The Best Kind of Fools – or – Knowing Your Place

The Fool Card

The Fool Card: Courtesy of

The best kind of fools are the ones that are in a king’s court. I’m talking about the ones who are willing to act foolish to teach the controllers a lesson by downing themselves so the powerful think the fool’s thoughts are from their own egos.

The presidents, the prime ministers, the rulers, the kings, the élite, the puppet masters, and/or the controllers, of course, are dependent on our “foolish” understanding. Astoundingly, and even worse – often necessarily, they think our ideas are their great ideas once we impart these thoughts to them properly, simply because their massive egos won’t allow them to accept that good ideas came from other people, only from themselves. That is, unless they live in fear or love of those above or below them, in which case they obey or consider. The better way is obvious, give it, don’t take it.

Of course, the reality is there is no station and there is no train. We’re all peers in this tragic comedy called life. That’s why the “powerful” are the real fools in the end.

P.S. Thanks Lasse for asking me the good questions!


The Cosmos is a Multiverse that is an N-Dimensional Tessellating Fractal Mirror of Itself – Or – Get Over It

Bronze statue of Giordano Bruno by Ettore Ferrari , Campo de’ Fiori, Rome -Wikipedia

Get over it. The world you thought was real is a total sham. Most of what you see is a tiny fraction of what is there. Even worse, you repress your own basic needs as well as your own potentially boundless creativity, understanding, and desires at the behest of community, commercial, economic, religious, societal, and/or state institutions rather than to make the life of your fellow man better. That doesn’t even count the actual oppression, which usually doesn’t need to occur because we’re so darn good at being repressed!

The reality is that the entirety of the universe much less our planet and even our society are still beyond our scope of understanding by a factor of 10 to 100 or more than we naturally assume after watching a TV program explaining scientific facts, reading a book by a leading author on a subject, taking a class, or even getting a major with a teacher at the top of their field. Once you get to the end of the line on a journey of known scientific thinking you can suddenly peer out over the edge and notice what a flimsy little raft of understanding we are standing on.

We’re trying to imagine moving beyond our solar system, which is great, and I encourage this; but we barely have the first clue as to how the deepest bottoms of our own oceans work yet. That does seem like it should be of equal priority, and sadly, it basically is. They are both of little or no priority. It’s a good thing corporate America is here! They’ll pillage any landscape no matter how pristine in search of the almighty dollar. Who knows, there could be oil down there. Wouldn’t that make some money? By all means lets accelerate this environmental catastrophe by allowing the pursuit of tangible things attached to intangible ideas like money for other intangible ideas like power!

Well, let’s not ruminate too deeply on how completely upside down the world is. How about instead we just start being a bit more critical. Yeah, same old thing, same old application. Ask more questions. Doubt more often. Stop overlooking things and try underlooking them. Maybe slide past things in an especially cool looking matrix-like manner occasionally, you know, just for a goof. Life can still be fun, even when you’re fighting the greatest attacks on personal freedoms since the end of feudalism!

So, on to the good stuff. I propose a new law.

The Law of the Unknown:
Most of what there is to know is yet to be discovered.

  • This law will enforce humbleness upon science – something it has yet to learn.
  • This law will be a challenge to defeat – how do you disprove something that we haven’t proved exists yet – a limit to what we can know.
  • This law will encourage us to think of new questions rather than always merely questioning old questions.

Of course, we should still remember to question the answers to old questions too, as well as the old questions themselves – that’s just fun anyway isn’t it. Yeah I know, I’m weird. ^^

All I’m essentially saying is what Giordano Bruno said, but I’m trying to extend it to all gods, science as a belief system, the state as a god/belief, capitalism as a belief/worldview, democracy as a belief/worldview, etc, ad nauseum is simply this: “Your God is too small.”

Spontaneous parametric down-conversion process can split photons into type II photon pairs with mutually perpendicular polarization. -Wikipedia

Aw what the hell, I’ll go ahead and fill in some blanks. Your ‘Physics’ is too small. Your ‘Biology’ is too small. Your ‘Chemistry’ is too small. Your ‘Quantum Physics’ is too small. Your ‘Equality’ is too small. Your ‘Capitalism’ is too small. Your ‘Democracy’ is too small. Your ‘Communism’ is too small. Your ‘Socialism’ is too small. Your ‘Economic Model’ is too small. Your ‘Liberty’ is too small. Your ‘Social Model’ is too small. Your ‘Knowledge’ is too small. Your ‘Morality’ is too small. Your ‘Universe’ is too small. Maybe even your love is too small.

Your ‘Ego’ is too big. It’s OK. Mine is too. Well hell, honestly, how do I know that all of this of mine isn’t actually all too small for any of you? I don’t. I’m sure it is for some if not all. That relieves me. It seems like not enough people are growing. Society is certainly trying to keep us as as small as possible isn’t it? I thought I’d better get it out there before the thought police come along. I’m off to frolic for a bit.

P.S. Yes I just watched Cosmos.
P.P.S. I just like writing P.P.S.
P.P.P.S. I don’t believe in scientific laws.

Immortal Technique Speaks with Alex Jones – They Seek Middle Ground Between Far Left and Far Right.

My usual readers will know already that I have great respect for the artist named Immortal Technique. He has recently been interviewed on the Alex Jones show. Why would he do such a thing you might ask. I would answer that question this way:

Is this not what we need, the left and right are coming together? We must integrate, not separate. United we stand, and divided we fall correct?

The reality is that if we can stop agreeing to disagree: we will often find that always agreed to begin with. Very often when we argue or disagree it is a result of using different words, different definitions for words, being manipulated, and being in pain (which is the primary emotion that leads to the secondary emotion – anger).

Instead I suggest, that when we reach an impasse in conversation, we should stop disagreeing for the moment, give each other space and time, come back when desired and desirable, and then share instead of trying to convince each other of things.

Don’t be intimidated by the length of this video. However long you can listen to it, please do. I assert that you will get out what you put into listening to this. For those of you that know me already I think you will agree and already know what I am saying.

As always, your thoughts and feedback will be appreciated (wanted and needed too).

Peace and love brothers and sisters!

Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault Debate on ‘Human Nature and the Ideal Society’ (with English subtitles)

This debate is required viewing for anyone who appreciates the work of either of these two great minds.  It takes place in 1971 as the war in Vietnam rages on.  They discuss their respective specialties, human nature, the direction of society, society’s institutions, class warfare, capitalism, Marxism, anarcho-syndicalism, and much more.

This article from Roar Magazine (which claims a share of the credit for translation) about the debate adds some interesting background information and contains a full transcript of the discussion.

There is also another complete version that doesn’t appear to omit anything except the additional commentary; though most would probably benefit from the clarifications of the commentator included in the first video.

Beliefs, religions, worldviews, politics, and cults

Think like sheep peopleIt feels good to believe things. It is nice to not have doubts. The world is so full of doubt. Belief systems take care of so many doubts. They make us feel secure. That said, I’m fairly certain that any type of true security is an illusion. Worldviews are quite close to beliefs in that they are like filters that we see our world through, but unlike beliefs they are theoretically changeable through rational discourse or scientific evidence.

I find it unfortunate that many people make their worldviews into beliefs. The best example is the worldview of an extreme political partisan such as a Democrat, Republican, socialist, or communist. Other examples of worldviews that often turn into beliefs include realism, idealism, conservatism, liberalism, and even atheism.

Even if people reject beliefs we still seem to have a pervasive need to attach some sort of spiritual significance to our lives. Perhaps this need exists in the human psyche because we still have more questions than answers and it makes us feel insecure. I am no exception, which is why I try to keep myself from being a believer by reserving 1% doubt about any idea. A lack of belief in ideas is what I think I need to keep from getting pulled into a cult. This is because I’m rather gullible at times, and I have been in two “cults” before. Specifically, I was a Lutheran and a Democrat. I know calling Lutherans cult members is an extremely unpopular thing to do in a Christian nation, but bear in mind that most Christian denominations consider any sufficiently different variation from their religious beliefs in another Christian group to be enough to make it a cult. For example, the church I was a part of until I was eighteen taught that the Mormon church is a cult. The idea that a political party is a cult is pushing the boundary of the word a bit, but partisanship in America has become so extreme in recent years that it is an accurate description of adherents.

I have also noticed that spirituality, beliefs, and religion have been subtlety inserted into our self-help groups and legal processes. All the chemical dependency and mental illness facilities/groups I have ever heard about encourage, if not require, people to find a religion, spiritual path, or at least a “higher power.” Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous are largely voluntary and free examples of such groups. There are other programs and facilities that people are forced to pay for under the law, after getting a drunk driving ticket for example, that require such thinking too. As you might guess, it deeply disturbs me that the state in any way requires or endorses spirituality or religion.

I support everyone’s right to think whatever they want to; yet I encourage people to not believe each other, but rather believe in each other (a subtle difference). Let’s retain the wall of separation between church and state. Let’s erect a new wall between spirituality and the state. Let’s remember what the nature of a cult is. They pull people in with comforting dogma that answers unanswerable questions. They fill people’s heads with silly beliefs like the holy trinity, totally equal distribution of wealth, or trickle down economics. While believers may feel safer, get to drink some tasty Kool Aid, and wear some nice Nike shoes; in the end people usually die because of a lack of rational thought. Political believers are not an exception.