Showing posts with label Robert Anton Wilson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Anton Wilson. Show all posts

Sunday 29 November 2020

Multiple Selves and Information Systems











Multiple Selves and Information Systems
by Robert Anton Wilson

Between 1910 and 1939, Charlie Chaplin always played the same character in all his films — the beloved little Tramp that became world-famous. 

In 1939, Chaplin wrote, directed and starred in The Great Dictator, in which the little Tramp did not appear. 

Instead, Chaplin played two characters — a tyrant, based on Hitler, and a Jewish tailor, one of Hitler's victims. 

Audiences all over The World (except Germany, where the authorities banned the film) complained, mournfully and angrily, that they missed The Little Tramp. 


Chaplin, however, having gotten rid of The Tramp once, never did bring that persona back. 





In later films, he played many characters (a serial killer, a kindly old vaudevillian, a deposed king), but never The Tramp. 

People still complained that they wanted to see The Tramp again, but Chaplin went on creating new characters. 

(We will leave it to Jungians to explain why Chaplin had to become two opposite characters before he could personally escape the Archetype of The Tramp...

Many actors have had equally hard battles in getting detached from, if not a specific character, a specific type. 

Humphrey Bogart remained stuck in villain roles, usually gangsters, for nearly a decade before he got to play his first hero. 

Cary Grant never did escape from the hero type — either the romantic hero or the comic hero; when Alfred Hitchcock persuaded him to play a murderer, in Suspicion, the studio over-ruled both of them and tacked on a surprise ending in which the Grant character did not commit the murder, after all. Etc.

Back in "the real world," if a member of a family changes suddenly, the whole family suddenly appears agitated and disturbed. 

Family counselors have learned to expect this, even when the change consists of something everybody considers desirable — e.g., an alcoholic who suddenly stops drinking can "destabilize" the family to the extent that another member becomes clinically depressed, or develops psychosomatic symptoms, or even starts drink-ing heavily (as if the family "needed" an alcoholic). 

It seems that we not only speak and think in sentences like "John is an old grouch" but become disoriented and frightened if John suddenly starts acting friendly and generous. 

(Audiences rejected the previously "lovable" Chaplin most vehemently when he played the multiple wife-killer in Monsieur Verdoux. 

Probably, audiences would not have felt upset if the role had gone to the actor who originally wrote it for himself and sold it to Chaplin when the Hollywood moguls blacklisted him — Orson Welles.

If Dickens’s Scrooge had changed, in actuality, as he changed in the book, several people in his social field would have suddenly developed bizarre behaviors they had never shown before... 


Chaplin, amusingly, once made a comedy about the chaos created by a man who conspicuously does not exhibit the "isness" or "essence" our subject-predicate language programs us to expect, City Lights

In this film, The Little Tramp encounters a millionaire with two entirely different personalities: a generous and compassionate drunk, and a greedy, somewhat paranoid sober man

The Tramp and all the other characters soon exhibit behaviors that would look like clinical insanity to the audience, if we did not know the secret none of the characters guess: namely that each "personality" in the rich man appears when brain chemistry changes. 

The Russian mystic Gurdjieff claimed that we all contain multiple personalities. 

Many researchers in psychology and neuroscience now share that startling view. 

As Gurdjieff indicated, the "I" who toils at a job does not seem the same "I" who makes love with joy and passion, and the third "I" who occasionally gets angry for no evident reason seems a third personality, etc. 

There does not appear anything metaphysical about this; it even appears, measurably, on electroencephalograms. 

Dr. Frank Putnam of the National Institute of Health found that extreme cases of multiple personality — the only ones that ortho-dox psychiatry recognizes — show quite distinct brain waves for each "personality" almost as if the researchers had taken the electrodes off of one subject and attached them to another. (O'Regan. op. cit.) 

Dr. Rossi defines these separate personalities as "state specific information systems." 

Not only do we show different personalities when drunk and when sober, like Chaplin's emblematic millionaire, but we have different information banks ("memories") in these states. 

Thus, most people have noted that something that happened to them while drunk appears totally forgotten, until they get intoxicated again, and then the memory "miraculously" re-appears. 

This observation of state-specific information occurs even more frequently with LSD; nobody really remembers the richness of an LSD voyage until they take another dose. 

Emotional states seem part of a circular-causal loop with brain chemistry — it seems impossible, for science in 1990, to say that one part of the circle "causes" the other parts. Thus, we can now understand a phenomenon mentioned earlier, namely that we tend to remember happy experiences when happy and sad experiences when sad. The separate "personalities" or information systems within a typical human seem to fall into four main groups, with four additional groups appearing only in minorities who have engaged in one form or another of neurological self-research (metaprogramming). 

1. The Oral Bio-Survival System. 
This seems to contain imprints and conditioning dating from early infancy, with subsequent learning built upon that foundation. 

If you stop and think about, you know how a carpet tastes, how the leg of a chair tastes, etc. You may even remember how the dirt in a flower pot tastes. 

This knowledge dates from the oral stage of infancy in which we take nourishment (bio-survival) through the mother's nipples and also judge other objects by putting them in our mouths.

A large part of parenting an infant consists in following the little darling around and shouting "Don't put that in your mouth" whenever they try to taste /test something toxic. 

Dating from Adorno in the 1940s, psychologists who do surveys on large groups (e.g., entering college freshper-sons) have repeatedly noted a correlation between dislike of "foreign" and "exotic" foods and the "fascist" personal-ity. 

A total Gestalt seems to exist — a behavioral/concep-tual cluster of dislike of new food-dislike of "radical" ideas/racism/nationalism/sexism/xenophobia /conserva-tism/phobic and/or compulsive behaviors-fascist ideolo-gies. 

This cluster makes up the well-known F-Scale (F for Fascism). Where more than two of these traits appear, the probabilities indicate that most of the others will appear. 

This seems to result from a neophobic imprint in the bio-survival system. Those with this imprint feel increasingly insecure as they move in space-time away from Mommy and "home-cooked meals." 

Conversely, those who like to experiment with strange and exotic foods seem to have a neophilic imprint and want to explore the world in many dimensions — traveling, moving from one city or country to another, studying new subjects, "playing" with ideas rather than holding rigidly to one static model of the universe. On this baby-level of the brain, some seem to have an imprint that clings to the familiar ("Oh, Mommy, take me home"), some have the opposite imprint that seeks novelty and exploration ("Let's see what's on the other side of the mountain") and most, following the Bell-shaped curve, have an imprint somewhere between these extremes — "conservative" on some issues, innovative on others. Subsequent learning will tend to get processed through these imprints, and those with strong neophobic reflexes will usually, if they ever reject the initial dogmatic family reality-tunnel, settle at once into an equally dogmatic new reality-tunnel. 

E.g., if raised Catholic, they seldom become agnostics or zetetics; rather, they will move, like iron filings drawn by a magnet, to dogmatic atheism or even a crusading atheist "religion" like Marxism, Objectivism or CSICOP. 

Since the mechanical bio-chemical reflexes on this level remain "invisible" (and cannot even reach translation onto the verbal level except in an altered state of consciousness, such as hypnosis, or under certain drugs), this hard-wired infantile information system controls all later information systems (or "selves") without the knowledge of the conscious ego. 

In most cases, the "happiest" or most tranquil areas of the infantile bio-survival system — those imprinted by the Safe Space around Mommy — can only be "remembered" or re-experienced with drugs that trigger neurotransmit-ters similar to those activated during breast-feeding. 

The attempt to re-capture that state may lead to re-imprinting via yoga or martial arts, or to a search for chemical analogs, which will eventually lead to the opiates. "Disturbed" or "unhappy" (ego dystonic) imprints here may account for opiate addictions. This oral bio-survival system makes a feedback loop from mouth to hypothalamus to neuropeptide system to lymph and blood etc. to immunological system. 

What Transactional Analysis calls the Wooden Leg Game — evasion of adult responsibility through chronic illness — does not appear conscious in most cases. 

Rather a Loser Script in this system depresses the sub-systems, including the immunological system, and renders the subject, or victim, statistically prone to more illness than average. Similarly, a Winner Script on this circuit contributes to longevity and may account for cases like Bertrand Russell (still writing philosophy and polemic at 99), George Burns (busy with three careers until 100) etc. 

2. The Anal Territorial System. Since all mammals mark their territories with excretions, the "toddler" stage of development and associated toilet training produces a system of synergetic imprints and conditioning concerned with territory and what Freudians call "anality" (sadomasochism). 

Those who take a Dominant imprint in this system seek power all their lives; those with a Submissive imprint seek Dominant types to lead them (the Reichian Fuhrerprinzip) and most people settle somewhere between these extremes, taking a masochist stance toward those "above" them (government, landlords etc.) and a sadist stance toward selected victims defined as "below" them (wives, children, "inferior races," people on Welfare, etc.) 

The "self" or information system on this toddler level may function as the predominant self or "normal" personality in those whose lives center around power or it may remain "latent" usually and only emerge in conflict situations. 

Usually, it emerges full-blown when enough alcohol enters the brain and alters habitual circuitry. 

The anal-sadist vocabulary of the typical drunk ("Oh, yeah? Stick it up your ass," "You dumb ass-hole," "Up yours, buddy," etc.) recapitulates toilet training and mammalian habits of using excretions as territorial fight-or-flight signals. 

People say later "He was acting like a two-year-old" or more simply "He just wasn't himself last night.

These remarks signify that the toddler information system — i.e., the mammalian anal-territorial circuits — temporarily took control of the brain. Politicians have great skill in activating this system and easily persuade large crowds to behave like small children having temper tantrums. 

The favorite activating device (dramatized by Shakespeare in Henry V) invokes mammalian pack-solidarity by attacking a rival pack. 

George Bush, perceived as a "wimp" by many, raised his popularity to unprecedented heights, just as I looked about for a contemporary illustration of this point. 

Mr. Bush simply invaded a small, Third World country (Panama) where a quick, easy victory came within a week. 

The "wimp" image vanished overnight. 

Any alpha male in any gorilla or chimpanzee pack, feeling his authority slipping, would have followed the same course. 

This system makes a feedback loop between muscles, adrenaline, the thalamus of the brain, the anus and the larynx. Swelling the body and using the larynx to howl (muscle-flexing and noise) makes up the usual Domination signal among birds, reptiles, mammals and politicians. 

Study the speeches of Hitler and Ronald Reagan for further details, or just watch two ducks disputing territory in a pond. 

Conversely, shrinking the body and muttering (or becoming totally silent) make up the usual Submission reflex. 

"Crawling away with its tail between its legs," the dog's submission reflex, does not differ much from the body-language of an employee who made the mistake of disagreeing with the boss and received a Dominator (flexing/howling) signal in response. 

The ego — or self — defined by this system appears more mammalian and evolutionarily advanced than the quick reptilian reflexes of the self operating on the oral bio-survival system. 

Nonetheless, the personality shrinks back to the primitive bio-survival self whenever real danger appears — whenever confronted by threat to life, rather than mere threat to status. 

This difference between mam-malian strategy and reptilian reflex explains why there seems more "time" in the anal territorial system than in the oral bio-survival system. In the later, mammalian system, one explores relative power signals slowly; in the earlier, reptilian system, one attacks or flees instantly. 

3. The Semantic Time-Binding System. After the growing child acquires language — i.e., learns that the flux of experience has had labels and indexes assigned to it by the tribal game-rules — a new information system becomes imprinted and conditioned, and this system can continue growing and learning for a lifetime. This system allows me to receive signals sent 2500 years ago by persons such as Socrates and Confucius. 

It allows me to send signals which, if I have more luck than most writers, will still find their way to new receivers 2500 years in the future. 

This time-binding function of symbolism gives humans problem-solving capacities impossible to most other animals (except, perhaps, cetaceans) and also allows us to create and suffer from "problems" that do not exist at all, except on the linguistic level. 

With human symbolism we can produce (or learn from their producers) mathematical systems that allow us to predict the behavior of physical systems long before we had the instruments to measure those systems (as Einstein predicted that clocks in outer space would measure time differently than clocks on our planet face). We can even build complex machines that work — most of the time. 

With symbolism we can also write messages so profound that nobody fully understands them but almost everybody agrees they say something important (e.g., Beethoven's Ninth Symphony). 

And with symbolism we can create meaningless meta-physics and Strange Loops so weird that society grows alarmed and either locks us up or insists on "medicating" us. 

With such weird symbols, if not locked up or medicated, we can even persuade multitudes to believe in our gibberish and execute 6,000,000 scapegoats (the Hitler case), line up to drink cyanide cocktails (the Jim Jones case), or perform virtually any idiocy or lunacy imaginable. 

If the imprints in the first two information systems differentiate us into large groups — conservatives and pioneers, dominators and followers, etc. — the semantic system allows us to differentiate ourselves still further, giving humanity more tribal eccentrics, both benevolent and malign, than any other class of animals. 

We do not all live in the same universe. Millions live in a Moslem universe and find it very hard to understand persons living in a Christian universe. Millions of others live in a Marxist universe. 

Most Americans seem quite happy in a mixed 19th Century Capitalist and 13th Century Christian universe, but the literary intelligentsia lives in an early 20th Century Freudian/Marxist universe, and a few well-informed scientists evidently actually live in a 1997 universe. Etc. 

The elaboration of such emic realities or reality-tunnels can reach extremes of creativity, in which a person "invents" a totally new and individualized gloss on the whole of existence. 

Such great creators will either win Nobel prizes (for art or science) or will get thrown in "mental hospitals," depending on how much skill they have at selling their new vision to others. 

Some will even get locked up in nut-houses and later become recognized as great scientific pioneers — e.g., Semmelweiss, the first physician to suggest that surgeons should wash their hands before operating. 

(Ezra Pound had the peculiar distinction of winning an award from the Library of Congress for writing the best poem of the year, in 1948, while government psychiatrists insisted he "was" insane.) 

The semantic time-binding system makes a feedback loop between the verbal left brain hemisphere, the larynx, the right hand (which manipulates the world and checks the accuracy of maps or glosses) and the eyes (which read words and also scan the environment). 

The self existing in this system has more "time" than the self on the mammalian territorial system or the reptilian survival system. 

Indeed, it can speculate about "time", or about other words, and invent philosophies about timeless universes, three-dimensional time (Ouspensky), infinite time dimensions (Dunne) etc. 

It can invent new Gestalts which make quantum jumps in our social information banks and it can wallow in utter nonsense endlessly. 

A "clever" imprint in this system usually lasts for life, as does a "dumb" imprint. Subsequent conditioning and learning all occur with the parameters of a fluent (well-spoken, clear-thinking) self or a dull (inarticulate, "unthinking") self. 

4. The Socio-Sexual System. At puberty, the DNA un-leashes messenger RNA molecules which notify all sub-systems that mating time has arrived. The body metamorphizes totally, and the nervous system ("mind") changes in the process. A new "self" appears. 


 Cat and Mouse 

As usual, imprinting and genetics play a major role, with conditioning and learning modifying but seldom radically altering genetic-imprinted imperatives. If the environment provides a sex-positive imprint, adult sexuality will have a joyous and even "transcendental" quality;. if the environ-ment provides a sex-negative imprint, sexuality will remain disturbed or problematical for life. 

The socio-sexual system feedbacks run from front brain through hormonal and neuropeptide systems to genitalia to breasts and arms (hugging, cuddling, fucking circuitry). 

A "good" sexual imprint creates the archetypal "bright eyes and bushy tails," while a "bad" imprint creates a tense (muscularly armored) and zombie-like appearance. 

The self or ego in this system easily learns adult Game Rules (civilized norms, "ethics"), if the sexual imprint has not had strong negative components. 

Where the imprint does have negative or "kinky" components, adult Game Rules do not set in place and either an "outlaw" personal-ity crystallizes (the rapist/criminal with the archetypal "Born to Lose" tattoo) or else the Jekyll-Hyde dualism appears, well illustrated recently by several sex-negative TV preachers who got caught in some very kinky private sex-games. 

Whatever system dominates at a given time appears as the ego or self at that time, in two senses: 




1. People who meet Mr. A when he has the Oral Submissive self predominant, will remember him as "that sort of person." 


People who meet him when he has the Semantic/rational self predominant remember him as another sort of person. Etc. 

2. Due to state-specific information, as discussed earlier, when you have one of these selves predominant, you "forget" the other selves to a surprising extent and act as if the brain only had access to the information banks of the presently predominant self. 

E.g., when frightened into infantile Oral states, you may actually think "I am always a weakling," quite forgetting the times when your Anal Dominator self was in charge, or the Semantic or Sexual imprints were governing the brain, etc. 

(This analysis owes a great deal to Dr. Timothy Leary's Info-Psychology, Falcon Press, 1988. A discussion at greater length, less technical than Leary's, appears in my Prometheus Rising, op. cit.) 
 
But, if we have a variety of potential selves rather than the one block-like "essential self" of Aristotelian philosophy, and, if each self acts as an observer who creates a reality-tunnel which appears as a whole universe (to those unaware of Transactional and Quantum psychology), then: 

Each time an internal or external trigger causes us to quantum jump from one "self" to another, The Whole World around us appears to change also. 
 
This explains why Mary may say, and honestly believe, "Everybody bullies me" one day and then say, and honestly believe, "Everybody likes me and helps me" on another day, why John may feel "Everybody is a bastard" one hour and "I feel sorry for everybody; they're all suffering" the next hour. 

Every person lives in different umwelt (emic reality) but every self within a person also lives in a different reality-tunnel. 
 
The number of universes perceived by human beings does not equal the population of the planet, but several times the population of the planet. It thus appears some sort of miracle that we sometimes find it possible to communicate with each other at all, at all. 

Quantum mechanics says an electron has a different "essence" every time we measure it (or, more clearly, it has no "essence" at all). 

Neuroscience reveals, similarly, that the Mary we meet on Tuesday may have a different "self" than the Mary we met Monday (or, as the Buddhists said long before neuroscience, Mary has no "essence" at all). 
 
As we said at the beginning, the bedrock claim of existentialism holds that "existence precedes essence," or we have no "essence". 
 
Like electrons, we jump from one information system to another, and only those who have not looked closely believe that one "essence" remains constant through all transformations. 

Cat and Mouse Exercizes 

1. J. Edgar Hoover, Head of our Secret Police for over 50 years, now appears to have lived the life of an active homosexual. 

He kept files on the sexual behavior of politicians, business people, famous actors and anybody who could advance or harm his career, and used these files for blackmail.
 
[ AND he was Secretly Black (his parents generation would have called him a Mulatto), passing as White -- he also spied on and persecuted Black Civil Rights Leaders and had a letter sent to Dr. Martin Luther King threatening sexual blackmail and encouraging him towards suicide. ]

Try to figure out Mr. Hoover's imprinted and conditioned selves, according to the above analysis. 

2. Try the same on Jesus Christ. 

3. Try Thomas Jefferson. 

4. Let each member of the study group pick some subject, or victim — not part of the group, but someone the member sees daily. 

Let the member study that person care-fully and analyze which selves appear most often, how frequently the selves shift, and which self (if any) appears dominant most of the time.
 
5. This exercize will seem the hardest in the book, but try it anyway. 

Observe yourself for a week, and try to see which selves appear most often, if one self appears dominant, etc. 

Sunday 31 March 2019

Luke : The Mytho-Historical Warrior-Shaman

A Mighty Prophet Before The Force
In theology, apotheosis refers to the idea that an individual has been raised to godlike stature. 
The long-deceased heroes linked with founding myths of Greek sites were accorded chthonic rites in their heroon, or “hero-temple”.




Myth today has come to have negative connotations which are the complete opposite of its meaning in a religious context... In a religious context, however, myths are storied vehicles of supreme truth, the most basic and important truths of all. By them people regulate and interpret their lives and find worth and purpose in their existence. 

Myths put one in touch with sacred realities, the fundamental sources of being, power, and truth. They are seen not only as being the opposite of error but also as being clearly distinguishable from stories told for entertainment and from the workaday, domestic, practical language of a people. They provide answers to the mysteries of being and becoming, mysteries which, as mysteries, are hidden, yet mysteries which are revealed through story and ritual. 

Myths deal not only with truth but with ultimate truth.


These are the hidden words that The Living Jesus spoke. 

And Didymos Judas Thomas wrote them down. 



“Not until The Male becomes Female and The Female becomes Male shall ye enter The Kingdom of Heaven.”


— The Gospel of Thomas





















In theology, apotheosis refers to the idea that an individual has been raised to godlike stature. In art, the term refers to the treatment of any subject (a figure, group, locale, motif, convention or melody) in a particularly grand or exalted manner.

Antiquity

Further information: imperial cult and divine king
Before the Hellenistic period, imperial cults were known in Ancient Egypt (pharaohs) and Mesopotamia (since Naram-Sin). From the New Kingdom, all deceased pharaohs were deified as the god Osiris.

Ancient Greece

Main article: Greek hero cult
From at least the Geometric period of the ninth century BC, the long-deceased heroes linked with founding myths of Greek sites were accorded chthonic rites in their heroon, or “hero-temple”.

In the Greek world, the first leader who accorded himself divine honours was Philip II of Macedon. At his wedding to his sixth wife, Philip’s enthroned image was carried in procession among the Olympian gods; “his example at Aigai became a custom, passing to the Macedonian kings who were later worshipped in Greek Asia, from them to Julius Caesar and so to the emperors of Rome”. Such Hellenistic state leaders might be raised to a status equal to the gods before death (e.g., Alexander the Great) or afterwards (e.g., members of the Ptolemaic dynasty). A heroic cult status similar to apotheosis was also an honour given to a few revered artists of the distant past, notably Homer.

Archaic and Classical Greek hero-cults became primarily civic [tied to the Mytho-Historical Founder of a City-State] extended from their familial origins, in the sixth century; by the fifth century none of the worshipers based their authority by tracing descent back to the hero, with the exception of some families who inherited particular priestly cults, such as the Eumolpides (descended from Eumolpus) of the Eleusinian mysteries, and some inherited priesthoods at oracle sites. The Greek hero cults can be distinguished on the other hand from the Roman cult of dead emperors, because the hero was not thought of as having ascended to Olympus or become a god: he was beneath the earth, and his power purely local. For this reason hero cults were chthonic in nature, and their rituals more closely resembled those for Hecate and Persephone than those for Zeus and Apollo. 

Two exceptions were Heracles and Asclepius, who might be honoured as either gods or heroes, sometimes by chthonic night-time rites and sacrifice on the following day.

Ancient Rome

Main article: Imperial cult (ancient Rome)
Up to the end of the Republic, Romans accepted only one official apotheosis: the god Quirinus, whatever his original meaning, having been identified with Romulus. Subsequently, apotheosis in ancient Rome was a process whereby a deceased ruler was recognized as having been divine by his successor, usually also by a decree of the Senate and popular consent. In addition to showing respect, often the present ruler deified a popular predecessor to legitimize himself and gain popularity with the people. The upper-class did not always take part in the imperial cult, and some privately ridiculed the apotheosis of inept and feeble emperors, as in the satire The Pumpkinification of (the Divine) Claudius, usually attributed to Seneca.

At the height of the imperial cult during the Roman Empire, sometimes the emperor’s deceased loved ones—heirs, empresses, or lovers, as Hadrian’s Antinous—were deified as well. Deified people were awarded posthumously the title Divus (Diva if women) to their names to signify their divinity. Traditional Roman religion distinguished between a deus (god) and a divus (a mortal who became divine or deified), though not consistently. Temples and columns were erected to provide a space for worship.

Ancient China

The Ming dynasty epic Investiture of the Gods deals heavily with deification legends. Numerous mortals have been deified into the Daoist pantheon, such as Guan Yu, Iron-crutch Li and Fan Kuai. Song Dynasty General Yue Fei was deified during the Ming Dynasty and is considered by some practitioners to be one of the three highest ranking heavenly generals.




DATHON [on monitor]: 
Darmok at Tanagra.

TAMARIAN [on monitor]: 
Shaka! Mirab, his sails unfurled.

DATHON [on monitor]: 
Darmok.

TAMARIAN [on monitor]: 
Mirab.

DATA: 
Freeze. Darmok.

TROI: 
Darmok. Well, it seems to be a point of contention between them. Perhaps something the Tamarian captain proposed that the First Officer didn't like.

DATA: 
The apparent emotional dynamic does seem to support that assumption. As with the other terms used by the Tamarian, this appears to be a proper noun. The name clearly carries a meaning for them.

TROI: 
Computer, search for the term Darmok in all linguistic databases for this sector.

COMPUTER: 
Searching. Darmok is the name of a seventh dynasty emperor on Kanda Four. A mytho-historical hunter on Shantil Three. A colony on Malindi Seven. A frozen dessert on Tazna Five. A

TROI: 
Stop search. Computer, how many entries are there for Darmok?

COMPUTER: Forty seven.

TROI: 
All our technology and experience, our universal translator, our years in space, contacts with more alien cultures than I can even remember.

DATA: 
I have encountered one thousand, seven hundred fifty four non-human races during my tenure with Starfleet.

TROI: 
And we still can't even say hello to these people.

DATA: 
Correct.

TROI: 
A single word can lead to tragedy. 
One word misspoken or misunderstood. 
And that could happen here, Data, if we fail.

DATA: 
Replay at time index one four four.

DATHON [on monitor]: 
Darmok at Tanagra.

DATA: 
Freeze. Computer, search for the term Tanagra. All databases.

COMPUTER: 
Searching. Tanagra. The ruling family on Gallos Two. A ceremonial drink on Lerishi Four. An island-continent on Shantil Three —

TROI: 
Stop. Shantil Three. 
Computer, cross-reference the last entry with the previous search index.

COMPUTER: 
Darmok is the name of a mytho-historical hunter on Shantil Three.

TROI: 
I think we've got something.


RIKER: 
What did you find out?

DATA: 
The Tamarian ego structure does not seem to allow what we normally think of as self-identity. 

Their ability to abstract is highly unusual. 
They seem to communicate through narrative imagery by reference to the individuals and places which appear in their mytho-historical accounts.

TROI: 
It's as if I were to say to you, Juliet on her balcony.

CRUSHER: 
An image of romance.

TROI: 
Exactly. Imagery is everything to the Tamarians. 
It embodies their emotional states, their very thought processes. 
It's how they communicate, and it's how they think.

RIKER: 
If we know how they think, shouldn't we be able to get something across to them?

DATA: 
No, sir. The situation is analogous to understanding the grammar of a language but none of the vocabulary.

CRUSHER: 
If I didn't know who Juliet was or what she was doing on that balcony, the image alone wouldn't have any meaning.

TROI: 
That's correct. 
For instance, we know that Darmok was a great hero, a hunter
and that Tanagra was an island
but that's it. 

Without the details, there's no understanding.

DATA: 
It is necessary for us to learn the narrative from which the Tamarians drawing their imagery. 
Given our current relations, that does not appear likely.

[Planet surface]

(Night has fallen, a fire is lit and Dathon is lying down.)

DATHON: 
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.

PICARD: 
Our situation is similar to theirs. 
I understand that. But I need to know more. You must tell me more about Darmok and Jalad. Tell me. 

You used the words, 'Temba, his arms wide' when you gave me the knife and the fire. Could that mean give? 

Temba, his arms wide. Darmok. Give me more about Darmok.

DATHON: 
Darmok on the ocean.

PICARD: 
Darmok. 
(draws on the soil) 
The ocean. Darmok on the ocean. A metaphor? For being alone? Isolated? Darmok on the ocean.

(Dathon writhes in pain.)

PICARD: 
Are you all right?

DATHON: 
Kiazi's children, their faces wet.

PICARD: 
Temba, his arms open. 
Give me more about Darmok on the ocean.

DATHON: 
Tanagra on the ocean. 
Darmok at Tanagra.

PICARD: 
At Tanagra. A country? 
Tanagra on the ocean. 
An island. 

Temba, his arms wide.

DATHON: 
Jalad on the ocean. 
Jalad at Tanagra.

PICARD: 
Jalad at Tanagra. 
He went to the same island as Darmok. 
Darmok and Jalad Tanagra.

DATHON: 
The beast at Tanagra.

PICARD: 
The beast? 

There was a creature at Tanagra? 

Darmok and Jalad, the beast of Tanagra. 

They arrived separately. 

They struggled together against a common foe, the beast at Tanagra. 

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.

DATHON: 
Darmok and Jalad on the ocean.

PICARD: 
They left together. 
Darmok and Jalad on the ocean.

DATHON: 
The ocean. (another spasm) 
Zinda! His face black, his eyes red. 
Callimas at Bahar.

PICARD: 
You hoped this would happen, didn't you? 
You knew there was a dangerous creature on this planet and you knew from the tale of Darmok that a danger shared might sometimes bring two people together. 

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. 
You and me, here, at El-Adrel.

DATHON: 
Kira at Bashi. 
Temba, his arms wide.

PICARD: 
My turn? No, I'm not much of a story teller. Besides, you wouldn't understand. Shaka. when the walls fell. Perhaps that doesn't matter. You want to hear it anyway. There's a story, a very ancient one, from Earth. I'll try and remember it. Gilgamesh, a king. Gilgamesh, a king, at Uruk. He tormented his subjects. He made them angry. They cried out aloud, send us a companion for our king. Spare us from his madness. Enkidu, a wild man from the forest, entered the city. They fought in the temple. They fought in the street. Gilgamesh defeated Enkidu. They became great friends. Gilgamesh and Enkidu at Uruk.

DATHON: 
At Uruk.

PICARD: 
The new friends went out into the desert together, where the great bull of heaven was killing men by the hundreds. Enkidu caught the bull by the tail. Gilgamesh struck it with his sword.

DATHON: 
Gilgamesh.

PICARD: 
They were victorious. But Enkidu fell to the ground, struck down by the gods. And Gilgamesh wept bitter tears, saying, 'he who was my companion through adventure and hardship, is gone forever.

(And so Dathon dies.)












These are the hidden words that The Living Jesus spoke. 

And Didymos Judas Thomas wrote them down. 



“Not until The Male becomes Female and The Female becomes Male shall ye enter The Kingdom of Heaven.”


— The Gospel of Thomas

Monday 1 August 2016

Hillary - TALK 2 RUSSIA

"I will not sacrifice the Black Sea Fleet. 



We've made too many compromises already. 
Too many retreats. 




They reunify Germany, and we fall back. 




They assimilate entire Warsaw Pact nations, and we fall back. 




Not again! 

The line must be drawn here... 


THIS far, 
NO further! 








Hillary, talk to Russia before it's too late


Before it's too late, before it's too late

Hillary, talk to Russia before it's too late
Before They blow up The World



You can go to the zoo, but u don't feed guerrillas


U can't feed guerrillas, left wing guerrillas

Go to the zoo, but don't feed guerrillas
Who wanna blow up the world

Oh yes, baby

Hillary, if you're dead before I get to meet ya
Before I get to meet ya, before I get to meet ya


Hillary, if you're dead before I get to meet ya


Don't say I didn't warn ya



Hillary, talk to Russia before it's too late


Before it's too late, before it's too late


Hillary, talk to Russia before it's too late


Before They blow up the world

Before They blow up The World





(Don't blow up my world)





Don't you blow up my world



by James Corbett
grtv.ca
July 24, 2016
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Wall Street-backed warmonger whose potential election as President of the United States this November poses an existential threat not just to Americans but to all of humanity.
As First Lady and then as Senator, she actively supported the US’ illegal wars of aggression abroad:
BILL CLINTON: “Today, our Armed Forces joined our NATO allies in airstrikes against Serbian forces ,esponsible for the brutality in Kosovo.”
HILLARY CLINTON: “You know I voted for the Iraqi resolution.”
CLINTON: “The President understands this. He’s fully aware that it’s going to take a lot of patience and pain-staking planning and we’re gonna support him!”
CLINTON: “…including thousands of chemical weapons. Large volumes of chemical and biological stocks. A number of missiles and warheads. A major lab equipped to produce Anthrax.”
She not only admitted the US role in creating Al Qaeda:
CLINTON: “When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, we had this brilliant idea there we were going to come to Pakistan and create a force of Mujahideen, equip them with Stinger missiles and everything else, to go after the Soviets inside Afghanistan.”
But then, despite this admission, as Secretary of State her support of the war on Libya and the jihadis in Syria directly led to the rise of ISIS and the migrant crisis in Europe:
CLINTON: “The transition to democracy in Syria has begun and it’s time for Assad to get out of the way.”
“President Assad is not indispensable and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power.”
“I think based on definitions of war-criminal and crimes against humanity, there would be an argument to be made that he (Assad) would fit into that category.”
CLINTON: “Libya was a different kind of calculation and we didn’t lose a single person.”
CLINTON: “We came. We saw. He died! (laughter)”
She was the one who announced the US’ so-called “Asia-Pacific Pivot” that has seen more US forces being placed in the Asia-Pacific as a direct military threat to China:
CLINTON: “…and we look to the Asia-Pacific region, as we have for many decades, as an area where the United States in uniquely positioned to play a major role.”
CLINTON: “The United States is not seeding the Pacific to anyone.”
And she has stated in no uncertain terms that Russia and Iran will be militarily targeted in a Clinton presidency, and that the “nuclear option” is, as always, “on the table”:
CLINTON: “And we will make sure the Iranians and the world understand, that the United States will act decisively if necessary including taking military action.”
“There will have to be consequences for any violation by Iran and that the nuclear option should not at all be taken of the table. That has been my position consistently.”
CLINTON: “And Russia has to support the international community’s efforts sincerely or be held to account.”
CLINTON: “That Russia and China will pay a price. Because they are holding up progress, blockading it. That is no longer tolerable.”
And unlike her many, many political statements of convenience that are merely a reflection of what is most politically acceptable at the moment:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you think New York State should recognize gay marriage?”
HILLARY CLINTON: “No.”
CHRIS MATTHEWS: “No … OK.”
CLINTON: “I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples.”
CLINTON: “I represented Wall Street as a Senator from New York and I went to Wall Street and in December of 2007 before the big crash that we had. And I basically said ‘cut it out, quit foreclosing on homes. Quit engaging in these kinds of speculative behaviors.'”
“Now who’s exactly the blame for the housing crisis? Now I think there’s plenty of blame to go around. Home-buyers who paid extra fees to avoid documenting their income, should of known that they were getting in over their heads.”
“I take a back-seat to no one when you look at my record on standing up and fighting for progressive values.”
“I get accused of being kind of moderate and center. I plead guilty.”
HILLARY CLINTON: “We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails.”
JAMES COMEY: “Lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her emails.”
CLINTON: “So that the emails were immediately captured and preserved.”
COMEY: “There was no archiving at all of her emails.”
…we can be assured that these threats of potential nuclear world war by Clinton are not idle threats. A future Clinton president would be assured of a like mind in the new Prime Minister in the UK, who has stated in no uncertain terms that she is willing to launch a nuclear strike that would kill hundreds of thousands:
GEORGE KEREVAN: “Let me congratulate the Prime Minster on her new rule, but can we cut to the chase? Is she personally prepared to authorize a nuclear-strike that could kill 100,000 innocent men, women and children?”
THERESA MAY: “Yes. And I have to say to the honourable gentleman, the whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that we would be prepared to use it.”
Hillary Clinton is a neocon, a war hawk, a liar, an unindicted criminal and a Wall Street puppet. Why is it, then, that those on the so-called “progressive” left who would be warning against her if she had an “R” next to her name are instead lecturing other leftists that it is now their duty to fall in line and help her get elected?
NOAM CHOMSKY: “If Clinton is nominated and it comes to a choice between Clinton and Trump, in a swing state, a state where it’s going to matter which way you vote, I would vote against Trump, and by elementary arithmetic, that means you hold your nose and you vote Democrat. I don’t think there’s any other rational choice. Abstaining from voting or, say, voting for, say, a candidate you prefer, a minority candidate, just amounts to a vote for Donald Trump, which I think is a devastating prospect, for reasons I’ve already mentioned.”
JUAN GONZALES: “We in SDS refused to vote. We wouldn’t support McCarthy. We wouldn’t support Humphrey. Our slogan was “Vote with your feet, vote in the street.” I’m—I’m here to tell you that the slogan was right, the tactic was wrong. And I think that the country, in retrospect, there would not have been a substantive change, there would have been a positive change, if Nixon had not been elected. But you learn from your mistakes. Hopefully, other generations learn from the mistakes of those who came before them.”
ELIZABETH WARREN: We’re all here today because we’re with her. And we’re going to work our hearts out to make Hillary Clinton the next president of the United States.
BERNIE SANDERS: “She will be the Democratic nominee for president, and I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States.”
The message here is as clear as it is predictable and disappointing. Once again those with the influence to shape these events and ignite a genuine protest movement against Hillary’s coronation at the Democratic National Convention are falling back into their roles as partisan ideologues, advocating for “their” candidate over the “other side,” taking the two-party system as a fait accomplis and complicity with that system as the only way forward.
But as Michel Chossudovsky of GlobalResearch.ca points out, this election is fundamentally different. This time, the fate of the world hangs in the balance.
MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY: “In so many words Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy stance is ‘to blow up the planet.’ She has made statements to the effect that a first-strike nuclear attack against Russia or Iran is on the table. So that if she is in the White House she could in fact unleash the unspoken, which is World War 3. I think this is something we have to address both in terms of analysis and also political choice. That anyone who wants to blow up the planet is not ‘progressive.’
“Secondly, she has a criminal record. Not only in regards to the email scandal but also in relation to The Clinton Foundation, which is involved in fraud, money laundering, political cronyism, etc. It is amply documented.
“So that, in effect, the choice for the American people is to elect a war-criminal.”
Too many people become attached to the personality of these political personas or fixated on the “D” or the “R” after their name. This clouds their judgement and stops them from seeing their policies and agenda for what they really are.
As Diana Johnstone, author of Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton points out, Hillary is best understood not as a person, but as the instrument for the think tanks, Wall Street financiers and other connected insiders who want to embroil the United States in more illegal wars and plunder the country and its people even further.
DIANA JOHNSTONE: “I mean Hillary to me is not even an interesting person. She is simply a shallow, ambitious woman. Who has decided to make herself the instrument of the Washington think-tank persuasion and is using that too pose as a great expert on world affairs to be elected as President. She simply is the embodiment of all that is terrible in American foreign-policy that has developed over the past decades.”
It is no hyperbole to say that the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton as president this November would be one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the United States, and perhaps the world. It is incumbent on people of all stripes–American and non-American, Republican and Democrat, progressive and libertarian, anarchists, and those who have never thought about politics a day in their life–to protest her nomination at the Democratic National Convention, work against her campaign for President, and avert the nuclear nightmare that is now coming into view.