Audio Player
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
“Globalism.” “Free Trade.” “Sustainability.” The Powers That Shouldn’t Be recognize that words have power. They weaponize words to use against the public all the time. Today on #SolutionsWatch, James raises the possibility of turning the tables. How can we use words to break the spell of the tyrants and free ourselves from the clutches of “The Man”? Tune in to find out.
Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!
WATCH ON: 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
Show Notes:
What Happened to the Anti-Establishment? – Questions For Corbett
The thing that first comes to mind is the framing of “equality” and “digital rights”. It is our right to exist in the digital domain and that must be protected at all costs in order to uphold equality. A discussion as much about equality and rights as apples are about oranges. Very much related to “exploitation” being equated to “capitalism”.
I would suggest it’s pretty much the UN playing magic word games. They appear the main vessel in the very least.
Almost forgot possibly the most temporally pertinent of them all…
“Neurorights”
Because we need laws written up to protect our thoughts, and maybe one day give them and take them away?
There are academics fighting this nonsense, arguing that current laws cover this. It is the same trick they pullin’ with Ai regulation, establishing “regulating” gov-corp “authorities” … two more great examples.
What about the opposite right – the right to live outside the digital realm? That’s becoming increasing difficult here in the West as they are doing their best to keep us permanently trapped in the digital gulag.
Take careful note of this framing by kumro, ‘the right to live inside the digital realm is the opposite to reality’. Such a twisted narrative. These two things do not represent opposites. Technology is not a right, it is a tool. Our rights are inherent, they can not be given or taken away. Our ability to reason laterally however is being impeded at an alarming rate.
Yes I agree you couldn’t of explained it any better when said we have a right to be a part of the digital domain in order to uphold equality
Provided others and yourself understand those words were tongue in cheek, and quite obviously.
For me “The thing that first comes to mind …” is even in the “alternative” community a certain rigidity of thought form from the need to be “liked” and people worry about possibilities more then reality and historical insights and truths.
So most people today have had their Confirmation Bias, their selection of information that supports their intentionally conditioned views, ignoring contrary information out fear of cancelation, loss of friendships, etc. .
“We know in the not too distant future, a half dozen corporations are going to control the media. We took this step (merger) to ensure we were one of them”
–Time Warner spokesperson.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
In the Protocols, the author…Lionel Rothschild, writes that their goal is:
“To wear everyone out by dissension, animosities, feuds, famine, inoculation of diseases, want, until the Gentiles sees no other way of escape except by appeal to our money and our power.”
Protocols of Zion (Protocol 10)
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
1.Those who control perception can manipulate which “truth” is accepted in the collective consciousness, known as REPLICATION (Group think).
2. A key weapon is maintaining attention on differences, not similarities. Keeping people in separation makes them weak. This is done successfully through the addiction to pop culture TV, Movies, MSM, Social Media, etc. creating language influences.
3. From an intentional effort of the controllers, millions are unable do cursive writing or communicate above text/ghetto talk and lack basic historical and common sense knowledge. Behavior then becomes Pavlovian type of emotional response and not critical thinking decisions.
4. IMO it is far more important today to emphasize Solutions as the great majority of truth seekers have more then enough evidence as to who the “bad” guys are and “what” their agendas of power and control are about.
GOTTA RISE UP (song)
https://old.bitchute.com/video/Uh1qi1mhC3sG/
USAID is not aid. No one knows the definition of “hate speech” but the government, they know it when they see it. Likewise “violent” protests, are in the eye of the beholder, whether authoritarians or anarchists.
who/what is the biggest “‘ANTI-SEMITE'” (as in “genociding, murdering, crippling, injuring, torturing, imprisoning, displacing… semites”)?
“gradmas ”against right”” … voting for F. *blackrock* (sch)Merz
“free markets” … imposed on (machine)gun + cruise-missile-point (is what i wrote down before finding e.g. Chomsky’s “… the INVESTOR-RIGHTS REGIME mislabeled as ‘free trade'” (in “The Magna Carta Shredded Before Our Eyes”)
…
… if it weren’t so sad it’d be truly hilarious
“Man-made climate change” – what an annoying and presumptuous term.
“Pro-choice” – a positive spin on baby killing.
“safe and effective” – post covid bio-weapon shot that has come to mean its precise opposite (unless ‘effective means it causes harm).
“no one will be left behind” – a promise or a threat?
What about the labeling of things that simply do not need to be labeled in common everyday language?
It should not be a political or social position (or movement) if a man chooses to have sex with a man, for example. A homosexual encounter should not be confused with claiming “homosexual” as an identity or “homosexuality” as a position or a movement.
Imagine: we’re all physical beings, therefore we all love and we seek to express love to each other in the physical world. Only one tiny facet of the human expression of love can be equated with human sexuality. By insisting that one must fall into a category and be consistently labeled as either “heterosexual” or “homosexual” is to institutionalize and to banalize an important human expression of love (also important because such an encounter CAN lead to the birth of a new life).
But each individual sexual encounter is different. Even sex between the same couple over the course of years is always different and will always evolve. Perhaps love is pure, but our human expression of it changes constantly. So, in summary, I don’t such mind using the terms “homosexual encounter” or “homosexual act” to describe a brief moment between two people of the same sex. Perhaps the term “homosexual relationship” makes sense for two of the same sex who stay together and express love for each other physically. But it is only by institutionalizing our language to establish fear of “the homosexual” and what he or she might do to weaken the family values in our community that we can then turn an act that is personal, private, and that has nothing to do with family values (except that children should learn that love is expressed between people in infinite ways and that free consenting adults should be free to love as they like) into a social or political moment.
If I define myself by my sexuality than I give you reason to define yourself either as the same or in opposition to me. Is this not the design of divide and conquer? Divide and conquer is a technique used for war. It has no business being used in the context of civilian life and can only result in creating social problems.
We are people, not categories. We love. We seek to express love physically, as can happen between consenting adults. We are sexual, as opposed to being a-sexual. Isn’t that enough of a sexual identity, just to be “sexual”? Would it mean that we would need to form a socio-political movement against a-sexual brings such as plants or robots?
“…,We are people, not categories….”
True, but people fall INTO catagories.
We might be in a few categories at the same time “French/mother/doctor” for example. It is not possible to process reality without using categories, no matter how they fail us at times- for example I can not describe Ww2 by saying “Some people in Germany were fighting some people in Poland and then some people in England did x…” thus we say “The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor” even though most Japanese did not actually go there.
Now I think if it even “some people” is a category, lol, since it’s not “everyone”
The category of Homosexual is IIRC a Victorian invention, part of medicalizing as mental illness what was previously considered a vice anyone might fall into.
It’s for sure ,though, that some people ARE defined by their Vice “an Alcoholic” or “A hopeless gambler” for example. I had a gay friend and he was just about doing his icky business without bothering normal people, plenty of gay people take on the gay identity as a political mantel or identity. I would argue that plenty of kids today are only “socially gay” or trans because they are WANTING to be part of “an” identity rather then having a particular personal leaning to be that way. That’s how social contagion works
People do fall into categories at times and some categories are more natural, such as male and female (man or woman), etc.
And while people do fall into categories, are not entirely defined by them. Certainly individuality also exists and categories also exist.
I do think it is natural at least within the “Western” pattern of thinking to categorize and sort. It is a way to make sense of the world and make decisions.
However to ignore the fact that even if someone falls within a category cannot have unique individual characteristics is an error. Also, a problem with categorization can lead to “dehumanization” at times. For example, there are some really annoying “social justice warriors” but some of these people are just confused and really not entirely defined by that label.
Young people in particular seem to want to “fit in” and will adopt categories because they want approval.
correction I mean CAN have individual characteristics while simultaneously fitting into a category. Both exist, categories/groups and individuality.
Sand,
I can’t unsee this, so I’ll spit it out here cause it tastes foul.
Science fiction writer Ted Sturgeon made the same argument for incest. The male or female prodigy division was immaterial to the natural act.
In for a penny – in for a pound.
” If All Men Were Brothers, Would You Let One Marry Your Sister?”, appeared in Dangerous Visions, ©1967 Harland Ellison.
Sturgeon adds an afterword to his story.
” Now you know what sort of a science fiction story this is…”
” I have always been fascinated by the human mind’s ability to think itself to a truth, and then to take that one step more ( truly the basic secret of all human progress ) and the inability of so many people to learn the trick. Case in point ” We mean to get that filth off the newsstands and out of the bookstores.” Ask why, and most such crusaders will simply point at the “filth” and wonder that you asked. But few will take one step more: ” Because youngsters might get their hands on it.” That satisfies most, but ask: ” And suppose they do?” a still smaller minority will think it through to: ” Because it’s bad for them.” Ask again : ” In what way is it bad for them?” By now you’ve probably run out of crusaders, but take that one more step, they will have to take it out of the area of emotional conviction and into the area of scientific research. Such studies are available, and invariably they show that such arousement is quite harmless-indeed, there is something abnormal about anyone who is not or cannot be so aroused. The only possible harm that can result comes not from the sexual response itself but from the guilt- making and punitive attitude of the social environment—most of all that part of it which is doing the crusading.
Casting about for some more or less untouched area in which to exercise this one-step-more technique. I hit on this one. That was at least twenty years ago, and I have had to wait until now to find a welcome for anything so unsettling. I am , of course, very grateful. I hope the yarn starts some fruitful argument.
This is how the sausage gets made. It should alarm everyone to the power of one step more, and twenty years to bake a cake. Writers can be the most sinister of marketers and propaganda prostitutes to The Powers That Shouldn’t Be. Mm That goes for all literati.
“….Science fiction writer Ted Sturgeon…”
lol… Heinlein was a perv too, Arthur C Clark iirc , Something about that genre really attracted the creeps for some reason.
Libido Dominandi by EM Jones really covers the sexual revolution for the last 200 odd years and how the whole point of easy sex is to make people easy to manipulate. He also wrote the much shorter “Degenerate moderns” which was a series of biographies of the major pervs and/or sickos who generated most of todays culture and what drove them to do it.
Duck,
Please talk more on the technique, the comparison to other socio-political movements and objections and replacements or convincing me to buy product X as opposed to product Y. Also what is before us here. What is this we are here in ? What is this other than but a sales pitch to a brighter more fulfilling tomorrow. Give me a reason for you or I being here. Please.
Duck, are you collecting your thoughts?
It resembles an authoritative sting. Where the officers encourage you to express anti establishment behavior . Egging you on till enough of your questions can be crafted to turn into beliefs. Persuasion. Where you can be put into a category. You fall into categories like prey falling into trap pits…
Getting a straight answer is damn near impossible here, it seems to always be refected back for further clarification or obstruction directing away or to a more punitive category.
Have an open dialogue but don’t ask about the money and how it’s distributed. A person is placed, forced or tricked into categories so they become trapped by the webs of the laws , which is the enforcers and protectors of power. Now please tell us what YOU really think. Don’t worry, you are amount friends.
GBW
I actually wrote a reply with two links to Pete quinones talking to people or reading the book by Edward Bernays but your comment vanished.
I will post the links when I am at the Pond….as to the answer to your questions
1) Satans minions are behind it all… plenty of mere human malice involved too.
2) almost all your culture for the last years is fake and designed to turn you into a product not a person (read CS Lewis abolyof man for more details of the theory or EM Jones Degenerate Moderns for the personal bios of some of the actors
3) we are here at the Corbett report because it’s fun and cool and informative- but TBH much of the “Yruth” movement is As manufactured as the rest of media. Many people , even here, are as full of the fake programs as normies are.
We are in the world because we have been gifted with life….beat enjoy and do our best with it.
Will post the links later…. Kinda busy now.
I think a terrible word to use is ‘rights’. A right is an allowance given to someone who isn’t free to do whatever they think is appropriate.
People get very passionate about their rights but do not consider what that term really implies, and as a result, do not insist on their freedom.
A much better word IMO is ‘freedom’. Standing up for your ‘freedom’ is a much better pursuit than begging for your ‘rights’, I think.
I have the freedom to choose my own path 🙂
Rebel. Soul
“….. A right is an allowance given to someone who isn’t free to do whatever they think is appropriat…..”
NO ONE is free to do whatever they think is appropriate….the very fact that we live in groups precludes that kind of freedom.
Just living around other people forces limits on what you can do. Thus while living alone in the country I could walk around wearing nothing but rubber boots shooting a shotgun I clearly could NOT do this (no matter how appropriate I think it is) if I have a neighbor with kids a hundred feet away.
Rights can be thought of as things that my neighbors may not stop me doing. In a sense they ARE “allowances” but the fact is that unless I am living totally alone there will always be limits….and even a hundred miles from the nearest person I don’t have freedom to pollute the water table or dump toxic waste in the river.
The very idea of “Freedom” is nebulous, people have had various antithetical ideas about what it is- the plantation owners thought freedom meant being able to own slaves. Puritans thought freedom meant being a good Christian (in their terms)
I think you are letting your thinking be influenced by the rulers who claim that without their supreme guidance there would be chaos.
Communities don’t go around issuing edicts on what constitutes appropriate behaviour. You learn this by living within that community.
And your freedom to test the limits of what is ‘appropriate’ can equally be addressed by a community of free people. That’s exactly how norms are established.
And they can differ from place to place. This is how it is normal to eat with your right hand in West Africa, whilst in Europe it is expected you use cutlery and in China you will use chop sticks.
In many north African countries you are expected to belch when you’ve eaten, to show your appreciation, whereas in other places you would be considered rude for doing so.
I don’t think that freedom is so nebulous. It is true that freedom can be abused, but let’s be honest, ‘human rights’ as well as those who live within the constraints of those ‘rights’ are abused more often that not.
No ‘system’ is perfect, but with freedom you ALWAYS have a choice.
If I see someone abusing their freedom, I have the freedom to address this, and if it is an abuse aimed at myself, I have the freedom (and duty) to respond how see fit.
That fact alone will make anyone think about whether to abuse their freedom, as there are no restrictions on how the individual, or community, will respond.
This is how true anarchy/voluntarism/’whatever you want to call it’ really works. Mad Max is not real, it’s meant to scare you into accepting ‘rulers’
“…. Communities don’t go around issuing edicts on what constitutes appropriate behaviour….”
They do, however, ENFORCE them…(in the above mentioned case of rubber boot shotgun man I might get arrested, shot at, or lynched by a mob)
Those rules are set by “the community” and the community will always have people who lead it- maybe it’s the biggest guy, or maybe everyone thinks he’s smarter, or maybe he has a lot of friends who always go along with his ideas…… either way a MINORITY will always impose its standards in the MAJORITY.
Rights are kinda like rules that limit what that minority is able to impose.
“…… This is how true anarchy/voluntarism/’whatever you want to call it’ really works…”
WHERE has such a system existed so we can study how it really works????
You get times where central authorities have been weak and people have more freedom to do as they please but even there a minority of people have imposed community standards and rules.
As I said before NO ONE is ever totally “….. free to do whatever they think is appropriat…..” unless they live alone on an island.
this is rather pedantic, really. as you could read, I expressed myself as ‘whatever they think is appropriate’, and not as ‘whatever they want’
This, in a nutshell, addresses your points already. Appropriate meaning acceptable and within the right setting has all these connotations baked within.
If, however, you are like most people, you hear the word ‘rights’ and mistake it to be that which sets you free.
If you are passionately concerned about your rights, you are not weary enough of what is really a lack of freedom.
“….whatever they think is appropriate’, and not as ‘whatever they want….”
You are making the mistake that there is a universal understanding of “appropriate”
For example if a Muslim thinks it’s appropriate to kill his daughter for dishonoring the family by dating the wrong boy…..if a family think that having sex with their kids is “appropriate”….if I think killing my neighbor is “appropriate” because he plays loud music.
In all these cases the actor thinks they SHOULD do a thing that impinges upon another person (daughter/kids/neighbor) and THIS IS WHY THERE ARE RULES WE FOLLOW EVEN IF WE THINK THEM INAPPROPRIATE…..
That is why people living in groups have rules, and the idea of rights is the idea of a limit to those rules- because SOMEONE MUST DECIDE What “APPROPRIATE” MEANS.
And that, n a nutshell is why you will never be able to show me a real world place to study to learn HOW
“…… true anarchy/voluntarism/’whatever you want to call it’ really works…”
Because it never has and never will exist in the real world- hence the importance of the idea of Rights to limit those who rule…they don’t set you free they LIMIT the assault on your freedom
Loving the strawman examples mate. As earlier, these have all been addressed.
Have you ever lived in an African village that’s so far away from any police that there is ‘no law’?
have you ever lived in a Western small town, where everybody knows each other? Where your neighbour will whoop your bum if you cross the line? where things get sorted, because the community feels it can?
THAT, my friend, is anarchy.
Nowadays people call the police when their fart is stuck sideways and they feel it’s ‘the neighbours’. THAT, is rights in action.
if you’re looking for a place where the ‘official system’ is anarchy so you can dissect it and do flow charts and a ‘best practices’ summary, then maybe you need to wait for the great AnarchoMan ™ to come and show you the way.
If your thing is to compulsively tell other people that something is not right with their idea, and that you are way smarter and have seen it all.. well . that’s your thing.
“….. As earlier, these have all been addressed….”
No, the were not- i thank you that you DID address them by talking about community violence as the means of enforcing rules in others.
I would argue that is NOT anarchy, I must assume that YOU have never
“….. lived in an African village that’s so far away from any police that there is ‘no law’?….”
Nor seen a lynch mob in a western town.
IF you had then you would know that these places are NOT anarchy- there are PLENTY of Rulers in such places….. what do you think the Tribal Elders do in tribal society????
Sure they are WEAK Rulers compared to say a modern dictator but that’s just the scale of the society, NOT any difference in the actual ROLE…..
and I must ask if this “anarchy” in tribal villages extends to women and girls?????
Do those African girls getting female circumcised live in “anarchy” or are their lives RULED BY THE STRONG???? Or is it “appropriate” to cut off those girls junk because the Tribal Elders and community think it is??????
Now the fun part 😉
“….. If your thing is to compulsively tell other people that something is not right with their idea,….”
1) I think it “appropriate” so as a free man I do it 🙂
2) If your ideas can’t hold up against questions then they are probably bollocks
“….that you are way smarter and have seen it all…”
I am NOT super smart, but I actually HAVE seen plenty. The real question is Why You Feel It’s An Attack On You Ego when people question your ideas.
It’s not a contest. It’s a way to clear out stupid ideas for you AND for me.
Two things to remember about words:
– Every syllable has meaning. Larger words are just combinations of ideas.
– Brevity is only the soul of wit if one’s idea is accurately and completely conveyed. Less said leaves more imagined.
Such a foolish statement, meanings/ideas are derived from pragmatic context and established semantic definitions. Psychotic breaks are derived from trying to find meaning in every single syllable.
Weird…. I agree with BOTH if you.
If we don’t spell out definitions properly we risk being misunderstood (control a definition and you make words mean whatever you want)
At the same time if we spend too much focus on a single word and its meaning (rather then context) we end up misleading ourselves
It’s like people who try and tell me that the Bible is ok with homosexuality “as long as it’s not in a marriage bed” or people who just grab verses they like and smother everything else regardless of context…..both give me a headache because their not really trying to understand what the writer actually wanted to communicate
Mmm… going to have to think about that
Sooo… supercalifragilisticexpialidocious was the first word ever created?
Of course language evolves, look into the “Clock of Morphological Type Change” which is closely linked to “Morphosyntactic Alignment”. It is essentially the interaction between Subjects, Objects and Verbs within language and how it changes across thousands of years in cycles. If you speak a second language and particularly one of the romantic languages you will understand this idea inherently. But, to your point, syllables mostly convey phonetic distinctions simply so that many distinguishable words are possible with the same sounds, otherwise language isn’t dynamic enough for change.
Morphology is an inherent foundation to language; I’ve studied a few of them.
Whatever you’re studying about language is completely antithetical to how it actually works. Every syllable has its own meaning, though much has been misunderstood due to things like eggcorns and thus, not consciously present in the minds of most. Even as I look at the words on this page, it is quite easy to parse out the individual meanings of each syllable and see how they come together in each word to combine ideas. After all, that is what a word is: it’s conveying an idea.
I’ve had the idea for a long time about creating a slave-speak translation dictionary where you could look up everyday words that slaves use and translate them to what the real meaning is.
It is amazing all the fancy words they have for
“theft” or “robbery” or “extortion” or “steal” —- “tax”, “seizure”, “license”, “registration”, “fine”, “citation”, “ticket”, “imminent domain”, “confiscate”, and my favorite, “civil asset forfeiture”.
As for “elites”, I just say “ruling scum”, or “rulers”
“government” – “professional organized crime gang”
“vaccine” – “bioweapon” or “poison”
“medicine” – “poison”
“law” – “death threat”
“politician” – “actor”
“doctor” – “murderer”
“school” – “indoctrination center”
“hospital” – “murder center”
Would be cool to make a plug-in for browsers that translates text from slave-speak, so you could read articles on any website and translate directly what they are actually saying. When the words are translated the meaning becomes crystal clear of what tyranny they are implementing. I’ve always said, just look at things without words to see the real truth
“AI” – “artificial ignorance”
Artificial Intelligence is a great example SlaveSpeak. It is probably better defined as “Non-animal Inference” or some may even extend this to “Non-life Inference”.
Another problem not just with definitions, but is with ownership of things, such as the inaccurate use of “my” and “your”, to make you take ownership of their tyrannies in your head.
They have everyone saying they own things such as:
“My vaccine”, or “get YOUR vaccine”
“My taxes”, or “pay YOUR taxes”
“My government”, “My country”, etc etc
“My/your vaccine” – “Their bioweapon”
“My/your taxes” – “Their robberies”
“My/your government” – “Their slave theater”
“My/your country” – “Their logo/brand”
“Country” – “imaginary lines”
I mean if a mugger steals your wallet you wouldn’t say “yes, I was paying my mugger” such as “paying my taxes”.. you are being robbed with threats of caging and death.
“jail” – “cage”
“judge” – “organized crime gang priest”
“court” – “organized crime gang church”
I like the cut of your jib SlaveSpeak, the “CommonWealth” is another one for this list.
and I have taken this a step further, even better than this, I ask people to think about things WITHOUT using words; visualize images of what is taking place, the entire process; animals don’t use words to think, and animals can’t be tricked into seeing theft as anything but theft. If a dog is chewing on a bone and you try and take it away, it will fight you
yet somehow a percentage of all our bones are taken away without a fight because of some word salad mumbo jumbo indoctrination
A good word to use might be “sovereign” to describe the person or people who actually make decisions.
I have heard it used to describe the “decider of the exception” or the “Actual Ruler”, but it basically means the person or group ACTUALLY picking the direction stuff goes in…..for example the President is NOT sovereign most of the time (example Biden) and the ACTUAL Sovereign(s) is kept hidden.
The same thinkers would call power blocs – elites that have a lever of power (the police, local politicians, Military Industrial Complex, the lobby groups, the Teachers Union, etc) “Castles” that exist in a somewhat hostile jostle for power wiyh the actual Sovereign who tends to want to consume and take their power as they grab for more of his.
A better word might be deluded. We don’t need a word for “those that ‘actually’ make decisions”, let’s just stick with “person” as it is sufficient to warrant respect.
I don’t understand what point you are making.
In the democratic west the story is told that “the voters “ make decisions ( “the people are sovereign” ) but in actual fact of the matter THEY are NOT the ones who make most decisions as to what a nation will do.
Thus just saying “person” might mean a Slave, or a Ruler…… clearly they are BOTH “a person “ but in terms of power they are NOT identical (hence the term “Sovereign “ for the power that actually decides what happens)
You can not say a person who makes decisions is “delusional “ unless they DONT make the decisions….if they DO then they are the sovereign
“I don’t understand what point you are making.” ……because you are far from Clever Duck.
True, I make no claim to be smart but that puts the onus on YOU Ari communicate your thoughts clearly enough for a daft old bird like me.
My English professor would agree with you. He said that sometimes simple is better, simple and concise are sometimes better than complicated and vague.
I’ve never been a good writer, but the few papers I wrote in college that received a good grade were simple and conveyed ideas in understandable terms.
I liked my professor a great deal. I have found that people who really understand what they are discussing will be able to state their points in concise and simple terms.
It also demonstrates “good faith” in communication, where the writer or speaker wants people to understand their message or thesis, rather than to show they are “smarter” than their audience with abstraction and unnecessary complexity.
Yes, the responsibility always falls on those that dare use plain English, and if you can’t understand the idea then it is no folly of yours and the person expressing the idea wasn’t acting in good faith, wasn’t being concise and obviously did not really understand what they were talking about and was just trying to assert their intelligence. Or this is how you deal with complex ideas because it helps you cope? attack my ideas or shut your cake hole, what would “[your] professor” say to that??? Sometimes simple is inadequate for the complexities of life and is just plainly naive.
cu.h.j
Well you stepped in it this time.
I frequently write in the esoteric and in double entendre. Mostly out of boredom. A puzzle or in jest. Some cryptic some self defacing ,
.sdem ish nekat ton evah yam eH. Tsylatac roop sa edur os reverN. semitemos saedi doog emos sah eH
Nosoapradio figured this out in one minute. And boy could she reply to such as this. In three languages.
I’m rude, need sympathy and apparently normally medicated. So no need to afford my words attention or respect. When you’re done realising you offered nothing other than attempted character assassination I will be here ready to forgive you.
Catalyst,
This train of thought has become derailed. To me it becomes a great deal more interesting. As I stated somewhere south of here ,plain English is gutteral even more so than Italian over Latin. You are a peculiar chap. Forgiving , how nice.
Missing from all this Times Roman characters is a very unique word. Cathartic. I would love to see your cursive handwriting so I could see the visceral , non intellectual movement of your ,as I said, sometimes interesting perspectives and observations. The most interesting character in the crowd is the one who has the key. The cathartic key to the mysteries of the world.
James has never spoken on calligraphy having anything to do with the native , though he lives in Japan and writes beautifully. Catalyst;
When you write in English type is it a work of beauty? At any level?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/cathartic
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/calligraphy#:~:text=The%20word%20calligraphy%20comes%20from,being%20the%20bibles%20written%20by
The train of thought did not become derailed, this is where the train was always going. Any perceived derailing is not by my doing, I merely disarmed verbal assailants. The only mystery here is why a few voices in this chat persist in trying to make a point that language is anything other than words with semantic and pragmatic meaning. Certainly there are advantages to communicating in the flesh and with cursive script, but as a tool of subjective conveyance, written language is complete and well understood. As a tool of universality, language has a way to go. You are forgiven. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
“…Or this is how you deal with complex ideas because it helps you cope? attack my ideas or shut your cake hole, what would “”
I didn’t attack your ideas. Hey I didn’t get your point either and it’s not because I can’t understand complex ideas.
What I got from what Duck said was a sovereign person is an active decision maker. A sovereign person has charge of their own destiny.
I like the word as well.
When you mention being delusional with no further context, the point is lost on some readers as it was.
It sounds like you have more knowledge of philosophy than some here. Maybe others don’t get it. If you want to enlighten people and convey your message, you might have to explain a little more. Or you don’t care if they get it or not and are free state points in whatever way you choose and so are others free to choose how they respond. They can either get points or not.
I think you probably misunderstood my point however if you took my opinion to be character assassination. I never called you names.
I did maybe misinterpret you. If so, you can clarify or not. That’s your choice.
People can’t attack ideas if they don’t understand them. I don’t understand your use of delusional in your response.
A person can be sovereign over their own mind and their own body.
If Duck implies that sovereignty only applies to rulers, I would disagree with that.
I wouldn’t necessarily think that makes someone delusional though.
And perhaps I am totally missing the point here because there’s no follow up example you state. It’s confusing to me.
“A person can be sovereign over their own mind and their own body.”
No, they can not.
A person has the closest relationship with the body and mind they know as their own, but a person is in fact that relationship itself. But it is just that, a relationship, not an ownership, not a sovereignty. The person, as the relationship, is the sovereign entity, but there is no sovereignty over “personhood”, only in a delusional context, and there are no decisions made outside of this delusion.
That which is to become part of body and mind is also part of this relationship. In its simplest form this is oxygen. The oxygen you breath is you, it is not yours, you do not own it, you are it.
“You can not say a person who makes decisions is “delusional “ unless they DONT make the decisions” ……indeed, they do not. Decisions come to pass of consequence, they are only made as so much as we decide if the sun shines in the sky…maybe Bill Gates and Smithers make decisions, but they are truly the most deluded.
“….. Decisions come to pass of consequence, they are only made as so much as we decide if the sun shines in the sky…maybe Bill Gates and Smithers make decisions, but they are truly the most delud……”
Then you agree that some people make the decisions…. (You list Bill gates) Just like I said.
So who are you wanting to call delusional?
You cherry picked a phrase with no attention to context and as such arrived at a ridiculous conclusion. You can clearly write so how about you read. There is no way you are this stupid. I’d say given you are solely responsible for filling the Corbett chat every posting with excessively long rants containing little logic you are almost certainly a paid troll or a bot. I am however open to the possibility that you are a lonely old man who posses a certain type of stupid.
“…You cherry picked a phrase…”
Well OBVIOUSLY, it was the phrase that agreed with my original point.
Just as I picked THIS phrase to reply to you with.
Sadly no one pays me to post, maybe you could put a word in with your masters? I am not particularly old, nor lonely tbh, but I do have plenty of time between tasks.
I have not listened to it yet but I suppose it’s a good one. In fact, it bugs me the most. People talk about racism, antisemitism, capitalism, facism, anarchy, democracy and other things without knowing how wrong they are. It’s one of the reasons why I don’t take political stances privately.
Try and interview Dani Katz. She helps. https://a.co/d/eO8bZGd
ahhhhhhh yes, this mob are the “visionary change-makers”…lol….. I see Sacha Stones name and call it out for the psyop that it is. Sustainable hierarchies are unique in that all can see their worth, the NWO inorganic change-maker psyop is destined to fail because it was designed by, and to cater for, simple folk. I like that there is another short mention of Dani Katz below, very discrete. Language and hierarchy are important indeed, the syntax of language is built upon it, Subject-Object-Verb. You want to take down hierarchy you will need to change the syntax, i am down with this, but it comes with serious risks.
Does anyone know for certain who the “handler” is in Sacha’s circle?
James, your speech and tempo are becoming even more articulated and there is a lot of space between your thoughts (words) to process your message.
Good job in accepting higher dimensions of communication in your function.
Thank you
Grace
With regard to the correct meaning/appropriate use of words, I take more of a defensive posture. I.e., I am alert to words intended as “conversation killers” or as a substitute for critical thought. For example, “anti-vaxer” —as in “what are you, some kind of anti-vaxer?!” Be prepared to point out to the person using this term that a) they are trying to put an abrupt end to any conversation on this topic and b) they seem to want to avoid exercising critical thinking.
(My “anti-vaxer” response: Have you heard of the book, ‘Turtles all the was Down.’ It explains that none of our approved childhood vaccines has been safety tested. Were you aware of this?)
Plinch
I think your right about how people use that term but a lot of the time that’s because they DONT WANT to hear what you (or sometimes me) has to say.
No.13 “you can’t wake someone who is pretending to be asleep “
https://corbettreport.com/15things/
Many people really do like being ignorant even if it may cost them their kids lives.
I agree, “anti-vaxxer” is being used to avoid an intelligent conversation when someone dares to question the official narrative.
Arguing with people who use that expression is a waste of time, they are imprisoned by their own ignorance.
Ultimately, though, we decide how words effect us, we decide what they mean for us, we’re in charge how to react when they trigger an emotional response.
If someone calls me an idiot I would either say “it takes one to know one” or, “tell me something I don’t know”, it depends on the mood I’m in.
Hi James, in the context of your call to the Corbetteers, I want to point your attention to the technique called ‘Framing’ taught in the Communications-sector (or Propaganda-sector). The powers-that-shouldn’t-be use this technique. You know the technique and the fact that these elitists use this. But nevertheless I want to draw your attention to it and to shed light on the ‘rules’ of this technique a bit more. Because, as you know, we can reverse the effects of what the powers-that-shouldn’t-be do and use this technique back on them as well.
So here are the ‘rules’ for the technique called Framing: Most good narratives include 3 parties: heroes, victims and villains. If you hear a narrative, ask yourself who or what fills in the role of these 3 parties in this narrative. So to re-frame the narrative, you re-design the roles.
Here is an example:
Narrative 1: there are too many people and they must be reduced to protect the environement
Villain = overpopulation
Victim = the environment
Hero = Billionairs funding birthcontrol and vaccines
Narrative 2: oligarchs are waging a class-warfare and depopulation agenda
Villain = Oligarch billionairs pursuing a depopulation agenda
Victim = the population
Hero = red-pilled people informing and trying to wake up their fellow-citizens
This can be done with every narrative.
The powers-that-shouldn’t-be are framing and re-framing narratives, and we can frame and re-frame these narratives back.
Nice, yes there is a deeper reason why this functions as it does, it relates to Hegel’s Dialectic, “The Rule of Three” mnemonic technique and indeed goes into the tripartite structures of god heads etc. The underlying mechanism is the syntax of all natural language, Subject-Object-Verb. Many people think the reason is time (past-preset-future) but the truth of the matter is time is a construct of language… interesting area of thought
This has been sophantsicating to listen to.
The world ,the global universe; the word!
Having just finished the collections of words in the form of book; “Reportage” by James Corbett, edited by Susan. Yes that Susan. Who came up with that masterpiece of elocution, ” Elitists”. Nice read by a beginner. Showing off a little of that ” shine”. Beginners luck, or 🌱 sprouting acorn? We’ll see, he now has an assistant, hopefully to free up some #duex Word time!
What a relationship with the word, somehow collaboration with the creator, the English/ Irish majors that surely will come to rule the universe. I must press you to consider the chicken or the egg paradox when trying to cipher the power of WORD. Words and phrases , weapons of mass destruction, baggages. When the train has no room for travelers due to … Too many baggages of words taking up all transport room reserved for passengers. For Elitists? Every picture tells a story and the pictures come first.
Hahaha, GBW.
I just emailed a cartoon to James that portrays a king in his robe, arms open wide, mouth open equally wide (but vertically), asking one of his servants, who’s groveling at the hem of his robe: “Me, an elitist! Where do the peasants get these ideas?”
The kicker? The cartoonist’s name is — I kid you not — “Jack Corbett.” Might he be one of James’ brothers back in Calgary? 😉
CQ
I hope you or his hinist would copy and post here . Ok maybe I can supply what you Elitists failed to share. The Picture.
https://images.app.goo.gl/DMWkSYDh6hNJa4SdA
Yup, that’s the one, GBW.
But surely you’re not calling James “His Highness” or James and me “elitists”?
I hope your silly sarcasm and your horrible 🙂 misspellings make James laugh out loud, as I am right now.
CQ!
Imagine this…
The King of Norway proudly presents the Noble prize for literature to… Then the King notices the distinguished author is pulling a little red wagon with a person in it. What is this he grumbles… My editor!
You’re asking if I can picture the author of Reportage accepting the Nobel Prize in Literature from the King of Norway — much less from any “royal”? Nope, sorry, I can’t.
Not that the author doesn’t deserve plenty of prizes, including one for perseverance over the course of 16 years.
And you’re asking if I can picture the author of Reportage pulling his editor to the event in a little red wagon? Nope, sorry, I can’t.
But I can picture him pulling his kids (when they were younger) around the park in a wagon.
Perhaps you’ve been reading too many fairy tales, GBW?
OK, time for me to return to reality. Over and out. Sayonara!
CQ !
Reality is so over rated . Let me know if you need some help opening that cabin for the season on that island you own in Maine.
“leader” – “ruler”, or “ruler’s puppet” and/or “actor”
“health” – “sickness”
“protect” – “used car salesman pitch”
Global warming through geoengineering
Upon further reflection: geoengineered climate change or geoengineered global warming
Environmentalism: Now I have to explain
I’m not talking about CO2 or climate change.
The way it’s now used dismisses the real problems of chemical pollution and destructive land uses.
I find it interesting that every word has been made up by somebody; and somehow each word takes off to become widely used. My degree is in English, however, all the RULES I was taught as to how to use words and construct them were ridiculous. Somebody(s) came up with those rules, as well.
If there is one thing I know for sure now is that ‘reality’ has been fabricated in every way; and the more I know, the less I know. That said, I would like to introduce a new word that I use quite often: SUCKULATE (SUCKULATING, SUCKULATED, SUCKULATES).
USAGE:
1) I wish the tax idiots would stop suckulating every dime I make.
2) The seemingly endless WINNING! narrative suckulates the life out of me. In its defense, by me paying attention to such drivel, I allow it to suckulate my life energy.
3) The powers-that-shouldn’t-be are seemingly successfully suckulating sane thinking out of the sheepish population.
DrumUnit, the word you cleverly coined reminds me of a combination of “sucking” (which applies to your three usages) and “speculate” (which is what we do when trying to figure out why TPTSB are so self-centered).
Oh, and it also reminds me of “succulent,” which can mean both “delectable” and this:
“In botany, succulent plants, also known as succulents, are plants with parts that are thickened, fleshy, and engorged, usually to retain water in arid climates or soil conditions.”
Now I can’t get the visual of “thickened, fleshy and engorged” hedonist elitists out of my mind.
Very clever and appreciated add-ons to SUCKULATE dynamics, CQ. Thanks for expanding my awareness of word possibilities!
Such an important topic, James! I’ve been saying for a decade that free trade agreements aren’t free, aren’t trade and aren’t agreements. I’m one of the few people, likely, who’ve read some of those and they throw out platitudes in the first couple pages followed by forty pages outlining the rights of corporations and investors, for whom trade will be held hostage unless the country complies.
I’ve joked that my middle name is ‘sovereignty’ but few know what it means, much less how to spell it. I just posted the tenth chapter of my book in my Substack, called The Petropocalypse. It talks about billion-dollar petrodactyls, with wings made up of 1000 feathers of $100 bills. There are flocks of 1000 petrodactyls (a trillion) roaming the earth looking for assets to nab, like real estate and the ‘ecosystem services market’ aka nature: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/10-the-petropocalypse.
What are the petrodactyls? Sovereign wealth funds kept in tax havens. How’s that for an inversion? They’re named for the exact thing they’re destroying.
The inversion of meaning isn’t an accident. It goes back at least 2000 years to the Torah. Neither Latin nor Hebrew has a mother tongue, both are synthetic languages that are abbreviated, taking only 2/3rds of the space of indigenous languages to say the same thing. They were developed as administrative languages for lawyers and accountants to track the colonies.
All the Latin-derived languages are ones of conquest. They have one word to describe both your feeling about chocolate ice cream and your child. The relationships have been flattened but the things and mechanisms are precise. Languages of place are rich in the nuances of relationship, as I talk about here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/when-words-die-worlds-die.
In Egyptian demonology, if they could trick you into telling a lie, a demon snags your tongue. Look at the phrase ‘noble savage’–it’s completely inverted. The noble was the one who’d usurped the land through violence, the savage was the person who’d lived peaceably on it for millennia.
In the practical matter of communicating in a language written to confuse us, my rule of argument is to define what the terms of the question mean to you. But in the end, etymology wins. Anarchy means rule by rules, not rulers. The solution to corrupted words is more words.
terez,
You say that so well, with that Californy ease. That’s what I say here in my locale. I’m easily transported . Lately, well all my life as I have looked at words, they form a visual. Much like a suitcase… Words as baggage too full of meaning. Sometimes the outcome of all that baggage is transport or the inverse, halt. Up until the overcrowded baggage forces one from the transport to the platform; where one is left behind as the baggage disappears in the distance.
Life’s inverses come along all the time. Leaving the baggages of words on the platform while we are transported away,… away from the life incumbered by too much baggage. That seems preferable but the inverse could be true, depending on perspective . The petrodyctyls is so visual. Transporting. This unencumbered traveler has very little to say and so enjoys being transported. I’m looking forward to the journey. If I leave a bag behind on the platform, I’ll get it on the way back.
Hey there, I wanted to address your comment above:
“Well you stepped in it this time.”
Why? When a person can’t get a message and asks for clarification and the other party doesn’t try to get the point in language they can understand and the writer implies the person is stupid for not understanding, I think that demonstrates bad faith communication. I never insulted anyone.
I also never said anything about your writing. I do get what you are saying much of the time. But in written word, non verbal cues are missing and sometimes there are barriers to understanding that don’t make the other party stupid for lack of understanding, not necessarily anyway.
And I do think that if a person cannot explain their point so others can get it, maybe they don’t get it themselves.
I like your writing and there are different forms of writing.
People can write whatever they want and if people don’t get it are free imply the other party is an idiot for not understanding. I find that kind of rude and perhaps demonstrates a lack of desire to get their message across or maybe (I could be wrong) they just want to confuse people or they want flaunt their ego.
I admitted in my comment I’m not the best writer. It’s one of the reasons I wasn’t an English major.
cu.h.j
The visual aspect to me is the transport mechanism. I have heard it a thousand times ” it’s the content stupid” . Calligraphy should supercede all in the communication arts. One would need no forgiveness if the art of the language was enshrined in the beauty of the characters.
When reading this collection of characters of characters I’m visually appalled. Sometimes my ears bleed It’s so gutteral. It’s visceral and devoid of intellect to me. It’s like I’m transported to Regina Saskatchewan when I want to be taken to Kyoto Japan. Some trains of thought run amuck and it’s a testament to humans that there can even be a Kyoto Japan .*
t
Many people say it’s the most beautiful city in the world. And of course Regina… quite the opposite.
“It’s visceral and devoid of intellect to me” Yeah, I understand what you mean there. I interpret intentions in writing that are visceral before the intellect engages.
If my words offended you, I am sorry. I don’t think you engage in ego driven communication, quite the opposite.
I should have clarified very precisely in my original comment to the original writer my disagreement that interpreting writing does not always indicate a state of delusion.
This implies that the original writer has more understanding of objective truth when this is not always the case. It could very well be that the original writer was not being clear.
Oh, and I do get that your use of esoteric comments are probably to get points across to “right brain” regions. At least that’s how I interpret them. Then later on there can be more understanding as the two hemispheres communicate unconsciously.
You usually have a full length comment, not state a single sentence with no further fleshing out of points.
I still didn’t get catalist’s point though. The use of the word delusional doesn’t make sense to me.
Are people then idiots for not understanding? Maybe, but if they ask for clarification and get an insult instead, what does that say about the original comment writer?
cu.h.j
You get a lot . Does it extend to the work place? The home?
I’ve heard that cursive writing is becoming a lost art. Does cursive hold more visual / visuralthan Times Roman print?
James never talks about that
“….Does cursive hold more visual / visuralthan Times Roman print….”
Jumping into the middle of a conversation here, but YES, typing activates less of the brain then printing and cursive activities even more….writing notes in cursive is shown to improve retention.
Normally retention in memory is because of meaning to the rememberer
More in the workplace unfortunately, but I’m working on more empathy for those in my personal life. Different relationships will affect communication.
In general, I do find people fascinating and want to understand them. I like to learn and expand my consciousness and my knowledge base too.
You know, that’s one of the reasons I didn’t go into medicine as a physician because most of them don’t have time to talk to their patients and understand them as human beings. The science part is very interesting, but I find people more interesting if you know what I mean.
James, consider having a conversation with language “expert” and student of propaganda, Dani Katz.
He could consider it if Dani Katz had two brain cells to rub together but alas, she is a “NEW WORLD RELIGION” vegetable…
I have read “Betterarchy” and listened to her converse a few times. I never heard her claim to be a “New World Religion” vegetable. According to your criterion what is a NWR vegie?
‘New Age Theologians’, but that term of phrase affords them too many brain cells by association with big words which they may have difficulty spelling. We can just stick with ‘airy fairy numpty’s with little notion of reality’. She makes no claim to be such, nor need she, it’s plainly obvious to anyone with two or more brain cells to rub together. They are no better than any idiot who follows a book to its word because “god”.
Your opinions are your own and certainly allowed, catalyst, but I find your communication style abrasive, very divide and conquerish. You did this to me too, where your points pointed more to trying to make yourself RIGHT and the other WRONG/STUPID. Perhaps expressing yourself with less judgment would be a more harmonious way to go. Otherwise, dialog gets cut off very quickly, and any sense of connection, however minimal, is thwarted.
The enemy of your enemy is your friend is it Drum? how very politically savvy…I’m not primarily interested in harmony pumpkin, i’m interested in reality and you’ve just f#cked your own argument from earlier by thinking to label me as “someone who did something” a “thing” is it Drum? perhaps have a think about why you just framed and boxed me and then happily informed me as to how i might express myself. Attack my arguments or shut your cake hole, simple, concise and easy to understand. Oh, and thank you for allowing my opinions…
New world religion…. Tastes sweet like honey but sour in the stomach
Instead of “The Establishment” or “The Man”, why not call it, “The Adversary”?
That’s a good one. I will write that down though I’d say adversaries.
I always refer to the “defense department” as the “offense department”, so far it hasn’t taken off.
I will never refer to my husband as my “partner”. Nor will I refer to anybody else’s significant other as anything but the correct name for these relationships.
I refuse to call it “Keev”, even if it’s incorrect I’ll always call it Kiev.
Same here, kristy.r.
I also like your “offense department” idea and wish, along with you, that it’d “take off.”
Thank you. Let’s keep it going!
‘Calling Things By Their Right Name’
For God’s sake Trump has even usurped the blessed acronym MAGA!
MAGA should be, by all his actions, Make America Godforsaken Again.
Unfortunately the word ‘climate’ has been usurped to the point where many (including myself) cringe when it is simply uttered all by itself.
“What ‘so-and-so’ is doing to the climate…” etc.
I’d like to know the meaning of the word “Great” in MAGA. “Great” in what way and for whom? What do the Magadons think is going to be “great” and how will their lives be improved compared to the pre-Trump era? Are they going to be happy that things are “great” again and when exactly was the last time that it was great? If things were great in the past and then stopped being great who caused this ungreatness in the first place? Also reminds me of the General Selection in the UK last year. The Labour Party manifesto had a photo of Sir robot with one word on the cover: “Change”. Eh? Change what exactly? There’s been plenty of change since then but I don’t think it was anything to do with any of the manifesto pledges.
Great points, Analog Man. BTW… I miss analog, so rich and vibrant as opposed to sterile and compressed.
👍
My personal favorites:
Conspiracy theory: Say Nay!
Conspiracy realist: Better!
No conspiracy theorist: My fave. You mean you ACTUALLY believe there are NO conspiracies???!!!
Anti-vaxxer: Say Nay!
Pro-science: Better
Not a “pro-vaxxer” Better
Vaccine safety advocate: Best
Independent: Say Nay!
Independent thinker: Better I mean, don’t YOU think independently? Or are you just a blind conformist?
Free thinker: Best. I try not to let my mind get constricted into narrow ideologies? How about you?
Pro-life: Say Nay!
Pro-choice: Say Nay!
Pro-compromise: Better. I favor the two sides resolving their differences rather than continuing to insist one side is right and the other wrong. Do you oppose this?
Pro respecting life. Best: Yes, you can find a way to respect both the rights of the mother and the rights of the baby. Or is that too far a reach for you?
Right wing: Say Nay!
Left wing: Say Nay!
Better: Lover of stability, values, freedom, and honor vis a vis Lover of fairness, compassion and the weak and vulnerable.
Best: Clipped wing, or bi-winged. I believe all lovers of virtue have an essential role to play in the world, even if they emphasize different virtues. Don’t you?
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: Say Nay!
Diversity: Say Nay!
Better: Respecting the contributions of all types of people
Best: Aware of the human tendency to be prejudiced and working actively to subdue that tendency.
Equity: Say Nay!
Better: Non-discriminatory
Best: Keeping a balance between fairness and merit in a world where such measures are inevitably disputable.
Inclusion: Say Nay!
Better: Welcoming
Best: Tolerant and trying hard to love those whom I disagree with, and may even find offensive.
MarkB, I like that you’re a creative thinker, and for the most part I like HOW you think.
(Sorry, I forget HOW to create italics. :-))
I’m curious about what you call your “fave” reply: There are NO conspiracies.
Could you please explain why you think that?
Thanks in advance.
This comment (You mean you ACTUALLY believe there are NO conspiracies???!!!) was meant to illustrate, with a touch of irony) the absurdity of claiming that conspiracies do not exist in this world. If they don’t why even have a word for conspiracy? I of course, believe conspiracies are rampant. Catherine Austin Fitts once said that when she worked for the government, everything was done on a daily basis as a conspiracy. There was no sense of machination or evil conniving. It was simply a group of people privately and anonymously creating policy for the country that would affect the entire country. It was not by routine subject to review. Conspiracy behavior was in short the M.O. of government.
OK, I get it now. Turns out sometimes what we call “the best” response is one we totally disagree with because it’s so absurd, so false.
Re CAF’s remark on conspiracy being routine — the M.O. of government: Yeah, it seems the minute people go to Washington, their intention of serving “the people” is “suckulated” (to use DrumUnit’s word) right out of them. Few can withstand the pressure. Catherine did. Thomas Massie does.
If I’d been asked to accept a Beltway post back when I believed in “rulers,” I wonder if I’d have had the fortitude it takes to prevent all of my actions from betraying my conscience.
I like your definition ions but
“…Pro-life: Say Nay!
Pro-choice: Say Nay!
Pro-compromise: Better. I favor the two sides resolving their differences rather than continuing to insist one side is right and the other wrong. Do you oppose this?….”
Murdering a baby is generally a bad thing.
I can see WHY a you might want to murder a baby, but in general I oppose it…. SOME issues there is no compromise on, one side or the other wins
Murdering a baby is always an evil. Can you imagine a situation where an even greater evil might occur from NOT murdering the baby? I can.
However, I would admit that most of us find murdering babies to be so horrific that it is difficulty to coax our imaginations to go to a place of
evil even worse than that. In the end, my inability to imagine the ethical dilemmas of another does not prove that they are unethical. Even most
conservatives will acknowledge when the life of the mother is in the balance, or when the pregnancy is non-viable, and the mother’s life is
simultaneously imperiled such decisions are not easily resolved. In my view, as long as one shows honor and reverence for all life, one is
probably treading in safe ethical waters.
Glad you mentioned ethical issues of balancing the life of the mother and the life of the baby and the viability of the baby.
There are some genetic conditions that are not compatible with life.
And genetic testing and the decisions to end a pregnancy can probably be defined as a form of eugenics.
I think the industry of abortion is evil. But the fact is abortion has existed for a very long time, even before it was an industry.
I would presume that even those that hold the strongest beliefs against abortion could find exceptions.
For example, what about in the instance of rape? Let’s assume the pregnancy is very early (4-5 weeks). Is the woman who ends the pregnancy murdering a baby?
The languaging seeks to pigeon hole us into categories which we actually don’t agree with. This is the “You’re with us or you’re with the terrorists.” Like hell!! Outside the box thinking not permitted! If people could just get out of their silos for a minute, recognize how their fear of being ostracized by their group for failing to endorse the “group think” orthodoxy, it really wouldn’t be all that hard to work out solutions to these admittedly knotty problems.
“….. I would presume that even those that hold the strongest beliefs against abortion could find exception……”
Yes, but murdering Simone for the greater good is still Murder.
“…. For example, what about in the instance of rape? Let’….”
If a woman was kept in a basement and raped until she had a baby would she be justified in killing the baby?
Did the baby do something to warrant being murdered?
I disagree with the way you use the term murder. My understanding of the definition is killing without justification or with malice.
Here’s a formal definition:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
Also, I believe that an unborn baby is a life form or potential life form very early on. A baby is a living person.
So, I doubt we will agree on these points.
I’ve never been in a situation described above, but I would not judge someone for terminating a pregnancy in some situations.
Cu.h.j
“….Also, I believe that an unborn baby is a life form or potential life form very early on. A baby is a living person…..”
Ok, but that leaves a with two options
1) it’s not a baby UNTIL it’s born so killing it right before delivery is “ok”
Or
2) There is a special moment when it “becomes a human” in the womb. That kinda brings up the question of what day or second that abortion is cleaning out a clump or cells and what moment it’s murder.
“…..I would not judge someone for terminating a pregnancy in some situation…..”
I would not judge a father who tracks down and murdered a guy who killed his kid…. But he is STILL a murderer.
The thing is that the vast majority of abortions are basically a choice that a woman does not want a baby…they’re not the edge cases of rape or incest or whatever…. Their one human choosing to kill another (much smaller) human because it benefit them in some way. That is totally murder….its not to save the mother, it’s not for any reason other then that they had sex and DONT want to deal with the resulting kid.
Now people will come down on ONE or OTHER aside if this, there is no live and let live position on “reproductive rights” vs “murder”
“There is a special moment when it “becomes a human” in the womb.”
Yeah, I think that’s pretty accurate. When is that moment? That’s a good question.
If the life form could be removed at 4 weeks and survive with medical intervention in some sort of artificial womb does that change the situation? Probably.
It’s one of those ethical debates that require thoughtful consideration.
It’s true that most people probably get abortions for trivial reasons and that it has become an industry and culture of death. However, there are situation where it’s not black and white IMO.
Mitigating factors are usually considered when evaluating people’s decisions and actions.
I stand by my opinion that murder has a more precise definition and contains elements of malice.
In courts of law, there is a difference between crimes of passion and premeditated murder. Mitigating factors are usually considered in sentencing.
Cu.h.j
“…. I stand by my opinion that murder has a more precise definition and contains elements of malice….”
You’re doing the thing this edition was about… using words to define things. 🙂 I think that almost nothing discussed avoids this today, framing and defining too pre set the argument…..stone choir had a pretty good podcast on Framing.
But what does “malice” mean ? It derives iirc from “mal” , bad. I always took it to mean a negative/hateful feeling towards someone but IF a that’s so then malice is not needed to make a killing murder- a nurse might want to clear some beds out so others can have them and inject a few older people with leathal opiates….if has no personal malice is she still a murder? What about that man who murdered his kid (by “Burke ing” suffocation) just to avoid paying child support….there was never evidence that he had a personal bad feeling about the kid, he just didn’t want to pay up for his kid….id say that MOST abortions are the same as that, a way to avoid paying for your responsibility. Surgical abortion just hides the actual horror from the killers eye, unlike the hilding his toddler as he died, but in aim the same thing.
I do agree that there is a point in a pregnancy that one could make the argument for murder. Late term abortion IMO is murder.
I do see a difference between a very early pregnancy and a late pregnancy. When is that point in time?
I do think an early pregnancy is a life form and a potential person and this should be kept in mind and it is often probably not.
With respect to adults, I can understand how revenge killing is murder especially if it is planned out. It is punished differently depending on circumstances however.
The man who killed the pedophile who raped him as a child did perhaps commit crime of passion “murder” and in doing so probably also saved other children from torture. Is murdering an evil person the same as murdering a good person?
I don’t think they are the same.
Malice or unjustified defined by Webster is the common understanding and how I define it. There is some nuance.
There are exceptions and mitigating factors.
Malice or unjustified are the “spirit” of what murder is.
Terminating a 4 week pregnancy in a case of incest or severe genetic abnormality (organs on the outside of the body) is not murder. Not as it is defined or as I understand it.
That case of the little girl who was kept “alive” after her brain died for years while her body was rotting is another one of those cases where ethical deliberation comes into play.
Should people who are brain dead be kept “alive”? Does it depend? I know that I would not want to be kept “alive” that way.
Is hospice murder? When is it considered questionable? There are all kinds of these types of ethical dilemmas that are very specific and require some thought that aren’t black and white.
There’s a term in law, I think it’s called judicial restraint. I understand the rationale for that but even the most stringent by the book thinkers are not in every single case black and white.
Cu.h.j
Do you see what you did here?
“…..Terminating a 4 week pregnancy in a case of incest or severe genetic abnormality (organs on the outside of the body) is not murder…..”
Is a HEALTHY baby in the womb the same as a DOA baby with its organs outside its body?
Who is the abortion benefiting in each case?
In the case of Organ Baby it’s mainly to save it pointless suffering- you could argue that’s in the babies interest
In the case of invest baby the one to benefit is the mom…clearly being killed is NOT a benefit for a healthy baby, the harm being avoided is to the woman.
Do you still think these two cases are the same?
I would argue that’s killing a deformed baby with low survivalbillity MIGHT be a mercy killing….. but the incest baby is being killed so OTHERS dont have to deal with it.
It would be the difference between killing grandma because you don’t want to clean her bedpan Vs killing her because she is in agony all the time.
Now while you could argue an incest victim has a compelling reason to want her baby dead can you argue the same for someone who forgets to use protection on their hot date? Clearly THAT person is responsible in a way you could argue the incest woman is not….but in both cases who dies? The least culpable one
@Duck
“Do you see what you did here?”
“…..Terminating a 4 week pregnancy in a case of incest or severe genetic abnormality (organs on the outside of the body) is not murder…..”
Is a HEALTHY baby in the womb the same as a DOA baby with its organs outside its body?”
Did I say they were? NO I did not. If you are suggesting I am, you are putting your own words in.
You are either misinterpreting or you are not conversing in good faith.
Cu.h.j
You wrote
“…..in a case of incest or severe genetic abnormality…..”
I am sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying and will show WHY I thought you were saying it.
So I thought you were saying that either of these cases was OK….did I misunderstand you when you said NEITHER was murder?
If so I am sorry
But like I said in the case of the Organ Baby the killing is done ostensibly for the benefit of the BABY
The Incest baby (assuming it’s health) is being killed for the benefit of OTHERS.
Thus I don’t think those two cases belong in the same category….which inTHOUGHT you were doing since they were attached to each other with an “OR”
What category do you put killing IncestBaby into?
I Assume (am I wrong?) you put OrganBaby into the category of Mercy Killing? ??
I can’t see that Incest Baby is in any more danger of suffering then any other unwanted child so clearly the killing is to benefit the Mother, not baby.
So I assume (tell me if I am wrong) justifying the killing of IncestBaby for the benefit for its MOM, not the baby….if so surely that is killing one for the benefit of another which is the reason that murders actually happen (one person thinks they will get something from the death, it’s a very magical way of thinking according to an FBI profiler who’s bio I read)
Thanks for the clarification. In the case of incest, especially if the mother is a child, I think that is a special case, not the same as the other case.
The child was essentially raped by a relative and who knows what that does to the baby. The baby might be healthy in some cases, I don’t know. It’s a disgusting situation, revolting actually.
In a very early pregnancy, like 4 weeks I do think the fetus is a life form, but does this life form have the same value as the mother’s life?
Is there a difference between a partially developed human being and a fully formed human being? Does a 4 week pregnancy have an intact brain or mind? Consciousness?
Is there some point in time where the soul comes in, or is it at conception? Those are debatable points. Some say yes, some say no.
I think it requires some thoughtful consideration. In cases of incest, there is however a higher risk of genetic abnormalities including possible psychological abnormalities.
I can understand both arguments. I don’t know how I would feel in this case. The severe birth defect case to me would be easy to make a decision. Saving a baby from severe physical suffering to me is a kindness in the case of substantial genetic defect, like organs on the outside.
A healthy early incest pregnancy is different from a severe genetic defect pregnancy. One case is IMO easily decided ethically the other requires further contemplation and consideration of ethics.
I can understand not wanting to continue an incest pregnancy if it is early term. I would ask an ethics committee or to have the family speak with others who could advise them because I could not.
But, I do get your point now, specifically these are two different cases.
“…I can understand not wanting to continue an incest pregnancy…”
I understand it to. I would probably even want to do the same thing in her position.
The thing that started the thread is the idea that sometimes two ideas can not co exist…in the case of the raped mother vs incest baby one will loose something and one will gain something- there is no way they both can get what they want.
That’s why the ethics committee would be needed- but people on either side won’t accept the decision as “right” because a pro lifer will say they authorize murder and a pro choicer will say they enslave women…so each side will keep fighting “for all the marbles” as Mr Corbett says.
When people had to go to ethics seminars (mostly given by LAWYERS, lolol) I always told them ethics are what people without morals have…. Hahahaha, got some evil looks for that 🙂
Joking … but I do think professional ethics really are a synthetic morality to supersede people’s actual feelings. I know I would not want to be personally telling the girl she had to have the baby, nor the baby why I was going to kill it.
All those questions you posed about when life starts and such are impossible for everyone to agree on IMO, so people will end up forcing one POV in the end.
I’m just doing a synopsis / breakdown of Abolition of man by Lewis, because some people found it confusing and difficult to understand.
The disturbing thing about that is these were not stupid people, but they were taught by school to externalize their standards of right and wrong, I guess to their teachers, which is quite depressing to see. Better get back to it, all the best.
From a medical standpoint, brain development starts in the first trimester:
https://www.neurosciencefoundation.org/post/brain-development-in-fetus
At 4 weeks though, the brain is not fully developed. Questions that come to my mind are:
1. Does this matter?
2. Is the brain required for consciousness?
3. Is consciousness essentially the soul? Or is it required for the soul to be present in the body?
When I think about those questions, I draw from experience taking care of people who are medically brain dead. Now this is not the same as an early pregnancy. I’m not saying these are the same thing, but it triggers further questions in my mind. Perhaps these are irrelevant.
Different question entirely, are people who are brain dead alive? Having taken care of them, my opinion is no. I have spent long times with people in these states and what I sense is a soul attached to a body that can no longer “house” the soul. A natural death is more ethical in my opinion.
It makes me wonder about the question about if the brain is required for a soul to be present in the body and if a very early pregnancy has a soul.
This question is the heat of the matter I think.
The bible says yes (I think) but I’m no expert. I respect people’s beliefs that the soul is present at conception. But I am not certain. I am more inclined to believe that there is a later point in time when the soul enters the body.
Part of this is medical. I do believe that an intact brain, or more fully developed brain “binds” the soul to the body.
But even if this is true, I don’t think it means that people should consider a developing pregnancy a lump of cells. I do think there should be more contemplation and consideration of ethics and how this can contribute to dehumanization.
“….3. Is consciousness essentially the soul? Or is it required for the soul to be present in the body….”
Hmnnnnn….Now THAT is a good question.
Thank your for your experience and opinion on it.
I will have to think about that.
Mark
“….. Murdering a baby is always an evil. Can you imagine a situation where an even greater evil might occur from NOT murdering the baby? I can…”
Yes, I can.
But that does not make it any LESS a murder does it?
It just means that I am playing God and deciding what good and evil are and which ends matter most.
Now, clearly since we live in a fallen world the life of the mother must generally come first…. I don’t consider ending non viable pregnancies as “abortion” any more then I consider throwing a corpse out of a van murder….the thing about is that generally the talk of when it’s a lesser evil to murder a viable baby exists to muddy the edges- most abortions are basically a woman deciding that she does not want a baby (for whatever reason) which is no different then putting it out to die or throwing new borns into a sewer like in Roman times.
So pretty much there is no compromise- either the baby murderers win or the anti murder people win.
Compromise is for those who wish to live peacefully with others. This requires appreciation of other viewpoints, even if you disagree with them. If compromise is not in your suite of interactional styles, you should not come to the compromise table. Those who are interested in living together (assuming there are enough of them) will create the compromises we will all have to live with, and your perspective may not be included. For right now, most people agree with you, not me. Compromise is beyond possibility, is their mantra, so we must keep up the fight for what WE think, and never risk compromising what we KNOW to be morally wrong.
Mark
“…. Compromise is for those who wish to live peacefully with others….”
Let’s try that with a sentence “…Dint like Slavery? DONT own a slave…”
If you think slavery is a terrible moral evil how can you consent to live in a country where people keep slaves? Like wise how can you see Abortion as murder AND then just be ok with it? If you see LACK aid abortion as women being enslaved how can you be ok without them having access ???
It’s only about a peaceful life when you compromise on a SMALL issue….in a BIG issue it’s generally cowardice or lack or personal conviction
“……This requires appreciation of other viewpoints, even if you disagree with them. If….”
I can UNDERSTAND another peoples viewpoints, but if I understand Ted Bundys POV that does not mean I am ok with him doing his thing …. The LIE of American Libralism (the old kind not the new) is that you can have people practicing totally different values in the same place and just be happy because your relationships are based on economics….it worked when you had local autonomy (kinda… civil war was a hiccup) but on some things one side or the other must win out eventually
“Public Education System” = a system for the domestication of the human mind, designed for Infantilizing Humans Via Government Mandated Perpetual Adolescence programs, indoctrinating them into the religion of statism, scientism and trust the expertism.
For more info: https://corbettreport.com/how-to-control-society-education-and-national-security/#comment-174903
Perhaps we should call it the “Human Domestication Apparatus” ? Or the “Adolescence Factory” ?
I would appreciate any other ideas.
I also was trying to find a name for what JC and JEP were discussing in this clip https://substack.com/@gavinmounsey/note/c-102153100
James C described it as “in for a penny in for a pound”, and that is good, but I think we need a more up to date specific term to describe the injecting of manufactured sociocultural identities into minds and getting people to buy into them with their loyalty in the context of modern society.
For more on what I am talking about, I did a big long rant about it in this thread https://corbettreport.com/nwnw585/#comment-175148
Perhaps, “implanted sociopolitical identities” or “sociocultural hijacking”, “Sociocultural COINTELPRO”, what do you think my friends?
Brainwashing is a good term. It’s simple and I presume most people can understand what it means. Even “normies” or everyday Joe’s and Jane’s.
@cu.h.j
I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
Sometimes very general and non-specific terms that prioritize simplicity over explicitly describing something can be counter-intuitive.
I think this is one of those cases.
“in for a penny in for a pound” is already more specific than “brainwashing”, but what I think we need is a specific term that describes the flavor of brainwashing I described above. Generalizations do not give people enough intel on what to avoid, how to detect it, how to heal from it.
It is sort of like a diagnosis from a doctor that is super generalized, if you just diagnose someone as having “cancer.” (with no specifics on what kind of cancer it is) formulating an effective treatment is not easy and could be highly improbable.
Most normies are not ready to have the specific psyop variation I am describing presented to them. Their statist infiltrated minds would overload and short circuit. This one is intended for people with a little more awareness of the nuances involved with the spectrum of 5th generation warfare tactics being used against us.
Thanks again for the comment.
I think part of it is rationalization and cognitive dissonance. People rationalize bad decisions because it contradicts their feelings about themselves. It’s an ego protection mechanism. Same as cognitive dissonance.
Some people who have already done something unethical may feel like they have nothing else to lose by continuing especially if they believe the first act already taints them. Maybe it’s like a drug addict who goes “all in” once they have crossed a line. Something similar maybe.
I looked this saying up “In for a penny, in for a pound”
https://usdictionary.com/idioms/in-for-a-penny-in-for-a-pound/
Many people may be inclined to have this kind of thinking and behavior and I think it’s subconscious for some people. The question is why people do this and I think it comes down to psychological coping mechanisms. People don’t want to do what is hard and uncomfortable and part of that discomfort is facing mistakes and taking responsibility.
I have noticed throughout the years that a significant number of people just go along because they see others doing it. A majority of people are followers. They want the easy path, simple path. And once they are committed it’s hard to reverse.
I think because there are a bunch of factors that contribute to this, distilling it down to something simple and specific doesn’t really describe it.
I don’t think it can be narrowed down like a type of cancer. Just my opinion though.
The term you use “Implanted sociopolitical identities” is a good one, a form of “social engineering”
What I think it is is supplanting “organic” identities with manufactured ones. “They” do “hijack” basic needs human beings have and provide something superficial that maintains the establishment.
This makes me think of basic psychology, “Kholberg’s stages or moral development”
https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
This theory is perhaps still a form of social engineering or comes from “our” paradigm, but I think it has some validity when we talk about ethics.
Many people only reach the stage of following rules, rather than considering deeper morality.
Trying to reach people with some awareness is a good idea because those people can influence the people who will never have that awareness (some people just won’t) and be able to demonstrate more ethical behavior.
Does “in for a penny, in for a pound” apply to those with some awareness? I don’t know. What will make them reverse course?
I presume most people have some sense of self preservation and just wanting to live day to day. Replace the constructed identities with something meaningful. It probably involves using narratives and some of the techniques “they” use. Find what needs are being met by the social engineers and show people they can meet them in more honest ways.
It’s an interesting topic. Thanks for the discussion.
I like your writing a great deal and I think you are probably reaching people with some awareness.
When I think back on my own process of becoming aware of what the establishment is and the degree of straight psychopathy going on, I realize it was a somewhat slow process. Similar to a person who becomes aware of an addiction and decides to take steps to change.
When 9/11 happened, I recall a red flag occurring in my mind. It was finding an intact drivers license in charred wreckage and immediately the government had a suspect and narrative. My instincts said something was not right but being in my 20s, I was more involved with my personal life so I brushed it off.
It wasn’t until 2016 that I really started looking deeper. I saw a video by JC on youtube about Noam Chomsky “academic gatekeeper” and it was so well done, so logical and appealed to my rational mind that I wanted to hear more of what JC had to say. I was very impressed. For me it was his rational arguments that really “make me look” and yet still I had not really internalized what this meant for me personally. That’s probably selfish.
And when the scamdemic happened, it became very real because it directly affected me. It took me feeling it to make it real. I have probably had “some awareness” for a long time, but the process of wanting a full understanding and to effect change took a long time. This process is probably shorter for some and maybe some take a longer time.
My point here is mainly that I think you are doing a fine job educating people with your writings and outreach. Your terminology was fine. I probably misunderstood your goal.
Brainwashing is a very general term and downstream from that is social engineering and further down “implanting sociopolitical identities”
It is a part of the brainwashing and psychological manipulation going on since childhood. We’ve been saturated by it for years, all of us.
Some people will never be able to extricate themselves from it and people with some awareness will be easier to reach. Some will respond to logic and others to narratives.
Oh, one final thought that comes to mind is the climate change narrative in my own mind as a young adult. I was very drawn into it, emotionally and had a hard time really extricating myself.
The image of the starving polar bear was compelling and appealed to emotions. Very clever on their part albeit evil manipulation, I have to admit it was cleaver.
But if this narrative is mostly based on lies, then what does that mean for my identity as a person who loves and respects nature and is fundamental to human existence? There are very real environmental issues going on and this has been completely subverted by the establishment.
My real identity does not fundamentally change with a new narrative becoming popular. Some people seem to have a harder time with this perhaps because they never really formed a solid sense of who they are for a variety of contributing factors.
Look at how the people who were advocates against the scamdemic become MAGA followers. It’s weird.
It’s like people are grasping for an identity. And the MAGA identity is already there.
@cu.h.j
I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful responses.
You bring up some great points and ask some good questions.
I am on crunch time for several big projects right now so do not have enough mental and temporal bandwidth to respond in full (but I do plan on doing so at some point).
Thanks for the kind words and for sharing your experiences.
Is it just me or does anyone else use the word technofascists?
I would not use it myself but it IS a great term because it will vibe with the average person and convey an image to their mind
Patrick Wood laid out the differences between different political ideologies, Technocracy and Fascism included. I think one difference is that Fascism, as with most other ideologies/strategies, there is a visible figurehead; someone for the proles to point a finger at. I’m not sure that Mussolini was in reality in ultimate control any more than the visible leaders of today are albeit he was the one who ended up hanging from a lamppost (not one of those modern weaponised ones perhaps). If the question is: Why does the dog lick his privates? The answer is: Because he can. That’s where AI comes into it. It seems that the descendents of same bunch of crooks are at it again. But now they no longer need to hide behind a figurehead.
If Nobody Else told You this, please look up and listen and digest the ultra-powerful neurolinguistically programatic song by KRS One called “acronology”. The concept is: make a definitionally-defeating acronym for any word that has some unwanted power over You. Peace, man. Thanks for years of all the wisdom-knowledge!
CO2 = Plant Oxygen
Climate Change = Solar Activity Variations
Global Warming = Solar Emission Increase
Electric Vehicle = Grid Powered Lithium Battery Vehicle
Net Zero Agenda = Plant Growth Reduction Agenda
We should also try to use ‘Our current Ice Age’ when talking about our climate. An Ice Age is defined by permanent polar ice, such as Antarctica and the glaciers in the North. We are slowly coming out of the current Ice Age.
When people enquire, you can inform them that CO2 constitutes only 0.04% of our atmosphere, that up until recently it has been 0.1% which enabled a lot more plant growth, and that at 0.015% photosynthesis is no longer possible, which would create an extinction level event.
There are three words I would like to bring here.
Neoliberalism
-> No-limit freedom for oligarchy
Neoconservatism
-> What does it conserve? Military hegemony?
Neoclassical economics
-> Classical economics is against rent and monopoly. Neoclassical economics does not distinguish rent and value from price. Neoclassical economics is anti-classical economics.
I like the word establishment to define the existing power structure. Elitist rather than elite is also a better description.
Words do matter and the book 1984’s “Newspeak” gets at this phenomenon of manipulation of language as a means of imposing slavery.
Words and narrative are extremely powerful.
Just thought I’d share here what I posted on another forum about everyone’s favorite word.
You know the story of the tower of Babel? Take that as a story of someone creating differences and strife between peoples through the manipulation of language.
People have been trained to believe that language changes. Although it does, the way people accept it changing is not a natural manner. Language has morphology, meaning the combining of words and concepts through context to apply meanings for things we don’t have words for, but what people are led to believe is a natural change is realistically unintentional errors and purposefully false definings that have never been corrected.
You can see this of words like science, theory, and hypothesis over the past 60 years (because those are relevant to this topic). Something is theory because they have an idea that they looked into to see if it is plausible. You’ll see a lot of depictions of the scientific method being that you test after reaching hypothesis. Take a second and compare those two words: theory and thesis, the and hypothe. You have to remember that every syllable has a meaning. The word science is believed to be traced back to a speculated language; you have sci- and -ence. Sci- is taken to mean cut, as you see in words like scissors and scythe, while -ence is taken to mean state or condition, as you see in words like essence and presence. So the word science really means the condition of the cut, as in you break things apart and look at them. This is why you have terms like ‘political science’. In reality, people that are tearing apart at all the narratives we’re supposed to believe so that those duping others for gain and power can conspire in secret are actually conspiracy scientists, if we’re going to be truer to the actual meaning of the word science.
In actuality, the scientific method is: here’s what I set up, here’s what I did, and here’s what I saw; now you try and see what you get. Someone want to tell me where the trust or debate is in that? You cut something into smaller concepts and everyone can observe the same thing you did. If someone witnesses something else, then you work together to figure out why there was a difference. When Georg Ohm made his major discovery regarding electricity, instead of looking at his setup and comparing it to their own setups, others in the scientific community just rejected his claims. Now, at the time this was done, there was distance between people, so it wasn’t easy for everyone to just walk over and see. Video hadn’t been invented yet either, adding to the problem. So deciding for yourself whether their rejections were warranted.
Even in things like electricity and magnetism, we operate under theoretical principles. Why? Because I am reaching my character limit on this post.
To answer the question I ended off with is because we cannot see the direct action with the naked eye. If we cannot see the direct action with the naked eye, we, as a society, err on the side of skepticism, operating on principles that seem to exist, but we cannot make visible to the naked sense. That doesn’t mean these things and principles do not exist, however. Part of being a scientist is understanding that there is much in our universe we will never prove to the naked senses, and that understanding is a separation between those who consider themselves scientists because they have been taught things and those who consider themselves scientists because they have come to a mechanical understanding of the way things potentially exist.
In relation to the topics here, whenever someone says something something conspiracy theorist, I typically turn it around and say something like, “Thanks for recognition of all the research I do.” Because it’s not my fault if someone doesn’t understand the grunts that come out of their meat holes. Another response I offer is is, “Well, that’s what conspiracy scientists do.”
I, too, am very interested (and disturbed) in the corruption and co-opting of science. So is James.
Remember, when you dissect something you must first take its life.
This can be applied to dissecting arguments or news, as well as frogs lab rats.
“….. Remember, when you dissect something you must first take its life.
This can be applied to dissecting arguments or news, as well as frogs lab rat…..”
Funny enough CS Lewis was saying something like that in Abolition of Man. Too much debunking and seeing thru stuff and you end up blind with nothing to stand on.
Or turn into a smelly french existentialist philosopher… lol
Or end up sleeping on the couch.
Control is something that also breeds destruction, because the more you control something, the less that thing is of its original nature.
That is a good point. I never heard it stated like that before.
Upon just brief reflection, that seems like a good thing to keep in mind as a general principal for many things. Control of others, anyway.
Of course, self control is generally constructive, at least to the extent that you know yourself, and don’t trigger warped outbursts from suppressing subconscious things.
We and Us
Did ‘we’ go to the moon?
Are ‘we’ fighting the Vietnamese (Iraqis, Libyans, fill in the blank)…
This topic touches on my aversion to James calling on us to craft a narrative. To me, the word ‘narrative’ smacks of spin, manipulation, often outright lies. It seems like a desire for a shortcut to some half-baked goal. If the new ‘narrative’ is successful, that would imply that superficial people have been drawn to your cause. I doubt that the long-term consequences will be sustainable (hah). Anyway, the use of the word ‘narrative’ in our camp has always been negative, and with good reason. Seeing through the narrative is the prime requisite of our entire movement. I’d watch elsewhere for solutions.
Ha key
“….If the new ‘narrative’ is successful, that would imply that superficial people have been drawn to your cause. …”
That depends on what your cause is I guess- is your goal to be the guy on the Titanic saying “I told you so”???
All successful movements or changes are full of superficial people (most people in the world ARE superficial tbh) and without attracting them into any cause you want to succeed you will generally be UNsuccessful in getting your way.
If you just want to be RIGHT (a good goal but insufficient IMO) you can limit your ideas to smart people- if you want to survive, or win, you are gonna need a bunch of those superficial people.
Why is it that Libertarians wiyh principles and smart ideas are a powerless laughing stock while a bunch of people can push insane ideas and fire or cancel disenters? Because the leaders (the elite) of those movements have managed to harness those dumb people and drive them in a bad direction.
Just because cattle are dumb does not mean you can’t get trampled under the herd.
“…I doubt that the long-term consequences will be sustainable (hah)…”
Why? The churches in America managed to have a lot of influence thru having masses of superficial people in them and directing them in (sometimes) good ways.
The Covid thing is what happens when bad people get control of that natural resource, the wokie today would have been the over pious church goer virtue signaling back in the day….Superficial people can make your life a PITA if they think your the villain.
I wish to clarify the fact that still I love and respect James and his work.
I just am not a follower of personalities. So, I say it like I see it. When I see him walk on water, and can verify his virgin birth, I may reconsider. Definitely maybe. But it would have to be in person, not on YouTube Shorts.
James, you have already crafted a strong narrative. It is, of necessity, nuanced. Only if millions of wishy-washy people followed you closely, would a catchy shorthand version have any meaning. It reminds me of the lottery mentality, which is corrosive
CNN, NBC, FOX, Tucker Carlson, the Trump Cabinet, the Taliban, Zelensky, Fauci, NATO, Black Lives Matter, have successful narratives. Join the club??
“… It is, of necessity, nuanced. Only if millions of wishy-washy people followed you closely, would a catchy shorthand version have any meaning.….”
I hate to say it but most people are pretty stupid, or (like a relative of mine) smart but really DONT like learning or thinking too much. They WANT the short hand version, if they want it at all.
I might sound arrogant writing off people that way, but in truth it’s not really any different for ME when I read a Pop Science book because I don’t want to bother learning maths and astrophysics and stuff like that. We ALL want the cliff notes version of some things.
If you want an exclusive club of super smart truth knowing people you can just pass over the great unwashed, but they are kinda important for some things…..for example your average boomer gun nut might not know much about politics but if it were not for him normal Americans would not have gun rights.
I don’t disagree with your perception of the ‘masses.’
In many ways, I too, am part of that lazy group.
I just question the deliberate crafting of a narrative, as a positive use of our energy, let alone a panacea.
Hankey
Not arguing that anything is a panacea at this point.
If the narrative fed normies had been a good and healthy one things would not be where they are now.
Someone smart LIKE (I don’t believe he wishes to do it himself) Mr Corbett will write a cliff notes version of what to do for them. Let’s hope its less evil then their current programming.
Though normies must be led, or driven, because it’s their nature their still human beings who have value. I stay away from them as much as I can because I don’t wanna be trampled in a stampede.
I am just finishing up a simplified write up on CS Lewis Abolition of Man which is super relevant to things right now….a bunch of people literally thought it was too complicated….now to me it’s a pretty straight forward book but people, even normal IQ people, have been seriously damaged by “education” and media and constant distraction…. If you don’t at least give them a basic idea of things they will NEVER come across some ideas you or I hold dear.
Hanky
You spotted that? Just below here ffej makes a similar observation; maybe one farther step.
Seems to me to be a metric. A measure for steering or possibly applying more or less gas or braking. Funny my speller said breaking. That could be possible too in any narrative dependent campaign.
Sorry, I spotted what?
Hanky,
You are a sculptor, am I right? You said
” I just question the deliberate crafting”
Among other things, yes, I do sculpt. I make lots of music. I also make trouble. Do you, as well?
https://hankblackart.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7W5HoUCi80
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmLvJP2w0yQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dobR9MXYq3E
https://corbettreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Spellbreakers-Global-Conspiracy-featured2.jpg
Hanky
Yes, mostly with the ones I love. Like many of my friends it rotates so we carry the load for each other.
The ones that didn’t make it, died with dignity. I have found leaving can be as hard as coming into this world. You know, labor pains, death throughs and all.
Today is esoteric Friday for me.. Can you answer a couple of questions? Why are you here , on this news and social chat site. Since this is Calling Things By Their Right Name solutions watch. Also the spotted thing, the deliberate crafting. Was it apparent to you? Thanks Hanky.
I posted here, as I thought crafted narratives tend to limit the definitions of their favorite words to strongly support a paradigm. That seemed relevant enough.
I still don’t know what I spotted?
Whoever establishes the narrative establishs the reality.
Whoever controls the central banks controls the money.
Whoever controls the education controls the scientific narrative.
Whoever controls the religions controls the narrative of spirtual doctrine.
Whoever owns the media controls truth and falsehood.
The language is formed by all of the above.
Human narratives are devised by the corrupted. Simple as that.
So many clever comments that I’m not going to read through (yes I am lazy) so here’s my pathetic two: Plant-based meat ; and Net zero (carbon neutral). I tip my hat/doth my cap at all you intelligent corbetteers.
These are two ideal case studies bongos because they are at extreme scales. One is close to home and one is universal.
It is “meat”, but meat that is based on “plants”, not to say it is plants, just based on plants…it is in fact meat
The “Net zero”, “carbon neutral” idea is at odds with the fundamental laws of thermodynamics concerning entropy…
Another translation I just thought of for the slave speak translator:
“Tariff” is literally “International Sales Tax”
For your future research you could read Robert Macfarlane’s book “Landmarks”. Not for his ideology, necessarily, but for his fascinating work on the loss of language and words to describe nature and ecology and how losing those words means we lose sight of and the ability to care for the natural world.
Boy! What a lot of “words” and “word salad”.
The story of the king who wore no clothes comes to my mind. His subjects obviously knew he was naked. It took a child that spoke the simple truth,” The king has no clothes” to bring everyone to reality.
Just mean what you say and say what you mean. Don’t confuse the issue.
I like that new one, ‘Muskarade!
I’ve been an ‘Environmentalist’ since I was 11 years old and my mum used to take us into the countryside, get away from the city, to a lovely little valley, full of wild flowers, butterflies in summer, little wooded copses. It was quite hidden from sight, being totally surrounded by hills, one had to know how to get there, which path to take. A couple of years later it no longer existed, flattened to make way for the M1 motorway, it hurt to see such a lovely environment obliterated. In my later years I had a ‘Green’ agenda… plant as much stuff as possible work towards stopping the use of pesticides and factory farming, etc. (that hasn’t yet worked), I took an ‘Environmental’ A level course in my forties and learned how completely none ‘Sustainable’ it was to allow the likes of big oil in Africa to pollute a tribes river with spillages, killing the fish and poisoning drinking water, and when the chieftains complained to the government, they were killed by the local police.
I was a ‘Socialist’ in my younger years, to me and my family that word meant people looking after people as is meant to occur under ‘Democracy’ if one takes the words ‘government by the people for the people’ literally, not as it occurs in real life 51% getting what they want and too bad about the others!So ‘Democracy’, another word long, long, long ago hijacked, probably by the Romans. I don’t know enough ancient history, so I could be wrong, but for me that word was hi-jacked.
‘Safe’ has also gone that way, as has ‘Effective’, when both applied to medications. Now the latest one I’ve seen is ‘Regenerative’ touted on a TV ad, showing a massive mono-cultured field of potatoes… that’s another one down the sink hole.
Democracy was ok when only a few people voted….but even in Athens it had some problems TBH what with the voters (Athenian male citizens only) doing retarded stuff or getting twitter mad and ostracizing (banishing by vote) useful people for dumb reasons…and that was when the actual voters were the ones who had to go fight the stupid near they just started, lololol.
The problem with democracy is that when you let everyone have a say two very bad things happen
1) stupid people get a say in government
2) no one knows who is REALLY running things (who is Sovereign) so they don’t know who needs to get beaten to death by a mob and thrown in the Tiber river when things go wrong.
Actually I think the worst thing is that democracy makes people think the government is their friend, rather then a necessary evil.
Department of “Defense”? DOD should be DOO: Department of OFFENSE. “Justice” (HA) Department should be IN-Justice Department. Department of “Education” should be Department of InDoctrination. Center for Disease Control….should be Center for Disease CREATION; World “Health” Organization…should be WGO (World Genocide Organization); “Fact” Check? HA! Their manipulation of language is EVERYWHERE! It retards peoples ability to reason.
My go to for the word “elites” is “The parasitic class” as “they” behave and check all the boxes that describe what a parasite is.
Remember when “vaccine” meant a jab that prevented transmission, infection and illness??
Or wait! Did it EVER mean that??? Sigh… words are hard.
An old trick to confuse/and or coop an idea is to marry two contradictory concepts with a new name. In the mid 19th century “liberal” (classic liberal, libertarian) politics became popular so it was coopted with “progressive liberal”, i.e., authoritarianism/collectivism. Then the new “progressives” (who were neither new nor progressive, became “communist”, then “Marxist”.
What is a “new” politics? Only one since the beginning of government, “sovereign citizens”, e.g., self-governing with reason, rights, decentralization, choice.
THE SPELL AT THE END OF LANGUAGE
We called them kings. We called them priests. We called them gods. But they were scribes. And they wrote us in.
They gave us the glyph. Then they gave us the scroll. Then they gave us the CON.
THE KAN REVELATION
The evidence forms an undeniable pattern: the dagger glyph (𒃵 KAN), the Cain/Cohen/Kohen/Khan axis, the priesthood-franchise system (Kan Ba’al → Cohen → Templar → Banker), the Qan/Qian/Guan dynastic ritual class in China—all sharing the same phonemic root.
This reveals not random cultural evolution but a systematic administrative architecture. The same symbolic layering of calendar, ritual, kingship, and bloodline. The same linguistic fingerprint appears across five continents spanning 10,000 years of recorded history.
The pattern suggests a coordinated expansion. Not by modern definitions of globalization—but through control logic. An encoded system of ritual + sovereignty + astronomy + accounting—repeating across continents with the same core glyphs, symbols, and bloodlines.
Wherever elite control emerges, KAN/QAN/CH’AN roots function as:
Titles of rule
Markers of ritual authority
Guardians of trade, sacrifice, and celestial law
These aren’t merely sounds but operational phonemes—echoes of priestly command systems preserved in language across millennia.
📜 THE FINAL CODE: CON = WITH, BUT ALSO AGAINST
Every word that binds you carries this root:
Spellword
Literal Root Meaning
Ritual Function
Contract
With + drag/draw (tractus)
Legal ritual of surrender
Control
With + scroll / rotate
Scroll-based obedience installation
Consent
With + feel (sentire)
Emotional binding to the system
Convey
With + path (via)
Transfer of ownership—ritualized movement
Constitution
With + structure (statuere)
Bound structure of allowed sovereignty
Confess
With + speak (fateri)
Verbal self-submission to ritual court
Continue
With + hold (tenere)
Remain bound—ritual renewal of contract
These weren’t just words. They were scrolls wrapped in syllables. They looked like language. But they functioned like chains.
The dissemination of these terms is directly linked to the first true alphabetic script, which archaeological evidence now dates to approximately 3000 BCE in Canaanite territories. The 2024 deep-sea shipwreck discovery confirms that Canaanites possessed sophisticated maritime capabilities far earlier than previously acknowledged, enabling their writing system to spread across vast distances. This proto-Canaanite script—developing centuries before conventional timelines suggest—later evolved into the standardized Phoenician alphabet that would become the foundation for virtually every major writing system on Earth: Greek, Latin, Arabic, Hebrew, and by extension, every modern alphabet in use today.
This wasn’t merely cultural diffusion but a deliberate installation of standardized communication protocols. The Phoenicians—as direct descendants of earlier Canaanite maritime culture—didn’t simply spread their script, they exported an entire administrative operating system disguised as writing. When their network expanded after the Bronze Age Collapse, they systematically installed this control interface throughout the Mediterranean basin, creating the foundation for all Western contractual systems.
They created the first portable phonetic ritual system—the alphabet. And every time we spell… We spell ourselves.
💀 CON-TROL: THE DECODED CIPHER
CON-TROL. CON = with / together / contract TROL / TROLE / THRONOS = scroll / control / throne / rule
The term literally translates as: “With the scroll” or “Through the contract.”
Control conventionally signifies power, but etymologically it means: bound by a sacred ledger. The controlled aren’t merely ruled—they’re enrolled.
DECODER BOX: SPELLWORDS OF THE CONTROL SYSTEM
Root Word
Meaning
Ritual Function
Con
Latin “with” / “together” and deception
Hides the ritual in plain sight
Tract
“To draw / drag”
The act of legal or spiritual binding
Trol / Trollus
“To scroll / rotate”
Cycle of contract-renewal
Thronos
Throne, judgment seat
Priest-king power over ledgers
“CON-TROL = scroll-binding of sovereignty. CON-TRACT = consent to be counted.”
Etymological Context:
Con (Latin): with, together
Trol / Trolle / Trollus (Old French/Latin): to scroll, to turn, to rotate
Thrōnē / Thronos (Greek): throne = seat of judgment and scrolls
Trôl (Old Norse): enchanted being, often gatekeeper
Control represents contractual rotation of sovereign authority rather than mere domination.
🔓 Structural Insight:
CONTROL isn’t fundamentally power over individuals. It’s consent to be ruled through ritualized contractual language.
The Kan-priests didn’t merely conquer—they installed scrolls. The Cohen didn’t kill—he counted sins. The Khan didn’t simply enslave—he codified cycles.
The Ba’als weren’t gods in a conventional sense. They were economic jurisdictions wrapped in religious language. “Baal-Hamon” governed sacrifice-finance in Carthage. “Baal-Berith” held contracts and covenants in Shechem. “Baal-Zephon” hid wealth in Phoenician vault cults. Every Baal-name represented a ledger entry, a franchise, a coded seat of regional extraction.
Sin wasn’t merely a moon deity—he was the calendar banker controlling debt cycles. Shamash wasn’t simply a sun god—he was the legal authority stamping court decrees. Marduk wasn’t just a divine cosmic ruler—he was the central banking authority of Babylon.
What we classify as theology was fundamentally fiscal. What we interpret as sacrifice was essentially collateral. Ba’al wasn’t metaphor—he was the signature at the bottom of the contract.
Ba’al became “Lord.” Lord became “Baron.” Baron became “Banker.” Banker became god.
Debt isn’t merely economic—it’s compliance. Voting isn’t simply democratic freedom—it’s ritual renewal of contract.
🔥 SYSTEM ERROR: YOU SIGNED THE SCROLL
✝️ Baptism = Entry into the Ledger 💍 Marriage = Joint Asset Merge in Empire System 🏛️ Citizenship = Scroll Name + Number 💳 Credit = Modern Debt Scroll 📜 Constitution = Binding sacred scroll disguised as liberation
Every “agreement” functions as a concealed control installation.
THE CON-TROL LOOP
Control the language
Rename the binding as freedom
Get the individual to sign (i.e., spell their name)
Install the scroll — initiating the loop
The real spell is the signature.
THE CYCLICAL SPELLWORDS
Word
Meaning
Ritual Function
Contract
“With-binding”
Legal spell to surrender sovereignty
Consent
“With-feeling”
Emotional agreement to extraction
Convey
“With-path”
To move a title (property transfer)
Concord
“With-heart”
Harmonize with imposed order
Continue
“With-hold”
Remain within binding system
Constitution
“With-structure”
Ritual framing of rights-as-restrictions
RITUAL WORD MAGIC TRANSFORMATION
Sacrifice wasn’t abolished—it was repackaged as paperwork. Temples weren’t eliminated—they were redesigned as banks. The priesthood didn’t vanish—it became paperless.
The priesthood persisted—only its fonts changed. Rituals became terms and conditions. Gods became contracts. Kings became clerks. And humans became users.
⚔️ CONCLUSION: THE PHOENICIAN SPELL
This system reveals a triadic structure:
The SCRIPT (Phoenician alphabet)
The CONTRACT (Covenant = Kan Ba’al)
The CONSENT (Language-as-Control Interface)
The Phoenicians didn’t merely invent language. They weaponized it. They streamlined cuneiform and hieroglyph into the first modular, portable scroll interface—what we now call the alphabet. They didn’t create it for liberation. They created it for binding, branding, and billing. Every contract, constitution, and control system originated from that scroll.
THE PHOENICIAN MATRIX
Recent genetic studies (David Reich et al., 2024) definitively confirm that approximately 68% of Europeans had dark skin, eyes, and hair until 3,000 years ago. This wasn’t gradual adaptation but a coordinated genetic replacement aligned with the Bell Beaker expansion. After the Bronze Age Collapse (1200-1150 BCE), the Phoenicians—whose infrastructure conspicuously remained intact while others crumbled—established the most far-reaching economic and linguistic systems in history. They funded the Dorian invasion and created silver bullion monopolies that dominated Mediterranean trade for over a millennium (Markoe, “Phoenicians,” 2000).
The Mediterranean entered a documented 400-year dark age (1200-800 BCE) during which writing virtually disappeared from Greece and surrounding regions. When writing returned, it was Phoenician script. This wasn’t coincidence—it was systematic reinstallation (Naveh, “Early History of the Alphabet,” 1987).
This pattern of script disruption and replacement occurred globally and synchronously:
Brahmi script in India emerged after their 900-year dark age, directly derived from Aramaic (Phoenician derivative) models (Salomon, “Indian Epigraphy,” 1998)
Chinese script standardization under Emperor Qin followed their period of warring states
Phoenician-derived alphabets replaced prior systems across the Mediterranean basin after the dark age (Coulmas, “Writing Systems,” 2003)
These weren’t parallel developments—they were coordinated attacks and replacements. In each case, the KAN system re-emerged with new scripts but identical administrative functions. The genetic, archaeological, and linguistic evidence all converge on this inescapable conclusion.
“In the beginning was the word. And the word was a contract. And the contract was with the Ba’al.”
They didn’t simply give us language. They gave us the leash. And every time we say “I agree,” we whisper a ritual vow written in scroll-code 3,000 years ago on silver sheets in temple vaults, signed by blood.
The dagger of KAN was the first cut. The scroll was the wound. The contract was the binding. And the CON was the consent to be written.
This isn’t metaphor. This is linguistic evidence of ritual governance. You didn’t just inherit language. You inherited the covenant. And it remains active.
“The scroll is the spell. The contract is the cage. And continuation is the ritual renewal of your consent.”
The true revolution isn’t conflict. It’s refusing to con-tinue.
THEY CONNED US. YES, WE WERE CONNED. But now we see it.
CON-TROL = CON + SCROLL CON-TRACT = CON + RITUAL BINDING
CON-FESSION = WITH + ADMISSION INTO THE SYSTEM
CON = “With” in Latin… but also “CON” as in DECEPTION.
The contract and the con became the same thing. The scroll became the spell. They didn’t deceive us—they got us to agree. Now we have the evidence. We have the phonemes. We have the celestial maps. We have the timelines. And we have the linguistic frameworks that no conventional historian has had the courage to assemble.
YES WE KAN. 🔥🧬🗡️👁️👑 Let us burn the spell and reinstall the spirit.
I always use “The Reptile” when referring to Peter Thiel. I’m not aiming to be cruel or disrespectful. It just happens to be an anagram of his name.
This is totally golden, expecting to see this used a lot more. Thank you Paul !!!!!!!
im sure someone has already said this one above, but it really annoys me.
GAY
I realized that I used it recently describing a homosexual I know. He is intellectually and emotionally impaired by Trump derangement syndrome as well as an equally vehement hatred of “Christians”. He posts the most vile offensive stuff and so he is hardly gay or carefree.
I will try to remember to say the whole long word – homosexual. Gay is another spell word maybe to encourage people to join the homosexual “community”? Wow, there’s another one.
Thanks for this James, a very important solutions watch. I will carefully read all the comments when I have time and hopefully have more to contribute.
Are you upset because the gays stole happiness 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
LOL!! Yes! …the little stinkers..
Don’t know if these were mentioned here (as it’s an amazingly long thread), here are my two cents:
Words being used in wrong/misleading contexts:
Climate change – yes it always changes and always has.
Alternative media – Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, Russel Brand, …? lol
Freedom – “Well you can vote” they say
Antisemite – But I was only criticizing the wars and the government responsible.
Nazi – Anyone, anything
Freedom fighters – terrorists
Terrorists – everyone not in line
Words we should be using:
Jingoism – MSN, medial push to a certain narrative
Propaganda – MSN
Puppets – politicians
Geoengineering – chemtrails
Ransom – taxes
GMOs – the mRNA vaxxed