Iraq was preemptively destroyed as a potential threat (based on lies). They preemptively isolate us as potential COVID carriers (based on lies). Soon enough they'll preemptively execute people as potentially treasonous or whatev. Maybe we should prepreemptively organize some effective rev/solutions?

submitted by JasonCarswell from activistpost.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (15 children)

Revolution Solutions (comment with your own):

  1. Decentralization
  2. Share alternative solutions
  3. Share awareness and information
  4. Cultivate networks
  5. Resistance and refuse to comply

Man, I suck at organizing revolutions. Maybe we are all doomed.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

6 - Reorganize your mind/spirit energies so that the power structures of your civilization have no effect on you or your life.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

That would be ideal. But I'm afraid it's impossible. But striving to minimize the effects is a worthy goal, to be sure.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

it's not impossible at all. It just requires the exact science of the mind, which isn't well known yet. But it will, mark my words, replace philosophy, psychiatry, psychology, and all manner of spirituality and religion. Because why believe or theorize when you can KNOW.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Everything is connected and everything influences everything else.

No effects is a worthy but impossible abstract ideal.

Even self-immolating Buddhists are not free of being affected as they're obviously driven to their radical responses to their oppressive systems.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

You have not acquired this science. Therefore you do not know. Please don't preach from ignorance, because you are otherwise such a wise and knowledgeable individual.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Okay, but if you don't explain it then all you're doing is calling me ignorant, which I may be, or your so-called science may be at fault. We'll never know until you share it. And if you don't openly share it for critical analysis then it's just more blind faith in your scientism dogma, which I'll never subscribe to.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Uh? I fail to grasp what you are stating. Anybody can at least try to learn it. I'm not preventing anyone. I got the manual, trained myself and now I've got a grasp of it, nothing unusual or weird about it. I'm not understanding what you are getting at.

Oh and a science is never up for a critical analysis. A science just IS. Either you know it and you can use it or you don't. Who could ever have a "critical analysis" of Na+Cl = NaCl = salt? This... is beyond me.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Share the science (or even the name of the manual), or it's not authentic open refutable science.

If you don't share the science but claim it is, then I am forced to have a blind faith in your claims and so-called science, aka dogmatic Scientism.

"Oh and a science is never up for a critical analysis."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SCIENCE IS A METHOD AND PROCESS TO FIND KNOWLEDGE.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
2b: something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
3b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

Anything claiming to be science without being provable is SCIENTISM blind faith dogma.

Science is NOT the Tao. Science is NOT the force. Science does not just exist. Nature exists, but nature is NOT science.

Where did you go to school because they utterly FAILED to teach you about science. How old are you? Seriously, you REALLY need to revisit this really basic shit.

ALL SCIENCE is based upon the SCIENTIFIC METHOD of which you clearly know nothing about. THAT is the ONLY way to your refine the knowledge to become irrefutable - because it must ALL BE REFUTED until only the truth remains.

If it can't be refuted (due to censorship, privacy, proprietary corporate ownership, university paywalls, copyrights, patents, etc.) then it's NOT authentic transparent open science - it's just blind faith scientism dogma.

Sadly our world is full of scientism and that's why giant corporations can poison people with radiation, big pharma, and their privatized "medicine" for profits without accountability other than their say-so.

Study hard : https://duckduckgo.com/?q=scientific+method

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Actual science itself cannot ever be under critical analysis. How could it be? The APPLICATION or would-be application of science, or its principles might be, but not the science itself. What critical analysis is there to make about the fibonacci series? There isn't one. There can't be. Science is factual. One cannot do a critical analysis of a given fact, because a fact is, by definition, factually true and as such, not open for debate. Same with science.

I am sorry you feel I am not being clear, but it is you who aren't being clear. You did not write about a critical analysis of a scientific reasoning or application of said science, but about science itself. That is like having a critical analysis of the on/off state of an incandescent light bulb. It doesn't happen. You look at it, no light? It's off. Light? It's on. Nothing to debate. Science itself is like that.

Application, theories, then yeah that can be subject to a critical analysis by other experts in the field. But somebody who isn't an expert can't discuss it. For example, if I ask you to discuss (or perform a critical analysis) of mathematicians' view of the consequences for future developments of theoretical mathematics of the fairly recent demonstration of Fermat's last theorem, what can you say? Most likely, NOTHING because you are not a mathematician. But again, the mathematics themselves either work or they are erroneous and there is no debate to be had on that question. It's the same with every science: it obeys fixed laws. They aren't up for debate, as they make up the science itself, which can be used to prove its own cogency.

As for your would-be comments on my person and true ability for science, you know nothing about that.

Lastly, the site where I got the manual is here: http://www.revolutiondesprit.com