Hi Perceptive,
Glad you have seen the light...there is no such thing as a perfect
voting system. Not only does one need to have qualifications to vote,
i.e. can a baby in the womb or out of the womb vote? Can a brain
damaged person in a Persistent Vegetative State be allowed to vote.
Can a person with senile dementia be allowed to vote? Should there be
an age qualification about when to vote and should a senior citizen be
prevented from voting? Should convicted criminals be allowed to vote?
Then there is the question of what kind of voting system should one
have. One person one vote. First Past the Post. Constituency voting.
Proportional Representation of varios kinds. An Election Commission,
allocation of votes to a party as well as an individual. Each one of
those systems could produce a different majority result with the same
amount of people voting.
And...its got nuffink to do with talking to God. People talk to God all
the time, some times they are lucky and God wins...though how would you
know...at other times the Devil wins, due to a lack of people voting for
God...As you can see, a very simple proposition can get very complicated
in practice. Depends on religion, or whether one is a liberal or a
conservative or a socialist or a marxist or a fascist...Even fascists
have been known to vote...well at least vote themselves into power, but
never to leave.
If you ban physics then you will stop people from breathing and if they
stop breathing then they are dead. And...believe you me, there is
nuffink worse than posting to a mailing list, where all the subscribers
are dead! As Oscar Wilde once said, the worst thing in the world is not
to be loved or hated...but to be ignored...
Maybe it is better to sit down and smoke a joint or two and contemplate
those pink elephants a bit more closely and see what better system you
can come up with...
Just a few thochts,
Wee Doogie...😉
On 25/12/2021 11:20, perceptive718@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
The ideal political system is that a human of voting age (which is represented by at least a high-school diploma), be permitted to vote on what laws they wish to govern them. But if you want to participate in such system, you simply cannot be anonymous. Democracy cannot be fueled by fear, it can only be fueled by bravery.
MAJORITY RULES. That is the only political system that works. If three people are in a room, and one of them sees a pink elephant in the room while two of them do not see the pink elephant, only a vote can determine who is hallucinating and who is seeing reality as it is.
Don’t be too quick to throw democracy in the garbage when you have ultra-fanatic minorities that claim to be talking to God directly, and who claim that the God they are talking to is a woman (in which case it is not God, but a demonic “goddess”). The gaytheists claim they have used all their technology toys to prove that god is a woman? What a complete waste of taxpayer money to fuel the biggest lie ever attempted in this history of the human species.
BAN PHYSICS. Physics has become the religion of those who hate humans and wish to be aliens instead. Physics IS NOT a Democratic science. DEMOCRATIZE PHYSICS. Democracy does not allow people who are hallucinating that they are born to merge with “aliens” to be put in leadership positions over who lives and who dies.
*From:* cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On Behalf Of *jayres54 ("jayres54")
*Sent:* Saturday, December 25, 2021 12:27 AM
*To:* cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [cryptome] Re: Jordan Peterson and his Squeaky Voice; Was Re: Re: Merry Christmas & Happy and Prosperous and Healthy New Year
It's all fun & games pontificating about an ideal (or at the least, tenable) political system. The trouble with power, in a human sense, is that it corrupts. Systems are selectively enforced &/or weaponized for who/whatever is aligned with the agenda at hand.
Given that AI systems are designed, programmed & funded within this command & control matrix, it would ultimately serve the same ends.
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
-------- Original Message --------
On Dec 24, 2021, 4:24 AM, Doug < dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I never understood why the USA became a Republic instead of
choosing a democracy...or a democratic Republic. After all, the
original Greek Democracy allowed for slaves as part of its make
up...The United Kingdom at least had a flexible enough unwritten
constitution to allow for slavery to be legal...and it never
pretended to become a democracy until after the Glorious
Revolution of 1688...
We all have a terrible debt problem...apart from the bankers and
the billionaires and trillionaires and the government. We need a
"trickle up economics" policy, where we take the capital from the
top of the pile and give it to the bottom feeders, and then set up
laws and industries amongst the folks at the bottom of the pile
and only allow any profits made to be re-invested via the bottom
of the system and only allow a trickle up through taxes to the
government so that they don't overspend on the military.
industrial complex and intelligence spy private contractors
networks. In that way we won't need to print money and the
trillionaires, billionaires and millionaires will all become
worker capitalists...Simples...init...😉
Just a wee dielectical thocht...😉
ATB
Dougie.
On 24/12/2021 01:47, jayres54 (jayres54) wrote:
Democracy is the cloak behind which oligarchs & technocrats
stand. I no more wish to be bossed around by mobs of idiots
than I do by a government that spends the people's wealth with
impunity (while lining their own pockets).
If funds were actually used for pro-social purposes, in which
I had some say, that could be negotiated. However, taxes (at
least in the USA) are sent directly to private bankers to pay
interest on money, created out of thin air with the stroke of
a keyboard. What a terribly devious scheme to spend the
energy/resources of those not having been born yet...debt slavery.
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
-------- Original Message --------
On Dec 23, 2021, 5:34 AM, < perceptive718@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:perceptive718@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
The CIA was able to prove the existance of G-d, but the
FBI refuses to accept their proof (because the FBI mission
is to disprove the existence of G-d). That is the war
that caused 911 and all you see today (to include the
COVID bioterror attack on China and Earth). So Dougie,
should the debate about G-d continue? Because it is not
the people who believe in him engaging all the crimes
against humanity, it is the people trying to dispute that
he even exists that are currently committing all the
satanic crimes against humanity that you see daily.
Even if 7 billion people believe in G-d, there will still
be 1 billion people who will refuse to believe in G-d
until the last second of their experience with free will
(where they will have no choice but to accept what is in
front of them whether they like it or not).
Democracy is G-d’s gift to humanity. We should use it (and
G-d does not permit ANONYMOUS voting because if you wish
to be anonymous when casting your vote, you already know
you vote to promote a lie). Via the gift of Democracy, we
can safely assume that most humans will always see reality
the same way (and agree on how to define reality), and a
minority will always see things differently (and struggle
with understanding the viewpoint of the majority).
Even if humans cannot see G-d with their eyes, that alone
does not end the debate because we already know there are
things that we cannot see (yet they see us). Does G-d
exist? Why don’t we have a global vote? What you will
find is that the VAST majority of humans have proven G-d
to themselves, yet many still struggle.
Dougie – “Now to me, he did prove the existence of
God...very well too...The only problem is that he only
proved the existence of God to himself, and this fact is
patently obvious to me, as millions of people if not
billions of people are still arguing about it...including me”
Even if billions of people still have not found a way to
prove G-d to themselves, Democracy is still KING. People
who cannot prove G-d to themselves represent the vast
MINORITY of humans, and thus they cannot simply impose
their confusion on the rest of the people who have
witnessed his miracles.
QBORO MAD THOROUGH, QUEENS GET THE MONEY YOU LOST IT, COP
KILLER QUEENS IN THE HOUSE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONhlvHz1bMs
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONhlvHz1bMs>
You don’t believe in G-d? I could care less. DEMOCRACY
IS KING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqH06MmnLgk
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqH06MmnLgk>
*From:* cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On Behalf Of *Doug
("douglas.rankine")
*Sent:* Thursday, December 23, 2021 7:54 AM
*To:* cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* [cryptome] Re: Jordan Peterson and his Squeaky
Voice; Was Re: Re: Merry Christmas & Happy and Prosperous
and Healthy New Year
Hi Tom,
Tom said: Quote<<<
LOL @ Jordan Peterson being called a 'great speaker'.
The whiny voice alone makes that a truly absurd thing to
say. He's not even pleasant to listen to, let alone a
great speaker.
Plus, this is a man who thinks that lobster mating rituals
are relevant to human gender equality.
>>>End of Quote
Thank you for your most kind and observant and
reply...Quick too...off the cuff response perhaps? And to
show your ignorance about the brains of lobsters or other
sea creatures such as octupuses just goes to show the
level of your knowledge about such matters, perhaps you
are allowing your own belief systems to get in the way of
the rational approach of Kant. Didn't you know that
lobsters have brains as do octupuses, and that they have
limited reason to play mental games and work things out.
They can even interact with human beings and problem solve
to some extent. There has been a lot of research going on
in that area, particularly recently. People have developed
such a taste for eating lobsters and octupuses and such
like that a whole scientific industry has grown up around
their behaviour so that they can be captured en masse for
human consumption. So much so that they are in danger of
becoming an endangered species.
I see too that you don't know much about the super ego and
what little you do know, you reject and the same goes for
the 20th century research into the neurosciences about the
material aspects of the human brain and mind as well as
the associated sciences of psychology and psychotherapy
....Now, whether the "whole concept of the subconscious or
even the conscious mind being ephiphenominal" as you say,
I wouldn't have a clue. As I don't know what you mean by
it...so perhaps, if you don't mind, I would like to take
up your offer and for you to explain to me what it means
to you, in a language which I and our colleagues will
understand, you being so articulate at expressing yourself.
What I do know is that I read a book written by Emmanuel
Kant way back in the late 1970s when first I became
interested in the debate about what Marxism and whether
God existed, cultural or otherwise was....I first came
across the word in his thesis "The Critique of Reason"
where, if my mind (I hope you don't mind me using the
word mind, or perhaps I should say memory) serves me
correctly, Kant tried to prove the existence of God. Now
to me, he did prove the existence of God...very well
too...The only problem is that he only proved the
existence of God to himself, and this fact is patently
obvious to me, as millions of people if not billions of
people are still arguing about it...including me. I am
not a doubting Thomas, by the way, but I am a dubious
believer in God...or god...I have always kept an open mind
about the subject. You see the problem with Kant...was
that he fervently believed in God and went out of his way
to prove that God existed for the sake of the redemption
of those non-believers and non-Christians who didn't go
along with his ideas, philosophies and views. He also
didn't have the advantage of the discoveries of modern
science when he wrote his treatises.
Both Freud and Jung by the way, were philosophers as well
as psychologists and pioneers of the art and science of
psychotherapy. Jung learnt much of his basic knowledge
from studying alchemy, just as many of the worlds
scientists learned from such other ancient arts and
sciences and the knowledge of the Greeks and their
predecessors. Are all such people to stand condemned by
you for that? I also studied a bit of Hegel, but, like
Kant and Nietzsche got a bit lost. Like all good
philosophers they tend to be philologers and like to play
around with the meaning of words as well as their concepts
and applications..I must say that I haven't read a lot
about either Jung or Freud...However, the lectures of
Peterson, have captured my interest, and opened my mind to
some old arguments and discussions about the subject which
I had long forgotten and rejected.
What I personally think is important in matters of
philosophy, philology and human ideas is the sharing of
them...and just because one takes an interest in them or
recommends them to others, doesn't mean that one believes
in everything that the speaker or relater or author of
narrative or research says. Presentation of ideas, is of
course important, one has only to look at the world of
fiction and story telling, of the Bible, of Walter Mitty
and Hollywood by the playwrights and theatre industry to
see that.
Regarding Peterson and his attitude towards women...I
haven't come across that as yet, perhaps you can point my
nose in that direction? I have of course seen criticism
being made of his views by certain feminists and who view
his thoughts on women as a threat, particularly with the
reference to the alleged patriarchy which they believe
runs our global, if not US and European and Western
Society and Cultures. What they think of China, India and
Indonesia, or the Aborigines, I have not learned as yet.
Of course in the Bible there is that famous story, or is
it narrative,which hundreds if not billions of Christians
have been brought up to believe, which is that God created
woman from the bones of a man... Now that could be
construed that God isn't very kind to the development of
women, or perhaps something got lost in the transmission
or translation of the Bible and its testament and Ancient
Abrahamic versions down through the generations. I have
watched Peterson in numerous discussions in his
interpretations of the Biblical series on these matters,
but have yet to read his 12 rules.
Tom said: Quote<<<
LOL @ Jordan Peterson being called a 'great speaker'.
The whiny voice alone makes that a truly absurd thing to
say. He's not even pleasant to listen to, let alone a
great speaker.
Plus, this is a man who thinks that lobster mating rituals
are relevant to human gender equality. >>>End of Quote
Quote<<<Why is the way that Jordan Peterson speaks and the
type of voice which he has, which you say is whiny should
affect your opinion of his thinking?
I never said that it did. I said he wasn't a great
speaker, because his voice is unpleasant to listen to, let
alone his extremely low-brow, tedious, simple-minded,
reactionary, crowd-pleasing approach to 'intellectual
commentary'.
>>>End of Quote
Perhaps I misinterpreted you, or misunderstood you...If
so, please accept my most humble apologies...if not then,
of course you have the opportunity to make your views and
ideas clearer.. I thought you meant that because you
thought he wasn't a great speaker,you therefore thought
his voice was unpleasant to you and because of that, you
didn't agree with his views.. You have now clarified that
for me by voicing your opinion that his views are
extremely, low brow, tedious, simple minded, reactionary,
and with a crowd pleasing approach to "intellectual
commentary". Which appeared to me to link the two in your
previous post. Do you think you would have found his
views more acceptable if he had the tenor and timbre of
your own voice...I doubt it...It is his views...but there
again who am I to put words into your own mouth, when you
are clever enough to articulate them in a posting to the
mailing list, which exposes your articulation in such a
clear manner?
Now we get to the teeth of the matter....Whilst the sound
of your own voice is important to you, so much so that
your friends and colleagues think that you have a lovely
articulate voice...(and I am sure that you do). That
doesn't mean that what you say is sensible, reasoned or
even practical to others who are not your family,
colleagues or friends or associates. Fortunately, or
unfortunately, we don't get to hear the voices behind the
postings on this mailing list (unless one is somebody
famous like Trump or Biden or, god forbid...our
Queen...ooops, I mean...my Queen...ooops I mean the Queen
of England. Does she have a lovely voice, I think she
does, though it sounds old and frail these days.
Now we come to people with a poor sense of humour. I have
a terrible sense of humour, a bit like many Scottish
comedians...and many audiences, not only Scots but
Americans as well. I also find many US comedians like
very droll, people like the old New York Jewish comedians,
and their mixing of yiddish and US expressions.
Last of all, I return to your definition of
epiphenomenalism (what a lovely word and difficult to say
and spell for me) and I will give you my interpretation of
what I mean by conscious and subconscious minds and how
they are related to the human brain, both individually and
in the concept of Jung, collectively, by relating a
narrative I learned whilst diving...and that is. Japanese
women pearl divers, unlike our western divers, never
learned to use the highly technical and sophisticated
SCUBA equipment which western divers have learned to use,
which allows them to stay under water for a long period of
time. Instead they used their brain and minds to control
their consumption of oxygen and expulsion of carbon
dioxide in very complicated ways, breathing, lungs,
stomach muscles, conservation of energy; which allowed
them to stay under water for long periods of time. This
took them a long time and it was done not only as an
individual discipline but as a collective one too, they
worked in teams. They developed techniques and skills
which they stored in their brains which allowed them,
automatically pay no attention to these bodily processes,
and allowed them to devote the cognitive part of their
brains and minds to finding out where the oysters and
pearls were deposited...and were quite successful at it
too. In a word, learned behaviour makes use both of the
physical neurons, the dendrites and the synapses to store
memories in the form of automated processes. The same
thing happens with learning poetry or an artist learning
the words of a play or how to act or sing or play a
musical instrument. In my view, when a person dies, their
memories die with them as in an individual, but some of
their memories are retained in the collective memory of
human beings and their descendants, just as we learn stuff
from old books in libraries or words which come down
through the old seers of previous generations...
Now, I would much appreciate your comments and critique of
this view, without the dicks and the personal attacks.
Remember too, to be really good at finding out a hypocrite
one has to be a very good one oneself...it takes two to
tango...
With kind regards,
Dougie.
On 22/12/2021 22:49, Tom Secker (thomassecker) wrote:
Hi Doug,
How much do you know about the subconscious and
conscious mind and brain of any species of lobster?
Not a lot. I doubt anyone understand the slightest
thing about the subconscious minds of lobsters. Plus,
the whole concept of 'the subconscious mind' is
epiphenomenal.
How much knowledge do you have about the brain and
mind of human beings...
I have no idea how to quantify it. But clearly more
than you, since I don't refer to them as singular
entities.
Have you ever studied Freud or Jung, or that group of
18th and 19th Century philosophers and
psychotherapists who grew out of Darwins theory of
evolution and the development of the new sciences and
scientific discoveries?
I've studied Freud and Jung, but I'm not sure exactly
which philosophers you're referring to. This is an
extremely vague and broad question you've asked.
Why is the way that Jordan Peterson speaks and the
type of voice which he has, which you say is whiny
should affect your opinion of his thinking?
I never said that it did. I said he wasn't a great
speaker, because his voice is unpleasant to listen to,
let alone his extremely low-brow, tedious,
simple-minded, reactionary, crowd-pleasing approach to
'intellectual commentary'.
Does that mean that I am devoid of intellect or
knowledge, or somehow inferior to you...and that your
abilities at public speaking and ability to listen to
speech and understand it are far greater than
mine...or that of Jordan Peterson?
Yes, people with pleasant voices that are easy to
understand are better speakers than people with
annoying voices. But your implication is some sort of
relativistic, no one is better than anyone else kinda
bullshit, which you're using to try to patronise me,
revealing your own superiority complex. That is to
say, you're a hypocrite.
Would that make me of the same ilk as Jordan Peterson?
Yes.
And how do you speak by the way?
I receive regular compliments on my voice,
articulation, accent, inflections. So, based on the
opinions of people who talk with me and listen to my
voice, very well.
With a very loud US Christian accent which shows
ignorant Afghan prisoners how to wipe their arses as
good as American GIs do theirs?. I joke of
course...😁 But that is because I am just trying to
show you what a poor sense of humour and observation
can do to leading one up the garden path!
I am well aware that Peterson has a poor sense of
humour and observation and is leading people up the
garden path. You're also revealing (through your
assumptions, however ironically expressed) that you
have no idea who I am and are arguing with someone in
your own head, not with me. All on the basis of a
three-line email.
I don't think that anyone is saying that he is a great
speaker.
Someone literally said this, and I responded to that
comment. Are you seriously this unaware of the
pre-existing conversation, just stumbling around in
the dark blaming others for your own mistakes?
The pitch of his voice and the physical shape of his
"Adams Apple" or voicebox has little to do with his
intellect and knowledge, I would think. I certainly
don't judge deaf and or dumb people by their lack of
the ability to speak the "Kings English".
Nor do I. I didn't criticise his alleged intellect
and knowledge on the basis of how he speaks, I
disputed the claim he's a 'great speaker'. You're
just looking like the foolish, condescending hypocrite
you truly are.
I do think though that he is an excellent lecturer. I
also think that he knows his subjects very well and he
has the humility to admit that there are many many
questions to which he does not have an answer. He
manages to sublimate his ego enough so that it does
not get in the way of his learning...which is one of
the reasons I like his lectures...His breadth and
depth of knowledge also impresses me very much. And he
knows too, how to take new ideas on board and
apologise to his audience when me makes mistakes.
Yes, I was thoroughly taken with him signing up to a
debate on Marxism, and basing his entire analysis on
the Communist Manifesto (which is clearly the ONLY
Marxist text he has ever read). I also love how he
uses the term 'Cultural Marxism' in the same way as
everyone from the FBI to the Nazi party, with the same
aim in mind. It's so noble and benevolent of him to
recycle fascist talking points and act like a thought
leader, and absolutely what this world needs.
Does the age, or the sex, or the colour of someones
skin, or the way that they look or dress or their age,
or timbre of their voice, or the way they smile or
scowl important because these factors somehow provide
a measure of the intellect of the presenter in your mind?
Not to me, but it certainly makes a difference to
Peterson. He argues that women are naturally
subservient to men, for example. Maybe you should
actually address his openly bigoted attitudes rather
than just blather on about how wonderful he is, then
project that bigotry onto me and condescendingly try
to criticise me for it?
I mean, if you're doing something more than just being
a tedious prick standing up for another tedious prick...
And where does he say that lobster behaviour are
relevant to human gender equality? Can you please
point my noise to his quote?
This has been widely covered, and I read the relevant
section of his 'self help' book to confirm that he did
write what the critics have said. I'm sure you can
find these without difficulty, since you're obviously
deeply familiar with his entire body of 'work'.
P.S. Have you read any good books on the subject which
you would like to recommend to our
subscribers...perchance...😁
Which subject? Human psychology? Peterson being a
charlatan that only bigoted fuckwits think is worthy
of their time? Lobsters? Whiny voices? Your email
dragged a lot of (largely irrelevant) things into this
discussion. If you clarify, then there's every chance
I can recommend some books...
On 22/12/2021 22:13, Doug (douglas.rankine) wrote:
Hi Tom,
I must say I am very surprised by your attitude to
this subject and your view of Jordan Peterson.
A couple of questions...How much do you know about
the subconscious and conscious mind and brain of
any species of lobster? How much knowledge do you
have about the brain and mind of human
beings...Have you ever studied Freud or Jung, or
that group of 18th and 19th Century philosophers
and psychotherapists who grew out of Darwins
theory of evolution and the development of the new
sciences and scientific discoveries?
Why is the way that Jordan Peterson speaks and the
type of voice which he has, which you say is whiny
should affect your opinion of his thinking? The
reason I ask is because I myself speak very broad
Scots with a very whiny and scratchy voice,
probably too broad for you to understand most of
what I am talking about. Does that mean that I am
devoid of intellect or knowledge, or somehow
inferior to you...and that your abilities at
public speaking and ability to listen to speech
and understand it are far greater than mine...or
that of Jordan Peterson? Would that make me of
the same ilk as Jordan Peterson? And how do you
speak by the way? With a very loud US Christian
accent which shows ignorant Afghan prisoners how
to wipe their arses as good as American GIs do
theirs?. I joke of course...😁 But that is
because I am just trying to show you what a poor
sense of humour and observation can do to leading
one up the garden path!
I don't think that anyone is saying that he is a
great speaker. The pitch of his voice and the
physical shape of his "Adams Apple" or voicebox
has little to do with his intellect and knowledge,
I would think. I certainly don't judge deaf and
or dumb people by their lack of the ability to
speak the "Kings English". I do think though that
he is an excellent lecturer. I also think that he
knows his subjects very well and he has the
humility to admit that there are many many
questions to which he does not have an answer. He
manages to sublimate his ego enough so that it
does not get in the way of his learning...which is
one of the reasons I like his lectures...His
breadth and depth of knowledge also impresses me
very much. And he knows too, how to take new ideas
on board and apologise to his audience when me
makes mistakes.
He also has the audacity to "stick his neck out"
on a subject which he admits to knowing little
about and tries to come up with an analysis which
makes some kind of sense to him and perhaps some
kind of common sense to others. Another good point
about him, in my view, is that he studies ancient
works of science and philosophy, and the
anthropology of human beings which goes right back
for millions if not billions of years of the
existence of life on the planet. Not a lot of
people on this planet are prepared to do something
like that...In all the time that I have been a
subscriber...apart from myself, I have never ever
heard any other subscriber on this mailing list
who has publicly apologised for making a mistake
or for insulting someone. Why is that? Well
perhaps it has something to do with the super
ego...a speciality of Carl Jung, of which he has
written much. Does the age, or the sex, or the
colour of someones skin, or the way that they look
or dress or their age, or timbre of their voice,
or the way they smile or scowl important because
these factors somehow provide a measure of the
intellect of the presenter in your mind? If
so...maybe you need to look a bit more into your
prejudices and biases and examine your own voice
and mannerisms and see if the exercise of them
have any bearing on your own view of your own
intellect.
Now, I don't know too much about lobsters, but as
an old SCUBA diver, I did study them for a while
and even ate them...along with Octopuses...got
some good recipes; and they are a very interesting
species, and they were part of our evolutionary
history too...way way back, but we branched off
them somewhere down the evolutionary tree.
There is a book you might be interested in
reading, it is called "Other MInds" and it is
written by Peter Godfrey Smith...an expert in his
own right on the subject. SCUBA diver too...from
Australia. Available in all good book shops
including Amazon. Maybe you should consider
reading it...Along with another book called "The
Idiot Brain" by Dean Burnett...Very interesting
and very educative they are too in my opinion.
And where does he say that lobster behaviour are
relevant to human gender equality? Can you please
point my noise to his quote?
With kind regards,
Dougie.
P.S. Have you read any good books on the subject
which you would like to recommend to our
subscribers...perchance...😁
On 22/12/2021 13:38, Tom Secker (thomassecker) wrote:
LOL @ Jordan Peterson being called a 'great
speaker'.
The whiny voice alone makes that a truly
absurd thing to say. He's not even pleasant
to listen to, let alone a great speaker.
Plus, this is a man who thinks that lobster
mating rituals are relevant to human gender
equality.
On 22/12/2021 13:24, perceptive718@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:perceptive718@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I watched some of Jordan Peterson’s stuff
over the past year. Religious debate is
still vibrant. But in all the great
speakers I have witnessed in my life, I
still think Martin Luther King and Malcolm
X were the best I have directly witnessed
in my short life (there is a third whom I
suspect to be a better speaker than both
of them, but his recorded materials were
all confiscated and destroyed by the FBI
to prevent his history from being known).
The best speakers are always silenced or
killed by the illuminati because they
speak the mind of the majority, and the
illuminati see them as “mob rulers” and
illegitimate leaders of the majority
(simply because they are black). Slavery
of the mind is the most important tool of
control for all satanic governments on
this Earth. Seems like we are only allowed
to have “second best” since about the
1960s. Hopefully that will change soon
when people realize that G-d does not have
a preference for any race or skin color
(to thereby manifest directly in the flesh
as a member of that race). Christianity is
a much more complex religion than the
current prevalent misinterpretation of it,
which has now evolved to allege that G-d
is a white-skinned human of “neutral”
gender. G-d would never show a preference
for any human skin color or race, any
attempt to interpret true Christianity in
that way, is a constructacon by humans.
G-d is also not “gender-neutral” as
demonstrated by the fact that he made Adam
in his image (proving that he is
obviously, in some way we cannot detect,
more masculine than feminine).
So for Christianity to be true, the
definition of G-d cannot change. He
cannot be a primarily masculine G-d all
throughout history until this century, and
then all of a sudden Adam is no longer
created in his image as G-d decides to
spontaneously change his gender to female
so he can again be worshiped by yet
another new sect of Christians who refuse
to bow to a masculine G-d.
Open Democracy is the key to removing all
fake religions on Earth. Any government
that tells you to vote anonymously
(because people will harm you if you let
them know your true feelings about
something), is a government run by
gay-white-god satanists. The governments
will never allow the public to abolish
anonymous voting systems (even if that is
what they want to do themselves) because
they can never rig a vote again, and
people like Martin Luther King and Malcolm
X could not just be killed by their own
government simply because racists fear
black skin and believe it is cursed to hell.
*From:* cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *jayres54 ("jayres54")
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 22, 2021 5:05 AM
*To:* cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* [cryptome] Re: Merry Christmas
& Happy and Prosperous and Healthy New Year
Glad to read you're still above ground. I
saw Jordan Peterson in Seattle & got to
meet him after his lecture. He struck me
as sincere & helped answer a large career
question I was having at the time.
His lectures helped bridge the
intellectual gap between myth, scientism &
the Bible. Maps of Meaning provides a
deeper understanding of the nature of
belief, on a technical level. I'm forever
thankful his work, as it came during a
tumultuous time (chaos) & helped prepare
me for what we're all enduring now. It
will be interesting to see whether he's
able to reconcile himself with Orthodox
Christianity.
Although it's long, "Maps of Meaning" is
worth it IMO.
Hope your recovery continues, take care.
Jeremy
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
