Chipougne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...
> And as Sawfish aptly pointed out, the subject is,
> after all, finite.


But is the subject really finite? Does not Smith's writings get wider and deeper, the more wisdom a reader has? Or is it boundaried to transient entertainment?

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chipougne Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...
> > And as Sawfish aptly pointed out, the subject
> is,
> > after all, finite.
>
>
> But is the subject really finite? Does not Smith's
> writings get wider and deeper, the more wisdom a
> reader has? Or is it boundaried to transient
> entertainment?

There are many fascinating and stimulating points being made in this thread, but as a young'n striving to escape the stifling influence of his parents, I feel it best to read and learn from you all before making any of my own statements on the matter.

This, however, is definitely something I can discuss. My girlfriend and I, both of the millennial generation, enjoy discussing Smith's work from time to time. With our rabbit-hole imaginations and our shared desire to learn and feel, it is difficult to exhaust any subject. In Smith we can discuss matters of art, history, science, sentiment, morality, fantasy, reality, beauty, ugliness, people, monsters, etc. With her I found stories I previously neglected, such as The Gorgon and A Voyage to Sfanomoë, to be deeply personal favorites. So from my own experience, nothing of substance can be exhausted; it's just unfortunate that the usual crowd isn't very interested in pursuing things so deeply or passionately.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 13 May 19 | 10:17PM by Yluos.

First, I would say that, while there are certainly pieces by Smith which fall into that category, there is a considerable amount which, like all worthwhile art, does indeed grow with the reader. It may not be truly infinite in its possibilities, but I think that, the more we see genuine scholarly work and interpretation of various aspects of his work done, it is likely as close to that as we are going to find.

Second: Sawfish, I quite understand that point of view, and have subscribed to it most of my life... and to some extent, still do. However... I sense an awakening that may well turn that around. It has only just begun making itself evident, so it may be too early to judge, but I think we have a better chance than I would have given us a few years ago. As for the elite colleges... I think HPL put that one in perspective when he remarked on how inspissated these "best people" often were. Just because a school has such a reputation, and is difficult to get into, and may indeed be academically excellent, is absolutely no guarantee of it being worthwhile in the arena we are discussing. That quality is as likely to be found in a "cow college" as the highest of the ivy leagues, as it has little to do with the sorts of academic concerns the latter emphasize.

I thank you for the suggestion, and will look it up. Yes, I recall the event very well (at least, as well as is likely over such a span of time, when I was quite young at that point), and would be very interested in seeing the documentary. Again, on a related note, I had a little news item about the "shrinking moon" and moonquakes pop up on my screen today and, in looking up the most accurate source for information on the actual facts, went to the NASA site. That the moon is shrinking is hardly news; that moonquakes occur even less so. But the piece they had there ended with the note that, by 2024 they plan on landing the first woman on the moon, and shortly thereafter establishing sustainable lunar travel, extending outward from there before mid-century. They are looking forward to expanding our horizons, and that is still an idea which can motivate a lot of people. I think, from my experience and reading, that there is a growing number who are dissatisfied with the situation you describe, and who are looking for viable, creative, and constructive solutions to it. That is a part of the pattern I'm beginning to see emerge. If I am right, it's going to take a long while (trite as the saying is, destruction is easy; construction is quite another thing altogether) but, again, I have hope. I'm unlikely to live to see a lot of it (though I'd love to be proven wrong on that), but it really does seem a growing number of people are looking for something better, something which fills that gap that Jung spoke of, if in a way different from the traditional. I think that is something we would both fervently like to see.

Thanks for the thoughtful, cogent reply.

You related an anecdote about some young people who came into the bookstore in which you worked, and that you had overheard the expressed thoughts of these young people, and that these expressed thoughts were encouraging.

I have no doubt that such individuals exist, but I'd resist ascribing this to the broad demographic. I'd contend that the fact that they had come into your store, voluntarily, means that they are essentially pre-filtered--that they do not represent their peer group in any real sense. You were overhearing the imaginative dreamers of their cohort. I'd identify Yluos and his girlfriend, with their affinity for art and inquiry, to be among this number. This is to say, they are part of a shrinking minority, not a growing groundswell. And they may ask themselves: do we feel part of something much larger that's emerging, or do we feel like a remnant of a previous time, a pair of throwbacks to an earlier era?

Knygatin identifies the multitude of information sources that seem to make knowledge democratic, and hence makes it difficult to sustain a corrupt status quo. My personal questions are: by what assurance do we feel that the information is accurate? If we cannot assure the accuracy and impartiality of the source--and I don't see how we can--this makes it essential that each individual is educated to the methods skeptical inquiry--which is a hell of a lot of work, not to be untaken lightly except by those who enjoy the critical exercise--so as to objectively qualify all of this wealth of information, and yet I see the opposite: I see a willingness to adopt information based not on individual analysis, but on the trustworthiness of the purveyor of the information. In internet terms, did you "like" the source? Does the information therefore feel like it *ought* to be true? If you did, why then, by God!, the information is valid! If you didn't "like" them, then it's false.

I see this *all* the time.

So instead of liberating the masses, it is as I had postulated earlier: the masses are being manipulated by any self-serving and charismatic person, passing as a leader of sorts. And in a way we're worse off than before the information deluge. Before, at least we understood that we did not see the entire picture. Now, we still do not see it, but we fervently believe that we *do*.

But, as always, these are only my opinions, and I could be wrong...

:^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with jdworth that there is certainly no
> lack of good young individuals today. Many are
> very keenly intellectual, and potentially
> brilliant. Both in literature and art, ... and
> also in politics, much thanks to the Internet
> which gives them a chance to get in underneath and
> analyze rigid and corrupt political systems. And
> there is now a fast political awakening, that
> wasn't possible a few decades ago when information
> came to the people vertically, from top and down,
> selectively screened by those in political office
> and by the owners of newspapers and TV to suit
> their own long-term interests. Today, with the
> Internet, information flows horizontally, the
> spread is phenomenal, and every citizen has
> potential access to a vast amount of information.
> The political system becomes more translucent than
> it was before, its faults and potential corruption
> are more difficult to hide. So we may just have an
> upcoming revolution in the making (against those I
> describe in the next paragraph). Things are
> beginning to topple. Or else, if we fail, we will
> be completely subdued.
>
> It's not the people that is the problem. People
> today are pretty much the same as they were a
> century ago (they may even have taken a few
> evolutionary steps forward genetically). The
> PROBLEM is that the masses (most of which live
> rather mundane, materialistic, and
> non-intellectual lives, mostly enjoying down to
> earth common pleasures) are corrupted into
> decadence by those who manage vast amounts of
> money, who own and shape the multinational
> corporations market, the financial institutions
> and banks including the Federal Reserve, all the
> established media houses and the entertainment
> 'Hollywood' industry, and they select and finance
> the politicians for the "democracy" elections. One
> may say they have TOTAL control over society, over
> economy, politics, law, the military, ... even
> manipulating our culture and values to conform
> submissively under their control; in short, we are
> turned into uninformed consumers slaves. It is all
> well-nigh too horrible and unbearable for most
> intelligent people to even think about. But if we
> are able to endure Smith's and Lovecraft's cosmic
> abysmal horrors, I think we can handle and stand
> up firmly against this living perversity too.
> John F. Kennedy here describes this elite group:
> John F. Kennedy speech. The speech in full
> version: John F. Kennedy speech, Full version
>
> Anyhow, in keeping with good debate-climate, this
> is my personal view on matters.


Thanks for the links.

I viewed/read the full version, and would note that the speech, itself, was an eloquent call to both the government and the press to act in a cooperative and responsible manner as regards their respective functions in the public interest. It was a call for compromise.

I cannot even conceive that such a speech, with its appeals to the common good and not to fragmented social segments and interests, could be given, nor would anyone take it seriously, thinking it hopelessly naive and anchored to the status quo, or to the sin-laden past.

It really is a different world, today.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps I was not clear in my earlier posts in drawing the distinction I had intended. The story I mentioned was by no means the basis on which I have come to my present conclusions (always open to change given evidence), but merely a personal anecdote which the discussion reminded me of and which was related to what I was saying. What has made me shift my opinions is rather a growing number of polls (scientific and otherwise) which indicates such a groundswell is indeed taking place, but it is currently in its early stages. It could, of course, collapse. It could take the wrong path to clear this up and make things worse. Or it could, just maybe, succeed in helping to clear away some of this; enough to make even more people aware how much better things can be for them on multiple levels if they also take a different path.

What you refer to in the majority of your post is simply "confirmation bias", and is something we are all humanly prone to.
That is what has always made it difficult for people to change their minds on things, particularly if it is what is called a "core value", something which has become so important in someone's belief system that it is (emotionally, at least) tied in with their own self-image and self-esteem, their Weltanschauung, that the very idea of altering that belief becomes alien, threatening to their personal integrity, on one or more levels. What helps to combat that, is that it has become more and more recognized as a common trait to us all, whether it is linked to the so-called "Dunning-Kruger effect" or some other psychological term, and therefore one should use extreme caution in going with such a "gut" response. After all, one of the things we've learned as we've gone along is that much of what we thought of as "common sense", or obviously right about the world and universe around us is simply the result of our evolving in an environment which does not obviously exhibit much of the minute causes underlying apparent phenomena, at least to a species with our sensory equipment -- something which itself evolved slowly, haltingly, in just efficient enough a manner to allow us to survive to this stage, but with no guarantee that we would make it any further. Whether we do or not may well depend on our ability to utilize our higher brain functions to go beyond what we might call the "usual senses" upon which we have relied throughout most of our history, and combine the two to understand our environment (and this includes the environment we have forged through whatever means, including legal and political, which is why these things, to me, really have taken on an importance I was initially thoroughly disinclined to give them, for a multitude of reasons) and adapt to it in one form or another.

Part of that environment that we have, so far, neglected to come to terms with (though we were making some strides in that direction during the 1960s, 70s, and early 80s, and in some circles are still making such strides, though the news of these has largely been shunted aside in favor of more "sensational" news which also tends to be more simple-minded and easier to convey or understand, relying on aforementioned mental preconditioning) is our mental environment, recognizing it (the so-called "spiritual", for lack of a better term, being a large part of it) as a vital part of our functioning as human beings... or, as evidence begins to mount, any kind of sentient being. (See the research which has been done on the similarities between various other animals and ourselves, including many species having some form of a sense of fairness or "justice"; empathy; a number of emotions including genuine grief, etc. Some of this is actually quite revolutionary to normal thought, and yet the more sophisticated tools and techniques which we are now able to use makes it very hard to dismiss the results as bias on the part of the researchers, many of whom went into the field believing the exact opposite of that they found their results to indicate.) Ensuring our survival and ability to continue to adapt to an environment which, because of our growing awareness of things which would have seemed quite impossible to earlier generations as not only possible, but genuinely having existed all around us without our being aware of them, is going to require such shifts in thought, most importantly perhaps being the acceptance of our mental life as being an absolutely necessary part of our physical existence. This is going to be a very, very long road, taking (assuming we give ourselves what we need to survive that long) millennia at least... but it is my firm conviction, after much consideration, that making that shift is inevitably tied into said survival for much longer.

Fortunately, as I noted, I am seeing a growing number of pieces of evidence -- disparate and by no means always easy to find; much of what I have found has been happenstance, and scattered throughout a wide variety of sources, from differing parts of the spectrum -- which indicates that such a thing just may be taking place; quietly and slowly at first (after all, it is a nascent field of study/thought, at least within the larger realm rather than the mystic or poetically inclined), but growing, as more people become aware of how shallow their lives are in comparison with what is simply waiting for them to investigate it. I do agree, however, that (and this is part of my complaint against our educational system, which has by and large failed abysmally on this count) one of the primary keys to this process is the ability to think critically, and sift information with some degree of acumen. But, as I noted (I hope, cogently enough) this seems to be emerging alongside this shift. It isn't entirely successful, as the current rise of such things as "flat-eartherism" or other long-exploded beliefs indicates; but it does seem to be gaining ground. Took me a long time to come around to that view... but I'm getting there.

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps I was not clear in my earlier posts in
> drawing the distinction I had intended. The story
> I mentioned was by no means the basis on which I
> have come to my present conclusions (always open
> to change given evidence), but merely a personal
> anecdote which the discussion reminded me of and
> which was related to what I was saying. What has
> made me shift my opinions is rather a growing
> number of polls (scientific and otherwise) which
> indicates such a groundswell is indeed taking
> place, but it is currently in its early stages. It
> could, of course, collapse. It could take the
> wrong path to clear this up and make things worse.
> Or it could, just maybe, succeed in helping to
> clear away some of this; enough to make even more
> people aware how much better things can be for
> them on multiple levels if they also take a
> different path.

If you are willing could you point to an example of the social change that may be a part of the groundswell to which you refer?

I'll make it clear and honest: we may disagree, but I will respect your opinions as well-informed and thoughtful. I enjoy exchanges in which there is mutual respect shown.

>
> What you refer to in the majority of your post is
> simply "confirmation bias", and is something we
> are all humanly prone to.

Very possible. I try to forcibly keep an open mind, but being a human, it has its inherent limitations.

> That is what has always made it difficult for
> people to change their minds on things,
> particularly if it is what is called a "core
> value", something which has become so important in
> someone's belief system that it is (emotionally,
> at least) tied in with their own self-image and
> self-esteem, their Weltanschauung, that the very
> idea of altering that belief becomes alien,
> threatening to their personal integrity, on one or
> more levels. What helps to combat that, is that it
> has become more and more recognized as a common
> trait to us all, whether it is linked to the
> so-called "Dunning-Kruger effect" or some other
> psychological term, and therefore one should use
> extreme caution in going with such a "gut"
> response.

All fine, so far, but I will let you know that for the better part of my life I tended to disavow the existence of intuition ("gut") as a pseudo-sense that may have some value in life;I thought it was superstitious self-delusion. I've come gradually to the belief that what is called intuition, or "gut" is an evolved ability to sense minor social signals, almost subliminally, and to be presented with a non-verbal evaluation.

At a certain point I began to do business-type negotiations, and it was during this period that I came to be aware that my "gut" was seldom wrong in detecting nervousness, anxiety, considered falsehood, etc., on the part of those with whom I was negotiating. So I've come to not only recognize it as an attribute, but to value it in certain situations.


> After all, one of the things we've
> learned as we've gone along is that much of what
> we thought of as "common sense",

We need to carefully distinguish "common sense" from "common knowledge". They are vastly different.

> or obviously
> right about the world and universe around us is
> simply the result of our evolving in an
> environment which does not obviously exhibit much
> of the minute causes underlying apparent
> phenomena, at least to a species with our sensory
> equipment -- something which itself evolved
> slowly, haltingly, in just efficient enough a
> manner to allow us to survive to this stage, but
> with no guarantee that we would make it any
> further. Whether we do or not may well depend on
> our ability to utilize our higher brain functions
> to go beyond what we might call the "usual senses"
> upon which we have relied throughout most of our
> history, and combine the two to understand our
> environment (and this includes the environment we
> have forged through whatever means, including
> legal and political, which is why these things, to
> me, really have taken on an importance I was
> initially thoroughly disinclined to give them, for
> a multitude of reasons) and adapt to it in one
> form or another.

This seemed a bit divergent, but what I'm getting seems like "common knowledge". This is the sum of all commonly collected observed phenomena and its interpretation by the vast majority of the society.

So, "All gypsies steal," is such common knowledge, but it's a flawed or exaggerated assumption that can be disproven by finding only one honest gypsy. And just to make things complicated, there most certainly are valid instances of common knowledge. But valid or invalid, it is essentially argument from authority, not independently arrived at.

"Common sense" is a personal extrapolation of inductive logic: "I've seen a cow jump when it touches this fence, and therefore I believe I would be hurt if I touch it." It's an attempt to circumscribe the effects of a newly encountered phenomenon or situation in terms of empirical knowledge, to the degree that it exists. It *is* independently arrived at, and is often ad hoc.

So yep, I do not trust common knowledge without independent verification. I frequently trust my own common sense.

>
> Part of that environment that we have, so far,
> neglected to come to terms with (though we were
> making some strides in that direction during the
> 1960s, 70s, and early 80s, and in some circles are
> still making such strides, though the news of
> these has largely been shunted aside in favor of
> more "sensational" news which also tends to be
> more simple-minded and easier to convey or
> understand, relying on aforementioned mental
> preconditioning) is our mental environment,
> recognizing it (the so-called "spiritual", for
> lack of a better term, being a large part of it)
> as a vital part of our functioning as human
> beings... or, as evidence begins to mount, any
> kind of sentient being. (See the research which
> has been done on the similarities between various
> other animals and ourselves, including many
> species having some form of a sense of fairness or
> "justice"; empathy; a number of emotions including
> genuine grief, etc. Some of this is actually quite
> revolutionary to normal thought, and yet the more
> sophisticated tools and techniques which we are
> now able to use makes it very hard to dismiss the
> results as bias on the part of the researchers,
> many of whom went into the field believing the
> exact opposite of that they found their results to
> indicate.) Ensuring our survival and ability to
> continue to adapt to an environment which, because
> of our growing awareness of things which would
> have seemed quite impossible to earlier
> generations as not only possible, but genuinely
> having existed all around us without our being
> aware of them, is going to require such shifts in
> thought, most importantly perhaps being the
> acceptance of our mental life as being an
> absolutely necessary part of our physical
> existence. This is going to be a very, very long
> road, taking (assuming we give ourselves what we
> need to survive that long) millennia at least...
> but it is my firm conviction, after much
> consideration, that making that shift is
> inevitably tied into said survival for much
> longer.

A lot of what you are raising seems related to the thoughts of Depak Chopra, and his ideas of consciousness.

>
> Fortunately, as I noted, I am seeing a growing
> number of pieces of evidence -- disparate and by
> no means always easy to find;

...and hopefully this evidence is not merely more formally constructed confirmation bias, as in the SRI parapsychology studies of the 1970s...

[en.wikipedia.org]

And of course, when one obtains one's information from studies, one must always make certain that one is not indulging in one's own level of confirmation bias in accepting the results of the study. Another name for this is "evidence shopping".

> much of what I have
> found has been happenstance, and scattered
> throughout a wide variety of sources, from
> differing parts of the spectrum -- which indicates
> that such a thing just may be taking place;
> quietly and slowly at first (after all, it is a
> nascent field of study/thought, at least within
> the larger realm rather than the mystic or
> poetically inclined), but growing, as more people
> become aware of how shallow their lives are in
> comparison with what is simply waiting for them to
> investigate it.

Some actual, or even hypothetical concrete examples would be helpful here.


> I do agree, however, that (and
> this is part of my complaint against our
> educational system, which has by and large failed
> abysmally on this count) one of the primary keys
> to this process is the ability to think
> critically, and sift information with some degree
> of acumen.

By definition, this is unlikely to happen in a broad-based public education system because such systems must rely on the support of the community, and must therefore make an attempt to reflect its values, such as they are.

So I'm saying that while it may be good policy to hire teachers who understand and teach critical thinking skills, if this does not sit well with the public, it will not happen consistently, nor for very long.

> But, as I noted (I hope, cogently
> enough) this seems to be emerging alongside this
> shift.

If this is happening on a significant scale, I've not seen it. I *have* seen examples of critical thinking taught (and practiced by students) in fairly insular communities, however. For example, just as their are private schools that teach Creationism and the existence of divinity with no robust and repeatable independent proof (essentially arguments from authority), there are also schools that teach problem solving based on the scientific method, on dialectics, and on a fair level of historical inquiry in literary readings.

>It isn't entirely successful, as the
> current rise of such things as "flat-eartherism"
> or other long-exploded beliefs indicates; but it
> does seem to be gaining ground. Took me a long
> time to come around to that view... but I'm
> getting there.

Where is the "there"?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > John F. Kennedy here describes this elite
> group:
> > John F. Kennedy speech. The speech in full
> > version: John F. Kennedy speech, Full version

>
>
> Thanks for the links.
>
> I viewed/read the full version, and would note
> that the speech, itself, was an eloquent call to
> both the government and the press to act in a
> cooperative and responsible manner as regards
> their respective functions in the public interest.
> It was a call for compromise.
>
> I cannot even conceive that such a speech, with
> its appeals to the common good and not to
> fragmented social segments and interests, could be
> given, nor would anyone take it seriously,
> thinking it hopelessly naive and anchored to the
> status quo, or to the sin-laden past.
>
> It really is a different world, today.


Naive, well yes, his appeal to the press here seems naive, JFK perhaps not fully realizing that the secret global society of which he warns actually owns the press itself.

Having reviewed both links again, I think JFK's important message that I referred to, is drowned in the full version's general lengthy appeal for honesty in news coverage to the American Newspapers Publishers Association. The specific message (captured in the short version link) is a small seed of revelation that he dares to plant within the speech as a whole.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Knygatin Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > John F. Kennedy here describes this elite
> > group:
> > > John F. Kennedy speech. The speech in full
> > > version: John F. Kennedy speech, Full version
>
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the links.
> >
> > I viewed/read the full version, and would note
> > that the speech, itself, was an eloquent call
> to
> > both the government and the press to act in a
> > cooperative and responsible manner as regards
> > their respective functions in the public
> interest.
> > It was a call for compromise.
> >
> > I cannot even conceive that such a speech, with
> > its appeals to the common good and not to
> > fragmented social segments and interests, could
> be
> > given, nor would anyone take it seriously,
> > thinking it hopelessly naive and anchored to
> the
> > status quo, or to the sin-laden past.
> >
> > It really is a different world, today.
>
>
> Naive, well yes, his appeal to the press here
> seems naive,

Not at the time, in my opinion. It would be viewed as naive *today*. I was not clear enough in my original comment.

You recall those times, surely, and the general trust of authority that eroded after Vietnam and Watergate.

> JFK perhaps not fully realizing that
> the secret global society of which he warns
> actually owns the press itself.
>
> Having reviewed both links again, I think JFK's
> important message that I referred to, is drowned
> in the full version's general lengthy appeal for
> honesty in news coverage to the American
> Newspapers Publishers Association. The specific
> message (captured in the short version link) is a
> small seed of revelation that he dares to plant
> within the speech as a whole.


Having read the entire speech, I find that I must disagree with your assessment that the main theme of it was to expose a cabal of manipulators. He mentions control over public information in the context of our opponents in he Cold War, and this was not directed at the American press, but rather was used as a contrast to it. The main thrust of the speech was to ask the US press to exercise restraint when reporting sensitive details of US policy and technology. In return, he promised to make information from US agencies more free and open. That was what the speech was all about: recent leaks of information to the East Bloc, by the US press, was the reason for the speech.

I also do not believe that looking at only a selected part of a speech or written piece, pulling certain parts out of context and estranging them from the general theme, is a sound way to gain valid information. Since he raised the spectre of controlled access to information to the public by press agenices (and here was was referring to TASS and Pravda, most likely), it seems fair to discuss that general concept, but he was not warning about secret manipulators of WESTERN information. He referred to the East Bloc, and basically said "We're not like that, but we have to exercise some common sense in what we publicize.".

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Having read the entire speech, I find that I must
> disagree with your assessment ... He
> mentions control over public information in the
> context of our opponents in he Cold War, and this
> was not directed at the American press, but rather
> was used as a contrast to it. The main thrust of
> the speech was to ask the US press to exercise
> restraint when reporting sensitive details of US
> policy and technology. In return, he promised to
> make information from US agencies more free and
> open. That was what the speech was all about:
> recent leaks of information to the East Bloc, by
> the US press, was the reason for the speech. ...
> Since he raised the
> spectre of controlled access to information to the
> public by press agenices (and here was was
> referring to TASS and Pravda, most likely), it
> seems fair to discuss that general concept, but he
> was not warning about secret manipulators of
> WESTERN information. He referred to the East Bloc,
> and basically said "We're not like that, but we
> have to exercise some common sense in what we
> publicize.".


I did not mean to linger too long over this particular subject, but I feel it is important to the understanding of our current situation in society. I have once again reviewed Kennedy's speech, this time in the written document: John F. Kennedy's speech, April 27, 1961.

Although he is asking the Press to restrain publication of sensitive information about America, he also calls for more public information. And I don't think he is referring to Russia, the East Bloc, or communist spies, neither does he mention those in the speech, (and anti-communist propaganda in the newspapers was already bombarding the population), when he says:


"I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. ... Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. ...

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations."


Kennedy was opposed to the New World Order, world wide control by a single covert society. This speech was held on April 27, 1961. On June 4, 1963, John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110 to expel the private bankers from The Federal Reserve Bank. Shortly after that he was assassinated. This executive order was never executed, and the private bankers still own and control the US Federal Reserve Bank. (Its very name 'Federal' was originally conceitedly given by its private originators, to give it a sham appearance of being a State bank in the service of the people.)

But regardless of Kennedy's speech, I think it is quite clear how money rules the world today, how commercialism of the multinational corporations control economy, politics, and consumption; in short, they control our lives. That is my convinced opinion.

He who seeks, will find. If anyone is further interested in this subject, I would suggest for introduction the lucid documentary about fractional-reserve banking The Money Lenders, or perhaps the book The Web of Debt.
Otherwise I think you should just stay away from it, because it can be depressing, and there isn't much we ordinary mortals can do about it.

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

Pardon me if this response is offtopic but I needed to get your attention, since it's been years since you've been accessible on SFFC and I've been a bit worried if you were okay.

This is David, from SFFC.

I humbly apologise to the Eldritch Dark mods, I've not seen any option for private messages. I'm not trying to be a spammer and have stuff to contribute, honest >_>