Time, Space, Ergodicity, Reducibility, and God

Mind bending memes and analysis (if you're willing).

The 'Library of Babel' is an interesting meme similar to many I've thought of but more accessible than most.

I'll have to think about it some more, but it occurs to me that the infinity of possible symbolic constructions (eg present and future books) is not something "of this world."  If it exists enough to make this meaningful, the Library of Babel is immortal, and therefore every book in it as well.  And then if every book, then every author, every reader, etc, as well, I pondered in a previous essay.

However we do have present books, and they are something of this world.  As long as there are writers, more will be created, and some will be lost.

There's a huge gap between what we understand as 'material world' and structuring principles, numbers, memes, books, and so on, which appear as though they could be immortal.

Following the above essay, that immortality seems to arise precisely from their reducibility, which things in the material world (including us) don't seem to have.

Voting to Save Democracy

If you must vote just one way in order to Save Democracy, then of course you don't presently have the thing you are claiming to try to save, because Democracy involves choices...not just one choice.

Pondering this at long length this year, I've decided to make a break from my previous Marxist-Leninist teleological approach (and you can check out People's World today from my sidebar and see how curiously they support Biden unconditionally yet oppose many of his policies usually without mentioning him).

Though I'd framed myself since 2001 as a loyal Democrat and as such I even worked as a Precinct Captain until the Texas Democratic Caucus Disasters of 2008 and other crapola led me to conclude I'd served my time.  But I continued to attend some Senate District meeting, enough to go to the Texas State Democratic convention in 2016, making the second Convention I'd attended...

All this has led me to believe that political "parties" in the USA are basically fake.  At the bottom they are filled with aparatchiks from every organized special interest, along with rather few concerned but also usually very naive citizens who generally only follow the good news about their "party".  But the whole apparatus is really run from the top, like an unending corporate pep rally the higher you get.  At the State Convention, you can squabble in pretty much ignored special sessions, but then the big wigs put on a media blitz to make you completely numb and uncritically accept the current crop of corporate politicians.

So really it's run by the politicians, who themselves are run by the powers that be, the Plutocrats and Oligarchs.

There's hardly any good reason to participate in such a farce, though I suppose if you have the stomach for endless frustration, you can be a nice Mr Smith as much as you dare and can squeeze in to the dialog, though it will be promptly forgotten.  A few people may hear you briefly.

Electoral Politics isn't really politics at all, it's a vast machine run by the real powers to make people feel good.  And if they can steer you into one of the only potentially winning choices, which are both predetermined to be acceptable to the powers that be, so much the better.  Ultimately it's a mind control system, making you feel like you "own" the mostly horrible decisions the powers that be are making, at least if "your" party got into power this cycle (though in many areas, especially defense and foreign policy which is the federal government's #1 role, little change is on offer and little change is observed).

As many say, if voting made any difference, they'd make it illegal.

What to do under such circumstances?

Some opt for not voting.  For not participating in this sham system.

I see nothing immoral or illogical in that.  But it's indistinguishable from apathy, from not being political at all, for not caring about what society does.  It is not clearly communicating that this system sucks, and how it sucks in particular.  It's an expression of your feelings, but possibly not the most intelligible one.

I've come to the belief that, the best thing to do is to not vote tactically at all, but to simply vote for whoever or whatever you actually believe in.  Whoever best represents your POV.  Isn't that what you are supposed to be able to do in voting?  The results, they hardly matter anyway.  It's a system problem if those feelings aren't properly communicated to the powers that be, not yours.  To your own self be true!

Sadly, once again, those results may not be intelligible if you do not vote for either a listed candidate or a certified write-in.  But that covers a broad spectrum in many cases, far less restricted than the Duopoly.  In Texas I can vote for Jill Stein as a listed candidate, and Cornel West and Claudia De La Cruz as certified write-ins, all of whom are fine people and would not continue the genocide.  Voting my feelings I have a glut of choices.

Voting your true feelings may feel especially correct where there is a large moral dimension involved, such as participating in a mass murder, war crime, or genocide.  Even if the alternative likely-to-win candidate also promises to do so, it is not morally as bad as doing it right now in deontological ethics.

People would readily grasp this if they were asked to vote for someone who just murdered their entire family, in order to "save democracy."

Real politics is changing people's minds.  Real politics is showing people things they did not know.  Real politics is speaking out for positive ends at every opportunity.  Real politics is thinking about and doing something about the future other than trying to get another corporate candidate elected.  It's barely worth voting at all, but when you do, it's fine that it be an accurate representation of what you actually believe, that is to say, real politics.

****

I still do recommend, both tactically and for real merit (in a few cases), voting for Democrats in the Congressional races.  That's where there is some possibility of making a difference, though still not much.  And this is unless you have a particularly outspoken pro-Genocide candidate, like Fetterman.  It's fine to send the worst back to the farm.

Likewise, voters in swing states, where the election might end up being decided by mere hundreds of votes, might upweight the importance of voting tactically for the lesser evil.  There is still no moral or logical reason to need to do so.  You, the voter, are not really wielding the power.  You are registering your thoughts and feelings to the system, which reframes the illusion according to such results.

 

Rheinwiesenlager

Were one million German soldiers killed by Eisenhower in death camps at the end of WWII?

Here's a telling of that version:

https://21stcenturywire.com/2023/12/22/eisenhowers-dirty-wwii-secret/

Wikipedia mentions but does not accept this version, which probably stems from the 1989 book by James Bacque.  Wikipedia lists 3 American Historians who have written against it.  But a more colorful and specific debunking is here which has all the debunking Wikipedia has and more

(Skip past the first paragraphs, which are related to a Youtube documentary, then get to the part where he debunks the book by Bacque).

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3nggi0/comment/cvo0buu/

Well, applying some of the "Moderators" own technique, I'd point out he is hiding behind the name of a long deceased Soviet general.

The low death version often goes along with a storyline about how the US was a model of morality, etc.  However nobody denies that the conditions in the camps were truly deplorable.

If we didn't quite follow it during World War II, we saw much of Eisenhower's "morality" when he became President, including:

1) Death and destruction for North Koreans

2) Coups everywhere Democracy poked up.

3) An unparalleled US military industrial complex, vastly expanded by Eisenhower himself (regardless of his warning about it afterwards, which I see as pure CYA).

I believe his operations in WW2 may well have show a similar ruthlessness.  So no reason to believe he was a moral giant.

But here I'd like to introduce my magical "starting estimate" approach.  We have a low number, 6000 deaths, quoted by Eisenhower apologists, and 1,000,000 deaths, estimated by a Canadian investigator in 1989.

If we guess both are wrong for essentially partisan reasons, the true value lies in between, and a plausible starting guess would be the geometric mean of 6,000 and 1,000,000.  The geometric mean (sqrt(a * b)) is

41,292

Which happens to be pretty close to the 50,000 that Eisenhower quipped he'd like to see.

A close examination of Eyes Wide Shut.

Note that this was written over ten years ago, well before current conspiracy theories like Q-Anon that focus on liberal politicians, etc.  (Those theories may be one small part of the effort to discredit the real stuff, which it appears Stanley Kubrick* was riffing on, examining and/or documenting on many levels in his final film, released after his death.)

https://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hidden-and-not-so-hidden-messages-in-stanley-kubriks-eyes-wide-shut-pt-i/

https://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hidden-and-not-so-hidden-messages-in-stanley-kubricks-eyes-wide-shut-pt-ii/

https://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hidden-and-not-so-hidden-messages-in-stanley-kubricks-eyes-wide-shut-pt-iii/

(*just noticed Kubrick has the same last three letters as Magick.  He probably had a vantage on such things.  He was quickly drummed out of Hollywood after directing Spartacus and made his films from UK, where apparently speech was freer then.)

I take a dim view of secrets, and there's little doubt in my mind that sex is deliberately made less accessible for the masses so it can be weaponized by elites and their commingled secret societies and minions in intelligence.  (Think: Epstein.)

Lies are words told in order to keep secrets.

Perhaps the commandment should be "Thou shalt keep no secrets."

Judaism and Trading and Exploding Pagers

For nearly 3000 years, Hebrews and their Jewish successors have been the most well distributed traders in the world.  Because of successive military defeats, and plain old opportunistic settling, there were more Jews living outside Judea than within by the year 0 CE.  All around the Mediterranean and many other places as well.  Everywhere Jews settled, they set up trading operations (and often banking too).  Often taking the place of Phoenicians, who had blazed this trail first, but who suffered great defeats in their home Canaanite cities and were never restored (as a Temple, not a state) by a friendly power as Jews were under the Iranians (aka Persians) under the ancient multiculturalist Cyrus.  Phoenicia lived on for awhile just as Carthage, only to be sacked by Rome in 146 CE.

In the first millenium BCE, and sometimes later, Judaism was very successful at getting converts, especially marry-ins to successful Jewish families.  Later, Rome levied special taxes on Jews which meant that people tended to convert to Christianity instead (a religion which had originally been created by Jews), and for quite awhile there were Jewish Christians too, a loophole that was closed down when it was de-recognized by both Jews and Christians around 500 CE.

This trading gig was even more true in the first millenium when the Talmud was being written.  Talmudic education was designed to be training for being an international trader.  It attempts to answer the questions of how you can be fair and respected to your customers and clients, and still make a profit too, and also make your family successful in a hostile or indifferent land.

When I grew up in LA, it seemed almost every kind of specialty shop was owned by Jews.  Hifi, Cameras, whatever.  And I remember these Jewish shopkeepers very favorably, they gave me good prices and good advice.  (Later Arabs and Indians took over, but that was after my time in LA.)

Which is one more reason why the exploding pager debacle is so incredibly self-defeating for Jews.

Many people point out we can no longer trust electronics, and that is true, the image of safety has been blown up.

What few realize, is that it adds uncertainty to the 3000 year trust Jews earned in banking and trading.

And not just Jews...any country which is friendly to Israel.

It wasn't just technology, it was technology that passed through the hands of various trading firms in different countries.  That was where the explosives were planted.  (Note: actually, they may have been planted while being held in an extended "customs" in some western allied country, where Mossad in some guise was permitted to "inspect" (modify) them.  So what we may be talking about is not trading but security work.  A lot of what Israelis do these days.  It matters little to the argument I am making as it all relies on trust.)

Defending a state built on and sustained by violence may lead to such things as antisemitism, which is not good for business, which is probably why the Talmudic sages wrote the Three Oaths as coming from God, that no Jewish State can be created before the Messiah comes.  (Sadly, that wasn't strong enough, there have been endless claimants to this Messiah thing, including the ill fated Bar Kochba, and later arguments appeared as to why The Oaths and earlier warnings in the Torah as well no longer applied though no ancient Talmudic Sages or Hebrew Prophets reappeared to say this.)

The only way to start earning back that trust, is completely repudiating Zionism.  No Jewish State in Palestine, not now, not ever.

Another History of US

 An X poster with a long name has an interesting thread of US history.  Even if only part is true...

One thing surely is true, and most in US are never taught this, that Britain was not happy losing its American colony and tried for over a century overtly and covertly to break it up and claw it back.  So for example, the war of 1812.  And Britain was on the side of the Confederacy.  Russia was on the side of Union, another thing we aren't told.  Claim is made that Lincoln's assassination was a British conspiracy, I don't find that in Wikipedia.

Israel's excuses no longer work

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2024-08-08/1948-israel-excuses/

Emigrate to Russia

 Russia is the best place to emigrate to, according to this blogger.  And while the Christianity he touts is not a plus for me, much of what he says sounds true anyway.

(St Petersburg has long been on my 'dream' list along with NYC and Paris.  Though for now I'm fine and happy where I am.)

Mr E.'s Hangout

The substacker Mr E. has an incredible grasp on many things and perhaps some are even important.

I take him to task not on the depth of his knowledge, which is mind boggling, but on his ultimate (but never quite stated) vantage point on them.  It is, in short, reactionary Christian.

So it's not surprising I can go over Mr. E's facts (which many are) and reach essentially the opposite conclusions.  His essays make great raw material for me, simply turned around from his viewpoint to mine.

In his incredibly lengthy two part series on The Taxil Hoax, which started with the above linked article, Mr E concludes that at the bottom of all the evil and corruption in our world is...Canaanites!  Not Jews, not Freemasons (as Taxil had claimed, but only as a hoax*), but the ones their God told Hebrews to avoid and worse...the Canaanites (by whom he means specifically the Phoenecians).

Turning this right around as I now know to do, it's easy to see who this implicates, including the Freemasons.

Though not quite like that.  The reality is that the Phoenician Canaanites, and their polysexuality, were not unique.  That kind of thing was basically the norm, I would think, since before history.  Mr E likes to show that Phoenicians were everywhere (even the Americas) spreading their evil doctrines, but the likelihood is quite the reverse, that the polysexuality Mr E so denigrates was basically everywhere to begin with.

The revolution against that polysexuality actually started in ancient Iran (Persia was what the Greeks called it) with Zoroaster.  Monotheism.

Hence the (myth of?) Abraham, and the Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) which preoccupy over half of the world's population, and others who are dominated by them.

Jews picked that up from the Iranians who released them from captivity, and the greater Iranian culture their second temple was built within (and funded by).

In the Jewish version (copied by later Abrahamics) the Jews and their ways were favored by God over the wicked "amoral" (polysexual and polytheistic) Canaanites (actually kind of representative of most peoples...prior to the Abrahamic religions), so the Israelites easily conquered and eliminated them.

That's the tradition Mr E follows in, probably as a reactionary Christian of some kind.

Turning it around, monotheism and rigid (patriarchal) monogamy (elites were allowed a continuation of polygyny only) were the thought virus thrust upon the world by the self described followers of Abraham, which then made their (evil) mark because they aided in the raising of a local militia (by which the Hebrews may have conquered Canaanite cities), then ultimately imperial expansion and control in the west and middle east, ultimately leading to today's problems.  (Actually, a long standing thesis of mine, but also supported by Mr E's facts simply turning his vantage point upside down.)

*There continue to be believers in Taxil's works on Freemasonry.  When he announced that it was all a hoax, the audience was enraged, and police escorted him out.  He moved away from Paris and died a decade later.  It all makes me wonder...was he blackmailed into giving this "confession"?  Why else would he have done it?