StatCounter

Friday, February 14, 2025

Free Download: R.D. Laing, "The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness"

"The Divided Self: 
An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness"
by R.D. Laing

"Ronald David Laing (7 October 1927 – 23 August 1989), usually cited as R. D. Laing, was a Scottish psychiatrist who wrote extensively on mental illness – in particular, the experience of psychosis. Laing's views on the causes and treatment of serious mental dysfunction, greatly influenced by existential philosophy, ran counter to the psychiatric orthodoxy of the day by taking the expressed feelings of the individual patient or client as valid descriptions of lived experience rather than simply as symptoms of some separate or underlying disorder. Laing was associated with the anti-psychiatry movement, although he rejected the label. Politically, he was regarded as a thinker of the New Left.”

"First published in 1960, this watershed work aimed to make madness comprehensible, and in doing so revolutionized the way we perceive mental illness. Using case studies of patients he had worked with, psychiatrist R. D. Laing argued that psychosis is not a medical condition but an outcome of the 'divided self', or the tension between the two personas within us: one our authentic, private identity, and the other the false, 'sane' self that we present to the world.”
Freely download “The Divided Self: 
An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness”, by R.D. Laing, here:
o
"Insights Of R.D. Laing"

"Decades ago, psychiatrist R.D. Laing developed three rules by which he believed a pathological family (one suffering from abuse, alcoholism, etc.) can keep its pathology hidden from even its own family members. Adherence to these three rules allows perpetrators, victims, and observers to maintain the fantasy that they are all one big, happy family. The rules are: Rule A: Don't talk about the problems and abject conditions; Rule A1: Rule A does not exist; Rule A2: Do not discuss the existence or nonexistence of Rules A, A1, and/or A2."

“From the moment of birth, when the stone-age baby confronts the twentieth-century mother, the baby is subjected to these forces of violence, called love, as its mother and father have been, and their parents and their parents before them. These forces are mainly concerned with destroying most of its potentialities. This enterprise is on the whole successful.”

“Children do not give up their innate imagination, curiosity, dreaminess easily. You have to love them to get them to do that.”


“We are all murderers and prostitutes - no matter to what culture, society, class, nation one belongs, no matter how normal, moral, or mature, one takes oneself to be.”

“Insanity - a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.”

“We are bemused and crazed creatures, strangers to our true selves, to one another, and to the spiritual and material world - mad, even, from an ideal standpoint we can glimpse but not adopt.”

"Life is a sexually transmitted disease and the mortality rate is one hundred percent.”

"The Man Who Thought for Henry Ford"

"The Man Who Thought for Henry Ford"
By Onlyme

"Henry Ford, the first businessman of the modern world, was known for paying the highest wages in the market. One day, a journalist visited him and asked, "Who do you pay the most?" Ford smiled, picked up his coat and hat, and took the journalist to his production room. The room was bustling with activity - workers running around, bells ringing, and elevators moving up and down. Amidst this chaos, there was a small cabin. Inside, a man was lying back on a chair with his legs on the table and a hat covering his face.

Ford knocked on the door. The man lifted his hat slightly, looked at Ford, and in a tired voice said, "Hello, Henry. Are you okay?" Ford smiled, nodded, closed the door, and walked away. The journalist, baffled by what he had just witnessed, asked, "This man receives the highest salary in your company?" Ford laughed and replied, "Yes, he does." Curious, the journalist asked, "But what does he do?" Ford answered, "Nothing. He just comes in, sits back, and thinks all day."

Shocked, the journalist asked, "Then why do you pay him the most?" Ford responded, "Because he is the most valuable person to me. He is here to think. Every system in my company, every car design, comes from his ideas. He comes in, relaxes, thinks, develops an idea, and sends it to me. I work on those ideas and make millions."

Ford then explained, "The most valuable thing in the world is ideas. And to generate ideas, you need free time, peace, and freedom from distractions. If you are always busy, your mind cannot create new ideas or plans. That’s why I hired a wise person just to think. I have also given him financial freedom so that he can generate new ideas for me every day."

Hearing this, the journalist couldn't help but applaud. If you truly understand Henry Ford’s wisdom, you too will applaud. A laborer or a worker is always busy, but as one moves up in life, they gain more free time. The greatest inventors and industry leaders barely step out of their homes for an entire year.

In the business world, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are among the most "idle" people. Buffett reads for four and a half hours daily, while Gates finishes two books a week - about 80 books a year. They drive their own cars, stand in line for coffee and burgers, and don’t use smartphones. Yet, they remain among the wealthiest people in the world. How? Because of free time and the ability to think.

As long as our minds are occupied, they cannot work on big ideas. If you want to achieve something significant in life, you must give yourself the freedom to think. If you keep yourself entangled in small tasks, you won’t be able to think, and without thinking, you won’t accomplish anything great in life."

The Daily "Near You?"

San Jose, California, USA. Thanks for stopping by!

Dan, I Allegedly, "People Are Fatigued And Fed Up"

Full screen recommended.
Dan, I Allegedly, 2/14/25
"People Are Fatigued And Fed Up"

"Corporate lies exposed! In today’s video, I’m diving into the excuse being pushed by companies blaming "fatigued customers" for their failures. Whether it’s Denny’s, McDonald’s, retail giants like Kohl’s, or even major layoffs at Blue Origin and Chase Bank, the truth about these corporate decisions might surprise you. Are customers really “fatigued,” or are these businesses just dodging accountability? Let’s break it all down.

I also share some shocking updates about the economy, including massive layoffs, store closures, and even unbelievable government spending - like billions on migrant healthcare. From McDonald’s underwhelming profits to Joanne Fabrics shutting down hundreds of stores, the narrative seems clear: blaming customers is the trend, but the real issues run much deeper. Oh, and let’s not forget Jamie Dimon’s bold stance on remote work at Chase!"
Comments here:

"A Very Short History Of The F-word"

"A Very Short History Of The F-word"
Today, the F-word is enjoying a renaissance the 
likes of which it hasn’t seen since, well, the Renaissance.
by Kevin Dickinson

"The first unambiguous use of the F-word comes from De Officiis, a treatise on moral conduct by Cicero. No, the Roman philosopher didn’t gift English its soon-to-be favorite obscenity. Rather, in 1528, an anonymous monk scrawled this parenthetical into the margins of a De Officiis manuscript: “O d f*ckin’ Abbot.”

It isn’t obvious whether the monk’s remark aimed to belittle the abbot or reference his less-than-celibate hobbies. Either way, it seems brazen to us today that a 16th-century monk would scribble such fresh language in a book like some edgelord middle schooler. And it was brazen, too, but not for the reasons you may think.

That lone “d” served as a stand-in for damned - as in “Oh, damned f*ckin’ abbot.” This bit of self-censorship reveals that in the Middle Ages, the unmentionable indecency wasn’t the F-word. It was flippantly evoking matters of religious significance. In fact, this medieval mindset still hangs on in our contemporary euphemisms for vulgar language, such as swearing, profanity, and curse words.

A century later, the roles would begin to reverse. One obscenity would transform into a PG-rated curse, while the other would ascend to become the naughtiest of naughty utterances. It’s all part of the weird and mysterious history of this infamous four-letter word.

Where did the F-word come from? Etymologists aren’t entirely sure where the word originated. It must have been in use for it to appear in our monk’s saucy marginalia, but if we push past 1528 and deeper into written history, things start to get blurry.

In 1503, for example, William Dunbar, a Scottish court poet and ordained priest, penned this dirty ditty: “He held fast, he kissed and fondled,/As with the feeling he was overcome;/It seemed from his manner he would have f*cked!/‘You break my heart, my bonny one.’” In the original Scots, Dunbar’s rhyme scheme was to pair chukkit (“fondled”) with fukkit (“f*cked”), showing the word had taken also root in English’s sister language.

Another early instance comes from a 1475 poem written in an English-Latin hybrid: “Non sunt in celi / quia fuccant uuiuys of heli.” Translation: “They [the monks] are not in heaven because they f*ck the wives of [the town of] Ely.”

The word certainly goes back further still and we see hints of its usage - and the more relaxed attitudes surrounding it - in the names of people and places. A favorite picnic spot could be labeled “F*ckinggrove” on the map and no one would think twice about it. And people from the 1200s signed documents with monikers such as “Henry F*ckbeggar” and “Simon F*ckbutter.” In fact, Chester County documents reveal that between September 1310 and May 1311, one “Roger F*ckebythenavele” was called to court three times before being “outlawed.” (Historians can only guess as to his crimes.)

From there, the etymological trail goes cold. People have proposed various theories regarding the word’s origin, some more absurd than others. One popular theory is that the word is an acronym for “fornicate under the command of the king.” But this idea supposes that everyone in Merrie England went around fornicating until the king commanded them to do it so often they had to coin a shorter term. Unlikely.

In "Nine Nasty Words: English in the Gutter," a book this article is greatly indebted to, linguist John McWhorter offers two more likely scenarios. The first is that our F-word comes from an Old English one now lost to us. Neither a gratifying nor surprising answer. As McWhorter points out, we only have about 34,000 Old English words, compared to the roughly 225,000 you’ll find in a standard desk dictionary. What’s more, the Old English texts that have survived are mostly official or religious documents.

Another possibility is that the word was on loan from another language. Various Germanic words have been floated as possible contenders, among them ficken (meaning “to make quick movements to and fro, or flick”). McWhorter suggests another candidate in the now obsolete Norwegian word fukka.

As this theory goes, the Vikings’ invasion of England wasn’t a hit-and-run operation. Many stayed and settled. They started farms, took English wives, and became part of the culture. Naturally, their word for such a common activity came with them and blended into the local vernacular. This theory may also explain Dunbar’s fukkit as the Vikings heavily settled Northumbria (a kingdom that once consisted of the North of England and south of Scotland).

“We will likely never be absolutely sure which of these origin stories is the right one,” McWhorter writes. “Overall, however, our word shall likely ever remain the mysterious little f*ck that it is, turning up off in a corner of the lexical firmament sometime after the Battle of Hastings.”

A big effing deal: Even after the 16th century, the English language doesn’t use the word much - in print at least. “In the 1500s and before, it was, to be sure, naughty,” McWhorter writes. “However, since the Renaissance, f*ck has been the subject of a grand cover-up, the lexical equivalent of the drunken uncle or the pornography collection, under which a word known well and even adored by most is barred from public presentation.”

For instance, the word didn’t appear in an English-language dictionary until 1966 when The Penguin Dictionary broke the taboo. The American Heritage Dictionary wouldn’t offer entry until 1969, and even then not without also printing a “clean” edition to compensate. A notable exception to this rule was Queen Anna’s New World of Words, an Italian-English dictionary printed by John Florio in 1611.

One reason for the word’s conspicuous absence has to do with the nature of the written word. For most of history, the majority of people could neither read nor write. Those who could were often the social elite, and they wrote for other elites. To further separate themselves from the bawdy riffraff, they coded their language to mark their status. One way to do that was to not use the obscene language associated with the lower classes - except maybe in omission, and always from the safe distance of the moral high ground.

As print and literacy became more widespread, these norms remained firmly entrenched. Most historical examples come to us from underground entertainment, such as folk songs, erotic comics, and pulpy literature. However, the social, cultural, and artistic aftershocks of the two World Wars began to slowly nudge profanity back into print. In the 1924 play "What Price Glory?" the soldiers swore like, well, soldiers, but without dropping a single F-bomb. Ernest Hemingway included damn in "The Sun Also Rises" (1926) but had to settle for the oblique muck in "For Whom the Bell Tolls" (1940). And Norman Mailer famously substituted fug in "The Naked and the Dead" (1948).

The watershed moment wouldn’t come until 1960, with the obscenity trial of "Lady Chatterley’s Lover." D.H. Lawrence’s now-revered novel was initially banned or censored across the English-speaking world for its use of the word and explicit sexual descriptions. In the U.K., Penguin Books, the novel’s publisher, was brought to trial for violating the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The prosecution argued the novel would “deprave and corrupt” readers, but the jury found Penguin not guilty on account that such literature fell under the act’s public good provision. Other courts soon followed, and the novel is today viewed as a milestone in the counterculture movements that would usher in our more permissive social mores.

Evolution of the F-word: Since then, things seem to have come full circle. Once unutterable in polite society, the word has lost much of its stigma and can now be heard in the office, on TV, and even at the family dinner table (assuming the kids are playing in the other room). (Or not - CP)

As linguist Valerie Fridland points out, it is 28 times more common in literature today than when Lawrence wrote of Lady Chatterly’s illicit affair - to say nothing of its marquee status in titles. It’s the most tweeted cuss word by Americans, and in a truly stunning upset, it recently surpassed bloody as the favored obscenity among the British “This suggests that something has changed over the decades that has made such language less offensive, at least to a significant portion of the population,” Fridland writes. “And, even more than just an uptick in use, what is especially striking is how omnipresent even more offensive ‘bad’ words have become.”

A 2023 study looked at the word’s usage among British teens over several decades. It found that the word has undergone “delexicalization,” the process by which a word expands its range of contextual uses different from its original meaning. In this case, the word has become more functional than definitional. Much like that anonymous monk of yore, we use it today for that kick of expressive spice.

Fridland, who was not involved in the research, offers the example, “It’s f*cking hot in here.” This usage no longer carries any literal meaning. It’s there to amplify and emphasize just how hot it is. She writes: “By picking a word that has some shock value and takes a bit of verbal risk owing to its associated taboo use, it carries more impact. […] As swear words get put to work in less traditional/literal ways, their negative connotations are less likely to be the first thing that comes to mind upon hearing them.”

Even so, in some settings or groups, the word hasn’t completely lost its edge, and that’s for the best. We need words that give our expressions that emotional oomph and inform others just how disgusted, ecstatic, or angry we are. We need to be able to signal when our social hair is down or that we’re part of the in-group. And sometimes, we just need an easy way to distinguish the pastors from the shock jocks.

Should the day ever come when the word no longer fulfills these roles - hitting instead with all the impact of a “golly gee” - you can bet another one will step up to take its place. Until then, it will continue to evolve in our language in ever-resourceful and interesting ways."

“The History of the Middle Finger”

“The History of the Middle Finger”
by pappy

“Well, now… here’s something I never knew before, and now that I know it, I feel compelled to send it on to my more intelligent friends in the hope that they, too, will feel edified.

Before the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, the French, anticipating victory over the English, proposed to cut off the middle finger of all captured English soldiers. Without the middle finger it would be impossible to draw the renowned English longbow and therefore they would be incapable of fighting in the future. This famous English longbow was made of the native English Yew tree, and the act of drawing the longbow was known as ‘plucking the yew’ (or ‘pluck yew’).

Much to the bewilderment of the French, the English won a major upset and they began mocking the French by waving their middle fingers at the defeated French, saying, “See, we can still pluck yew!” Since ‘pluck yew’ is rather difficult to say, the difficult consonant cluster at the beginning has gradually changed to a labiodentalfricative ‘F’, and thus the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger-salute! It is also because of the pheasant feathers on the arrows used with the longbow that the symbolic gesture is known as ‘giving the bird.’ And now you know..."

"How It Really Is"

 

"Bread And Circuses..."




"Give them bread and circuses and they will never revolt."
- Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis, in English "Juvenal"

"Take away my bread and circuses and all I have left is my pitchfork..."

"A Murderer Is Less To Be Feared..."

 
"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague." 
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, from a speech given to the Roman Senate, 
recorded in approximately 42 B.C. by Sallust.

"How To Forge The Spectator Class"

"How To Forge The Spectator Class"
by Josh Stayman

"My father could disassemble and rebuild a car engine in our garage. I, like many of my generation, was steered toward the ‘civilized’ path – white collar work, climate-controlled offices, and an increasing detachment from the physical world. While I grew up loving sports, memorizing baseball stats with religious devotion, and finding genuine joy in the games, something fundamental has shifted in how men engage with athletics today.

In dimly lit rooms across the nation, millions of men gather every weekend, adorned in jerseys bearing other men’s names – not as a complement to their own achievements, but as a substitute for them. We’ve transformed from a nation of players to a nation of watchers. Like Rome’s bread and circuses, this passive consumption serves to pacify rather than inspire.

The games themselves aren’t the problem – they can build character, teach discipline, and provide genuine entertainment. I still love sports, finding genuine joy in the games just as I did memorizing those baseball stats as a kid. But somewhere along the way, I grew up and realized they should complement life’s achievements, not substitute for them. The danger lies in what happens when grown men never make this transition.

A growing segment of young men face an even more insidious form of spectator culture. While their fathers at least watched real athletes achieve real things, many young people now idolize social media personalities and content creators – becoming passive observers of manufactured personas who achieved fame primarily by being watched. They can recite influencer dramas and gaming achievements but don’t know the stories of Solzhenitsyn or have ever built something with their own hands. The virtual has replaced the visceral; the parasocial has replaced the personal.

History shows us a recurring cycle: hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. We find ourselves now in the latter stages of this cycle, where comfort and convenience have bred a generation of observers rather than builders. Our sophisticated entertainment serves as a digital opiate, keeping the masses content while their capacity for meaningful action atrophies.

This transformation isn’t accidental. As I explored in my ‘Engineering Reality‘ series, the systematic reframing of physical fitness as problematic represents a calculated effort to weaken societal resilience. Major media outlets like the Atlantic and MSNBC have published pieces linking physical fitness to right-wing extremism, while academic institutions increasingly frame workout culture as problematic. Even gym ownership has been characterized as a potential indicator of radicalization. The message couldn’t be clearer: individual strength – both literal and metaphorical – threatens the prescribed order.

This erosion of self-reliance extends far beyond fitness. A friend who’s spent decades as an auto mechanic recently confided that he’s grateful to be nearing retirement. “These Teslas,” he told me, “they’re not even cars anymore – they’re computers on wheels. When something goes wrong, you don’t fix it; you just replace entire modules.” What was once a craft that any dedicated person could learn has become an exercise in supervised dependency. Even Klaus Schwab openly predicts that by 2030, Los Angeles will be “private car driven free” – just a fleet of self-driving Ubers. With this week’s devastating tunnel fire in LA leaving thousands stranded, one wonders if such ‘Build Back Better’ moments are exactly the opportunities needed to accelerate these transformations. The message becomes clearer: you won’t fix things anymore because you won’t own them.

The Covid response revealed this agenda with striking clarity. While liquor stores remained ‘essential businesses,’ authorities closed beaches, parks, and gyms – the very places where people might maintain their physical and mental health. They promoted isolation over community, compliance over resilience, and pharmaceutical dependency over natural immunity. This wasn’t just public health policy; it was a dress rehearsal for state dependency. The same institutions that discouraged basic health practices now champion policies that replace family authority with bureaucratic oversight. From school boards usurping parental rights to social services intervening in family decisions, we’re witnessing the systematic replacement of the capable father figure with an ever-expanding nanny state.

But true masculinity has never been solely about physical strength. History’s greatest exemplars of masculine virtue weren’t just men of action – they were men of principle, wisdom, and moral courage. From Marcus Aurelius to Omar Little, as I explored in my earlier writing, the common thread was having an unwavering code – the willingness to stand firm on conviction even when it carries personal cost.

Consider how many men today silently acquiesce to policies they know are wrong, embrace narratives they privately doubt, or submit to institutional pressures that violate their conscience. During Covid, we watched as men who understood the importance of natural immunity, outdoor exercise, and community bonds nevertheless enforced policies that harmed their neighborhoods and families. They chose institutional compliance over moral courage, career safety over civic duty, majority approval over personal conviction.

Real strength isn’t found in anonymous aggression or digital posturing. I learned this firsthand during Covid when I spoke out against vaccine mandates and became a pariah for defending personal choice and bodily autonomy. While numerous ‘brave’ keyboard warriors attacked me online, one incident stands out. A friend forwarded me a Reddit thread where someone had posted personal information about my family and me, hoping to incite harassment against me – all because I stood up for bodily autonomy and opposed arbitrary biomedical segregation. The initials gave it away – it was my own neighbor, someone I’d known for years.

When I confronted him in person, this digital lion transformed instantly into a cowering mouse. The same man who had boldly called for my destruction from behind his screen, believing he was anonymous, now stood physically trembling before me, his hands shaking, voice quivering, unable to even meet my gaze.

This spiritual and intellectual weakness poses a far greater threat than any decline in physical capability. A society of physically strong but morally compliant men is just as vulnerable as one of physically weak ones. True masculine strength requires the courage to think independently, to question authority when necessary, and to protect those who depend on you even when it carries risk. It demands the wisdom to distinguish between legitimate authority and manufactured consensus, between genuine expertise and institutional capture.

History offers a stark lesson: civilizations thrive when diverse virtues work in concert – builders and nurturers, protectors and healers, strength balanced with empathy. Today’s systematic erosion of both isn’t random but calculated. As men are steered toward passive consumption and women away from their intuitive wisdom, both are replaced by institutional authority – a nanny state that attempts to fill both roles while achieving neither.

Consider the machinery at work: government programs increasingly separate children from family influence at younger ages, while school curricula promote ideologies that deliberately blur biological realities. From preschool to college, institutions systematically distance children from their parents’ values. Like the fiat currency that replaced real money, we now have fiat relationships through social media, fiat achievements through gaming, and fiat experiences through the metaverse. Each substitution moves us further from authentic human experience toward engineered dependency. When children no longer understand what it means to be male or female, when they’re taught to look to institutions rather than parents for guidance, the state’s victory is nearly complete.

The result is a society of spectators rather than builders, of consumers rather than creators, of followers rather than leaders. A society where men trade real achievement for virtual entertainment and keyboard courage, while genuine feminine wisdom is replaced by corporate-approved stereotypes.

The state can only expand into the vacuum left by weakened men and disconnected women. It feeds on our engineered helplessness, growing stronger as we grow more dependent. Those who recognize this pattern face a simple choice: remain comfortable spectators in our own decline, or reclaim the authentic virtues that make us human."

Bill Bonner, "A Game Of Chicken"

"A Game Of Chicken"
by Bill Bonner

New York, New York -  "As we all know, the US is headed for a fiscal crisis. Like having a ‘heart attack,’ says Ray Dalio. The only way to prevent it is to make dramatic policy changes now - not just to ‘improper payments’ to federal bureaucrats, but also serious cuts to the firepower industry.

Possible? Here’s Barrons: "Trump Sends Shockwave Through Defense Stocks, Says Military Spending Could Be Halved. "At some point, when things settle down, I'm going to meet with China and I'm going to meet with Russia, in particular those two, and I'm going to say there's no reason for us to be spending almost $1 trillion on the military … and I'm going to say we can spend this on other things," Trump said."

But here’s Congress: "House Republicans on Tuesday revealed a budget resolution that would add $100 billion in defense funding, one-third less than the Senate blueprint which would raise defense spending by $150 billion. Asked about the latest Senate budget proposal, Sen. Rand Paul said: “I don’t think the numbers are real.” What follows is a look at how unreal the feds’ world… and their numbers… really are.

News came yesterday that a dozen eggs now cost nearly $5. US News: "US eggs prices hit a record high of $4.95 and are likely to keep climbing. The latest monthly consumer price index showed that the average price of a dozen Grade A eggs in U.S. cities reached $4.95 in January, eclipsing the previous record of $4.82 set two years earlier and more than double the low of $2.04 that was recorded in August 2023."

In 1925, a dozen eggs cost about 25 cents. The typical working man had to work about 30 seconds to buy a single egg. Today - after all the labor-saving devices… computers, motors, artificial intelligence… and 100 years of enlightened economic management - he has to work 50 seconds.

Don’t trust our math? We don’t either. It’s based on phony numbers (there is also the matter of 20 million chickens that have either died of bird flu in the last four months or been culled by order of the Federal government). Almost all the statistics used to compute the effects of federal programs - are frauds.

Let’s begin with unemployment… now near record lows. Politico reports: "The prevailing 'unemployment’ statistic does not account for the meagerness of any individual’s income. Thus you could be homeless on the streets, making an intermittent income and functionally incapable of keeping your family fed and the government would still count you as “employed.” If you filter the statistic to include as unemployed people who can’t find anything but part-time work or who make a poverty wage (roughly $25,000), the percentage is actually 23.7 percent. In other words, nearly one of every four workers is functionally unemployed in America today - hardly something to celebrate.

Based on research from the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity we see also that the average wage has been similarly inflated. When we did our egg calculations, we used the feds’ number for earnings - around $60,000. But when you adjust incomes to include all the marginally employed people in the statistic, the real number is closer to $52,000, which makes an average egg worth 57 seconds of human labor.

The Ludwig research team also found that inflation was understated. Just tracking prices of the everyday things that everyday people buy, they found: "In 2023 alone, the CPI indicated that inflation had driven prices up by 4.1 percent. But the true cost of living, as measured by our research, rose more than twice as much - a full 9.4 percent." 

In the recent election, the Democrats couldn’t understand why the voters didn’t appreciate the great economy they had given them. This is why. The numbers were fake. Real earnings, for example, did not rise, as widely advertised; instead, they fell. But the big kahuna of federal statistics is GDP. If it is going up, we are told that all is well. If it is going down, something must be done.

Want to increase GDP? Set up a suicide hotline. Then, when people call… you sell them a tombstone… a burial plot… and a casket, with an upsell to silk lining. Every sale will be included as a boost to GDP. When you die, too, GDP will get a little bump up - maybe your house will be sold… flowers… estate resolution. Or suppose five million immigrants suddenly arrive. The competition might reduce your earnings, but the economy - GDP - would rise.

A big component of GDP is government spending. Transfer payments are not included; the rest totes to about 17% of GDP. So, if the feds spend another trillion on weapons, for example, it will add a trillion to GDP. Except for some people in the firepower industry - its suppliers, lobbyists, think tank shills and owners - most people will be worse off.

As it is, today’s GDP includes more than $4 trillion of federal spending, mostly wasted on unproductive programs, and much of it debt financed. The big question is whether Trump, Musk et al are cutting it back…or making it worse. More to come…"

Jim Kunstler, "Darkness Dying"

"Darkness Dying"
by Jim Kunstler

“The nature of the NGO scams is to have a cause that sounds philanthropic, like ‘Save the Orphans of Sadville’ and then they pocket the money and zero actual orphans are helped.”
-  Elon Musk

"The exorcism of the USA just keeps revving up. You can tell by the number of revolutions-per-minute Elizabeth Warren’s head spins while she spews pea soup at the cameras. Who knew what a demon-infested slough USA Management Central was? And yes, I would like some insight as to how humble civil servants like Liz Warren accrue a $12-million fortune...and $30-million for Samantha Power (ex-USAID-chief)...and more than a $150-million for Nancy Pelosi. Could it be as simple as just good stock-picking? (Is that how they spend their time?)

You have reason to suspect that what goes on in Washington DC is the greatest racketeering operation ever run on God’s green earth. “A threat to our democracy!” the Party of Chaos spouted incessantly during the election campaign in re: Donald J. Trump. “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” The Washington Post still declares on its name-plate. Yet, who exactly kept the lights off the past four years? Who scrambled the brains of the nation’s management and thinking classes? Who made mental illness aspirational?

You begin to detect that by “our democracy” they actually meant “our everlasting grift.” And it didn’t die darkness - it thrived, grew, and spread in the moist bureaucratic darkness like the Devil’s own slime mold. And now it is being revealed, to the astonished disgust of slightly more than half the nation that was not on-the-take. Turn over a log in the woods and you have the metaphor for “our democracy.” Countless hundred-footed things slither around under it, their feeding interrupted...

The political left’s success springs from its dedication to organizing its member ranks and their activities. Organizing has been the key to their grand plan for arriving at Utopia. Except, sometime near the dawn of this century, with the torch of communism burning out, they realized that Utopia was a destination unlikely to be reached. Instead, they could turn their organizing talent to directing the money flow from their ever-expanding roster of world-saving NGOs into the bank accounts of their own member ranks.

USAID was the poster-child for that, a flowering of mutually-referential dollar feedback loops providing six-figure “jobs” and non-stop cocktail partying for the elite surplus churned out of left’s training academies, Harvard, Brown, Yale - with a whopping vig paid to congress-persons and senators who disbursed massive taxpayer funding for each newly-sprouted org dedicated to the uplift of the “marginalized and oppressed.”

Of course, that was merely the feeding frenzy of the small fish on the surface. Deeper down, the money-flow was going to much more demonic enterprises: the color revolution gang in the CIA, State Department, and God knows what other surreptitious agencies...Antifa and BLM (the Democratic Party’s shock troops)...the news industry (now completely corrupted into a global mind-f*cking operation)...Hollywood’s zeitgeist-shaping dream factory of girl-boss fantasies...book publishing (with its zillion-dollar “advances-on-royalties” to political celebrity authors, who could never possibly earn-out that windfall on book sales)...the school systems at every level...the medical-pharma matrix...the military procurement racket too vast to even quantify (and the probable cause of the Pentagon’s consistent audit failures)...and, we’ve learned recently, the care-and-feeding of twenty-million illegal aliens ushered into our country by the “Joe Biden”/Al Mayorkas travel agency.

This colossal worm-farm lies exposed now with its slithering denizens drying up under the DOGE sunlamp. The response by the political left’s clown troop fronting for all these scams is the most pathetic performative cluster-B psychodrama ever enacted on the streets of our nation’s capital: Schumer, Maxine Waters, Ayana Pressley, Liz Warren, and every other mewling loser in Wokedom singing that old union ditty "Which Side Are You On" for the cameras - as if they were reenacting the 1907 Monongah Mining Disaster. They are crying - as the old saying goes - all the way to the bank.

The histrionics of the past three weeks are only the beginning, you understand, since USAID was just a mole-hill beside the mountain range of past turpitudes yet coming into view as Mr. Trump’s generals deploy in the battle-space. Yesterday - mirable dictu! - Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., was sworn-in for Health and Human Services, to oversee the empire of fraud that public health became during the rogue reign of Tony Fauci and his cohorts. The flip-side of MAHA is Make Medicine Truthful Again. Everything about health-care in America slouches in disrepute and ignominy, from the doctors hostage to their private equity taskmasters to the faked drug trials at FDA to the deliberate data mismanagement at CDC to the grant-and-kickback game at NIH and NIAID, to the hellscape of medical insurance fraud, to the revolving door between pharma and government - RFK faces one of the most onerous tasks of filth-clearing since Hercules shoveled out the Augean stables. And then there’s the giant hairball of poisoned American food.

The solitary figure who remains absent on the playing field is Kash Patel, and you can tell by the delaying tactics employed by the Party of Chaos that they (and their blob allies) dread the coming day that he gets confirmed to lead the FBI. That’s when the combined forces of avalanche, tsunami, earthquake, and fire send forth an exterminating spewage of long-suppressed information about the 1960s assassinations, RussiaGate, the Epstein matter, the Ukraine money-laundry, and any number of other unresolved treasonous scandals. It’s going to happen. And, if by some quirk of fate, Mr. Patel fails to get the votes, somebody else eventually will, somebody equally capable of fumigating that rat-hole. When that day comes, I’m sure Chuck Schumer will sing "Kumbaya" from the Capitol steps, expecting to make it all magically go away..."
o

"Top 5 Best and 5 Worst Fast Food Chains Ranked! Must Try and Must Avoid"

Full screen recommended.
Frugal Living Tips, 2/14/25
"Top 5 Best and 5 Worst Fast Food Chains Ranked! 
Must Try and Must Avoid"
"Discover the top 5 fast food chains you should try and the 5 you might want to avoid. Based on customer reviews and satisfaction scores, we provide an in-depth analysis to help you make informed dining choices. Best fast food chains, worst fast food chains, top fast food rankings, must-try fast food, fast food chains to avoid, fast food reviews, customer satisfaction fast food, Chick-fil-A review, Five Guys review, Jersey Mike's Subs review, In-N-Out Burger review, Acai Republic review, Taco John's review, McDonald's review, Burger King review, KFC review, Popeyes review."
Comments here:
o
Full screen recommended.
Travelling With Russell, 2/14/25
"Russian KFC (Rostic's) Has 
Opened a New Restaurant Format"
"Join me on a tour of a brand-new Rostic's Restaurant location in Moscow, Russia. After KFC left Russia, Rostic's took over all of the KFC locations throughout Russia. Chic Stop is their first-ever Micro Formation Restaurant location."
Comments here:

John Wilder, "Charity, Corruption, And Bad Jokes About Iron"

"Charity, Corruption, And Bad Jokes About Iron"
by John Wilder

"As we pass through this next week, I’d like to remind everyone that Trump hasn’t been in office even a single month (seventeen years for GloboLeftists) at this point. One argument that I’ve seen the GloboLeft chattering class attempt to make is that USAID® is “too small to worry about, it’s less than 1% of the budget”. This is a continual talking point, so you know that the GloboLeftElite is coordinating them to make this point.

So, we are presented with the Paradox of Federal Spending as presented by the GloboLeftElite: “Every small budget cut is too small to matter, and every large budget cut is impossible to make.” I supposed I should call it Schrödinger’s Budget. But in context, USAID™ funding is fifty billion dollars. Doing the math, that’s $600 for a family of four. Every year. So, too small to matter? No, $600 would matter to a lot of folks. I mean, that’s a dozen eggs nowadays.

But there is a much, much bigger picture here. If the family of four had that extra $600, would they donate it?
• Would they donate it to an AIDS clinic in South Africa so that African prostitutes could get AIDS treatments?
• Would they donate it to Peruvian comic books to propagandize LGBT politics to Peruvian children?
• Would they give it to a luxury hotel in New York City to house illegal aliens with the nightly bed turndown service and the little mint on the pillow that they so rightly deserve?
• Would they donate it to a charity with several hundred million in the bank that pays their CEO $10 million a year so the charity could pay for oxygen for a 71-year-old with emphysema from smoking in Malaysia?

These are all real examples. Nothing I made up. This is where your tax dollars are going. So, what would that family do? Would it give it so they could see how monkeys act when they’re on cocaine? Or would they use it for their own, selfish purposes, things like buying food for the family?

Well, they don’t get to decide, because unelected (and, to listen to the GloboLeftElite) entirely independent bureaucrats whose decisions are unreviewable by anyone get to decide how to spend that money. Not the American public. Not the State Department. Not Donald Trump. And certainly not you.

Back before Pa Wilder passed on, I’d go visit him when I could, and go to church with him. On one Sunday we went to church, and the pastor prayed, “Oh, and I pray that the president and congress don’t pass welfare reform. In the spirit of charity, those people need help.” I got very, very angry. I rarely get angry in church, except for those times I got burned with holy water, but that’s another story. In this particular case, though, what made me mad was the idea that charity comes from the government.

No, charity doesn’t come from the government. Charity is a conscious choice. If the government gives someone money, it took it from someone else. It wasn’t voluntarily given. And if you think taxes are voluntary, I encourage you to stop paying them and send me the result of that experiment.

No, welfare from the United States government is a cruel parody of the idea of charity. It is money taken by force from people who may not want to give it. That’s bad enough, but it gets worse. Since it’s given not by an individual or church but rather the government, the welfare is often resented by those that get it. Yes. Resented. Because the act of welfare creates a system where the recipient is unconnected from the donor. Not only that, it is money given without any obligation on the part of the person receiving it, so they experience no growth. Additionally, there is no gateway to limit the recipient to people who are worthy.

I say it’s a parody of charity because real charity provides benefits to the giver as well as the receiver. It is a virtue, but when force is applied it is stripped of meaning to both. This, perhaps, is the greatest tragedy of USAID. It was taken over by GloboLeftElite bureaucrats. The most charitable interpretation is that the agency was then taken over by people that Jerry Pournelle wrote about in his "Iron Law of Bureaucracy." 

Pournelle’s "Iron Law of Bureaucracy" states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people”:

“First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers (sic) union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.”

This is the very kindest way I could describe the situation. In my opinion, the more likely reality of what happened at USAID is somewhat different. I think that $50 billion in funds dispersed on bureaucratic whims attracted corruption, and that corruption spread until nearly the entire organization was corrupt, top to bottom and fully in the hands of the GloboLeftElite to spend on themselves and to spend to increase their power. But I’m betting they’d say my viewpoint is less than charitable."
o
Freely download "The Yak Online Governance Primer" here:

Thursday, February 13, 2025

"Alert! US Nuke Bomber Near Russia; 'State Of Emergency'; Iran Attack"

Full screen recommended.
Canadian Prepper, 2/13/25
"Alert! US Nuke Bomber Near Russia;
 'State Of Emergency'; Iran Attack"
Comments here:

"The Crooks Are Freaking Out; Ray Dalio Sends Ominous Message"

Jeremiah Babe, 2/13/25
"The Crooks Are Freaking Out; 
Ray Dalio Sends Ominous Message"
Comments here:

Musical Interlude: Kevin Kern, "Another Realm"

Full screen recommended.
Kevin Kern, "Another Realm"

"A Look to the Heavens"

"This intergalactic skyscape features a peculiar system of galaxies cataloged as Arp 227 some 100 million light-years distant. Swimming within the boundaries of the constellation Pisces, Arp 227 consists of the two galaxies prominent right of center, the curious shell galaxy NGC 474 and its blue, spiral-armed neighbor NGC 470. 
The faint, wide arcs or shells of NGC 474 could have been formed by a gravitational encounter with neighbor NGC 470. Alternately the shells could be caused by a merger with a smaller galaxy producing an effect analogous to ripples across the surface of a pond. The large galaxy on the top lefthand side of the deep image, NGC 467, appears to be surrounded by faint shells too, evidence of another interacting galaxy system. Intriguing background galaxies are scattered around the field that also includes spiky foreground stars. Of course, those stars lie well within our own Milky Way Galaxy. The field of view spans 25 arc minutes or about 1/2 degree on the sky."

Chet Raymo, “New Philosophy”


by Chet Raymo

"It is one of Albert Einstein's most-often quoted quotes: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible." Is the world comprehensible? Apparently at least partially so. Consider the NASA solar eclipse atlas I referenced the other day. It is possible to calculate the precise locations and times for solar eclipses thousands of years into the future and past. That's comprehensibility for you.

Of course, there are still things we do not comprehend, such as consciousness or the development of organisms, but there is no good reason to suppose those things are intrinsically beyond human understanding. The whole of modern technological civilization and medicine is a monument to comprehensibility.

Why? Why this strange consonance between the world and the human mind? For centuries the answer was simple. God created a world of space and time, a finite mirror, so to speak, of his own intelligence. He created humans in his own likeness. Human intelligence partook of the intelligibility of God. Everything in the closed, human-centered cosmos was ordered in his likeness. The world was comprehensible because it was made that way - for us to comprehend.

Then, in the 16th and 17th centuries, came the great disruption, which Alexandre Koryé described in his seminal 1957 book "From the Closed World To the Infinite Universe." Daring thinkers resurrected the Greek idea that the universe might be infinite in extent and eternal in duration - no boundaries in space, no beginning or end in time. It was a radical thought, heretical really, but it meshed well with what the astronomers and physicists were learning about the world we live in. As the poet John Donne wrote:

    "And new philosophy calls all in doubt,
    The element of fire is quite put out,
    The sun is lost, and th' earth, and no man's wit
    Can well direct him where to look for it.
    And freely men confess that this world's spent,
    When in the planets and the firmament
    They seek so many new; they see that this
    Is crumbled out again to his atomies.
    'Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone,
    All just supply, and all relation."

Of course, it wasn't as bad as all that. Galileo and Newton provided a new coherence. The physical world itself took on two characteristics of the Godhead - omnipresence and everlasting life. Everything unfolded not in accordance with the divine will, but according to eternal and immutable laws of nature. The Divine Artifex, master craftsman, in Koyré's words, was replaced by the Dieu fainéant, a lazybones God with nothing to do. And the comprehensibility of the world became- well, as Einstein said- incomprehensible. But...things were about to get more complicated. 

Koyré's "From the Closed World To the Infinite Universe" was published in 1957. When I started teaching college in 1964, the required reading for my general studies science course included two articles by two prominent physicists published in "Scientific American" at about the same time as Koyré's book. George Gamow, a principal architect of the big bang theory, made the case for a universe that began billions of years ago as an explosion from an infinitely dense and infinitely small seed of energy. Fred Hoyle, stalwart champion of the steady state theory, took the stand for an infinite universe with no beginning and no end, in which matter is continuously created in the space between the galaxies.

Both theories had strengths and weaknesses. For example, the big bang successfully accounted for the known abundances of hydrogen and helium in the universe but posited an embarrassing beginning that could not be explained. The steady state theory avoided the stumbling block of a universe that seemed to come from nowhere but replaced it with many little unexplained beginnings (those particles of matter appearing continuously from nothing). Yet the big bang theory made one prediction that was testable: if the universe began in a blaze of luminosity, a degraded remnant of that radiation should still permeate the cosmos, and the precise spectral distribution of this microwave-frequency background could be calculated.

Then, that very year I started teaching, the cosmic microwave background radiation was serendipitously discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, with precisely the predicted spectrum, a triumph of comprehensibility. The universe- space and time- had an apparent beginning! For some people, this extraordinary development re-opened the door to a creator God, whose intelligence is the source for the intelligibility of the world. Koyré may have anticipated this. In his final paragraph he wrote: "The infinite Universe of the New Cosmology, infinite in Duration as well as in Extension, in which eternal matter in accordance with external and necessary laws moves endlessly and aimlessly in eternal space, inherited all the ontological attributes of Divinity. Yet only those - all the others the departed God took away with Him."

What others? Personhood. Love. Justice. And intelligence. Intelligence that is the source of the intelligibility of the world.

But for Einstein, and many of us here, the mathematical singularity which is the big bang is an opaque barrier. To say the universe is created by God conveys no more information than to say it is created by X. We learned to live without Koyré's Dieu fainéant, the lazybones God who had nothing to do, and see no reason to bring him out of retirement. So why is the universe comprehensible?

There are reasonable arguments for the incomprehensibility of human consciousness, and some of them were given here the other day in Comments. Let me offer arguments for the contrary.

First, one very important feature of consciousness has already been comprehended. We can say with a high degree of confidence that there is no ghost in the machine, that consciousness is an emergent physio-chemical property of the material brain. Whether consciousness is deterministic or involves some measure of quantum uncertainty remains to be seen, but I find Roger Penrose's argument for quantum uncertainty unconvincing. For the moment, Ockham's Razor rules.

Second, we can study emergent consciousness by observing other organisms, from sea snails to chimpanzees. That is, in principle, we can build up an understanding of human consciousness incrementally. This assumes, of course, that human consciousness differs from that of other organisms only in complexity, not kind. Again, for the moment, the Razor rules.

Third, as I mentioned here once before, a project is underway to fully map the neuronal structure of the human brain, at which point it should be possible to construct an operational electronic analog of the brain. Will such machines be conscious? Google "artificial consciousness" and you'll find arguments for both sides. At the very least we will pare away some of the incomprehensibility.

Fourth, we may already have created a "conscious" machine: the internet, which approaches the human brain in its degree of interconnected complexity. It is continuously "aware," sensitive to millions of sensory inputs- touch, vision, hearing, smell, and for all I know even taste. I can ask a question in human language or tap an icon and instantly have a response from the internet's vast memory. The internet and its myriad of input/output devices mimic enough of the aspects of human consciousness for us to be increasingly confident that consciousness is not intrinsically beyond in principle understanding. And isn't in principle understanding all we ask of science, and Life?"

"No Smooth Road..."

"Life has no smooth road for any of us; and in the bracing atmosphere
of a high aim the very roughness stimulates the climber to steadier steps,
till the legend, over steep ways to the stars, fulfills itself."
- W. C. Doane

The Daily "Near You?"

Scottsboro, Alabama. USA. Thanks for stopping by!