Your biggest error, Dave, is to insist that what I say in my own defense is a lie! I have in the past been criticized for accusing those I disagree with with lying, bc they fail to include facts that will prove them wrong. But I’m not doing that. You accuse me of LYING simply when I disagree with you on what I consider most important.

Here’s a good example of your verbal trickery:

DM: I added the word “moral” to make clear that I am not denying your First Amendment right to speak as you wish. But, aside from that narrow legal right, I do not agree that you have a right to your world-view. In fact, the First Amendment guarantees the right of me and other scientists to do everything in our power to wipe out your world-view, as long as we do so non-violently. And you have objected to our intention to do that, as if you have a “right” to your world-view protecting you against our attacks.

I have NOT objected that “intention,” only to the gall you have in making it.
Just as you added “moral” to my statement that did not include this word (as I do not include moralism in my understanding of Truth/God/Supreme Reality, and I’ve made that clear elsewhere), in the same manner you add “protecting you” here when I said no such thing. You literally put words in my mouth by doing this (often), which is the exact definition of creating a Straw-Man. I think creating Straw-Men is your primary mode of argumentation. As long as you’re doing this you cannot be taken seriously.

So, your claim that I think my “right” to my world-view PROTECTS me from “your attacks” is a LIE. And your claim that I think I have a “moral” right to my world-view is also a lie; I think I have every right. This is a pattern that I could point out in all your comments to me and others, if I were willing to go through all your comments to find the evidence. I’m not willing to do that when I think that what can be shown in just this one long comment is sufficient. What else can we find?

You quoted me as writing:

CY: I’m NOT trying to explain the science of physics academically– not having studied physics academically -but to point out that there is an unseen reality underlying the SEEN reality (objective world) that is just as real, active, influential as the Seen. YOU deny that, and if you don’t, you need to say so.

After which you follow with

DM: Actually, you have made very specific statements about physics such as:
The famous double slit experiment: Shows that every single thought, as energy, directly and instantly influences the quantum field.

[quoted from an earlier comment which I had corrected since then, so you are purposely confusing the issue.] This is just another way of creating a Straw-Man, by using out-dated words by me, allowing you to say:

DM: That is a lie: the double-slit experiment shows nothing of the sort, and you have made no attempt to show that it does.

You then, after making that false point, copy my current wording, but claim that my use of “quantum field” makes it a lie! By now, any reader is so confused by your mixing up of quotes from a couple of weeks worth of commenting, nothing is clear. Just the result you want.

I ask you about God and you reply:

I think that God or the gods probably do not exist.

I never speak anywhere about “the gods”; it’s not in my vocabulary as there is no such thing in reality. However, from then on it’s always “god or the gods” with you, so you are again changing my words into your words, and arriving at conclusions from there. Dishonest Dave.

As to the truth of “like attracts like,” people often act from their “beliefs” and “political/social convictions” or for monetary/social gain over their true feelings. Many, many people, maybe most, have numbed feelings, so they can be led by other, more profitable considerations. So what “attracted” you to your wife was probably not that she was different from you racially, but bc she was a Ph.D student in STEM and your careers and life-goals matched. I really don’t think it was her sex-appeal, or yours.

DM: In any case, I don’t much care about fantasies of silly old unhinged ladies like you.
But what I do care about is when you try, falsely and maliciously, to transfer those fantasies to matters of actual physics,

You return again to the double-slit experiment comments, so you can repeat:

That is a lie about physics, and I object to it.
Again: let me make clear — my biggest objection is to your repeated lies involving physics.

Really? Am I going to injure ‘physics?’ How can that be? A silly old & insane woman like me? You must think that “Physics” is very vulnerable if you think that. You spent 1700 words on this comment; that’s essay length. Why do you get so worked up over what I say?
I say it’s bc you know I’m right, and you’re on the defensive. You fear the competition from other disciplines that occupy people’s concerns, including spirituality-religion especially. You need there to be only one right way — have you always had a problem with sharing? God – the Reality we call God – is total Sharing, even to the extent of no individuality (!!) in the final analysis, which has to appear hateful to you as it cares not for your massive EGO. So your ego is dead-set against it. But it will not win; it’s impossible. That’s the quandary you’re in, and your brains will not save you from.

Upon looking to see what other threads Dave Miller might be participating in, I came upon a very interesting comment directed to him under the Jan. 8th article “The Mythicist Hypothesis in the Light of History and Reason” by Jonas E. Alexis. https://www.unz.com/article/the-mythicist-hypothesis-in-the-light-of-history-and-reason/#comment-7458677 The comment is by Jonas Alexis, in answer to some comments made by Dave Miller. Interestingly, Jonas Alexis finds the same “problems” with our ‘Physicist Dave’ as many of us are having with him in this thread. So I thought it would be instructive to copy it here, and since Dave’s last two comments to me amounted to 1400 words EACH, it should be allowable. Here it is:

Dr. Miller, is this the disposition one ought to adopt when engaging the careful examination of serious scholarly questions? Do you genuinely seek dialogue with the arguments being presented, or is such engagement not your objective? I must admit that I find the claims you advance here difficult to take seriously.

I have been engaging the work of figures such as Richard Carrier and Robert Price for many years, including their publications, public lectures, debates, and presentations. For instance, Price’s debate with Bart Ehrman several years ago was, in my assessment, deeply unconvincing, particularly in light of the fact that Ehrman has already addressed the central claims raised by Carrier and other mythicists in his published work.

One reason I did not engage Carrier and Price explicitly in the article is twofold. First, readers have frequently commented that my essays tend to be overly long. Second, the arguments advanced by Carrier and Price largely rehearse claims that mythicists have been making for decades—claims that were already addressed substantively in the article itself. To suggest, therefore, that I am unwilling to engage these figures is simply unfounded.

For example, when Carrier argues that Jesus closely resembles Osiris, this is precisely the type of claim I addressed in the article. Yet you respond by constructing a straw man, asserting that “no serious mythicist would claim that the story of Jesus exactly reproduces the stories of the mystery religions such as Bacchus, Dionysus, or Osiris.” This characterization is puzzling. At no point did I claim that mythicists argue for an exact replication of these narratives. Rather, I stated clearly that mythicists draw parallels between figures such as Osiris and Jesus—an argument that is categorically different from the claim you attribute to me. If one denies that mythicists make such parallel-based arguments, then it is difficult to see how a productive exchange is even possible.

Moreover, I find it unpersuasive to invoke academic credentials as a substitute for substantive argumentation. The mere possession of a Ph.D.—whether in physics, biblical studies, or any other field—does not, by itself, confer argumentative authority. By that standard, figures such as Carrier, Price, or even Alan Dershowitz would be rendered credible simply by virtue of their institutional affiliations, a conclusion that few would accept without careful scrutiny of their arguments.

Taken together, the posture reflected in your response suggests a closed intellectual stance, one that does not appear conducive to serious or productive scholarly engagement. Under such conditions, it is difficult to see how further discussion could yield meaningful progress. If you have not seen the debate between Robert M. Price and Bart D. Ehrman, here is the link for your reference:

Well, thank YOU Dave for all the gifts you’ve given me here for my so-called rebuttal. You are clearly agitated by my refusal to kow-tow in any way to your superior knowledge of the academic , “cultic” field of Physical Science. Not that all physicists are “cultic,” but Dave is certainly one that is. I don’t forget that all physics Ph.D holders are not the same and cannot be lumped together, as Dave does when he says “All we physicists …”
[This is an example of Dave’s mentality that he can speak for everyone, which I’ve mentioned before.]

The best is:

“You are truly insane if you believe that is coercion!” and “We now have seen and the verdict is in: you are insane.’

Further down, “The data you have provided confirms my point: you are indeed insane.

Of course, I’m not ‘insane’ and everyone participating here knows I’m not. What possesses YOU to use such an extreme word against me? My answer: Your extreme agitation over the fact that I will not admit defeat by acknowledging the total victory of Science over God/religion/spiritual reality/the Unseen worlds. No, I never will because I’m convinced of their “real” existence. Didn’t they call Galileo insane? Isn’t that the tactic of last resort to shut down unwanted speech by those in temporary authority? Yes, Science is in authority at the moment.

You keep accusing me of saying things I NEVER said. For example, this:

Carolyn also wrote:

As a human being, I have a right to that/my world view.

You do? Why?

Legally, of course, you can think and say as you wish.

But, aside from a strictly legal perspective, why do you have a right at all to your world view?

I don’t agree that you have a moral right to your world view.

Why add the word moral? I didn’t say that, but you switch it to that because you are dishonest! Making you the one who is “lying,” not I. I have not told a single lie. My statements reflect what is important to me. I’m NOT trying to explain the science of physics academically- not having studied physics academically -but to point out that there is an unseen reality underlying the SEEN reality (objective world) that is just as real, active, influential as the Seen. YOU deny that, and if you don’t, you need to say so. You can’t straddle the fence. One thing I really hate is fence-straddlers. For instance, you say you are an atheist, but when pressed on what that actually means re physical death, you hedge and say you “don’t know”. To be uncertain about God/death is what I’ve always understood as an “agnostic.” So which term do you accept for yourself? You are hedging.

Dave: As I have explained, again and again, the LLMs are what are technically known as “bullshit machines.”

I have also said that from the beginning without knowing their exact processes. So copying those results was only a fast way to reproduce the many ways “Like attracts Like” in our everyday world, and it cannot be denied. All you’re doing is attacking the source the info is coming from. You’re not changing the reality of the info. You don’t change the reality of anything by casting aspersions on the sources of knowledge. You only prove you think like a cultist and, like the Pharisees of old, put the form before truth/reality.

Comment 669, Dave to Ttt:

Well, then he [Hitler] failed, didn’t he? The end result was that all of Eastern Europe was handed over to the Communists, including Eastern Germany. And all of Germany was devastated and many Germans killed.

You imply that Hitler was at fault, but the eastern European nations all “switched” on their own to the Soviets/Red Army (except for Croatia) as soon as the tide turned sufficiently in the Reds’ favor. They “caved” and joined the Western leaders of the U.S., UK, France & World Jewry, making Germany a pariah state. This is on them!! Trying to blame Hitler and his N.S./Reich loyalists is cowardly and nothing but cowardly. I for one do not let them off the hook, European or not. They are to blame, if anyone is, and must accept it and seek to make sincere amends before anything can improve for Europeans.

Let’s run a little experiment: I will briefly respond to some of your points, and we will see how you respond.

Dave, this is coercion on your part and if you don’t recognize it, what can anyone say? You’re trying to control my speech and behavior by putting restrictions on me. You are so transparent!!
I do not have to “prove” anything. I’m seeking only to fit “scientific knowledge” into my own world view. As a human being, I have a right to that/my world view. When I say quantum means “subatomic” I’m not wrong. These particles ARE sub atomic, are always subatomic, which is the most meaningful difference in physics for me, that between the atomic and subatomic levels of “matter.”

This is the kind of “big picture” I’m projecting, which you insist is ‘impossible’ bc the info becomes FALSE when I do so. But you never “prove” it.

Why are you never the teacher, always the student? With all your expertise, why have you never written a book, even a short one? For the same reason you insist on using the “we” when you speak of anything to do with the “science of physics” even though you had nothing to do with it, other than being a student of it. You don’t even agree with all physicists all the time; you do agree that there are differing points of view among them.

Your main objective is to ridicule me and anyone else who doesn’t accept YOU as a beacon of superior knowledge w/o question, as automatically determined by your identification as a “scientist”. You have NOT, in this reply to me, demonstrated the truth of anything you’ve said, nor can you point to anything YOU have written that explains it. Your reply was essentially a cover-up and an evasion of the questions/statements by me.

I would think that any respectable physicists would be ashamed for you in how you’ve answered me here. You try to pass off ignorant denials as clever quips against those who don’t speak your “language,” just as I said beforehand. I really think you hope your insufferability will drive me away.
Well, as I see it, your insufferability is noticed by all, not just me, so you go ahead and be as insufferable as you want, lol.

“This time I have followed up — let’s see how you respond.”

Yes, let’s see. You wrote 1400 words on this single topic. When asked to explain what the double-slit experiment shows, you do a lengthy runaround and then move to my next question without ever answering it, even minimally. It would have been easier, faster to answer the question, so it’s mighty curious that you don’t.

What you DO like to do is negate what I say, but w/o giving any valid reasons, just by ridiculing it. As in the “sofa-sub-atomic particle analogy” which you bring up again yet say nothing more than you said in a previous comment, so it’s just unnecessary repetition. Wasting time & space.

I’m not here to acknowledge or not the current pronouncements by the keepers of Physical Science, but to state what is true as it applies to ME and my interests (which are not very different from all humans). So the question I ask is, “Is it true? Does it work that way in my experience?”

Since your answer to everything I brought up is “Bizarre nonsense,” never any attempt to give an answer – to ask you”why” is appropriate. You say it’s bc I don’t show appreciation for your answers. I’m sorry, you can’t throw any slop at me and I’m going to appreciate it. I’m not, nor is anyone, made that way. You must be living in an alternate universe from me if you think that. You ignored this from me:

CY: Sub-atomic is below microscopic, cannot be seen at all, but its effects can be measured by the results. In the same way, spiritual forces occur in the “unseen” or “are unseen”, but felt, and there are results that can be observed and measured.

This is not false, or bizarre, or nonsense. It is true even though it’s not what you want to say; the way you want to phrase it. This “game” is how you evade admitting things you don’t want to admit. This is/can be what is important to a non-physicist.

It’s also true that Like attracts Like. We see it everywhere, all the time. On top of that, you say that “Like attracts Like” is a “complete lie.” Wow! I won’t bother to give all the evidence for it (it’s well known) but I do ask you to give your evidence against it. Must be some kind of verbal trickery.

I also stated that

CY: “Every thought—directed to the subject–influences the quantum field on that subject. So, every thought does influence the quantum field somewhere, and thus, since all is One, by extension, everywhere.

To which you replied, “That is just nonsense… You most assuredly did not get this from any real physicist!”

I’m not claiming to get anything from “real physicists.” I told you where I got it, bc I’m not a member of your cult. I got it from the source of knowledge that we’re all connected to! And I will not be dissuaded from that so easily. But I am also informed by my internet reading on basic physics.

This time I have followed up — let’s see how you respond.

You have not really. You’ve only said: This is complete nonsense, except for the “magnetism” comment re “Like repels Like.” It has been affirmed by “lab experiments” that babies respond far more positively to caregivers of their “own kind”, ie race. But in answer to that I’ll just post what Google AI says about Like Attracts Like: It’s a practical truth if not scientific. Not everything is scientific.

AI Overview Like attracts like” means that people, things, and experiences that are similar tend to draw closer to each other, suggesting that your own energy, thoughts, and characteristics influence what you attract into your life, whether in relationships, friendships, or overall circumstances. It’s a core concept in the Law of Attraction, proposing that positive energy brings positive outcomes, and similar individuals bond because of shared values, interests, and perspectives, creating self-reinforcing cycles.

Key aspects of “like attracts like”:

People & Relationships: You tend to form connections with people who share your hobbies, beliefs, educational levels, or even socioeconomic backgrounds.
Thoughts & Emotions: Your dominant thoughts and feelings act as a magnet; focusing on abundance attracts abundance, while focusing on lack can attract scarcity.
Energy & Vibe: Your overall energetic state, influenced by your mindset, attracts similar energies back to you, creating a feedback loop.
Mindset & Action: Positive, confident, or growth-oriented thinking leads to actions that produce similar results, whereas negative or limiting beliefs often lead to self-sabotaging patterns.

Is this true or not true?

In my comment #640, I made some observations about “Quantum Physics” & asked some questions of Dave Miller (our Physicist Dave) about same. My observations were mostly taken from online sources + a book I had because I’ve been trained to think I could never speak on such an esoteric subject just from my own mind. Who were the trainers? Why, the keepers of academic, institutional Physical Science, or just “Science,” of course. The Dr. Fauci’s! “I represent science,” implying you don’t, so shut up. One must be trained by them in their educational institutions to know anything correctly about it. That speaks of a cult, plain and simple. I introduced the word “cult” into our conversation, and Dave then took it up for his own purposes. Okay, it happens all the time.

But what’s important is that early this morning I “saw” what Quantum Theory is, what it’s based on, and now I will never have to look at another book or dictionary definition. The penny dropped, as it’s said, a phrase I’ve taken a liking to. It expresses the experience so well but I can’t say why. It’s like the light went on.

Here it is: Quantum is a word standing for “sub-atomic.” Why they don’t just use sub-atomic instead of inventing a new word is explained by the fact that that’s what cults do. They have their own ‘secret” or ‘special’ language to give an air of mystery and keep out the uncooperative types who might ask too many questions if/when they realize how simple is all really is. Sub-atomic is below microscopic, cannot be seen at all, but its effects can be measured by the results. In the same way, spiritual forces occur in the “unseen” or “are unseen”, but felt, and there are results that can be observed and measured. What sets these forces into motion/action is our “wanting,” even our attention or interest.

This is the essential teaching/”law” of attraction that the whole world is familiar with. Like attracts like. As its said: Every child can understand it. You and I can understand it. It’s no mystery. Yet Dave refuses to comment on what it is. In fact, Dave would rather it not be known. Dave is only comfortable with “classical” physical science dealing with the “Seen World,” not the unseen. If he is hostile to that based on his sense of “who he is” or “what he is,” he will resist, and so we see him doing so. And to a ridiculous extent, such as telling Tiptoe to “read a book and not a Harlequin novel.” What?!

Sub-atomic physics show us that there’s no scientific basis for our belief that there’s a “real world” and a “fantasy world” that is not “real.” This is pretty childish when you stop to think about it. Everything is real; it depends on how you define or delineate “real.” These are WORDS trying to explain “What Is.” What is, is. No one owns it, no one is privileged to define it over against someone else. A concept is just that—a concept in the mind. While ‘what is’ continues as is – merrily along it’s way.

Does this mean there are no rules and life is a free-for-all? No, it just stops people like Dave Miller from becoming autocrats who can dictate to and bully the rest of us. I’ll say this: He’s always reading another book, which makes it seem he can’t function without more intellectual input about the “real physical world.” I’ve always been “a book person.” I do believe that the first time I laid eyes on a book, I wanted to know what was in it. I held books and words in such high esteem I never imagined that I could teach myself to read. I dutifully waited for school to teach me. I had memorized one little children’s book, and I could have matched up the visual appearance of those words in reading something new, but I had no encouragement nor did I have enough other simple books to use for it. That’s okay, we don’t need to be geniuses to gain as much knowledge as is desired; I’ve discovered the desire alone is the key element needed, which is more important to understand than the contents of all the books in the world! And THAT is something I came into this lifetime to learn, I’m convinced. So I can only congratulate myself — at long last.

More that can be said, such as I used Patterson’s words that: … “every single thought, as energy, directly and instantly influences the quantum field.” It needs to be: “Every thought — directed to the subject — influences the quantum field on that subject. So … every thought does influence the quantum field somewhere, and thus, since all is One, by extension, everywhere.

Yes, there’s a lot more to be said, beyond the physical world, for living the good life, and satisfying one’s hunger for knowledge. We can be satisfied but we have to be willing to go beyond the limitations of man-made science — at least what Dave restricts science to. Sorry Dave, you or it doesn’t have all the answers. Nor, as you like to emphasize, more than any other discipline in the history of humankind. Isn’t that how you put it? And isn’t it true that, as Tiptoe put it in her comment #651, your tactic, when your BS is exposed, is to WITHDRAW from any further mention of that fact or topic? Tiptoe said:

“furthermore, I revealed a confirmation by Clastres on other assertions made by me with regard to how hierarchies WILL/DO establish themselves, and so you then just withdraw?”

Yes, that is how you operate, Dave. You have failed to follow-up with/on me on several occasions. It feels like a betrayal, or cowardice. What will you do this time?

Hi Dave. You limit yourself to telling me what is not true/real, but are unable to clearly state what is true. I know it’s possible to state these ideas in normal language we can all understand, without mathematical equations, but you don’t do it. Just one example:

No, the double-slit experiment most certainly does not show “that every single thought, as energy, directly and instantly influences the quantum field.”

Then, what does it show? Why remain silent on that?

You’re basing your objections to my comments on my language choice, on pure semantics — word choice — and you CAN, if you know the answer, put it into language everyone can understand. That you don’t/won’t do so, after numerous requests/opportunities, only confirms that your science, as you present it here, is a CULT, with insiders and outsiders. You want to keep it that way–are afraid to do otherwise–lest you lose your “standing” as a person of superior knowledge. You’re actually trying to make the outsiders afraid to question you, to stifle their speech, through ridicule.

As for Patterson’s book , yes, I chose not to name it because I saw upon re-visiting it that I did not find it of high enough quality/reliability. And indeed, you decide to look for passages to quote that I did not choose to use/copy because what I DID use/copy was not “bad enough” for your critique.

No, Dave, you are not pristine “pure” in your scientific cloak in this discussion thus far; you are in fact greatly lacking. For example, this baseless ridicule from you:

That is a bizarre lie.. No, your sofa does not “disappear” and it is not true that “it could reappear anywhere in your living room or anywhere else in the universe.”

Has your sofa actually ever reappeared somewhere else in the universe?

But Dave, Patterson is not talking about a sofa, but “imagining a sizable sub-atomic particle” in the form of your living room sofa, in order to make the point. If you can’t keep that straight in your mind, but confuse the sofa analogy with an actual sofa, then you are no physicist. You can say it’s a poor analogy on her part if you want, but that is all–you still have to judge it as it is.

Since I never recommended this book as a whole, or even named it or its author, I have no obligation to defend the passages you’ve taken from it. I will defend what I have quoted here. So it looks like I’ve responded to every complaint you’ve offered to me. Yet it took you over 1000 words, according to Unz, to say so little. You did brag at the end about your “ongoing crusade to end the White Race.” And that “the greatest achievement of modern natural science … has been to wipe out all of the past cultures, all of the comforting belief systems, that make your (our) lives tolerable.”
You further said that

“the greatest achievement of modern natural science is not our technological advances — as great as they are — but our elimination of all of the previous systems of human thought that have made past human cultures and indeed human civilizations possible.”

You couldn’t be more clear: You hate everything traditional, and have since you were a young child. Particularly anything that is not “material” or partaking of materialism. For you, anything non-physical does not exist, and should not be allowed to be believed to exist. I would say that most published physicists do not agree with you and would find you extreme. And Jewish.

Isn’t this the way most Jews think? You tell me/us how it differs.

P.S. Could this shed any light on the destruction of our archeological sites as mentioned by Tiptoethrutulips in comment #641?

No, the idea is not correct — it is wildly, bizarrely, insanely wrong.

The idea that when “the attention goes, the object of attention does also” is a view that I have never heard in the context of quantum physics, and I very, very much doubt that any legitimate physicist has ever made that claim.

Where on earth did you get such a nutty idea?

I added that it was “inelegantly stated” from a physicists’ point of view, and you would find fault with it. But you are HOPING, WANTING to find fault with whatever I say, so you are prejudiced/biased, something that a scientist is not supposed to be. The rule is “Follow the evidence, the science” right? Therefore, you’re a dishonest scientist.

Try this on (in non-scientist language): Quatum physics confirms that a thing can only exist if it is observed. The ‘quanta’ [sub-atomic particles] are organized according to the influence of the mind of the observers.
When something is observed, the quanta merge into sub-atomic particles, then into atoms, followed by molecules, until finally something in the physical world manifests itself into a localized, temporal space-time experience that can be perceived through our five physical senses. …What we call physical reality.

The famous double slit experiment: Shows that every single thought, as energy, directly and instantly influences the quantum field. Thus, ‘quanta’ merge into a localized, observable experience event, an object, or other influence.

Further, from a book on quantum physics for non-physicists:

The act of our observation turns a probable particle into a ‘physical particle” at a certain point in space and time. Once we withdraw our attention from it, it becomes a probability again. Imagine that the sofa in your living room is a sizable sub-atomic particle. This is how it would behave: If you are not at home and do not think about your sofa, it would “disappear” and would become a probability that it could reappear anywhere in your living room or anywhere else in the universe. If you came home thinking about sitting on the sofa in a specific place in your living room and looking for the sofa where you would like to relax, it would reappear! This seems like a fantasy, but it is a scientific fact that sub-atomic particles behave this way.

Dave is clearly exhibiting anti-democratic, anti-libertarian intentions by wanting to keep New Physics a mystery to all the “uninitiated,” rather than to help them get the essence and/or benefit of it and feel included. Yet he claims to stand for liberty and access for all. NO, he’s an elitist who sees himself among the small elite and wants to keep it that way.

Who disagrees that Dave Miller is a big, fat fraud who needs to be called out (publicly shunned, as he puts it) for his anti-White-European views because he wants to “destroy forever” our foundational beliefs and myths in the name of Science? Speak up.

I have repeatedly provided links to my Ph.D. thesis and one of my patents: look at my earlier posts.

I know you did, but I believe only once. I scrolled through almost the entire first page of your 6,000 posts on here, and still hadn’t come to it. I am NOT going to waste my time hunting for what you can very easily post another url for. And was “that one patent” the extent of your contribution? I read it at the time and think I commented on it; yours was the last of four names. I was not impressed with it, but I’m no judge of physics problems. I don’t think I could get much from your Ph,D thesis. Is that the extent of your contribution?

The idea that when “the attention goes, the object of attention does also” is a view that I have never heard in the context of quantum physics, and I very, very much doubt that any legitimate physicist has ever made that claim.

Well, this is just something that I retained in a manner that I can understand it, get something out of it. So I will put it this way: In classical physics, things happen for a reason, a cause. In quantum physics, particles jump from one state to another based on probability.

Therefore the Law of Attraction (a 1980s New Age favorite theme) has a role — the simple idea that “like attracts like” is supported by Quantum Physics. Our thought influences these particles, demonstrating that physical reality is not only affected by physical processes but by mind. Mind and matter intersect, which is not at all surprising to students of the spiritual but never acknowledged by physical scientists before. Even now, many or most are still skeptical!

What’s more: Nothing is set, no limits, everything is vibrating energy … under the control of our feelings!! More than just wishing and hoping; it boils down to believing! If you want to deny this, Dave, you’ll have to take it up with some other physicists. They don’t all agree you know, lol.

Everyone — even you! — knows that a person can care now about something in the future even if he will not be around when that future comes to pass. To be sure, in the future, if he is no longer around, then he will not care. But he certainly can now care about the future.

Of course, I do know that so didn’t think it needed to be said. But … we can also say, truthfully, that a person –especially smart persons like you and me, Dave– who knows that they are soon to pass, also know that they soon will not care and so how much can they really care now? Of course, you can “plan your will”, etc. and all that but care?? That why it feels insincere and manipulative. And all the other things I’ve said. Especially because you’ve told/taught your two daughters that they are going to be extinguished too, but “here Honeys, enjoy this money while you can!”

It’s very Jewish, is it not? Your mind/emotions are 100% Jewish, as someone said to me.

Without the “cult” of natural science, this planet cannot support over eight billion people.

What’s good about eight billion people? Who benefits from that? Do you ever really think about anything?

Live your life as everyone lived in 1600, before the Scientific Revolution — no electric lighting, no fridge, no electric washing machine, no aspirin or antibiotics, and, above all, no electronics of any sort — no computer and no Internet.

Prove that you mean it.

But you won’t, because you are, I think, the biggest hypocrite I have ever known.

Common sense, Dave. EVERYONE lived without those things in 1600; the world was without them. Now EVERYONE is used to them & we live accordingly. Expecting me to live differently from everyone else, or from the way I’ve lived for the past 80 years, is unreasonable. It would be very, very difficult to accomplish, just logistically. You seem to have lost your marbles in your frustration over my modest “attacks” on your precious science cult. Hard to deny it’s a cult, isn’t it. But you demand total loyalty to it, have no tolerance for questioning, ridicule the non-believers, are manipulative in defending it, and believe in shunning those not conforming to its standards.

And you say I am the hypocrite!?

There is no magic dirt, Dave. I guess one could say, WE are the magic dirt. (or clay, as it were…I don’t really know; I’m certain clay is a mistranslation…)

This caught my attention. The biblical “story of Creation” is clearly a myth (possibly of Egyptian origin, not Hebrew) circulated by the non-scientific humans living on the earth at that time. Before metals, objects were “formed” of clay and hardened in the sun until useful for holding water and other substances. This obviously points to the physical body as a vessel for holding that which was more valuable than the vessel itself. So that is how we should view the human body from then until now–as a vessel for the far more valuable spirit. Dave insists the physical body and other objects are “what we are.” The scriptures are the scriptures because they remain true & useful even if seemingly outdated. They don’t need to be re-translated or changed, just to be seen in the Light of Awareness.

Dave’s physical science “cult” presently holds that it’s only a matter of time when that which cannot be defined by the laws of physical science, will somehow magically be revealed to them. Instead of waiting for that, they would do better to invite the scriptures to reveal their meaning–not just the Judeo and Christian scriptures but the Hindu and Vedanta scriptures also. Since I’m letting go all the way with my sharing lately, I’ll go for broke and add that in the last 10 years I’ve gotten more from Indian sources than any other. Tat Tvam Asi. Look it up…because I’m really not trying to convert anyone.

Just to be clear: I am not a Dualist. And even more clear, the only two “religions” I’ve ever gotten interested in (taken to heart) are Christianity and Hinduism, but not the popular forms, meaning the common church and temple practices, but the philosophical content, if you will. ‘Nuff said.

Most English, Germans, and Scots did nothing at all to contribute to modern science. A significant number of them did what they could to actively impede it.

I have made my own small contributions to science and technology, for which I deserve a bit of credit. But you and Carolyn and most other White people? None at all.

And what is that contribution, Dave? Let us give you credit, too.

I recall these famous, long-lasting advertising campaigns:
____________________________

The phrase
“Better Living Through Chemistry” is a popular variation of an advertising slogan originally introduced by the DuPont Company in 1935.
Original Slogan: The full, official slogan was “Better Things for Better Living… Through Chemistry”.
Purpose: It was designed to promote optimism about science’s ability to solve human problems and to soften the public image of “big business.”
Key Products: DuPont used the slogan to market revolutionary synthetic materials like nylon, cellophane, and rayon.

2. Cultural Appropriation
During the 1960s, the slogan was co-opted by the counterculture movement as a sarcastic or ironic reference to recreational drug use, particularly LSD. This secondary meaning became so prevalent that it eventually led DuPont to distance itself from the original phrasing.

3. Media and Entertainment
The phrase has since become a ubiquitous title in popular culture:
Film: A 2014 comedy-drama starring Sam Rockwell as a pharmacist whose life spirals out of control.
Music: The title of the 1996 debut album by Fatboy Slim and a song by Queens of the Stone Age on their album Rated R.
Documentaries: Used in films exploring the work of psychedelic chemists like Alexander “Sasha” Shulgin.

Would you like to see examples of the vintage advertisements from the 1930s to 1950s that first made this slogan famous? https://daily.jstor.org/what-we-mean-by-better-living/
________________

General Electric advertised “Progress is our most important product.” How could I forget GE Theater in 1957? It was a staple. https://www.adsausage.com/blog/live-better-electrically

“Progress is our most important product” was a famous advertising slogan for General Electric (GE), used prominently from the 1950s through the 1970s to associate the brand with innovation, technological advancement, and improving people’s lives, especially during the post-World War II boom, fitting perfectly with their sponsorships of shows like General Electric Theater.

Origin: The slogan was the tagline for GE’s television presence, including its sponsored show hosted by Ronald Reagan, emphasizing engineering, research, and manufacturing skill.
Context: It resonated with the American ideal of progress in the mid-20th century, following earlier slogans like “Live Better Electrically” and preceding later ones like “We bring good things to life”.
Meaning: It positioned GE not just as a seller of appliances but as a driver of societal advancement through technology, from turbines and jet engines to medical imaging.

Dave, your dishonesty is over the top – you’re blowing the roof off.

For example, when I wrote to you in comment #616 that when I object (correctly) that an atheist like you who really believes what you say you do about death and consciousness “would not care what happens to the world after he dies,” you lie and say you care about your two daughters,” and to some degree all 8 billion persons living in the world at the time of your death. I’m sure you’d also include your wife if she survives. You’re lying because you know it’s not possible for something/someone that does not exist to “care” about that which is in existence–or anything at all.

Further, quantum physics holds that the universe exists in a state of possibility, and when a conscious entity puts attention on another, it exists; when the attention goes, the object of attention does also. This may be an inelegant way of stating it (and you may say ‘wrong’) but the idea is correct. That’s what I meant when I wrote:

Has it not occurred to you, as a physicist, that when you no longer exist, “they” won’t either? Kaput! All gone.

They are gone for you, and whoever is not looking for them, at them. “It takes two to tango” seems to be the underlying meaning of it. Or, ‘we see what we’re looking for’ is another expression that fits. Which tells us that the world as we normally see it is not what we think it is, and neither is the “world-idea” that we’ve been taught in public school. But now YOU, the genius physicist, are suddenly playing dumb and getting all sentimental and normal about caring for your kids when you’re gone. Oh, gush. They’re going to disappear too, soon enough!! Inconsistency can be interpreted as dishonesty, and I think that’s what we’re dealing with here.

For that reason, I don’t see anything gained from continuing this charade of a “debate” with you. You are not participating in good faith and my chiropractor told me again today that sitting at my desktop for so long to type and edit is bad for my already bad spine. No, I don’t think you have a sense of fair play, actually. You think that “American tradition” can take the place of law in this very special place called “America.” If all those “newbies” had not shown up after the Mayflower arrived, the new country may have remained single-minded, thus peacefully working out all differences through rational debate. No Germans or Italians allowed to corrupt the pristine English founders’ vision. Oh, except for the Jews. The English had no problem with the Jewish presence in America, did they.

Gee Dave, why do you make it all so tedious by saying the same trite statements over and over, interspersed with the same question marks and white spaces for effect? Do you think I or most others are fooled by that?
The truth is you have nothing useful to say, and employ these rhetorical devices to cover that up.

I can only conclude that when you get out of your special areas of expertise — academic physical science and libertarianism — you are downright unintelligent, and I would even use the word “stupid.” For instance, when I object (correctly) that someone who really believes what you say you do about death and consciousness would not care what happens to the world after they die, you answer with the old familiar refrain:

we care about what happens to [our two daughters] when we are gone — we do planning in terms of our will, etc.

You find that strange?

Now of course the entire human race are not my children, and so I do not care about each one as much as I care about my kids. But, still… eight billion humans now and many billions to come in the future… yeah, I do care about the future after I am gone.

Sorry, but there is no rationality in this at all. It’s purely manipulative. Your daughters are deeply into adulthood; you say you’ve taught them well; you have to consider they are as capable as you’ve been of making their own decisions. (I do wonder what they would say about all this.) As to the 8 billion other humans you “care” about, no, if you’re totally extinguished you cannot “care” about them, even now while you’re still cognizant. Has it not occurred to you, as a physicist, that when you no longer exist, “they” won’t either? Kaput! All gone.

I find it odd that you would not think of such behavior that shows lack of respect for oneself as immoral.

You apply your idea of what is immoral on everyone, even in their private life, and if they don’t behave accordingly, the rest should publicly shame them into doing so. How can anyone respect that? When I ask you to present some reasoning, you tell me to read a book by someone else. But I asked you. Are you passing the buck? The book is “The Theory of Morality” by Alan Donagan. You summarize his “core principle” as

It is impermissible not to respect every human being, oneself or any other, as a rational creature.

Since you DO NOT respect every human being, you emphasize the word “oneself” and make it all about that. You think this is not obvious to everyone? You say that you think it is “morally wrong” to use mind-altering “recreational” drugs, and for a woman to prostitute herself. For these moral failures you recommend passing moral judgment on such people, and stating that judgment publicly, as long as physical force or the threat of force is not used, Oh, what a lovely society that would be to live in! Let’s all go around passing moral judgment on “other people.” And let’s all pressure one another to do the same, have the same identical beliefs about it. Obvious question: How is that libertarian-ism according to the vast majority of most people’s understanding? It’s actually authoritarianism, but also impossible to accomplish. Don’t you know that the reason for laws issued by government is so that individuals don’t have to busybody into their neighbors’ lives, causing ill-feelings, anger and disruption to social peace?

You’re definitely showing some difficulties in your own psyche, Dave. As you’ve revealed yourself to be in the habit of doing, you project your difficulty onto me. You DID say that you “did not claim that” Matthew Arnold’s 5-century old poem proved any kind of definite practical intent, but then admitted that

It is evidence that, for centuries, we scientists have been defeating you “spiritual” folks.

Lol, the only “evidence” you’ve declared in this entire comment, and it’s invalid.

So, do you hear words in your mind? How loud is it? Is it in English? Or do you just get a sense that what you already felt like believing is cool? […]
But you seem to just trust the voices you hear in your head.

I’ve already told you there are no voices. It’s a kind of thought transmission. Millions of people experience it every day. -You persist in proving yourself to be the “cultist,” of being unable to entertain anything you weren’t taught in school, like the good little straight A student you are. You’re a Ten Commandments guy, aren’t you?

Parting thought: You like to speak for everyone; you can’t just speak for yourself. This has been evident since childhood, as you have told us. I never put a lot of stock in the idea that some people want to be God, are jealous of God, but now I’ve literally met one and gotten to know him. Dave Miller. I guess it takes a super-smart guy who’s read a whole lot of books to actually aim so high. Like Icarus?

Your answer to my question “Why do you care what happens after your brain no longer exists (soon to happen)?” is to tell me:

“Ever since I was a young child […] I have cared deeply about the truth and have had a deep and abiding hatred of lies.

But soon you won’t be here to care, or to even exist or remember existing, so isn’t it foolish of you to devote yourself to changing the world?

You further said:

I do not accept that people have a moral “right to decide for themselves” to believe in lies.

What?!! Since when is what I believe an issue of morality that is anyone else’s business? Morality has no business here. Since you consider believing in something called “God” is a lie, that makes it immoral to you. You’ve gone off the deep end here. And you sound like anything but an anarchist libertarian. You need to present some reasoning for this, far more than “In your heart, you know I’m right” repeated 2 or 3 times.

Clearly, you have NOT refuted me. You simply call my objections “lies” and “silly” & nothing more. You’re not very smart if you imagine you’ve done more than that.
_______________

As to your reference to Thomas Arnold, a poem is just a poem. It’s not a thought-out philosophy. Poetry is not the place to go for a worked-out political or philosophical plan of action. Calling “religious-philosophical-spiritual truths” nothing but “fabrications, con games, blatant lies”–and adding “everyone knows this”–is not an intellectually valid position.

Tell us: exactly how do these “far greater beings” communicate their superior “knowledge ” to you.

FYI, communication is “direct knowing” as in what we call “mental telepathy” or simple awareness. It takes a courageous person with humility to accept such direct knowing. Without humility, one cannot accept it because the pride of the ego prevents it. I’m being kind in telling you that because I know what you’ll do with it. But if you answer my questions, I will answer yours.

Let me just ask you this one question (so that you can’t hide by avoiding it): You say you live

To destroy all the lies that make civilization possible — the “spiritual” lies, the political lies […] and all the other comforting lies that people live by.
[…]
my goal is to create a brave new world in which it is no more possible to hold such beliefs than it is possible for you to believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

If the physical, material world is all there is, and your death will be the end of you (ie. blessed nothingness), why do you care what happens after your brain no longer exists (soon to happen)? When your consciousness is gone? Why do you want to dictate to those who are here THEN–take away their right to decide for themselves? What is that all about? Are you so stupid as to never have considered that?

It’s interesting how those who portray themselves as celebrants of freedom also think they should decide for future generations what they can have, do and think. Are you thinking that there will never be anyone smarter than you; you are the pinnacle of creation?

“I do not like civilization as we have known it, cultures [plural] based on lies, and I am doing what I can to end it.”

Instead of replying to what I have written, you make up your own version, claimed to be “paraphrasing”, and then reply to that. I think that is called making use of “red herrings” and is considered dishonest. You add words like ‘horrible,’ ‘evil,’ ‘hostility’ and worst of all, in a somewhat different vein: “in your heart, you know what I am saying is true.” No, I don’t. You are taking great liberties here, which are not justified.
________________________

You also said: “No, you haven’t confirmed your delusions with “greater beings.” It’s all just a con game, a fraud, a pack of lies, just like all the other quite obviously fraudulent con games and frauds throughout human history that David Stove skewered.”

Of course, my use of “confirmed” is in response to your saying:

Why “well-confirmed”? Isn’t that really quite obvious?
All of the things I just mentioned are indeed very, very well-confirmed, at a level that no educated, sane person doubts. This is why, if the Chinese or the Iranians or the Indians wish to build an electronic circuit or a chemical plant or, yes, a nuclear Bomb, they make use of the very, very, very “well-confirmed” results of natural science.
But of course nothing in Western or Chinese or Indian or Muslim religion or philosophy or “spirituality” is so “well-confirmed” that the others feel any need to take it seriously at all, now do they?

Not so. In the field of religion-philosophy-spiritual reality all discoveries & demonstrated truths are taken seriously by those who participate with interest and knowledge. That leaves you out by your own choice. Thus you are too ignorant to weigh in on it.

I also said I “have confirmed my value with far greater beings and knowledge than you can muster.” You misquoted me by leaving off the “knowledge” part, which is not an inessential part but essential for it’s completeness. I’m not receiving confirmation from frivolous beings; I’m not a “crackpot.” You’re mistaken to think that the academic institutions of this world have the ultimate say on legitimacy. You DO think that and base your whole argument on that fallacy. You have to lighten up and explore more outside of your chosen field. You’re not investigating; you’re only holding the doors shut tight. That, my man, is fear of not “being right.”

From comment #554:

I must add a few words in response to Dave’s charge that I cannot provide a single argument against his claim that “Natural Science” is the only discipline that has” discovered important truths about reality rather than just fabricating lies.” He lists for the second time all the advances in public health and comfort made by scientists, such as electronics, artificial fabrics and plastics (among other things). Plastic is now EVERYWHERE in our advanced societies [clogging our oceans, and in the bodies of the fish we eat “for good health.” ] Just today, I happened to see a typical news story here: https://www.foxnews.com/health/common-household-chemicals-linked-increased-risk-serious-neurological-condition
[…]
There are thousands of similar articles/stories […] It was much worse before, you say? Not for everyone, and maybe not for most. We live in fear today every bit as much as we always have. Just different bogeymen. Prescription drugs alter body processes in such a way as to bring on/create new disruptions/diseases that replace what they’re meant to “fix.” Sometimes they just hide the old symptoms. There is seldom any real fix. You are never as good as you once were. Old age remains a challenge.

How many prescription drugs do you take, Dave, as a man in your 70s? Can you be honest and tell the truth? Do they work perfectly – side-effect free? Do you feel like a 40-year-old because of them? Are many of those people being kept alive through artificial means, warehoused in nursing homes and hardly aware of themselves anymore bc of drugs, glad to be alive? They are living husks of the physical body/brain you celebrate so much. Lucky are the ones who worked to develop a spiritual connection which is real to them, whether you approve or not.

The spiritual is very personal; between me and me. It’s not a group activity. You know it or you don’t. No, it’s not science/scientific.

So what you answered to in #598 with “since you insist” is NOT what I asked you about in #592. So yes, you are shifting the goal posts exactly as I have charged you with. In #588, you wrote to Ttt:

However, it is also true that people like Carolyn who argue that the net value of technology is negative but who then continue to use everything […] technology based on natural science, are simply hypocrites.

I never said that the net value of technology is negative, or even inferred it. (But I did suggest it could be more of the same, as in just different problems). YOU are being selective in what you want to answer to. As I’ve said, you’re moving the goal posts mid-game. I’m asking you to answer to that–to your dishonesty and cheating – or at a minimum, your lack of attention to what I’m really saying as having value.

Luckily, I don’t need your “seal of approval” because I have confirmed my value with far greater beings and knowledge than you can muster. I don’t mean to be pugilistic, but only to stand my ground. Let me end for now with another thought-game: that Progress is an illusion. Do we really progress? Are we progressing? One thing is for sure: We still die. The physical body dies, Dave, even yours. So what are you living for? Is it your goal to end physical death? And what will be gained from that? Do you have an answer? I think it would create a bigger mess than we have now.

You failed to answer to the first half of my reply to you, which was the main gist of your dishonest account of what I wrote. Yes, you’re still being dishonest and you have no intention of stopping or taking responsibility for it. You shift from this to that at will, at whim, and call your tricks superior brain power. I call it just plain lying by omission. Sorry that I can’t help from being blunt; I’ve had it with this dishonest world/society. I see through it.

I am not a “true believer” but an investigator. I investigate what interests me, just as you do. However, I do not deny the physical world the way you deny the non-physical. So you have to be the “true believer” in reality. What is real? This quote from philosopher David Stove is one you picked out to give a recommendation for your own views. I glanced at the article you linked to, and noticed this:

I have been saying that we need a nosology of thought, and that it would not be – various things. What it would be, I have admitted I do not know. My main object, however, is to convince you that no one knows: that the nosology which we need has not yet even begun to exist: that thoughts – as distinct from sentences, or inferences, or character, or information – can go wrong in a multiplicity of ways, none of which anyone yet understands.

You then repeat your belief in consciousness — that it is — quite obviously! — real, and that physics does not understand how consciousness interacts with physical reality. But physics is the only “science” that knows anything about reality, so if it doesn’t know — nobody does! (according to the genius Dave)

What genius Dave is missing is his mistake in making the physical our primary reality. It is not, and that’s why physics is stuck where it is–inventing new artificial products to take the place of real ones–or inventing new weapons of mass destruction.

All of the attempts by Carolyn…to give insight into the nature of reality turns out to be just “word salad,” grammatically correct sentences that have no purchase on reality.

Aha. And what is this sentence but “word salad” — “no purchase on reality.” How do you know? Do you prove it? No. You just throw it out there. And this one:

I have repeatedly stated that the only means ever discovered by human beings of arriving at general, substantive, systematic, positive, well-confirmed, and non-obvious knowledge of reality is natural science.

What the hell is meant by “substantive” and “non-obvious”, and “well-confirmed” by whom/what? Your science, that’s what. And your science doesn’t know, doesn’t have a clue even as to what consciousness is. Your science fails to come up with anything, ultimately, and so you insist NO ONE KNOWS.

But I have made this point in various venues over a number of years: no one, including Carolyn, has ever managed to come up with an example to the contrary.

If that seems so to you, it’s because you have put so many conditions of your own devising on what you’ll accept. Which is just more dishonesty on your part.

This failure of science to answer the really BIG questions of our existence, our reality, proves this: that those answers are not in the limited realm of the physical/material, but in a much broader expanse of consciousness that I have more familiarity with than you do, my scientist friend. LOL.

If you want to understand what the Hindus believe in relation to the Christians, I’d be happy to engage in a go-round with you.

Mty main argument with Carolyn was pointing out that technological creations, especially those that have horrendous results such as nuclear weapons, prove that scientists do indeed know deep facts about reality that no other method ever invented by human beings has ever uncovered.

However, it is also true that people like Carolyn who argue that the net value of technology is negative but who then continue to use everything from computers and the Internet to fridges and electric washing machines, all of which are in fact technology based on natural science, are simply hypocrites. If she really believed that, she could and would go “off-grid,” disappear into the wilderness, and avoid technology altogether.

But of course she won’t.

This is as dishonest, as prevaricating and equivocating a statement, presented as fact, as I have ever seen.
He is referring to comment #554 in this thread. Readers should please go to the applicable portion of that comment, at the end, and read for yourselves. I never said what he paraphrases me as saying. I did say that the benefits from scientific, technological discoveries/advances, in all fields, are always accompanied with a downside of often equal negative effects. Most humans are so excited about the benefits that they are willing to accept the downside as a lesser evil. Truth is, in many cases that still remains to be seen.

I am not opining on the “net value” of technology, but only on some observed results so far. These are two very different things, and for Dave Miller to throw his weight around and lie about me as he tends to do — well, that’s very like another “genius” in these comment threads once did. Is cheating and thin skin a commonality among geniuses? They HAVE to win?

My position is that we are unprepared for the “side effects” that come with every interference in the natural order; the question then arises – is it worth it? That’s all. We should have some say in that.

Dave also said that science “knows deep facts about reality” that “no other method ever uncovered.” The question arises: How do you define reality? An online dictionary briefly defines it as “the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.” “The state or quality of having existence or substance.” Is this helpful? Or is reality one of those things that can’t be defined? Is there a reality beyond physical reality? For thousands of years humans have thought so, and demonstrated it, too.

What Dave does is to define “reality” in a narrow, physical sense and then proceed to lay claim to it. Yes, physicists discover processes in physical reality, but remain ignorant of non-physical reality because they don’t have the key to unlocking its secrets. But the fact is, some people do — and facts matter.

Correct link to the Business Insider story: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-witold-pilecki-the-man-who-volunteered-for-auschwitz-to-expose-the-holocaust-2015-9

Don’t leave off the “9”.

the guy who wrote the introduction to the 2012 English translation of the third report (‘full version’), and presumably provided the biographical details for Pilecki …

Norman Davies is a British-born academic who has specialized in promoting the Polish viewpoint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Davies I’ve written about him and included him in many of my articles/posts on Polish revisionist history.

Born in 1939 to a Congregationalist mother, he converted sometime before 2018 to Roman Catholicism, the “state” religion of Poland. He’s married to Maria Korzeniewicz, said to be a Polish scholar, and divides his time between Oxford and Kraków. They have two sons. He’s been controversial as a historian – of his last book, published in 2003:

“Polish historian Jan Ciechanowski has taken grave exception to the work in general terms:

In the hands of Davies the Warsaw Rising has become his personal “plaything”, the outpouring of his uncommonly overactive imagination, his huge arrogance and of his vast fantasy. In fact his knowledge about the Warsaw Rising is actually limited.

Ciechanowski has accused the author of so littering the book with factual and interpretative errors, the number of all manner of errors in Davies’ work is such, as to render his account of the Rising not wholly credible”.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_%2744

The Polish governments like him, however, and shower him with many awards.

The Witold Pilecki profile reemerged into the news in 2015, afaik, with this piece of propaganda at Business Insider https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-witold-pilecki-the-man-who-volunteered-for-auschwitz-to-expose-the-holocaust-2015- a fakey “news” outlet that specializes in Holocaust tales & 90-yr old survivors’ stories whenever the occasion warrants.

No, I don’t get shots. I’ve never had a flu shot, and therefore don’t get the flu. 🙂

I hope you don’t put any stock in what these people are saying. I don’t. They’re a cult. I don’t believe in evil spirits, per say. They’re mental shadows blocking the light. It’s impossible to be “disconnected from spiritual guidance” except by your own choice, which you can reverse at any time. We are freer than we know, which is nothing to be afraid of.

Whatever you do, don’t blame God or think He’s not doing His job. Look to yourself. But thanks for caring about me.

…reminds me a bit of the complex baffling mathematics required to explain advanced physics when simpler understandable verbal concepts can’t be found

Now this is interesting. I’m starting to find that Physics is even more “hypothetical” than I had hitherto suspected. Most everything is. My view of Science is becoming like when the penny dropped for me with the fictional Holocaust, and I saw I wasn’t required to believe in it. I was a free agent. Is this what they’re trying to stamp out in humanity? Freedom of choice? They don’t have that kind of power. But we can’t fight it as well as individuals (Libertarians); we’re stronger as nations (national families).

Well Ron, I appreciate hearing from you, so don’t you think, if you’re going to engage me in conversation, you should remove the 2-3 a day comment limit you’ve imposed on my participation here?

You’re replying to my first comment of the day, and my reply back to you leaves me only one more, after which I have to wait a full 24 hours before I can publish another. You can understand the difficulty, especially without the use of the buttons. So, what about it? I would certainly appreciate it.

To your question (1): Not “obviously” a direct consequence of and response to the latter, but a strong likelihood of being so. It remains to be proven/supported with more evidence. May I add that I’ve previously mentioned the insertion of unnecessary words like “obviously” in order to strengthen/prejudice one’s position by throwing people off guard (best I can put it) — perhaps not to you, but to others for sure.

Question (2): No, but it’s obviously based on lies no matter where it came from. I knew that in 2017, so other people did too. It’s actually been known to be false ever since it appeared! To add this admittedly interesting, new information to the story would be better alone, rather than added at the end of a long 11,000 word rehash of your overall understanding of WWII-Holocaust, one more time. It suggests that your purpose is to establish yourself as a “stand-alone” expert on that subject by writing more words than anyone else! You’ve made it clear before that you judge importance by number of words you can put together; iow, length. Well, I guess you might fool dumb people, but you can’t fool smart people that way.

That’s the reason for my comment.

Greg Garros seems to be a spokesman for the promotion of Ron Unz. Just a suspicion. This 2025 11,000 word article is mostly rehash, and possibly the first time the Pilecki Report is mentioned by Mr. Unz.

I posted this in August 2017: https://carolynyeager.net/shameless-poles-use-falsified-history-demand-more-money-hard-working-germans It certainly wasn’t new then. I wrote

Witold Pilecki is falsely promoted by the Poles as a great hero of the holocaust. They claim that as a member of the underground Home Army, he “volunteered” to be imprisoned in Auschwitz to “gather intelligence.” His detailed Witold’s Report included that “By March 1943 the number of people gassed on arrival reached 1.5 million,” a complete lie among other lies. After surviving 2 ½ years in Auschwitz and escaping, Pilecki was executed by the Soviets in 1948. He told his wife, “Auschwitz compared to them was just a trifle.”

Good comment thread under this post, worthy to be read. A comment from “David”? — could it have been my new-old friend David Coyle? … so many great Davids I’ve met here, I’m not sure which are different or the same. They all seem to know German while I do not. https://carolynyeager.net/leopold-wengers-letters-flight-training-ochatz-and-pilsen-1939-40 and https://carolynyeager.net/leopold-wengers-letters-training-active-duty-france-april-december-1940.

Many have affirmed your unfortunate descent into senility and dementia.

No, just you.

Why were all the Eastern European countries clamoring to get into the European Union? Why are most still not contributors but just takers?

“Most Germans” today are beaten down shadows of what Germans used to be. They allow themselves to be led by Jews, as is all of Europe. You’re a Marxist pig, but you used to call yourself an “Indo-European” and bragged about your engineering prowess and work on large ships. Then you were an expert on Carl Jung and Buddhism. None of that panned out, did it? Now you’re just a Russian with nothing to offer that anyone wants. You are most likely as old as I am- tho not as wise- and a drinker to boot. All you have are ad hominems.

Best comment, exactly right Ambrose. We ignore these sentences to our peril:

Adolf Hitler rightly dismissed the USA as a “Jewified and negrified nation.” He could see what was patently obvious, the very thing that most white Americans can’t see even now or refuse to see despite the skyrocketing levels of violent crime that blacks create.

Hitler also called France a negrified nation because of their colonial activity in North Africa, inevitably bringing negroes to live in France. There is no way to keep the DNA from mixing. Condemning Hitler for all the foolish reasons that we continue to do so simply hastens the downfall of White USA and White Europe. We’re hanging by a thread now. It’s essential that we rehabilitate Adolf Hitler historically; we cannot improve things/change course any other way. Those euro men who sound off against Jewry but put their own national/social/historical grievances ahead of what’s best for Europe — so many of them Slavic men who repeat LIES — are only killing off their very selves!

Without the engine of Western Europe, Slavs can’t get anywhere. Their false pride is similar to that of Blacks in that honesty is very much lacking. Just getting the Blacks out of our sports would be a giant improvement. (It’s America/American men that is behind that particular issue.)

If you can’t buck social disapproval, you’ve already lost and are heading down the drain. There are ways to words things so as to be entirely inoffensive, simply observational.

Liza, you like to talk as if you can just describe subjects like “Anthroposophy” and “Theosophy” from the dictionary or encyclopedia, and convey what they mean. They’re both somebody’s idea of a spiritual path, right? Neither are what I’m talking about, but I can certainly see why folks would think so. Truth cannot be pinned down so easily, however.

The truth is one (ONE) and its name is “I” (I AM). That’s why the Zen masters teach their students to say “Not two.” When I first read that, I loved it. It’s almost as good a 2-word maxim as “Know thyself.” I know I’m being cryptic but it has to be so; there’s no other way. So we can forget about your Jewish pen pal and what she told you.

“Race trumps religion” you say. But we’re not talking about religion, we’re talking about a state of being called Spiritual. Spiritual means it’s not of the flesh, so your assuredness that ” body and spirit are connected, hand in glove, and can’t be separated” is false. They are joined together temporarily only, and separated at the death of the body. In fact, they’re separated every night in sleep. My body is perhaps less “I” than my mind is, but my mind is also separate in deep sleep.

I’m only telling you this to point out the rashness of some of your assumptions. The first step is to realize “you don’t know” and other people don’t know either. Then you look to your direct experience and investigate that. Question that. God is directly experienced only. Not taught. “Not two.” If this is not worth your time, forget it and continue on your way. You’re not ready. It’s perfectly okay.

It seems very difficult, but it’s not even hard. It’s easy. Making it hard is our problem. If we could stop that, we’d be home free. The one that makes us think it’s difficult is the ego. Learn about the ego, study the ego. The ego invented religion because it loves hierarchy (among other things), which keeps us all divided.

All this just to make the point that we don’t choose whether we want to become spiritual or not, we are and can’t not be. We do choose whether to enter a body-mind-ego. And notice–we don’t stay there. All the best.

Why do I need “spirituality”? If there is a nonphysical afterlife, which most religions can’t shut up about, I will at that time, when I reach that stage, have all of eternity to be “spiritual”.

Hello, dear Liza. Sounds reasonable, but just be aware that you are always “spiritual” whether you want to be or think you are or not. The physical body is created by thought – our thought – and that’s why it ends when our Thought ceases to support it. You may ‘think’ you don’t want it to end, but everyone is in agreement with the prior arrangement(s) they have made. If we could just understand that, we could accept it with peace, knowing all is well and in good order. God is really and truly good.

Suffering? Well, that’s another topic to take up another day. I’m quite busy right now, therefore don’t have as much time to spare for UR. Life is full of surprises.

Well, grettir, your reply is more than cheering to me. You make my day by simply saying that I have cheered you! It warms my heart immeasurably. Did you know that appreciation and love have the same vibration? It’s true, on the highest authority. And it certainly makes sense, doesn’t it? Teaches us a lot about love.

I appreciate what you say about the biological roles of men vs. women. And I do appreciate the existence of men, always have (sometimes probably too much), but I have been perplexed and disappointed in men’s inability to “let you in” or to say what they feel — they are typically quite suspicious of “feelings.” I could tell quite a few funny stories about this with the men in my life, but this is just what you’re saying, so I’m agreeing with you. I love men for their men-qualities, and apparently they can’t be both.

Our friend Dave (who you have really helped me with, btw) seems to think you are a woman. I, otoh, have assumed you to be a man (although I’m generally under that impression unless I’m told otherwise). Can you please confirm one way or the other?

As to National Socialism, I was unable to call myself a National Socialist until very recently. I don’t remember what it was, but something I read prompted me to look more closely at what Hitler really said, and especially in Mein Kampf, and I began to understand what it was actually based on and had no trouble agreeing with. It’s been so distorted, as evidenced by the fact that Dave was unable to come up with one passage that supported his loud claim that Hitler hated the Poles/Slavs and probably intended to genocide, or at least enslave them. Also, one cannot go by the idle conversation recorded in Table Talk. Now that I really know what the National Socialists believed, beyond getting out from under the onerous, genocidal Versailles Treaty terms, I can embrace it as my own without reservation.

But, of course, I get nothing from doing so. Only my own satisfaction.

I would love to have your essay on poetry and whatever else. It might be above my head, but that never stops me, lol.

An IQ of 142 is the perfect place, imo. An extremely high IQ, such as Ron Unz claims, and no doubt Dave Miller, gives one a high level of processing power — much faster than others–but not necessarily more depth of understanding. Knowledge without purpose can lead to great dissatisfaction, it seems to me. I had a professional battery of tests, ordered by a 3rd party, when I was around 60 years old, and I was told my score was 128, which more than satisfied me. Puts me in the top 2-1/2% of the population — good enough. He added that I did very poorly on the test for “spacial orientation” (I call it) and that brought my score down quite a bit. I thought about that and realized how true it was. I am confused about “where I am” all the time. I can’t tell North from east, or south from west, and many other ways it expresses itself. Some quite dangerous, but I’ve always been lucky. I scrape by, haha.

Revilo Oliver is truly never wrong, is he? I’m going to spend a little time reading H.L. Mencken, something I’ve never done. I’m sorry you’re making your exit in pain and discomfort, but in truth 79 is long enough to live in order to gain as much as this world offers. Be at peace, when you do go you’re going to be joyously rewarded for your courage to spend 79 years in this quite difficult world. I’m only once in awhile worried how I will carry on until my allotted age of 93 since I am quite alone, with my darling cat. Every single person in my life that was of my generation and older is gone already. I intend to stay in my home no matter what. When I venture to ask how it will be done, the answer I always get is: Grace. I learned from this what Grace is because I never knew. The title of the song “Amazing Grace” tells the story. It could be Amazing Love. The “Amazing” is what we need to internalize. It’s nothing less than that.

I’m glad you’ve had a lot of fun. I haven’t let myself have as much fun as I could have. So serious, ie. worried, I’ve been. But I enjoy that too. Send any communications to [email protected]. It’s an active email.

Thanks again for entering in here, grettir. I actually appreciate the following comment from you :

… I am quite willing to forgive and ignore the female penchant for ‘spirituality.’

because it at least brings the subject into the conversation. I have to admit that I am perplexed by the male unwillingness to recognize the spiritual as a reality — although it’s not present in all males, and maybe not even in most. FYI, I speak only of Spirit and Spiritual, not Spirituality or Spiritualism. I’m not sure what those two terms mean.

The Spiritual element in everyone’s experience has been evident for as long as any of us can discover. Who can think that what we can see with our physical eyes, hear, taste, touch with our physical body organs is the extent of our experience? I realize that people (men? lol) can posit that the Mind contributes all the rest. But what is the Mind? Dave cannot explain, describe or define what it is or where it is. Right? I can, but you/he wouldn’t accept what I say because you deny it exists, can exist.

Dave has said to me more than once, “Don’t blame me for your ignorance.” I have put up with a lot of insults from him. Thus I decided to use “crude language” so he would know I didn’t accept such treatment/talk from him. I am not a hypocrite and won’t quietly accept being called one. I wasn’t angry, tho he greatly wishes I were. He’s a friggin’ ass and is making an ass of himself, but can’t see it.

“Blodgie” agrees with Dave and calls grettir “a Proud Christian whose mind is governed by Belief” of which he is “unconscious.” A fanciful thought! He and Dave are both mired in Belief in the cult of physics and natural science. In passing, Dave wrote:
“The Christians had their “own way of trying to understand the world”; the Hindus had a different way.”
No, the Christian and Hindu way are the same; the Muslims are different. Will Dave and/or Blodgie give us an exposition on that? Why does Dave say they are all different? Does he know what he’s talking about?
____________________

I must add a few words in response to Dave’s charge that I cannot provide a single argument against his claim that “Natural Science” is the only discipline that has” discovered important truths about reality rather than just fabricating lies.” He lists for the second time all the advances in public health and comfort made by scientists, such as electronics, artificial fabrics and plastics (among other things). Plastic is now EVERYWHERE in our advanced societies. Just today, I happened to see a typical news story here: https://www.foxnews.com/health/common-household-chemicals-linked-increased-risk-serious-neurological-condition

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as “forever chemicals,” are used in some common household products, such as non-stick cookware, textiles and cleaning products. They have also been found in drinking water throughout the U.S., according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. …

PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are toxic industrial chemicals once widely used in electrical equipment before being banned decades ago, as stated by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. …

Fellow researcher Aina Vaivade noted that risk assessments should consider chemical mixtures, not just individual exposures, because people are typically exposed to multiple substances at the same time. …

Multiple sclerosis is a disease that leads to the breakdown of the protective coverings that surround nerve fibers.
The immune system’s attack on these nerve sheaths can cause numbness, weakness, trouble walking and moving, vision changes and other symptoms, and can lead to permanent damage.
there is currently no cure for MS, Mayo Clinic reports, but treatment is available to manage symptoms and modify the course of the disease.

There are thousands of similar articles/stories since these “miracle” advances from our science saviors were in circulation in the past 100 years. It was much worse before, you say? Not for everyone, and maybe not for most. We live in fear today every bit as much as we always have. Just different bogeymen. Prescription drugs alter body processes in such a way as to bring on/create new disruptions/diseases that replace what they’re meant to “fix.” Sometimes they just hide the old symptoms. There is seldom any real fix. You are never as good as you once were. Old age remains a challenge.

And in case you were going to ask, I attribute my state of health into old age (not perfect!) to meeting/learning from, in my ’30s, a gifted chiropractor/healer who led me to the right food for me and a generous list of nutritional supplements that brought me to the peak of health from an already evident decline. It was not seeing doctors & listening to their advice or taking any kind of medical science potions.

BTW, I don’t take pain killers, antibiotics, over the counter drugs except when absolutely necessary, which is almost never.