the average (hundred plus million) AmeriKKKan is a gory, goofy, dead in the heart, dead in the head fucking perverted person on Facebook or just in line complaining about the USPS a– beware
These are just some of the tens of millions of fucking deplorables on Facebook living their racist, misogynist, misanthropic, fascist selfs, even as they post Christian memes and goofy grandchildren photos.
They are real good little Germans, man, truly, and their fucking lust and love for Rapist in Chief Trump is mass hysteria and mass formation and mass delusion.
Above, throughout the Facebook and Truth Social STD breeding grounds, and the woman below is the typical white woman with puckered face facing down as she clears her clogged up lungs so she can spill her prejudices, bigotry, racism, and just pure fucking hate. It’s not harmless or just pun fun on Fuck You Book.
Give them an X quote, and they will come up with racism 101.
The government is responsible for the violence, as long as they don’t stop it. And if we have to get violent to protect ourselves, then it’s the government that should be charged with the crime, because we’re only upholding a law that they’ve been unable to uphold. — Malcolm X
Look at her, he ratty hair, her mousy eyes, that sick fucking neck, look at her, and imagine her replicated a million times on Fuck You Book,
If the American Negro is to have a culture of his own he will have to leave America to get it. “Paul Robeson and Negro Music” in The New York Times (5 April 1931)
There is nothing alive in AmeriKKKa, with these Fuck You Book cunts getting their grills ready for July 4 Hug and Thank Your Local Racist Day.
If only, man, if only the world was filled with Paul’s.
This is it, man, the fucking deplorables are the swamp stain. This is their contribution to ameriKKKan culture.
The Facebook whores are in the hundreds of millions. It/FB is the brain=drain and brain=washing tool of the Jews.
The thread below, just one/ 30th of it since there are hundreds posting man. Hundreds.
Oh they — the independent/alternative elite just do not understand — that is, Max, Aaron, John, Larry, Glen, all of them, Danny and Ben, and alas, they have zero idea how entrenched the racism and the MAGA-ism (Tea Baggers on Crack) are.
Grannies and granddaddies and aunts and uncles and then the evil in them gets transferred to the spawn.
Up here in Oregon, on the Coast? Plenty of fuckers from Orange County, CALIF, wanting to rid themselves of seeing immigrants, citizens with darker skin than these fucking albino Chlamydia Christians:
Typical deplorable on FB: What shame . . . “I have three great girls Cara, Tiara, and Christylyn”
- Profile · Digital creator
- Transport Truck Driver at Ryder Transportation Services
They are camping and ATV-ing and Rah-Rahing deplorables and horse fucking people and dog lovers, so they are your deplorable neighbors, friends, family:
But the Podcasters just do not know how deeply broken the DNA is of AmeriKKKans.
It’s now in OUR genes. Supergenes also seem to hold explanations for many long-standing mysteries of evolution, such as how species can sometimes adapt to new environments rapidly, how populations can sometimes evolve in different directions even while living close together, and why some species have “balanced lethal systems” of breeding, such that they must have two different versions of a chromosome to survive.
[Supergenes have helped wild sunflowers adapt successfully to a diverse range of environments.]
But supergenes aren’t all-powerful. Recent work on the evolution of supergenes is painting a nuanced picture of their effects. These theoretical models and studies of real populations have shown that supergenes often accumulate harmful mutations (opens a new tab) far more rapidly than other pieces of DNA do, and this can gradually lead to degenerative effects that undermine the original benefits.
Alas, so, all those fucking mutated Westerners, man oh man, this is their fucking god?
Evolution, man:
It’s not just all the free radicals and the immune breakdowns and fatty liver disease and all the other attendant diseases of weight, man, changing the mental scope of Western Humanity.
Bioaccumulation, and all those preservatives, all those extra pounds of meat and cheese and, well, sugar sugar sugar. It’s working magic on the brain fog, the brain drain, the lack of reading books, the lack of attention span, the addiction to the Fuck You likes.
Here’s a more detailed look:
- Obesity: A major concern, often linked to lifestyle factors like poor diet and lack of physical activity, is becoming more prevalent in younger age groups, according to parkviewim.com.
- Hypertension: High blood pressure is no longer just an issue for older adults, with many young people now being diagnosed due to factors like unhealthy diets, stress, and genetics.
- Depression and Anxiety: Mental health conditions are a significant challenge for young adults, with depression and anxiety being among the most common.
- Asthma: A long-standing issue, asthma remains a significant chronic illness affecting young people, causing breathing difficulties and other respiratory problems.
- Diabetes: Type 2 diabetes, once rare in younger individuals, is now more common due to lifestyle changes, says parkviewim.com.
- Substance Abuse: Drug and alcohol abuse can lead to a range of chronic health issues and can be particularly damaging for young adults, according to Prime Health of New Jersey.
- Other Mental Health Conditions: ADHD, autism, and other mental health conditions are also impacting a growing number of young people.
- Chronic Physical Illnesses: Conditions like Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, severe migraines, sickle cell disease, type 1 diabetes, and cystic fibrosis can also affect young adults, causing significant long-term health challenges, according to JAMA
Oh oh, so all of this PHYSICAL bad health, hmm, hormonal changes, and alas psychological changes?
We are just getting started on those super genes, the ones that have helped evolve USA into Homo Consumopethicus, but then, it’s GAD, man, generalized anxiety disorder, real or not, but real.
Yeah, so, Gabor Mate talks about his conditions: triggers? C=PTSD?
He says he’s a Holocaust survivor and that he was traumatized when his mother gave him to another woman, but he was only 1.5 years old at the end of the war. Was he in a concentration camp? Did he endure famine?
Here:
The template for his hostility, he says over a video call from his home in Vancouver, against a backdrop of Indigenous art from British Columbia, is to be found in the messages he received as a Jew in Nazi-occupied Hungary. Maté was born in January 1944; in May of that year, the deportation of Hungary’s Jews to Auschwitz began. By the end of the Holocaust, 565,000 Hungarian Jews had been murdered, Maté’s maternal grandparents among them.
Trauma is not what happens to you; it is what happens inside you as a result of what happens to you
When he was 11 months old, his mother sent him with a stranger to be cared for by his aunt. In the book, he quotes her diary from the time: “My dear little man,” she starts, explaining that she was forced to part with him because “your little organism could not possibly endure the living conditions [in the] fenced-in Budapest ghetto”.
Maté says trauma, from the Greek for “wound”, “is not what happens to you; it is what happens inside you as a result of what happens to you … It is not the blow on the head, but the concussion I get.” That, he says, is the good news. “If my trauma was that my mother gave me to a stranger … that will never not have happened. But if the wound was that I decided as a result that I wasn’t worthwhile as a human being, I wasn’t lovable, that’s a wound that can heal at any time.”
There can be two types of wound, he says. “There’s the capital-T traumatic events,” which include things like being abused as a child and the loss of a parent. Then there are “small-T traumas”. “You can wound a kid not only by doing bad things to them, but by also not meeting their needs,” he says. Even doting parents can easily, unknowingly, inflict small-T traumas on their children. He would know, because, as he admits, he inflicted them on his own kids.
All trauma must be treated with compassion, but he is adamant that it isn’t an excuse for not taking personal responsibility. As he writes about the airport incident, there comes a point when “‘Hitler made me do it’ won’t fly”.
Trauma exists on a personal level, but also in the collective sphere – he cites the persecution of Canada’s Indigenous people and the ensuing addiction, illness and suicide, as well as the legacy of racism and slavery in the US. In most cases, he writes, trauma is multigenerational: “We pass on to our offspring what we haven’t resolved in ourselves.” Left unhealed, trauma “has an impact on your life … about how you feel about yourself, how you see the world, how you get triggered, what you believe about yourself, the kind of relationships you get into. And it shows up in the form of chronic illness.”
Even now, at 79, Maté is still discovering ways that the imprints of trauma can bubble up. Take the past few weeks. At the beginning of March, he engaged in a livestreamed conversation with Prince Harry about loss, trauma and healing. It was rapidly subjected to the same scrutiny as all things the prince touches. Maté was derided in the press as a “so-called ‘trauma expert’”; headlines pitched him as a “Holocaust survivor who hails Hamas as ‘heroes’”; and there was criticism of his diagnosis of Harry as having ADD. Also, his – stylish, it should be said – collarless shirt was belittled.
His own reaction surprised him: “I thought by this age I was past that stuff.” But the encounter with the press, and on social media, left him “roiling inside with upset and even some degree of shame”. He reached out to a psychiatrist friend who asked him: “What is it about this whole thing that upset you so much?”
I wasn’t diagnosing Prince Harry with a disease … I said: ‘You’ve got a normal response to abnormal circumstances’
For Maté, it was not being seen. “That’s my trigger. If somebody disagrees with me, that’s great, I don’t care. But let them see me and let them disagree with what I actually say and who I actually am and not their distortion.” His friend made a link about how not feeling seen as a child seemed like a life-threatening situation to him, after he was separated from his mother. “As soon as he said that, I just released inside. I got it,” he says, exhaling visibly.
In terms of diagnosing Harry with ADD – something Maté was diagnosed with in his mid-50s – the point that was missed, he says, is that “I wasn’t diagnosing him with a disease. I said: ‘You’ve got no disease.’ I said: ‘You’ve got a normal response to abnormal circumstances. Because if a child is stressed like he was, or I was, what do you do with that stress? You can’t escape it, so what do you do? The brain tunes out … But this is happening when the brain is developing and that affects its circuitry.” While many scientists would disagree, Maté believes this is a “reversible response”.
I wonder if it must be particularly galling to see his views on Israel and Palestine represented with such clumsiness, given they have cost him so dear. When, in the immediate aftermath of the six-day war in 1967, he first made clear his opinions, his father kicked him out of the house. “I basically dared say that Israel had launched this war to occupy territory and they’ll never give it back. Now, I’m going to ask you: how wrong was it?”
His early Zionism was, he says, “wonderful for me, because it made me proud to be a Jew for the first time”. But finding out “the actual history” punctured it: “The slogan about a land without a people for a people without a land. There was never a land without a people; there was a people there.”
For his parents, “who had suffered so much for being Jewish, for a Jewish young man to criticise Israel, to call its policies into question, was so painful”. While his father did, eventually, come to agree with him, it was a subject that he could never discuss with his mother. His maternal grandfather had been a Zionist leader and “to have actually looked at the reality that I was looking at would have meant a betrayal of her father who died in Auschwitz. So I understood that.”
Maté has a heightened level of compassion. Perhaps part of it is because, for him, the real villain is our culture. In The Myth of Normal, he gives the analogy of a toxic culture in a laboratory, meaning one that is “unsuitable for the creatures it is meant to support. Or worse: dangerous to their existence. It is the same with human societies.” He catalogues toxicities as: “illness born of stress, ignorance, inequality, environmental degradation, climate change, poverty and social isolation.”
Don’t ask why the addiction, ask why the pain … addiction is a normal response to trauma
We have, he says, become so “acculturated” that it has become normal, but that doesn’t mean it is healthy. The central argument of the book is: “Those features of our daily life that appear to us now as normal are the ones crying out for the greatest scrutiny.” Like crustacea placed in cold water, we haven’t noticed the heat being turned up to boiling point.
Many of the plights of modern society are, he says, natural responses to an unhealthy culture. Take addiction, something that he doesn’t just relate to drink and drugs, but also to “sex, gambling, pornography, extreme sports, cell phones”. His view is that there is no such thing as an “addictive personality”. Nor is addiction a disease. His mantra is: “Don’t ask why the addiction, ask why the pain. To understand people’s pain, you have to understand their lives. In other words, addiction is a normal response to trauma.”
Maté spent 12 years working in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside – North America’s most concentrated area of drug use. “Every one of my female patients – many of whom were Indigenous, many caught up in the sex trade – had been sexually abused in childhood or adolescence, one marker of the multigenerational legacy born of Canada’s brutal colonial past,” he writes.
I ask why he thinks there can be such an empathy gap for people with addiction. He says that, when he was working with people addicted to hard drugs, he had his own severely addictive behaviours – “work and shopping”. He would lie to his wife about the money he had spent. “At one point, I even left a woman in labour in hospital to go and get a compact disc. I had to have it right then and there.”
He told his patients about his own behaviours. “They said: ‘Doc, you’re just like the rest of us.’ The point is, we are all just like the rest of us.” So, when it comes to addiction, he says, “people find it much easier to project that part of themselves that they don’t like on to a certain despised population than to look at themselves. What they’re actually disdaining is a part of themselves that they dare not look at.”
If your average person is, to a lesser or greater extent, acclimatised to the toxicity of our culture, like a lobster in a pot, how has Maté come to be so cognisant of it? One factor, he says, is that through his work as a family doctor he “knew people before they got sick” and could locate their illnesses in the broader context of their family, their communities and their lives.
To say that the mind is connected to the body is incorrect … They are not connected; they are the same system
He takes umbrage with the way medical teaching is done: “Physicians are trained in this narrow biological view, but, if your eyes are open, you can’t help but notice it.” He started reading the “vast body of literature that has demonstrated the links between emotional dynamics and physical pathology”.
He points to stress as one of many examples; he wrote about it in his 2003 book, When the Body Says No: The Cost of Hidden Stress: “[It] causes inflammation, erodes the healthy functioning of chromosomes, turns genes on that can trigger cancer.” He mentions a study that showed “women with severe post-traumatic stress disorder had double the risk for ovarian cancer. Despite the fact that this study came out four years ago, from Harvard, the average oncologist doesn’t have a clue.”
Maté is passionate about the connection between mind and body. “To say that the mind is connected to the body is incorrect,” he says. “To say that the nervous system is connected to the immune system, and the immune system is connected to the emotional apparatus, all of which is connected to the hormone system, is incorrect. They are not connected; they are the same system.”
I wonder what Maté hopes to achieve with everything he is putting out there. He thinks back to a workshop he attended five years ago, when he was asked to identify his calling and what footprint he wished to leave. “My calling is that people are free in every realm – so in the political realm, hence my stance on the Israel/Palestine conflict, but also in the personal realm, so that we’re not pulled like puppets on a string by our own personal dynamics, by trauma. You may agree with me or not agree with me, but that is my intention in everything I do.”
If he talks a bit like a thought leader, that is because, these days, he is one. He has been well known in Canada for some time, but now, in any airport anywhere in the world, someone will run up to him, crying, shaking and thanking him for his work. That must be a strange experience, I suggest. “You know, it isn’t, because I believe in my work and the truth that I am saying,” he replies.
He is well aware, he says with gentle humour, of “what a flawed little creature I am”. It is a good job that he has his head screwed on, I say, because otherwise his ego would be huge. “To correct you, my ego is huge. I just don’t believe it.”
+—+
Notice how he couldn’t talk to his mother about the stain of Judaism a la Zionism. It is in their fucking brains, dude. But Mate’s on to something, but I don’t need no stinking triple PhDs and MD background to figure out this system break down.
Jews for the most part have been broken, their DNA tool kitted to be mean, squatters, kings of the realm of lawfare and hyper-analysis and of course their religion is based on chosenness and white supremacy.
You think that over time, over generations, now on steroids with so much AIPAC and hasbara in the wind, in everything, people have not been rewired by that, all that thinking and stressors and mental gymnastics?
Tens of thousands of Jewish and Israel lobbies, associations, groups, breeding grounds, NGO’s and non-profits and education centers and more more more since they own the media, no?
- Incorporated in 1963, AIPAC was established by Isaiah L. Kenen 10 years prior in 1953, not long after the Nakba.
- It was initially called the “American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs”– a lobbying division of the American Zionist Council.
- Isaiah L. Kenen used to work for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to “implement Israel’s foreign policy and promote economic, cultural, and scientific relations with other countries.”
- AIPAC formed in part due to a hostile international response to the 1953 Qibya massacre when Israeli forces massacred more than sixty-nine Palestinian villagers in Qibya West Bank, two-thirds of which were women and children, and destroyed forty-five houses, a school, and a mosque.
- In late 2021, AIPAC formed its own political action committee, called United Democracy Project (UDP). It also announced plans for a Super-PAC, which can spend money on behalf of candidates.
Eight-in-ten U.S. Jews say caring about Israel is an essential or important part of what being Jewish means to them. Nearly six-in-ten say they personally feel an emotional attachment to Israel, and a similar share say they follow news about the Jewish state at least somewhat closely.
Now all of that Madison Avenue, all those propaganda techniques, all of it, like a tsunami and earthquake, daily, has reconfigured the typical Western brain, and there is that brain-blood barrier-gut-serotonin reuptake connection.
We are what we do/don’t eat, smoke, live, do, undo, create, destroy, read, watch, hope for, dream, engage in, drink, learn, follow, within a family. We are not just a trillion cells and RNA and DNA morphing in the real of heart disease or stature.
We do inherit auntie’s curly hair and dad’s fucked up disposition. Brooding? Sad? Happy?
Let’s get to those propaganda techniques in 11 minutes:
And just how does all of this play out, all the screen time, all the false words and images of video and news stations and Holly-Dirt and just the basic background shit that is the Walmart-Costco-Disneyland-Top Gun shit of America?
In Darwinian biology, the classic conception of natural selection is a “hard sweep,” in which a beneficial mutation allows some individuals to survive longer or produce more offspring such that eventually that variant becomes fixed in the population. In the early 2000s, when researchers were starting to look for signs of hard sweeps in the genomes of contemporary peoples, the clearest examples came from populations that had adapted to unique circumstances. For instance, around 42,000 years ago a selective sweep changed a protein on the surface of red blood cells in Africans to boost their resistance to malaria. People in the Tibetan Highlands underwent selective sweeps for genes that helped them tolerate low oxygen (intriguingly, populations of the Himalayas, Andes and Ethiopian highlands adapted to high altitude with different assortments of genes, taking different evolutionary paths to solve similar problems).
Some of the best-known selective sweeps happened in western Eurasia and involved alleles associated with diet, skin pigmentation and immunity. Many of these sweeps are linked to the profound shifts wrought by the transition to agriculture. Around 8,500 years ago early farmers spread an allele that helped them synthesize long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids from plant-based foods. These fatty acids are essential for cell membranes, particularly in the brain, and hunter-gatherers obtained them easily from meat and seafood. The new genetic variant allowed agricultural populations to synthesize them from short-chain fatty acids found in plants. This variant was rare at first, but now it is present in about 60 percent of Europeans.
Josh Bernoff: “If you had profited from a highly addictive drug that had done great damage to society, what would you do? A trial about this — about Insys and fentanyl — is happening right now in Boston. But I’m not talking about opioids. I’m talking about Facebook.
Mark Zuckerberg’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal looks different when you realize he’s created billion of addicts. Here’s the text of his op-ed with my translation in italics.
The Facts About Facebook
We need your information for operation and security, but you control whether we use it for advertising.
MZ — Facebook turns 15 next month. When I started Facebook, I wasn’t trying to build a global company. I realized you could find almost anything on the internet—music, books, information—except the thing that matters most: people. So I built a service people could use to connect and learn about each other. Over the years, billions have found this useful, and we’ve built more services that people around the world love and use every day.
Recently I’ve heard many questions about our business model, so I want to explain the principles of how we operate.
I didn’t realize at first that connecting people to each other online would be addictive. But billions of people now can’t live without a daily hit of Facebook. I’ll explain how we made that happen.
MZ—I believe everyone should have a voice and be able to connect. If we’re committed to serving everyone, then we need a service that is affordable to everyone. The best way to do that is to offer services for free, which ads enable us to do.
As Tom Lehrer wrote in his song “The Old Dope Peddler,” “We give the kids free samples, because we know full well/That today’s young innocent faces, will be tomorrow’s clientele.” Addiction works better when it’s free. Don’t worry about us, we get plenty of money from ads.
MZ—People consistently tell us that if they’re going to see ads, they want them to be relevant. That means we need to understand their interests. So based on what pages people like, what they click on, and other signals, we create categories—for example, people who like pages about gardening and live in Spain—and then charge advertisers to show ads to that category. Although advertising to specific groups existed well before the internet, online advertising allows much more precise targeting and therefore more-relevant ads.
It’s painless at first, but we’re draining the data from you every moment you’re high on Facebook. That’s why you feel worn out and enervated after using it.
MZ—The internet also allows far greater transparency and control over what ads you see than TV, radio or print. On Facebook, you have control over what information we use to show you ads, and you can block any advertiser from reaching you. You can find out why you’re seeing an ad and change your preferences to get ads you’re interested in. And you can use our transparency tools to see every different ad an advertiser is showing to anyone else.
Still, some are concerned about the complexity of this model. In an ordinary transaction, you pay a company for a product or service they provide. Here you get our services for free—and we work separately with advertisers to show you relevant ads. This model can feel opaque, and we’re all distrustful of systems we don’t understand.
MZ—Sometimes this means people assume we do things that we don’t do. For example, we don’t sell people’s data, even though it’s often reported that we do. In fact, selling people’s information to advertisers would be counter to our business interests, because it would reduce the unique value of our service to advertisers. We have a strong incentive to protect people’s information from being accessed by anyone else.
Once we extract your data, we never give it to anyone else. We tried that, and it ended badly. We know best what toxins you can tolerate, so we’re not going to let anyone else have access to the data we use to calibrate that. Trust us, it’s safer that way.
MZ—Some worry that ads create a misalignment of interests between us and people who use our services. I’m often asked if we have an incentive to increase engagement on Facebook because that creates more advertising real estate, even if it’s not in people’s best interests.
We’re very focused on helping people share and connect more, because the purpose of our service is to help people stay in touch with family, friends and communities. But from a business perspective, it’s important that their time is well spent, or they won’t use our services as much over the long term. Clickbait and other junk may drive engagement in the near term, but it would be foolish for us to show this intentionally, because it’s not what people want.
We’re very careful to make Facebook as addictive as possible. We won’t give you quick hits that might make you feel like you’ve overdosed. A steady drip of interactions with family and sharing of questionable news and memes keeps you coming back without making you too sick.
MZ—Another question is whether we leave harmful or divisive content up because it drives engagement. We don’t. People consistently tell us they don’t want to see this content. Advertisers don’t want their brands anywhere near it. The only reason bad content remains is because the people and artificial-intelligence systems we use to review it are not perfect—not because we have an incentive to ignore it. Our systems are still evolving and improving.
We’re sorry if you have a bad trip. We can’t always stop that.
MZ—There’s no question that we collect some information for ads—but that information is generally important for security and operating our services as well. For example, companies often put code in their apps and websites so when a person checks out an item, they later send a reminder to complete the purchase. But this type of signal can also be important for detecting fraud or fake accounts.
We give people complete control over whether we use this information for ads, but we don’t let them control how we use it for security or operating our services. And when we asked people for permission to use this information to improve their ads as part of our compliance with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, the vast majority agreed because they prefer more relevant ads.
Ultimately, I believe the most important principles around data are transparency, choice and control. We need to be clear about the ways we’re using information, and people need to have clear choices about how their information is used. We believe regulation that codifies these principles across the internet would be good for everyone.
Extracting data from you is crucial to making this addiction work and regulating the toxins we put into your body. We’d like regulators to endorse the way we do this so we’re not at risk of losing our legal right to addict you.
MZ—It’s important to get this right, because there are clear benefits to this business model. Billions of people get a free service to stay connected to those they care about and to express themselves. And small businesses—which create most of the jobs and economic growth around the world—get access to tools that help them thrive. There are more than 90 million small businesses on Facebook, and they make up a large part of our business. Most couldn’t afford to buy TV ads or billboards, but now they have access to tools that only big companies could use before. In a global survey, half the businesses on Facebook say they’ve hired more people since they joined. They’re using our services to create millions of jobs.
We’re balancing the needs of billions of addicted people and millions of people who want to deliver toxins to them. It’s vastly profitable to control a mass of addicts. So we work hard to keep the addiction strong and the toxin levels manageable.
MZ—For us, technology has always been about putting power in the hands of as many people as possible. If you believe in a world where everyone gets an opportunity to use their voice and an equal chance to be heard, where anyone can start a business from scratch, then it’s important to build technology that serves everyone. That’s the world we’re building for every day, and our business model makes it possible.
For us, technology has always been about addicting as many people as possible, making them feel powerful when they are actually powerless. That’s better living through technology.
Here’s the rich guys’ Google AI assistant (sic): myself using this phrase to research: “the rich think differently about humanity than the average person”
Yes, some research and financial commentators suggest that the wealthy often hold different perspectives on various aspects of life, including their view of humanity, compared to the average person. This includes their perception of money, poverty, and the path to success, as well as their focus on opportunity, risk, and leveraging resources.
Here’s a breakdown of how their thinking might differ:
- Money and Poverty:While the average person might see money as the root of all evil, the wealthy may view poverty as the root of many problems.
- Opportunity vs. Security:Rich people often focus on opportunities and potential gains, while average people might prioritize security and avoiding risks.
- Action vs. Lottery Mentality:Rich people tend to take proactive steps to achieve their goals, whereas others may rely more on luck or chance.
- Specific Knowledge vs. Formal Education:Wealthy individuals may prioritize acquiring specialized knowledge relevant to their goals, rather than solely relying on formal education according to financial commentators.
- Future vs. Past:Rich people often focus on future possibilities and aspirations, while others may dwell on past experiences.
- Earning vs. Saving:Wealthy individuals often focus on earning potential and creating wealth through ideas and solutions, while average people might focus on saving and living frugally according to Yahoo Finance.
- Selfishness as a Virtue:Some research suggests that wealthy individuals may view selfishness as a virtue, believing it’s necessary for achieving their goals.
- Creating vs. Reacting:Rich people may see themselves as creators of their own circumstances, while others may feel that life simply happens to them.
It’s important to note that these are generalizations and not all wealthy individuals think or act in the same way. Some may have inherited their wealth and not share the same mindset as self-made millionaires, according to Quora users. However, these contrasting perspectives highlight how different life experiences and financial situations can shape one’s worldview.
+—+
Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
–OSCAR WILDE, The Picture of Dorian Gray
The Value of Nothing is Everything:
There is a discrepancy between the price of something and its value, one that economists cannot fix, because it’s a problem inherent to the very idea of profit-driven prices. This gap is something about which we’ve got an uneasy and uncomfortable intuition. The uncertainty about prices is what makes the MasterCard ads amusing. You know how it goes — green fees: $240; lessons: $50; golf club: $110; having fun: priceless. The deeper joke, though, is this: The price of something doesn’t measure its value at all. This prickly intuition has become entertainment. An alien from another planet would find it strange that one of the most popular TV shows in dozens of countries is one that trades on the confusion around what something’s worth: The Price Is Right. In the show, the audience is presented with various consumer durables, and asked to guess the retail price of each. Crucially, you don’t win by correctly guessing how useful something is or how much it costs to make — prices are poor guides to use and true costs of production. You win by developing an intuitive sense of what corporations believe you’re willing to pay.
In the world of fund management, the systematic confusion surrounding what something is worth has made some people very rich. Traders’ salaries are linked to the returns above expected rates for the risk they take on, the so-called alpha that they contribute to the returns. Think of a bet on a coin flip, with odds of two to one. I bet $1 that I will hit heads, and every time I do, I get $2. In the long run, I’d expect a dollar bet with those odds to return a dollar because I’ll come up heads about half the time. But if I’m returning $1.50 on the bet, I’m making magic happen. This magic gets turned back into coins that I get to keep, through bonuses and increased salary. This is a tough trick to pull off because there are only a handful of ways to create added value in fund management — I can pick undervalued stocks that outperform expectations, I can nurture innovations that change the rules of the game, or I can create new bespoke assets that institutional investors might like. So we would expect alpha to be rare, and it is, but driven by the desire to cash in, there were many who created fake alpha through bets that appeared to produce consistently good returns despite having a small built-in chance of catastrophic loss. If the expected value of this loss were factored in, the alpha would disappear. But the risks were ignored and bonuses flowed. The frat boys who ran the economy, and profited from its poor regulation, made billions. They were paid today for outcomes that they predicted would happen in the future, using a “mark to model” accounting practice that essentially allowed them to book today what they projected they’d earn tomorrow. This practice was justified on the grounds that “markets know best.
That markets should know best is a relatively recent article of faith, and it took a great deal of ideological and political work to make it part of governments’ conventional wisdom. The idea that markets are smart found its apotheosis in the Efficient Markets Hypothesis, an idea first formulated by Eugene Fama, a Ph.D. student in the University of Chicago Business School in the 1960s. In the ideological foundations it provided for financiers, it was a mighty force — think of it as Atlas Shrugged, but with more equations.
The hypothesis states that the price of a financial asset reflects everything that a market knows about its current and future prospects. This is different from saying that the price actually does reflect its future performance — rather, the price reflects the current state of beliefs about the odds of that performance being good or bad. The price involves a bet. As we now know, the market’s eye for odds is dangerously myopic, but the hypothesis explains why economists find the following joke funny:
Q: How many Chicago School economists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. If the lightbulb needed changing, the market would have already done it.
The problem with the Efficient Markets Hypothesis is that it doesn’t work. If it were true, then there’d be no incentive to invest in research because the market would, by magic, have beaten you to it. Economists Sanford Grossman and Joseph Stiglitz demonstrated this in 1980, and hundreds of subsequent studies have pointed out quite how unrealistic the hypothesis is, some of the most influential of which were written by Eugene Fama himself.6 Markets can behave irrationally — investors can herd behind a stock, pushing its value up in ways entirely unrelated to the stock being traded.
Despite ample economic evidence to suggest it was false, the idea of efficient markets ran riot through governments. Alan Greenspan was not the only person to find the hypothesis a convenient untruth. By pushing regulators to behave as if the hypothesis were true, traders could make their titanic bets. For a while, the money rolled in. In the mid-1990s, the Financial Times felt able to launch a monthly supplement, entitled How to Spend It, to help its more affluent readers unburden themselves. The magic of the past decade’s boom also touched the middle class, who were sucked into the bubble through houses that were turned from places of shelter into financial assets, and into grist for the mill of the financial sector. But ordinary homeowners couldn’t muster the clout that banks could: Governments enabled the finance sector’s binge by promising to be there to pick up the pieces, and they were as good as their word. When the financiers’ bets broke the system, the profit that they made from these bad bets remained untouchable: The profit was privatized, but the risk was socialized. Their riches have cost the whole world dear, and yet in 2009 the top hedge fund managers have had their third-best year on record. George Soros is, in his own words, “having a very good crisis,” and staff at Goldman Sachs can look forward to the largest bonus payouts in the firm’s 140-year history.
What this suggests is that the rhetoric of “free markets” camouflages activities that aren’t about markets at all. Goldman Sachs employees are doing well because their firm turned some distinctly nonmarket tricks. Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi has recently revealed, with characteristic verve, how Goldman Sachs has bought the U.S. government. In the Obama administration’s economic team, Wall Street has a generation of finance-friendly appointees, from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who arranged a historic $29 billion loan to persuade JPMorgan Chase to acquire Bear Stearns during his tenure as chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; to Larry Summers, who earned $5.2 million by working one day a week for a couple of years in a large Wall Street hedge fund. Their new positions in the White House make them the Tarzans of the economic jungle. Wall Street has reason to be pleased. Goldman had invested heavily in AIG, the insurance giant whose financial products division had brought the ninety-year-old giant to bankruptcy. With the 2008 AIG rescue, the $13 billion that Goldman invested was repaid at full face value. Investors in Chrysler, by contrast, stand to get twenty-nine cents for every dollar they invested.
Anyone concerned with democracy should be worried that the seam between Wall Street and the government is almost invisible. At the very least, it raises serious reasons to doubt that the institutions that facilitated the crisis can clean up their mess. Nassim Taleb points to the absurdity here: “People who were driving a school bus (blindfolded) and crashed it should never be given a new bus.” The problem is that because both our economy and to a larger extent our politicians aren’t really subject to democratic control, the bus drivers are always going to be graduates of the same driving school.
Despite the ongoing hijack of government by Wall Street, a word that hasn’t been heard in over a generation is being uttered by politicians: “regulation.” It’s true that Goldman Sachs and others are profiting handsomely from the collapse, but there is nonetheless a growing sense among politicians that the market may have been allowed too free a rein. Naomi Klein’s devastating critique The Shock Doctrine demonstrates how disasters were turned into platforms for rabidly free market policies, and it’s an analysis that explains the post–World War II era and today’s ongoing financial plunder, from California to Wall Street to the City of London, very well. But there is a recognition among the public and some politicians that today’s economic crisis is a failure of free market thinking, and not a warrant for more. In response to popular outcry, politicians around the world seem ready to discuss how to regulate and restrain the market. The question is, can they, and, if they can, in whose interests will this regulation work?
From its inception, the free market has spawned discontent, but rare are the moments when that discontent coalesces across society, when a sufficiently large group of people can trace their unhappiness to free market politics, and demand change. The New Deal in the United States and the postwar European welfare states were partly a result of a consortium of social forces pushing for new limits to markets, and a renegotiation of the relationship between individuals and society. What’s new about this crisis is that it’s pervasively global, and comes at the last moment at which we might prevent a global climate catastrophe. But the breadth and depth of both these crises reflect how profoundly our society has been transfixed by free market culture. To understand how this will affect us in the twenty-first century, we need to understand how it began, and to ask why today’s markets look the way they do.
Excerpted from The Value of Nothing by Raj Patel. Copyright 2009 by Raj Patel. Published in January 2010 by Picador.
One problem with current efforts in evolutionary psychology is that the field melds together two sciences—psychology and evolutionary biology—in which scientific understanding is still quite limited. Any attempts to do this are bound to be questioned. However, Tooby and Cosmides give a hopeful version of a scientific future when things are better understood and agreed upon, presumably built on the earlier accomplishments of today and tomorrow’s evolutionary psychology:
Just as one can now flip open Gray’s Anatomy to any page and find an intricately detailed depiction of some part of our evolved species-typical morphology, we anticipate that in 50 or 100 years one will be able to pick up an equivalent reference work for psychology and find in it detailed information-processing descriptions of the multitude of evolved species-typical adaptations of the human mind, including how they are mapped onto the corresponding neuroanatomy and how they are constructed by developmental programs.
Ahh, color revolutions, coups, regime change? PT Barnum and the Sucker Born every nanosecond.
Enlisting Madison Avenue: The Marketing Approach to Earning Popular Support in Theaters of Operation extracts lessons from business practices and adapts them to U.S. military efforts in a unique approach to shaping the attitudes and behavior of local populations in a theater of operations. Foremost among these lessons are the concepts of branding, customer satisfaction, and segmentation of the target audience, all of which serve to maximize the impact and improve the outcome of U.S. shaping efforts. Enlisting Madison Avenue also offers insights based on previous operational endeavors to provide a much-expanded blueprint for shaping target audiences.
We have evolved, generally, to be stupid, mean, blood orgy lovers. We are looters and squatters and mass murderers and thieves and polluters and poisoners and body/ mind snatchers. We are the tribe of the terror.
And so how can this NOT change neurons and thinking patterns and the brain, individually and collectively?
Yes, MAGA and Tea Party and Eagle Forum and all of those actors in this brain melding game have precipitated massive folding and unfolding of the critical thinking skills and leaver mentality of what homo sapiens should have been, into the collective DNA, for the most part, excluding those like myself, immune to the tributes to money and capital and entertainment and authority and policing and patriotism and misanthropy, to name just a few of these Indian Killers and Slave Masters’ plans.
Agnotology
Amnesia
Stockholm Syndrome
Polly Ann
Chicken Little
Toxic Masculinity
Cult of Celebrity
Self-Delusion
Narcisssim
Delayed or Accelerated Puberty
- Psychiatry’s definition of a mental disorder/illness is so wide that it embraces virtually every significant problem of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving, and psychiatry uses this definition to spuriously medicalize a growing range of problems that are not medical in nature.
- Psychiatry routinely presents their “diagnoses” as the causes of the specific problems, when in fact they are merely labels with no explanatory significance. These so-called illnesses are not discovered in nature as real illnesses are. Rather, they are invented by psychiatry, as are the facile checklists that psychiatry uses to “diagnose” them.
Psychiatry is not something good that needs minor adjustments. Rather, it is something fundamentally flawed and rotten. Based on spurious premises, and devoid of even a semblance of critical self-scrutiny, it is utterly and totally irremediable. It has locked itself into the falsehood that every-problem-is-an-illness-and-for-every-illness-there’s-a-drug from which it cannot extricate itself. It is nothing more than legalized drug-pushing, endlessly attempting to mask its guilt by proclaiming its innocence, vilifying its critics, and calling for more “treatment”. It has built into itself the seeds of its own destruction, and will eventually fade away as its credibility dwindles, and more and more potential recruits recognize the sordid reality and seek careers in genuine, ethically-driven medicine.
But . . . but!
AGNOTOLOGY: What don’t we know, and why don’t we know it? What keeps ignorance alive, or allows it to be used as a political instrument? Agnotology—the study of ignorance—provides a new theoretical perspective to broaden traditional questions about “how we know” to ask: Why don’t we know what we don’t know? The essays assembled in Agnotology show that ignorance is often more than just an absence of knowledge; it can also be the outcome of cultural and political struggles. Ignorance has a history and a political geography, but there are also things people don’t want you to know (“Doubt is our product” is the tobacco industry slogan). Individual chapters treat examples from the realms of global climate change, military secrecy, female orgasm, environmental denialism, Native American paleontology, theoretical archaeology, racial ignorance, and more. The goal of this volume is to better understand how and why various forms of knowing do not come to be, or have disappeared, or have become invisible.
Shifting baseline syndrome is when you get used to the way things are and forget how they used to be, so how they are now becomes the “new normal.” In this example, we forget that the “real” normal is regular rainfall right through the spring months and into June, and think that what is actually happening (some rainfall from April to June but not nearly as much as usual) is “normal.” In fact, eastern Vancouver Island is already at Drought Level 2 of 5, according to the province’s drought monitor, and our watershed in particular is at Drought Level 3.
Here, we reflect on the shifting baseline syndrome as a concept and its use in identifying and resolving human perspectives of ecological change. In a one-page essay in 1995, the fisheries scientist Daniel Pauly named the tendency for a persistent and collective failure of fisheries researchers to recognise the magnitude of change in marine systems from one generation to the next, a phenomenon he termed the ‘shifting baseline syndrome’ (Pauly, 1995). This concept provides a lens for exploring how people can overlook prior conditions of ecological productivity and health, how values towards the environment can change, and how objectives and resourcing for conservation can be diluted despite the occurrence of human impacts being known. It is a basis for understanding how sustained environmental degradation can occur and lead to reduced expectations or limited imagination for how our environments and human–environmental relations could function, today and in the future.
We1 consider how understanding and use of the shifting baseline syndrome as a concept has evolved over the last several decades and its relevance to a range of complex ecological and social-ecological issues. These include environmental degradation but also social and environmental injustice and the widespread effects of colonialism. We believe the shifting baseline syndrome should be more widely applied in the complex business of engaging with the human-altered state of 21st-century environments but identify several known and lesser-known limitations in its current use that must be addressed (Section 2). We also believe that the shifting baseline syndrome is an important working example of a ‘connective concept’2 (Simon, 2020). Like boundary objects (objects or concepts that facilitate communication between different communities, Trompette & Vinck, 2009)—although without as strong an emphasis on a common structure that is often found or applied to boundary objects such as a typology (e.g. Brand & Jax, 2007)—connective concepts could be critical as a specific type of scholarly response to the extreme relatedness between human activities and the natural world in the Anthropocene. We discuss how re-envisioning the shifting baselines syndrome as a connective concept could motivate conservation and environmental restoration in ways that include community aspirations and that maximise cross-disciplinary as well as cross-cultural connections (Section 3). Last, we identify actions that researchers and practitioners can take to assist in rethinking how we observe and make opinions about environmental change, and work with others to develop more effective responses (Section 4).
Talk about the collective insanity of accepting this barbarism, this brutality, this level of fucking criminality? SHIFTING BASELINE DISEASE— from humanity to monsters.
You fucking tell me that the average fucking White Psychotic Brain has not been devolved, stripped of so much that should have denotated us as human beings. Good fucking luck.
The biggest conspiracies are right in our faces, but we don’t notice.
—-
Start with logic.
If a strategy isn’t working one must devise an innovation to progress.
Of course, we only ever look at the people who created the problem for solutions.
Activism works for 50 years. The culture regresses for 50 years.
Does that tell you anything?
If a strategy isn’t working one must devise an innovation to progress.
—–
Ignorance and and egocentrism are part of a conspiracy against the working-class that is in plain sight.
—–
One key example is that a major population of the USA is categorized as “white”, while any intelligent and conscious person knows that’s fictional social construct that induces systemic psychosis in US working-class.
The concept of “white people” was invented by a playwright.
It’s a fiction that people believe is real.
——-
Stay in this category
FICTIONS THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE ARE REAL.
——-
Each youth brethren knows the names of dozens of celebrity musicians and actors but doesn’t know the difference between an atom, a molecule, and a gene.
The minds of our youth brethren are filled with fictions that have no objective connection to their own precious lives.
—–
You are what you believe. You are your words and actions.
Your words and actions come from what you believe.
What you believe comes from the culture around you.
—-
When 90% of a mind is filled with irrelevant fictions…..that is who they are.
They are programmed robots who act out their programming.
—–
Our youth live in false-consciousness created by the most opportunistic forces in the culture.
Being programmed by Hollywood and pop culture is not having a real human life but believing in a false existence that was fabricated for you.
—–
Once in while my youth brethren hear Bob Marley sing: “Free your mind from mental slavery”, but they have no clue he’s talking about them.
—–
Not understanding the system is the same as not understanding yourself.
They don’t know the system, their bodies or have a rational concept of human development, but keep careful track of every move by celebrities and every change in slang and fashion.
My brethren work hard and long to be the social robots they are.
——-
Hyperreality is a conspiracy in plain sight.
The people who are in it, can’t see it.
——
If 90% of your mind is Hollywood nonsense, you’re not really living a human life but a corporate life.
If your mind is filled with ideologies that haven’t worked you are equally diminished by those political entities.
Ideologies that haven’t brought any measure of justice in decades keep millions of innocent youth hot, angry and confused.
—–
My youth brethren have opportunistic forces teaching them as if they are the parents.
After a century of this form of cultural conditioning, the level of systemic violence of the nation and the self-loathing nastiness between the working-class today is understandable and explained.
—–
Those in that matrix of delusion think every thing would be fine if all people just acted perfectly as they do.
People in the matrix of ignorance all have the instantaneous reflex to point fingers at other people in the matrix.
—–
Education is a psychological need.
They don’t tell you that. I did.
That’s how they can get away with sustaining social atrocities the like the fabrication of the “White People” identity, and the innocent youth are forced to believe those lies.
——-
Conspiracies are built-in to the system.
Be human. Not a walking DVR.
Learn the mind and body from the source, not from the opportunistic people the system demands you treat as family.
—–
There is no neutral in this scenario.
You can either work against the matrix of ignorance or function to support it.
Galloway, like a broken analog clock:
Lowkey is right on most of the time, but again, he just doesn’t know the fabric of this fucking U$A, and the military madness, the fucking automatic crocodile tears for the military. He’s a bit out of his element with this former Yank soldier.
But the key is brainwashing, and, well, like bleach, or coke or booze, that wash can be deeply permanent.
Paul Haeder, Author 