Documenting the Current Armageddon since 2017

It sure sounds like the communist sense of there is abundance for everyone. But Bohemians need some kick from a solid economic model.

Fleury talks about the same picture, but he says it is the crypto fund allocation that may get us there. Not so sure about where his standpoint is. In our lingo, where you sit decides where your mind is.

At last, what I did understand is that his standpoint lands on him betting on the AI bringing Marxism 3.0. (did my graduate capstone project reporting on the 40% labour today is not needed in an automated world completing in 15 years, that includes finance and computer engineer.) However, what I envision is more like a Blade Runner. We can’t forget that this casino owner likes taking every bit of control and eliminate human free will.

What Fleury has had the confidence, is in riding or wrestling with the Beast, the Old Ones in HP Lovecraft’s sense. Ever heard those tales? I will give you non-fiction, scientific explanation of why.

A famous private investor in the crypto field and firm believer of bitcoin said inequality is nature, which I agree. He convinced people to buy bitcoin early on, and that was his part in tilting the system. For everything he shared to this discourse, he would like to go off-record. It’s his rule for print media.

This is my reckoning: Now fiat has corrupted btc. Not only does bitcoin fall when people need money to fill the hole torn in the stock fall, with the leverage they applied with greed, it also has a high gini coefficiency. If you were to compare it, it’s at 0.64, worse than the worst country at it on earth, South Africa. An economy built on bitcoin is definitely far from that dream now. It hurts like a knife twitching in the heart.

Although, he calls this gini argument misplaced and irrelevant. Like the game Monopoly, he says, the bitcoin protocol is fair, “To change the rules so that no matter how well or poorly people play. That everyone begins the same and ends the same. That is unfair.”

He holds to the belief that people will drop fiat money and adopt bitcoin as the future currency. And because by then fiat is gone, bitcoin will be stable to function as a currency.  

He says, “No such thing as well distributed wealth. When bitcoin first emerged, anyone could have mined. No barrier to entry. Some people make poor choices. Much wealth inequality is because of that. Some work to develop skills, others do not. Some study. Some do not. Some likes to achieve… ”

I reckon, we can only hop from time to time on the hottest tech, and hope it would rocket — a practical way suggested in Fleury’s pamphlet as well. But to hope it would help ease the entire wealth distribution, would be difficult.

And yes, the privileged are not going to do an economic paradigm shift. It’s all on our own. No wonder Marx called for the world proletariat to unite. No solution, yet.

To where the stock crash leads us to and how Fed molds the future wealth distribution, he responded with this article “The Most Valuable Currency is Trust”, and this article about Fed bailing out the big investors and shareholders, and many more:

To Help Banks, Fed Delays Implementation Of “Biggest Bank Accounting Change In Decades”

As Congress Pushes a $2 Trillion Stimulus Package, the “How Will You Pay For It?” Question Is…

Throughout the Democratic presidential primary, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren…

Two McConnell bailout bills, the 10% percent stockholders, company executives and shareholders receive $425 billion and feel free to layoff workers; everybody else gets handover of a few grand, and off the financial growth of the stock ride (the vehicle that suppose to grow with the economical growth and counter money debasement, as this poor product in constant dilution does not store value; however, in reality, more like a casino game for reaping the smaller investors). — the bad inertia part of socialism — Get off the ride, and just take the handout and getting hooked.

And then, my own view on the situation, from a wider occult, psychology telescope. 

The systems make sure that you are locked in the Fear — greed loop psychology. they want you in this game. Meditate. Break the cycle, you need peace and longer higher vision.

Taoism is the hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy to the last two survivors from earth. Keep it to yourself, don’t panic and have fun roaming the celestial spheres, and come down to help tame the beast while you can. That’s their perspective and stance on the situation on earth. Bible tells you the fate of humans en masse. Its stories is an archetype of one cycle, coming to its pinnacle. And in reality it repeats. They took the hitchhike part out.

Everything we came up after the great depression has missed the middle point, extreme Left, extreme Right, Utopia Bohemians provided only good rocks and prevalent sex, destructive but non-constructive energy, it still keeps us locked up in this ever bigger amplitude of pendulum. We are heading towards a pit.

Wisdom from the Axial Age has shown you the solution before a specific catastrophe like this one occurs — strike at the middle point — Taoism, Confucian, Kabbalah, keep your balance, as an individual and as a whole, in all deeds, on small and massive scales. Middle ground not as a weak compromise of incompetence; Middle point as the mastery of accuracy and strength to be able to hit that 10th ring, is the truth of less suffering, of upward progression.

This world matters, even if you can have your after life roaming in other realms. For sufferings here continues in inbalance, like bacteria overgrowing on the petri dish, while you check out for your weekend vacation.

Energy is not generated by the matter; energy is in the relation between particles, flows in the field, the environment. The organ brain does not conscientiously direct the signal orchestra in and among your cells. Celestial bodies spinning around not by their own power. Computer does not generate the electricity and switch the circuit on and off.

I hope this gets you to think about the possibility that intelligence does not require an animal or plant body to exist. It can just be carried in a network, as long as there is something to form and move logical relation, it might just live through it. The Old Ones, Baal, Satan, angels, “Aliens”, God and beings.

That is the beast some of us are corresponding with. As he wants a total descend (for him it would be an ascension actually), into the AI- smart cities, the singularity. Would mankind together elevate, or would we lose our battle again and meet Satan in a descent?

Notice John Dee’s connection with the English Navy Expansion.

If you think Buddha was hallucinating and magicks are fantasies, check Kant, Locke, that’s your own modern cognitive scientists — “the reality is a projection of the brain.” “Does knowledge exist in the brain already or is it learned?”

That should be a hint, yet educated German “rationalist” engineer at the Bay area questions me, what do you mean by shaping the reality? What do you mean it’s not material? But Science!

How do they forget Kant so fast?

Oh, it’s not about rational, it’s about emotional — at the base layer. When it triggers the shameful emotion, critical thinking stopped at the edge of the box. They cringed. It’s Inception on a massive scale.

And why am I not cheering for an AI-run future with bioimplants where you merge into its network? Because, from scanning through scriptures for the past few years in Taoism, Buddhism, Yogis in India, The Egyptians, the new schools here in the West Crowley or whatnot, all points to one thing — the correspondence between the micro as an individual life, and the macro, as the universe, is the base for all intended metaphysical experience — The transcendence Taoists and Buddhism talk about, or “evolution” in the Kaballah sense; why your prayer could be heard if you are in the Abrahamic religions.

The cosmology and correspondence signs were so studied that it used to write the law of the governments. It is forbidden knowledge, and it is still in usage today.

It is a practical art, the forces work through what the Indians call chakras, where the glands reside, which means, the old saying “My body is my temple” is not conservative bullshit. You do need the wholesome and purity of your body and soul, to have that correspondence.

Occult practitioners or not, the manifestation of the thoughts happen to everybody, actively or passively. The difference being, with awareness and free will, you actually are doing it actively, like a director of your own movie. But with that taken from us, we are creatures dreaming the Beast’s dream, passively through this hypnosis that I mentioned above. Don’t get numbed in the nightmare yet, it can be worse. And where does that leave the active practitioners? To the mountains they hide?

If you like or disagree with what I wrote, please feel free to share and comment. Let your thoughts be heard. There is no absolute conclusion as things evolve; there is clarity and learning in tossing ideas back and forth.

Twitter: @ChengLucinda

10 Replies to “Documenting the Current Armageddon since 2017”

  1. It’s in fact very difficult in this busy life to listen news on Television, thus I simply use
    internet for that reason, and get the latest information.

  2. Economics may be defined as simply “Energy Exchange”
    and one might say EVERYTHING is Energy.
    Atoms contain Energy and even Thought itself is a sort of Energy.

    Such said, considering set theory
    M : E E : P P : (p)W

    That is to say Economics (“E”) is a an emergent subset of Morality (“M”).
    Politics (“P”) is an emergent subset of Economics (“E”).
    War (“W”) is a Potential (“p”) emergent subset of Politics (“P”). That is to say “War” is a potential emergence of Politics failing.

    There is then “Money”, which may be defined as a Centrally Controlled abstract (i.e. psychological construct/illusion) as applied to a mass for purposes of Economics.
    As such the nature of Money itself invokes a
    Central MASTER Control -> SLAVE User base

    It may be noted that “Monetary Economics” is not in and of itself a necessary, but simply a potential emergent subset of Economics. It is also to say that whenever “money” is invoked, it by it’s very nature, puts a Central MASTER Control -> SLAVE User base relationship into place and action.
    That Central MASTER Control can be Priests of a Church called Central Banks. It can also be Machine Intelligence (ala “A.I.”) made a god with a subservient Priest or Deacon class of I.T. engineers; the arguable “In The Algos We Trust” zeitgeist architecture of today’s High Frequency Trading and cryptocurrency bot laden structures.

    This is not to say “money” is a good or bad thing, it is simply a tool, but it is a tool that inherently denotes something about the set boundaries, that is to say “Morality”, to which it’s Economic participants subscribe.

    The smaller the scale is that money is applied, the closer it’s individual participants are to the Central MASTER Control. The closer the individual participants are to such central control the smaller the chances are that the MASTER will become abusive to it’s SLAVE adherents (note, this simply lessens the likelihood, but does not eliminate it).

    One of the arguable negative aspects with “money”, is that it grants incentive to the narcissist/sociopath and manipulative control mind set to find a way to establish itself as the Central Control while getting the mass to both not understand what money is and to increase the scale of it’s use. Efficient forms of slavery do not require whips and chains.

    As it pertains to economics, one might wonder why any given significant mass would call for monetary economics to begin with as it is literally equal to a call of “WE WANT TO BE SLAVES!”

    David Graeber’s book “Debt: The First Five Thousand Years” speaks about the invention of money and its original purposes. From his research as an anthropologist he concludes that money was a way to ensure fair reciprocity between parties who do not trust one another. Originally, money was rarely used within communities themselves and mostly between communities of distance. In essence, it’s scale was kept limited.

    However, because “money” is an abstract, a literal psychological construct built on faith of a mass, it can easily lend itself to and incentivize manipulable “bad” actors of action (as prior noted).

    When a government says its coffers are low, so we must tighten our belts and accept a hundred million dollar cut to education. People are only thinking in numbers and are motivated to make the numbers look even. They aren’t given a full picture of where money is coming from or the mechanism(s) by which it is created (and it’s not created by the “rich” per say), where it is going to over all, what its actual impacts are, and they have no conception of scale. The government debt may be very low, but even a million dollars can look like an immense amount to a household that is making less than $50,000 a year.

    So let’s say governments can no longer talk in monetary numbers, but must speak in actualities. The government does not have enough material goods to build more warships. To gain those materials they decide to deprecate children’s schools. They must now tell the public: “We will be tearing down 1,000 schools and firing 30,000 teachers in order to have the materials to build warships.”
    The public may then ask, “how do we educate our children and how are former teachers to be fed?”
    To which the government would have to answer: “YOU will (or will not) teach your children and the former teachers will be left to starve.”
    The public can now move on to make much more of an informed conscious choice about their compliance with the government relative to their actual Moral set.

    With numbers you can hide all the potential consequences until it is too late. After the schools have been torn down it is very hard to get them back. A cunning government will of course select to destroy schools in areas where the people have little heard voice or power. Those who are used to being secure, will continue to feel secure and wonder what the more ghetto types are fussing about. Through media and else the controlling establishment can then give further incentive to the less disenfranchised to find ways to see more and more differences between those who are keeping their schools and those who are not, which then makes it easier for people to shut down their empathy and allow a growing have/have not divide.

    This brings to question, how to address issues of morality, notably within large scale communities that have been educated for generations to act in ignorance and/or toward their own narcissist and sociopathic benefit?

    Perhaps a first step is to not so much worry about fixing a world of others, but, as you seemed to imply in you writing, take some time for self reflection, recognition of environment actuality, and taking responsibility for one’s own actions. A second step, as you also seem to point, is where and when possible, calling others attention to or otherwise questioning “elephants in the room” as it were rather then just remaining passively compliant. When a house is on fire, one doesn’t simply ignore the fire or devote time to discussing the finer points of the most effective way to exit the house. They take action, alerting the others in the house to the best of their ability, and take to acting in concert with others in the house to evacuate while salvaging as much as they can.

    As I heard a friend put it recently, “GRAB THE LOG HISTORY! WE GOTTA GET OUTTA HERE!”
    or in other words, salvage the lessons we can and lets move on to doing something else.

    Personally, I remain optimistic and see your writing here as a part of that process of recognizing there’s an issue, calling attention to others that we gotta grab those logs for lesson review, and heading toward the nearest exit with readiness to do something else.

    Thanks for sharing…..

    where we came from is gone, where we thought we were going to weren’t never there, and where we are ain’t no good unless we can get away from it…..
    a glimpse at the logs indicate there seems to be an exit down the middle path there 🙂

    1. Al?
      How did you branch the Economy from Morality? I think there’s a society that you and I both want. That one seeks within; and there is the one we currently have, the one seeks out to space. We can’t put together the resources to launch rockets to Mars without financial tools. Barter worked locally in the beginning, but we scaled.

  3. “How did you branch the Economy from Morality?”
    -Lucinda Cheng

    Simply put, Energy Exchange only occurs with permission.
    As it regards conscious beings, permission may be coerced to some degree, but it none the less remains as an ultimate governing factor. One can not exchange conversational ideas or actions with a corpse.
    Subsequently, for economic activity between conscious beings, it is necessary that exchanges fall within value sets of the involved parties that remain within the boundaries of the parties willingness to co-operate.
    This value boundary set may be thought of both individually and party collectively as the “moral set”.

    some expanded idea on “values” here:

    “We can’t put together the resources to launch rockets to Mars without financial tools.”
    -Lucinda Cheng
    In economics, “Finance” may be regarded as synonymous with the meaning “The choice limits of energy exchange possible” within the any given economic (aka “energy exchange”) set.
    As applied to “monetary” economics, “finance” thus means literally. “The given choice limits of energy exchange possible as decided by the Central MASTER Control”.
    While finance always exist within economic systems, the need for the finance to be Central MASTER Control limited does not. The statement on sending rockets to Mars thus may hold some technical economic truth, but any derived implication that such finance must be beholden to monetary economics is a departure from such technical truth and a fallacy.

    A fallacy is a flawed argument, following which can lead to disastrous results. Consider the statements:
    a. Every member of the investigative team was an excellent researcher.
    b. It was an excellent investigative team.

    Here a fallacy of composition occurs when one infers (b) from (a).
    Rational Choice Theory, notably here as applied to monetary economics, contains this very problem and subsequently allows for money to be used as a weaponized tool of coercion on the morality of others.

    a. “aggregate social behavior results from the behavior of individual actors, each of whom is making their individual decisions”
    b. “aggregate social behavior” from (a) results in aggregate social behavior.

    In a world without values, who will grow the trees to provide the oxygen for everyone to breath, who will care for the insects that support the ecosystems, who will lift a finger to clean the oceans? If valuable aggregate social behavior is the self-ordering of humanity resulting in paradise on earth, destructive social behavior leads to neglect and eventual systemic collapse. Aggregate social behavior does not distinguish between the two, and the current trend is resulting in a collapse of social behavior aggregation. The reason for this is that rational choices between preferences more often than not support values for choosing ones’ preferences and compromise values that result in valuable social behaviors. A possible solution is a social network that amplifies and motivates (not so coerced) values-based-behavior. However, to understand why the daily psychological sleight of mind must be completely clear.

    Imagine a poor man deciding whether to buy work clothes for a job interview, or bread for his starving family.

    The equation reads:
    B *=* W =* n$* = mB

    B *=* W represents the choice between bread and work clothes.

    W =* n$ represents the knowledge of the cost of the clothes.

    n$* = mB represents the amount of bread the man could buy with the price-money of the work clothes.

    No one would argue that such decisions repeated over time would create a society: a civilization of people trained to reduce their decisions to simple money-calculations, where the bottom line is always available and indeed called rational by the leading political-economy. In order to recognize what we have lost, and having an appreciation for the complexity of a type theoretical world, we can consider some examples that expand value to more inclusive categories than exchange price.

    Semantic Values are words, whose meaning is gained through evaluation over the contexts of the expressions (grammar, social, body language, tonality). Ethical Values are words, whose meaning has contextual behaviors associated with them, of which the ascription to others influences and encourages said behaviors. Emotional Values are phenomena explicitly not interpreted by a semantic network, so that the users of the network have the capacity for enigmatic discourse. Now considering all of these potentialities, the central reason money as an organizing mechanism leads to evil is that it requires us to compromise values and reinforces us to prefer preferring, rather than considering how we could act ethically, that is at least in ways we would like to be treated. Instead, the work-clothes vs. bread argument will show that by following the mainstream of money-society, we choose evil because it is easier, not because it is natural. We are all poor: impoverished for shared values that would enrich our lives beyond imagination. In this sense, the meek shall inherit the earth.

    The result of a society fueled and fueling money as the organizing apparatus lends itself to the compromise of one’s values with every exchange. Again, as prior noted, efficient forms of slavery do not require whips and chains.
    The diagram found here:

    shows how in seeking a money-ordered society, we sacrifice our potential to order based on what really matters. The value in question is family, and here is shown what happens to this man’s conception of family as he decides between feeding his family, or a chance to support them. Further examples of value-perversion within the box describing family offer insights into why we humans don’t do better, despite our capacity to do so.

    On the left is the values he sacrifices in considering buying work clothes and clocking in. On the right are the values he appropriates in the rational decision. The intersections do not represent intersections of values, but categories in themselves: justifications and excuses. These become supported values.

    Assuming he will buy the clothes, he must excuse the suffering of his family with ideas like “struggle makes strong” or “this will be better in the long run”, so while family well being is his goal, it is also a value that he has sacrificed or compromised. Now instead of simply focusing on family well being, he has a host of excuses which he must justify with statements like “family first” or “you have to be cruel to be kind”, however in truth family has now become second to monetary finance. While it is a supported value, its place is as a justification and not a thing-in-itself.

    Values don’t just guide our behavior, they also inform our enjoyment (“I really value that”). This explains why money cannot buy happiness, because its current usage as the main organizing paradigm compromises the capacity to enjoy commodities at every level. So those who seek a good life beyond thrill-seeking have the most to gain by engaging in their uncoerced moral values.

    “Barter worked locally in the beginning, but we scaled.”
    This last statement makes some big assumptions, notably as it regards the organizing of societal history WITH OUT coercion.
    Who and what is the “We” being mentioned on scaling?
    From whence is this “We” derived?

    It may be noted, that the “Nation State” was a forward progression of the previous existing greco “City State”. So is the “We” a reference to greco-roman and/or cannanite hierarchical “civilization”?

  4. In lieu of events of later May 2020, I’d like add some comments for clarity.

    The espoused philosophies of Robert Anton Wilson were the furthest thing from my mind at the time that picture was taken. There was no particular philosopher or philosophy on my mind at the time. While I do not mind the picture being used, I’d like it to be made clear that the original comment of “Al Nesby, spiting out Robert Anton Wilson level of truth to Robert’s research subject at Occupy Denver 2011” is of the article author’s own invention.

    Secondly, while the author was contacted regarding what the pictured incident was all about, I am leaving it to their own discretion on if they would like to speak of what was explained or not. As per myself, my preference is toward speaking with my arts. As such, what is featured during the first hour a broadcast I conducted on Friday, May 29, 2020, I feel speaks sufficiently to both the current time (as of this writing) as well as to what was occurring in the past during the time the picture was taken.
    and alternately

  5. My spouse and I stumbled over here coming from a different page and thought I might as well check things out. I like what I see so now i am following you. Look forward to exploring your web page again.|

  6. I just couldn’t go away your site before suggesting that I extremely loved the standard information a person supply on your guests? Is gonna be back frequently to inspect new posts|

  7. Nice post. I was checking constantly this blog and I am impressed! Very useful info specifically the last part 🙂 I care for such info much. I was looking for this particular info for a very long time. Thank you and good luck.|

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: