Ghislaine Maxwell is sadly the end of it all

 

So Ghislaine Maxwell has been found guilty of human trafficking today and faces a billion years in prison. As she should. And I wonder whether this will be the catalyst to begin investigations into the men who used/abused/misused these girls. I doubt very much that Ghislaine will give up any evidence into these men because a) regardless of her cooperation she is still spending her life in prison, and b) she knows that her boss Jeffery Epstein committed 'suicide' while in custody. So self-preservation may prevail.

But it would seem to me that since someone has been convicted of underage trafficking, it is a no-brainer to conclude that this trafficking was done at the behest of rich men. Why else would you traffic these girls if there was no market. And these men need to pay for the destruction of these young girls lives.

So I feel that this is where the investigations will stop. It's that sick feeling you get when you hear about some (say) rapist who was investigated and let go on some stupid technicality, only to attack other girls before he was finally nabbed. A sense that the justice that we common folk expect of the police/judicial system, isn't inline with the actual system.

And the main reason is that this will open up a pandora's box into the sick, twisted, immoral underworld of the rich, and the powerful can't let that happen.

Anyway, this cold-hearted opportunist is going to prison and it will be very interesting over the coming months to see how this is all swept under the rug.

We belittle any species other than us

 

It's fascinating that ant species, which we feel are just living automated robots concerned only with their instincts to preserve the species, have this separate stomach solely for social purposes.

Now someone will say, yes but ants being social is done solely to preserve the species, and the answer is: yes, but isn't that what humans do as well.

We belittle these species for the simple fact that they aren't like us; Eewwww, they actually vomit in each others mouths? Not understanding the narcissistic and anthropomorphic nature of that question.

But let's face the real truth. We belittle these species and kill them at will because we are the dominant species. That's all. We will get to the point where we will truly understand these species and realise that they have a sentience equal to our own, just different. Then what?

https://www.livescience.com/ants-vomit-to-form-social-bonds?utm_source=SmartBrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=368B3745-DDE0-4A69-A2E8-62503D85375D&utm_content=6C275D7C-F93E-403A-98D2-FF4B1DD579A8&utm_term=57581d78-9667-43e0-9ec2-c466fdb79428

A way to test if there is universal consciousness

I've had the thought for a long time that I could uncover an universal tone that our consciousness was tuned to, and I could patent it (I know...) and then sell it. So if someone was feeling down or anxious, they would dial my service and, for $1.99, they could listen to this tone which would return them to some equilibrium with the universe. In fact it would be like heroin without the nasty effects because this tone would bring them to the most primordial state possible, and then I would become a gazillionaire. That was the plan.

"If you want to find the secrets of the Universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration." - Nikola Tesla

We would know that consciousness was universal if there was such a tone. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBL9pS6GMdA

I remember my father...

I remember my father, who was always an entrepreneur who hated working for others, complaining when he was getting older that he should have stayed at the CBC all his life and retired with a big pension. The CBC was the first job he had when we came to Canada in 1961. Funny that he got that job which was a public relations role showcasing this new TV technology and had never seen TV before. Such was the man.

Anyway, I was visiting my parents in Florida where they had a mobile home to escape the Canadian winters. My father was probably 60 at the time. One night we went on a walk to give their little beagle, Bessie, some exercise, and he confided that looking back over his life he wasn't the success that he should have. I didn't know what to say really.

And I wish I had had the smarts back then to have told him that you are a success because you stayed true to yourself and who you are.

My, how the dystopian ends have changed

 This group of scientists convened to talk of the dystopian result of nuclear weapons. Signatories included Albert Einstein. This was the existentialist issue of that era, and the person that won the Nobel Peace Prize from these efforts said this phrase as a plea:

"Remember your humanity, and forget the rest."

So we have a different dystopian end due to climate but his message would still the same:

"Remember your humanity, and forget the rest."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%E2%80%93Einstein_Manifesto

The evil that is religion

This is the absurdity of this bill. I could publicly say:

    "Homosexuals are depraved people" and I could and should be fired by my employer.

But publicly saying:

    "Hell awaits homosexuals" (such as Folau did) or "Homosexuals should be put to death for their sins" and if my employer fires me I can sue for, get this, religious discrimination.

It is a license to hate and discriminate against a minority group when the source of this hate are the very people being protected. You have to be brain-dead to think that this bill serves enough of a public interest to get enacted. No 'brain-dead' is the wrong word. You have to be so indoctrinated in your little way of life that you cannot empathetically see the psychological damage to other human beings that these actions can create.

What public interest is serviced by people being able to openly discriminate against a minority group in society based on thoughts in their heads? It's asinine. It's beyond callous.

Think of the damage that this bill could have on children who are unsure of their sexuality and forced to go to religious schools. The word for all of this is evil.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/11/lgbtq-groups-mobilise-against-coalitions-religious-discrimination-bill

The insanity of religious discrimination laws - Part II

 

This is one of the provisions in the proposed AU bill:

"conscientious objection provisions that would allow health practitioners to refuse to provide certain treatment".

Oh ok. So are these the same health practitioners that have used public transport and public universities and public hospitals/etc to educate and train themselves for 10 years so that they can now disallow a minority segment of the population from using that public training?

Did this minority segment of the population not pay taxes to support this medical training?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/religious-groups-warn-government-to-retain-clause-allowing-discrimination-in-proposed-bill

The insanity of religious discrimination laws

It's like I woke up in another world called InsaneEarth, or overnight all people were replaced with Body Snatching mindless counterparts. 

To get this bill down to it's bare roots; it allows people with certain thoughts in their heads to openly and legally make other people's lives worse off. And these other people are not acting illegally or even immorally. Their lives are worse off because of who they are. Thoughts in one's heads are legally about to become more valid in society than personhood. Maybe this same argument should be used the next time opposition to abortion comes up.

It breaks my soul that a modern-day society where it is clear that policies that pit one group against another is disadvantageous to a society of well-being, is now allowing and promoting such actions. 

And it is cartoonish to think that this discrimination, which is close to being law, is based solely on a single sentence in some book which, even the most advent practitioners agree, should not be taken literally. In fact, there is evidence that the original sentence was "If a man lies with a young boy..." as was somewhat common back then. So a group of people in society are demonstrably worse off because of a translation from a book not to be taken literally. Can I wake up on Earth tomorrow?

So we have learned sweet fuck-all from the abysmal and abusive past of religious power. We apologise to the indigenous for the Stolen Generation yet allow them and even assist them to move onto another, less protected, target. This is religion's last dying attempt at imposing itself onto society, and like the schoolyard bully, it targets a minority segment of the population which has been ostracised solely by the very people now asking for increased power.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/03/coalition-split-over-religious-discrimination-bill-with-one-mp-having-serious-concerns-over-folau-clause

Religion is practised solely because it's feel-good

Supposing 2,000 years ago, two competing books came out and both talked of an universal creator; one was a benevolent deity with an eternal heaven awaiting his followers, and the other who is this maniacal ogre who built the universe and humans in order to harvest their bodies upon death and send all of their souls to hell for eternity for his own pleasure.

Which book will be worshipped? Of course without a better alternative people would believe the feel-good story. Because people just can't believe that a deity who has total control over you couldn't be an absolute fucking monster. In fact, most people would believe that it was irrational to believe in such a deity even though the chance of this one existing is exactly the same as any other, even the maniacal one.

So all religions which have withstood the test of time have done so solely because they are feel-good. And no amount of theologian logic can argue against that fact.

Round and round the political merry-go-round we go. Round and round.

 

Round and round the merry-go-round goes. Labor -> LNP -> Labor -> LNP ad infinitum. Round and round it goes. Same view each time, same ride. Round and round.

"... it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/28/labor-has-led-coalition-in-eight-of-nine-guardian-essential-polls-analysis-shows

Where's the climate change modelling data, ScoMo?

 

Where is the modelling data, ScoMo? Oh, that's right, it's empty words. 70% of his 'plan' consists of the emptiness of 'technology breakthroughs'. How on earth is this government policy? Were these 'breakthroughs' going to happen with/without government anyway?

And then he actually holds up a iPhone in parliament to show the virtues of technological breakthroughs. Takes real chutzpah to hold up an electronic deivce which, by itself, has caused so much environmental damage in it's production, and ongoing pollution from all the rare earth minerals it requires.

But they are hamstrung by the Nationals who care more about the 30,000 dirty, black-lung producing, coal jobs than the hundreds of thousands of good jobs that the transition from an oil/gas economy to a renewables one. This is pure politics because they know who their supporters are: old religious boomers. Forget the children who will not vote conservative in their lifetimes and will have to suffer the consequences of such weak, soulless men. We are being held hostage by old religious boomers.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/27/scott-morrison-refuses-to-release-net-zero-2050-modelling-amid-condemnation-of-climate-policy

The Danger from the People in Power

Here we go. Didn't think it would happen in Australia. The first step towards manufacturing doubt towards the integrity of elections.

And what is the problem that this is trying to solve? A few yahoos who try to game their vote which ends up affecting nothing? No, they are looking at the US to see the blueprint as to creating doubt in election integrity in order to enact laws which disadvantage certain minority segments of the population who, based on past polling, will not vote for them. It is a way to shore-up their prospects of re-election because they know that their supporters will not be disadvantaged by these laws; they have 6 forms of ID in their Gucci purses.

It is racism under-the-covers. Pure and simple. It is to disadvantage the non-whites and non-conservatives from voting. It is to maintain the white conservative way of life.

"McGrath said the government wanted 'to make sure our electoral system is ready', including that it is 'healthy, transparent, and fair for all'."

Haha. Listen to the lying weasels. Show us the evidence of election fraud then. Show us how this fraud is an increasing and significant danger on our elections. "healthy, transparent, and fair for all". Just intellectually disingenuous words stuck together. They use words which no one can argue against to create a solution which 'solves' an issue that they create out of thin air.

Morrison knows he won the last election by the hair on his chinny-chin-chin. These laws do nothing but help his re-election. Next tactic may be to make voting optional. He's drooling over that one.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/26/voter-identification-to-be-compulsory-under-morrison-government-proposal

Sentience is more than just humans

Interesting article on sentience. It is certainly a worthy academic study to determine what kind-of sentience other animals have. It is narcissistic to believe that the human brand of sentience is the only valid measure of it. We have to admit that these animals have been evolving at least as long as humans with some existing far longer than homo sapiens.

The problem, of course, is we will only study and measure the type of sentience which we are aware of. How can we study something that only a crow may have, which we are unaware of? For example, they are only starting to understand that some birds have an almost quantum-like 'feel' to assist them in navigating long distances. It may be difficult to study this as we humans just do not have this.

https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/crows-higher-intelligence/?fbclid=IwAR2Z5F0CuaZK5QQoULRQe-WhWVQDjNEw0K7SUxDUJ_gZeFNeEhxp097b568

A Very Disappointing Day

Very disappointing decision. Especially considering that the Paris accord to limit temperature rises to 1.5c is an international agreement; one would think that the UN would be the right jurisdiction to rule on it.

And would like the UN to tell us how we will stop Brasil from clearing hundreds of acres of rainforest a day without the threat of international retributions. A global crisis requires global measures.

But the court is certainly correct that effort must be made at the national level, but I am unsure why this negates the need for international pressures as well. We only have to look at our pray-to-the-Lord PM to understand the political dodging and hyperbole that goes on at the national level.

But this group of young people have the correct strategy. It is the children that must be filing these cases against the inaction of climate change as they are most affected.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/20/young-climate-activists-vow-to-keep-fighting-despite-un-setback

Individualism will destroy us.

There is no job other than a politician where you can have this level of conflict-of-interest and remain on the job. Supposing you're a judge and a case about (say) mismanagement at a aged care home comes up and you have $500,000 per year in dividends from a company which supplies aged care homes, you would be required to recluse yourself. Obviously. But politicians get a free ride.

And it's sad. Humans do not currently have the social intelligence necessary to thwart a global issue like climate change. The individualism in us is currently just too great a force to adjust ourselves to think of the common good. We see this now where racism, tribalism, nationalism, greed, religion all conspire to ensure that the wisdom of the collective is outweighed by the selfishness of the few.

And what do we do with this Senator from this poor, backward US State which could gain benefits as a participant in the new economy, but will now further relegate itself on the back of a dying coal industry. What can we, the people living halfway around the world in Australia, do to fight against this selfishness as the oceans on OUR shores rise 3.8mm per year and we bake in OUR summers.

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/manchin-who-pockets-500000-per-year-from-dirty-coal-kills-critical-biden-climate-deal/

Fear is here to stay

As I walked on the beach just now I thought of evolution, as one does on a beachwalk. Is there an evolutionary logic to become more intelligent? In other words, does a mutation which increases intelligence have a better chance of becoming a dominant gene? I would think that this would be the case only if the environment changed. Then having slightly more intelligence would be a good thing in order to survive and continue to have offspring in this changed environment.

But without a change in environment, increased intelligence would matter little. If the species is existing within their environment quite nicely then intelligence offers no advantages. We only have to look at our ancestral cousins: the great apes, to see that evolutionary changes have been very minor throughout the millennia due to them being perfectly suited for their environment in the jungles. Humans, after our branching-off from the apes, must have had the need to become more intelligent probably as a result of the ice age or some dramatic change in environment which rewarded intelligence and allowed those intelligent beings to continue having offspring. The fact that, for example, we have little hair meant that intelligence ruled over natural protections which directly opposes that of apes.

But the real proof is the crocodile, which has remained unchanged for millions of years. There would have been countless mutations over the years which increased intelligence, but if the environment doesn't change and their tummies are full regardless, then there is no need for increased intelligence to become genetically dominant. It may become dominant, but it doesn't have to.

However, it is different with fear. It is evolutionary logical for animals to be fearful, or at least, for fear being a dominant gene. Regardless of the environment, there are predators and natural dangers such as storms, floods, poisonous plants, etc etc. So, for example, there was a very great need for the advent of the adrenal gland to secrete adrenaline in fight or flight situations. Of course, the 'fear' gene can't become so overwhelming that someone never leaves the cave (like the Dad in the Croods) or you would starve but fear serves a very important evolutionary purpose: to increase the probability of survival.

So fear, and all it's associated cousins such as anxiety, compulsiveness, shyness, phobias and so on are here to stay. It is not a case where the human species' intelligence will somehow supersede fear and thus relegate it to a non-dominant gene. In fact, it may be the opposite. If the environment changes enough, it may be fear that supersedes intelligence and turns the clock back on the increased intelligence we have been enjoying for the past millennia. The original mammals, which evolved at the end of the dinosaur period, were tiny little fearful creatures like meerkats existing ever vigilant for danger. It is only because the past few thousands of years have been relatively stable has intelligence been allowed to increase.

So unfortunately we are stuck with fear and it's cousins, and we have to live with it. But conversely, recognise that it only serves an basic evolutionary purpose. It resides in only the 2 bottom levels of Maslow's pyramid (survival/security), and our intelligence can get us to the next levels.

No one has a clue.

I don't know who this person is but she is correct when saying that no one knows what they are doing. But she should have left it at that because no one ever figures it out. We look at the successful or the extroverts and feel that they have it all together, that they are different from us or have some secret we are not privy to, and I can tell you that no one has the formula as to what it takes to succeed... because there is no formula. Nobody has a clue; we are all winging-it, and hoping that luck favours us.

Society has a survivor bias with the people who are deemed successful. The Jeff Bezos and Elon Musks of the world lead us to believe it was intelligence, grit, and determination that won the day, and society falls for this fallacy. What is not written about is the millions of others who are equally (or more) intelligent, gritty, and determined but who have failed. Why did those people fail and not Bezos/Musk? The answer is luck. There are 8 billion people on this planet and there will be people who end-up on the top of the pyramid because, statistically, someone will. Jeff Bezos is on top because someone had to. That's it.

No one has 100% of the information necessary to make a iron-clad decision and even if they can, the next day some event could happen totally destroying their carefully made plans. I can guarantee that everyone that has succeeded has had certain times where if things had happened slightly differently or later/earlier or not at all, they would have lost it all. And you would have never heard their name and someone else would be at the top trying to convince the world that it was their hard work that did it. I had a moderate success and this happened to me 2-3 times.

So what is the right thing to do in this ocean of uncertainty? The key is to give it a go. Try something, anything; in fact try something weird to try and separate your concept from the ordinary. Do not worry about the outcome as luck will be the main dictator of success, but do work at it and change things when it is necessary to change. If you fail, learn from it, and give something else a go. Conari persevera.

To illustrate my points, I will leave you with one of my favourite stories of thinking outside the box. Probably 15 years ago, this university student was thinking of ideas on how to make a buck as he was cash-strapped as all uni students are. He thought of a creating a website which was just a 1000x1000 pixel area where people could purchase a single pixel for a $1. He called it the Million Pixel Website (look it up). That's it. Without any real effort on his part, the thing went absolutely viral due to the originality. He was getting millions of views, publications were writing about it, and everyone wanted a piece of his virtual land. Even companies like IBM purchased a block. So he sold every pixel within a few months and made 1 million$. Nobody has a clue about anything.

Every young daughter's dream

The anxious little girl had told a Court family consultant it was her dream to be able to “love Mummy and Daddy at the same time”.

The fallacy of wartime honour

So let's just get this straight. The article writer is not concerned that the Australian soldiers are in another country trying to undermine the internal political processes just because we feel that 'bad' people are trying to take over, and are killing their soldiers whilst there.

No. The writer is concerned that once we illegally killed one of their soldiers that our soldiers stepped beyond what he considers 'moral' behaviour. An honourable soldier, after illegally killing a citizen of the country we are invading, shouldn't cross this arbitrary line. I mean you couldn't write a movie script more bizarre.

Once again, we are being told that there is morality in war. That there is some kind of line which separates honour, which includes the act of killing, from dishonour, like the act of debasing this kill. It's Ok to go through the pockets of that dead soldier to find anything valuable or interesting. Wow, a pocket watch. That's moral. But we can't supposedly mock this soldier we just killed. This logic goes past the ridiculous.

And now these soldiers are facing 3 struggles; the struggle to stay alive, the struggle to stay mentally sane, and the struggles to defend themselves against the keepers of the honour of war.

But the larger picture is we are being told that we have the moral right to kill others simply because our elected officials have stamped this action as moral. This is how a country acts to ensure that they have future generations of young men to use for killing others and allows the parents to begrudgingly accept sending their sons to war returning home as badly-damaged shells of their former selves.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jun/02/hundreds-of-photos-exist-of-australian-soldiers-drinking-from-dead-afghans-prosthetic-leg-court-told

How do you nurture the ultra-intelligent?

Today I was with an 8yo autistic boy who I will be spending a few hours a week with. He has autism and the usual companions, plus mild sleep epilepsy and some motor skill issues. But his intelligence was off the charts. During our car-trip, we started with riddles which he knew the answers to all my favourites. I then asked him what weighs more, a kilo of rocks or a kilo of feathers. He spent a little time rationalising it then said they are both equal.

Ok. I asked him if there was no air at all, and you went to the top of building and dropped a bowling ball and a feather, which would hit the ground first. Again, he thought about it and said they would hit the ground together because without air the feather would fall straight down. Just like a piece of paper would. Holy smokes. 8 years old. We talked about Galileo and the Sun and planets how they all thought everything revolved around the Earth.

I needed to up my game. So I asked him to add up all the numbers between 1 and 100 without actually adding 1 plus 2 plus 3 plus... I gave it to him as homework because Carl Gauss did this as a youngster when his teacher got frustrated because of the genius of Gauss. I'm sure he will come back to me with the answer.

Later I talked to his mother and he was evaluated at 99.9% in the cognitive tests.

How does one nurture a kid like this?

We live in an authoritarian state

We live in an authoritarian state. The police who we feel protect us do not. They serve the people that make the rules. I had my house broken-into. The cops came and dusted the doors/etc and then they told me that chances of finding the perpetrators is basically zero.

Ok. But there is a deterrent for criminals that they will be caught and end-up in prison. No. Only 2% of the charges result in imprisonment. So police can't help us pre-crime and then the post-crime statistics are even worse. So how are they useful? They aren't.

No, what the police do is to concentrate their efforts on the general public. They issue their speeding fines, and random alcohol/drug tests, the body searches of young people at festivals (the pieces of shit), or the poor sucker who didn't declare something on his taxes as the rich get away with billions. In other words, they concentrate on the easy low hanging fruit as the real criminals, the real shit of society are left to destroy lives with impunity.

The Cold Reality

Reading this article, I found this paragraph deeply troubling.

https://www.cbhs.com.au/mind-and-body/blog/leading-cause-of-death-for-men-in-Australia

"Depression and anxiety are not uncommon in men. Statistics show that suicide is the leading cause of death in Australian men aged between 15 and 44."

Not because of the statistic that suicide is the leading cause of death for men here because I had heard this elsewhere. But because of the first sentence. Because it shows a complete ignorance and an almost dismissal that men suffer. The paragraph starts with a trivialisation of men's mental health issues before, straight away, giving us the cold reality that men in their prime kill themselves more than any other cause of death.

It's like this first sentence was worthy of adding into the article to educate the reader. Oh, by the way, did you know that depression and anxiety was not uncommon in suicidal men?

It's all about luck

 So this is the millionth article on the 'luck' of Earth being habitable. Yes. We get it. All of us have won the cosmic lottery of being born on a planet that is a) conducive to life, and b) hasn't had a gamma-ray burst targeted at it or a life-ending event like the Yellowstone caldera exploding or a million other events that could wipe-out life.

Yes. It's all luck. We are living on this heaven of a planet because for the last few million years nothing dramatic has happened to us.

But the dinosaurs would have a different view. Their world came to an end when the Earth was hit with something big enough to destroy the big species of that time and the little insignificant animals called mammals, these inconsequential animals suddenly became top dog.

Exactly the same that I am the son of a father that crossed the Atlantic Ocean dozens of times in World War 2 ship convoys and managed to escape alive unlike many thousands of his peers. The fact that some German U-boat captain decided to target some other ship besides my father's ship is the reason that I am here.

https://www.sciencealert.com/are-we-just-lucky-that-earth-has-stayed-habitable-for-billions-of-years

At the trial of God

 “At the trial of God, we will ask: why did you allow all this? / And the answer will be an echo: why did you allow all this?” ― Ilya Kaminsky, Deaf Republic

The autistic and 'reading others'

One generalisation of the autistic is that they have trouble 'reading' others, ie. that they miss the facial gestures, voice inflections, body mannerisms, etc necessary to fully understand what this other person is really communicating. As the NTs are purported to be able to do.

But I think this is very inaccurate. What the issue is, I think, is that during conversations the autist can be primarily introspective; they are thinking about themselves, possibly past history/insecurities, and most probably, an unwillingness to even try.

And I think this can be unfair to oneself because some of the common attributes of an autist: single-mindedness, logical reasoning, out-of-the-box thinking could be invaluable in the reading of others.

So try this next time you have an important conversation with someone; turn your focus outward to use the full-range of your attributes to see if you can read this person and to see 'in-between the lines' as to what they are really communicating to you. I think it would be a interesting experiment for autists and it could lead to a greater understanding of not only others but yourself.

Money is free for the government

 "They didn’t have to finance the tax cuts. They just made a political decision. They can do the same with building an economy from the ground up. Healthcare as a right. Housing and education for all. The right to a job. And they can start with making sure no one is going hungry."

This is a post about the fact that the only legislative thing Trump did in his 4 years was to sign a tax-cut for the wealthy. And this poster is exactly right. The government has the ability to create debt in its own dollars. Well if it is in it's own dollars... is it really debt? No. How can a govt be indebted with its own dollars? It can't.

The only problem is inflation. By printing money our dollar may be increasingly worthless. But what happens if the govt borrows money for infrastructure, or science, or healthcare for the disabled? Do you think that the financial markets would have an issue with that? Not in your lifetime.

If I can take all of macro-economics into a single sentence I would say: money is free for the govt.