Parroting intelligence

Another person, not me, took the words of our friendly resident sociopath wherein he attacked me for the umpteenth time, and noted that he doesn’t seem to be able for formulate thoughts in a coherent manner. He’s going through the motions, using words that seem to fit … but not quite. He’s imitating. There is no native intelligence.

That’s was a potent observation. If it were just him, I’d not bother writing here. But it couples with other thoughts I’ve had in dealing with so many others on the blogs … they don’t change! They don’t get better. They don’t move forward. If they believed eight years ago that the moon is a balloon, they still believe it. No amount of evidence will sway them.

I look back occasionally on things I’ve written in the last eight years, and I am generally happy with content and sentence construction, but also see that there was much advancement in store in the future. For instance, I was writing favorably of Obama back in 2008, and I would not just become disenchanted with the man, but come to understand that the office has zero power, so that only craven actors can have “successful” presidencies. Looking back, I see I have covered much ground in understanding. I’m happy about that, because it means I have purpose in my writing, that I am moving forward.

I remember the words of Kevin Costner in the movie JFK, that what happened on 11/22/63 was coup d’état, a line delivered with excellence by a highly skilled actor. I did not understand it. After all, we still had elections and anyway, coup d’état is what happens when men in bling-bling uniforms go on TV and tell us we have a new government.

I understand the line now. He was right.

Forward movement, better understanding, each day pushing the ideas that are so hard to grasp. Understanding only comes if I keep pushing, and yes, with each new breakthrough comes a bigger problem. Now I am confronted with not just a crime, coup d’état, bad actors and a riddles inside conundrums, but Oglesby’s words, “…the corruption and criminality of the state itself.”

And I will keep on pushing for better understanding. I love writing, of course, but more importantly, I love the idea that in so doing, along with reading and thinking, that I am moving forward in life.
____________________
Here’s a troubling thought: Swede says global warming is a hoax. He needs to follow through on that, but won’t, of course: A hoax to what end? Why do so many scientists lie? Are they all dishonest? Are they so shallow that they are bought for a few grants here and there? Do they have no integrity? Swede is badly in need of forward movement, a breakthrough. because frankly, I think he’s on to something. He has merely reduced it to its simplest elements, people lying for money.

Most people are not like that. There are people who knowingly tell lies and get paid for it. But all of those men and women who are advancing climate change are not bad people. They studied too hard for too many years, and pride themselves on intelligence, insight and integrity. There’s something more going on there. I am not going to worry about it, but do ask that Swede come forward now and advance his ideas on the subject with the idea that while he has spotted a problem, he needs to push it harder to reach a better understanding. It’s work.

I don’t say that because I have the answer. I don’t. Maybe the scientists are right. Here’s where I am at: Many years ago I sat on our couch reading, and I remember a moment like a wave of fresh salty ocean in my face. I realized that my fear of communism, embedded in me by news, school and entertainment, was based on lies. There was nothing to be afraid of, and that dark foreboding menace, the Soviet Union, was nothing to be feared. I could relax. It was a breakthrough!

So too have I come to realize that this foreboding nightmare that so many smart people, even Chomsky, are prattling about, climate change, is something that I can do nothing about. Buying a Prius won’t help, nor will these annoying fluorescent bulbs that don’t put out enough light. I am relaxed. I don’t care about it.

I want to know more. Al Gore is not a man of character, in my view, so that his decision after 2000 to become the climate change guru was probably calculated for some unstated purpose. But the lack of integrity of one disingenuous man is not enough to base a whole outlook on. If climate change is a hoax; if we have nothing to fear, then what is going on? It is more than money. Is it groupthink? Cultism?

Answer please, Swede.
_______________
The clip below the fold here is inserted for its entertainment value.

In movies it is often necessary to use characters as literary devices to move the plot forward. Judas was such a device to facilitate the Passion Play. In the clip below a mystery man, who is really Colonel Fletcher Prouty in real life, is explaining to Costner’s Jim Garrison how coup d’état originates, assembles and eventually murders a sitting president in broad daylight, but more importantly, gets away with it. It is speculative, of course.

About Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.
This entry was posted in Climate Deteriorization, Ramblings. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Parroting intelligence

  1. Big Swede says:

    Cultism could be confused with socialism and socialism intertwines thru the ages with tribalism.

    “So why, given its abject real world failure, does socialism remain a compelling vision to so many people?

    The answer has two parts. First is the nature of mankind. Humans are tribal animals. Socialism is a top down model, and tribes are almost always run in a top down manner. Humans respond to this on an instinctive level. Ordered liberty, free market capitalism, rule of law and other bottom up organizational methods are the aberration in human history. Humans are not wired to respond to these concepts the way they respond to a hierarchy. It’s better for them, but it isn’t instinctive. Think about it like throwing a ball. Humans naturally throw “like a girl”. Give a kid who has never held a ball a ball and tell him to throw it, and that’s how he’ll do it. We have to be shown how to throw properly. Once we learn how, man, we can throw so much better and further and more accurately, but it’s not instinctive. So humans are hard wired to identify with one of the basic tenants of socialism.

    Second, there is one structure that is inherently socialistic, one that is familiar to and revered by almost everyone, and one that works quite well. That structure is the family. Families are little groups of people functioning on the socialist model. There is a central authority (mom, dad) that sets the rules and makes sure that the resources of the family are distributed “fairly” (let your sister have the last piece of chicken!) for the benefit of all (survival of all its members). That is the basic unit of human organization, and it’s completely socialistic. Whether they realize it consciously or not, most people are predisposed to think favorably of socialism because that’s the model that defined their world as they grew to self awareness.

    The problem is that what works for four people likely won’t for forty and damn sure won’t for four hundred. Families are bonded by love and dedication to each other, forces that are much weaker in a tribe and non-existent in a nation. Socialism can only work within groups that have that level of bond to each other.

    However, because of theses two facts, socialism feels “natural” to most human beings until they take the time to reason it out. Most people don’t bother to do that, so when a Socialist happens along spouting their Utopian garbage, it resonates with people on an instinctive level, and the cycle starts over again. Socialism inevitably fails, but damnit, it “feels” like it SHOULD work.”-weirddave

    Like

    • Swede, I would appreciate it if you would expound on climate change, as I asked you to do in this piece. I am slowly coming around to your ideas on this subject. Your name was not taken in vain above.

      Socialism really exists, capitalism doesn’t. The US is socialist. Like any system, it can be abused. In the US most handouts go to large corporations who sell military hardware and services to the Pentagon, which also pays for R&D. The social programs you hound on are miniscule by comparison, except Social Security, which is totally self-funded by those who participate.

      It is not a perfect world. Government-run or single payer health care operates in a highly efficient and effective manner compared to the US non-government system. The Internet in countries I have visited is highly efficient and powerful, and not spotty and redundant as it is here. Public transportation in other countries is highly developed so that getting around is cheap and easy.

      You’re complaining about “socialism” that doesn’t exist, that is, it almost sounds like you’re still living in the 60’s and 70’s when the US and USSR were trying to outdo each other. That’s passe’. What we are really talking about is wholesale versus retail, and for most necessary public services, like utilities, infrastructure, Internet, health care, wholesale is the way to go, and government is the best agent to run these systems.

      My words. No one else’s.

      Like

  2. steve kelly says:

    Ever consider what most troll/detractors have in common? Schadenfreude. In the extreme it’s more like a social version of Münchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP or MBP). Sadistic people. Trolls exhibit symptoms of low self-esteem are more likely to feel schadenfreude than are people who have high self-esteem.
    Don’t feed the trolls or one can expect more of the same — endless, merciless amusement at the expense of others.

    Like

  3. Steve W says:

    Steve Ks observations and notes on MSBP are quite compelling and certainly borne out by my own personal experiences.

    Sounds like a thesis in need of data compilation and testing and then perhaps a long and fruitful health care consultation / social services policy / LE career promoting a pharmaceutical or legal remedy, or a combination. of the two.

    As far as the Stone JFK clip, I really enjoyed it and went on to view an episode of his Secret History series about the US wartime bombing of Japan and about the A bomb. (link below)

    At about 15 minutes in, the documentary focuses on the horrific fire bombing campaign of LeMay against Japan.

    Something that really sparked my interest was the fact that we used thermite bombs (as well as white phosphorous, napalm etc) and the vivid descriptions of air crews vomiting from the smell of burning flesh.

    That got me wondering about first person temporal accounts about what people experienced as to the smell during and soon after the destruction of the WTC on 9/11. I never heard stories of firefighters vomiting from the smell at 9/11.

    I found this.
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/remembering-the-smell-of-911/

    here’s the Stone secret history documentary. at 15 minutes in and about the next few minutes to the smell comment about firebombing Tokyo.

    Like

    • I watched this series when it first came on Showtime, and just watched the first half hour again. Amazing how little sticks with me, how I need to go back and review.

      There must have been some heavy censorship in place, as Stone gave light treatment to Dallas and 9/11. Otherwise, no doubt, it would not have aired. There is no overt advertising censorship on these non-commercial networks, so all that is left is the pressure of quiet censors.

      I have long come to believe that the reason for the huge emphasis on Nazi crimes since WWII Is that they needed a deflection from the massive crimes the Allies committed. Stone used 25,000 as casualties in Dresden. Germans counted more,like 200,000, mostly refugees, and even forgetting the nearby military targets [which were not harmed.] Germans planned on invoking Geneva conventions against the US for gunning down civilians in air raids, but things overall got out of hand. Churchill sank the French fleet in Tripoli and killed 1250 French soldiers, allies. And Churchill was intent on drawing a German response to his bombing of German cities, as his real objective in the early years was to draw the US into the war.

      No good guys.

      Like

  4. Steve W says:

    “Good guys? Good guys? There are no good guys. There’s just a bunch of guys!” – from the movie “The Zero Effect.”

    At least Sybil Edwards gets it. A pretty good and timely piece. Beginning to middle is mostly about news and research. She comes around to discussing the French attacks and gives an impression of what she saw happen. Sybil makes some very good points about waiting and digesting and researching before arriving at conclusions. Toward the middle late Sybil kind of rambles on a little long, but even so she raises some interesting issues about why anyone would do the kind of work she does, and about why and what are the best ways to do this work. The guy (James Corbett) also makes some interesting observations and reads a great poem at the end.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s