - our biologically adapted environment - has many benefits for body mind and soul.

But being closer to nature means you see a lot more death and do a lot more killing and have to make a lot more value judgements and decisions about the quality of an animal and its breeding. This in turn makes it easier to accept the notion that humans, like animals, require some maintenance of the stock and culling of the herd and it makes it easier to accept that killing the vermin to protect the farm is the right thing to do. To Andrew Jackson the native Americans were equivalent to the foxes that raided the hen house. They had to be exterminated to protect the farm.

I would argue seeing more death doesn't make you de-sensitized to it. It really depends to the context.
Being there at the end of life for one of the animals you take care of certainly can affect you far more deeply than never witnessing death.
J

 

[Hurmanetar]

Question at the end: What is the nature of this PLANDEMIC EVIL?

There are many components of evil that when taken individually or in a different context might not be considered evil.

Evil is stealing the future from the many young and innocent so that the few old and accomplished may have more. Evil is Chronos eating his children. But is an old lion evil for eating many young rabbits? Is predation evil?

Evil is the pleasure derived from forcing people to do what they don't want to do or from causing them pain without a purpose. But what if they deserve it? What if this pleasure from pain is rooted in the evolutionary biology of predation? Why do little boys like to hit and kick and crush everything with red snarling monster trucks and why do they have to be taught how to be nice and empathetic?

Evil is destroying what others have built. But what if their structures are defective and dangerous and oppressive and ugly or generally standing in the way of building something new?

Evil is foiling others attempt to achieve a good. But if there were no foil and achieving the good were easy, would it be worth anything? When does heaven become Cloud-Cuckoo-Land?

If the average level of consciousnesses of the human population does not enable them to do what's best for them, are a few noble lies to steer them really evil?

I have a visceral negative reaction to the evil lying soulless mid-level bureaucrats attempting to impose the vaccine mandates and lockdowns and empowering violent destructive mobs and systematically dismantling our culture and traditional values. I have equally negative feelings towards the mindless NPC's who do what they're told. But at the same time from the 10,000' view. I welcome the challenge knowing that as things are being destroyed and as our humanity is being tested and our freedoms are in peril, this is the very contest we need in order to thrive and recharge the creative spirit. There is a great deal about this modern society that is oppressive and ugly and should be destroyed.

Klaus Schwab and his ilk can go to hell and I'd be happy to send them there, but part of me is cheering them on.

When I play with blocks with my 2-year-old son there is pleasure in building AND destroying.

The comedian destroys with his jokes. Humor is an agent of destruction. Why is creepy maniacal laughter associated with evil? In part because evil is making a joke out of pain.

What makes things serious? Pain. Loss. The threat of such. What if you consciously accept and embrace pain like Tyler in Fight Club or the Joker in Batman? Nothing is serious anymore. It is all a big game. Wiping out millions is as easy as a 2-year old knocking over a block tower built a few seconds ago. Pain is what adds rigidity and stability to the structures we've built.

You could argue that we have become experts in pain and loss and have the whole world rigged for demolition with nuclear weapons. This threat of pain and loss from nuclear war has resulted in an increasingly rigid international structure and we experience this increase in rigidity as increasingly oppressive and invasive government. How do we break it up without pulling the wrong wire and setting off the bomb?

The globalists are making block towers and knocking them over playing god with the structures of our society. As a very independent individual with traditional values I will fight to the death for the future of my children to be free and have opportunities to better themselves and have many life experiences, but in some sense I view these globalists who I believe are in part motivated by the desire to create something new and better as less evil than those just beneath them in the pyramid who have no vision, no originality, don't have any creative spirit and are merely dominated by fear of loss and fear of pain and who would sacrifice others for their gain.

Free choice requires an ambiguous boundary to exist. Efforts to create a global ID system for every individual are efforts to eliminate ambiguity of identity and thus to stamp out freedom and create an easily controllable and steerable collective. This is abhorrent to me. But do single-celled organisms look with disdain upon the cells in the human body that have given up individuality to build something bigger? Are my muscle cells living in a dystopia that the first eukaryotes warned about? There are trade-offs for both individualism and collectivism.

The globalists are trying to create a unified controllable human collective where the will is removed from the individual and moved up the hierarchy. This sounds like hell and they won't fully succeed. But we also need them to try as a natural consequence of our progression and evolution in consciousness. Mother nature is a bitch and her harsh lessons got us this far, but we've grown up and moved out and now we have been wilding and getting fat in college and need to experience some new negative consequences and get taken advantage of a few times to get wiser.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't like the way things are going and surely many components of it are evil, but I'm glad something new is happening and I look forward to the contest this will present. There are no skyscrapers without gravity. There is nothing good without something working against it.