background preloader

New Politika Opinions

Facebook Twitter

Origins and Techniques of Monarch Mind Control. Monarch Programming is a method of mind control used by numerous organizations for covert purposes. It is a continuation of project MK-ULTRA, a mind-control program developed by the CIA, and tested on the military and civilians. The methods are astonishingly sadistic (its entire purpose is to traumatize the victim) and the expected results are horrifying: The creation of a mind-controlled slave who can be triggered at anytime to perform any action required by the handler. While mass media ignores this issue, over 2 million Americans have gone through the horrors of this program. This article looks at the origins of Monarch programming and some of its methods and symbolism. NOTE: This article contains disturbing elements and might trigger Monarch survivors. Monarch programming is a mind-control technique comprising elements of Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) and Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD).

Origins Joseph Mengele, 1935 “DR. “Dr. Declassified MK-Ultra document Monarch Programming Method 1. Growthism. You know the alien cults that announce to their followers that next year, on October 28th, at precisely 4:05 pm, the master race will arrive, and save humanity? Of course, the aliens never arrive. But that doesn’t stop the cult from believing. It only strengthens their belief. If, as I’d bet you do, you’re head-shakingly familiar with said cults, allow me to ask you a question. Has capitalism failed? Or, if you like, is it failing? Let me be clear. Imagine a country called CapitalismStan.

Yet something was wrong in CapitalismStan. In short, life in CapitalismStan was getting shorter, nastier, unhappier, and harder. Does CapitalismStan’s story sound a little bit like America’s to you? Now, allow me to rebut myself. Maybe what’s practiced in the USA isn’t capitalism at all. So what is this system that is faltering, precisely, if it’s not quite capitalism? I’d call it “growthism.” Growthism says: growth must be achieved at all costs. Growthism, then, is antithetical to democracy. But wait! Debatable. New Politika. Accelerated Learning Would Add Trillions of Dollars in Wealth. Political discussion today is dominated by a pessimistic tone about government deficits, taxes, and our aging population. But, surprising as it may seem, a drastic overhaul of the nation’s education system could fix many of our problems.

Such changes would create a variety of benefits: decreased government spending; more sustainable entitlement programs; greater equality; and a better-disciplined younger generation; not to mention an end to the mumbo jumbo that dominates academia and policy debates today. Some much-debated solutions to our country’s problems include increasing the retirement age, raising taxes, diminishing Social Security benefits and other entitlements, and attracting qualified immigrants.

But what if students could complete their education, including undergraduate study, in less time by a year or even two? Or, in the case of community colleges, three or four fewer years? Consider first a “Fermi” calculation about the monetary consequences of such a change: GOD_Over_Djinn comments on New spin on an old question: Is the university economics curriculum too far removed from economic concerns of the real world? The_Old_Gentleman comments on Anarcho-"Capitalism," as described by a mutualist's comment in /r/anarcho-capitalism. Thoughts? Inequality and Web Search Trends. Photo In the hardest places to live in the United States, people spend a lot of time thinking about diets and religion. In the easiest places to live, people spend a lot of time thinking about cameras. This summer, The Upshot conducted an analysis of every county in the country to determine which were the toughest places to live, based on an index of six factors including income, education and life expectancy.

Afterward, we heard from Hal Varian, the chief economist at Google, who suggested looking at how web searches differ on either end of our index. The results, based on a decade of search data, offer a portrait of the very different subjects that occupy the thoughts of richer America and poorer America. They’re a glimpse into the id of our national inequality. In the hardest places to live – which include large areas of Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, New Mexico and Oregon – health problems, weight-loss diets, guns, video games and religion are all common search topics.

Political Philosophy. First new economic model in 100 years | LIFE. Universal safety. Distributed democracy. Personal privacy. First new economic model in 100 years, and the only option to NeoLiberal Puritanism on offer today. Investing in the infrastructure for universal social safety creates a more dynamic, lower cost economy that is fiscally, socially and environmentally sustainable with low growth. The recognition that social safety is a parallel requirement for economic success, and the revelation that unconditional safety is both the natural expression of solidarity and the key to liberating economic performance, has unveiled a new economic model for human society that will transform the 21st Century into a new age of enlightened prosperity. Securing the benefits of large societies requires the delivery of basic life supporting services unconditionally and universally. This is necessary to maintain cohesion, and to enable the diverse contributions of the individuals in the society.

Cost Reduction Fiscal Balance Economic Emancipation Winners (& Losers) “Why Neighborhoods Must Secede” by Karl Hess | Left Liberty. The Italian revolutionary Giuseppe Mazzini warned us not to “imagine that you can free yourselves from unjust social conditions before winning a country of your own. Do not be seduced by the idea of improving your material conditions without first solving the national questions.”

The Irish revolutionary James Connolly translated that into the independence of his people. Lenin, impressed by Connolly, used the idea to do his thing at home rather then globally. Barry Goldwater, when he was was a revolutionary, used to talk about something similar when he spoke of independence and virtual nationhood for states, counties, even cities. Huey Newton talks about it still, seeing the liberation of his oppressed comrades in independent, decolonized communities. Since all of the others are either retired from revolution or dead, Huey Newton is the most vital.

He also may be the most perceptive in seeing where, in this particular nation-state, a great energy for social change is to be found. The FBI maintains an 83-page glossary of Internet slang. And it is hilariously, frighteningly out of touch. The FBI headquarters IRL. That’s “in real life,” to you. (Jeffrey MacMillan/Capital Business) The Internet is full of strange and bewildering neologisms, which anyone but a text-addled teen would struggle to understand.

So the fine, taxpayer-funded people of the FBI — apparently not content to trawl Urban Dictionary, like the rest of us — compiled a glossary of Internet slang. An 83-page glossary. The glossary was recently made public through a Freedom of Information request by the group MuckRock, which posted the PDF, called “Twitter shorthand,” online. All of these minor gaffes could be forgiven, however, if the glossary itself was actually good. ALOTBSOL has, for the record, been tweeted fewer than 500 times in the entire eight-year history of Twitter. Among the other head-scratching terms the FBI considers can’t-miss Internet slang: AYFKMWTS (“are you f—— kidding me with this s—?”) Caitlin Dewey runs The Intersect blog, writing about digital and Internet culture. Capitalism is God's Will and the Cat Drank all the Milk: How our Language Creates our Biggest Problems and Why We Can't do Anything about It. Felipe Del Valle (CC BY 2.0) I have a confession to make, one that a good number of readers will find disgusting and emetic and prevent many of them from reading further.

Others, however, might relate or find it interesting regardless, and so those people will continue to read, which, I suppose, is good enough for me. You see, when I was a child, from a very early age, probably as early as I can remember, I felt all around me the “Presence of God.” It was and is, in all actuality, an impossible feeling to properly describe, but I suppose to some extent that I could say that I felt some sort of “immanent-transcendent energy” “flowing” through me and through my surroundings. Having lived in a rural area hours away in any direction from something resembling civilization, many of my childhood memories consist of me sitting in the backseat of a Toyota 4Runner driving somewhere else, usually toward civilization somewhere. This is nothing new, of course. Yoppy (CC BY 2.0) What is “Capitalism?” Helping Economists Escape Economics. There are plenty of economists who will happily admit the limits of their discipline, and be nominally open to the idea of other theories.

However, I find that when pushed on this, they reveal that they simply cannot think any other way than roughly along the lines of neoclassical economics. My hypothesis is that this is because economist’s approach has a ‘neat and tidy’ feel to it: people are ‘well-behaved’; markets tend to clear, people are, on average, right about things, and so forth.

Therefore, economist’s immediate reaction to criticisms is “if not our approach, then what? It would be modelling anarchy!” One such example of this argument is Chris Dillow, in his discussion of rationality in economics: Now, economists have conventionally assumed rational behaviour. However, as I and others have pointed out, people do not have two mindsets: ‘rational’, where they maximise utility, and ‘irrational’, where they go completely insane and chuck cats at people. Defending rational expectations. Whenever I post anything which suggests that the idea of rational expectations was a useful innovation in macroeconomics, Lars Syll writes something to the effect that I am (and therefore most mainstream macroeconomists are) “so wrong, so wrong”.

Now why does this bother me? Well, to be honest, it does not bother me very much. As Bob Dylan sang: ‘Yes, I received your letter yesterday (About the time the doorknob broke)’. But it does bother me a bit. Professor Syll does write very eloquently, and this kind of eloquent prose can appeal to the occasional young economist, who is inclined to believe that only the radical overthrow of orthodoxy will suffice. I meet one or two each year I teach. I remember the feeling: been there, done that. If I really wanted to focus in detail on how expectations were formed and adjusted, I would look to the large mainstream literature on learning, to which Professor Syll does not refer.

Perhaps you think the alternative is equally unbelievable. Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed. Well I’m in the working world again. I’ve found myself a well-paying gig in the engineering industry, and life finally feels like it’s returning to normal after my nine months of traveling. Because I had been living quite a different lifestyle while I was away, this sudden transition to 9-to-5 existence has exposed something about it that I overlooked before. Since the moment I was offered the job, I’ve been markedly more careless with my money.

Not stupid, just a little quick to pull out my wallet. As a small example, I’m buying expensive coffees again, even though they aren’t nearly as good as New Zealand’s exceptional flat whites, and I don’t get to savor the experience of drinking them on a sunny café patio. I’m not talking about big, extravagant purchases. In hindsight I think I’ve always done this when I’ve been well-employed — spending happily during the “flush times.” What I’m doing isn’t unusual at all. It seems I got much more for my dollar when I was traveling. Is this you? War Is A Crime .org | -- -- Intrinsic value (ethics) It is contrasted with instrumental value (or extrinsic value), the value of which depends on how much it generates intrinsic value.[2] For an eudaemonist, happiness has intrinsic value, while having a family may not have intrinsic value, yet be instrumental, since it generates happiness.

Intrinsic value is a term employed in axiology, the study of quality or value. Other names for intrinsic value are terminal value, essential value, principle value or ultimate importance. See also Robert S. Hartman's use of the term in the article Science of Value. Intrinsic value is mainly used in ethics, but the concept is also used in philosophy, with terms that essentially may refer to the same concept. End is roughly similar, and often used as a synonym, for the following concepts: This is a table which attempts to summarize the main intrinsic value of different life stances and other views, although there may be great diversity within them: Subjective theory of value. Overview[edit] According to the subjective theory of value, voluntary trades between individuals imply that both parties to the trade subjectively perceive the goods, labour or money they receive as being of higher value to the goods, labour or money they give away.

The subjective-value theory holds that one can create value simply by transferring ownership of a thing to someone who values it more highly, without necessarily modifying that thing. Where wealth is understood to refer to individuals' subjective valuation of their possessions, voluntary trades may increase the total wealth in society. Individuals will tend to obtain diminishing levels of satisfaction, or marginal utility from acquiring additional units of a good.

In a free market, competition between individuals seeking to trade goods they possess and services they can provide for goods they perceive as being of higher value to them results in a market equilibrium set of prices emerging. Diamond-water paradox[edit] Notes[edit] Paradox of hedonism. The paradox of hedonism, also called the pleasure paradox, is a concept in ethics that focuses upon pleasure and happiness as strange phenomena that do not adhere to normal principles.

The philosopher Henry Sidgwick was first to note in The Methods of Ethics that the paradox of hedonism is that pleasure cannot be acquired directly, it can only be acquired indirectly.[1] Overview[edit] It is often said that we fail to attain pleasures if we deliberately seek them. This has been described variously, by many: John Stuart Mill, the utilitarian philosopher, in his autobiography: But I now thought that this end [one's happiness] was only to be attained by not making it the direct end. Viktor Frankl in Man's Search for Meaning: Happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side effect of one's personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one's surrender to a person other than oneself. What is good? Poet and satirist Edward Young: Economic liberalism. Economic liberalism is the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, meaning that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals and not by collective institutions or organizations.[1] It includes a spectrum of different economic policies, such as freedom of movement, but it is always based on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production.

Although economic liberalism can also be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition. However, economic liberalism may accept government intervention in order to remove private monopoly, as this is considered to limit the decision power of some individuals. While economic liberalism favors markets unfettered by the government, it maintains that the state has a legitimate role in providing public goods.[2] Ideological basis[edit] Austrian School. Paradox of value. Inequality. Why Is Planet Earth On Life Support? Make Drug Use Pay Its Own Way: Laurence Kotlikoff, Glenn Loury. List of liberal theorists. Montesquieu. Serendipity: Information and commentary not to be found in the mainstream media. Home | Center for Inquiry.