John Smith and Anatta

 

Here is a human leg bone.

Now it's something we immediately ask: whose leg bone is this? How did they die? How did they live?

All fair enough.

We can assume they had a name and lets call them John Smith. Now John Smith will have probably had 2 legs bones like this, two arms, a body and a head. In fact John Smith would have had something like 206 bones.

But now a bit of an SRH question: which of these bones or collections of bones is John Smith? Well we might say none of them cos John Smith has died. But if none of them are John Smith then how can they belong to John Smith? And this even more odd if John Smith no longer exists.

Now some people believe in spirits and souls and these are permanent so that John Smith still exists and these bones belong to him.

But what if we grind these bones down and sprinkle on a field and then over time eat the crops from this field. The minerals in John Smith's bones will gradually become the bones in me. So they are no longer John Smith's bones but mine.

And what happens then to John Smith's soul, have I stolen his bones? Has he become property-less?

And the real question there, if the bones belong to the soul then who does the soul belong to? Isn't there a infinite regress here? All sounding very SRH. And if the soul is the seat of ownership then why do we need the soul, can't the body just be John Smith, can't be bones own themselves?

So why not just have John Smith as the collection of bones and body.

Anyway this goes on indefinitely because John Smith is actually really bad defined. John Smith cannot be found in the world or in the spiritual world. It is just a vague idea. When a bomb goes off people get blown apart. When emergency services collect the parts, which part does the "person" go "into"? Which part owns the rest?

None of it makes any real sense.

If I have my arm amputated and I wake up from the operation to see an arm in medical waste. Is that "my" arm? And then we might ask as greater parts of us get amputated at what point do we go into medical waste? This is a common philosophical thought experiment. Usually we end up thinking that we can lose everything but our head and it can look at the pile of medical waste as the stuff that has been removed. But then what if our eyes were removed and put on the pile? What if they were still connected by their optic nerves? When we woke up we would be looking from the medical waste pile to our head on the bed. Surely now we have been put on the waste pile? But then we might argue that the brain is on the bed, and the optic nerve needs to be connected to that brain for us to be on the waste pile (altho you can equally argue the eyes are needed to get this perspective looking from the waste pile). So we cut the optic nerve and are cast into darkness, that we somehow argue is now on the bed (while just before we were looking at the bed). And we get abstract then and start to ignore space and start to think thoughts about who we are and where we are.

We enter the discussion Buddha has with Ananda in the Shurangama Sutra. And the point is that at each point we are trying to cling to something, some solid foundation on which we can "stand." But as things get cut off the places to stand get smaller and smaller and then more and more confusing, and the "here" and "there" starts to get confusing and it all starts to fall apart.

What we are resisting is the ultimate letting go, that actually there is no seat of self. Like John Smith it doesn't really make sense.

Letting go casts us off from material attachment and this deep obsession with being bound to something physical and solid.

That can (will be) quite unsettling and ungrounding. This "emptiness" is frightening and unsettling but when we can handle it, then it is pure freedom from suffering.

Returning to the top, it is no surprise then that all this trying to make John Smith fit the bones or the body or the soul doesn't really work because there is no such thing as John Smith. It is just a name that we loosely give to a "person." That loosely refers to their birth, looking backwards gestation and conceptions but then it gets confusing with sperms and eggs how it started. And then going through life we can attribute things like what they did and who knew them, and this goes through the whole bodily processes until they get ill and eventually the die. And then it gets confusing again. Perhaps they donated body parts to people at some stage, and we can can kind of ignore that. And perhaps they thought great things and lots of people started to think those things, perhaps like Adam Smith they will be remembered in these thought: this is Adam Smith's Pin Factory. So Adam Smith now becomes much more complex than just his bones.

 We kind of go along with it, but it doesn't really make much actual sense.

And yet, we do this to ourselves. We actually think there is a person inside us, somehow connected to our life, somehow born and somehow to die. Somehow owning our body parts, and what we do, and somehow being in our heads and our thoughts and our decisions. Yet haven't we seen with John Smith that this person doesn't really exist?

And if there is no one actually at the centre of all of this, the doesn't the world just carry on as it is without any hassle and worry? Things are just what they are and there is no one here in my life to worry about that.

Buddha calls this Anatta.

One obvious SRH problem with using dice.

The decision of whether to use dice or not CANNOT be made with dice. Easily proven because if you could then you could roll on never rolling, and keep going until a contradiction.

This is actually a great example of what we could call the Prior. Which is a version of SRH. You can't go back into time to before where you started, which is actually NOW. This is exploited in the 2002 version of the Time Machine where Dr. Alexander Hartdegen builds a time machine to go back in time to save his fiancée only to discover that once saved the cause of making the machine is gone and to maintain consistency, and avoid contradiction, she is killed in some other way. Of course there is the even bigger problem that to be back in time before the invention of the machine already opens up this inconsistency. And, as extremely well noted, once back in time you can kill your mother and create an inconsistency as bad as any SRH. From this we conclude that time travel is impossible, unless some condition exists which limits freedom to maintain consistency, or we should allow incompleteness where we allow existences that do not belong to "this universe." So if Time Travel is possible, then the Mother Paradox means our universe is not total and there are existences that do not depend upon it (isomorphic with provable where we take prove to mean depend upon the current axioms and combination rules - which maps to existence and laws of physics). Let see where Quantum Physics takes this, cos I've never realised explicitly that SRH says that Time Travel is impossible before (in an ordinary consistent and complete (knowable) Universe anyway). Okay lets say is this proof of God? Well SRH does say we can't know everything already so its the same conclsuion that there will always be unknowns complete outside the known universe. One unsettling thing tho is Godel, a committed Christian, did fashion a logical proof of God and I don't think it was this... why not? Have I got something wrong that the great Godel dismissed?? Scary indeed!

I'm only scribbling down a note here, and know I have handled this again and again in the blog, but forget what it was previously called.

In a "Hermeneutic Loop" you have to start somewhere. And that somewhere sets the loop you are in ALREADY. You always start IN a state of affairs. You cannot start from a black canvas and construct a situation or meaning. You start IN a situation and simply move somewhere else.

Logicians will complain. But you can decide on your logic framework and axioms from scratch and then explore the consistency and completeness of those axioms. But the 2007 version of SRH was saying even in this situation there is the prior of the logician them self. Faced with a page of schema and axioms for a logic will be meaningless unless you have some basic training in logic itself. Things have use and mention. The "use" requires training that lies outside the schema. There is always Prior. I know Hofstadler discusses at length inner and outer messages and what can be recovered by aliens exploring symbols. I will need to reread but I would venture that there is nothing fixed here; there is no message that we can write on a Voyager space craft whose "meaning" we can assure. I know some scientific constants were encoded so that aliens might know these and work backwards to decode. But this is making some assumptions based upon our own "prior." Is there an "objective" reality that is entirely separate from the sender and receiver? I would say no.

So returning to the simple case of using dice. Unless we use the dice for everything then we must make choices about when to use dice. Can these choices we defined in a rule. NO!

The proof is that we can use self-reference as done before to break this. Using coins: Heads and we ignore the outcome. Something is wrong. That something was in how we decided the question. "Using Dice" is a choice made Prior, like an axiom that we chose. And depending on the result we can reject that choice.

It also means that the outcome is heavily influence by this choice.

In reality we don't use dice for simple choices only those choice we are "unsure" about. Or perhaps those things we don't really want to do we put to the dice.

"dice" i'm using for any random choice. In reality I use coins with Yes/No answer.

So suppose we use the dice as a final "get out" clause. Shall I go for a jog? There is a 50/50 chance. So effectively all the coin flips are doing is reducing the number of things I don't want to do by 1/2.

This is not very scientific, as I don't flip coins on all the things I do want to do.

"Coin flips" quickly become dominated by the Prior, that is the conditions under which we use dice/coins at all.

And isn't this necessarily true. We cannot escape the "loop." Whatever we decide to do is already heavily influence by where we are. Buddhism and Present Moment is great here. You must start where you are, so let you brain catch up with NOW. Stop thinking about past and future and get established in the NOW. This is the launch pad from which to inspect the Past and the Future anyway, so get feet firmly on this launch pad before coins or anything.

=== 100 Prisoners

Had a great example of this is reality. An ICT room with a 100 PCs named in order PC1..PC100. Over time PCs have been removed, fixed and returned randomly or have been borrowed and returned and put back out of order. What algorithms do we have for returning them to the right order?

Well the definitive solution is to go through all the PCs get its name and move it to the right position. But suppose there is only room on the table for one. We must move it to a gap.

Well one solution which is not a complete solution but always improves the situation is : when you find a computer that is in the wrong place, swap it with the one in its correct place. If we also keep going until we have the right computer in the starting place then we will have completed a "Rainbow Loop" like in the 100 Prisoners. Now not all Rainbow Loops are very long, so its a good short term algorithm. I did this the other day and the 1st swap fixed it.

This illustrates an example of things being in a "loop." When you sit as a computer that is in the wrong booth you are automatically in a loop and you can trace a path through all the out-of-place PCs until you get to the one which should be in your booth.

This is the basis of the Enigma crack, finding Hash table collisions and the 100 Prisoners problem.

But being in loops is actually the central observation of all existence, and creates the Prior situation which underpins Self-Reference problems.

Self-Reference as observed creates loops, and creates algorithms that do not halt. TODO is the "Goto" really a self-reference!!!

While calling a function on itself recursively looks like recursion in the machine code doesn't this just Goto the code again?

So actually assuming code and logic are isomorphic, isn't the real problem in the Goto? What is the logical version of Goto? We can do away with "this" then and replace with "Goto x." And if this is where we are going then the "strong SRH" we defined which needs an Entity referring to Itself is no longer needed.

In fact note: Constructivism is at the heart of this.

The Strong-SRH and the weak-SRH actually differ in construction. Strong-SRH needs an actual entity to do the referring, while weak only needs a name.

"This is false" looks like Strong-SRH in that we can deduce an actual sentence is needed. 

While "Ex | x is false" only becomes a problem under binding. And under Godel Numbering is even more abstract as it depends upon isomorphism between numbers and formulae.

Just check whether Godel Numbering is something that PM can do. In other words do the theorems exist within PM or are they meta theorems??? Really should have sorted that by now!!  

Predicativity reading todo

 don't really want to take SRH down this road ... we don't want definitions we want to understand why but anyway:

WHAT IS PREDICATIVISM?
https://www.math.wustl.edu/~nweaver/what.pdf

https://planetmath.org/predicativism

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

https://www3.nd.edu/~tbays/papers/burgess.pdf

Can we generate some predicative statements that we can accept?

===

Broadly there is a problem with building houses on their own roofs. In Constructivism you need foundations to build on. And that creates the need for hierarchy rules that force systems into layers.

Now no one can escape Cantor's powerful use of this to create the hierarchy of Infinities that is do vast as to defy definition. Its not that numbers of infinite, but that the number of number types are infinite and so on in an ascending hierarchy that is beyond infinity. It is boundless because any bound greater than 2^current cardinality cannot fit within the current new number and create a new type. Diagonalisation and the Power Set blows apart any set.

So "totality" in set theory is a problem as the combinations of set elements becomes a predicate that lies outside the set.

But we can also create sets not by proving the existence of new things but just filtering things without any concern for whether they exist.

Certainly all the Self-Reference proofs operate by supposing an element and then showing that if it were the exist it would create an contradiction. So we prove it does not exist.

Or perhaps we can just say that if anything were to be selected by the definition it would create a contradiction, so we  blame the definition without needing any actual existence. This was Frege's contribution. ∃x | H(x) could be a problem if x is a Horned-Rabbit. This is actually an absurdity used by Buddha in India in 500BC. What are we saying is absurd about a Horned Rabbit if it doesn't exist? When ∃x | H(x) is false we are saying that there is no x such that H(x) without anything actually existing.

Likewise we could make statement above that make definitions without getting involved in actual existence.

Could a self-referential sentence be written that does not actually imply that it exists?

We run into problems in that surely we can always implied existence in self-referential sentences. If a sentence exists, and is self-referential then it must be referring to an existence. But anyway just pushing the boat out in this Predicativity issue that always been hanging around SRH.

===

Given the set X = {1,2}

∃x ∀y| x ∈ X & y ∈ X & x <= y

So we're saying there is a smallest value. While predicative it's not a problem because 1 has other definitions like S0 the successor of 0. So we have a thing "1" which exists outside this expression. All we are saying is that in the set X which contains "1" and "2" 1 < 2. Obviously in fact "1" is beyond the scope of this definition because we're using its magnitude to select it.

In Ramsey's example of "tallest man in the room" we can argue the same that the man has a height which is defined outside the definition. Ramsey is arguing that the "man" exists beyond the definition but surely we can also say that to apply the predicate H(x) (Height of x) we are going beyond the definition.

We don't need to be constructivist, problems only occur when we are using predicates that attribute qualities to elements that are defined by the set. Any predicate that attributes qualities to elements, that is itself dependent on the set is the only way to cause a problem surely?

"Sets that do not contain themselves" is such a problem.

What is the predicate?

{ x : x ∉ x }

So the ONLY way to find out whether x belongs to the set is to look at x! Now we are in trouble.

This was visualised well in the story of the librarian who decided to catalogue the books in the library. They noticed that and while most books did not reference themselves, some book did referenced themselves. They decided to write two catalogues for these books. The Catalogue of books that do reference themselves and the much larger catalogues of books that do not. Having written the books the librarian adds them to the shelves, only then realising that they are not catalogues yet. For the Catalogue of books that do reference themselves they realise adding it to that catalogue is fine. But then adding the Catalogue of books that do not reference themselves to that catalogue causes a problem, because not it does reference itself. So the librarian moves it to the other catalogue, but not it does not reference itself. This book fits into neither catalogue, and yet a book must either reference itself or not reference itself.

You might say the problem of course is that the book is not complete until all the references are in, and so it is not referencing a finished book, or an actually existing book yet.

But if the librarian sticks to catalogues of finished books then the problem still remains. Because once finished they catalogues can then be added to themselves, which means they are not finished yet.

The actual problem is that the Predicate namely "x ∉ x" depends only on x itself. How do you know whether a book belongs in the catalogue? You must scan the book for itself. How do you know what "itself" is you must look at the book. The itself is not defined by anything "outside" the book. Once you have picked that book up the "itself" is not defined. Its like the set of all things that you are holding at the time. The scope is limited entirely to the context of the operation there is no "objectivity."

Note computer languages have "this" or "self" references that when dereferenced point to the current object. All the objects are in objective space like books in a library and have exact addresses or names. Each self variable name is then replaced with the relative address of that object at run time.

We can't escape the paradox then by binding the "self" with the name of the book. That produces a list of questions about whether each book in the library with title T contains the text T. We assume that we've already titled the two catalogues of "Books that Contain" and "Don't Contain" themselves.

That maps back into computers. Suppose we have a base class with a method PrintNotSelfReferential(). We then have a class hierarchy derived from that and a load of instantiated object in memory. Now all object in memory must either dereference themselves or not. So we make a new class derived from the base with a method to go through memory and call PrintNotSelfReferential() on every object that does not dereference itself. It gets to itself and with no reference to itself it calls its own PrintNotSelfReferential(). In so doing it references itself and so executes PrintNotSelfReferential() on a method that ends up dereferencing itself. If the method had a validation step to check the output and redo if wrong you then have a loop and it never halts. The classic "I am false."

So there's no real way out of this. Once something is defined ONLY in  terms of itself ere be dragons!

But why?

I meant to say at the top, what of fixed points in this?

Is it meaningful to ask for the fixed point of a set like :  

{ x : x ∉ x }

#TODO

Am I being stupid? Isn't SRH simple? Self-Reference

How hard is this.

So as argued in blog last year there is some use to deciding by random. So let me decide whether to start the next sentence with "Amphoteric" if the coin is heads or "Blastocyst" if it is tails:     

"Amphoteric" reached its maximum usage in 1929 according to Google NGram. Okay I actually cheated there cos I was supposed to use the word and instead I used its quotation. But then there is no agreed way in English grammar to express "use the quotation" so its actually ambivalent, a word interestingly which has the same root as "amphoteric" where "ampho" is Greek for both.

Anyway the coin could have come down as a tail:

And that is it. Apparently if you ask "Yes/No" questions what can go wrong. And since anything can be expressed as a "Yes/No" question you can decide anything this way.

But what if you extend the questioning from simply worldly things like what shall I do, to meta statements about coin flips.

Well a "near" meta statement is: shall I never use coins to decide anything again (assume Head = Yes)

Well that is okay cos the coin is deciding never to use coin flips again. And if we flip again:

That is fine we just ignore it.

But what about: Shall I obey the next coin flip?

So the decision is that I should not obey this coin flip. But if I do not obey it and ignore it then I am actually obeying it. I'm stuck.

So its incredibly easy to cause a contradiction through self-reference. In the real world its just a system that can't get a stable answer. Suppose a Turing Machine with the following rules:

δ(q0, 0) = (q1, 1, →)

δ(q0, 1) = (q1, 0, →)

δ(q1, 0) = (q0, 0, ←)

δ(q1, 1) = (q0, 1, ←)

Or in this online TM the following program:

0 0 1 r 1

0 1 0 r 1

1 0 0 l 0

1 1 1 l 0

Recording the last move in the state means its easy to step back from the second position and loop.

So that is essentially what a contradiction is. A system that keeps contradicting itself and never stabilising. It doesn't Halt.

Now Turing was able to show that there is no Turing Machine that can decide whether another Turing machine will Halt. The problem is that it can't tell if it will Halt itself, and worse if there was such a TM you could use it to loop if it said it should not loop. That is literally isomorphic with the coin flip above or "I am false" liar paradox.

So that maps onto saying that there is no system that can tell if another system is a contradiction because it can't tell if it would be a contradiction (more accurately if it could, then you can engineer a contradiction).

So all that SRH is saying is that Self-Reference always leads to loops. Now worth exploring: do loops mean Self-Reference. Is the Turing Machine above an example of self-reference? That is, is it iso-morphic with a self-referential system? @TODO

For that consider Godel: he was able to create self-reference by listing and numbering sentences in Principia Mathematica. Once each formula had a number then a formula could operate on itself.

Now it was noted early in this blog that this "self-reference" was not "within the system", it exists in the creativity of an observer hermetically locked outside the system. Everyone knew that PM had functions that operated on elements that were understood to be numbers. But it took Godel to show that there was a diagonalisation that mapped formula to numbers thus giving sentences a self-reference meaning, and then used this to create a contradiction. But that all lay outside the system: something that viewers could decide for themselves without interacting with the system at all. Shall we call this "Extra Self-Reference". This is very different from the Self-Reference experienced by humans which appears to be "Intra Self-Reference" where the "self" knows that it is self-referential. That is not just awareness of the self, but knowledge that this actual self is the one being self aware. There is no "outside" to this situation (its also an illusion potentially as the "self" here is not a exactly "self" but rather a Universe).

Anyway must go. But how hard is this? But if SRH is going to have greater significance than this, formal systems, mechanisms and isomorphism will have to be the limit of this part of the investigation.

So really no need to get complicated. Now with such a simple formulation can you define exactly what the conditions for loop are. Are loops possible without self-reference (under any isomorphism).

And immediately we can say that were the conditions for looping possible then we have Halting Proof cos you could use these conditions to loop when you should not be looping. So that is impossible.

So the conditions under which contradictions and looping occur cannot be decided universally.

BUT and this is where SRH is interesting this proof uses self-reference. And we are saying that self-reference is the condition.

So 

(1) is self-reference the condition for looping (see above)... looping <=> self-reference

(2) can we decide whether self-reference is involved without using self-reference, i.e. can we decide whether loops happen just by looking at self-reference.

Now obviously a universal statement must apply to itself and so be self-referential. BUT what if the statement has an SRH caveat that (knowing that self-reference is a problem) excludes the case of self-reference?

===

The thing to do first is to find all the conditions of the coin flips that lead to loops. What is the structure of a loop in something as simple as the coin flips?

It is something like Tarski's Undefinability Theorem, but we are using Truth/False more abstractly to be anything "meta" within the system which is "suitably" meta to effect the outcome of the operation.

Some rules for this coin flip game:

1. The outcomes are binary Yes/No instead of True/False. But any binary outcome will do.
2. Heads maps to Yes.
3. All input must be a Yes/No question, or interpreted as such.
4. A "Program" is the chaining of Yes/No decisions, notated within {} brackets.
5. Decisions can be based upon previous answers.
6. Decisions can effect future statements (in program scope, unlimited scope)

Proposition>This system can make any decision from a countable set. Suppose we wanted to pick an N, we could just set up an infinite number of questions until we got a Yes.  

So in the first example above "ignore future coin flips?" is the greatest extent of Rule 6 and its the one that causes the problems.

We can define 3 types of questions.

Basic: eat chocolate or strawberry ice-cream

Meta1: stop playing this game.

Meta2: ignore this statement  

Meta2 have scope over the decision itself. SRH.

If we remove Rule 6 loops are loops still possible?

So 3 things to be clear on:

(1) What exactly is the condition for contradiction? Call that C.

(2) Is C the same as self-reference

(3) Is C the same as fixed point.

Now (4) is a response to the Woozle Loops post. If (3) is true then the condition for contradiction is actually a system which does not have "power" over all its elements. To phrase crudely. A Fixed Point is that element which remains unaffected by the System, like an Eigen-Vector it is unchanged, and represents a higher "meta" feature of the system. It represents the limits of the system "power." 

In fact for a Matrix to have a particular "transform" means it must be bound in a particular way and that is characterised by its Eigen-Vectors. Such meta statements interestingly are invariant under the transform. For a system to have a nature, automatically implies it has a limit. That limit defines its nature. Like a boundary on a geometric figure, that boundary defines the shape, and produces its "limit" also.

So Fixed Points actually define the limits of systems because they lie outside the systems, as does Self.

So in the post on Woozle Paths the thing being tackled is that TRUE "self-reference" itself is a contradiction. A "self" is an eigen-vector of a system and so cannot be part of the system. It is a "meta" feature of the system which lies outside it. And for a system to "be" something or have a "nature" it must have a boundary which provides the limit, which makes it what it is. But that boundary cannot be expressed "in" the system, since the system is defined in terms of the boundary!

The nature of something is what makes it what it is. It cannot then define its nature! And so a system can never actually refer to itself. This may have been the 1st version of SRH in fact that TRUE self-reference is impossible: in the sense of a system being able to encode itself, or operate on itself, or know itself. Whatever "power" or "nature" it has must be "greater" than the system. Its fixed points cannot be discovered by the system itself.

So not abandoning fixed-points after all. But rather they prove that TRUE immanent self-reference is impossible! Which was original SRH.

Derived SRH then says that Extrinsic Self-Reference like Godel Numbering (which only denotes elements within the system so that an element can refer to itself) but importantly must be done "extrinsically" by an external analyser of the system like "Godel" himself, using diagonalisation and isomorphisms, this type of SRH states that Self-Reference is the condition for contradictions.

Godel says his theorems hold for systems where self-reference is possible, but we're saying that self-reference is the problem from which his and many other paradoxes arise. We should understand the self-reference itself!

Holocaust Memorial Day

On this day its important to remember the victims of genocide, in particular the biggest genocide in history where a whole race of people was removed from North America by European colonists.  

Obviously facts on this Holocaust are extremely hard to determine because the White Americans are extremely biased and most Americans including Jews are Holocaust Deniers. But likely a population of 30 million native North Americans was annihilated to just 250,000 through disease, deliberate starvation and mass murder. Identical in fact to the Nazi Holocaust where starvation and disease were the main killers too. 

This means that 99% of the American Indian race was annihilated in this Holocaust making it the worst Holocaust in human history, and the most important to remember.

The next biggest Holocaust I know of was the Nazi Holocaust of Romani Gypsies. 85% of the world population was killed.

Strangely the most famous Holocaust was neither of these. The Jews think they experienced the worst genocide, but this isn't true. Something like 50% of the European population of Jews were annihilated, that's not even the global population. Jews also think they were enslaved in Egypt, but this is not true either.

What all this tells us is that Humans and in particular Europeans are genocidal beings. If we are to remember a race it is the race of Caucasians who are responsible for all these genocides.

I suspect, and as evidence mounts we will find out, but there were 6 species of humans at one stage including newly discovered Denisovans like in picture. And now there is just 1. Given our genocidal nature I wonder whether modern humans genocided all the other races of human.

Just as American want to deny their Genocide. I wonder whether modern humans want to deny that they are genocidal.

And one thing that is particularly nauseating is Jews pretending that they are somehow uniquely victims of Holocaust. Jews were complicit in the Holocaust. Famously George Soros admits as a child to reporting Jews to the Nazis. So what is the difference between Soros doing this and a non-Jewish German like Schmidt reporting Jews? And the Torah is one long genocide of other tribes of the Levant. And we see the Expansion of Israel into surrounding lands, even to this day, directly inspired by the German Liebestraum, and that itself inspired by the European colonisation of the "New World"-- which was never "New" it was just stolen for the original inhabitants through violence and extorsion. If you can scalp Indians for $50 a head to clear them off land then you can gas Jews to clear them off land or bulldoze Arabs off land too. But you can't reasonably do any of these. As long as Israel occupies land illegally and displaces people racially it springs from the same genocidal root as anyone else in the human race. There is no difference between Jew and Non-Jew when it comes to genocide for both victims and perpetrators. Indeed "Jews" are an irrelevant topic in the discussion of genocide. And worse the insistence of including Jews in the discourse on Genocide actually allows the true perpetrators to escape and the true nature of Holocaust to remain buried and so the Remembering of Jews actually just serves to promote Genocide and ensure it will happen again. Some non-racist honesty in all of this is essential before any progress can be made.

Gender debate

Feminism began as a reasonable reaction to the freedoms observed in men compared to women in the West. Especially after WW2 when women hired for the war effort decided to stay at work and take home a salary.

But as argued elsewhere in this blog it's all a misunderstanding. Women are kept at home because men want to be sure they do not get pregnant by other men. Unlike women who always know the child they carry is theirs, men are never sure quite who their partner slept with. For this reason women don't really care who their husbands sleep with, beyond fear they will divide their attention with another household. But for men, if they are to invest 18 years of work in a child they want to know for sure its not someone else's. That inequality is what underlies all the apparent "injustice" the feminists observe. And because feminists got this wrong the whole of feminism is wrong.

Feminists also leapt on the Black Emancipation movement. Women seeing themselves as slaves who needed freedom. But actually despite the horrors of US slavery really all this comes from Jewish ideas of Exodus. But actually all these are lies or hugely exaggerated. The Jews were never slaves as argued here, until 1930s Germany anyway. The time in Egypt was not slavery, even the Bible mentions no slavery. So all this is lies in fact and false. But anyway Exodus inspired the Black Emancipation from Capitalism. Which is ironic as Usury and Capitalism was banned in the Bible. But, while the Christians took this to mean in general the Jews took this to apply only to Jews not Gentiles. As a result the only way for Christians to borrow money in the West was from Jews. In fact this is the origin of the Jewish Ghettos. Because Jews were allowed Usury and the Christians not, the Christian Law makers asked the Jews to live outside the city so they could police Usury more accurately. The Jews agreed and so the division began that ultimately ended up in Pogroms and Jewish exclusion from society. Mammon really is not a kind god! So the growth of usury and Capitalism is actually what led to Black Slavery. Which means that Jewish culture both created the chains that enslaved the Blacks and also gave them the Exodus inspiration to break those chains! God moves in mysterious ways indeed.

But once we sweep all this nonsense aside we are left with the gender debate.

Everyone alive was born. This is the most important existential thing for anyone to deal with. And what is probably unwelcome news to those who have got stuck in the gender debate, being alive us the result of sex. There is no way to get away form this. How ever you slice and dice sexual preferences, relationships and culture it all rests on the basis of birth. You need to be born to even argue about this! It is absolutely fundamental.

SO there isn't much to add. Being born is about sex. And it involves two sexes. There is no third sex required for childbirth. Kind of end of.

But there are many types of relationship that have nothing to do with childbirth. There are prostitutes, gay relationships, rape and now trans-sexual relationships. In strict simple, plain talking these are all perversions because they pervert the basic truth of sexual relations that they are to do with birth.

However we don't need be so restrictive -- except in the case of non-consensual relations which automatically count as crime. Altho I remember a German case where a man consensually agreed to be eaten by another. His penis was eaten first suggesting a sexual motive to this rather than just being hungry! Sex can take almost any form and we agree that many forms are perversions. But as liberalism spreads we accept more and more.

Well not getting into the complexities of sexual preferences but how ever you argue this the root basis of procreation is a given from which everything else comes.

Gender is similar. In functioning sexual relationships that give rise to children there are obvious roles that people fall in to. Females for example produce milk, and gestate the child. Men do not do either. There is no real argument here. Fitting these facts into gender roles is definitely the simplest way. Indeed it would be fascism to force men and women to abandon these time honoured and logical facts. But it is true there is no reason to be heavy handed and force people into gender roles. But equally no reason to be heavy handed and force people out of them either.

So there isn't much to this debate really once you clear away the nonsense.

But now we see America yet again. The problem here is US Ego, Rights and Freedom at play. In the US you define your freedom by being an idiot and rejecting everything you are told. You appoint yourself as an expert and you decide to rewrite the rules. The problem with this is you are probably wrong. But being a loud mouthed American you won't listen and you will be the last to realise you are wrong. America and Americans have  along history of being wrong about everything.

Something the so called Cis community needs to do is claim back the sex and gender debate from the self appointed idiots who seem to think they know what they are talking about. Everything in Feminism needs review because it is obvious nonsense. And everything that derives from Feminism is on even more shaky territory. But really the main problem is if its American: then it's wrong.

Mentioned before a main problem is this false belief in "Patriarchy." There is no such thing, its an invention of Feminism. What Feminism does is invent Patriarchy and then use that to justify Feminism. But Patriarchy is part if Feminism so by SRH you can't use Patriarchy to justify Feminism. Its like a salesman or advert who creates a need and then surprisingly has the solution.

Take a current UK advert which introduces the idea of "nose blind." This is the feature of the smell you get when cooking that during cooking you lose the ability to smell what you are cooking. Well some marketing exec realised they could use this to sell unnecessary air fresheners. No one really uses them, but you can make people paranoid and feel they do need them. Like all bullshit you can turn to the salesman and say well if you can get nose-blind then so can your guests so you don't need it. All swords are doubled edged. All salesmen defeat themselves. Feminism has all the tools of its own ruin/ It is nonsense.

What remains is the "way things are" and like all good scientists and Buddhists you must start with the value of the way things are upon which to base your thoughts and actions. You can't dismiss the way things are like Feminists do. You can't hate the way things are because they are the world that you live in and from which everything you say and do comes.

So caveat to myself. America is the way the world currently is. But its important to understand America for what it is, not what it says it us! And they are almost completely opposite. America comes with its own ultra-massive sales department (which includes the whole of the NEWS and Hollywood) and I think most people don't realise this.

US Dictatorship

 Just follow up the previous post on the disaster that America is both for its own people and the world the Ukraine War is the last US war and has tipped the world once more into instability.

No sooner did 20 years of US war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria end than they began war in Ukraine.

"The United States Armed Forces completed their withdrawal from Afghanistan on 30 August 2021" [Wikipedia].

The Ukraine War actually began on 6th April 2014 [wikipedia]. And has received support from the America (and its coalition) on one side and  Russia (and its coalition) on the other.

But America withdraws all its troops on 30th August 2021. And Russia invades almost exactly 6 months later on 24 February 2022.

US Press argues that it withdrew troops because it knew that Russia was going to mount an offensive. But this doesn't make sense. If Russia wanted to take Ukraine it would have invaded at the start of the Donbass war in 2014 while America was still pre-occupied in the disastrous Afghan, Syrian and Iraq wars. No-one would wait until their arch enemy was ready for war to actually start an invasion.

Clearly the Russians invaded Ukraine BECAUSE the US was increasing its support of Kiev. And this fits with global US military activity anyway.

But its far worse because the Euro-Maidan was highly suspicious anyway. It fits the pattern of both MI6 and CIA military operations where a small political protest is used to publicise the Wests political interests. This then turns violent, is suppressed by the incumbent government and that is used as propaganda to invalidate the incumbent and promote the Wests puppets. This has been done literally a hundred times around the globe over the last 70 years. Most famously in Iran in the Western campaign to crush democracy and reinstall the Western leaning dictator the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi whose corruption opened the door to Western oil and enabled the stealing of billions of dollars from Iran. This is such an established pattern it is unthinkable that the Euro Maidan was anything else. And when we discover that Russia is the country being targeted -- that is the Empire the West has been trying to suppress for over a century -- it makes all the more sense.

And a quick paragraph on the Cold War is needed there. The original plan for WW2 was to use Russia to defeat Germany (the central European Empire that the West wanted to destroy) and the turn on Russia. But Germany proved harder to defeat than expected and the West was forced to agree to a truce in central Europe. The US turned this truce into the Cold War and began a nuclear arms race. In addition the US also suppressed the Japanese Empire to its West in WW2 another goal that is often ignored by Europeans. Any suggestion that Peral Harbour was an accident is nonsense. US was reading Japanese Enigma by then and they knew the attack was coming.

The absurdity of the lies spread by the US over the Cold War is best revealed by this graph of nuclear weapons. Just like WMDs and Iraq the US just lied about the weapons capability of the countries it wanted to destroy and put under its dictatorship. Russia was never a nuclear threat. For the first 10 years they had just 3 nuclear weapons while the US amassed a huge arsenal. When the Russians eventually started to make weapons in self-defence it took then 30 years to catch up with the US. Only after the US had lied its way into an arms race and destabilised the whole world was Russia an actual threat. Only the US would threaten all life on earth to gain the political upper hand! Everything about the US is about lies and pure evil. Quite the opposite of the image it likes to portray.

And a mention of WW1 is needed there. Cui Bono. WW1 ended with the suppression of Ottoman Empire (a 1000 years empire that the West had been brutally attacking since the Crusades), Austro-Hungarian and German Empire (the remnants of the Roman Empire through the Holy Roman Empire).

It is all just a game of Empires! And Ukraine is just the latest round of attacks and instability by the rampant US Empire.

And so we have the absurd news that the US joins Germany in sending tanks. US joins Germany in sending battle tanks to Ukraine. One slight problem with this being that Germany was defeated by the Americans and Berlin has no freedom any more. In losing a war you lose your independence. All the talk of Nazism is nonsense as the West was fighting to destroy Germany long before any Nazis had even been born. And that makes the Holocaust and interesting thing. If War against Germany precedes Nazism by decades then Nazism was not the reason for WW2. And that means the whole smokescreen of Holocaust is also irrelevant in the reasons for war. Churchill is well known for having added documents to the British records office to justify things after the event. The whole Holocaust thing is irrelevant in understanding WW1 and WW2. And this blog has argued at length that the absence of records of the humanitarian crisis that faced Europe after the war, and the fact that over half of all Holocaust victims died after liberation from starvation they experience only in the last few months of the war points more to the war itself being the cause of death more than Nazis policy. This has nothing to do with "Holocaust Denial" which is another smokescreen. The point is that quite possibility the main reason for the huge deaths tolls in Germany after D-Day was actually the Allied invasion (as you would expect - war causes, indeed its a central strategy, to cause infrastructure collapse and starvation anyway). So we are left with aggressive expansion of the Western empire to explain the whole of WW1 and WW2.

So in fact like all the "allies" the support for the Ukraine war is not a free choice and all of Europe is being forced yet again to support the US Imperial expansion and to take on Russia.

But what is most worrying is that this obvious fact is not represented in the media. The Media tries absurdly to pretend and hide the fact that the US is the driving force behind ALL these wars in headlines like "US joins."

Now how can a "free" press tell such lies so consistently? IT IS NOT FREE. WE ARE NOT FREE.

And that is interesting. The people who think they are free are actually the ones who are not. Places like Russia decide on their own military campaigns. They do not have to obey the orders of a foreign Imperial power like Washington. Britain on the other hand is a vassal state of the US Empire. We lost WW2 and had to let the US take over and have remains an occupied country ever since with a military that is under the control of Washington. Since 1942 Britons have not been free. And our press is not free and must obey Washington press releases without question.

Its all very ironic.

But life outside the US Empire is hard. Were Britons to fight for our freedom again like we did with Brexit against Brussels dictatorship we would immediately be put under strict US sanctions and the country would quickly fall into poverty like Russia, North Korea, Iran or any other country that rejects US dictatorship. It all depends how much we value our freedom, and how easily we are bought and corrupted. You just need to see UK governments to see how completely corrupt and sold out the US they are. We live as subject of an Empire like we did under the Romans. But almost no one realises cos the press is so completely corrupted itself that we keep been told we are free even in the face of absurdity like economic collapse as we pay trillions to fill economic holes created by the US sub-prime collapse. If any other country had destroyed the UK like this it would be all over the press and we would be at war. Even COVID ultimately goes back to US research being conducted in China.

So its all lies and always has been. From WW1 looking forward and probably backwards too the country America that has been at war for its whole existence is all about violence, lies and extortion. People wonder why the dollar is the reserve currency? It was a fraud committed by the US at Bretton Woods. They simply cheated and stole the reserve currency from the rest of the world. It is important to understand what you are dealing with when discussion the US. It is all lies, all bright lights, all fast talking and all criminality.

A friend was shocked to discover that McMafia is entirely fictional. I have no doubt it was funded the CIA to spread propaganda about Russia.

With anything American you can be sure it is a lie, a dream, a fabrication, a dishonesty. No surprise it is called the American Dream. It simply isn't true! In the UK a cowboy is someone who does a bad job and takes the money anyway. This is exactly what the US always was and still is: just Cow Boys. The same people who murdered a whole race of Indians as well and enslaved millions in hard labour from which few survived even a few years. A country of pure evil. It roots are rotten, its history corrupt and it will always be evil.

Sad days for the West and for human freedom indeed. and Ukraine is just the last of a century of lies and nonsense and as usual US policy just leads to death and slavery. Poor Ukrainians. It looks like lots of them believe the hype and the lies.