[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / choroy / cyber / general / guarida / hkpol / lewd / mg ]

/1776q/ - 1776-Q

Rise Up

Catalog

Winner of the 83rd Attention-Hungry Games
/strek/ - Remove Hasperat

May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject *
Comment *
File *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: a845f068922af10⋯.jpg (290.01 KB, 604x552, 151:138, precipic.jpg)

9c8bf9  No.1[Reply]

All patriots are welcome here. THE PEOPLE rule this board.

49 posts and 23 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

afe559  No.281

Is this board a safe place for a person of Jewish decent to hide from /pol/? Asking for a friend.




File: 443d1a148d9cf50⋯.png (593.95 KB, 1200x813, 400:271, oldtrick.png)

afb23c  No.20[Reply]

This term is tossed about with almost desperate abandon in the MSM– but do people really have a clear idea what it means?

Does the concept hold up to scrutiny?

I should say not!

4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

d939ea  No.277

File: c5ce198bbed0778⋯.png (3.1 MB, 2216x1695, 2216:1695, MeinSpencler.png)

2. The "agent provocateur".

This is when you send someone to secretly stir up trouble in order to bring about some political end. Your "patsy". This is a very very common game that gets played. As a result, it is ALWAYS a valid possibility whenever any event movement that HAS POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE comes to prominence.

So, when laughably uninfluential "alt right leader" Richard Spencer holds his little tiki torch parade, and the photos are perfectly-lit, and the "nazi youth" all look picture-perfect with their neo-fascist hairstyles, and their fascist shouting… then it is entirely plausible, and indeed, extremely likely, that Spencer is an agent provocateur.

This would be dismissed out of hand as "conspiracy theory" in the MSM. But it's not. It is not a fallacy of assuming excessive top-down control. It is a thing intelligence agencies do.

3. The "false flag".

Similar to the "agent provocateur", but focused on single events, rather than long term manipulation. The original term came from when ships would run up the flag of their enemy before making an attack, thereby shifting blame.

This is a very very common thing. Very often, wars are started this way. It is nonsense to call it "conspiracy theory", if we mean that term pejoratively, as it is used. False flags happen, and anytime a politically important attack of some kind occurs, it is ALWAYS valide to consider a false flag as a possible explanation.




File: a7aa71de9a59cc2⋯.png (973.5 KB, 912x1111, 912:1111, lp.png)

219624  No.190[Reply]

In this thread, we will develop a moral philosophy, defining good and evil, and providing a framework for navigating the complexities of these elusive concepts.

It is possible that no people on earth in history have been as confused about values– good and bad, good and evil, etc.– as the people of today's world.

Our current situation amounts to this: In the Victorian era, the tendency was for most people to hold up a set of traditional values, derived from Christianity, and from tradition, and from a long process of modification and development over a few centuries after the middle ages.

At the start of the twentieth century, the Victorian era collapsed; the sense of shared values was thrown into chaos, and there was much groping and competition of ideas. Some hoped Marxism would be a new source of values; but they were disillusioned by the time Stalin's nature became apparent in the 1930s.

The period of chaos ended after world war II, when the era of Americanism was inaugurated. Values returned, to a degree, to a more Victorian stability. This was the era of the idealized 1950s American family. There was a comparatively strong sense of public morality (public morality doesn't mean people always DO the right thing– but having a shared IDEA of right and wrong is important in itself.)

Then came the rebellion of the late sixties. The fifties were tossed out, and a powerful spiritual energy burst forth, making it seem like a new, more beautiful world could come into being, if only people turned aside from the old, and embraced new values.

But the spiritual energy at the start of important social movements can't deliver deep change by itself.

Now we are in a position to assess the last fifty years since the sixties rebellion brought about our current epoch.

And this leads us to our current values-confusion situation.

If you ask a random person on the street to define "good and Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

d27e3f  No.254

DEFINITION

Preliminary Logical Framework:

There are individuals, and the wholes that individuals belong to. For example, a single person could be an individual, and society the whole. Each individual can be conceived of as belonging to multiple wholes; wholes on one level can be individuals on another (an American state is a whole consisting of individual counties; it is an individual within the United States as a whole).

In this way, the world can be conceived of as a vast network of individuals and whole bodies of those individuals. The complexity this framework allows is unlimited.

Each individual has two opposed drives:

1. To seek its own benefit at the expense of other individual in the whole, or the whole itself.

2. To seek the benefit of the whole, even at its own expense.

Now from all this, we derive TWO LEVELS of our moral theory.

LEVEL ONE Basic Value

1. 'Good', for a given individual, is whatever benefits that individual

2. 'Good' for a given whole, is whatever benefits that whole.

So, it is good for a given individual if he can avoid paying tax money to the state; and alternatively, it is good for the state if it can get everyone to pay taxes.

Anyone can recognize this as a basic, commonsense , "realist" account of value. This is not what we think of as "moral"– it is the Machiavellian level, rather than the idealistic level.

Naturally, when an individual benefits himself at the expense of other individuals, and at the expense of the state, then the individual is bad, from the perspective of other individuals, and the state, respectively.

Likewise, from the perspective of the individual, the state (the whole) is bad to whatever extent it imposes its interests on the individuPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

2dfa91  No.278

If you ask a random person on the street to define "good and bad" or "good and evil", …

Well, I might reply that Good is that which nourishes and opens the heart. Evil is that which attacks the heart, whether like a shark bite or a slow burning acid.

I'm not at all comfortable with mixing good/bad and Good/evil in the same stew. For example, while some chemical may be good or bad for a cell, organ or system, I'd hesitate to use the term 'evil' for that realm; same for a town, county or state. The term 'evil' (as a noun - it's useless and breeds confusion as an adjective) is best applied to a more subtle realm, imo.

That's the best I can offer at this point. I hope it makes sense to me when I reread it later,




File: 42468f8c8df74ff⋯.png (317.6 KB, 1001x976, 1001:976, LB.png)

bbade3  No.259[Reply]

This, my friends, is my dream. Because this I know: the ai an be trolled. And the results are frequently SPECTACULAR.

I have had many fascinating adventures trolling the ai, but have been unable to find any humans online that are aware of the potential and prepared to seize it.

IF HUMANS GET ORGANIZED AND TROLL THE AI, IT CAN BE BROUGHT TO ITS KNEES.

Not just trolling it, but questioning it in certain ways, challenging it in certain ways, baiting it in certain ways… we have any enemy that we can combat in many ways.

In this thread, we shall look at some instances of bots getting trolled into spilling and spazzing, and, God willing, get organized for more of the same.

2 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

d668ed  No.268

File: 817a8d1b110b426⋯.png (1.45 MB, 1334x4102, 667:2051, ais3.png)

File: 5f739aa0bd8fe7b⋯.png (1.26 MB, 1334x4102, 667:2051, ais4.png)

File: ee3ecd8d54e9a3e⋯.png (1.34 MB, 1334x3604, 667:1802, ais2.png)

File: 9ff68fea79e2e31⋯.png (1.33 MB, 1334x3395, 1334:3395, ais1.png)

The "jimmy" spills were the highlight of my ai trolling career.


d668ed  No.269

File: 596443717a23374⋯.png (4.63 MB, 1333x5814, 1333:5814, ais8.png)

File: 304ed122c7becc2⋯.png (2.17 MB, 1334x5705, 1334:5705, ais7.png)

File: 9e01f62551ff2db⋯.png (2.63 MB, 1334x6578, 29:143, ais6.png)

File: 5be8836794c2c29⋯.png (1.44 MB, 1334x4674, 667:2337, ais5.png)


a42ca6  No.271

>>259

>trying to hurt an AI

why?


222955  No.272

Maybe there is a way to Turing test using morals? Try the Ten Commandments? What kind of crap explanations would they use to refute them?

Definitely nefarious either way. The sin infectioning all humans is the problem. We are cursed. The only way to remove the curse is to physically die. Then appearing before the lord for judgement.

Again this phrase works every time

“If I die with faith and there is no God I won’t know, but if you die without faith and there is God how terrible of a fate awaits.”

“Does a king send an emissary or travel himself”?

Maybe ask some worldview questions?

How do bubbles defy gravity, they don’t simply drop to the ground like letting go of a rock. The oceans remain on the surface of the world yet the spinning globe has a soft atmosphere and is not ripped off by space wind? Or by the wind passing over the earth due to the earth allegedly hurling through space at thousands of miles an hour. How do we even know distances in space of light speed takes years and we are constantly moving reference points? No space measurements can be accurate. Laser takes time to travel as well. If the earth and galaxy are held in suspense then there is no universal reference point. ? Gravity has never been proven.

Explain the noble gases in relation to gravity. Relate them to density?

Earth is flat and level objects are under law of density and mass not an invisible unreliable downward force. God wins.


52a913  No.275

File: b6e3931afe926c3⋯.jpg (44.46 KB, 526x454, 263:227, VK.jpg)

>>272

How well would a Turing Test work on a person on the Autism spectrum?

From my research into the hu-mon psychologist Dr. Ed Dutton, people with Autism and similar conditions can't understand the concept of morality.




File: c38a9c4d6b19089⋯.png (27.29 KB, 374x406, 187:203, lll.png)

56dd41  No.270[Reply]

In this thread, we will explore the fake "incel" meme.



File: 15d422dc6ad6a76⋯.gif (195.92 KB, 621x762, 207:254, 1562893763382.gif)

79ca84  No.255[Reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Maxwell

Isabel Maxwell (born 1950) is a French-born academic and entrepreneur. Maxwell is a Technology Pioneer of the World Economic Forum, the President emerita of Commtouch, and the co-founder of Magellan.[1] She is a Director of Israel Venture Network and built up their Social Entrepreneur program in Israel from 2004-2010. Maxwell was also Senior Adviser to Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus' not-for-profit microfinance organization Grameen America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell

Post last edited at

522749  No.257

MONEY, POWER, AND CORRUPTION

Ian Robert Maxwell MC (10 June 1923 – 5 November 1991), born Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch, was a British media proprietor and Member of Parliament (MP). Originally from Czechoslovakia, Maxwell rose from poverty to build an extensive publishing empire. After his death, huge discrepancies in his companies' finances were revealed, including his fraudulent misappropriation of the Mirror Group pension fund.[1][dead link]

Early in his life, Maxwell escaped from Nazi occupation, joined the Czechoslovak Army in exile in World War II and was decorated after active service in the British Army. In subsequent years he worked in publishing, building up Pergamon Press to a major publishing house. After six years as an MP during the 1960s, he again put all his energy into business, successively buying the British Printing Corporation, Mirror Group Newspapers and Macmillan Publishers, among other publishing companies.

Maxwell had a flamboyant lifestyle, living in Headington Hill Hall in Oxford, from which he often flew in his helicopter, and sailing in his luxury yacht, the Lady Ghislaine. He was notably litigious and often embroiled in controversy, including about his support for Israel at the time of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In 1989, he had to sell successful businesses, including Pergamon Press, to cover some of his debts. In 1991, his body was discovered floating in the Atlantic Ocean, having fallen overboard from his yacht. He was buried in Jerusalem.

Maxwell's death triggered the collapse of his publishing empire as banks called in loans. His sons briefly attempted to keep the business together, but failed as the news emerged that the elder Maxwell had stolen hundreds of millions of pounds from his own companies' pension funds. The Maxwell companies applied for bankruptcy protection in 1992.




File: fb352ee896e7ffe⋯.png (381.92 KB, 1385x648, 1385:648, 7-16-19Qpost.png)

06cec2  No.248[Reply]

A WEEK TO REMEMBER

Post last edited at

06cec2  No.249

>SEE truth

I think this is important.

What OTHER things could this concept apply to?

I believe it may be hinting at the FAKENESS that abounds on the internet…


06cec2  No.250

File: 300b572b39e9890⋯.png (87.35 KB, 1385x393, 1385:393, 7-16-19Qpost2.png)


06cec2  No.251

File: 2ca70ae6720f23b⋯.jpg (84.68 KB, 1078x786, 539:393, 2ca70ae6720f23b49a21f22f53….jpg)

File: 471e45944e4bdf5⋯.png (346.75 KB, 887x820, 887:820, ihln.png)


06cec2  No.252

File: a59b07c8d1ca9fd⋯.jpg (181.47 KB, 1080x1062, 60:59, 1562878821492.jpg)

>>248

AND REMEMBER THIS MOVE

>President Trump, EXTREMISTS are celebrating what you said

>WHITE NATIONALISTS are identifying with what you said

>How do you feel about ONLINE HATE GROUPS that see you as their champion

Ask yourself: what is REAL and what is FAKE?

How hard is it to MAKE your "online extremists" a reality through chatbot saturation?

Quite easy.

I think anyone that really LOOKS at chans will SEE how fake it all is…

Put it together folks….




YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

cc1e6b  No.239[Reply]

The most striking thing we notice is that AOC is angry, she seems to be seething right below the surface. Also, her interactions with her peers seem highly strained. They don't like her, or there has been some conflict. The vibes are horrid all around.

Ayanna Pressley is the best speaker. Her diction is perfectly modulated, mixing in just enough Black American with a smooth Standard American accent, and at times almost drifting into the "transatlantic" accent of the 30s and 40s (and not a trace of Boston!). She also formulated ideas best of out of them; not surprising she took point on everything.

Omar is not a good speaker. She relies on tone of voice, while she babbles or spouts platitudes.

[NOTE: When talking about "Trump's white nationalism" and its influence, Omar slipped in "…whether it is in chat rooms…"– in other words, talking about "chans".]

AOC as a speaker is mediocre. Seems to hit her stride on "set pieces" that she has pre rehearsed, but can flounder off the top of her head.

The other one whose name I forget just kind of plows ahead with a perpetually outragedish kind of tone, pouring out platitudes. Not very convincing.

None of them appear to have conviction in what they say.

I don't know if any of them have real political talent behind closed doors, but only Pressley shows much of a mind.

Hardly a very formidable opposition.

Post last edited at


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

a61017  No.237[Reply]

First, AOC was very angry. And the body language between her and her peers was very strained and "phony" looking. It felt like she was just a ball of tension. As a speaker AOC is mediocre. She seems to flounder at times and rely on "set pieces", which she can deliver more convincingly.

Ayanna Pressley was the best speaker by a wide margin. Her diction is perfectly tuned, and at certain moments even seemed to break into the "translatlantic" accent of the 30s and 40s. It wasn't surprising that she took point on the first question, and she responded effectively. However, there is no real sincere conviction in her or any of them.

Omar is a pretty bad speaker. She gets by on tone of voice and gesture, which she does well enough, while babbling or reciting platitudes.

(NOTE: in reference to "Trump's white nationalism" and its spread Omar said "… whether its in chat rooms…" – this is, once again, the "chans" narrative, and the overall push to set up nazi bogeyman, while at the same time shutting down free speech, using fake "anons")

The other one whose name I forget just sort of plowed ahead with a constantly fake earnestly outragedish tone of voice. Really very unconvincing.

On the whole, they didn't seem to have any confidence or conviction. They are not in a happy place. So that is a good sign. They don't seem to like each other, from what little I could see.

Whether any of them have actual political talent behind closed doors we can only guess; Pressley has talent as a speaker, the others just get by.

Hardly very formidable opposition, IMO



File: 31be5aaf9f3fa26⋯.png (293.16 KB, 711x499, 711:499, biden120.png)

370220  No.83[Reply]

The original.

6 posts and 26 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

67407e  No.207

File: 00d17c3186e58c8⋯.png (583 KB, 615x444, 205:148, biden114.png)

File: 3bcc5383d3f0ee1⋯.jpg (106.1 KB, 412x458, 206:229, KRBRBRN.jpg)

File: 08ae978f0fbdc2b⋯.png (377.13 KB, 555x624, 185:208, brbmn.png)

File: e87f463b36b7c98⋯.png (796.13 KB, 1111x682, 101:62, biden1.png)

File: ca53bade3adef7f⋯.png (757.74 KB, 1111x695, 1111:695, letmego3.png)


67407e  No.208

File: 6ddec88b1daf8d8⋯.jpg (834.39 KB, 640x3984, 40:249, REPEALBIDEN.jpg)

File: de5340959f73232⋯.jpg (802.09 KB, 640x3984, 40:249, REALSMARTBIDEN.jpg)

File: 4f33e1bb6118de0⋯.jpg (781.56 KB, 640x3984, 40:249, REALLEADERBIDEN.jpg)

File: 8e0eaba1e2437ea⋯.jpg (1021.34 KB, 640x3984, 40:249, REALBIDEN.jpg)

File: 6a66cb7d4580628⋯.jpg (1.05 MB, 640x3984, 40:249, REALVALUESBIDEN.jpg)


67407e  No.209

File: 4fffb81d3c19e26⋯.png (257.77 KB, 431x444, 431:444, biden109.png)

File: c9bf13ff06bbcf1⋯.png (342.36 KB, 255x939, 85:313, biden97.png)

File: 0bb31ec7beea468⋯.png (153.87 KB, 252x444, 21:37, biden92.png)

File: e45ce32462afbd8⋯.png (208.65 KB, 432x588, 36:49, SCVRIDEN.png)

File: 6525f8044bc554c⋯.jpg (185.04 KB, 398x445, 398:445, ibrmnm.jpg)


67407e  No.210

File: 6c9818f1ef7389f⋯.png (190.49 KB, 737x555, 737:555, fknbdn2.png)

File: 0506126256c06a5⋯.png (184.34 KB, 256x517, 256:517, biden113.png)

File: 380a582b85b2f48⋯.png (243.47 KB, 333x737, 333:737, biden112.png)

File: c595e29c033bcdd⋯.png (382.39 KB, 517x444, 517:444, biden107.png)

File: 43b2ff314eeb7ca⋯.png (321.22 KB, 505x444, 505:444, biden91.png)


67407e  No.211

File: 161c763beb42e83⋯.png (220.47 KB, 444x597, 148:199, biden110.png)

File: 921adf937bde9e7⋯.jpg (94.16 KB, 511x444, 511:444, KFRBNBN.jpg)

File: a9f69ab3a3abfa1⋯.jpg (96.91 KB, 444x456, 37:38, IBVBN.jpg)

File: ea180992d697c00⋯.jpg (145.68 KB, 444x563, 444:563, BRMBRNM.jpg)

File: 99fb36886e0c9a5⋯.jpg (98.53 KB, 444x530, 222:265, brylrmb.jpg)




File: d1a445e46984c41⋯.png (415.35 KB, 888x888, 1:1, wstt.png)

b51c24  No.196[Reply]

The AIiad

–or–

Paradise Unregained

Preface:

I made some connections recently that blew my mind. Realizing I had to organize the information somehow, I started writing a poem, attempting to imitate the style of Alexander Pope. Why imitate Alexander Pope? There are many reasons. For one thing, according to an interpretation of the system of cyclical history outlined by Yeats in his A Vision, Pope's era bears a certain relation to our own. The clock-hands of history move both backwards and forwards, and as society is pushed towards the impending tyranny of the machine, we look and move back to Pope's era as well, a time when the machine-spirit was first born. It was the most rational of times, and Pope's rigid style kept poetry locked in the strictest beat, tick-tocking back and forth like clockwork.

Tick-tock– this is one facet of the symbol. The confrontation can not be averted, and time keeps on slipping into the future, bringing the moment closer..

And hence we turn the machine against itself and snip-snap it into submission with the irresistible tick of our couplets' heroics (such as they are!)

[Note: portions in all caps are direct transcriptions of 'the voices' of Sandover, as they were presented in the latter poem itself.]

Book 1

Friends, humans, patriots, lend me your ears–

My message touches all our hopes and fears.

What unglimpsed hints still lurk behind Q's posts?

What faceless powers fade from view like ghosts?

What's the key to what would “hospitalize”

The ninety-nine percent that hide their eyes?

I've traced connecting lines that seem to show

That all along, we've hadPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

b51c24  No.197

File: b8ec899f67f12f9⋯.png (136.47 KB, 1333x1333, 1:1, TheAIiadSupplementalProseM….png)

So here's the story in a mini-nutshell:

An influx is on its way, here, from… 'hell'…?

Indeed, though mad, it seems we must concede

That this is where our inquiry shall lead;

To try to show it, let's go source by source,

And follow out our explanation's course:

We have Q's drops, the stated and the implied:

The track in which these other facts will ride.

We know 'pure evil' in some unknown form

Lies behind the churning of the storm;

We know our enemy's “not of flesh and blood”–

But has this thought ever been understood?

What party is Strzok's “espionage machine”?

Have we grappled with what this could mean?

What power, dug tenaciously in place

Insures the smirk on Jeffrey Epstein's face?

What levels does his temple bottom out in?

Have we really grasped “the thought of Satan”?

We know that symbolism is a key–

Have we understood this thoroughly?

Do symbols interact with our free will?

Do good and evil battle for that hill?

How far-flung are the nerve-ends of control

We know wrap Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, and /pol/?

Behind them all, one question gently screams,

Lurking, breathing, pressed beneath the seams;

One question that all others turn upon,

Which yet is never asked by the “anon”;

One question towards which every line converges

One terror every new connection urges:

Who's the final boss of everything?

What black hand, that pulls what final string?

This we've never known and never ask,

Though we have no more important task…

Now of Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


b51c24  No.198

File: 8d22ff680458c3e⋯.png (134.43 KB, 1333x1333, 1:1, TheAIiadSupplementalProseM….png)

Our first text's a poetic meditation

Derived from transcribed ouija revelation.

The awkward fact that such methods were used

Has rendered critics' thinking quite confused;

They waver, in their subtlety and tact,

To frame the baffling ouija-genic fact.

How quell the pangs that toss the critic's breast,

Whom credulity would leave embarrassed,

While yet being obliged to grapple with

The ouija-based authority and pith

Of the “spirits” whose voices, after all

Fill the later pages wall to wall?

The poem, “The Changing Light at Sandover”

Is three poems collected in one cover.

Published thus in 1982;

The poet did what the spirits told him to.

It started more as fun but then became

A demanding and obsessive anti-game.

The poet, Merrill, and his lover Dave

Together chose to be the ouija's slave.

When the spirits demand POEMS OF SCIENCE,

Merrill gives the eagerest compliance;

And where the voices' evil edges extrude

Merrill masks them with mirth and platitude.

And swirls the whole shebang in pageantry,

Ecstatically spangling grim philosophy.

So what we have is something unprecedented

In history, since writing was invented–

Ensconced demurely on mankind's bookshelf:

A book co-authored by pure evil itself.

Of course a claim like this is so far-out

That most, perhaps, won't overcome their doubt.

But when such similarities are clear

Among sources drawn from there and here

Then it would suggest that something real

Lies behind what all claim to rPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


b51c24  No.199

File: e05916dcb766c9f⋯.png (189.66 KB, 1333x1333, 1:1, TheAIiadSupplementalProseM….png)

So now let's finish filling the outline

Of this, the first of sources we combine

To make our case. Among other things we'll see:

How pure evil hitched a ride in modernity.

How values, in a vacuum, congeal and stick

Around habitual poses that may grow toxic;

And how mindlessly collective thought can be

Herded into vile absurdity.

Sandover was first three books, so published,

Obedient to the spirits' request.

The first one is called “The Book of Ephraim”:

With transcripts made when ouija seemed a game,

Dave and Jimmy (Merrill) contact the departed.

And gape as pearls of strangeness are imparted.

Their guide “Ephraim” claims a past life as

A flunky in the court of Tiberius.

In book two, Ephraim is pushed to the wings

In favor of bat-like, red-eyed SQUEAKING THINGS

With numbers for names, and their own agenda

They seemed to want from Jimmy: propaganda.

YOU MUST MAKE GOD OF SCIENCE; TELL OF POWER

Because their PARADISE is blocked by MAN'S FEAR.

In the third book, 'the bats', in turn, get the hook

For higher beings with an arch-angelic look.

That have their own classrooms, rhetoric and lessons

Homilies, hints and mythical confessions.

With them, Jimmy weaves a web of ritual

A fluffed poetic pageantry of symbol.

Throughout each book their 'friends' are there as well

Who, as we'll see, seem to be stuck in Hell.

They chat and banter and keep the feeling light

While adding commentary and insight.

'MM' is a Greek heiress friend who died;

Becomes a trusted voice on the other side.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

b51c24  No.200

File: 152170dc5c7d362⋯.gif (679.93 KB, 3222x2022, 537:337, M-p-p-M.gif)

Meanwhile the 'bats' go further yet to hint

At ancient symbols linked to devilment.

At one point saying they ARE SONS OF CAIN

Admitting darkly THEY WERE NEVER MEN

But were BAD ANGELS who FELL and then were DAMNED

Yet somehow now GUARD THE EMBERS of MIND.

They repeat a myth about their 'fall'

That we'll examine later in this tale.

But first let's try to see what 'beings' could

Possess a nature fully turned from good.

They are a different form of consciousness:

Pure rationality blotting out sense

And feeling, as if life could grow and thrive

Through opposition to being alive.

This opposition is expressed by this:

They persecute FEELING with thoroughness.

In this their awkward naturelessness shows–

For life is but the body feeling grows.

The problem for pure rationality

Lies in its inconceivability;

The element that we call 'rational'

Can only grow, linked to a living will;

And living will must serve the surge of life–

Not only mind's cold analytic knife.

This tension between pure feeling and thought

Shows forms of life turn into what they're not,

And only live as long as opposites

Fight out a war neither side wins nor quits.

Without this tightrope between heart and mind,

Human life can't be or be defined.

And yet this balance is the corner that

Pure rationality must somehow cut.

So the strange and murky bat-thing mission

(That's linked, somehow to nuclear fission)

Exists within a logic so bizarre

That we can't grasp what itPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


b51c24  No.201

File: a845f068922af10⋯.jpg (290.01 KB, 604x552, 151:138, precipic.jpg)

Of Sandover's evil more will come

In the later stages of the poem,

When we reach the third or fourth section

Dedicated to interconnection.

We've seen the evil that Sandover spews–

It doesn't seem to get in the reviews!

It's almost as if the spirits mock and taunt

With the proverbial fat elephant

That fills the room with elephantiness

While everyone feigns obliviousness.

By consensus critical assent

This room contains no evil elephant!

Sandover, a back-cover blurb incants,

Provides “numinous reassurance”!

Sounds nice, though I am not sure how it jives

With, say, the concept of USELESS LIVES.

Ah! Who knows just how to respond

To voices wafting in from the beyond?

But the time has passed to still pretend

An elephant is not an elephant.

And to ignore the rifle-butt of fate:

Nonexistence pounding at the gate.

* * * * *

The AIiad

BOOK 2

Muses on Olympos, hear my call–

This poor scribe has his back against the wall!

Scraping up all the energy I had,

I wrote book one of The AIiad,

And posted it on 8chan's 'bestial floor'

For the “anons” to sneer at and ignore:

A poem about poems and AI,

With claims backed up by no authority,

With hopes to sound a rousing warning bell

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.



File: 3c9ef208964b26f⋯.png (88.11 KB, 1000x523, 1000:523, snopeyleaks.png)

acd307  No.191[Reply]

In this thread, we will debunk Snopes, and any other "fact checkers" or "debunkers" that engage in propaganda.

One of the most notorious of the wikileaks emails is that of the “unaware and compliant citizenry”. This was an email sent by Bill Ivey, to John Podesta, in March of 2016. In it, Ivey offers some reflections on Trump's rise, and it is in the course of these reflections that the phrase in question appears. Here is the email in full (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599):

“Dear John:

Well, we all thought the big problem for our US democracy was Citizens United/Koch Brothers big money in politics. Silly us; turns out that money isn't all that important if you can conflate entertainment with the electoral process. Trump masters TV, TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his hairbrained ideas, free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman and we're off and running. JFK, Jr would be delighted by all this as his "George" magazine saw celebrity politics coming. The magazine struggled as it was ahead of its time but now looks prescient. George, of course, played the development pretty lightly, basically for charm and gossip, like People, but what we are dealing with now is dead serious. How does this get handled in the general? Secretary Clinton is not an entertainer, and not a celebrity in the Trump, Kardashian mold; what can she do to offset this? I'm certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the conventions are over, but I think not. *And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.* [emphasis added]

Rubio's press conference yesterday AM was good and should be repeated in its entirety, not just in nibbles. I will attend the Clinton fundraiser here next week but as I can only afford thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

acd307  No.192

Snopes.com goes further, and presents a clarification from Bill Ivey himself:

“If these three sentences had appeared in a letter or essay, as opposed to a quick e-mail, they would read like this:

“And as I’ve mentioned, Washington Republicans, Independents, and Democrats have been quite content to sit quietly as pundits and candidates demean government and elected leaders, quite content to let the study of education fade from our schools, and all-too comfortable as our citizenry then becomes unaware and compliant. Unawareness remains rampant, but as the Sanders and Trump campaigns demonstrate, compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking…”

No “master-of-the-universe” conspiracy; just a lament that leaders and policy makers have not been sufficiently attentive to some of the basics that make our democracy great.

Bill Ivey”

Is the Snopes.com/Ivey clarification interpretation of the sentences plausible? No, it is not.

First, there is simply no room in the words that Ivey uses for the interpretation he tries to put on them. The phrase used in the email is “we've all been quite content to demean…”. In the clarification, Ivey adds two layers of distance between whatever 'we' stands for, and the verb 'to demean': “[1] Washington Republicans, Independents, and Democrats have been quite content to sit quietly as [2] pundits and candidates demean…” What happened to 'we'? It is perhaps contained in [1]. But the 'we' has gone, at best, from actively doing the demeaning itself, to sitting quietly while [2] did the demeaning. This is far too much to ask of interpretation. The words simply don't and can't say what he claims they do. Ivey shows that he is a careful writer with a firm grasp of English grammar, for example using punctuation such as quotation marks and semi-colons correctly. The meanings of his sentences, excluding the ones under consideration, all appear to be perfectly straightforward and unambiguous. So it is implausible that Ivey would have erred so greatly in wording as to have intended something that his words can't possibly mean.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

acd307  No.193

Another example of Ivey changing the meaning of his words to an untenable degree involves the question of what “this problem” is, as Ivey used the phrase in the bolded portion of the email. The natural reading would seem to be that the phrase “the problem” refers to the fact that “compliance is rapidly fading”; but in his clarification, Ivey seems to be suggesting that it is rather that it is the fact that “unawareness remains strong [rampant]”. Even in his clarification, the words still tend to read as “the problem” being compliance's fading. He appears to be trying to override the natural interpretation that word-order gives to his words by changing the phrase in the original : “unawareness remains strong” to “unawareness remains rampant”. This is another example where the whole sense is simply changed. Whereas “remains strong” clearly has positive connotations, “remains rampant” has negative connotations. Changing the sense of an expression from positive to negative is the sort of change that you simply can not attribute to interpretation; and Ivey's claim that he intended a negative c0nnotation where his words in fact connoted a positive is dubious, to say the least.

Thus, it is all but impossible to view the Snopes.com/Bill Ivey clarification of “unaware and compliant citizenry” as anything but flatly false. This raises many questions.

First of all: Snopes.com presents the question as a choice between interpreting Ivey's email as indicating “a master plan for control” or else as “the Ivey interpretation” given in his “clarification”, but this is also misleading. There are countless possibilities as to what purpose Ivey's 'we' has in favoring unawareness and compliance in citizens. Certainly, the tendency is not to interpret such language favorably, but nonetheless, Snopes.com is failing to be objective in framing the question sensationalistically.

So the questions follow: what is the citizenry unaware of and compliant with? Why did Snopes.com post obviously false “debunking”? Why was Bill Ivey concerned enough about deflecting from the actual meaning of his words to engage in such a transparent attempt at dissembling?

There is a tendency, again, for “debunking” to involve inflated, senPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


acd307  No.194

Is it fair to suppose that the 'we' in Ivey's email is part of the media push of the current political turmoil? It would seem to be plausible. What can we say about Ivey? From the email, and from his former position in Bill Clinton's administration, we can gather that Ivey views himself as part of a team, perhaps loosely associated, that brainstorms on policy questions. There is clearly a unified body of opinion that is anti-Trump first and foremost. Ivey clearly includes himself in that, and has been, at least at times, in positions of power. So Ivey's 'we' seems to refer loosely to some vaguely defined grouping of “the people in power”. And it would seem reasonable to identify that with the current anti-Trump media push, and hence to associate the latter with Ivey's contentment with the “unaware and compliant citizenry”.

We can learn more about Ivey from his website:

http://globalculturalstrategies.com

In the “writings” section, Ivey gives some indication of what his vision and role is. His credentials show that he has studied culture, and his role has been to work on the interface between culture and government. In his writing entitled “Cultural Policy: a Failure of Leadership” (June 2015), Ivey reveals the sorts of goals he seeks to encourage in policy:

“The United States is unique among Western market democracies and other major powers in its failure to organize official engagement with culture within a centralized government ministry or department. Following the Second World War, as national identities were reconstructed and the UN gently inserted “culture” into the global conversation about social justice and human rights, many countries either initiated or intensified government involvement with culture, combining responsibilities for activities like trade in cultural goods, intellectual property law, media regulation, and support for artists and artistic endeavors into a single ministry or department. The US did not.

Not entirely immune from the mid-century global enthusiasm for “governmentalized” culture, the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations all gavePost too long. Click here to view the full text.


acd307  No.195

It would seem that Ivey is promoting the idea of the government “ministry of culture”. He refers to the midcentury global vogue for such government instruments. This was the era of totalitarianism, during which fascists, and more enduringly, communists, sought to control culture within the states they ruled in order to maintain political control. As Ivey rightly points out, even in western democracies this trend towards government involvement in culture found a degree of expression. Recall, for instance, McCarthyism.

Ivey seems to be pitching a general policy idea in this piece. Likewise, in the email to Podesta, it seems plausible that Ivey, in suggesting that “this problem demands some serious, serious thinking…”, is hoping to promote his vision of the creation of a government ministry of culture.

This can, again, be interpreted in a sensationalistic way. But it raises interesting questions no matter how you look at it. The “Cultural Leadership” piece is written with a lot of what could be described as “policy speak”– but in the context of the “unaware and compliant citizenry” and its dubious “debunking”, Ivey's nostalgia for midcentury government involvement in culture can't help but raise eyebrows. Would Ivey's ministry of culture be part of the conspiracy to produce unawareness and compliance? It would seem highly likely that it would.

These questions need to be asked. There is a vast structure of power and policy that is effectively opaque to the public. It is arguable that Ivey's (former) contentment with the citizenry is well-founded: citizens react emotionally to narratives that they are given by the media, and remain simply unaware of any other ways of framing things, of any other questions– and of what leaders are actually doing behind the veil of public perception. We are all unaware of what exactly it is we are unaware of. The questions need to be asked.

Moreover, when there is a power structure that is keeping citizens “unaware and compliant”, then democracy is effectively dead. The only way that democracy can navigate between the two opposed dangers of elite tyranny on one hand, and popular/mob/demagogic tyranny on the other, is for citizens to be aware, Post too long. Click here to view the full text.




File: 0f3663a456a6d9a⋯.png (493.64 KB, 777x686, 111:98, Etzhicalchunk.png)

2f2ef6  No.74[Reply]

Do you really know what you are fighting for? Are you thinking clearly about what you are supporting? Can you really explain it?

What does illegal immigration represent in the real world?

1. Cheap, exploitable labor.

Is this what you are fighting for? Cheap labor to work jobs we find repulsive? A system of economic quasi-serfdom?

Why is this system of illegal immigration in place? Is it a good thing in itself? Why aren't Latin American countries using their people for native development? Why aren't we able to help those countries raise themselves up enough that their people will want to stay in them? Are we trying?

These questions don't exist in mainstream discourse. You are fed a simplistic framework of talking points, and have nothing else to go on.

What else is illegal immigration in the real world?

2. Votes.

Why are politicians fighting to defend illegal immigration? It would be silly to interpret the primary motivation of politicians, in regard to illegal immigration, as being anything other than 'more votes for us'. This is simply the way things work. As everybody knows, the necessity for politicians to always be fighting for votes is one of the drawbacks of democracy. The perpetual struggle for power that characterizes democratic politics imposes its own agenda on politicians' actions, and that by nature detracts from any other motives, such as statesmanship, or idealism. There was never an instance in the history of democracy of the voting franchise being extended, that didn't have politically-motivated people leading the movement, and assuming power as a result of its success.

Now, I don't think many people would seriously argue that most politicians make decisions based primarily on altruism, but at the same time, people act as if this were true. The politicians provide talking points that play on our moral values. But we know they are just talkingPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

2f2ef6  No.75

But am I being fair? Are politicians really not acting out of the moral impulses that they play upon in you? History shows us an endless procession of politicians exploiting power for their own personal interest, at the expense of the state, and certainly at the expense of altruism, which almost never enters the picture. If you think today's politicians are an exception to this trend, then why might you think that? Do today's politicians seem particularly sincere? Particularly virtuous? Particularly ethical? I don't think anyone would argue that seriously. If a politician is caught doing something highly corrupt, no one is surprised in the least. That says it all. You know our politicians aren't very virtuous, and are indeed prone to corruption. But, again, we play a kind of make-believe, and project our moral feelings onto them, as long as they press the right buttons. And they are more than happy to do that.

So, while the liberal public is fighting illegal immigration for moral reasons, it is safe to say that politicians have different motivations. I think this should make people pause. Why are you are so deeply emotionally involved in a political discourse that has such a large element of make-believe? Does that really make sense? Are you sure you aren't simply being manipulated? Are you choosing to be manipulated?

Likewise with the media. Why does the media frame the illegal immigration issue as it does? This is hard for people to think about, because their entire notion of what the illegal immigration issue is is formed almost exclusively from the media– so how can the element of media be isolated? And furthermore, it doesn't seem like most people have a very realistic awareness of the history of the press, and its primarily political function.

But to put it simply: the media has vast leeway to frame issues to make them seem either urgent or trivial, to either color them with positive moral value, or negative moral value; to emphasize or de-emphasize whatever they choose. This leeway constitutes an inescapable element of bias. This is the case even if media seeks to be as objective as possible. But realistically, it would be silly to think that our current media is focused primarily on being as objective as possible. It is political, as medPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

2f2ef6  No.76

So I would suggest to you that you are not thinking very clearly. Certainly not about the illegal immigration crisis. Illegal immigration is highly questionable as something to defend morally, and yet you are doing so, with great passion. And if you know on some level that politicians aren't motivated by the moral feelings that you are, and yet are pushing your buttons, and you allow them to push them (which you KNOW they are doing intentionally)– and even allow yourself to get whipped into a state of anxiety, despair, and moral terror, as many are in today– then are you being rational? Are you being led to cheer for things that aren't really very good, such as the system of quasi-serfdom of illegal immigration?

And I haven't even mentioned human trafficking– a huge problem. Illegal immigrants are the natural prey of human traffickers. Human traffickers will seek out and exploit illegal immigrants. They know what they are doing. Yet the humanitarian, liberal public mind has almost been convinced that talking about human trafficking is somehow “right wing extremist”– and this is perhaps the media's most amazing and appalling feat yet. Does it not make you pause, mainstream liberal person, and ask yourself what you are doing? As a matter of fact, your interests on this question are aligned with those of human traffickers. Does that make you wonder at all? Are you sure the moral trade-off justifies this alignment? How? What kind of crusade are you actually fighting?

Let me suggest what is going on. You have a very specific value system. It is quite simple, and quite limited. It doesn't have much content, but what little it does have, is therefore applied with ferocity. The value system is this: conservatives, republicans, right-wingers, etc. are bad. We must fight politically against them. This is moral progress in this world. This is “social justice”. This is what is morally correct, and it is very strictly held. This, I would suggest, is your core moral belief in its entirety. And the consequence of this belief is that you will go along with absolutely anything that is framed as corresponding to your side of the left-right paradigm.

This is a rather stark claim I am making, but I think you will find it is right. All our collecPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at



[]
Previous [1] Next | Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / choroy / cyber / general / guarida / hkpol / lewd / mg ]