Wow The West actually is fully brainwashed: proof

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcFbF9b9ONQ

There we go Om-icron is the AMERICAN pronunciation. Yet the actual pronunciation of Greek letter Omicron is Oh-micron. This underlines everything suspected about THE EMPIRE. The entire European "free" media over night switched from 2500 years of pronouncing it Oh-mikron to Om-icron. This proves the extent of the BRAINWASHING.

It means that whenever you listen to any media in the West you may think you are listening to lots of different opinions from many different sources, but at root they all come from the SAME AMERICAN source.

Now this is just a pronunciation but it shows that media are completely obedient to their sources even down to pronunciation, and they all have the same sources. If pronunciation is so dictated we can assume the content is too. This is why America gets almost no criticism in the western press while its open season on America's enemies. The Western Press is just the propaganda tool of America.

This means that those in power can literally get the whole western media to parrot the same thing at the same time everywhere.

This is why everyone has identical ideas about what is important and what views they should have, suspiciously they are the same as those of America and the Western Empire.

Now this leaves the Pandemic in dangerous territory. What is true and what is brainwashing? Well anything that made you afraid is definitely brainwashing (amygdala hijack is central to any sales), just like the 45 minute claim about Iraq, or North Korea nuclear capability.

Anyway books can be written on brainwashing, but if anyone still had any doubt that we live behind a propaganda wall that should be gone now.

It means that we must think for ourselves and never automatically believe anything we hear, especially when it comes at us like a uniform wall of media. That is propaganda.

We live in a Democracy in the West, and to maintain this we must reject the totalitarian tool of mass brainwashing which is what the media is.

This does not mean we just reject everything "mainstream" like some people do. There is no formula here. It is best to consume the mainstream but just be critical. We can for instance find out what The Empire is trying to brainwash us with just by examining what they are doing in the mainstream media. What does the media want me to believe? That question will tell us everything we need to know about those in Power. That is more useful to us than a 100 years of alternative conspiracy theory.

Quick review of Self, Individual, Subject/Object, Reflexivity

So in West we have got ourselves in a bit of a mix up.

We have Science which seeks to find the "universal truth" this is true for everyone. This links to ideas of Democracy, Law, Rights and Freedom. There is a universal Law that applies to everyone. This is also the Public realm. This is the realm favoured by Socialists.

Then we have Individualism, Private, Relativity and Subjectivity which bestows ultimate weight to private, personal and individual experiences. This is the realm favoured by Capitalists and Romantics who place their own wealth, feelings, experiences above the Universal. Libertarians and Libertines favour this side too. Anarchists too.

Art falls into a complex relationship. Some say the artists is trying to express their private feelings and thoughts, but if they are that private then what use are they to other people? The artist must be expressing something universal to make it of anything other than private temporary value.

There is an unhappy marriage where Private world reigns until the individual encroaches upon the "rights of another individual" where upon the Universal must be invoked.

There is a 3rd option between Universal and Solipsistic and that is Interpersonal. The interpersonal is a Universal that exists between individuals. It does not then exclude the possibility of other groups having their own Universal, but it does exclude the possibility of private individuals hijacking the Universal and claiming it for themselves. This embodies the true dialectical complexity of Individual and Group, that neither exists without the other and that both are interdependent. Groups are made of individuals who then recognised the individuals within the Groups. And likewise Universal is recognised by the individuals within the group...  

What has been raised in this blog this year is something very obvious but not widely recognised. The self we are talking is not a thing along side other things, it is the special relationship a self has with itself. It is this bizarre thing which makes an individual see themselves as more special than another individual.

It is none other than narcissism. When we consider ourselves we are caught like Narcissus by our reflection. Unlike other people's reflection, the reflection of our self raises this interesting thought called "self". But the "self" thought is really triggered not by a thing called self, but by the relationship between our self and our self. Its not the reflection that matters to Narcissus, everything has a reflection, but that this reflection if of the person who is seeing. It is this self-relationship that is the basis of ALL Western ideas. And what we will show eventually is that this self-relationship is nothing. Just like the reflection itself which is just a mirage on water, the relationship of that to itself is even more phantasmagorical.

But just for now its worth just identifying this self-relationship being the object of fascination in the West and not our actual self.

To make that a bit clearer. Lots of people know me. But only one of them IS me. So me is not the point, its the relationship between me and myself that is the basis of EVERYTHING in the West. Its the root of the Religion here. Where G-d once stood now stands and equally improbable and imaginary self.

Just as Nietzsche said "God is Dead" I now proclaim that "I am Dead."

And in that seeming (but not) contradiction I'll leave this.

==

Having added the section on Interpersonal the reflections of Narcissus become all the more complex. And this related to SRH. Quick recap: SRH was just the name given to a number of problems I noticed with self reference, that there seemed to be a Law of dependency that limited the "freedom" of a system that was self referential. For instance like M.C.Escher type drawings, the foundations of a castle cannot be upon that castle. Things MUST be founded upon things that are not themselves. SRH and the impossibility of self-foundation should be a warning to Narcissus. When he sees his reflection he gets that sudden "wow" moment as he realises that the reflection of not of a stranger but of the person who is seeing it. Most animals fail this test and always think their reflection is a stranger. But for some animals and humans they can get the "wow" and combine the object that they see (the objective) and the person doing the seeing (the subjective) in a new thought The SelfConscious Self. In Hegelian Dialectics this is a moment of Aufhebung where a new synthesis unifies the seeming contradictions of Object and Subject. Its a tremendous moment for the mind. But it comes with risks.

Looking into the eyes of the "seer" as we gaze into a mirror we enter a loop. I am seeing, and what I am seeing is I. The object of seeing is the seer. It appears self sufficient. As lomng as I gaze upon myself I have no need for the rest of the universe. The object is proof that I exist, and that I am seeing it is proof that I exist. As object of my own gaze I am solid and existing. I can reflect upon that being and see it as myself, and that being embodies the consciousness and awareness that is reflecting. Its a perfect thing to take home and cherish. The Self.

But Narcissus should consider Descartes. What if Descartes Demon was making up the reflection. We can do that these days. Consider being in 3D virtual reality with your avatar. When you get to a "mirror" and look you see a "reflection" of your avatar, perfectly rendered to look like you. You stare into the eyes and your avatar looks at you. You look away and your avatar looks away. You stare back into the reflected eyes of your avatar and start to pursue the realisation that the avatar really is you, what you are looking at is the thing that is doing the looking. Yet its not even a thing, it's just pixels on a screen constructed from data in a GPU and using input data from eye trackers in a headset. Yet its enough to trigger the self-reflexive thoughts about "me" having the ability to see, and so I start to think about myself as a real entity. Then it becomes Descartes, but instead of a mirror, we are using the existence of thoughts (rather than reflections) to deduce the presence of a thinker (or seer).

I guess what is central to this mirror illusion is the coincidence between what I see and what I do. When I move my eyes left, the reflection goes left, and when I look into my eyes the eyes of the reflection look directly at me. Its this way in which the reflection copies me which leads me to think it "IS" me. Its obviously just a flat reflection. I add the fact it is "me" with some creative imagination. Just as Descartes added the fact those thoughts belong to some "I" with some creative imagination. But it does trigger this idea of "self" and, as analysed already, what is critical about self is not the self itself-- everyone has one of those--its the relationship of the this self to itself. The picking myself out of a photo moment. Its an interesting moment to pick our self out of a photo, or have someone call our name, or have someone love us and no one else, but it has no ontological value. That is to say we are not finding anything new in this moment. We already know there are people on this planet, and we know we are a person so one of them is us. No big deal. When we get to know our self it is the same as getting to know anyone. The feeling that there is some deep thing to discover within our self, or that our self is special, or that this relationship we have with our self will ever grow fruit: all these beliefs are what keep Narcissus staring at his flat empty reflection in the pool. We can see he is wasting his time staring at the water, but in his mind a kaleidoscope of self-reflections open up a well of possibility that he will eventually realise once he falls in is bottomless, dark and empty. Like so many illusions it is fascinating, but its fake.

And this is the essence of what has ended up being called "Good." There is no such thing as good, all there is, is the empty, pointless pursuit of self. People like Narcissus who waste their time on their reflections become a bore to other people and become dysfunctional because their world revolves around this fake bottomless dark well. Perhaps such people can share time because at least they understand the fascination of each others dark wells, but ultimately they are just sharing wasted empty time revolving around a mirage. When you see what is called "evil" there are always 2 sides. There is the negative impulse--perhaps anger and hatred, or greed, or lust-- but then it is always married to self-interest to become evil. Many people get angry and what to hurt someone else, but they are not so obsessed with themselves and so they simply ignore themselves for not being helpful and let the anger go. But for Narcissus there is only the self, so when it gets angry it appears to consume the whole world. Given that you can see why when things are going well Narcissus is happy because his success and joy fills the whole world. The reflection is young, heathy, beautiful, happy, successful the world is a good place. But if anything happens to that reflection the whole world changes. Obvious nonsense, it doesn't even matter if we die in reality: every day 70,000,000 people die, but in Narcissus' world of 1 that death becomes everything. And this is the whole danger of this self illusion, and the way it so easily gets trapped in a relationship of just one between itself and itself.

Fixed Points and Cycles

Stealing a frame from 3blue1brown's video which points out that each region of the set has its own properties. In the case highlighted it cycles around 3 values. We already noticed that each region is built around a fixed point solution to an order of depth of the equation. The central cardioid is the fixed point for the 1st iteration. Values contract to a limit. The circular region is built around fixed points to the second iteration, and the system cycles between 2 values. Shown is a fixed point to the 3rd iteration and this has 3 values.

Hypothesis: the number of values the set cycles between is equal to the number of iterations of the equation the local fixed point solves. 

Racism

"Racism" as an idea has come under heavy criticism in this blog. Its just another example of people not thinking at all.

Quite a few races have people who think they are superior: Jews and Whites being the best examples. But "being better" is just nonsense in general. It all depends what metric you use. Some races on average are faster, taller, more intelligent etc but who cares anyway.

The real issue of race comes down to territory. And this is where the nonsense really kicks off.

So they say that all people came from Africa. Some races want to believe they are different and have their own origins. It doesn't really matter, the point is people have migrated over time. The Chinese say never die in the village you were born. We move.

The point becomes problematic when people start to "belong" and be "defined" by a place. In the UK we have the ridiculous situation of lots of people who are born in UK, who are British who would join the army and fight for their country, take part in Olympic games under the British flag and yet call themselves African or Indian or Chinese. How can someone who calls England their home be Chinese? Its actually impossible. What does it mean?

Now the real nonsense starts. They may say "I look Chinese." What! You look like a country? They mean the people from this country look like this. Which means even some Chinese think they are not from England and then quite rightly the English say well why not go home? Its not a nasty question its just a fact. Someone who thinks they are "Chinese" belongs in China. Now they may say I want to be British in which case why this "I am Chinese" stuff, just forget about China it far way and irrelevant to you.

So they may have the habit of eating with chop sticks while the broad custom in UK is to use a knife and fork. Well just see how that goes. Pointless trying to buy chop sticks in a UK supermarket, the person who wants chopsticks is just going to have to get knife and fork. Not difficult. Now they may really be accustomed to chop sticks and perhaps start up a trade in chop sticks. It won't do very well not may people use them. Perhaps they will start a massive advertising campaign to change UK customs. But then they will face the same resistance that they have to using a knife and fork but it will be larger and in reverse. Its easier just to use knife and fork. After all that is what all UK people have to learn to do. Now its possible that UK customs will change to chop stick but it takes centuries for things like this to happen. For the immigrant its easier to change themselves, after all they do live in a different country now no point in pretending they do not. So what is the point of talking out China it makes no sense if they want to live in UK.

To put that another way an immigrant who DOES NOT want to change needs to recognise the other half of this that the communities of that country are NOT going to accept them with EQUAL FORCE. Its a give and take situation. Why, the locals will argue, should we change to accept this person if they will not change to accept us. Newton's 3rd Law of motion, and we are talking about people's motion here. And once the locals of any country start to see a resistant people turning up who do not care for their customs and ways of life then you are going to see the spread of hostility. And when people turn up who are obsessed with their own countries and identify with them, it will only encourage the locals to become obsessed with their country and identity more strongly with it. In UK the local people are normally blamed with racism, but actually the immigrants must be EQUALLY racist. SO what is called "racism" actually starts with immigrants not making the transition to their new country and trying to hold on their old identity. This fuels the locals to do the same and division and distrust starts. There is a calculus of human psychology here no-one and everyone is to blame.

But then you get the nomadic people like the Bedouin, Gypsies or Jews who have no land. For true nomads they have no fixed location or identity from the land, their tribe is within. The Jews claim to be wandering like Moses but really they have formed territories before but for whatever reason they have always been enslaved or invaded. And G-d promised them the land of Israel which seems to have been a place in the Bible. Everything would be fine, but the Jews it seems are a bit two faced. On one hand they say they have no desire for physical land, but on the other they have Zionism. I think Anti-Jews have been primarily motivated by a fear of Zionism. And this morphed into Anti-Communism which is essentially the same. The fear from people who have a land is that the Jews (or anyone) will undermine their country and society and take it over. This is exactly what the Americans thought of Communism and its an idea that is identical to National Socialism. The Russian Revolution was closely linked to Jewish communities in Russia. Marx was a Jew. Now quite where you draw the line between a reasonable fear of sedition and treachery and actual racial prejudice is difficult. But Zionism in the 19th and 20th Century certainly did nothing to help the Jewish cause. Which is ironic since now The Holocaust is used to justify Zionism, despite Zionism starting decades before Nazism ever existed.

So there is a mess. People make no sense. No one wants to think about it. Everyone else is to blame. And as a result nothing really improves and everyone is confused. I suppose just through sheer necessity all people will one day start to actually think about this subject, rather than just use it to leverage power against other races like currently happens.

===

So what is the solution? if I do some thinking. There are a few options:

(1) People are not allowed to identify with countries. This means that there are no English, Chinese, Indians, Africans. No Black or White. Everyone must treat each other as human beings and equals. Picking out ethnic regional features becomes a hate crime. So an African calling themselves African or Black is actually a hate crime because it implies they are different from someone who is White and English. And once these divisions occur then people are inclined to not see each other as equals. An African Black is more likely to feel affinity for another African Black and less for an White English. That is a hate crime when based upon ethnic regional differences. It doesn't mean we have to like everyone, but if you like someone just because they share your ethnic features or come from your country that is pure hate of others.

(2) This seems a shame. People do have identity with their places of origin, or their ethnic tribes and characteristics. In UK we have the MOBO awards which celebrate music of Black origin. This is entirely Racist as it excludes music of White origin on pure racial grounds. But it seems harsh to ban the MOBO awards. But it does then mean we needs a MOWO awards that celebrates music of White Origin. And it means that England is celebrated as a White country and people who are not White in the UK know that they are immigrants from countries like China and India and Africa. I believe this is really what everyone wants. Blacks love to celebrate their Blackness and Whites love to celebrate their Whiteness. But as we have seen in history this can lead to problems. England is a White country and Black are immigrants. And it is quite right that many Blacks actually feel more affinity for Africa than they do UK. So what they really feel in their heart is that Africa is home. So when a White person says "Go Home" they know perfectly well what it means, it means listen to your heart. The mistake the White person may make is to think that all Black people feel strong affinity for Africa. But this is the mistake that MOBO awards make that plenty of Black people make White music and your skin colour actually has nothing to do with the music you make or like. Soul music is often thought by Blacks to be Black music but what nonsense is this. Music can't have a colour and anyone can learn any music. "Blacks have rhythm" is actually a racist thing to say, but many Blacks themselves effectively believe and promote this racial stereotype. Its going to be a long and tough struggle when everyone is as racist as everyone else. Hard for a Black to appeal to "racism" when they to their core are as racist as the next person. "Racism" is nonsense there is no such thing. If we want to freedom to respect racial and ethnic differences them immigrants must also acknowledge that they are immigrants in a country that does things differently. If something is Black and African then something is White and English. And if you live in England then you live in a White country. There are two sides to everything.

So in summary there are 2 ways to go about this. (1) is to focus on equality and ban the promotion of racial and ethnic differences. This means MOBO Awards get banned. Music is just music and everyone can appreciate everyone's music without reference to anything ethnic or racial. The music of England is just the music of the people in England it is no longer African or Welsh or Classical. But the moment people want to appeal to ethnicity or region then unfortunately White England becomes a feature too and immigrants become different from their mother country. If they are happy to accept that they are foreigners with a different culture from another place then this makes sense, but the moment that people from other countries and cultures want to someone think that this is more important than the country and culture they live in then there is going to be obvious friction. Why the local people will argue should be accept you if you will not accept us. I think this is essentially the problem the Jews have. They think its fine to move to a country and just set up little Judah without any reference to the land in which they settle. But the local people will say if you do not have any respect or regard for and our ways of life then why should we respect Judah?

This is actually an act of war. When an invading people seek to bulldoze the local people out of the way and just replace them with their own world view they will meet extremely strong armed resistance. This is war. Normally when you immigrate to a country you engage in a complex interaction with the local people which changes you and them. Everyone plays the game, everyone respects everyone, everyone is interested in everyone, everyone cooperates. But the moment an immigrant groups refuses to change or interact then they will be repelled. Again if you won't change then why should we. So the resistance the Jews always experience is really just  reflection of the intensity and stubbornness of their own identity. Its been such a problem of the centuries that the only solution the Zionists can think of is just to isolate themselves in a country and kick out everyone else. Not an unfamiliar solution if we look at what the Nazis tried to do.

So really the only way forward is for everyone to have a bit more respect for everyone else. Not cry "racism" the first time anyone stereotypes you negatively. If everyone who thinks they've experienced racism is honest they will realise that this just reflects their own strong attachment to their own identity and their secret rejection of other people. If you reject other people, they will reject you. You may think its harmless to lock yourself away in some community but that rejection of other people is the seed from which your persecution will come. It's quite logical. You reject other people, they will reject you. A community is a complex thing requiring give and take.

I'm not sure the current climate here in UK is really improving things. All I can see is people becoming ever more obsessed about their racial and ethnic identity. One day this is going to extend to the White English majority and when they start making programs about Whites and the English I think the immigrants are going to start to feel very disempowered and regret their obsession with their difference.

 

Cryptocurrency is Capitalism and so suffers from the same problems as Capitalism

https://insights.glassnode.com/bitcoin-supply-distribution/?fbclid=IwAR0C6lvTv8sgDQpd7gOp-5bz3Iv-Zlkz0qZswJ72NgJLPtC6SMFbsIvtsIw

Crypto currency is much touted as the saviour of the masses rescuing them from the corrupt elite banking system but unfortunately it works by free market and so obey Pareto Distribution (80:20 rule) and so is inherently unequal and unfair. In Bitcoin in Feb 2021 2% controlled 71.5% meaning 98% squabble over the remaining 28.5%. And this will just get worse and worse cos the shrimps are most likely to need their money and so sell, and the humpbacks most likely to have gained spare cash and so invest. Whatever the benefits of Crypto they are being reaped by the wealthy. One day people will realise that the problem is Capitalism itself and Adam Smith was the Prophet of the most evil system ever launched on the human race.

Mandelbrot Fixed points, Non-Self and Poverty

Have I never blogged on this before?

Firstly what have fixed points to do with poverty? It's to do with Self. It is hypothesised that the experience of "self" is an artefact that occurs when the brain tries to process its own output. At the singularity you have Descartes and similar meditations where the direct output like "thoughts" or even "consciousness" is being taken as input. It is quite an illusion even the great Descartes took the self to be a real thing.

I struggle with Heiddeggar's Dasein. For him "mineness" and "thereness" are essential features of Dasein. There is truth to this, but we must be careful not to go too far and instate a "self" that is "me" and "here." "Thereness" suggests, if we are not careful, that there is something "here." And "mineness" suggests, if we are not careful, that there is an owner or a thinker or doer-- the same mistake made by Descartes.

The truth is that we don't need to add anything to the world it is exactly as it already is. The whole problem with Western Civilisation is that it feels the need to "add" something. That something is a mistake.

This is most obvious when we think about our own death. For me the essence of the mistake is the sense that death "takes us away from the party." We think "oh no when I die I never get to see the world again, I must say good bye to everyone, and I will never get to see or enjoy all the things I look forward to in the future." He's a silly example. I want to see Halley's Comet but there is a good chance I will die before it comes around again. In this sense Death will rob me of seeing Halley's Comet. But this is the essence of the mistake that the "mental fixed point" creates. If we look very carefully where am I? So we can study Buddhism and we can intellectually understand that there is no self - I mean point at it? Its no where. And yet the mystery thing still owns everything. It owns that realisation, it owns qualities like its a success or a failure, it owns memories and experiences and it even owns its consciousness. In Buddhism the phantom thing its even looking forward to getting Enlightened! What a ridiculous dream that is. How can something that doesn't exist get enlightened! And even when we think great I understand that I don't exist am I enlightened yet, we are still looking to own. The whole world is illuminated by this lighthouse of shines from "My Self." But look again the light doesn't come from the lighthouse: it comes from the World (sort of - that doesn't produce light either but 1st things first). There is no need to invent a Private Personal Lighthouse to illuminate the world, it just does it all by itself. It is not ours. There is no need for a Self! Its an illusion that comes from fixed points. So Death robs us of nothing cos nothing was owned in the first place. And my future and the things I look forward to that will never happen when I die were never mine in the first place. There is no loss, because there was never anyone gaining. We firmly just let the world be without adding anything. All those monuments, and gravestones to people as though "someone" was actually lost are a mistake. Indeed the person is no longer with us, but there is no "loss." That sense of loss comes from a fixation on a fixed point. The fixed points of self is not just ours, but we project onto other people too. We think inside them is an unchanging singularity that fixes them in the world, around which their world rotates. An absolute point by which space and time are measured relative to them. Its an illusion created by fixed points.

And what has that to do with poverty and this blog. Well if there is no one to own anything then there is no such thing as wealth and poverty. There is just the world. 

And so to Mandelbrot fixed points. A quick rendition of the famous set. C -> C^2+P where C and P are complex numbers (a+b i) with P being a constant which becomes the position in the 2D array of the set. Black are points which are stable or remain finite, and the colours are the number of cycles taken for C to explode out beyond 2.

If we initialise C=P then the 1st order fixed point solves: P= P^2+P. In other words simply the root of P^2=0.
If we expand this:
a^2 - b^2 + 2 a b i
So the root solves the system: {a= a^2 - b^2, b=2ab} which has just one value (0,0).
Indeed b=ai also solves this but we want only real values.
Now 2nd Order solves (iterating 1ce) gives a second Fixed point at (-1, 0).
3rd Order ((P^2+P)^2+P)^2+P=P:

(0, 0), (-1.75488, 0), (-0.122561, -0.744862), (-0.122561, 0.744862)

Here are the 5 fixed points found so far up to Order 3 circled in white.

As can be seen there is a bifurcation with each iteration. It is a bifurcation because this is a square function and so the root proliferate by an order of 2. The fixed points are the stable points. I wonder if this root finding exercise was continued to infinity it would find all the points in the set (the black points).

All the real roots/fixed points of the Mandelbrot 6th iteration. Solving the equation:

(((((a + b i)^2 + (a + b i))^2 + (a + b i))^2 + (a + b i))^2 + (a + b i))^2 + (a + b i) == 0

But what everyone is most interested in, cos of the pretty patterns, is the behaviour of the points that are unstable and escape to infinity (the coloured points). There is continuous behaviour here as they seem linked by contours of same escape value (the bands) that orbit the fixed points. I'll just note here that these patterns are created around the fixed points and the need to obey the fixed points is what gives fractals their structure. And so I hypothesis it is with much more complex dynamic systems like the brain. The fixed points that occur when self-reflecting provide the structure around which thought and human experience orbit. But they are just artefacts of a dynamic system. And that gives us an insight into not taking them so seriously. Things like the fixed point of self are just artefacts they are not fundamental. 

 

The Future of Bitcoin: the "Poverty Ratchet"

 In zoology and population genetics its a well established fact that small populations are much more vulnerable to extinction than large populations. Its a simple feature of resilience that large populations can survive a much larger mortality event, or crisis than small populations. A large population after all is just a collection of smaller populations and so to make it extinct a number of small populations must go exist. And this ignores any emergent properties from those smaller groups interacting.

And so it is with Bitcoin. The poor are much more likely to go bankrupt in life and need to sell those bitcoin than the rich. And the rich have much more disposable income to invest than the poor and so on average will be the ones who buy up bitcoin. And so, as in Capitalism, as time progresses simply by the laws of probability the wealthy will end up owning all the bitcoin. The only bitcoin held by the poor will be that small, highly volatile subset of bitcoin that are changing hands.

The principles of Capitalism destroy everything and create inequality and poverty in its wake no matter what vehicle is traded.

I'll call this the "Poverty Ratchet."