The idea that natural science is the “birthright” or “heritage” of such people is just weird.

Dave? What’s going on here? You can’t possibly be this daft.

I said: the fruits and blessings of western technology/scientific achievement/culture is an aspect of her/our heritage/birthright, the geneses of which are inherent within us upon our inception.

In other words, tooling around in an automobile is the product/outcome of the imagination, labor, and ingenuity of Western/European minds and cultures, so in that sense, We, as Western/European People, “own” the harvest; we are entitled to it; our forebears “birthed” it and bequeathed it to us. Of course, the “harvest” has been shared globally, but it remains ours by virtue of the vessel of inception/ideas and resultant actualization.

Negroes, on the other hand, are essentially cuckoos when tooling around in automobiles; when they climb atop ambulances to twerk for the masses in the urban jungle, they are expressing something of their own innate ethnic heritage, and this is plainly observed upon viewing the abundance of video footage, recorded many decades ago, of ritual/ceremonial dancing of various African tribes. A twerk by any other name! ….lest you think I’m judging too harshly, Beyonce filmed a music video titled, Ape Shit, wherein a horde of Bantus, Zulus, whomever, were shakin’ it all over inside The Louvre – “Two worlds confront each other today.”

So, heritage, by definition:

2) a: something transmitted by or acquired from a predecessor: LEGACY, INHERITANCE, especially: the traditions, achievements, beliefs, etc., that are part of the history of a group or nation

b: an established or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior

(3): something possessed as a result of one’s natural situation or birth: BIRTHRIGHT

Capisce?

1. I know you know almost as little science as Carolyn does, so you do not appreciate how socially and intellectually destructive science is

I understand precisely how socially and intellectually destructive science can be.

But, then there’s this:

The Oven Temperature, Scientists Say, Makes Cookies Bake Better Every Time

In a series of controlled bakes, scientists at the University of Guelph measured how quickly cookies changed in size, color, and moisture — data that helped them map the key physical reactions that determine a cookie’s texture.

A wee restoration of my faith in the benevolence of scientific inquiry.

1. In the unlikely event that you have any desire to read any serious books, you might try reading Richard Westfall’s classic The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics: from the get-go, science was an assault on all previously existing thought systems.

1. But I don’t suppose you really want to, do you?

1. Why are you haranguing me over an argument/position which I’m not necessarily submitting?

You’re all over the place, Dave. Chastising me for NOT viewing science as Carolyn does; Chastising Carolyn for her views on same.

Sure, Science upset the Indigenous Apple Cart (lacking wheels, of course – was it still a cart, then?) by denying “medicine men” the joy/terror of tossing virgins into a grumbling volcano to appease the angry God residing therein…what did Pierre say about the societal impact of the carving-out of beating human hearts on sacrificial stones in order to please the God who returned the sun to the sky every morning? So, was Science, from the get-go, an assault on the trials and tribulations of human sufferings and various machinations which yielded no consistent results for the desired survival/civilizational outcomes, like how do we feed ourselves when the Rain God is mad? Or, was it an effort to recreate/reclaim something that obviously existed Before?

At this point, I have no idea what we are arguing on, except for the pure sake of arguing.

So, again, Dave, how did specific forms of socialism manage to succeed in Germany and Scandinavia…

Those were and are capitalist countries.

The Scandinavian countries are what we call “social democracies,” societies with robust social safety nets and labor movements that check the worst tendencies of capitalism and limit the power of the wealthy in key ways.

The above is exactly how I described the Scandinavian/Nordic model as quasi-socialist, wherein free market/capitalism is the framework, but certain limitations abound for the purpose of constraining would-be money-power vultures like George Soros, et al.

In reality, the Nordic economies do not provide any support for the idea that relatively high levels of state ownership are incompatible with stable and successful economies. Sweden has 48 state-owned enterprises, Finland has 67, and Norway has 74.

The level of state ownership in Norway in particular is staggering, even after two successive conservative governments have chipped away at it. The Norwegian state owns the country’s largest oil company Equinor (previously called Statoil), the country’s largest telecommunications company Telenor, and the country’s largest financial services group DNB. This would be like if the U.S. government owned Exxon Mobil, Verizon, and JP Morgan Chase.

The national oil company, Statoil engages in commercial hydrocarbon operations in Norway and abroad. The State owns 67% of the shares in Statoil, while the remaining shares are held by private and institutional investors, primarily in Norway, the rest of Europe, and the USA. [Data from USAID web page]

NARINGS- OG HANDELSDEPARTEMENTET
Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry
The Government’s Ownership Policy

State ownership is important. It ensures that we have control over our natural resources and that important companies remain based in Norway. The government wishes to ensure strong public and national ownership. The state must be an active and predictable owner of important Norwegian companies, and it must take a long-term view. Through its ownership, the government wishes to ensure that the state contributes to good, stable development of business and industry in Norway.

Norwegian government white paper – NORWEGIAN MINISTRY OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Report to the Storting (White Paper) No. 13
An active and Long-Term State Ownership

Companies with State shareholdings manage substantial economic and socially beneficial assets. The State is an owner of some of the country’s largest companies in order to ensure that national ownership of key activities that contribute to the centres of excellence associated with head office functions and research and development activities remain and develop in Norway. This makes the State an owner of undertakings that are highly significant in Norwegian industry and society.

We are seeing an increasing trend for Norwegian knowledge businesses to be sold as soon as they achieve international standing. Norway depends on good contacts with strong international capital and competency environments, but in many cases, selling out means that we do not build up long-term knowledge industries and expertise in Norway. We risk undermining the results of long-term research and development, which are simply not reflected in short-term stock-market values. A better strategy must therefore be developed for ensuring national ownership of key businesses in the knowledge society.

All Scandinavian nations, including Finland, adhere, generally, to some sort of quasi-socialist governance as detailed above. It works well for the citizenry because of WHO the Nordics/Germanics inherently are as a homogeneous People.

Laissez-Faire capitalism it ain’t; (Germanic) National Socialism IT IS.

Tiptoethrutulips wrote to me with regard to whether natural science and the fruits of natural science are indeed the “heritage” of Carolyn:

Merriam-Webster – heritage

(1): property that descends to an heir

(2) a: something transmitted by or acquired from a predecessor: LEGACY, INHERITANCE, especially: the traditions, achievements, beliefs, etc., that are part of the history of a group or nation

b: an established or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior

(3): something possessed as a result of one’s natural situation or birth: BIRTHRIGHT

Well, natural science is certainly not “something transmitted by or acquired from a predecessor” to Carolyn, since Carolyn has made very, very clear that it indeed was not transmitted to her: she rejects it very, very strongly indeed.

Again, Carolyn wrote:

My (cy) conclusion: Science and the Scientific Method is a cult. You’ve taught me, Dave, that not only Physics but Science itself is a cult! And someday, the majority of humankind will know it.

Quite obviously, natural science was not “transmitted” to or “acquired” by Carolyn!

Nor is natural science, in Carolyn’s case, “an established or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior,” quite the contrary in fact. She is very, very determined not to engage in the “pattern of thought” employed in natural science.

This is the key point I am trying to make: Carolyn, and a lot of other people in contemporary society, have made damn sure that the knowledge embedded in natural science most certainly is not “transmitted” to or “possessed” by them. A lot of them, like Carolyn, deeply hate natural science. Many simply have enough of a distaste for natural science that they simply avoid any real contact with it at all.

The idea that natural science is the “birthright” or “heritage” of such people is just weird. It would be like saying that fine French wines are part of my heritage, even though I do not drink and have never drunk any French wines. Or like saying that Satanism is part of your “birthright” or “heritage” because you grew up in a society that includes Satanists!

No, fine French wines are not part of my “birthright” or “heritage,” and natural science is not part of Carolyn’s “birthright” or “heritage,” according to the dictionary definition that you quoted.

I know you know almost as little science as Carolyn does, so you do not appreciate how socially and intellectually destructive science is. But Carolyn has managed to grasp that. She has insisted:

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

Nope. What science is about, has been about since the beginning of the Scientific Revolution, is wiping out all of the world views that human beings have cherished, that have made human societies, cultures, and civilizations possible, that have provided comfort and solace to ordinary people, for thousands of years.

In the unlikely event that you have any desire to read any serious books, you might try reading Richard Westfall’s classic The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics: from the get-go, science was an assault on all previously existing thought systems.

But I don’t suppose you really want to, do you?

Dave

Tiptoethrutulips wrote to me:

In any case, where did I say Clastres was evil? I said he was likely a stupid, useless, Useful Idiot, due, in part, to his ideological/political slant against his own society, therefore suspect in his conclusions, which were likely formulated/imbedded by/in his disassociated Western European mind whilst he was still wallowing in the fetid froggy swamplands of French academia under the influence of who/what?

And that does not sound ad hominem to you?

Okaaaaayy…

Tiptoethrutulips asked me:

Was there a transitional stage of socialism throughout Bolshevik/Soviet Russia/Eastern Europe prior to the implementation of real communism?

As I said above:

None of the socialist states ever pretended they had reached the state of Communism, and, indeed, they were always quite vague about how Communism would actually work.

Yes, they did indeed have “a transitional stage of socialism throughout Bolshevik/Soviet Russia/Eastern Europe”: it was those actual socialist regimes. Did they ever engage in the “implementation of real communism”? No, as I said in my previous post, they never did and, of course they couldn’t, because the supposed transitional stage of socialism, which was going to produce overflowing abundance, never worked.

Tip also asked:

So, again, Dave, how did specific forms of socialism manage to succeed in Germany and Scandinavia…

Those were and are capitalist countries.

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.

I quoted the dictionary definition from Merriam-Webster: this is the standard definition of “socialism” and the one I have been using. By that definition, Germany and the Nordic countries are not and have never been “socialist.”

You don’t like that definition? Argue with the editors at Merriam-Webster!

In any case, you jumped into a debate between me and mumblingbrain about Cuba. The form of socialism we were debating was the Cuban form, which is based on the Soviet form.

Your remarks about the Nordic countries simply have nothing at all to do with the topic we were discussing.

Tip also wrote:

The ultimate goal of Communist regimes is to wither away the state? Which state? Whose state? By what apparatus does Communism ascend and remain?

Ask some orthodox Marxist, if you can still find any! Don’t ask me.

I was just relating what the Communists claimed: in reality,they really did implement real socialism, as defined in the dictionary, but of course the ultimate goal of Communism was just a sick, evil fantasy.

You seem not to understand: ever since I was a young child, I have deeply hated all forms of socialism, Marxist or otherwise, as well as the fantasy of “communism” and also the half-way pseudo-socialisms such as existed in Nazi Germany and the Nordic countries and in the USA today.

I have always been a militant supporter of an unhampered free market, with no restraints of private business at all, except that they cannot use force or fraud against innocent people or their property, and providing of course that they be given no goodies by the state (of course, as an anarchist, I do not want any state, anyway)>

Tip also wrote:

Ultimately, National Socialism via Adolf Hitler was necessary for defensive and protective purposes against Communism/Marxism and Vulture Capitalism/Banking.

Well, then he 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.

And, when Communism finally did fall (because true socialism cannot work), what took over Europe was what you consider “Vulture Capitalism/Banking,” right? From your perspective, “the Jews” won and your nasty little hero lost, right?

Tip also wrote:

There was no bait & switch with the implementation of [National Socialism in Germany].

Actually, there was.

You might like to read the 25-point program of the NSDAP (see here). Among the points:

11.That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

Breaking the Bondage of Interest

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

Rather socialistic, in fact.

But, of course, he didn’t do it.

Hitler was in some ways just a tool of the large-scale crony capitalists.

Of course, in the end, the little evil monster lacked the guts to actually face his captors in public and try to justify his actions. Instead, the little coward blew his brains out in the bunker in Berlin.

Not only a loser and a mass murderer who led his country into its greatest disaster in its history, but also a cowardly little weasel, wouldn’t you say?

Dave

The mentally deranged Carolyn Yeager wrote to me:

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

[Carolyn] 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!!

You are truly insane if you believe that is coercion! I placed no “restrictions” on you at all, and I physically cannot do so — only Ron Unz can restrict what you say here. Nor am I “trying to control [your] speech and behavior,” which again I have no power to do.

I merely suggested to you that you respond, and that your response will reveal a lot about your state of mental functioning.

A simple little sanity test, in which you could participate or not, as you chose.

It is not “coercion” for me to simply say that “we will see how you respond.”

We now have seen and the verdict is in: you are insane.

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.

As I have said again and again, I and other scientists are working to create a world in which it will no more be possible to hold your “world view” than it is possible for you now to believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

The First Amendment guarantees our right to pursue that goal. You cannot stop us.

We will prevail.

We have the right to eliminate your world view from the human race.

And we will do so.

Carolyn also wrote:

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.”

No, you are wrong: quantum mechanics is in fact used to explain the behavior of matter at the atomic level as well as the subatomic level. And, in fact, have you ever seen a laser pointer or the laser barcode scanners in stores? Lasers are explained by quantum mechanics.

Have you ever seen a picture of a magnet floating over a superconductor? That phenomenon, and superconductivity in general, is explained by quantum mechanics.

You just keep making up these bizarre statements about a subject that you know nothing about, and your statements are just flat-our wrong.

But it does no good to tell you, because, after all, you are clearly mentally unbalanced.

Carolyn also wrote:

What you DO like to do is negate what I say, but w/o giving any valid reasons, just by ridiculing it.

The moon is not made of green cheese. What is the valid reason for saying that? Because the moon is really not made of green cheese!

Similarly, the “valid reason” for saying that you are wrong is that all the things you keep saying go against well-established facts of science. How can I prove it to you? You’d have to actually go to the trouble to learn some science, and that you most assuredly will not do!

Carolyn also wrote:

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.

But of course that is false, bizarre nonsense. You are the one making a positive assertion here: that “there are results that can be observed and measured” of the sort you claim.

There aren’t.

That is all I need say, unless you can show that your bizarre claim is true.

Carolyn also wrote:

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

You are making a claim here about physics, about the “quantum field.”

And, no, you did not say where you got this insane idea about physics from. But we all know where you did get it from. It comes from your own deranged mind, doesn’t it?

Carolyn also wrote:

I’ll just post what Google AI says about Like Attracts Like

As I have explained, again and again, the LLMs are what are technically known as “bullshit machines.” I know you do not know how they work, but I do: I went through Microsoft’s online course on the subject.

All they do is predict the next word that is likely to occur in a passage (technically the next “token”) based solely on what they have scraped off the Web. If they have scraped Web pages that talked about “Like Attracts Like,” they will just regurgitate, quite mindlessly, what was on those Web pages.

Just out of curiosity, I just asked the google AI “what is the proof that like attracts like”: here is part of its repsonse:

The scientific community largely considers this pseudoscience, as there is no measurable physical “frequency” for specific thoughts that can interact with the external world in this manner.

Well… yeah. But that too is just regurgitating what it found on some Web pages.

Throughout the last year there have been countless discussions throughout the mass media and across the Web of the tendency of the LLMs to “hallucinate.” You have not seen that?

To put it bluntly, only people who are very, very foolish, or mentally deranged, believe the outputs of the LLMs.

Anyway, I want to really thank you for participating in my little experiment here that you falsely labeled as “coercion.” The data you have provided confirms my point: you are indeed insane.

And, again, you made a very, very specific claim about the “quantum field,” which is a part of physics:

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.

You have provided not a shred of evidence that this claim, which is about physics, is true.

And you cannot because, as I know as a physicist who actually is an excpert on all this, your claim, which is about physics, is in fact false.

But of course you will keep repeating this lie and insisting that I have an obligation to convince you that your claim is false.

You are the person asserting this bizarre claim: it is your obligation to show us how you know it is true.

But you won’t, because you can’t.

Of course, you did not really think this nonsense up completely on your own: you did not awake one morning with all these crack-pot ideas about quantum mechanics and physics. You got them somewhere.

I think you got them from that con artist Nancy Patterson.

Am I right? If not, where did you get them from?

I bet you don’t have the guts to tell us, now do you?

For the record, keep in mind that your statements here are public statements that may be quoted, in whole or in part, in other publications and in legal proceedings, such as mental competency hearings.

And thank you again for your voluntary participation in my little non-coercive experiment.

Dave

I can’t say what Kevin Mac or other commenters are motivated by. I can speculate a little myself, but I have no special knowledge.

Another Mac who I trust, Col. Doug MacGregor, has been saying that greater war is coming and I don’t recall him equivocating about it. Open war will soon be upon us whether we would have it or not. Taking first one source of fossil fuels away from China and then taking away another (see color revolution in Iran this week) would be a logical prelude to war. In fact, it’s pretty much what ignited the Pacific war in 1941, with Japan being the China of those days. Russia will then need to decide who to support, if anyone.

A lot of people think that the USA is on the verge of failure and breaking up. In that context, starting a world war out of desperation may be exactly what we’re seeing.

MacDonald was not harsh enough on Maduro, whose arbitrary detentions were not only of his political opponents, but in fact of random citizens who are in jail for no other reason than for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Venezuela is certainly no worse off without Maduro; anyway, so far the cost of this operation to the U.S. has been very small.

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?

What? Snap out of it, Bumblebrain.

Dave’s correct about historical climate fluctuations on the planet. Warmer is good/better. Hot? Maybe not so much. Aren’t the continents supposed to have partially submerged by now?

Not to suggest that humans don’t cause extensive damage to Mother Earth – who, exactly, turned the Ganges, the Yangtze, The Yellow, the Nairobi Rivers into toxic cesspools? Having said that, at least the people polluting the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers will figure out how to fix the mess they made, eventually…

Unprecedented (inhuman history)monumental deluges and floods are happening across the planet

We were promised to Never Again! be destroyed by a monumental deluge…

the latest evidence for which is that mega-fires are destroying twice as much forest per year

How about a little gas on the Climate Induced Forest Fire Flame?

January 11, 2026 – An Argentina wild fire is burning Patagonia with over 5500 hectares already destroyed… thousands evacuated. Temperature fire? No. Arson, lit by Israeli ‘tourists’. Israel’s military strategy involving the use of fire as a weapon is primarily documented in its use of incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus and the recent deployment of a trebuchet to start brush fires along the Lebanon border.

In 2012, Chile arrested an Israeli tourist, Rotem Singer, for starting a wildfire that burned 11,000 Hectares of Patagonia Park. He was fined and sent back to Israel.

In 2011, an Israeli tourist was arrested after a major fire broke out in Torres del Paine Park in Patagonia. [Israeli tourists caught causing huge fires in Argentina in a forest full of natural resources, ‘The New York Post’ reports, December 31, 2011]

On January 4, 1986, the Argentine news agency Diarios y Noticias (DYN) disseminated throughout Argentina a report that Israeli tourists, disguised as backpack-ers, were surveying the El Calafate region of Santa Cruz province in Patagonia for the possible settlement there of 10,000 Israelis over the next ten years. The report implied that the project had been approved by national and local government officials. It included confirmatory statements by Albert Levy.

Right after the New Year [2026], hundreds of Israeli ‘tourists’ with ties to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) descended on Chile and Argentina. The arrival is organized under the umbrella of an ‘NGO’ Mochileros Sin Fronteras (Backpackers Without Borders).

On January 9th, the fires started, engulfing huge swaths of Patagonia.

An Israeli tourist was caught lighting fires in Los Glaciares National Park, in the Argentinian Patagonia a couple of days ago.

THE JERUSALEM POST
By PHILISSA CRAMER/JTA
DECEMBER 5, 2023

Nearly three decades ago, Rodolfo Barra resigned as Argentina’s justice minister in the wake of revelations about his past membership in a violent antisemitic group.

Now, the newly elected prime minister has tapped Barras to head the country’s top legal office.
The appointment by Javier Milei, a far-right upstart who backs Israel and has said he wants one day to convert to Judaism, has drawn a range of reactions from Jewish groups in Argentina. The country’s main Jewish organization, DAIA, noted that Barra had expressed regret about his actions in his youth, while a new group formed after the election to oppose antisemitism called Barra’s appointment “a direct affront to the democratic and plural spirit” of Argentine.

Argentina has a democratic and plural spirit? According to whom?

December 9, 2025: Milei announces foreigners can buy Argentinian land and develop it after fires.

January 9, 2026: Patagonia is burning. Prosecutor confirms the fires are intentional.

So, there, Mulga – just thought I’d do a little stirring of The Melting Pot.

You’d have more of a leg to stand on about Venezuela being unable to govern themselves if Venezuela hadn’t been a republic for about as long as the US.

Try not sanctioning, killing and meddling in other countries and foreigners will take less of an interest in you.

And can anyone believe that China would treat Venezuelans better than the U.S.?

Duh? It seems pretty obvious this is the case. I haven’t heard of China bombing and blockading Venezuela with essentially no pretext. Venezuela is under no sanctions from China, China hasn’t bombed Caracas and killed 100+ people… The choice is self evident.

Very low-brow article. You may as well go live among the low-iq Venezuelans you speak of. You’ll fit right in.

That actually is the ad hominem fallacy: Clastres may (or may not) have been an evil man, but that is irrelevant to the value of his book.

What? WHAT/WHERE is ad hominem in asking you to defend an argument? You referenced data from Pierre Castres. Am I arguing with Dave or Pierre?

In any case, where did I say Clastres was evil? I said he was likely a stupid, useless, Useful Idiot, due, in part, to his ideological/political slant against his own society, therefore suspect in his conclusions, which were likely formulated/imbedded by/in his disassociated Western European mind whilst he was still wallowing in the fetid froggy swamplands of French academia under the influence of who/what? So, let’s continue with our dissection of the Useful Idiot –

Clastres began working in anthropology…as a student of Claude Levi Strauss [J]…Initially a member of the union of communist students, Clastres became disenchanted with communism after the raising of Stalinism and abandoned the French communist party…Along with fellow UEC member, Lucien Sebag [a French Marxist anthropologist, Sebag was a member of the Francophone community of Tunisian Jews], he was influenced by the libertarian social group Socialisme ou Barbarie.

So, like Jewry and their magical 6 million! mumbo-jumbo, Castres, et al, were the jurors in search of the offenders for a crime/verdict (or a ridiculous anthropological theory) of their own invention/postulation.

I concede that all humans, to a certain degree, have universal commonalities, but this is true for humans and all mammals/living creatures. What was/is the point in analyzing illiterate human groups who, in the 20th century, still lived more like animals, or just a step above Homo Erectus, in order to better evaluate or proselytize to the People who built Schwerin Castle or the Acropolis of Athens centuries prior? In terms of the utility for the agendas of the Zinn/Boas/StraussPeople, the comparison of Europa vs. JungleMan with regard to civilizational development/progress is utterly ridiculous, and it’s malignant and subversive in intent.

Some people are animals, Dave. Just ask the wreckers in Bolshevik Russia…

And, again, you have made no attempt whatsoever to refute the fact, known to everyone, that government exists to steal from the productive members of society and turn the loot over to the members of the government and their supporters.

And, again, I have already conceded that this appears to be mostly true.

You keep denying it, but you do not even try to give a counter-example.

USA, prior to the ascendancy of the NutshellPeople; NS Germany; Scandinavia…

such as the fact the the Virgin Mary was of course not really a virgin!

We finally agree on something, Dave.

And I am denying that: “heritage” implies inheritance.

Direct/legal inheritance was not the implication; perhaps you should take your own advice and consult a dictionary:

Merriam-Webster – heritage

(1): property that descends to an heir

(2) a: something transmitted by or acquired from a predecessor: LEGACY, INHERITANCE, especially: the traditions, achievements, beliefs, etc., that are part of the history of a group or nation

b: an established or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior

(3): something possessed as a result of one’s natural situation or birth: BIRTHRIGHT

1. In Marxist theory, 2. “Communism” is the final stage of history, after the dictatorship of the proletariat has succeeded in wiping out capitalism completely, 3. at which point we will have the withering away of the state. 4. Socialism, which requires state ownership of the means of production, is a transitional stage before we can reach true Communism.

1. Who was Karl Marx, Dave?

2. Communist regimes “wipe-out” capitalism? Do they really, Dave? So, you are oblivious to the Capitalist/Communist dialectic?

3. The ultimate goal of Communist regimes is to wither away the state? Which state? Whose state? By what apparatus does Communism ascend and remain?

4. Socialism, generally, requires partial state ownership and/or varying degrees of regulation of the means of production/accumulation of wealth. But, yes, I can see how socialism, depending upon its purveyors, can mimic communism (or vice versa), or as in the case of, say, Venezuela, it ushers-in a dystopia. So, again, Dave, how did specific forms of socialism manage to succeed in Germany and Scandinavia, whilst “socialism” in Bolsheviki/Stalinist Russia required tremendous capital investment/capitalist support; terror; starvation; mass executions; Gulags; elimination of the wreckers = intellectual/entrepreneurial class?

Was there a transitional stage of socialism throughout Bolshevik/Soviet Russia/Eastern Europe prior to the implementation of real communism?

ESCAPE FROM THE SOVIETS, TATIANA TCHERNAVIN, 1934

[…] my life is typical of the lives of thousands of educated women in U.S.S.R.
….None of us were hostile to the Revolution, and many devoted themselves with enthusiasm to work for the new regime.
But this did not save us either from famine, when we had no food to give our children, or from prison and exile…

The campaign of terrorism which began three years ago is not over yet. I do not know who may survive it… I want to tell the sad truth about our life in Soviet Russia.

Maybe you should read a book written by someone other than a theoretical expert. Not all of us need a credentialed meteorologist to tell us which way the wind is blowing.

they were always quite vague about how Communism would actually work.

Indeed. Communists operate by subterfuge.

Communism, far from distributing wealth, is designed to concentrate it in the hands of the world’s wealthiest people. And Marxism, before being a philosophical, economic, and political system, is a conspiracy for the revolution. [So, is Marxism real socialism? Are there disproportionate ethnic commonalities amongst the “fathers” of Marxism/Bolshevism/Communism?]

But, we’re not describing the general conduct/objectives of NS Germany or Scandinavia, are we? Particularly not so for that of NS Germany, as Hitler was rather outspoken on the objectives of National Socialism in Germany. There was no bait & switch with the implementation of same. Germany and Germans thrived in NS Germany (so did most Jews, btw, as evidenced in Shoah “survivor” testimonies regarding their enormous prosperity pre-war), and it wasn’t just local Jews who confirmed thusly –

THE TRUTH ABOUT HITLER, The Strand Magazine
, November 1935, by Winston Spencer Churchill

[…] then it was that one Austrian corporal, a former house-painter, set out to regain all.

… he has succeeded in restoring Germany to the most powerful position in Europe, and not only has he restored the position of his country, but he has even, to a very large extent, reversed the results of the Great War…but the vanquished are in process of becoming the victors, and the victors the vanquished. When Hitler began, Germany lay prostrate at the feet of the Allies. He may yet see the day when what is left of Europe will be prostrate at the feet of Germany. Whatever else may be thought about these exploits, they are certainly among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world.

************************************

“Everyone was unhappy with the Soviets. The communists were making life miserable. No one starved with the Germans.” – Agi Day (J – Budapest) in describing the transition from occupation by NS Germany to occupation by Soviet Russia.

Ultimately, National Socialism via Adolf Hitler was necessary for defensive and protective purposes against Communism/Marxism and Vulture Capitalism/Banking.

Not all socialism is a pathway for communism, just as not all success through capitalism is acquired through zero sum practices. I would say the Magna Carta and the Magdeburg Laws were the pathways for general European/Saxon inspired prosperity and the ongoing/upward trajectory thereof, which seems to have changed course due to the arrival of the alien inspired Revolution/Emancipation of the 18th-19th centuries.

Read some books. Read some books. Read some books.

Open your eyes. Open your eyes. Open your eyes.

Read in its entirety, though, the column helps the Establishment to justify the attack as

removing an evil dictator

etc. The third paragraph regurgitates his demonization by the Establishment, the playbook used to propagandize people into sending their kids and/or mi$$ile$ off to two world wars, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Palestine, Ukraine, Syria, Iran …

The author also openly endorses militarized imperialism with supremacist rhetoric straight out of the 19th century

Richard Lynn estimated Venezuelan IQ to be around 88, so it’s not surprising that they are not very good at governing themselves — like voting themselves into a socialist dictatorship. Some countries need managing for their own good.

might makes right machismo

Like Stephen Miller, I am unconcerned about the legality of the operation or whether it can pass muster with sanctimonious, Trump-hating liberals.

and to “keep China at bay.”

Why is taking up for Uncle Sam so pervasive among TUR’s race focused writers?

Carolyn Yeager wrote to me:

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

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

Well, you see… yes, I certainly could explain as much as anyone would want to know about the double-slit experiment.

I’ve been studying quantum mechanics. and the various interpretations and philosophical issues relating to quantum mechanics, for way over a half century. I took the quantum mechanics course as a student at Caltech a bit over fifty years ago from the Nobel laureate Richard Feynman. I took quantum field theory as a doctoral student at Stanford from the Nobel laureate Steve Weinberg. And, of course, my Ph.D. thesis was based on quantum mechanics.

I actually am an expert on this stuff: I could literally write a textbook on the technical details of quantum theory. And then I could write a second book on the various approaches and interpretations of quantum theory: the Copenhagen interpretation, the von Neumann cut, Wigner’s approach, Many-Worlds theory, the Bohm-de Broglie model, etc.

But… suppose I were to go to the trouble to try to explain it to you.

I have in fact gone to the trouble to explain lots of things in physics to many people when the only recompense I expected was common courtesy and a polite thank-you.

But how have you behaved towards me?

Well, you have used exceptionally coarse language towards me. You have repeatedly lied about me. You have made bizarrely insane accusations against me.

If I were to actually go to the effort to try to explain quantum mechanics to you, how is it likely you would respond?

You see the point?

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

Carolyn wrote:

I know it’s possible to state these ideas in normal language we can all understand, without mathematical equations…

How do you know that? You think math is never necessary?

Carolyn also wrote:

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.

Then why did you post a quote from that con artist that was profoundly idiotic?

Carolyn also wrote:

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.

But of course there is no “sizable sub-atomic particle in the form of your living room sofa,” and, if there were one, no, it definitely would not behave as she claimed.

Again, here is what she said and you quoted:

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!

That is not what happens to subatomic particles: they do not “reappear anywhere in your living room or anywhere else in the universe” but then if “you came home thinking about [it]… it would reappear!”

That is just bizarre nonsense: it is not what quantum mechanics says and it is not what any legitimate physicist thinks.

So, see, I have now told you something informative about quantum mechanics: let’s see how you respond.

Carolyn also wrote:

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.

No, I am not objecting to your or Patterson’s semantics: I am objecting — quite plainly and clearly — to the fact that what you are both saying is blatantly false.

And that is certainly language everyone can understand! You just don’t like it.

Carolyn also wrote:

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.

Well, that is certainly impressive! It took us physicist decades of careful experimental studies and measurements and careful mathematical analysis to create quantum mechanics, but you just did it on the spur of the moment one morning and now you “will never have to look at another book or dictionary definition.”

Quite impressive indeed!

Carolyn also wrote:

Here it is: Quantum is a word standing for “sub-atomic.”

Uh, no.

The idea goes back to Max Planck, who, in 1900, figured out that light existed in discrete energy units in order to understand black-body radiation: as the analogy goes, like steps on a staircase. Einstein seems to be the first person to use the word “quanta” to refer to these energy units when he showed, in 1905, that light is emitted and absorbed in these discrete units when he explained the photoelectric effect.

“Quantum” does not mean “sub-atomic.” It just refers to the fact that light is quantized.

So, now I have told you one more true thing about quantum theory: let’s see how you react to this.

Carolyn also wrote:

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.

Oh, I do not refuse to comment on it at all: I am happy to comment on it — it is an utter and complete lie.

In fact, like charges repel, they do not attract. And similarly for like magnetic poles. If you’d ever taken a high-school physics course, you are supposed to have learned this. Indeed, this is what every child is supposed to understand.

Beyond that, the supposed universal law of attraction is just nonsense.

Carolyn also wrote:

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.

No, just no.

That is just nonsense.

Where on earth do you pick up such nonsense? Are you still drinking the Kool-Aid from that con artist Patterson?

You most assuredly did not get this from any real physicist!

Where did you get it?

Carolyn also wrote:

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?

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

I think we all know.

As to my not always responding, well, I have a life. And of course I am just so blown away by your brilliant insights that I do not know how to respond! And since you believe you have figured it all out, why do you care whether or not I respond?

Carolun also wrote:

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

I have no idea: I haven’t asked them. If most Jews agree with me, does that prove I am wrong? If most Jews claim the sky is blue, does that prove it isn’t?

Carolyn also wrote:

Why [physicists] 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…

In fact, Dave would rather it not be known.

Yeah, you’ve nailed us physicists all right! We actually know the secret to being “Masters of the Universe” and we just don’t want to let the rest of you in on it!

Is anyone else here finding this as amusing as I am finding it?

Or am I being mean in “feeding the troll”?

Dave

You’ve quoted out of context. The opening paragraph clearly opposes the attack on Venezuela inasmuch as it increases Jewish power.

The mumbler wrote to me:

You’re such a perfect example of the Rightist death-wish that you must be a parody.

Nah, I’m not a “Rightist”: rightists want to conserve the past structure of society — I want to eradicate it. I am an anarchist, like any other sensible person.

The mumbler also wrote:

However, in reality, climate destabilisation is rapidly worsening…

No, it’s not.

Learn some actual science, like from real science books, not the nonsense you see in the mainstream media or on Youtube.

The globe, for the past couple million years has been in the Pleistocene Ice Age: we are currently in an “inter-glacial,” but the planet is still a lot cooler than it has been for most of the last half billion years.

The planet needs to warm up a lot to simply return to its normal state.

Personally, I do what I can to churn out more greenhouse gases, to help the planet return to its normal state. It”s an uphill fight, alas: when the Subcontinent collided with Asia and raised the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau, it really caused some anomalous cooling.

But — hey! — with a little bit of luck, we can return this planet to its natural warm, toasty, comfy state!

Dave

geokat62 wrote to me:

Those who believe science has a “point” can be said to belong to the religion called Scientism, the belief that science should replace all other sources of meaning, identity, or tradition.

You betcha! Now you’re getting it!

Non-STEM folks like you tend to think that science is just drudges in lab coats carefully measuring the effects of drugs on mice or whatever.

That is not what it is really all about.

You might try reading Richard Westfall’s classic The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics: from the get-go, science was an assault on all previously existing thought systems.

And, sure, that assault did indeed rely on the drudges making the careful measurements in the lab, but to focus on that alone is to miss the real picture.

The motivating force behind science has been to exorcise what Carl Sagan called the demon-haunted world. And you have to admit: we are succeeding. No normal person any longer can really believe in the old “three-tiered universe”: Heaven above, Earth down here, and Hell below. And it is increasingly difficult for people to believe in the Virgin Birth, a bodily Resurrection, not to mention transubstantiation.

When the Church went after Galileo, when fundamentalists attack Darwin, they definitely know what they are doing!

You might also want to try reading Ernest Gellner’s various books on the subject: you might start with his brief Postmodernism, Reason and Religion. One of the major themes throughout his work has been that modern natural science, for the first time in human history; as his editors summarized his views, freed knowledge from social controls:

It is the matter, he states bluntly, of placing the wells of truth beyond the walls of the city, i.e., under the control of no group and of no interested party.

Gellner emphasizes, as I have stated, that prior to the rise of modern science, human belief systems existed to prop up and maintain the ruling elite and/or to provide comfort and sustenance to the masses.

As Edward Gibbon said:

The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful.

Exactly.

Natural science changed all that.

You may not like it, but the fact is that natural science really is the Great Destroyer, the Grim Reaper that sweeps aside all those useful lies that have made human societies, cultures, and civilizations possible.

You can’t seriously refute that fact.

And the human population, at the size it is now, cannot survive without the fruits of natural science.

So, the destructive power of natural science will indeed prevail.

Dave

You’re such a perfect example of the Rightist death-wish that you must be a parody. Safe in the impenetrable redoubt of Rightist ‘economic’ insanity, you are blissfully ignorant of events in the REAL world of life on Earth and its processes and manifestations.
The central omnicidal derangement of the hard Right psyche is to arrogantly believe that the ecology of our one and only home is a sub-set of the economy, an inversion of reality so complete as to scarcely be believable. No ecology, no economy. No economy, ecology recovers.
Making it insufferably worse is the typically moronic ‘externality’ gibberish. That the system whereby Life on Earth is maintained can simply be dismissed as of no real consequence, is simply diabolical in its very essence.Moreover, you commit the typical Rightist crime of inferring that, because the collapse is not evident to you, it cannot be happening. However, in reality, climate destabilisation is rapidly worsening, the latest evidence for which is that mega-fires are destroying twice as much forest per year as was consumed two decades ago. Where’s your fucking ‘Invisible Hand’ there? Kelp forest are disappearing worldwide as oceans rapidly warm. Montane glaciers and Arctic and Antarctic sea ice are disappearing. Unprecedented (inhuman history)monumental deluges and floods are happening across the planet. ‘Externalities’?
Insects are disappearing, permafrost melting, the planet’s albedo the lowest ever recorded, species extinctions amounting to the sixth mass extinction event in history, in the context of the greatest forcing into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, and the most rapid, in all planetary history. And, naturally, you insouciantly deny it all, smugly awaiting the ‘price signals’ to circumvent the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. A true death-cultist like all ‘libertarians’.

In the Kitos War Jews also committed huge massacres in Egypt and Cyrenaica, ie eastern Libya today. So severe in Cyrenaica that it was virtually depopulated and had to be re-settled after. So Gaza is not really anything new. Of course, to be clear-Jews (ie the worst of the Jews, the most thoroughly Judaic) are not the only people or groups that practise mass murder of those who ‘get in our way’, but they do enjoy it.

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?

But, more broadly, the whole point of science has been to wipe out ethnic and societal heritages in general, to destroy all of the corrupt belief systems that have made past cultures and societies and civilizations possible.

The whole point of science? You’re making a sweeping and essentialist claim. Science has never had a single “point.” Historically, it has served many aims: practical problem-solving, curiosity, state power, religion, commerce, and prestige. There is no evidence that science was conceived to wipe out ethnic or societal heritages.

Those who believe science has a “point” can be said to belong to the religion called Scientism, the belief that science should replace all other sources of meaning, identity, or tradition. Scientism mimics religion while denying it is one.

But you are serving your Zionist masters well.

I used to continually post this meme: Never Again! means saying goodbye to blood and soil and hello to multiculti.

You clearly have no issue with Europeans becoming a despised minority in their own homelands (see South Africa).

Many of us take issue with “diversity” grooming and raping our daughters (see Britain), murdering our families in trucking “accidents” (see Canada), and displacing our sons and daughters from the workforce (see America; source: Bloomberg article).

This is a future that is aspired to by jewish supremacists, who are keen on ushering in Pax Judaica. You welcome it. I reject it. Tell me again, who is serving his masters?

geokat62 wrote to me:

Fair enough. You’d like examples of jews being expelled in the pre-Christian period, I’ll give you examples of jews being expelled in the pre-Christian period. Key pre-Christian expulsions include:

1. Assyrian Exile (8th century BCE)
2. Babylonian Exile (6th century BCE)
3. Seleucid-era expulsions (2nd century BCE)

You keep just making this stuff up, don’t you?

The “Assyrian Exile” was of (some of) the inhabitants of the northern kingdom of Israel, not the Jews.

The Babylonian Exile was not an expulsion from Judea but relocating the ruling elite to Babylon to make a revolt more difficult: as the Old Testament itself details at length, the ordinary people — the “people of the land” — were left in place. Not an expulsion, just a taking of hostages with most people left in the land.

And what on earth are these supposed “Seleucid-era expulsions”???

What actually happened during the Seleucid era was that the Seleucids were, as governments go, relatively tolerant, but some insane religious theocrats, the Maccabees, started killing people to establish a brutal theocracy. The revolt started when the evil Jewish priest Mattathias, patriarch of the Maccabees, murdered an innocent Jew who chose to participate in non-Jewish religious rites.

Of course, once the Maccabees came to power, they just became corrupt, greedy, power-hungry rulers, like all governments, with the religious themes pushed to the back.

Despite the lies you posted, it remains the case that the Jews were never expelled from the Roman Empire or from the Persian Arsacid or Sasanian Empires in ancient times. And, indeed, the Assyrian and Babylonian actions were most assuredly not expulsions from those empires: in the case of the Babylonian Exile, the Babylonians actually moved the Jewish elite to the center of the empire! Rather than expelling the Jews, they moved the Jewish elite into the actual power center.

Whence the Jews flourished for thousands of years thereafter.

goe also wrote:

I don’t lie. I may get something wrong, which when someone points that out to me I thank them and take ownership and subsequently correct it.

Fact: jews have been expelled from virtually ever place they lived over the last two millennia for their subversive activities.

And that is a lie!

They were never expelled from Persia, from most parts of the Roman Empire, or from Judea itself.

To say that they were expelled “from virtually ever place they lived” is just an obvious, bizarre lie.

Typical of you cultists.

geo also wrote:

[Dave] Are you really unaware that most people do not share your weird beliefs about the Jews?

[geo] While most people may be unaware of the things I’ve been highlighting in my posts, there is definitely a shift taking place in public opinion on the JQ and that explains why the UK, Canada, and Australia have recently announced their intention to ban X from their countries, under the pretext that it draws inappropriate images.

And what on earth does that have to do with attitudes in those countries towards the Jews?

The fact is that the UK, Canada, and Australia most assuredly are not expelling their Jewish populations and there is no indication they ever will.

I know that you have indicated that you wish to do that to US Jews. But you cannot do so legally, and if you try to do it in violation of the law, we will arrest you, convict you, and imprison you for a very, very long time, hopefully in the lovely CECOT prison in Salvador!

You are part of a weird cult, and you have come close to admitting that fact.

Again, you have repeatedly expressed deep surprise that I reject the obvious lies peddled by your cult. And that is very revealing of the fact that you are a cult.

You are in fact serving the interest of your Zionist masters: the only argument they have left is to claim that anyone who denounces the Zionist crimes in Occupied Palestine are simply Jew haters.

And people like you are the prime evidence for that claim.

I do not know if you are being paid by your Zionist masters — though I have my suspicions — or if you are doing it for free.

But you are serving your Zionist masters well.

Dave

The Venezuelan story is old news…the Trump bandwagon has moved on…Trump has warned all Americans to leave Iran immediately, if you can. I wonder what will happen next?

If I was Iran I would warn all Iranians to leave the U.S, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Israel immediately if you can.

By naming all these states it will give Trump a headache trying to workout which will be hit in retaliation to a U.S/Israel strike on Iran.

If I was Iran I would destroy the Gulf States oil industry, they will do the same to Iran and then the world will turn on the U.S for causing all the misery that all oil poor nations will experience with no oil being shipped in.

It’s time for the BRICS to start fighting, the U.S has declared war and will continue to strike out if there are no consequences for their actions.

You cannot turn the other cheek forever… otherwise you will have a face full of red swollen cheeks.

geokat62 wrote to me:

Why “rootless cosmopolitan” doesn’t fit:

You are ignoring what Tiptoe and I were actually debating.

Yeah, yeah, I prefer fried chicken to escargot and I would rather drink a glass of lemonade than a glass of fine French wine. No one could talk to me for more than a minute and doubt that I am a product of the American Midwest, a corn-fed boy of Missouri.

But what she and I were debating was whether the discoveries of modern science and the technology based on those discoveries was, in some sense, her and Carolyn’s “ethnic and societal heritage.” And I was pointing out that, no, pretty much all of us scientists and inventors, going back, yes, to Sir Isaac, were not working on behalf of our own racial or ethnic group but on behalf of the entire human race.

I think you will have trouble finding one single scientist of the top rank who claimed that his discoveries were the “ethnic and societal heritage” of his specific ethnic or racial group as opposed to humanity at large. Can you?

And, in fact, Carolyn has angrily denounced science as a whole:

My (cy) conclusion: Science and the Scientific Method is a cult. You’ve taught me, Dave, that not only Physics but Science itself is a cult! And someday, the majority of humankind will know it.

So it is certainly fair to say it is not part of her “ethnic and societal heritage”!

But, more broadly, the whole point of science has been to wipe out ethnic and societal heritages in general, to destroy all of the corrupt belief systems that have made past cultures and societies and civilizations possible. The whole point of science is to put the criteria for truth outside of any societal control, beyond the control of the ruling elite or, indeed, the masses of the populace.

And that is a radical innovation in human history: prior to modern science, systems of belief always existed to provide social cohesion and control or, at least, to give comfort and sustenance to ordinary people.

But science cares nothing for human concerns like that.

And that makes science the most socially and humanly destructive thought system in all of human history.

Which is why I love it.

Dave

Tiptoethrutulips wrote to me:

If “real socialism” entails full state ownership of the means of production, what, then, is real communism?

You really don’t know anything at all about the history of socialism, do you?

In Marxist theory, “Communism” is the final stage of history, after the dictatorship of the proletariat has succeeded in wiping out capitalism completely, at which point we will have the withering away of the state. Socialism, which requires state ownership of the means of production, is a transitional stage before we can reach true Communism.

None of the socialist states ever pretended they had reached the state of Communism, and, indeed, they were always quite vague about how Communism would actually work.

Read some books. Real books, not just Harlequin romances.

I truly do find your lack of education stunning.

Tip also wrote:

[Dave] Socialism does not work. That fact is about as well-established as the fact that the Earth moves around the Sun

[Tip] Except when it does, as it worked rather well in NS Germany and in Scandinavia

There were Nazis who wanted real socialism — Hitler murdered most of them in the Night of the Long Knives. Murder, after all, is the only thing you Nazis are good at!

Read some books.

You are playing word games: sure, we can just define the word “socialism” to mean “a can of tuna,” if we wish.

But that is not what the word has meant historically.

Look in any decent dictionary. Here, for example, is the Merriam-Webster definition:

1: any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a: a system of society or of group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory that is transitional between capitalism and communism (see communism sense 2c) and is distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Which is what I keep saying.

I’ve known this since I was six-years old: I remember learning about it from an encyclopedia back then and talking to my dad about it.

You still don’t know.

Read some books. Or at least learn how to use a dictionary!

The reason some European parties that are not socialist still use the term is that their parties actually once were socialist and they just kept the name. In the case of leading parties (Britain, West Germany) is was only late in the twentieth century that they officially gave up on their socialist goals.

In any case, ,everything you have said about this has nothing to do with what mumblingbrain and I were debating: socialism in Cuba, which most assuredly has been real socialism of the sort I and the dictionary are talking about and as existed in the Soviet Union, not the kind of crony capitalism that exists in the Nordic countries.

Tip also asked me:

[Dave] Government exists to steal from the productive member of society and turn the loot over to the members of the government and their supporters. This has been true for over five thousand years, and everyone knows it.

[Tip] Do you disavow the Founding Fathers, then?

The 1787 Philadelphia Constitution was an illegal coup d’etat against the Articles of Confederation. I’d like to return to the Articles, but of course that is not going to happen.

Realistically, the best we are going to do is to actually start abiding by the 1787 Constitution.

Which, I admit, is not likely.

Tip also wrote:

[Dave] We [scientists] have not somehow bequeathed the benefits of our achievements to people like you.

[Tip] That wasn’t my contention, was it?

Your contention was:

The current technological advances/utilities/devices are a product of her/our ethnic and societal heritage

And I am denying that: “heritage” implies inheritance. And you and she would have to inherit it from people like me, the scientists and inventors who created the modern world.

And we do not choose to bequeath all that we have created to you.

In any case, Carolyn has denounced science as a “cult”:

My (cy) conclusion: Science and the Scientific Method is a cult. You’ve taught me, Dave, that not only Physics but Science itself is a cult! And someday, the majority of humankind will know it.

I think it is fair for me to say that what she denounces as a cult is not part of her “ethnic and societal heritage”!

Tip also wrote:

[Dave] There is no reason for me to defend Clastres.

[Tip] Other than due to the fact that you submitted his work in support of an argument?

That actually is the ad hominem fallacy: Clastres may (or may not) have been an evil man, but that is irrelevant to the value of his book.

The great physicist Heisenberg worked for the Nazis, which certainly makes him a moral monster, maybe even more evil than Nazis like you.

That is irrelevant to the correctness of his work in physics.

And, again, you have made no attempt whatsoever to refute the fact, known to everyone, that government exists to steal from the productive members of society and turn the loot over to the members of the government and their supporters.

You keep denying it, but you do not even try to give a counter-example.

And anyone who watches the nightly news, or reads any serious history, knows that it is obviously true. It’s just one of those things we are not supposed to say out loud in polite company, such as the fact the the Virgin Mary was of course not really a virgin!

Dave

Back when the U.S. was constantly meddling in Latin America, removing and inserting leaders at will, I note that 100,000 Americans weren’t dying of drug overdoses every year.

In what way does American intoxication involve foreign nations? I’d be happy to see the number go from 100K to a million or more. Stupid people do stupid things and when we are unusually lucky, it kills them. And all with our own resources. South America and China have nothing on the CIA, so why this continuous fairy tale of foreign devils tempting Americans with death?

American drug deaths are dwarfed by the damage alcohol does — and not even Coulter is stupid enough to want Prohibition back. So why the constant lie about the comparatively few deaths from drugs every year? And most drug ODs, for those of us who’ve seen the readouts from evidence labs, are in fact “dope plus alcohol”. The toxicology report of George Floyd was typical.

I believe you mean, the U.S. “is under the control of a barbaric regime “owned” by Satanic Jews.”

Well, at least the Brazilians won’t destroy their gas pipelines.

Is this AI Kevin writing here?

We do not have enough facts to sort out the current situation in Venezuela which looks like a gentle palace coup of sorts more than anything; in other words Maduro may have left voluntarily.

The USA gave Venezuela the cold shoulder (and vice-versa) after they tried to wean themselves off our firm guiding hand during Chavez’ era. 😉 The resulting Venezuelan expat community seems reminiscent of the rabid anti-Russian diaspora which enthusiastically backs the US drive to crush Putin’s Russia or cause WW3 trying.

While an IQ 88 crowd embracing socialist economic ideas is a bad recipe, it is not so easy to unravel the causes of Venezuela’s problems. Especially when we can safely assume the CIA and other dangerous parasites have been trying to undermine the Bolivarian economy to cause regime change continuously since, oh 1999.

Venezuela’s oil production was gradually recovering with China’s help.

I hope the people of Venezuela can turn this into an opportunity to get their economy somewhat more functional without losing their political and cultural sovereignty to the USA. Maybe things will work out if we just imagine the best of MAGA (click your heels, Toto) and hope they can move in that direction, not into the current hellstorm burning in the USA. They can get good jobs just before AI and robots make those obsolete.

Speaking of AI, it crossed my mind that one of the Tech Bros may have concluded that Vz has enough under-utilized natural gas that installation of 10 gigawatts of AI compute centers might go faster down there. Maybe little “Big Balls” told Trump to grab and Trump grabbed. This is a guess, perhaps we will know in time.

Speaking of wacky theories, what’s the latest on the voting machine story which seems at least partially based in reality?

It relieves Israel of a staunch critic and offers opportunities for our oligarchic, heavily Jewish elite to exploit Venezuela.

Then this is bad.
Benefits Israel and/or jews = BAD

Sad to see this coming from K Mac.

The plan is to effect a bloodless decapitation by removing an evil dictator.
[…]
There are credible reports that his regime was engaged in oppressive behavior—killings, torture, sexual violence and arbitrary detention of his political opponents, and that he stole Venezuela’s presidential election in 2024. He destroyed the Venezuelan economy, including its oil industry to the point that Trump is asking American oil companies to invest hundreds of billions to rebuild it…

Imagine being this retarded. I recommend you kill yourself to avoid further humiliation.

Let’s face it, most of Latin America is unable to govern itself sensibly.

Let’s face it, the US is unable to govern itself sensibly. Therefore, the Judeo-American empire is in no position to tell others how to govern themselves.

I believe you mean, the U.S. “is under the control of a barbaric regime influenced by Satanic Jews, which resorts to violence as its main form of communication.”

the Soviets named… The Bolsheviks renamed… it is that form of socialism, as exhibited in Cuba, that mulga and I were debating.

Sure, “they” often use terms (names) meant to deceive the populace, such as communist-occupied East Germany calling itself the German Democratic Republic. In any case, you wrote:

But real socialism, of the sort that mulga was praising in Cuba, involves full state ownership of “the means of production.”

If “real socialism” entails full state ownership of the means of production, what, then, is real communism?

And, you wrote:

Socialism does not work. That fact is about as well-established as the fact that the Earth moves around the Sun

Except when it does, as it worked rather well in NS Germany and in Scandinavia – by “happenstance,” two realms which were free from masses of TempestTossedPeople within the populace and also free of inordinate Jewish influence/power within its government/institutions.

We have not somehow bequeathed the benefits of our achievements to people like you.

That wasn’t my contention, was it? So, you are arguing with me over a statement I never made. This sort of deflection is an observable pattern in your commentary.

There is no reason for me to defend Clastres.

Other than due to the fact that you submitted his work in support of an argument? I briefly looked into his “work” and I hurled, into your face, the immediately revealed/underlying patterns of thought/intention/influence, precisely as I alleged, regarding the recent preponderance of nonsensical European “idolatry” and promotion of primitive frog-gobbling/head-hunting/no writing/reading savagely violent peoples/cultures, and 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?

Unless you believe humans are meant to live as animals, then the hierarchies must be managed – and Dave, the established threat of torture and death for acting/legislating against a “mob of frog-gobblers,” who resist adherence to behaviors deemed beneficial to a group, IS COERCIVE.

I further argue that some human groups, such as the ones lauded by Clastres, et al, are/were meant to live exactly as they were “discovered.” They have nothing, really, to offer western civilization in terms of reflecting on the preeminence, or stupidly genuflecting, as is the current situation, of European Society.

Take the recent conquest of Venezuela

Do you object to the Belt & Road initiatives of the Chinese? Isn’t it in Venezuela, too?

The average IQ of Venezuelans is what, 88? The STEMPeople Nations are circling, Dave. The Venezuelans are sitting ducks…

The problem with government is that it institutionalizes, it guarantees, brutality and rapacity.

As does anarchy, Dave. Of course, the brutality and rapacity is not institutionalized; it’s just a random free-for-all, which is more difficult to isolate and specifically target because it’s not organized. That’s the enigma of (obvious) organization, isn’t it? The “organization,” in and of itself, is a strength and a point of demise.

Of course, you say you don’t support a total lack of hierarchy within a collective, so we’re back to the argument of how/why our beloved Anglo-Saxon Constitutional Republic, once very limited in power and scope, became the rogue behemoth it has devolved into. Remember the Nutshell, Dave. The answer is in the nutshell…

So, what does an unorganized society do about The Other organized societies of the globe when they come a callin’?

Government exists to steal from the productive member of society and turn the loot over to the members of the government and their supporters. This has been true for over five thousand years, and everyone knows it.

Do you disavow the Founding Fathers, then?

You persist in thinking that scientists have some special loyalty to our own ethnic group.

We scientists are “rootless cosmopolitans”: by your standards, pretty much all natural scientists are “traitors to their race.”

That’s ridiculous. Again, that’s not an assertion I have made.

Based on your commentary, I can reasonably suggest that you seem to be a traitor to your race. You do seem to fall into the category of a self-hating White man/unattractive LesbianLady flailing about under the sway of the MiseryLovesCompanyPeople and turning your inward ire outward and projecting your hostility and resentment upon the BeautifulPeople=EuropeanPeople, who created the world which enables you to project, without consequence, accordingly.

For obvious reasons, no society with a state ever has.

That’s simply not true.

Which stateless society in human history operated successfully by general civilizational standards? Let’s say “successfully” is defined by living beyond a mere/mostly subsistence existence, which would include the ability to accumulate territory/resources without utterly annihilating, through capture/violence/killing, all surrounding competition for same.

We scientists are “rootless cosmopolitans”: by your standards, pretty much all natural scientists are “traitors to their race.”

Speak for yourself, Dave.

According to online sources, Sir Isaac Newton did not see himself as anything like a “rootless cosmopolitan.” By the standards of his time, he was very much a proud English subject and a beneficiary of the British state.

Why “rootless cosmopolitan” doesn’t fit:
• The term is a 20th-century concept; it would have been alien to Newton’s worldview.
• Newton was deeply tied to English institutions: Trinity College, Cambridge; the Royal Society; and the English civil service.
• His identity was shaped by English Protestant culture, not by transnational or universalist self-conceptions.

His relationship to the monarchy and state:
• Newton actively served the Crown as Warden (1696) and later Master (1699–1727) of the Royal Mint, a powerful and lucrative government post.
• He was knighted in 1705 by Queen Anne, becoming Sir Isaac Newton—something he accepted with pride.
• He sat in Parliament briefly (1689–1690) as MP for Cambridge University.
• His work at the Mint (notably the Great Recoinage) shows strong loyalty to the English state and its stability.

Bottom line: Newton was not a detached, cosmopolitan intellectual. He was a national figure, embedded in English institutions, loyal to the monarchy, and personally invested in the power and prestige of Britain.

You give numerous examples of Greeks and Romans who disliked the Jews, but you do not give one single example of Jews being expelled, which is what you claim I am wrong about!