I don't think of him as a liar in the normal sense of the term, rather making a general point that in order to relay information in a timely and comprehensible manner, one needs to spin it into a narrative. This necessarily overemphasizes some things and de-emphasizes others or cuts them out entirely - you don't get "the whole truth". To do that, I named an entire spectrum of sources - most will think some of those I bring up are telling the truth, and others are lying through their teeth. Putting them side by side is just to show this.
Miles puts his sources in his papers, which I respect. No burying anything in the footnotes, it's right there for you - much better than news networks and articles, but at the expense of easy reading. More truthful because life is not easy and has no simple answers.
For specific examples I'm dubious on nuclear power being fake (we have a lot of it, and the grid still works despite them) and the existence of a mega-Phoenician conspiracy. While I don't doubt the existence of a small coterie of interconnected rich people battling it out over indirect ownership of everything, I think it's more that every family has its bad apples and those that want to be left alone, and the ones most willing to be vampires rise to the top (as they do everywhere).
I'm sold on staged events, though. We already see the whole world through screens - at this point, for a lot of people, whole world could be gone tomorrow and we wouldn't notice as long as water, power, and Internet still work. The Allegory of the Cave refers to TV and Internet most of all, in my opinion.
I also peeked in at the previous article talking about how killing shouldn't be necessary to live, and I find it interesting. A bit utopian for me - energy is limited after all - but I understand the sentiment and find it intriguing.
By the way, the moment I saw "loosh" I only had one thought. Loosh, footloosh, kick off your Sunday shoes.
As long as governments maintain authority through military force and economic progress, they can continue to tax and make laws over the populace. Therefore, the government will always attempt to convince us both of the sanctity of borders and law and order as well as economic progress uplifting us all.
And when those governments can't maintain the economic growth? Can we get rid of them?
As long as the media maintains partisan utility and advertising dollars via views, they can continue to publish any stories that they want. Therefore, the media will always attempt to publish profitable or attractive information in a manner that we either take as unbiased or agree with.
What if one no longer follows the traditional cable media and, instead, gets his new from odysee or Substack? In my case, it helped me break the media addiction, and I haven't watched TV much in the last 7 years
Oh, and just because you brought it up, Edward Cullen isn't a vampire. Vampires don't sparkle and can't walk in the sun.
He isn't, but he's out there repping the brand (as diluted as he is), keeping it popular. So I bring it up regardless.
What I described in those code blocks are the things I saw as the predominant social contracts - the ideas that govern us. I wanted to show off that they all follow the same template and idea, that it's all the same racket in the end.
The government failing to maintain economic growth is bad for them (see: It's the economy, stupid), but it's not the end of the world. The best threat they have is "it would be so much worse if we weren't around", and as the government puts out tangible signs of life amplified by media (price caps, regulation, anti-profiteering measures, strategic resource reserves), that threat seems to most people very, very real - so it's unlikely to happen.
That being said, you're right in principle that we can get rid of them. We shackle ourselves with law to make our use of power predictable and (in theory) fair, and in exchange, you follow our legal limits and work for our prosperity, which you would have done otherwise but less conveniently and with more investments into security (physical and legal - think safes, guns, and lawyers). Loss of internal stability and econonomic immiseration are breach of contract.
Breaking the media addiction just means they have no power over you, but it doesn't follow that they lose their power over everybody else.
Interesting that you count Miles as one of the liars. Why?
I don't think of him as a liar in the normal sense of the term, rather making a general point that in order to relay information in a timely and comprehensible manner, one needs to spin it into a narrative. This necessarily overemphasizes some things and de-emphasizes others or cuts them out entirely - you don't get "the whole truth". To do that, I named an entire spectrum of sources - most will think some of those I bring up are telling the truth, and others are lying through their teeth. Putting them side by side is just to show this.
Miles puts his sources in his papers, which I respect. No burying anything in the footnotes, it's right there for you - much better than news networks and articles, but at the expense of easy reading. More truthful because life is not easy and has no simple answers.
Good point, thank you for clarifying.
For specific examples I'm dubious on nuclear power being fake (we have a lot of it, and the grid still works despite them) and the existence of a mega-Phoenician conspiracy. While I don't doubt the existence of a small coterie of interconnected rich people battling it out over indirect ownership of everything, I think it's more that every family has its bad apples and those that want to be left alone, and the ones most willing to be vampires rise to the top (as they do everywhere).
I'm sold on staged events, though. We already see the whole world through screens - at this point, for a lot of people, whole world could be gone tomorrow and we wouldn't notice as long as water, power, and Internet still work. The Allegory of the Cave refers to TV and Internet most of all, in my opinion.
Vampires of the transdimensional-being sort, feed on "Loosh" energy from things like desperate human suffering. It seems that some humans have long chosen to feed this to the vampires (Moloch, for instance), and to tap it themselves. https://medium.com/@OriPriestess/loosh-energy-what-it-really-is-why-we-need-to-know-1f2099102afb
I also peeked in at the previous article talking about how killing shouldn't be necessary to live, and I find it interesting. A bit utopian for me - energy is limited after all - but I understand the sentiment and find it intriguing.
By the way, the moment I saw "loosh" I only had one thought. Loosh, footloosh, kick off your Sunday shoes.
https://youtu.be/ltrMfT4Qz5Y?si=7SObafLcMB7R45Ny
As long as governments maintain authority through military force and economic progress, they can continue to tax and make laws over the populace. Therefore, the government will always attempt to convince us both of the sanctity of borders and law and order as well as economic progress uplifting us all.
And when those governments can't maintain the economic growth? Can we get rid of them?
As long as the media maintains partisan utility and advertising dollars via views, they can continue to publish any stories that they want. Therefore, the media will always attempt to publish profitable or attractive information in a manner that we either take as unbiased or agree with.
What if one no longer follows the traditional cable media and, instead, gets his new from odysee or Substack? In my case, it helped me break the media addiction, and I haven't watched TV much in the last 7 years
Oh, and just because you brought it up, Edward Cullen isn't a vampire. Vampires don't sparkle and can't walk in the sun.
He isn't, but he's out there repping the brand (as diluted as he is), keeping it popular. So I bring it up regardless.
What I described in those code blocks are the things I saw as the predominant social contracts - the ideas that govern us. I wanted to show off that they all follow the same template and idea, that it's all the same racket in the end.
The government failing to maintain economic growth is bad for them (see: It's the economy, stupid), but it's not the end of the world. The best threat they have is "it would be so much worse if we weren't around", and as the government puts out tangible signs of life amplified by media (price caps, regulation, anti-profiteering measures, strategic resource reserves), that threat seems to most people very, very real - so it's unlikely to happen.
That being said, you're right in principle that we can get rid of them. We shackle ourselves with law to make our use of power predictable and (in theory) fair, and in exchange, you follow our legal limits and work for our prosperity, which you would have done otherwise but less conveniently and with more investments into security (physical and legal - think safes, guns, and lawyers). Loss of internal stability and econonomic immiseration are breach of contract.
Breaking the media addiction just means they have no power over you, but it doesn't follow that they lose their power over everybody else.