Julia Hartley-Brewer: ‘Climate protesters are in a Doomsday cult’

I find Talk Radio totally frustrating to watch for some of the hosts are pompous, politically correct arses.

But I did enjoy this.

I really think these Extinction Rebellion people should be sent off to another planet.

I don’t want them on mine!

Advertisements

Stephen Hicks and Stefan Molyneux on the history of the past, and the ‘new’ philosophy of now

Wonderful ideas in this video. And a great History of Philosophy from Stephen Hicks. I just wish Stefan Molyneux wasn’t so bouncy – ‘tiggerish’ to take a character from the Pooh stories.

Celebrity Big Brother: The wonderful thing about Tiggers ...

Here is the video – worth watching and archived here.

Its on Bitchute – and I don’t know how to embed it on my post.

Click on this LINK HERE

“Tracing postmodernism from its roots in Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant to their development in thinkers such as Michel Foucault and Richard Rorty, philosopher Stephen Hicks provides a provocative account of why postmodernism has been the most vigorous intellectual movement of the late 20th century. Why do skeptical and relativistic arguments have such power in the contemporary intellectual world? Why do they have that power in the humanities but not in the sciences? Why has a significant portion of the political Left – the same Left that traditionally promoted reason, science, equality for all, and optimism – now switched to themes of anti-reason, anti-science, double standards, and cynicism? Explaining Postmodernism is intellectual history with a polemical twist, providing fresh insights into the debates underlying the furor over political correctness, multiculturalism, and the future of liberal democracy.”

Stephen Hicks is the Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University and the Executive Director of the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship. He is the author of several books on philosophy, entrepreneurship, ethics and postmodernism including “Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault.”

A must-have resource on Smoking and Ethics – mentally, emotionally and morally scrumptious

If you are interested in smoking, vaping,  or The Tobacco Control Industry, as I am, here is a smashing resource offering information about everything you  have always felt was ‘never morally quite right’! You will find browsing here ABSOLUTELY SCRUMPTIOUS!

Let’s knock ourselves out! Join me please……

Smoking – On Ethics

Smoking is controversial, eliciting strong views from many people. Investment in the tobacco industry can be equally controversial for some. The question is whether the “ethical” approach to investing in the sector is really ethical at all, or simply an expression of prejudice against smokers and the smell of tobacco smoke

Massimo Pigliucci Shows Us How To Recognize Scientism

Here is a really excellent take on “Scientism”

Please read the article – it’s here, archived for some future thought….with some excellent guidance points to ‘know’ who is a scientistic scientism promoter!

>>>>>

Science is a particular ensemble of epistemic and social practices — including a more or less faulty system of peer review, granting agencies, academic publications, hiring practices, and so on. This is different from “science” as it was done by Aristotle, or even by Galileo. There is a continuity, of course, between its modern incarnation and its historical predecessors, as well as between it and other fields (mathematics, logic, philosophy, history, and so forth).

But when scientistic thinkers pretend that any human activity that has to do with reasoning about facts is “science” they are attempting a bold move of naked cultural colonization, defining everything else either out of existence or into irrelevance. >>>>>>>

Source: Massimo Pigliucci Shows Us How To Recognize Scientism

Jordan Peterson on himself and Cathy Newman

There has been such a fallout from the debacle of the Peterson/Newman Channel Four debate, that the dust has not settled.

The more I listen to Jordan Peterson, the more I like him. He’s so honest and translucent you HAVE to like him.

Here is an analysis of the ‘threats’ Cathy Newman received on Twitter after 24 hours – so it is out of date now. Cathy Newman’s feminist fans aimed 30 times more violent sexist abuse at Peterson & his supporters than vice-versa

And here is Jordan Peterson talking about himself and the Cathy Newman interview.

It’s a long video – but so worth watching. It’s about him, our culture, and you and me.

The analysis of himself is about the first thirty two minutes….

 

Post Materialist Science

I have followed the life and ideas of Rupert Sheldrake since I read his first book.

He has been very badly treated by other scientists!

He is part of the growing group of Post Materialist Scientists.

The religion of science has been like the witch in Narnia, freezing the earth in it’s barren, cold ideology. We are in a winter.

We don’t need a new religion – we need a reformed science! Spring would follow…

Here is my stuff archived here…

Rupert Sheldake https://youtu.be/9UbFa2SylqU 45min

Banned Ted Talk https://youtu.be/1TerTgDEgUE

Russell Brand interview https://youtu.be/dAS-QzWvj8g

The 18 point Post Materialist Sciences Manifesto is below this video…..

The Post Materialist Sciences Manifesto

1. The modern scientific worldview is predominantly predicated on assumptions that are closely associated with classical physics. Materialism—the idea that matter is the only reality—is one of these assumptions. A related assumption is reductionism, the notion that complex things can be understood by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things such as tiny material particles.
2. During the 19th century, these assumptions narrowed, turned into dogmas, and coalesced into an ideological belief system that came to be known as “scientific materialism.” This belief system implies that the mind is nothing but the physical activity of the brain, and that our thoughts cannot have any effect upon our brains and bodies, our actions, and the physical world.
3. The ideology of scientific materialism became dominant in academia during the 20th century. So dominant that a majority of scientists started to believe that it was based on established empirical evidence, and represented the only rational view of the world.
4. Scientific methods based upon materialistic philosophy have been highly successful in not only increasing our understanding of nature but also in bringing greater control and freedom through advances in technology.
5. However, the nearly absolute dominance of materialism in the academic world has seriously constricted the sciences and hampered the development of the scientific study of mind and spirituality. Faith in this ideology, as an exclusive explanatory framework for reality, has compelled scientists to neglect the subjective dimension of human experience. This has led to a severely distorted and impoverished understanding of ourselves and our place in nature.
6. Science is first and foremost a non-dogmatic, open-minded method of acquiring knowledge about nature through the observation, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Its methodology is not synonymous with materialism and should not be committed to any particular beliefs, dogmas, or ideologies.
7. At the end of the nineteenth century, physicists discovered empirical phenomena that could not be explained by classical physics. This led to the development, during the 1920s and early 1930s, of a revolutionary new branch of physics called quantum mechanics (QM). QM has questioned the material foundations of the world by showing that atoms and subatomic particles are not really solid objects—they do not exist with certainty at definite spatial locations and definite times. Most importantly, QM explicitly introduced the mind into its basic conceptual structure since it was found that particles being observed and the observer—the physicist and the method used for observation—are linked. According to one interpretation of QM, this phenomenon implies that the consciousness of the observer is vital to the existence of the physical events being observed, and that mental events can affect the physical world. The results of recent experiments support this interpretation. These results suggest that the physical world is no longer the primary or sole component of reality, and that it cannot be fully understood without making reference to the mind.
8. Psychological studies have shown that conscious mental activity can causally influence behavior, and that the explanatory and predictive value of agentic factors (e.g. beliefs, goals, desires and expectations) is very high. Moreover, research in psychoneuroimmunology indicates that our thoughts and emotions can markedly affect the activity of the physiological systems (e.g., immune, endocrine, cardiovascular) connected to the brain. In other respects, neuroimaging studies of emotional self-regulation, psychotherapy, and the placebo effect demonstrate that mental events significantly influence the activity of the brain.
9. Studies of the so-called “psi phenomena” indicate that we can sometimes receive meaningful information without the use of ordinary senses, and in ways that transcend the habitual space and time constraints. Furthermore, psi research demonstrates that we can mentally influence—at a distance—physical devices and living organisms (including other human beings). Psi research also shows that distant minds may behave in ways that are nonlocally correlated, i.e. the correlations between distant minds are hypothesized to be unmediated (they are not linked to any known energetic signal), unmitigated (they do not degrade with increasing distance), and immediate (they appear to be simultaneous). These events are so common that they cannot be viewed as anomalous nor as exceptions to natural laws, but as indications of the need for a broader explanatory framework that cannot be predicated exclusively on materialism.
10. Conscious mental activity can be experienced in clinical death during a cardiac arrest (this is what has been called a “near-death experience” [NDE]). Some near-death experiencers (NDErs) have reported veridical out-of-body perceptions (i.e. perceptions that can be proven to coincide with reality) that occurred during cardiac arrest. NDErs also report profound spiritual experiences during NDEs triggered by cardiac arrest. It is noteworthy that the electrical activity of the brain ceases within a few seconds following a cardiac arrest.
11. Controlled laboratory experiments have documented that skilled research mediums (people who claim that they can communicate with the minds of people who have physically died) can sometimes obtain highly accurate information about deceased individuals. This further supports the conclusion that mind can exist separate from the brain.
12. Some materialistically inclined scientists and philosophers refuse to acknowledge these phenomena because they are not consistent with their exclusive conception of the world. Rejection of post-materialist investigation of nature or refusal to publish strong science findings supporting a post-materialist framework are antithetical to the true spirit of scientific inquiry, which is that empirical data must always be adequately dealt with. Data which do not fit favored theories and beliefs cannot be dismissed a priori. Such dismissal is the realm of ideology, not science.
13. It is important to realize that psi phenomena, NDEs in cardiac arrest, and replicable evidence from credible research mediums, appear anomalous only when seen through the lens of materialism.
14. Moreover, materialist theories fail to elucidate how brain could generate the mind, and they are unable to account for the empirical evidence alluded to in this manifesto. This failure tells us that it is now time to free ourselves from the shackles and blinders of the old materialist ideology, to enlarge our concept of the natural world, and to embrace a post-materialist paradigm.
15. According to the post-materialist paradigm:

a) Mind represents an aspect of reality as primordial as the physical world. Mind is fundamental in the universe, i.e. it cannot be derived from matter and reduced to anything more basic.

b) There is a deep interconnectedness between mind and the physical world.

c) Mind (will/intention) can influence the state of the physical world, and operate in a nonlocal (or extended) fashion, i.e. it is not confined to specific points in space, such as brains and bodies, nor to specific points in time, such as the present. Since the mind may nonlocally influence the physical world, the intentions, emotions, and desires of an experimenter may not be completely isolated from experimental outcomes, even in controlled and blinded experimental designs.

d) Minds are apparently unbounded, and may unite in ways suggesting a unitary, One Mind that includes all individual, single minds.

e) NDEs in cardiac arrest suggest that the brain acts as a transceiver of mental activity, i.e. the mind can work through the brain, but is not produced by it. NDEs occurring in cardiac arrest, coupled with evidence from research mediums, further suggest the survival of consciousness, following bodily death, and the existence of other levels of reality that are non-physical.

f) Scientists should not be afraid to investigate spirituality and spiritual experiences since they represent a central aspect of human existence.

16. Post-materialist science does not reject the empirical observations and great value of scientific achievements realized up until now. It seeks to expand the human capacity to better understand the wonders of nature, and in the process rediscover the importance of mind and spirit as being part of the core fabric of the universe. Post-materialism is inclusive of matter, which is seen as a basic constituent of the universe.

17. The post-materialist paradigm has far-reaching implications. It fundamentally alters the vision we have of ourselves, giving us back our dignity and power, as humans and as scientists. This paradigm fosters positive values such as compassion, respect, and peace. By emphasizing a deep connection between ourselves and nature at large, the post-materialist paradigm also promotes environmental awareness and the preservation of our biosphere. In addition, it is not new, but only forgotten for four hundred years, that a lived transmaterial understanding may be the cornerstone of health and wellness, as it has been held and preserved in ancient mind-body-spirit practices, religious traditions, and contemplative approaches.

18. The shift from materialist science to post-materialist science may be of vital importance to the evolution of the human civilization. It may be even more pivotal than the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism.

http://opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science

 

Bernays collection

A ten hour course on the book ‘Propaganda’ by Bernays (1928) by Guy Evans HERE

It’s the only course on the site and I don’t know what has happened to Guy Evans since 2014.

Here is the old Adam Curtis 2001 BBC Film called ‘Century of the Self ‘- on Bernays – three hours long. I hope this is the whole thing…!

And while I am archiving these, here is The whole Adam Curtis Playlist. for good measure!

Where is the LOVE?

This was made in 2009.

Where is the love? by BlackEyedPeas.

I like it.

But where IS the love?

What is the solution to a world more violent, more ugly, more divided, more full of hatred, insults, hurt and persecution than 2009?

I don’t think ‘love’ is the answer. ‘Love’ is the longing. We cannot simply ‘love’. We are in the process of dismantling Western Culture by the expectation to ‘love’. Anything other than love has become hate speech.

We need some TOUGH love, logic, debate, co-operation, critical thinking, and reason lest we stab our own selves in our cultural heart, unable to hold back the ideology of The Frankfurt School and Post Modernism which is seeping in everywhere and that will not defend us from collapse, but is precipitating it.

Philosopher Daniel Dennett declared, “Postmodernism, the school of ‘thought’ that proclaimed ‘There are no truths, only interpretations’ has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for ‘conversations’ in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster  Link

 

Free speech on an alien planet

I have never liked Richard Dawkins disdain of spirituality/religion. Though both are not the same thing of course. Richard Dawkins has neither.

He has been offensive to millions of believers of all kinds. He has bred a sort of insane ‘Atheism’ that is arrid, anal and produces cold, hard people that this planet could well do without. In that way, Dawkins has promoted Scientism rather than science.

He’s charming. But not.

He is logical. But not.

Science is his rod and staff. And he has lived in the ‘old world’ like me. In the ‘old world’, there were certain rules.

Respectfulness.
The right to hold your own ideas.
Listening to others with opinions not your own.
The right to stand on your soap box if yoy want.
Challenging those with whom you disagree.
Grammar, education and cultural knowledge.
Family, marraige, morals, virtue.
Frugality.

Those were only some.

But does he realise as I do, that we are living on an alien planet now?

The new planet is ruled by Neoliberalism – the philosophy of marketing/money/greed being the God that we should follow. And the accolites need the creed –  me, me, me ME! to give offerings to the Gods of Greed. The new generations have been infected too by Postmodernism.

 Neoliberals advocate de-regulation in economic life while postmodernists advocate de-regulation in the cultural sphere. The new relativism of postmodernism matches with the laissez-faire attitude of neoliberals. Both currents of thought place the isolated individual in the centre of attention. Everybody has his/her own culture. The ‘I’ is liberated from the ‘we’. Both deny the possibility of steering or planning social developments, but proclaim the ability of individuals to re-create themselves.  Link

So now, the rules are different – young people have ‘rights’. The right –

To material possesions
To university education.
To protection from pain and hard work.
To protection from challenge.
To protection from unsettling ideas.
To protection from grammar, old cultural influences of european westernism.
To protection from constraining morals, family, marraige, virtue.
To protection from the discomfort of frugality.
To protection from MEN.

In fact – the Snowflake generation is that which inhabits university campases mainly.

Richard Dawkins is obviously too challenging for them. And that IS a pity.

The Natural Centre of Everyday Life

The natural centre of everyday life is NOT hinged on science. Ordinary people understand little of ‘science’. They are told what to believe and how to live because scientists are portrayed as ‘the final word’ of KNOWING. Ordinary people just get on with life. The centre of their life is family, friends, love, relationships, happiness, pain, belongings and hard work. These are the really meaningful things. Yet we are indoctrinated by fear – mostly – from the media reporting scientists’ discoveries,but our ignorance of ‘science’ is as deep as it was when we were being impressed with guilt and fear from other kinds of priests. How can we dare not to believe what has been PROVED scientifically?

If you challenge the role of science in modern life, it will always be pointed out how wonderful life is with the technology it has brought us – and how our lives and health have been improved by it. No one ever points out the evils of plastic, pesticides, designer viruses, many other inventions which are simply crimes against humanity or the millions killed in war.

But I can report that many people live without science or education all over the world – I’ve seen it. Personal happiness is obtainable nevertheless even though that might cause astonishment to the educated or scientific observer. I love science! I loved studying it. I love using the technology it brings – the technology delights me and I am grateful daily. I wouldn’t be so happy in outer Mongolia – or Patagonia! Not every one is so enthusiastic.

People go regularly to places where they can live with no technology – on purpose! I never understand that. But I would love to live without the ‘scientism’ that is becoming bolder and bolder as I get older and older. It hardly EVER has anything REALLY uplifting to say.