Karl

I would be hard pressed to distinguish their political grouping. What do you call a Marxist crony capitalist ? I suppose that's a fascist ? Trump is indeterminate with elements of Marxism, but with strong a strong statist streak. I suppose that makes him a fascist as well ? One appears to a very corrupt fascist, the other appears to be a more ideological fascist. One appears more concerned with money, which they gain by power; the other doesn't appear to care very much for money and therefore it is power that is the chief draw. Hillary can be bought, a Trump can't. Whether that means anything in the context of the small part they play in the Government is difficult to predict. Certainly Obama has paved the way for the president to have more powers than previous, but that is more likely a result of the deep states control over Obama. Trump, if he wins, would then have access to those levers and not be beholden to the deep state-if he is to be believed. We can say therefore, that Clinton is the known quantity, she is controlled by the deep state, knows her place, likes the lifestyle and gets to play cultural Marxist unopposed. Trump, if he is to be believed, will not be the puppet of the deep state-as he is in the public spotlight it would be difficult to have him removed, but they will certainly try if he won't play ball. He will inherit Obamas legacy powers as a president which means he may be a wrecking ball of state, or a builder of greater statism than even Clinton could envisage.

That is equally true without adding 'energy work'. As we say in motorcycling 'all the gear and no idea'. Still, a bit of paranoia/anxiety isn't a severe case of smashed up body, but it can feel pretty terrible all the same, it can feel almost as bad, it just doesn't come with the physical scars.

I'm not laughing. Maybe I don't get the joke ?

Capitalist government ? Not in a million years.

That's because no one thinks he is either a) an angel completely sincere However, everyone knows Clinton a) isn't an angel has comitted offences and is under investigation again after evading a previous one c) is involved in a foundation with some pretty big players and some not so nice foreign chaps. And the cough:cough: cough: cough: coughing, collapsing on stage, freezing and somewhat suspect exaggerated head movements don't look like a strong presidential,nomination.

Always allow for the novelty factor. The more things stay the same, the more people want radical change. Everyone knows Clinton is continuity Obama. Constant repetition of 'don't risk it' and 'he's a wild card' can make people who have little to lose decide that risk is a better alternative to 'more of the same'. A lot of people don't like Hillary and that includes many of the Bernie supporters. Her dodgy history doesn't help, particularly the big money donations, she is sliding away from being seen as the president of the people. That's not terminal, but as she has just accused a big chunk of middle America that they a racist chumps, she has virtually dared the waverers to take the plunge and vote Trump. Ironically this has a mirror for the Brexit campaign where many people believe Obama's threats were sufficient to swing the vote. So, if you don't like continuity Obama, you wanted Bernie, or you were a middle American thinking that perhaps voting for Trump was foolish, or you are getting sick of hearing about the ever more crooked Hillary and her elite....add in health concerns and she really is a lame duck.

I doubt she will make it to the end of the election. During Brexit we were equally certain that the favourite could not be beaten, but on the morning after the referendum there it was in black and white. Clinton isn't well, how unwell is impossible to know, but she has cancelled many press conferences and her coughing fits, plus those moments of mental/physical weakness, add up to something going on. Is it serious ? I think being helped off stage, playing to a green screen and those violent coughing fits point to something that's getting worse. The electoral game for the democrats is continuity Obama, the FED is being very careful not to create any financial destabilisation which could result in negativity for Obama's term in office-that means there is an opportunity because there is a risk which they want to play down. There really wasn't anyone in the GOPs campaign that looked even remotely challenging, Trump was considered a buffoon trying his hand and wasn't expected to do anything but add colour- as was Bernie. Clinton should have been an assured shoe-in, but Trump had such a unique strategy and a massive persona that it put Clinton under pressure. Clinton isn't physically fit, but she could be managed to an easy victory, but Trump has over turned it. It's like one of those boxing matches where the favourite comes out for a couple of rounds and knocks the opponent flat without breaking a sweat, but then the fall guy opponent is replaced by a fighter with unknown strengths who turns out to be a bit handy and can take lots of punishment to boot. Now the favourite is in the fight of their lives with a bruiser who won't back down, can't be knocked out and though not skilled, is strong enough to reveal the favourite as a weak showman that the promoter has stage managed- suddenly the crowd is booing and jeering. The favourite doesn't suffer a knockout punch, but they walk off the stage defeated and in disgrace. There is two whole months left of punishment for Clinton, she has to defend and Trump is wearing her down. Two months is a whole heap of punishment if you are ill and trailing the points.

That happened during and post Brexit. Apparently it was the uneducated, low income, moronic, racist, Neo fascistic morons that were voting because they were not too bright and had believed the Brexit lies. They lost, she is going to lose.

The wise man sniffs but does not eat.

~~~ ADMIN MESSAGE ~~~ I want to clarify that this is a split from another topic... on its own, it has interesting content, so I hope the conversation can continue here. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get a (better) paying job. That way you have more choice.

Tax evasion, whilst considered illegal, is a perfectly rational response to coercive theft. I doubt anyone would argue that a woman of childbearing age should be utilised as a vessel for increasing the population; that certain groups that are 'unloved' should have access to the facility in order that they aren't deprived of sexual congress and of having children. Yet this is exactly what coercive taxation is. Force is used to steal productive effort and redistribute to those who are less productive, for the purposes of 'fairness' or 'the common good'. There is no clear definition for 'ecological disaster' there are degrees of unwarranted pollution caused by bad actors, but these ecological disasters are not something devoid of mankind, but directly involving mankind as victims. An ecological disaster can occur without man doing anything at all. When Vesuvius exploded and reduced Pompei to an Ashfield it destroyed homes, production, farmland crops and the fishing industry. The ecological disaster is the destruction of something of value to man on a wide scale, in the sense that it prevents, either temporarily, or permanently, any further use of those resources. In this regard the nuclear reactor disaster in Russia (Government) the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan (Government), the testing of nuclear bombs that have created areas which humans cannot live (Government), the use of Anthrax on a remote Scottish Island which will no longer be for human habitation (Government), the recent Gulf of Mexico oil spill which was caused by the government forcing the rigs into deep water then issuing licenses and regulations that were insufficiently robust for deep water drilling (Government), the use of depleted Uranium projectiles in Iraq which requires a difficult clean up operation and has left many soldiers seriously unwell (Government), the drought in California caused by the granting of farm subsidies for irrigation ( Government), the destruction of buffalo herds due to the Government paying to have the buffalo shot by trappers. Instead of it being aggressive capitalism, what we are seeing is the reality of Governments as agents with the monopoly of force. Force has only one unpleasant task to perform and that is the defence of inaliable rights, in that respect violence does not cause any gain in value, it merely prevents the theft/destruction of value. To allow the Government to do anything other than protect these basic rights is to invite a rain of destruction on everyone and anything it applies it's tools of force. Whether that be the use of eminent domain to construct pipelines across private property, explode atom bombs in deserts, or give licenses for deep sea oil drilling. I'm reminded of a bible passage when the forth seal was broken behold a pale horse and riding it was death and all hell followed with him. I see the horse as the nation of people, laissez faire capitalism and the rider is the Government.

Cloudhands asks:

That's one of the reason to correctly identify our own philosophy/values/morals and tie it them to reality as much as possible. That way there is no need to wonder. An adult maybe clearly in error according to our own values and then we can apply judgement. We may feel there error is one which they will learn from and correct, in such a case we may pronounce merciful judgement. When the error is compounded and repeated there is no more reason to judge them anything other than guilty as charged and a danger to our own life. Therefore it is possible to judge a person evil if they show a continued propensity to values that directly contradict our own. This is not a pragmatic judgement but a practical one. An irrational person is dangerous.

http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v10/n8/fig_tab/nphoton.2016.145_F1.html made me think so I went looking for electron beam harmonics

Put it on my thread 'Karlonomics' as anything to do with economics is welcome there. Having been accused of perverting threads myself I'm now policing them-LOL poacher turned game keeper.

I know I said I wouldn't, but I was curious to see where this went. Anecdotally, when I was pretending to be a therapist, I had a client, a young woman who had a very troubled soul. Part of pretending to be a good therapist is empathy and it's possible to create incredible levels of empathy in order to get into the clients mind-not in the literal sense. In order that this occurs it is necessary to become very open and drop all defences and get the client to do likewise. I notice that this has been mentioned in passing several times as -intimacy- and that's exactly what heightened empathy feels like. During the session I began to feel uneasy and, after the session that unease became anxiety. I began to experience the same thing my client was clearly experiencing-it reminded me of the Spock mind meld. As practitioners we had been warned that this could happen, but I poo pooed it and waved if away. We were told that sometimes when there is a similar schism of mind, then high empathy can cause 'stuff to surface'. It's no joke when this happens and gets referred to as 'transference'. Note here that no transference occurs without specific interaction and that it requires the person to be physically in the room - it can be entirely non verbal as we pick up body language and a host of other clues. I don't see anything that suggests the effect cannot be the same through straight chat if it's dynamic-LD made mention that he prefers not to engage in chat and when there is specific empathetic engagement required (in effect a verbal orgy) and someone has their own weaknesses (and LD has intimated that he does and is aware of them) then they had better stay away. The problem is that people don't always know they have a weakness and in intimate conversations this can cause anxiety and paranoia (just as I experienced with my client), it is perceptually experienced through conception and seems very real, in a way it is, just as fear or love are very real in the sense of emotion. Sex is a function of conception in humans, it is 100% in the mind, the physical act doesn't even register when experienced objectively. It's a release and its pleasurable, but it's only when the mind entwines with the act that it develops significance. Sex is only the end product of total intimacy of mind, when we share values and bodies, but it's not necessary to share bodies except for the 'release part'. So, in a chat room, sure, no reason not if you specifically set it up as an orgy, an orgy is what it will be. It's exactly the same as ghost hunting, if we set our minds to be open to each other's intimate fear, then we can wind each other up just by being present. We can open up primal fears which reside in our subconscious conceptions and have them manifest physically. I won't comment on 'energy' only that I'm very aware that this happens naturally and is very real for those that partake. For those that are vulnerable they will know it, others can give out these signals which are unpleasant to the receiver and are unaware that they are doing it. This discussion has cleared up a lot of things I see written here and specifically in reference to the way I post. It hadn't occurred to me that people here might well be 'open' in an empathetic sense as 'intuitive feelers' to use the Jungian terminology. That this can happen with just a written word is in some senses extraordinary, but then a good writer can make the reader feel emotion. It is a connection, so maybe not so suprising. What is been indulged in here is a kind of mental orgy. In effect if another is allowed in 'empathetically' you are indulging in conceptual sex whether you realise it or not. It isn't real sex, it is also not with real values, so no love is involved. Pretty sleazy really, it's kind of like swinging on the mental plane so I woukd suggest, if you have any pride, you don't indulge in it. No doubt there are some which woukd claim they know what they are doing and only have good intentions-as I was as a pretend therapist-but it can bounce back on you even if you are practising healing.

I would pass. I noticed Trump back pedalling on his 'wall' the other day, he hurriedly caught it, but didn't save it-not from me at least. He appears to be getting his ideas through a mix of social media and high profile blogs. He clearly annunciated the the US is one big bubble waiting to pop as a result of money printing, but the next minute he is talking about protectionism and government infrastructure projects. It's such a bow wave of potential policies it looks like a stream of consciousness through which there is a a devastating attack line on Clinton. It looks like this is what his campaign is really about. Basically 'I want the presidency and I'm not going to stand still long enough to have Clintons bullets hit me, but I'm going to keep her in my sights and keep firing until she can't keep still either". Clinton is trying to be the solid, steady, reliable and trustworthy option, but Trumps strength (and weakness) is that he isn't, so, he doesn't want to be forced onto Clintons territory. Once he gets Clinton jumping around like a sandfly, coughing, changing tack and repeating some of Trumps rhetoric then he has her fighting the clown by being the clown-and Trump has the pro clown thing down perfect. Once Clinton gets in the ring with the pro- wrestler her gig is up, if Trump attempts to be the sensible alternative he is finished. It's showbiz folks, pure cabaret, neither of these people will be in charge, the deep state runs the country and the president is whatever brand they wish to stamp it with. It's Bigmac vs super sub. Ford vs Chrysler. The only sensible option in a no win scenario is to refuse to participate in it, withdraw consent no matter how difficult it seems. It's something like the old Norse myth that Gods are only Gods when people patronise them, when they are no longer recognised they cease to exist. The more I see of Trump, the more he concretes into the clown that surprised himself. Clinton can no longer win this thing, I doubt she will make it to the finish line.

Ah at last, something easier for me to grasp. Is this like a magnetic field Brian. A kind of N/S pole in which the field lines loop back on themselves ? Could the light be producing eddy current polarity along its length ? I noticed the shape and thought of the typical field lines of a magnetic.

It sounds amazing but it's way over my head. Too much distance between the mulch and the leaves. I'm about all done at crystal oscillators, vibrating quartz, resonance and basic harmonics. Adding time to crystal just messes with my head. I'm used to measuring relative time with crystal, that a crystal is somehow time in itself is a bit like Platos 'crystalness'.

LOL 'reasons will vary'. You are nothing if not politically adept Mr Marblehead.

Point taken. :-)

There is no empirical evidence to the contrary. That should be sufficient in itself. A dead body stays dead and no one has ever witnessed scientific, evidential proof of any kind of after-life. Of course that's all pretty obvious but the inductive philosophical argument is very strong. Objectivism asserts the primacy of existence over consciousness. That consciousness is something, it exists and has a specific identity. As existence exists and consciousness is the faculty that grasps existence it follows that consciousness would not exist, if it had primacy. Therefore any after life consciousness is non-existent in all senses of the term. Consciousness must be conscious of some-thing and so, if you wish to take this to an extreme position, this non-existent consciousness would not be conscious of anything anyway. On all fronts the argument for the primacy of consciousness is weak and hopeless. There are several categories of life: There is the most basic form that reacts to stimuli. A plant grows when it gets nutrients, light and air. it is entirely automatic. The next form of life is driven by sensation- pain pleasure. It is not conscious, but it has a basic form of perceptual awareness. Molluscs are a good example. They are devoid of eyes and ears but they have a rudimentary nervous system and the shell provides protection The next life form is conscious but only on a perceptual level. Finally there is man who is conscious, perceiving and conceptual. The more automatic the life form, the less consciousness and the fewer advanced sense organs. Plants have no advanced sense organs in the context of our understanding. Nature sees to it that the more advanced species are outfitted with more advanced sensory apparatus to suit the expansion of consciousness. Man loses some of those powers of sense towards conceptual consciousness. Anyway, what I'm attempting to show is that as consciousness diminishes so does the perceptual activity. Even in conscious creatures like animals there is no conceptual consciousness. So, now, imagine how unlikely it could be that something living could ever be immortal. It would need no senses, perception, conception, sensations or anything that is required by all living things to maintain their lives. Then apply this to the idea of some kind of disembodied consciousness, a ghost if you will, an indestructible floating consciousness devoid of the need for senses and sense organs. Consciousness must be conscious of some-thing, but this ghost would be consciousness, conscious of no-thing. To say it existed, or that it knew it existed would be impossible. It would not even have the basic functions of a plant, never mind a mollusc. It would be a floating abstraction tied to no reality. It would be an floating abstract conception, an idea in someone's living brain tied to no kind of reality and it would have all the solidity of an erroneous thought.

Our bodies constituent elements remain, as our life/ consciousness is entirely dependent on the precise nature of the body composition- IE consciousness though axiomatic is a result of that delicate balance as a holistic whole. Once the body dies so does consciousness. That specific holistic whole becomes seperate constituent parts. There is no permanent consciousness nor memory. It's like the components of a computer, but instead of a specific and recoverable program there is an holistic collective of parts which ignites the faculties. Once the parts are broken up and scattered there is no sense in which they can reform into the exact original. It is true that those parts may one day become part of another human being, but only as elements and not even all of them ending up in the same body can restore the original. DNA makes sure that the new person is not identical except in general faculties and constitution. Even a clone from the same DNA can't do it, the clone can look and even act in a similar manner, but it won't perceive and integrate concepts in exactly the same way -we are volitional creatures so this cannot be replicated.

They squeaked under the bar by declaring they were not just an investment bank and holding out their hands.

I shall remain well clear as I always do on such topics -though I should state for the record that human energy exchange on any level is part of economics. :-) just to get in my t'penneth as the result of you specifically mentioning me in your your thread ;-)