Jacob Rothschild: "Covid is a distraction from climate change"

submitted by magnora7 from (twitter.com)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (57 children)

Exactly. But this still points to the question as to WHAT makes people "evil"? Yes, SOME people more than others obviously. Until somebody is able to understand perfectly well how this works, they are doomed to repeat the same political cycles of systemic corruption leading to revolution leading to a new set of overlords who quickly become corrupt to the point of making it systemic all over again.

The ONLY way to break the cycle is to understand the inner workings of the human psyche.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (31 children)

How do you define "evil"? (Talk about simplistic.)

I define it with Natural Law - do not harm, steal, or deceive others.

This is surrounded by many more layers of broad grey areas on slippery slopes...

How do you define harm, steal, or deceive? How do you define and find justice? How do you find justice when many people collaborate in the evil? How do you define self defense? How do you deal with accidents, crazies, kleptos, and ragers? How do you deal with abuses of power, monopolies on violence, taxes, lynch mobs? How do you deal with poor basic communication or lofty ideals and complex ideas? Etc.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

How do you define "evil"? (Talk about simplistic.) That's why I use quotes. That's what they're for.

Defining shit is cute but it still doesn't even begin to close in on the question of the ORIGINS of this "evil". Start by understanding the workings of the human mind and then you will see. Until then, you are doomed to repeat the same mistakes as everybody else because you use the same referentials as everybody else.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (29 children)

The egg came before chickens even existed.

Does a wolf or rabbit think it's evil when one is eaten?

"There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." ~ Shakespeare.

Evil is a human invention, and it needs a clear definition before you trace whatever "origins" you think exist.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

If it's a human invention and it has no objective definition, then it is imaginary. Why on Earth would we base ANYTHING in our lives on imaginary things? That's not reality, Carswell.

[–]Node 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Most human lives are based on little more than imaginary things. As for the "why", my guess is it's because of the limited processing power.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You mean EXISTENCE. Life is real. These are two very distinct things. One is notional, the other cannot be grasped by thought.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My limited processing power strikes again... What's the connection between my comment and your reply?

Where do I mean EXISTENCE instead of whatever I said? And what exactly is the distinction you're referencing between existence and life? Like, the difference between rocks and ongoing organic processes?

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

I know man, mercury destroys the brain. I wish I were still smart. Something like your reference about rocks and organic processes, only on a more abstract plane.

Existence is material: events in your day, your movements in the world, your occupation, your hobbies, where you call home, the daily stuff.

Life is the story that emerges from existence, a sort of meta-existence if you will: The process of turning the mind of the person you were when you were born into the mind you've had before, have now and will have at later times. This "story" if you will, describes an evolutionary trajectory which you may call Life.

Also, this evolutionary trajectory, insofar as somebody has the ability to grasp its substance and meaning, can readily be extrapolated into the past and future. That is an interesting but somewhat separate topic. Suffice it to say that Life is a process that mostly happens beyond what most humans call "their mind," since it is the progression of said mind towards its ultimate goal. Grasping this requires metamind or supermind. These are all quite real, but understood by only a very few.

Still, it is my life's work to bring people to grasp these facts of their beings, so I need to talk about them, if only to bring some perspective to what are otherwise dimensionally truncated, and therefore sterile, discussions about life and existence.

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

OK I thought the need to distinguish between life and existence in this context was obvious, but maybe it is not.

When one uses the word "life" to mean "existence", they are de facto reducing their life and their notion of life, for the time of their reasoning on the topic at hand and the writing of their post, to that of existentialism.

Doing so, you get "lives are lived out of imagination" as an accepted truth, when in fact it is existence that is thus.

BUT: So long as we are talking about good and evil and the Rothschilds and politics and the cycle of tyranny - revolution - corruption - tyranny again, there is nothing within the domain of existentialism that can yield a social paradigm that escapes that aforementioned cycle of tyranny.

This can be evidenced by this tangent of the conversation, whereby "good" and "evil" are purely imaginary. This holds true only within existentialism, that is, a materialistic-rationalistic point of view that negates the realities pointed at within the actual meaning of the word "life".

Once we re-integrate these realities in the conversation by correcting "life" and "existentialism", the good vs evil definition becomes easy: good is life-affirming while evil is life-negating. In this context "life" is both the "much greater than existentialism" and "the continuation of biological processes of a being". Because they are both necessary to, well... Both life and existence.

This definition is sufficiently subtle that it can accommodate any situation and yield an objective judgment on an action, good or evil. Then the other piece of the puzzle is the honesty of the participants, but that's another matter.

I hope this clarifies what Mr. Carswell might construe as "Horrux likes to make up his own definitions and pedantly correct us for no reason, putting us down in the process" or whatever.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

Government authority is imaginary.

Value in money and things is imaginary.

Math, symbols, forms, and ideals are imaginary.

Imagination is important to our reality.

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

Imagination is the source of our suffering. No more, no less.

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

And our joy.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

It is the source of EMOTION which is all on a spectrum of suffering.

Joy is always only attained in spontaneity, and spontaneity is only ever attained when thought and emotion are silenced.

Which is why joy is mostly a thing in little children, before they get brainwashed into accepting "thought" as their own.

THAT is the source of evil by the way: Believing the thoughts in your head.

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

Joy is always only attained in spontaneity, and spontaneity is only ever attained when thought and emotion are silenced.

You confuse momentary fleeting happiness with long lasting joy that comes via fulfillment. The former is easy but ever elusive, the latter takes effort with purpose.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=happiness+vs+joy

THAT is the source of evil by the way: Believing the thoughts in your head.

This is absurd, unless you're talking with schizos.

You have strong beliefs so you have that source of evil, and you are a Nazi - thus Nazis believe in evil. /s

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

Government authority is imaginary.

But its enforcement is VERY real, so... Good luck with that one.

Value in money and things is imaginary.

Of course not. CURRENCY such as we have today, numbers inside computers, yes, these have imaginary value, but the entire systems are built upon them, so this unreality of it is hard to avoid.

Still, MONEY and THINGS have value that isn't imaginary. It can be calculated very precisely.

Math, symbols, forms, and ideals are imaginary.

Yes.

Imagination is important to our reality.

No, this is a mistake. There is no "our" or "my" or "their" to add to Reality. It is what it is, and it couldn't care less whether you even acknowledge its existence. Subjective "reality" is fiction, and it is the source of all suffering.

Most people are so invested in their fiction that they are ready to defend it with their very lives. To defend your own cage from that which would open it. Such is the occult slavery of man.

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

Why on Earth would we base ANYTHING in our lives on imaginary things?

Government authority is imaginary.

But its enforcement is VERY real, so... Good luck with that one.

My point is proven.
I rest my case.

Imagination is important to our reality.

No, this is a mistake.

And again, you revert to retardation for your entrenched judgmental polarized stance against the abstract concept of "imagination".

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

Jason Carswell: "I took drugs that took me to a greater state of consciousness."

Me: "My greater state of consciousness says [things]."

Jason Carswell: "I deny any possibility of your so-called 'greater' state of consciousness."

I rest my case.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Jason Carswell: "I deny any possibility of your so-called 'greater' state of consciousness."

I did NOT say that at all.

Your reality is twisted and it's trying to twist things to fit it.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (24 children)

WHAT makes people "evil"?

The definition of "evil" itself? We're competitive organisms, so our individual goals and desires don't necessarily align on a fundamental level. One way to define "evil" would be a mismatch between behaviors furthering our individual goals and behaviors furthering the goals of the "evil" perpetrator.

Another way to define behaviors considered "evil" is to subscribe to a set of religious beliefs, where behaviors in the category of "evil" are predefined for us. We all know which set of religious beliefs is correct, but are the subscribers to the off-brand belief-sets "evil" in intent, or only in effect?

But back to the WHAT; I'm going to suggest that the WHAT that makes people "evil" really comes down to ones perception of the intent and effects of the behaviors of others. It's not the behavior itself, it's the perception and judgement of the observer that makes it "evil". People themselves can't be "evil". Only the perception of the intent and/or effects of their behaviors can define "evil".

u/JasonCarswell

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

Agreed. That's why we need subjective definitions of what "evil" actually entails, that defines and IS the source.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

One way to define "evil" would be a mismatch between behaviors furthering our individual goals, and behaviors furthering the goals of the "evil" perpetrator.

Depends on what the definition of IS is... How does my above definition fail to impress?

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

Depends on what the definition of IS is...

Mr. Clinton, I already said what it is, "subjective definitions of what "evil" actually entails". Horrux just wants to fight about his own definitions again, now trying to reinvent what "source" means, while belittling others.

One way to define "evil" would be a mismatch between behaviors furthering our individual goals and behaviors furthering the goals of the "evil" perpetrator.

Very good, along with the rest. I'd tweak it thusly...

I'd define "evil" as conflicting ideals, expressions, and actions between individuals and/or groups that are perceived to do harm, steal, or deceive. Mindless (systemic, mechanical, accidental, etc.) or malicious (intentional via greed, hate, etc.), the perception may be real or not, religious or not, clear or muddy, etc.

[–]Node 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

conflicting ideals, expressions, and actions

All behaviors.

do harm, steal, or deceive.

All goal mismatches.

Perceptual inaccuracy isn't relevant, because the entity or individual doing the evil/not-evil analysis is basing their judgement on the data they possess, not data they lack.

what "source" means

First time I'm seeing this in this thread. What is this about? Source of what?

This exchange is an interesting microcosm of the topic at large, as perceptions of what constitutes reality and how it works appear to have some significant mismatches.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

conflicting ideals, expressions, and actions

All behaviors.

Ideals are not, but the others are, and I thought it worth separating talk from deeds as people often believe (ideals) or say one thing and to another.

do harm, steal, or deceive.

All goal mismatches.

Agreed technically, but IMO "goal mismatches" is soft and ambiguous, though perhaps better for others with their own subjective definitions that may or may not include my 3 broad strokes.

Perceptual inaccuracy isn't relevant, because the entity or individual doing the evil/not-evil analysis is basing their judgement on the data they possess, not data they lack.

I disagree. Few people think they're doing evil when they do it. They can justify it any way they like. If they never get caught doing evil in the forest does it make a sound? IMO, the term "evil" is usually wielded by someone not doing the alleged evil, and they may or may not have inaccurate perceptions (ie. faith, etc). Because no man is an island, we all live in society and have cultural norms, including concepts of "evil" - thus most of us simply behave when we get evil thoughts.

First time I'm seeing this in this thread. What is this about? Source of what?

Ask Horrux. He's the one who raised the questions, doesn't like the answers, and attempts to belittle you for being too simplistic for his simple question.

This exchange is an interesting microcosm of the topic at large, as perceptions of what constitutes reality and how it works appear to have some significant mismatches.

Indeed. They've dumbed down our education and communication (and social media with simplistic up/down votes), weaponized the mismatches, and limited, hijacked, or thrown monkey wrenches in our common /s/Terminology.

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

Indeed. They've dumbed down our education and communication (and social media with simplistic up/down votes), weaponized the mismatches, and limited, hijacked, or thrown monkey wrenches in our common /s/Terminology.

But when it's Horrux who points out word misuse and meaning truncation by means of propaganda, then I'm just arguing definitions for the sake of arguing and belittling people, right? Interesting how that works.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

But when it's Horrux who points out word misuse and meaning truncation by means of propaganda, then I'm just arguing definitions for the sake of arguing and belittling people, right? Interesting how that works.

As you always perfectly demonstrate, your abrasive demands, hostility, and sarcasm are argumentative.

Change your tone and you might find more willing to civilly engage in the discourse you seek.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I disagree. Few people think they're doing evil when they do it.

I wasn't clear in that sentence construction, but then you make the point I meant.

the term "evil" is usually wielded by someone not doing the alleged evil,

Exactly. This is the entity or individual doing the evil/not-evil analysis. You probably don't think you're perpetuating evil with your current projects, but there probably are people judging that you're doing evil. They may or may not have accurate perceptions of you and your behaviors (probably not), but they go with the data they possess.

a mismatch between behaviors furthering OUR individual goals, and behaviors furthering the goals of the OTHER.

Perhaps neither of you are evil. Perhaps one or both are. This judgement comes from the individual perceptions of both parties, and may or may not be accurate.

Often times a homicide is correctly judged as evil, because "killing is wrong". But what if the homicide was to stop a killing?

So my main point ITT is that "evil" is mainly an individual judgement of 'disliked' behaviors of others.

If I were to go on for more paragraphs, I'd mention God, satan, and religious beliefs, but that's beyond this scope.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Perhaps neither of you are evil. Perhaps one or both are. This judgement comes from the individual perceptions of both parties, and may or may not be accurate.

Yes, subjective - as I said to Horrux.

an individual judgement of 'disliked' behaviors of others.

"Disliked" is too soft. I can tolerate something I dislike. Some folks may use "evil" casually. I think most consider evil deeds way beyond merely unacceptable or bad. Personally I don't like the religious associations and only use the term to describe the ruling class, their actions, and their systems.

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

Ask Horrux. He's the one who raised the questions, doesn't like the answers, and attempts to belittle you for being too simplistic for his simple question.

You've simply ignored the question, and then started nagging when I asked it again. WHERE did you actually answer it?

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

Horrux just wants to fight about his own definitions again, now trying to reinvent what "source" means, while belittling others.

I object. I asked a question multiple times and you ignored it, then reproached me asking the question again. That is very disingenuous. I do not seek to belittle anybody, but when you go around ignoring my participation and then nagging about the questions I ask, you were simply asking for it.

Here is a much better definition of good and evil that communists will always object to: Good is life-affirming, and evil is life-negating. Earendil came up with that, I think. And it matches my own definition, although I had never worded it like that.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Good is life-affirming, and evil is life-negating.

It's not a new or unique definition. It's simplistic and good.

Again, it's subjective. What is "life-affirming"? What about neutral things that are neither affirming or negating, in part or in whole? Is a TV evil? No - it's a piece of furniture. Is the TV programming evil? Are education TV documentaries evil? Are documentaries on war and evil deeds evil?

You complain about being simple. You're complaining about yourself.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Once again Jason. Sigh.

I complain about overly SIMPLISTIC expressions, which means, statements that are artificially made too simple to serve the purpose they intend. Not about the natural SIMPLICITY of things. You just did it again by conflating simplistic and simple. Why do you do this.

You answer your own question: Is a TV evil? Is a TV life-affirming or life-negating? Neither, right? So why are you asking a question with such an obvious answer? An object is neither good nor evil, it is neutral. Only deeds are good/evil. I thought that was a given. But I guess not.

This definition is SIMPLE, but not SIMPLISTIC.

So a TV is neither, but creating a children's TV show to confuse them about their gender is "evil". Then the parents might see this "evil" represented in the TV show and prevent their kids from watching it.

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

You perpetually pick and chose and complicate simple/simplistic definitions to suit your convoluted obscure needs, and you get upset when people don't align with your own custom terms and uncommon understandings and re-definitions of things.

My "TV is evil" example is a common trope that is easily understood - except by you apparently.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=TV+is+evil

I agree, intentionally confusing/brainwashing children is evil, on many matters, regardless how it's done.

Again, it's subjective how you define evil, and what you define as teaching useful things to better survive in and contribute to society/socialism/communism/community/nationalism/voluntaryism/anarchy/imagination/evil/live.

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

Yes, I don't do pop culture referentials. Sue me.

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

That's why we need subjective definitions of what "evil" actually entails

Needing subjective definition implies there is no objective reality behind the term "evil". This means that "evil" is wholly imaginary and should in no way be part of anybody's views on how to structure their lives.

This is once again the implicit point of view of communists, of which I declare you to be a closet case. You espouse so many views that match that doctrine perfectly, you may not know yourself to be a communist but you seem to share everything with them. But go ahead, reassure me and demonstrate that you are not. Or that you are, I couldn't care less...

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

there is no objective reality behind the term "evil"

Yes. It it subjective.

This means that "evil" is wholly imaginary and

No. You've added your subjective meaning. And still you've not defined it nor its source.

and should in no way be part of anybody's views on how to structure their lives.

Again, you've added your subjective interpretation of what to do with the concept of "evil".

Why must people structure their lives? And what makes you their authority that says so?

This is once again the implicit point of view of communists,

Yet you are the one who advocates for totalitarian central national government under a great leader. The more you scream about commies the more I think you are one.

you may not know yourself to be a communist but you seem to share everything with them.

Outrageous claims require outrageous proof.

I'm a self-professed voluntaryist/anarchist, who rather than liking top-down privatized corporations supports bottom-up organizations like co-operatives (1/3 of Marx's socialism!!!) and decentralization of ALL things (tech, banking, government, defense, etc) rather than centralized government control, commies or not.

But go ahead, reassure me and demonstrate that you are not.

I don't owe you anything.

I couldn't care less...

If that were true you wouldn't keep accusing people of it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Oh, you are of the materialistic-rationalistic school if thought that implies that man is but an animal like any other, with a bit of a bigger brain. Well obviously from such a standpoint, no more discussion on the topic can be had, for it's all chemical reactions in our brains, therefore actually evil does NOT exist. Morality is imaginary, and that's the end of the story.

Now where's my flamethrower, I met some people I didn't like. Wait, I'm not from that school of thought.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Eliminating the chemical reactions in our brains would seem to make further discussion fairly difficult.

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

Yes. Funny.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not just funny, chemical reactions in our brains are our entry point to the reality of this place. Unless I'm missing a different school of thought?

man is ███ an animal like any other, with a bit of a bigger brain.

Observations appear to verify that humans are a mammal species, and that their brains are more powerful than most. The "but" part is a stretch, and it seems likely there is also a spirit or soul that animates the mammalian bodies we inhabit.

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

Chemical reactions ARE ASSOCIATED WITH "our entry point to the 'reality' of this place." Causation has not, cannot and will never be demonstrated.

Yes, we do possess immaterial components of a much greater order than any other "animal" species. This is knowable in the absolute sense. A mind properly unshackled can palpate these components.

"Evil" has worked tirelessly for millennia to dull our minds, make us ever more animalized, and to cut off our consciousness from the whole of reality. They've done a great job, to the point where relatively intelligent people hold for truth that we are ordinarh animals with a slightly bigger brain and opposing thumbs, that chemical reactions in our brains are the whole of the impression of consciousness, and that the only reality is that of physical matter.