January 7, 2018
Posted by on
My friend Jiun just posed one of the most amazing suggestions to me today that I have ever heard. I was completely floored and had to sit down and catch my breath.
He suggested that the fruit offered to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the so-called apple (although that designation seems to be fake news–we still do not know exactly what fruit it was) on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was planted there by God as a set up for humans. It was the first false flag operation made to snare humanity into joining the fallen world. Something like luring the Japanese into bombing Pearl Harbor, perhaps?
I admit it is a bit far fetched, even disrespectful to the Almighty, but what a conspiracy theory!
“Had Adam not eaten from the “Tree of Knowledge”, he wouldn’t be discerning to be able to separate right & wrong.
Thus, he did not listen to God, and ate the “Forbidden fruit”.
Didn’t God basically set him, a trap, from which he could never escape?”
December 31, 2017
Posted by on
I remember when I watched the United States launched spacecraft to the Moon on television as a child. The process of preparation was shown for hours with occasional commentary by scientists and experts. There was no thrilling gossip by overpaid TV personalities or attempts to spice up the story with exclusive interviews “behind the scenes.” The entire point of the reporting was to present the facts in an accessible manner to the public. People had the patience to listen to the complex narrative because the systematic pursuit of facts, and science had value. Now all that tradition has been washed away by an obsession with the self, and by an appeal to immediate satisfaction.
December 10, 2017
Posted by on
If we look at the election, it is clear that a space emerged for Trump (and his inventers Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer) to address the needs of workers, who were largely white, in a manner democrats could not. Trump could give a talk in Detroit saying that he would stop the import of foreign cars, his “American first” economic nationalism. No Democrat could give that sort of a speech because although they are committed to ethnic diversity, they are not interested in class issues and do not care about ordinary workers, black or white. At least Trump appealed to whites.
The anti-globalization left thought that having Trump (supported by the anti-globalization right) would mean that the false face covering up American imperialism would be torn off (which would be healthy) and that he was not looking to start new wars, or to expand in the Middle East. Of course Trump made statements, probably sincere, that he wanted to eat a hamburger with Kim Jung Eun and that US policy in the middle East, starting with the invasion of Iraq in 1992 was all mistaken.
Sadly, Trump is a political amateur and had no network at all in the military industrial complex. He was very quickly captured and put in a cage, reading off a script written up by the far right.
But those “conservative” flavor of globalists basically speak the same way to Goldman Sachs or to Lockeed Martin as do left wing globalists (like Clinton, or for that matter Sanders). But in their appeal to ordinary citizens they stress Christian values, patriotism, a strong defense and law and order. Clinton would speak to her audience more in terms of “diversity” “opportunity” and “innovation.” But the fundamental interests are basically the same for both groups, granted the Democrats take more money from Hollywood and media, from biopharmaceutical, and from specialized investement banks whereas the Republicans take more from fossil fuel companies, defense contractors and retailers and providers.
there are certain poses of a strong and confident leader that are essential to be a Republican politician that are just visually offensive to diversity Democrats. Democrats have to look like they are participatory, not strong leaders barking orders like a lieutenant or a preacher.
We should not mistake that show for the actual nature of power and money relations.
But although these Republican politicians want to give a message of “America first” they cannot say no to investment banks that fund them and cannot come out against free trade even though their followers want them to.
Steve Bannon and Trump found a weak point here and are pushing symbolic acts of economic nationalism as a way of carving out a separate party within the Republican party which is a union of globalists with other priorities than the Washington consensus with anti-globalist right wingers who want immigrants out and blacks and Jews back in their place.
In current American politics, since 20000, the political parties, and the government itself, is perceived by Americans in general, and especially the right wing as innately hostile to the people.
Yet question of how to respond to the alienation citizens from politics and government that expressed in the media and in political discourse phrased in rather complicated and contradictory ways.
The odd political debate is often an interference pattern of the perspective of the three distinct political ideologies described who are in a fierce three-way fight which is never discussed in the media. The three groups, in alternation, pair up with each other, or confront each other, in an unending cycle that confuses anyone thinking in terms of left vs. right.
For the original essay see
November 3, 2017
Posted by on
Stephen Jenkinson gives a profound talk about climate change that suggests something beyond self-hatred and self-deception.
I found it extremely useful.
I was also very frustrated by the manner in which Josh Fox suggests in his movie
How to Let Go of the World and Love All The Things Climate Can’t Change
that there is a philosophical way of finding something, some love, in underlying moral principles beneath the overwhelming present moment. But he does not ultimately present any that are convincing to me.
Jenkinson, however, makes some very thoughtful remarks, reminding us that at this stage the question is spiritual, not simply technical.
He makes quite a few striking statements. Here are a few
“not one organism needs humans”
The EArth has its own logic and order to it, and creatures will return to the Earth long after we are gone. We are but a passing phase and our greatest flaw is our assumption that somehow we are unique as creatures.
“the enemy of grief is hope”
Jenkinson suggests. like Clive Hamilton, that the idea of hope keeps us from being aware of the present and grieving for our experience in an honest manner.
“hope is inherently intolerant of the present. We must be hope-free”
October 28, 2017
Posted by on
I watched the movie Coherence (2013) tonight with tremendous interest. It relates the tale of four couples who find themselves in a cabin in the woods at the time that a comet passes nearby. The comet disrupts space-time, leading to the creation of multiple versions of each person. The different characters then mix with each other, creating tremendous chaos which only deepens with each moment of choice.
I think that the movie was effective because it was a good representation of the radical fragmentation that is taking place in our own society, and around the world, at the same time.
The results are a confusion about information, truth and falsehood. The results from the reproduction and manipulation of information. But not all of that is done by evil people, the shift is more fundamental.
But the confusion is also spiritual and it is also about identity. As things are reproduced so easily and images and words drop in value to be almost worthless, our own identity as humans is called into question. And that is not all. This confusion of replication is taking place precisely at the same time (by accident, or perhaps not) that technology is allowing us to reproduce ourselves and systems of supercomputers are essentially taking over the world.
Oddly, some still cling to this idea that we are looking at a new cold war, or a new world war, but what if it is a conflict between banks of supercomputers around the world, struggling with each other in obscure ways related to currency, current and identity.
We find ourselves in uncharted territory and if the question is what will happen to us, perhaps the most important question of all is: “what do you mean by ‘us?'”
October 26, 2017
Posted by on
I studied at National Taiwan University 1985-1986 for my junior year abroad as an exchange student in the Department of Chinese. It was a turning point in my life. This is my student ID from that period. Not that only my Chinese name is featured and that I am a waijisheng 外籍生。