Thursday, 30 March 2017

Odyssey | original piano composition




My 19th piano composition. This is my longest to date and was created whilst in a profound state of boredom. It has been said to be reminiscent of Philip Glass but I am not at all familiar with that composer's work except his Truman Show piano piece. I hope some of you enjoy it. 

Sheets here: http://www.scoreexchange.com/scores/187363.html

Audio here: https://soundcloud.com/scruffyowlet/odyssey-original-piano-composition

Monday, 27 March 2017

Thursday, 23 March 2017

All My Classical Piano




All my classical piano performances.


Tracks:
  1. Bach: Prelude 3 in C sharp major, BWV 848, The Well-Tempered Clavier Book 1
  2. Bach: Fugue 2 in C minor, BWV 847, The Well-Tempered Clavier Book 1
  3. Schumann: Humming Song, Album for the Young Op. 68


Bach: Fugue 2 in C minor, BWV 847 | classical piano




A non professional performance of a Bach fugue, taken from Book 1 of The Well-Tempered Clavier

Audio here: https://soundcloud.com/scruffyowlet/bach-fugue-2-in-c-minor-bwv-847-classical-piano

Bach: Prelude 3 in C sharp major, BWV 848 | classical piano




A non professional performance of a Bach prelude from Book 1 of The Well-Tempered Clavier

Audio here:https://soundcloud.com/scruffyowlet/bach-prelude-3-in-c-sharp-major-bwv-848-classical-piano

Victoria Sandwich


Saturday, 18 March 2017

All Religious

Everyone could be argued to have a religion of sorts, an article of faith or, at the least, something that gives them meaning, hope and/or energy.

Worldview Poisonings

Mainstream media: false poisoning
Social media: casual poisoning
Alternative media: realistic poisoning

Brain Farts

Tweets as small brain farts. Everyone loves the smell of their own brand. I know, irony. 

Opinion

Opinion: one angle out of many on a given topic. 

Ugly Word Warfare

Political life as an ugly-word warfare. 

Tragicomedy

Human existence as a giant tragicomedy. 

Friday, 17 March 2017

Money as Methodology of Control

Money and 'economics' as methodologies to control human energy. 

Politics in Practice

Politics or how people get hot under the collar and their knickers in a twist.

Wednesday, 15 March 2017

The Strong Leader Complex


People who desire to be ruled by 'strong leaders' should take heed of the saying:
"Be careful of what you wish for."
The genius fable writer of the classical world, Aesop, most amusingly portrayed the dangers of wishing for a strong leader.

The fable tells a story of how a group of frogs turned to the god-king Zeus to give them a leader. He gave them a log. At first the frogs were in awe but seeing ultimately that the log was lifeless and boring they turned to Zeus again to ask for a more inspiring leader. 

Zeus was annoyed by this new request and decided to give the frogs a hydra, i.e. a multi-headed snake whose heads grow again as they are cut off. The hydra made short shrift of the frogs, killing them all. 

[Those Germans who voted for Hitler in pre-Nazi Germany, disgruntled as they were with the liberal and 'weak' Weimar Republic, had evidently not read or understood Aesop's frogs fable.]

Daily Mail Readers


I have sometimes been perceived as or even accused of having a superiority complex, possibly due to my intellectual nature and the threatening vibe this can project in social company. 

Yet people as intellectually challenged as Daily Mail readers may also have an unconscious but nonetheless malignant superiority complex, looking down as they are wont to do daily on usual-suspect demographics such as people on welfare, immigrants, Muslims, non-heterosexuals and so on. 

As a friend of mine notes on Facebook, rather than empathise with someone undergoing difficulties in their life, i.e. make the effort to put themselves in their shoes, people of a weak not to say mean-spirited nature may come to deny that these difficulties are objective and assert instead that the person is being unreasonable and 'difficult'. 

It is perhaps hard to admit for conventionally-minded conformists that perhaps society is unfair and at times predatory, that people undergo misfortunes and hardship and that these phenomena reflect poorly on the society these conventionalists identify with and hold dear. 

- What? Society could be wrong?

- You bet it can 

As the great political philosopher Thomas Paine once said
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right."
And scapegoating discourse and politics are wrongs when they result in harm being caused to others. 

All this to say superiority complexes - which are often born, ironically, of a deeper inferiority complex, a subconscious sense of intellectual or other form of inadequacy - are not the preserve of the intelligent or gifted.

In fact the reverse is often the case as one finds that many ungifted, ignorant people revel in arrogance and self-certainty whereas many gifted, intelligent people fall into self-doubt and excessive humility. 

Addendum - An evidently disabused Daily Mail reader commented on this post saying "it must be nice to disappear up your lazy, superior arse while I work to provide for my family." He's right. It is nice. To be sure, I was the first to insult Daily Mail readers and as I wrote in Puritans as Self-Loathers
"Should you choose to judge others, expect to be judged yourself, whether for your person or the fruits, ripe or rotten, you have brought forth into the world."
I bear this person no ill-will for he is entitled to this opinion and look down on me, as flawed and contradictory as I am as any other. But I do thank him for so eloquently clarifying the hard-done by and resentful mindset of that newspaper's readership.

One Eyed Man and the Minions


"In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king."
This is of course how the obscuranti/illuminati view themselves. 

The one eye is the eye of the mind, the pineal gland - in other words, genuine mon-ey(e). 

Dark occultists view the masses as blind sheep who need 'leadership'. 

This is revealed by the soon-to-be-released Minions film. 

This YouTube video points out that the minions are really us, unhappy, listless and despondent creatures if we are denied an evil, cruel leader to guide us. 

The word minion itself means
"A follower or underling of a powerful person, especially a servile or unimportant one."
The production company for the movie is called Illumination. And some of the 'minions' have one eye. Some even have the G of freemasonry printed onto their clothing.



Let it be said however that the statement
"In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king"
need not necessarily have a dark occultic meaning because it could be argued that a philosopher whose third eye chakra is activated will indeed be king in the spiritual kingdom as compared to unenlightened contemporaries undergoing the influence of mind control methodologies, be it money, religion or government. 

Truth Hurts

Unpleasant truths can hurt. 

People react badly to what hurts them.

We can therefore understand why Plato said
"No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth"
and Orwell
"The more a society drifts away from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." 
Truth-telling stand-up comics such as Bill Hicks are, for their part, an embodiment of the famous quote
"If you're going to tell people the truth, make them laugh, or else they'll kill you."

Conspiracy Theorising

So-called conspiracy 'theorising' is a form of truth-seeking. As in science, theories may even become established fact years down the line. 

What is commonly and casually mocked as 'conspiracy theorising' often, in practice, reveals itself to be simply critical thinking based on factual research, undertook in awareness of the fact that those in power do not, as a rule, have our best interests at heart. 

For more elaboration see posts We're All Conspiracy TheoristsEvaluating Conspiratorial Angles and Conspiracy Theorist.

First Condition of Truth-Seeking

First condition of truth-seeking: you cannot evaluate the veracity of a piece of information based on how it makes you feel

To be sure emotions constitute their own form of psychological data which cannot be ignored nor should they be.

However when it comes to bleak realities shared by conspiracy researchers, emotional discomfort may well be a block in listening to the points made, whether they be true, false or patchy. 

Emotional discomfort is probably the main reason why many people choose not to pay attention to so-called conspiracy theories. 

Killing the Host

In destroying the planet, humans are sometimes seen as a cancer destroying its host. Are humans a virus as Agent Smith claimed they were in the movie The Matrix? 

Is that not precisely how the globalist elite view the mass of humanity explaining their widespread use of covert methodologies of culling and depopulation like 'food', 'medicine', man-made diseases, war, economics, weather modification and so forth?

Controlled Through Fear

We are controlled by others essentially through fear. Thus mind control aims to keep people in a polarity of fear, i.e. a state of shut-down consciousness. 

Mitigating & Remedying

In large parts we live in a violent world of fear, division and hate. Remedying or at least mitigating these aspects of reality is what we should be attending to. And one can start by not being afraid, divided or full of hate in oneself.  

Topsy Turvy

The world is topsy turvy because we are ruled by black magicians. Black magic inverts truth - as expressed in natural and psychological laws - for selfish gain. 

For more elaboration see post Black Magic as Inversion

Money Makes the World Go...

Money makes the world go round. Or does it make the world go wrong?

Introverts in the United States


Many introverts have a rough time 'fitting in', particularly in the people-oriented and competitive 'working world' but I feel especially for thoughtful and sensitive introverts in the United States where extroversion, self-promotion and making money seem to take an almost religious significance. 

Tuesday, 14 March 2017

A Fresh Look at Genealogy of Morality


The polemic by Friedrich Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morality, had an intoxicating and toxic effect on my youth but now that water has flown under the bridge and that I have extricated myself from Herr Nietzsche's direct influence I wish to critically consider it with fresh eyes (and, as he would say, ears). 

I will focus on the first essay 'Good and Bad v Good and Evil'. 

The argument Nietzsche advances is that there are essentially two forms of morality that manifested in history, albeit in combined forms, an 'aristocratic' one and a 'plebeian' one. 

The 'aristocratic' one, which Nietzsche identifies with, views the world in terms of 'good' and 'bad', i.e. first rank and second rank. 

Spiritual high-mindedness, aptitude in warfare, physical prowess are seen as 'good' by warrior cultures, which became the aristocracies of history, regardless of the harm these cause to others, whereas meekness, passivity, cowardice, simple-mindedness are seen as 'bad', i.e. 'lowly', by these same cultures. 

Conversely, he argues, slavish evaluations interpret all that is symptomatic of the higher classes - exuberance, violence, arrogance - as evil and define themselves in opposition to these qualities. 

In that sense, Nietzsche writes, warrior morality acts first by saying yes to itself in all its gruesome reality (as depicted in Homer's Iliad) whereas slave morality first reacts by saying no to the warrior morality under which they suffer.

In other words, in 'slave' morality, anyone who is not arrogant, idle, violent but, instead, humble, industrious, peaceful is good. 

This reversal is what Nietzsche claims to be the genius and legacy of the Judeo-Christian tradition. 

Nietzsche goes further in saying that the lower classes come to value calculating cleverness more than the higher classes, since it has helped them survive and better their lot, and in any event men living under masters may indeed become far cleverer than these latter who are too engaged in active political life to pay attention to minutiae and detail. 

It is important to note, with Nietzsche, that these days the same individual may partake of both moralities at the same time, his soul 'a real battleground of values', and that these competing forms of evaluation have, in modernity, become more spiritual. 

The question I ask myself is how does this theory of morality play out in the current world climate and can it even be applied?

In politics, social engineers and globalists might well view themselves as 'first rank' and the mass of humanity as 'useless eaters' and therefore, in a twisted way, partake of 'aristocratic' morality. 

Those who fight the 'New World Order' agenda will perceive these dominators as evil and, in that sense, partake of 'plebeian' morality. 

Yet still others may consider the aforementioned elite dominators as precisely second in rank in their callousness and lack of creativity and view them as scheming slaves to fear ('aristocratic' bias). 

From a different angle, many liberal-minded people make fun of and look down on Donald Trump's inadequacies (an arguable 'aristocratic' evaluation).

Trump supporters for their part might view Muslims, homosexuals and Jews as 'evil' (an arguable 'plebeian' evaluation).

Whereas most art is assessed in terms of 'good' or 'bad', discerning individuals might pick up on evil messages and agendas lurking within that art, such as in movies and music - does this mean to say it is a 'slavish' evaluation?

The controversy around German philosopher Martin Heidegger is interesting in that respect as his supporters view him as a high-ranking philosopher ('aristocratic' evaluation) but his detractors view him as an evil Nazi ('plebeian' evaluation) whose writings should all be removed from libraries. 

Ditto with Hannah Arendt, who did show a pronounced aristocratic bias in her writings (e.g. The Human Condition). While she took kindly to Ancient Greece and Rome and underplayed the problem of slavery in those cultures since it allowed for some to be free from necessity, a role modern technology has come to play for us, and went so far later on as to say that evil expresses itself superficially, not deeply, some modern commentators view her in her philosophical elitism as a kind of 'white supremacist', particularly in so far as all her referential material is elite, white and male.  

Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist movement certainly identified with 'warrior' morality and one of their gripes with Jews was to have un-made this warrior morality by inflicting mankind with a conscience. (See my addendum to the post Amorality of Nature - Knowledge of Good and Evil). 

Modern day anti-semites, for their part, often regard 'political correctness', 'positive discrimination' and pro-immigrant stances as emanating from Jewish conspiracies to commit 'white genocide' but in seeing Zionist Jews as 'evil' are themselves partaking of 'slave' morality.

Anti-welfare state politicians will take a poor view of 'benefits claimants' (looking down - arguable 'aristocratic' evaluation) and seek to cut their money while those who suffer the cuts will view these same politicians as 'evil' (arguable 'plebeian' evaluation).

Yet plenty more will look down on the anti-welfare brigade ('aristocratic' evaluation) out of the moral, Christian-inspired, ground of not preying on the vulnerable. 

Taking myself as an example, while I take a low view of business, TV and money-making generally, many others will take a low view of my bohemian, benefits-supported lifestyle. 

Yet I also see evil in the world, all the more so after having read up on cases of ritualised abuse, child exploitation, torture, State-sponsored terrorism and mind control experimentation.

It seems clear to me that the good and bad v good and evil ways of looking at the world have such an enormous variety in application coming from so many different angles, sensibilities and socio-economic groups that is has lost most if not all of its illuminating potency. 

The only thing to take from this writing is that moral valuations are context sensitive and variable within each individual and it is of no philosophical value to characterise them as either 'aristocratic' or 'plebeian', living as we do in societies organised along different, more complex, more egalitarian lines than those from which these two moralities arguably sprang.  

Commonplace Thinking: Winners and Losers


It is worth bearing in mind and even regularly reminding oneself that many people do not take to sophisticated thought patterns.

A Facebook friend of mine was angry about UK Brexit voters who refused to listen to her points online, since according to them they had 'won' and she had 'lost' so it was her duty to shut up. 

The winning-losing, success-failure couplets are now a commonplace and extremely widespread means of evaluation, encouraged at all times by mainstream media outlets and many TV shows.

In entertainment many commentators point to box office receipts and sales returns as salient points to raise in evaluating films and video games, in the 'working world', unemployed misfits are of course casually referred to as 'losers' (successful business owners being the 'winners'), in business, success or failure at making money (rather than success or failure at contributing to the common good) are constantly scrutinised by investors and, in politics, voters will often make fun of how the opposition 'lost' at an election or a referendum.  

Months ago I expressed my love of losers or people who identified with the 'loser' label, not knowing in their so doing how well their heads were screwed on (Losers). 

For winning and losing is a playground, childish and morally dubious way to appreciate the world, since abusers and psychopaths (including multinational corporations) who harm others may well and in fact do come to be seen as exemplary successes to be imitated and followed whereas introspective, ethical people (or companies) who care for their fellow human beings will often be looked down as wastes of space and time (at least by the competitively minded and by investors). 

This makes me think of Philip Pullman's hint in His Dark Materials that the true battle fought through the ages was and is one between wisdom and ignorance.

Yet it is arguably futile to attempt to fight ignorance with wisdom, since people who choose to ignore truth, knowledge and the good will not allow themselves be persuaded by philosophical arguments, however clear, concise, fair-minded and transparent. 

Independent and esoteric researcher/speaker Mark Passio (see Mark Passio and the Chess Game) does not, for his part, suffer fools gladly and is credited with saying
"Wilful ignorance in the presence of knowledge is the measure of a bad person."
Yet, even though disastrous in its effects, ignorance is not a wrong in itself. People are entitled to be ignorant, even of that which they could reasonably be expected to know. It is harm caused to others, whether through ignorance or conscious malice or both, that is a wrong.

What are Clichés?


Clichés were no doubt once original angles on the world that have outstayed their welcome among discerning members of the public. 

Because life constantly overcomes and has to overcome itself (partly through the influence of the so-called law of diminishing returns), thoughts/ideas over-used and no longer illuminating will be interpreted as dead by said discerning individuals who will seek out or offer new angles and perspectives. 

Yet clichés offer handy short cuts and points of agreement in daily human intercourse and the value of that should not be underestimated. 

Effects of Personality Type


Like many others, I have indulged in filling in personality quizzes (such as on the website https://www.16personalities.com/) and although the results have come up somewhat different at different times, the one that most forcefully presents itself is INFJ, i.e. Introverted, Intuitive, Feeling and Judge and that is the one, all things considered, I most identify with, not least because it is the rarest of all types and my girlfriend admits to my being a 'rare bird' and therefore not very relatable on social media or even in real life. 

It is no small point of pride for me that this was/is the alleged personality type of Plato, Spinoza and J.K. Rowing but also of Hitler, whose biography by Alan Bullock I read as a teenager and actually identified with despite that historical figure's shitty worldview, effect on others and legacy. 

Indeed long time followers of my intellectual development will recall the highly narcissistic and toxic worldview of my early twenties, born of insecurity, fear and low self-esteem and a most poisonous superiority complex, which took German philosophers Nietzsche and Heidegger far too seriously. 

Some of the posts I wrote in this state are still extant on this blog, albeit slightly moderated but many have been removed due to their arrogant and ugly nature. 

Anyway the interesting thing about the personality type system is that it does make one realise how at odds you might be with other people in terms not only of introversion or extroversion, but also in terms of priorities such as whether being right matters more than not upsetting others' feelings, whether truth matters more than cooperation, whether power is more valued by you than justice and so on as well as characteristics such as how imaginative you are, how improvising or planning you are, how sensitive you are etc.

Are all personality types equally legitimate or are some objectively more moral than others? 

Raising this question of the morality of personality types I am of course being typical of my own personality type, as morality may not be a big concern for other, less idealistic, personality types for whom, say, competitive, status-conscious values will be more important. 

Politicians need be extroverted to make a name for themselves in their particular trade and their worldview and personality preferences as reflected in business values, the need for competition, 'leadership' will unfortunately come to bear on others who do not share them. 

Thus, in shaping the world in their image, politicians will come to determine the fate of people, such as thoughtful introverts, who do not identify with business and competition. 

Indeed in my blog post Knowledge and Sensibility I put forward the hypothesis that much of the world's activity and human expressions, likes and dislikes, stems from the associations and divisions that occur between different 'sensibilities', which I defined as including personality preferences as well as comfort zones, sensitivities, intellect, imagination, creativity and so forth. 

Perhaps there are personality types that are just incompatible and will not mix well together and indeed personality type is likely to colour one's political preferences as well, regardless of the role of mass mind control methodologies.

For as I stated in my post Anarchist Split, even individuals who pride themselves on their political awareness and do not fall for the system of political representation also divide along right-wing, left-wing lines, particularly in their view of money and capitalism and how resources should be allocated. 

It is likely that those who value business and enterprise will fall on the anarcho-capitalist side of things whereas those who want to indulge in self-explorative (some might say self-indulgent) creativity like myself will fall on the anarcho-socialist side.

Perhaps introverts are more left-wing than extroverts? Is that why the United States has so much suspicion towards left-wing programmes and 'socialism' (or its particular view of it) for being the nation that is said to be the most extroverted on the planet?

Personality type also has an impact on mental health and it is almost a cliché now that sensitive introverts are at risk of developing conditions such as anxiety and depression as well as being preyed on by bullying dominators, including as early as school.

This is no doubt largely due to society in its mainstream aspects (over)valuing extroverted traits, particularly in jobs, requiring as they often do the need to self-promote, be a 'team player', network, smile, have fun, party and so forth.   

The book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can't Stop Talking by Susan Cain deals with some of these issues although I personally hated reading it, it being born of such an American perspective and underplaying the utter inanity of so many extroverts and American corporate culture - which have been highlighted more honestly and courageously by introvert researcher Barbara Ehrenreich. 

Some introverts might even come to see many status conscious, competitive extroverts as 'psychopaths' when in fact these latter are merely responding to their own sensibility in its emotional contents. 

Anyway as an artistic INFJ it is no surprise that I'm on welfare, completely unable as I am to conform to job culture or indeed most socially determined institutions. My blog, whether in its works or writings, is entirely biographical and reflective of my personal life preferences and as I once wrote on ScruffyOwlet's Tree, you are entitled to hate me

Monday, 13 March 2017

Adolescent Nietzscheans

Satanists, ego-driven power seekers and social darwinists as adolescent Nietzscheans. 

Only Looking on the Bright Side

Only looking at the bright side of life, i.e. ignoring the negative, will prevent the learning of important moral and philosophical lessons, which may well cause more darkness and 'negative' to enter your life. 

Your Contribution

Ultimately, however much you bring forth into the world, it will generally amount to very little on a macro-scale and in fact, life constantly changing and overcoming itself, may well amount to nothing in the long run. 

I take comfort in and learn humility from this insight, whether true or false. 

Dingbat

I love the word dingbat. It's eloquent yet less offensive than ableist works such as dumb, moron and idiot. 

Right to Ignorance

I differ from others in thinking that people are entitled to be ignorant and reap the consequences of that ignorance for themselves and others. He or she who harms others, whether through ignorance or not, will cause ugliness and pollution to enter his or her soul. 

Whether or not this bothers the person is inconsequential. They will be accountable for their actions in the eyes of the cosmos and the Creator not to say other human beings. In other words, I do not see acquiring knowledge as a moral duty, just a way to bring harmony into one's life and perhaps the lives of others. 

Intelligence v Spirit

Perhaps intelligence is an overrated concept. It could be argued that spirit is what counts, i.e. the life force that animates us and other beings.

Resentment and Politics (Short Version)

The media stir resentment.
Politicians manipulate and manage the resentment for their own ends. 

Limitation of Free Speech

The limitation of free speech is of course when speech promotes and abets harm to others and the violation of their natural law rights. 

Saturday, 11 March 2017

Mark Passio and the Chess Game


Readers of my blog will have noticed that I make a liberal and extensive use of the teachings of independent and esoteric researcher Mark Passio from whatonearthishappening.com, largely because his philosophical sensibility is compatible with my own and I have hugely benefited from his input, including on the purely personal levels of well-being and freedom from neurosis. 

My discovery of Mark Passio in 2015 was the most significant event in my intellectual and spiritual developments since reading books by Hannah Arendt, Martin Heidegger and Friedrich Nietzsche and I value his work as equal if not largely superior to the aforementioned authors, at least in terms of moral, conspiratorial and esoteric enlightenments. 

That being said I have sometimes taken issue with his indictment of what he calls the 'sleeping masses' in their failure to become aware of and resist the immoral conditions that are brought to bear on us through the actions of social engineers and dark occultist controllers. 

In an interview on YouTube (the video of which I can no longer find and therefore cannot link up) concerning what he does, his history and what are his basic views, Passio states that a chess game is being played worldwide between these controllers and the people and yet, in their wilful ignorance, the latter fail to recognise that such a chess game is being played and that they are being hoodwinked and led to stalemate.

Similarly in his podcast series concerning the monetary system, Passio puts the blame for the nonsense of that system on the prey rather than the predators, because in failing to see through the system and resisting it, but in fact largely supporting it in their love of money, the prey are actually consenting in deed and often in word to their predation. 

Passio makes no qualms about his low view of the masses, which I think would offend many a sensibility, such as when he states that people are
"ignorant, lazy cowards."
In his Natural Law seminar, in a section entitled 'Know the Real Enemy', Passio goes so far as to say that the illuminati do not enslave mankind. Rather mankind enslaves the illuminati. 
"Think about that for a minute", he says. 
The gist of his argument is that the so-called 'illuminati' are not illuminated, i.e. enlightened, particularly in their lack of care for others and heart consciousness, and that much rather it is mankind itself that enslaves the true 'illuminati', genuinely moral individuals, by maintaining and even supporting in their wilful ignorance the conditions of slavery that affect everyone (see Obscuranti and Light-Concealers). 

An example of this is voters electing a 'leader' to office and thus giving their consent to political representation and being ruled, which decision will affect the lives of those who do not wish to be re-presented nor ruled from on high. 

For it is true that however free from mind control you happen to be, there are large scale conditions such as taxation and the monetary system which are extraneous to your personal will and yet still largely have to comply with, since independent of you and maintained as long as a critical mass does not resist and unmake them.

For we do depend on others and co-exist with them, no man being an island and completely self-sufficient. 

The world in whatever shape it happens to take precedes us - the world existed before we were born - and will outlive us after our death and that includes its dominant economic, cultural and social structures. 

These dominant structures are, in Passio's opinion, largely immoral and although he gives credit to nurture, i.e. environmental factors, over nature, i.e. genetic factors, in shaping the behaviours of individuals, he still believes that it is wilful and therefore blameworthy ignorance (as opposed to what he calls blameless 'nescience') that stops the majority of people from challenging those structures.

In that respect and others, Passio regularly expresses admiration and a lack of hatred for what he calls the 'sorcerers of consciousness' that are the elite controllers, particularly in terms of their unity of spirit and purpose which contrasts with the division, external and internal, present in the mass of humanity. 

Apart from the obvious point that it is easier to be 'unified' when devoid of an emotional centre and being so few in number, the chess game analogy that Passio used in his YouTube interview should be scrutinised, which is what I did in my post Refusing to Play the Chess Game.

The point I wish to reiterate and clarify here is that no one apart from these elite controllers ever signed up to this 'chess game', i.e. the chess game being forced upon us from above, and in that respect, having not consented to enter the chess game, we have no obligation to play it and therefore resist the elite's strategic moves. We are entitled to ignore it, even should we suffer as a result. 

Moreover, on top of being a one sided chess game, psychopaths are not known for 'playing by the rules' - which is arguably how they wind up having so much worldly power - and as the habits of legislators demonstrate, will make the rules up as they go along and even likely rearrange the pieces on the chess board (a form of gas lighting) while we, the people, are not looking, acting as these elitists do in secret.

Yet, to his credit, Passio is consistent enough in his evaluations to see that these elite controllers would not be able to manifest as much evil in the world were it not for what he calls 'the cult of ultimate evil': order following. Whence his utter contempt and disregard for such entrenched institutions as the military and the police, the so-called 'dogs' of government. 

Indeed it was people 'just following orders' who enabled high Nazi officials to manifest such horrifying things as racial discrimination, genocide and wars of aggression and Howard Zinn was right in stating that civil obedience is the problem, not civil disobedience. For
"obedience is to do what you're told regardless of what is right"
 (and morality to do what is right regardless of what you're told.)

This is the main and rare area in which I part company with Passio. You are perfectly within your rights to ignore the machinations of conspirators as exposed in conspiracy literature and, provided you do not harm other sentient beings (which I do as a meat eater), are not immoral in your enforced and involuntary compliance with immoral large scale conditions, since you did not sign up to them and yet are not free from them because of their large scale and entrenched nature.  

In short, not being an activist and not caring does not make you immoral but it is true that being an activist can lend credibility to your political positioning, at least if done intelligently and ethically.  

The Slowness of New Ideas


American historian Carroll Quigley in his work Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time airs the view that unlike technology that gets adopted across the globe at a relatively fast pace and is easily transferable from one location to the next, the spreading and entrenching of ideas is in fact much slower and takes many years. 

For instance, our current civilisation owes much of its material, philosophical and spiritual roots to the scientific revolution of 16th century Europe and it is worth remembering that the leaders of that theoretical revolution, such as Galileo or Descartes, were controversial not to say, in some cases, persecuted. 

My point is that lasting and significant developments in human society take a long while, such as, according to Nietzsche, the coming to prominence of modern moral feelings of good and evil, initiated as he claims they were as far back as the time Jewish sectarians decided to place their faith in Jesus of Nazareth and even before, in the shape of Persian thinker Zoroaster who first posited the dual, moral nature of the universe. 

This can be a consoling insight for researchers and thinkers who might often come to feel impatient with the slow cottoning on of the masses to insights they achieved many years prior. 

I'm thinking, as an example, of those early 9/11 sceptics who saw through the gigantic lie of the events of that day and have had to wait many years to see the fruit of their eye-opening labours and painstaking research reach a significant audience. 

Similarly, in science, the phenomenon of 'continental drift' was initially a theory which saw its proponent ostracised by the scientific community of his day only for his theory to become established fact many years later. 

In the humanities, the value of Martin Heidegger's philosophical insights, particularly regarding the topic of modern technology, has taken a while to be appreciated and it was indeed he who said
"Patience nurtures magnanimity"
understanding as he did that genuine, original philosophy finds little echo in its own time but might, after much passing of time, come to infiltrate common awareness and indeed be taken to be a self-evident truism by many people. 

All this to say that insights into natural and psychological laws as well as into factual and philosophical truth take a long time not only to gestate but to come to bear on collective consciousness and this, as so many other areas, should teach us the value of patient virtue.   

Puritans as Self-Loathers?


I wonder sometimes if those who engage in and identify with puritanical tables of evaluation - e.g. people who accuse others of self-indulgence, laziness, joblessness - are not, to a degree, self-loathing. 

It is quite likely that modern day puritanism, this sense that life is only worthy if constantly striving, producing and seeking to prove itself in conventional terms, is in fact rooted in self-loathing, i.e. in a sense of inadequacy for who or what one is by nature, without such socially recognised tokens of excellence and acceptability as being employed, having a degree or even just lots of money. 

For it has been said,
"Many of the faults you see in others, dear reader, are your own nature reflected in them."
And as I have said before, the majority of the casual reproaches we make of others are often implicitly asking them to be free of flaws or contradiction - in other words, to rise above their humanity. 

Is this reasonable? Or is it not based on a blinding and blind discontent with the crookedness and fallibility of human action and understanding?

For should you choose to judge others, expect to be judged yourself, whether for your person or the fruits, ripe or rotten, you have brought forth into the world. 

Friday, 10 March 2017

Who are Leaders?

It could be argued that true leaders encourage their followers to become their own leaders - if not in word, then by example.

Having Thoughts and Verbalising Them

What marks me out from other thoughtful human beings is that I choose to verbalise my thoughts and share them. Others choose not to. 

The fact I choose to verbalise them may give off the impression I have a superiority complex.

Of course people are entitled to their interpretations, however hostile. 

Meaning of Tough Love (Short Version)

"Tough love": allowing consequentialist laws governing behavioural choices teach the lesson rather than verbal advice.

Self-Acceptance or Self-Improvement?

Self-acceptance > self-im-prove-ment

To Influence or to Inspire?

To inspire by example > To influence by content

Focus & Sensibility

Your focus determines your reality.

But what determines your focus?

Your sensibility. 

(For more elaboration, see post Knowledge and Sensibility)

Power Over Others (Short Version)

The desire and need for power over others as rooted in a polarity of fear, i.e. weakness.

Showing People the Way

As a messenger journeying up the Mountain of Enlightenment you can only show people the way, not carry them all the way.

This expresses a similar insight to
"You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink."

Basic Instinct (Short Version)

The basic instinct may indeed be survival.

But that does not mean it is the highest instinct.

Nietzsche's Error

What Nietzsche failed to grasp is that immorality is based in fear, i.e. weakness, not in the strength of love. 

Self-Respect (Short Version)

Self-respect = to look at oneself again

Free Will as Acquired (Short Version)

Free will = as I think, so I feel and so I act.

Free will is acquired by aligning our thoughts with our emotions and actions.

It is not innate. 

How Others Perceive You

It is always interesting to consider how others perceive you even if their view of you differs from the view you have of yourself. 

As French novelist Marcel Proust noted
"Notre personnalité sociale est une création de la pensée des autres."
(Our social personality is a creation formed by the thoughts others have of us.)

While it could be argued that each is the expert on him or herself, others may perceive our blind spots, i.e. elements of our being we are not consciously aware of.

Cerebral Person

I think it's fair to say I'm a pretty cerebral and introverted person.

Like all personality traits, this has advantages and disadvantages.

Fart Joke

Is silence golden or deadly?

As ever, it depends on context.

Stress & Threat

In fight or flight/stress mode, one interprets threats everywhere.

Prolonged stress is therefore unhealthy. 

Life Finds a Way

Life or that which overcomes itself again and again.

It Takes One (Not) to Know One

It takes one to know one.

It also takes one not to know one.

Reproaching Others

Maybe the majority of the reproaches we make of people are really asking them not to be flawed and contradictory - in other words, not human. 

Legitimate and Illegitimate Authority

Legitimate authority is based in consent.

Illegitimate authority is based on coercion. 

Mother and Father in Politics

Left-wing - nurturing mother - Welfare State
Right-wing - disciplinarian father - Police State

Lazy and Uninspired

Maybe feeling lazy and uninspired is a way for the subconscious mind to recharge itself.

Intelligence as Good or Bad?

Is intelligence, the ability to understand, overrated or underrated and by whom?

Maybe it's just one of those things that pops up here and there, whether for good or for ill. 

Sunday, 5 March 2017

Hatred

It has been said that
"It's better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you aren't."
Yet life sometimes presents a third scenario according to which one is hated for who or what one isn't, e.g. through caricatural character assassinations and inaccurate judgements and jibes at one's person based in the self-loathing of the fearful ignorant. 

And indeed a fourth scenario presents itself in being loved for who/what one is, which is of course the most pleasant outcome of the four and the ideal basis for friendship and romantic union. 

Thursday, 2 March 2017

The More You Know the Less You Think You Know


If my experience is anything to go by, I would say that the more you know, the less you think you know. 

Put differently, as one gains in knowledge, and therefore in a variety of angles on topics, one finds that competing interpretations cancel each other out, that opinions, however informed, will likely be overcome in time or even proved wrong, that definite knowledge on many matters, especially of a historical, philosophical or esoteric nature, is impossible to acquire for certain, that the acquisition of knowledge itself depends on linguistic, intellectual and symbolic representations which themselves are prey to the limitations of reason and are by nature a handy simplification, not to say falsification, of reality. 

Socrates was wisest among the Greeks for the simple reason, as he himself claimed, that he did not think he knew when he did not know, i.e. that in openly admitting he knew nothing he was wiser than those 'experts' who thought they knew something, when in fact their knowledge did not bear deep scrutiny, revealing itself to be flimsy and incoherent. 

Of course this is not to say that knowledge does not exist at all, for information that is critically evaluated, and not information itself, is how knowledge comes about but this still does not tell us what knowledge is. 

As ever, pet if controversial philosopher of mine, Martin Heidegger, was perhaps onto something when he stated in his Introduction to Metaphysics that to know is the ability to learn, or rather, to know is to be of such a resolute and disciplined mindset as to be able to learn on a sustained and repeated basis. 

Knowledge in this case would seem to amount to lifetime learning and learning always involves an element of unlearning false beliefs and misinformation. From a more conspiratorial angle, one could argue that to know is to unlearn mind control in the form of, among others, institutionalised belief systems that are artificial, inauthentic and contrary to natural law.  

These points bring me back to a concept I devised in my first blog post on ScruffyOwlet's Tree: conscience. Taken literally and morphologically 'con' (the Latin prefix meaning 'with') and 'science' (from the Latin verb scio, sciere, to know) amount to 'with knowledge' and by liberal extension 'the knowledge of your knowledge'. 

It is through the exercise of one's con-science, one's knowledge of knowledge, usefully systematised in the science of epistemology, that one finds the truth in the proposition that the more one knows, the less one thinks one's knows and therefore the less one seeks to impose beliefs, i.e. things one holds to be true, onto others. 

Much rather than convincing others of certain beliefs, the aim of enlightened teachers should be to help their students raise their consciousness - and therefore their conscience - so as to be able to better discern truth from falsehood and therefore more effectively avoid negative consequences for themselves and others. For thoughts, emotions and actions based in and induced by falsehood, not to say inner division and duality, can and usually do lead to pain and suffering.