This is food for thought.  Just engage your imagination:

A recent comment of mine:

What this is about, I cover in my book in the discussion of the negative Hegelian Dialectic…how engineered cognitive dissonance can be used to REDUCE consciousness, and to reduce the ability of a mind to reason, etc. How it can be used to reduce IQ. That’s the true underlying nature of the game being played here…is destroying the human mind and thus human civilization. Infantalizing and emotionalizing the mind rather than rationalizing it, like we see with the liberal left.

Humanity could survive a K-T Boundary event. It wouldn’t be easy, but we could survive it.

What we wouldn’t survive is our minds being reduced to lower and lower IQ, our minds being seized to critical thought by cognitive dissonance and simulacra, etc. It is our mind and rational thought that defines humanity, the sole thing that distinguishes us from the animals. And it is our mind that is being attacked, with this constant conflation and confusion of terms and concepts, etc.

If there was ever such a thing as a clandestine “alien” attack on humanity that was willing to wait patiently for humanity to kill itself off with engineered stupidity via mental viruses etc., this is what it would look like.

Or, that’s just how bad academia and the global powers that be have themselves become.

So it seems that I am not alone in suspecting some strange forces at work.  I am continually astounded at who has been clever enough, or alternatively who has been stupid enough, to get Flat Earth theory inserted into modern [expletive] physics as the “most important actionable contribution to man” which science has produced!?  How the hell does something like that happen!?

You can actually mark quite clearly when this process of the negative dialectic and the reduction of the human mind and its consciousness began: the year was 1905. And then further solidified in 1927.  It began with inserting into the human psyche the concept that there could validly exist physical paradoxes in reality, from the 1905 hijack of existing science.  Then, it took only 22 more years to fully inundate the entire basis of human science with paradox as modern physics’ very foundation and starting point!

Since then we have seen a destruction of human consciousness to the point that we now have Flat Earth theory being taught in modern physics.

I think that Mike Adams is incorrect to say that we’re been marked for extermination due to the destruction we caused during the 20th Century; rather, all of that destruction is part of the attack itself since we know that the attack on the human mind came recognizably in 1905, well before any subsequent technology was developed and misused.  Real, true humans have nothing to apologize for…all of this is some form of a hostile attack utilizing multiple vectors upon us.

This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Marked

  1. Stephen Wells says:

    Who postulated the paradox conjectures back in 1905?

  2. Joseph E Postma says:

    Via the hijack of the existing, already-explained science being worked on by Lorentz & Fitzgerald, Michelson and Morley and others. The creation of the simultaneity paradox. The replacement of an absolute space-time with absolute effects with a fully relative space-time with phantom effects which both DO and DO NOT occur.

    Science and consciousness was first hijacked with the dissonant idea that things both did and did not occur. If you were willing to accept that, this then set the standard for who was allowed to participate and also HOW one would participate in the field. In other words, you had to adopt cognitive dissonance as the standard for your highest thinking, as the standard for education, as the standard for feeling and thinking as though one were “intelligent”.

    Normal thinking was now left to the plebs – normal thinking and traditionally rational thinking was now something left only for the low-brow, was something that only the small regular people did. And this state of affairs was reinforced who whom at the time? By who? By the mass media! They solidified it, they popularized it, they made celebrities out of it. And the same mass media of course continues doing the exact same thing today with fully ridiculous irrational ideas.

    The effect of this effort was to create a racket, was to create the “ivory tower” system where you could only join if you were willing to have your consciousness reduced, if you were willing to believe in impossible things. A self-protection racket. Of course, the “regular” people had no clue of all this, and assumed that the smart people “must know what they’re doing”. The effect was to make regular people think that they were also stupid people, since they couldn’t understand the cognitively-dissonant ideas of the smart people. But the truth was that “the smart people” simply believed in cognitively dissonant & impossible things, and the regular people couldn’t understand it because these things were in fact un-understandable because they were wrong. But the regular people, the real humans, are naive, innocent, and give the benefit of the doubt, and wouldn’t imagine that supposedly smart people would engage in such colossal untruths.

    This is all such a massive and clever attack on the consciousness of humanity. It is our mind and its consciousness that defines us. You cannot numerically physically kill us all because to do that would be far too difficult. But if you can insert mind-viruses to humanity, where humanity is defined by its ability to consciously use its mind, which virally spread automatically and infect everyone to the point where conscious rational thought becomes impossible because the mind has been tricked into thinking and feeling that irrational cognitively-dissonant and impossible ideas exist, while absolute ideas do not exist. What can’t exist is what exists, and what can exist is merely relative and not absolute.

  3. I don’t know whether there is intent behind all this or not. I’m thinking that these things are symptoms of ailments individually untreated that amass together into a syndrome, propagated by reflexes in the human mind/body that build on them and drive them without conscious re-evaluation.

    Dissonance starts to feel more comfortable than its alternative. The poles of normality reverse. Negative is now positive, and vice versa.

    Perhaps this is the “natural” course of human extinction — this syndrome that subtly infects ever more and more of civilization. I am not comfortable with this position, but I thought I’d toss it out there.

  4. What I think has happened is that we have tried to take the human mind’s response (at its limits) to dissecting things into smaller and smaller pieces and apply this response to the whole itself that we started dissecting, which is a mistake, because we lost our connection to the whole.

    Analyzing things down to the quantum level simply reaches the limits of the human body to sense the physical world. The Copenhagen interpretation is a psychological response to this physical reaction to the limits of human minds in those bodies to sense anything. At these limits, of course paradoxes exist, because we are out of our whole-world bodily range. What applies in the body at these out-of-range scales does NOT apply to the body at the whole-view scale.

    As humans, we have to commit to a physical world. The attempt to impose the body’s reaction, at its mind’s limits of sensing itself, to this physical world is simply an absurd attempt. The paradoxes at the mind/body limits are NOT the paradoxes of the mind/body in its larger world of everyday dealings.

    To deny the mind its connection to its body in the larger world, based on dissonance at the mind’s limits, is gutless. And it is this gutless transference from the micro to the macro that is degrading the physical world in which our bodies must inhabit. We are experiencing human-body denial at its height.

    Again, just composing this as I go, to toss it out there.

  5. Andy Smith says:

    It’s hard to be reasonable if you can’t reason. Like my favorite quote “As a civilized person it is far easier to act like a barbarian than a barbarian to act like a civilized person”

    Always enjoy your posts

  6. Further to the OP: I think it is important to also consider how the mind could accept cognitive dissonance in the first place. You have to consider language…the English language. Most of the cognitively dissonant concepts come via the English language. The English language is FULL of dissonance is it not? From letters which have multiple sounds, sounds which have multiple letters, words which have multiple meanings and sounds which have multiple spellings, etc etc.

    Wouldn’t the basis for reason be much better supported by a language which was more straightforwardly logically consistent? A language which was in fact more similar to mathematics in that numbers only have singular meaning? Our letters and words and sounds should have singular meanings for the simple sake of plain logical consistency.

    Given that language is the basis of consciousness, and how we practically reason, wouldn’t such a language produce far different outcomes than an inconsistent language!?

    Any linguists around? Any languages more like this than English?

  7. Pingback: Blame | Climate of Sophistry

  8. Pingback: Blame the Unreal | PSI Intl

  9. I suggest that, no matter how formal and consistent a language could be, cognitive dissonance would still exist, simply because no language can ever contain all that can be known. There is perceptual, sensory “knowing” that language cannot capture.

    In fact, if language became too formal, then a great area of human creativity might be quashed. Note the relatively few math majors compared to English majors.

    This is why regular language is an art. You develop (or should develop) a skill in its use. As with paints, words can be slopped out without a good design that relates utterances to physical realities.

    Words can be formulated into confusions and contradictions, or they can be formulated into structures with greater elegance.

    The words of climate science, for example, are like paints on an abstract number painting, instead of skilled strokes on a master work, where the forms and strokes emerge from a well integrated approach.

  10. Joseph E Postma says:

    Yes, I was thinking alternatively that perhaps these “inconsistencies” in language are perhaps good things, because they teach nuance, and context, and have their own rules such as they are but which nevertheless instill the idea that rules exist and are important, that nuance and context is important, etc.

    And so the consistent thing would be to point out that it is the liberal left, who believes in flat Earth climate alarm, are also spearheading the idea that language should be fluid and that the rules of language need no longer be taught, etc. Of course they entirely sail past the nuance of the Earth not being flat and that it makes a difference, and the context between the real greenhouse effect of a real greenhouse and the fake simulacral radiative greenhouse effect, etc.

    The above comment for a new language was a proposition I made at the moment…but previously I had always concluded as I describe in my last paragraph here…that the English language, if properly utilized and taught, has great value in instilling those important human-thinking-reality tools which we absolutely need for critical thought, such as nuance, context, etc.

    However, there IS still the point that the British were Empiricists and effectively destroyed the Enlightenment, while the Germans were Idealists and the best exemplars of the Enlightenment and actually first produced what the English then stole (intellectually) and destroyed. And so, why the difference between the British and the Germans? It is probably a difference in language, and what the respective languages subconsciously instill in the thinking and critical thought routines and heuristics of the respective minds.

    Anyone familiar with the differences between Deutsche and English, and how the differences can lead to different types of thinking?

  11. I’m guessing that there are types of people for whom language has a greater shaping force, while there are other types of people who are shaped primarily pre-verbally, and then they shape language (whatever it is) as best they can to sync with their senses.

    We’re getting into personality types here, I guess. Alas, I speak and understand only English, and so I cannot offer deeper direct insight.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s