Guest Post: Reality Has Consequences

Tyler Durden's picture

Originally posted at Monty Pelerin's World blog,

The world no longer makes sense to most people over forty years of age. Much of what we thought was true is now denied. What to us is obviously false (or at least always was) is now accepted as being true. Here are examples from Frick at Bias Breakdown that show obvious contradictions between popular belief and what we hold as reality:

If every Arab in the Middle East laid down his weapon, there would be peace in the Middle East. If every Israeli laid down his (or her) weapon, Israel would be annihilated.


Likewise, if government stopped all spending, the deficit problem would be solved. If government confiscated the gross annual income of every individual in the country making over $66,193, the deficit would destroy our country.


In a sane world, politicians would cut every last dollar of government spending they could in order to bring financial order back to an entitlement-happy society. After government’s debilitating spending habits were slashed or restructured, only then would the conversation shift to taxes and revenue to make up the gap.


Of course, this isn’t a sane world. It’s the world in which it’s Israel’s fault for every ill in Palestine and Republicans are evil and stupid for wanting to cut spending.

Fantasies like these might are satisfying to many, but they are ultimately destructive. Truth cannot be changed by repeating falsehoods. Nor can it be altered by more people believing untruths. But, when these fantasizers overwhelm society with their false beliefs, society will no longer function. Society cannot invent its own truth based on convenience, prejudice or popularity. Truth, not manufactured myth, is key to survival. Societies which deviate from it, don’t survive.

As Ayn Rand stated:

You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.

The avoidance of reality has overtaken our society. The consequences of doing so have been building for decades and will soon overwhelm us. On our current path, much of what we knew and cared about will be destroyed.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

Good question. The nearby rats and traitors concern me more than some far away contrived nation state.

Peter Pan's picture

In general terms you cannot avoid can only delay it.

To avoid reality you must create a new set of cirumstances by effort or luck that will then constitute a new and altered reality.

Venerability's picture

When you can't fight back with words, fall back on Malware!

If this is what Your Side stands for - punishing anyone who refuses to drink the Nihilist Kool-Aid with Blaster virus after Blaster virus - is it any wonder there is pretty much no one left on Your Side?

That a woman of my intelligence and talent should have to suffer assaults on my eyesight - my eyesight! - because I DARE to fight the Koch Bots - it's too much at this point.

Anyone with even an iota of basic sanity or humanity should step in to stop it.

What you Ninnies are basically positing is:

Short the World and Everything In It, Dollah! Dollah! Dollah! Dollah! Dollah!

. . . Or we will send you Virus after Virus after Virus, no matter how painful, because 2008 was the high point in human history and if we manage to cause another Great Crash and Worldwide Depression, the World's Wealth will ALL be in the hands of One Percent of One percent of One Percent of One Percent. . . .

Our Masters - or at least our Botmasters - will reward us by giving us 2 million acres apiece of fertile farmland, 10 prospective oil properties of our choosing, 4000 virgins, 40,000 non-virgins, and 400,000 tons of virgin olive oil. Nyah, Nyah, Nyah!




vato poco's picture

Good Lord, woman, where on God's green earth did you ever get the idea you're 'intelligent'?? Reciting Teacher's dogma back to him word-for-word perfect - or, let's face it, you more than likely just slept with him/her to get an "A" - does not, here in the real world, equal "intelligence". If all this is confusing to you, or is damaging to your sacred state-installed Self-Esteem....I refer you to the last 3 words of your devastatingly intellectual post immediately above. Ta, luv. Best wishes chanting your single-syllable slogans. Let us know how far that goes towards paying your rent.

Venerability's picture

Everyone knows who I am and what I stand for. My intelligence and abilities are well-documented. Self-esteem is not only a good thing, it is necessary in times like these. 

No one knows who you are, however, other than a Script Kiddie, because you choose to post anonymously.

(Re the Blasters: They don't harm most people. They harm ME, because of an eye condition. Some malicious hackers know that and choose to fight me with malware rather than words.

(Whenever this happens, it shows I'm winning the debate. But I can't fight the malicious hacking, so decent Internet monitors and/or police organizations should do it for me.)

Pareto's picture

Fffff,,, the fuck.....are you talking about?

forwardho's picture

At the risk of sounding like a pig... I think it may be PMS

Creepy Lurker's picture

That's not PMS, it's schizophrenia.

NuYawkFrankie's picture

Re The world no longer makes sense to most people over forty years of age


Yes the Old Reality is being phased-out.

Welcome to the New & Improved Reality!

Oops! Almost forgot - Have a NIce Day ;)

earleflorida's picture

ironically the same system that ayn ostracized... in the end she capitulated too?

how humane...


NidStyles's picture

So her demanding her money back is counter to what she was saying?

Voamerica's picture

I just finished watching Tim Geithner shimmy and shake on Fox sunday with Chris Wallace.
I think you should be very afriad with some one like him with his hands on the printing press.
He was evasive and blowing smoke most of the time.

Be very afraid...............

ahb's picture

Once again, anybody with a straw man and a quote from Ayn Rand can get a guest post on ZH. Fucking morons.

knukles's picture


24/7/365 forced speeches from Timmah G for you while duct taped and Crazy Glue-d to a dirty ratty old orange McDonald's booth chair.

Many worse things.
Hell, you might even win an unwashed electric purple thong from Mochelle that they'd make you wear on your head.
Or a Ziploc full of French women's leg and armpit stubble.

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.

Want to know the problem with this?

It. Is. Total. Bollocks. TOTAL BOLLOCKS.

Plato's Laws of Identity don't include "A=A", because formal logic didn't exist then. You might note his pupil, Aristotle came up with some of them, and not during Plato's lifetime. The entire point of Plato's "Shadow / Cave / Light / Sun" analogy is that while there is an "ideal form", there are multiple ways to view it (yes; some more authentic than others, thus the progression from Cave > Sunlight), and the Platonic Ideal of an object is expressed through Arete towards its imperfect expression in reality. There's NO WAY A PLATONIC "IDEAL" CAN EXIST IN REALITY.  And while we're at it, he didn't use the word IDEAL or EXIST, he used FORM.

That's the fucking point of Plato.




Next point.


Rand attempts to be clever and grabs A=A which is indeed the first Axiom of formal logic [the rule of Identity]. But she missed the second Axiom - The rule of Negation. A /= -A. Now, this might sound trivial, but it's actually far more important than the rule of Identity - because the -A immediately leads to the logical conclusion that "A thing is NOT JUST itself, but it is a thing AMONGST OTHERS".

Without both rules, you cannot form the structure of formal logic. This is Formal Logic 101. Which Ayn Rand missed.

In fact, this very rule DEMANDS [using the rules of Objectivism itself] that Identity is defined by Negation. The "Not Identity". "That is not me" being a pivotal stage in young babies. Know what else? Defining your "self" purely by the "Not Identity" [the Other] is infantile and leads to infantile minds. "Oooh, I hate the <X> because they're NOT LIKE ME". Ring any bells, Mr & Mrs Fundamentalist?

Hint mother-fuckers: Heigegger, Frege, Sartre, Russel and so on didn't "miss the point of Plato", or the other 3,000 years of Philosophy inbetween, they actually understood him (and the other 3,000 years).

Ayn Rand did not. But sure; if believing in Unicorns, the Divine Magnitude of the ONE RAND who understood Plato when no-one else did in the prior 3,000 years, and wanking about how smart that makes you feel go ahead... As long as you live on Mars and don't pollute the rest of the gene-pool with your asinine, myopic nonsense. Seriously. Grow up: only angsty teenagers take Rand seriously.



<Now back to our normal programming: Note the management apologises for the extreme use of BOLD and Italics, but this is akin to listening to your average MSM commentator explaining "the economy" and how "everything is fine". Yes, it's that annoying>

knukles's picture

Ayn so?

(I couldn't help myself because I am)

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Yep, of course I gave you a +1, amusing.


Outside of Silicon Valley, it's rare to find anyone under the age of 40 taking Ayn Rand seriously, and I spotted a A=A comment above.


Count this as a response to this, with a mis-click Drone attack wedding delivery.

Optimusprime's picture

Thanks.  A couple of quibbles. 

As to your statement, "Consciousness is Identification." being bollocks.  This is open to serious objection.  As presented in this terse form, it risks overlooking the problem of the "sign of the self" (certainly an integral aspect of the situation of consciousness).  See Peirce, or Walker Percy in Lost in the Cosmos for the essentials.

Hegel had some interesting observations on the relation of being and nothing in their relation to determinate being (a being among others, as you put it) in his Science of Logic

None of this is to be construed as a defense of Rand against your perfectly justified criticisms.  She was a vulgarian who on occasion depicted scenarios interesting to contemplate.

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Ok, two things:

1) I love philosophy

2) ZH hates philosophy

There's a bit of an issue here, in that if we do engage with this, expect a lot of flak (and if it gets too technical, the Tyler's will just decree: just fucking fight already)


Ok, the simplist refutation of "Consciousness is Identification" is simple:

Animals self-identificate.


That's it. Unless you're a muppet stuck in the mechanistic or behaviouralist models [and trust me: you don't want to be there] then the obvious part of hierarchical pack structures is that it's complicated [be it in herbivores where the male dominates a hareem against other males (deer), or herbivores where the females rule [meercats]; an omnivore partnership for life (otters) or an omnivore where male hierarchy dominates (chimps) or a carnivore pack where the male rules a hareem (lions) or where mating is for life and the alpha female controls the pack (wolves)].


The simple point is that - by <<your>> sorry, Rand's standards, all of these creatures are aware of their existance, and they're aware of their existance in a <model> of social behaviour. Consciousness is Identification - Ok, so A. Rand is arguing that these are all "rational beings engaged in a rational model of self" and so we should expect them to start their own Capitalist self-interested firms or "Go Galt" when the top stag is a druggy, right?


This is not how we define "existence" or "Consciousness". For the very reason because it's bollocks. A. Rand was an idiot.



Uncle Remus's picture

Well, THAT explains all the vegan crap. Oh, looks like the BBQ is ready.

void_ptr's picture

Plato's Laws of Identity don't include "A=A"

You might have a point if Rand had ever said they did. The philosopher being referred to in the link you provided is not Plato. "A=A" was merely a shorthand paraphrase of Aristotle's observation, something like (from memory): "That which he must know, who knows anything, is not a hypothesis, but is the most certain truth of all. What this principle is, let us proceed to say. That a thing cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and in the same respect."

the Platonic Ideal of an object is expressed through Arete towards its imperfect expression in reality. There's NO WAY A PLATONIC "IDEAL" CAN EXIST IN REALITY.

You seem to think that's a point in your favor. Plato's theory entails a transcendent world of Forms which are super-ordinate to matter. Rand's materialism explicitly rejected any such supernaturalism, as do any number of other naturalist philosophers (e.g. Quine). The "problem" of Universals is not resolved in any "theory of Forms." It can be properly understood as a purely natural processes of abstraction formation from percepts. The people who are doing real work on this topic are not the obscurantist philosophers. It's the machine learning researchers in the math and computer science departments who are putting the mathematical underpinnings under the processes of inference and induction.

"A thing is NOT JUST itself, but it is a thing AMONGST OTHERS"

As if Rand didn't think that a thing is amongst others.

Hint mother-fuckers:

There you see him baring his teeth in undisguised hostility. Hostility is a response to fear. What are you afraid of? I think I know.

In fact, this very rule DEMANDS [using the rules of Objectivism itself] that Identity is defined by Negation. The "Not Identity". "That is not me" being a pivotal stage in young babies. Know what else? Defining your "self" purely by the "Not Identity" [the Other] is infantile and leads to infantile minds. "Oooh, I hate the <X> because they're NOT LIKE ME". Ring any bells, Mr & Mrs Fundamentalist?

No, it doesn't. Nothing in your statement bears any resemblance to what I know about Rand's philosophy. Whatever Objectivism is, it's not what you think it is. Or maybe you know better, and you just don't want people reading to know. You're trying to peg Objectivists as "fundamentalists" and "haters" but what is there in your sneering snarling screed but hate. I'd point out the irony but I'm sick of irony. All I want is discursive clarity. I'm no Objectivist, but I despair of ever reading an honest, intelligent critique of Rand. All I ever see is this crap from people who can't be bothered to understand what she wrote, or maybe more to the point, wouldn't tell you if they did. They just want to caricature it.

Rand's essays untangle confusions and nonsense to be found in the cultural status quo, whereas all I ever got from philosophy classes in the universities was the pet existentialist or german idealist fantasies infesting the academic departments. I think the political crisis that Zero Hedge is chronicalling pretty well is merely a consequence of the more basic philosophical erosion of the status quo. In my experience the academic philosophers, far from defending reason, the enlightenment and its political expression in the American revolution as they should have been, are a pack of rats busily eating away at its foundations.





Pareto's picture

Excellent.  Rand's quote referenced above, in my opinion, simply points to the absurd idea that we can continue to print and spend our way to prosperity without conequences.  And the one identity Rand is referencing (IMO), is that there is no free lunch.  Scarcity implies that somebody, sooner or later has to pay.  I mean really pay.  Or that fiat, sooner or later, disintegrates and gives way to some honest alternative.  Or that the state, sooner or later ceases to be a representative of the people and instead becomes the people's oppressor.  Or that the unjustifiable regulation of human action eventually takes wealth and the accumulation of it, to zero..........all consequences of avoiding reality.  cheers.

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Yes, and you're a chimp.



Pareto's picture

And you are a fucking idiot you arrogant piece of shit.  You know what you're problem is?  Nobody has a fucking clue what you're talking about, because you need fucking bread crumbs to find your way back from your chaotic off the rails fucking thought train.  You're exactly why higher education isn't worth a fiddler's fuck anymore because it can't communicate anything of value to anybody ANYWHERE.  So go pontificate your adolescent command (that's right my friend, your drivel dstands on pegged legs) of the philopher kings someplace else, because you sure as fuck aren't fooling or impressing anybody here.  fucking pinhead.

Aurora Ex Machina's picture


How's that working out for you?


Oh, and I greened you just for the shits n giggles.

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Oh God, do I have to cut a Randian to bits?



1) No, she wasn't referring to Aristotle. Go read her. She only respected three philosophers. Plato in the Greek tradition was her reference. Want to fight about this? Hint: The Objectivist website proves you wrong, since they hate Aristotle over many other issues.

2) WHOO-WEE, we got a live one here:  

Plato's theory entails a transcendent world of Forms which are super-ordinate to matter.

No, incorrect. You're missing what Arete is doing. Arete was:  "In its earliest appearance in Greek, this notion of excellence was ultimately bound up with the notion of the fulfillment of purpose or function: the act of living up to one's full potential."

Plato only argued for Forms to argue for a theory of excellence. His philosophy wasn't really concerned with transcendent forms [although, sure, later on in Kant etc, it became important] but the actuality of how to justify a (primitive) sense of striving to both art, work and politics.

Arete is the core of Plato, not Forms. You're reading it wrong - I suggest grabbing onto The Republic again.

Rand's materialism explicitly rejected any such supernaturalism, as do any number of other naturalist philosophers (e.g. Quine).

No, that's not what either Rand or Quine is doing. Rand is not doing philosophy, Quine was a logic guy who did shitty ethics, which was useful to the RAND corporation. His logic was good; his forays into everything else is painful. If you understand logic, equating Rand <-> Quine is like shoving a fork into your brain and claiming that that's the same as inventing eating. Hint: they are NOT synonymous.

Hint: Quine was a behavouralist. This is now totally discredited.

3) The "problem" of Universals is not resolved in any "theory of Forms." It can be properly understood as a purely natural processes of abstraction formation from percepts.

Oh God. No. You know that "3,000 years of Philosophy" I mentioned? Yep, that'd be it.

And no, you fool, you CANNOT determine "Universals" from Rand's "percepts", or, like DURRRRRRRRRR, why would Russel, Frege et al have to invent set theory? Hint: Because a) you CANNOT INFER IN LOGIC. And b) That shit is complicated. And GOD NO, DO YOU NOT REALISE THE CORE OF PHILOSOPHY IS THAT YOU CANNOT INFER ANYTHING FROM AN EMPIRICAL TO A UNIVERSAL??!?? ARRRGH BRAIN MELTING, SERIOUS LACK OF HUME OR ANY PHILOSOPHER EVER...


Yeah. You sound that fucking ridiculous to anyone even with a basis in logic, thought or philosophy. Seriously. Get a brain implant, soon.



The people who are doing real work on this topic are not the obscurantist philosophers. It's the machine learning researchers in the math and computer science departments who are putting the mathematical underpinnings under the processes of inference and induction.


Given I know a lot of them, I'll bet you $1,000 right now to name me an algo that's "trying to solve inference and induction". There are NO algos that are "trying to solve" this issue; they're trying to move around or skip or trick or jump or avoid this issue, but they're not trying to SOLVE it, you fucking muppet.  Oh, and yeah. Don't push it, or I'll get bored and contact your University Lecturer and demand you read out this tripe in front of 300 of your peers. Shame on you; if you're paying for your course, stop now, you're wasting money.

You might notice a lot of "slang" and "OMGAADTASR!!" language in here: that's because your crap is so bad, I can't give a serious response. No really, it's illegal in Educated-Land where I live.


You're stupid. Stop. Or Darwin it. Don't care. Just stop typing.




Love your use of obscurantist when trying to name philosophers - instantly shows you're either a 1st/2nd year in some minor university or a "HACKMASTER" wannabe in Silicon Valley. Top tip: you're bantha fodder either way.


Next installment: boy claims to have read "Godel Escher, Bach" in interview, hasn't understood it. Me, as interviewer, has. Boy doesn't get job: then posts on 'Hacker News' how business doesn't 'get hackers'. Rest of world thinks: what a twat.

honestann's picture

It is strange that so many of us "non-objectivists" must set the record straight about Rand.  She most certainly WAS referring to Aristotle, and she totally loathed Plato.  I'm pretty sure she considers Plato the foundation of Kant, and you must know how totally she hated Kant.  I don't know the specifics about everything you mention, but you totally discredit yourself about Aristotle vs Plato, so I'll just ignore much of the rest.

The reasons people concocted the insanity that is "forms" or "universals" is that reality has a nature, and that nature is not "an infinity of chaos".  Pretty much everything in reality is composed of 92+ "elements", and those elements are rather similar to each other because they're more-or-less composed of 3 "sub-elements" (electrons, protons, neutrons) plus electromagnetism.

As a result, all those 92+ [so-called "natural" or "stable"] elements share properties (like "mass" for instance).  That does NOT make "mass" some sort of super-real "form" or "universal", it is simply a consequence of the fact that everything in reality is in fact just different configurations of a single underlying field (similar in many ways to the electromagnetic field).  So something like 50-million pages of philosophical babble is completely clueless, because for some reasons philosophers tend to go so far off the deep end that nothing makes any sense after a short while --- yet so many seem to pay attention and take them seriously!  How strange.

BTW, the individuals I work with solved the "inference" and "induction"... and a great many other silly epistemological confusions (like "mind-body" and "determinism vs volition" and endless others) decades ago.  And yes, they are solved in the context of implementing inorganic consciousness, which is indeed a completely scientific endeavor for us (though admittedly more like a brand of mysticism or wishful thinking for most others).

slackrabbit's picture

Plato's 3rd law: Enough talk, lets get pissed!

Bansters-in-my- feces's picture

...So whats up with all this chemtrail spraying going on, that most people don't even know is going on? Is it denial or dummied down,or both ? It spooks the fuck out of me.


It's like seeing an bad accident about to happen with everyone watching but your the only one who sees it .


Please take time to inform your friends and family of this CRIME against humanity,and our mother earth,that is taking place right now....


Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering......


Evergreen Aviation.

Own the Weather in 2025

These are things you should learn about and pass on the info.

Learn about Monsantos seed patent for seeds that will grow in high levels of aluminum.

Wake the people up......Please....

TerraHertz's picture

"...So whats up with all this chemtrail spraying going on, that most people don't even know is going on? Is it denial or dummied down,or both ? It spooks the fuck out of me."


It's _partly_ dummied down, since most people never look up, while of those who do most have no ability to tell the difference between normal contrails (ice crystals from engine exhaust water vapor), and chemtrails (there are some subtle visible differences. Not to mention finding Aluminium and Barium nano-dust everywhere.)

Still it appears that chemtrail spraying does occur, and very widely across the planet.

Here's my take on why.

We know the Elites have been working for many decades on various means of achieving a radical global population reduction. There are ways of doing this slowly and quietly (eg increasing death rates via poisons in food and water, cancer epidemics via oncogenes in vaccinations, etc), and decreasing birth rates (eg infertility induced by HPV vaccines, hormones in food and water.)

And then there are fast, brutal ways - such as a sudden massive global epidemic with a very high fatality rate. The Elites have been researching this for a long time too. The big problem with this method is that people could easily figure out what was happening and who did it. In which case the Elites would be massacred. So they need a way of doing it that acts fast - too fast for any kind of organised public retaliation.

The only way to achieve this would be to air-deliver a fast-acting bioagent world wide, simultaneously. And to do that would require a _lot_ of infrastructure. A whole fleet of tanker planes, their crews, ground support, and so on. All of whom would have to think they were doing some mundane daily job, that they'd been doing for years. Otherwise they might just refuse to do it.

And so.... we have chemtrails, for years. A program that on the surface is denied, but with a next-layer down' cover story that it's a secret weather modification program. Even deeper and it's an attempt to dump down people and weaken their immune systems with aluminium and barium powder. And so on. Maybe it even does also have those aims, but as side benefits for the Elites.

But really, it's an exercise in maintaining an operational world wide fleet of tanker spraying aircraft, and staff who'll do as they are told and keep quiet about it. If the Elites ever decide they have produced a usable mass-cull bioagent, and they 'have to' use it, then somewhere in the chemtrail spraying infrastructure someone will just pour a few litres of 'special additive' into the storage tanks. None of the general crews will know anything different is happening.

Then 6.5 billion people will die over a few days or weeks.

honestann's picture

Interesting speculation that certainly fits the thinking patterns and modus-operandi of the predators-that-be.  If this speculation is correct, finding those places in the world where chemtrails are not layed down might be a clue to where the predators plan to hang out during the die-off --- unless, of course, they all intend to hang out underground at "continuity of government" facilities and equivalent ("Valhala Sector").

TerraHertz's picture

Hi Ann!

About the 'chosen retreats' - my thinking exactly. And you know what? I've never seen an abnormal contrail here in Sydney Australia. Unlike most I tend to actively observe and admire sky-scapes, and have since I was a child. Always was interested in contrails, and have an eye for detail. I understand the temp/pressure/humidity factors that determine whether ice crystals form from a jet exhaust, and the subsequent drift/dissipation factors. Have watched many a normal contrail develop over time.

But I've so far never seen one that behaved like the photos of chemtrails I see on the net, from USA and other places. So I don't think there is any chemtrail spraying here.

Something I'm very glad of. But it does lead to some interesting lines of speculation about Elite plans. I've read various commentators claiming to have evidence Australia is one of the 'lifeboats' chosen for a retreat in case things go wrong for the Elites. Maybe it is.

honestann's picture

Without a doubt, southern hemisphere seems like a much better bet.  During the time I spent exploring the Andes and high deserts in South America, I rarely saw even normal contrails, and don't recall any abnormal ones - though I doubt I'm anywhere near as expert as you.

I've been thinking southern chile and/or argentina might be one place they hide out.  NZ seems like another obvious choice.  But the ultimate choice depends a lot on what kinds of horrors they ultimately choose to unleash (biological, chemical, nuclear, etc).

For being so smart, sometimes I find I've been very dumb.  Recently I recognized that my long held tendency to discount EMP might be very stupid.  Just think how effective well distributed high-altitude EMP bursts works for them.  No worries about some unstable or unfortunate biological mutation to get out of hand and perhaps kill everyone (or everyone over 13 per the TV series "Jeremiah").  No yucky chemicals to screw up infrastructure or equipment, perhaps mutate some normal organisms into something nasty, or have other unintented consequences.  No nuclear fallout to increase their chances of cancer or cause unpredictable mutation.

Nope, no danger of any of the usual nasty possibilities.  Just the entire set of productive equipment on earth stops working and can't be booted back up before 90% starve to death and/or kill each other off for dwindling food and water.

I tend not to think very much about this issue any more, probably because I already made my choice 3 years ago, and established my self-sufficient digs somewhere extremely remote.  But this EMP issue makes me want to figure out just what components of my self-sufficient systems I should keep multiple backups for to protect against the EMP possibility.  Fortunately I have a pretty significant storage setup well underground where I already keep some equipment.  But maybe I should carefully stock up on crucial spare parts, and slowly accumulate spare solar-panels and wind-turbine generators under ground, just in case my above ground units get fried.  My batteries and DC-to-AC and most other main components are already underground, but I'm not sure my systems are adequately protected against EMP propagating through the systems and reaching just about every active or connected element.

Never ends, does it?

TerraHertz's picture

I don't have the financial resources to even contemplate such a move, plus my primary project requires I remain in an urban center, with access to the various resources. So a 'remote retreat' is out. Perhaps fortunately, events in my personal life and the even more revolting political developments over the last decade reduced my incentive to live to below zero, so now I'm just sticking around to see if I can get the project working. It's a very abstract attachment to life, but it does allow for a kind of 'neutral observer' viewpoint that makes the observing much less painful. Also mostly eliminates the personal fear factor - I just don't care. If I felt there was any chance of succeeding (in time) with the path you & I both know, it would be different. But I don't.


As for EMP, yes you're right. But you know TPTB may not even need to commit an _actual_ EMP event. They're setting up for a fake one - same general result of permanently taking down the power grid, but without having their own equipment damaged in the process. Here's how:!_Power_grid_takedown_links.txt

There are other, very easy ways to take down entire city power grids, but it would be a foolish to advertise them here. Though I noticed recently an official exercise that was effectively advertising one of them. So stupid - unless it was a pre-false-flag publicity exercise.

Is your old email working? Check it.

honestann's picture

Yup, but I don't check it often, so good you mentioned.  I found your messages and sent replies.

BullionBoy's picture

this post is total crap.  Tyler should not accept more crap from this chump whoever it is.

j8h9's picture

"Republicans are evil and stupid for wanting to cut spending"... BS they dont want cuts to defense or corporate subsidies, or tax break loopholes to huge corporations. Bush/Cheney put two wars on the credit card and never raised an ounce of effort to offset these gigantic costs--Cheney even sent the exclusive contracts to this Haliburton cronies-- all at the expense of American citizens. 

j8h9's picture

"Republicans are evil and stupid for wanting to cut spending"... BS they dont want cuts to defense or corporate subsidies, or tax break loopholes to huge corporations. Bush/Cheney put two wars on the credit card and never raised an ounce of effort to offset these gigantic costs--Cheney even sent the exclusive contracts to this Haliburton cronies-- all at the expense of American citizens. 

NidStyles's picture

This reads like Neo-Con Zionist worshipping bullshit.

c-rev with a twist's picture

I think I read the same thing on a fortune cookie. I guess when things are light, the path of least resistance is to cater to the extremists in the room.

TerraHertz's picture
Propaganda (1928)   (Includes text of the book, supposedly. But is it true?)
by Edward Bernays

(review by Chomsky)
         [The] American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort. They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on.
         So what do you do? It's going to be harder to run things as a private club. Therefore, obviously, you have to control what people think. There had been public relation specialists but there was never a public relations industry. There was a guy hired to make Rockefeller's image look prettier and that sort of thing. But this huge public relations industry, which is a U.S. invention and a monstrous industry, came out of the first World War. The leading figures were people in the Creel Commission. In fact, the main one, Edward Bernays, comes right out of the Creel Commission. He has a book that came out right afterwards called Propaganda. The term "propaganda," incidentally, did not have negative connotations in those days. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things. But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that. So he wrote a book called Propaganda around 1925, and it starts off by saying he is applying the lessons of the first World War. The propaganda system of the first World War and this commission that he was part of showed, he says, it is possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies." These new techniques of regimentation of minds, he said, had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course. We can do it now because we have these new techniques.
         This is the main manual of the public relations industry. Bernays is kind of the guru. He was an authentic Roosevelt/Kennedy liberal. He also engineered the public relations effort behind the U.S.-backed coup which overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala.
         His major coup, the one that really propelled him into fame in the late 1920s, was getting women to smoke. Women didn't smoke in those days and he ran huge campaigns for Chesterfield. You know all the techniques—models and movie stars with cigarettes coming out of their mouths and that kind of thing. He got enormous praise for that. So he became a leading figure of the industry, and his book was the real manual.

    —Noam Chomsky

    (From Chomsky's "What Makes Mainstream Media
    Mainstream": a talk at Z Media Institute, June 1997)


Interestingly, if you wanted to buy an original 1928 - 30 edition of Bernays' Propaganda (you know, if you wanted to know for sure what he wrote, in case recent printings are redacted), it's going to set you back between $1000 to $3000.

bunnyswanson's picture


by Susanne Posel - Occupy Corporatism


In July of this year it became apparent through a flood of mainstream media reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) was “desperate to hire new hacking talent to protect the nation’s critical infrastructure” yet the NSA is notorious for its surveillance programs on American digital activity.

By collecting intelligence on every American citizen, the US government is treating everyone as if they were a potential foreign or domestic terrorist. Whether this assumption is valid or not, under the US constitution, Americans are supposed to be protected from intrusion of government; even if that government is their own.

At the same time the NSA spy center was being constructed, Attorney General Eric Holder new guidelines for the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). These guidelines will allow the NCTC access to data on American citizens once held under right to privacy. The NCTC will focus on collecting and sharing information; regardless of whether or not there is the threat of terrorism. The will collaborate with local state officials, tribal courts and private partners; as well as the FBI and DHS and other federal agencies.

AnAnonymous's picture

But this huge public relations industry, which is a U.S. invention and a monstrous industry, came out of the first World War.

But, but, but, this "invention" is human nature. It could not be an 'american' legacy to the world.

'Americanism' is human nature. 'Americanism' is the natural system for humanity.

CheapBastard's picture

Zero down houses handed out to people who canot afford them never made sense to me. Reminds me of the "free public housing projects" with the same consequences---deterioration of the neighborhood.

bunnyswanson's picture

Collapsing the US housing market was a goal.  The loans handed out were designed to fail.  Refinances as well.  It was planned.  It was designed to shift the equity back to the banks.  Irresponsible lending practices were promoted, and bonuses given. = Agenda 21 - for the 21st century.

Globalization is behind every decision being made.  Call it Sustainable Living - Green being the tantalizing key word - if you'd like but it is more than sustaining vital resources.  It is eliminating property rights.

User 3461's picture

At the bottom of it all, the biggest problem is evasion or ignoring reality. This adherence to reality is why Ayn Rand named her philosophy Objectivism. (There were other fitting names, but they were already tied to other [bad] ideas.)

JustACitizen's picture

My opinion - The biggest problem is a whole bunch of people who are fearful that they will not get what they think they deserve. This is closely followed by a whole bunch of people who are fearful that "someone" is going to take what they already have whether they earned it or not.

At the end of the day - we are all going to die - some of us sooner than others.  It seems like there is an absolute crapload of people who are afraid of that (and perhapsfor some - rightly so).

There is a common thread.

It would be much better to enjoy your family, your friends and that one thing that you cannot buy - no matter how much material goods you possess - time.



bunnyswanson's picture

Time becomes a torture chamber when a person is unable to provide for themselves or their families.  People who have nothing grab onto religion or extreme ideas as hope for a better day.  Drug/alcohol abuse are the medications many turn to as well when the dull monotonous days are nothing but drudgery year after year.

Human beings require more than a concrete blonde existance for the entirety of their lives.  It inspires artists, breakthroughs of every kind in research.  Dehumanizing the masses will be hell on earth for everyone but those in the castles. 

What is a life when all one can do is worry about affording health and auto insurance, cost of food, utilities.  An education, a vacation and a home.    Owning a piece of land can allow one to not have to prepare for the unexpected - landlord raising the rent or changing the terms.


Incubus's picture

Atleast someone gets it.

A lesser life is one spent with the mind focused on the tangibles.


"Our great war is a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives."