Excerpt: “The young David Lynch dreamed of spending his life as a painter. But as he learned to fill a canvas, he was also learning a lesson that propelled him in what some would call a very different direction. From his early influences he took an understanding that narrative can bring us to truth and to each other if it makes us dream. At the same time, and paradoxically, he instinctively gleaned that the logic of narrative can push an artistic expression too close to empty conventions and become a formidable barrier to the dreaming mind. To use narrative as a support for the dream, Lynch takes a page from the painters who inspired him and neutralizes as much as he can of the drive in narrative to take control of a film. In the interviews that Francis Bacon, the most articulate of his early influences, granted to David Sylvester, Bacon sheds much light on Lynch’s understanding of narrative when he identifies narrative as an expression of the human will and makes the goal of his art ‘the will to lose one’s will.’ Bacon’s ‘will to lose one’s will’ resonates in Lynch’s resolute determination ‘to get out of the way of the paint and let the paint speak,’ as Lynch phrases it. Lynch approaches directing in a similar manner, working from an instinct similar to the one he saw in Bacon’s canvases and bringing to Hollywood the truth of the dream.”
“The Anglo-American establishment would be allowed to have either Europe or the Middle East, but not both. It was always going to be Ukraine or Syria, but never the two together.
Also confirming this thesis and analysis are the growing attempts to isolate Iran. The emboldened anti-Iranian scripting has picked up steam throughout Trump’s visit to the Middle East and during the G7 summit. It should be considered that Russia may turn on its allies in the Middle East, being Syria and Iran, in exchange for Ukraine and Europe.
It was never going to be both. The Anglo-American strategy in Ukraine was leverage to use against Russia to get what it wanted in the Middle East. The Anglo-American establishment would never give up resource poor Europe for the resource rich Middle East.” – JC Collins excerpt
https://philosophyofmetrics.com/ (subscription required for this article)
These negotiations involve the deaths of millions and the spending of trillions. Business as usual on planet Earth.
(warning: slow connect time on above link)
The human of the future is being engineered as an androgynous creation which will be of one race and will function within one spiritual and ideological belief structure. Those who may doubt this statement should reference the material published by Lucis Trust regarding the future of humanity and need to manufacture a future of human sameness. Lucis Trust has a special prayer room within the United Nations, which signifies its importance to the engineers.
It is pertinent to understand that the writings of Alice Bailey, which are published by Lucis Trust, represent a corruption of the process of spiritual transmutation. There is just enough truth there to capture the imagination but the externalization of the process which is promoted is a corrupt form of what is meant to be an internal process of self-realization and spiritual evolution.
– JC Collins
In about every hotel chain, from Argentina to South Africa, the bathroom with have a sign meant to gets your attention: “protect the environment”. They want you to hold off from sending the towels to the laundry and reuse them for a while, because avoiding excess laundry it saves them tens of thousand dollars a year. This is similar to the salesperson telling you what is good for you when it is mostly (and centrally) good for him. They, of course, love the environment but you can bet that they wouldn’t have advertised it so loudly had it not been been good for their bottom line.
So these global causes: poverty (particularly children’s), the environment, justice for some minority trampled upon by colonial powers, or some unknown yet gender that will be persecuted; these global causes are now the last refuge of the scoundrel advertising virtue.
But virtue is precisely what you don’t advertise. It is not an investment strategy. It is not a cost-cutting scheme. It is not a book selling (and worse, concert tickets selling) strategy.
– Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Forget plain vanilla fundamental analysis, all that matters is that the euro is the currency of the whore of Babylon: the stronger the powers of darkness, the stronger the euro. The composite model for the illuminati (5/1/1776 in Ingolstadt, Germany) shows a 2015/16 low and a 2023 high, which is also the forecast for the euro. Moreover, the euro correlates with the power of the yin (yin=darkness=2, yang=light=1). 2022 is the maximum yin year with 3 times the yin number 2: around 2022 the powers of darkness are strongest and therefore the euro as well. Note that the 666 Queen of Darkness rules from spring 2019 for 42 months, which is when the euro dominates everything. The 5 euro note introduced on 5/2/13 (within one day of the 237th birthday of the illuminati) contains the message OBEY. This message reminds us of the 1988 movie John Carpenter’s They Live. But why was the name of the director included in the film title, which is more than unusual? The carpenter is a reference to Jesus Christ. One of the euro banknotes depicts Jesus Christ (officially: Europe) with a nailed down 3rd eye. Only the Anti-Christ herself can pretend to close the 3rd eye, a matter for the boss so-to-speak.
– newsletter excerpt
- 7/26/15: announcement from the Israeli Temple Institute that the 3rd Temple will be built in Jerusalem – “accidentally” 666/2 days (+/-1) ahead of *the* financial event 2016 (BREXIT). This announcement has been eagerly awaited (or feared) by the end times community for thousands of years. The elites reacted immediately by withdrawing capital from Israel, as they fully comprehend the incredible meaning of this announcement. After all, the final goal of Freemasonry is to build the third temple… The Israeli blue chip index Tel Aviv 35 printed the all-time high on 7/30/15, a mere 4 days after the news… Moreover, the 13 years of outperformance of the TA35 against the FTSE All-World ended in August 2015, too (all-time high of the ratio close to 6.66). In addition, within days the shekel set the all-time high against JPY (retest). The odds that this is nothing but a “coincidence” can’t be neglected (P<0.1%).
- Around 9/23/17 or 4/20/18 (666.1.5 days after 7/26/15) the concrete timetable for the construction will be presented. Afterwards war declarations from all Muslim neighbors will follow, so that the Israeli assets (currency, stocks, real estate) will collapse.
- 12/1/2018: Dr. Werner Papke already predicted 15 years ago that the temple will be constructed from 12/1/2018 on.
- 3/19/19 (666+666 days after 7/26/15): beginning of the 42 months of the Great Tribulation, finishing of the temple and beginning of the sacrifice of the red heifers
- Spring 2020: the animal sacrifices stop
- December 2021: Israel begins to fall according to Nostradamus (after 73 years 7 months)
– newsletter excerpt
“We are less bored than our ancestors were, but we are more afraid of boredom. We have come to know, or rather to believe, that boredom is not part of the natural lot of man.” – Bertrand Russell
I’ve logged 62 years in this dysfunctional universe, this upside-down world, and the need for novelty has always been equal to the need for familiarity. After all, they are part of a polarity. A polarity can play out in the lukewarm middle, or it can exhibit a barbell look. Novelty/familiarity has become progressively more barbell like over my lifetime. But that’s true of a great many polarities since the 1950s. It’s a measure of obvious dysfunction, of a clear departure from reality, that characterizes developments from the post WW II period to today. The earlier times weren’t filled with more reality or less dysfunction; it was simply more effectively hidden from most people. I suspect this is all another sine wave: now more barbell, soon less barbell. It seems that a previous state can only return when most have forgotten about it.
by Thomas G. Donlan, Updated May 20, 2017 1:22 a.m. ET
Proponents of net neutrality protest against FCC Chairman Ajit Pai outside the American Enterprise Institute earlier this month in Washington, D.C. Getty Images
To the zealous guardians of fairness and the so-called public interest, Ajit Pai is a very dangerous man, in what they believe is a very important job. To those whose zealotry leans toward liberty and ignores economic equality, Ajit Pai is an important man in a very dangerous job.
After five years as a member of the Republican minority at the Federal Communications Commission, Pai is now chairman of the Republican majority, and the FCC chairman wields nearly all of the commission’s regulatory power. In his most controversial use of power so far, Pai is rebalancing the battle over net neutrality. The battle, however, has gone on for decades, and there’s no end in sight.
In three decades, the internet has become the most powerful force in communications, largely because there has never been a single hand or mind guiding it. Those who controlled its technical details were practical anarchists who believed in a mission to keep the internet open to every person and idea.
The internet in its pure, original state crossed borders and distributed ideas without limit, but authoritarian countries have different ideas, focused on censorship and suppression of ideas. The democratic countries of Europe have created extreme rights of privacy and protection from offensive content. Even in the U.S., the liveliest question now is whether some government control of the internet is necessary to keep it free and open for Americans.
In 2015, under the previous FCC chairman, Democrat Tom Wheeler, the commission established a net neutrality policy that said internet service providers, especially the big ones like Verizon Communications, AT&T, and Comcast, had too much power. Wheeler discerned that the service providers could favor their own interests over those of content providers, streaming services, and their consumers. The ISPs could manage internet traffic over their wired or wireless networks, especially the wires of the “last mile” into millions of homes, where the ISPs have monopolies or duopolies.
For example, a service provider might take a payment from a streaming service and route a movie download through a fast connection, while another streaming service’s movie might be put on slower connections. The ISP also might block traffic entirely, for economic or political reasons.
Wheeler’s FCC gave itself authority to police provider tactics that it deemed to threaten competition, free expression, or the future of the internet as a public service.
Even the Electronic Frontier Foundation, long an advocate of net neutrality, warned that those powers might be risky—“a recipe for overreach and confusion.” Ignoring millennia of lessons about the abuse of power in economic regulation, the foundation urged the FCC to practice “light-touch regulation.”
The FCC had tried to enforce net neutrality before, but each time it ran into federal courts that held that the commission couldn’t take up that cudgel without authority to regulate ISPs as public utilities.
Former President Barack Obama promised in his 2008 campaign to make the internet a “level playing field.” In service to that dubious end, Wheeler shored up the FCC’s enforcement power to manage traffic on the private networks of the internet.
The commission designated internet providers as “common carriers,” a term left over from the late and unlamented Interstate Commerce Commission and its heavy regulation of interstate trains, buses, and trucks. In the days of Ma Bell’s near-monopoly on telephone service, the FCC also treated telephone companies as common carriers.
Signal features of common carrier status are rate regulation that forces all customers to be treated alike and rules that give a regulator control over firms’ entry, exit, and offerings of service to the public. Usually, regulated firms must seek prior approval for every market change.
Such rules are intended to substitute for market competition, on the presumption that firms in the regulated industry have monopoly power. Often, however, the regulators have supplied the monopoly power by excluding competitors. (For perfect modern examples, see the municipal taxi commissions that have tried to exclude competition from Uber, Lyft, and other ride-sharing services.)
Today’s telecommunications industry is no monopoly. There are hundreds of internet service providers, hundreds of content providers, and thousands of networks. The excuse for regulation now is that most American homes have only one or two hard-wired connections to the internet, provided by companies that acquired their privileged places as phone companies or cable-TV companies.
Most Americans, however, have at least one wireless broadband device, and they have choices among wireless broadband providers, whose services will get better and more competitive as long as they are not subject to regulatory oppression.
Beyond the protections that competition may provide is the question of whether protection is warranted at all. We must ask: Who owns the wired and the wireless networks, and by what stretch of authority does the FCC presume to manage them against the wishes of the private investors that built them?
Supporters of net neutrality regulation say that only the government can prevent internet service providers from offering content or services at different prices. But it’s far from clear that multitiered pricing is a bad idea. Finding customers who will pay more for better service is properly known as “progress.”
People make investments in the hope of earning high profits from top-tier customers who pay top dollar for the latest and best products. Those high profits, in turn, finance the eventual expansion of better products and services for lower-cost tiers, on the internet as much as in the grocery store. Net neutrality would stand in the way of investment in internet innovation.
Free markets aren’t equal, and equal markets aren’t free. Ajit Pai’s vision of free and unequal markets is a vision of progress for all, far superior to the Obama administration’s old vision of handcuffed monopolies forced to support a political standard of equality.
As a seven year old I thrilled to every purchase or gift of Tom Swift Jr. books. Now they seem rather quaint with their cheap binding and their faux author, Victor Appleton II. I knew no one else who read them. In a world where I seemed to be no one’s target audience, here were these books that seemed to be expressly made for me.
Just as one plays with anyone at age four and gradually becomes more and more discriminating with age, so too have thrilling new products become fewer and farther between as I have aged. This cycle is as ancient as time. That is why corporations turn their nose up at the elderly. Outside of healthcare there is nothing to sell them. Youth, or at least youthful naivete, is their friend.