This is Gnostic Media Research & Publishing’s Podcast episode #158 Iâm your host, Jan Irvin.
This episode is with an interview with Clint Richardson, titled âA World Without Grayâ and is being released on Sunday, February 24, 2013. This interview with Clint was was recorded on Thursday, February 21, 2013.
Our first episode for 5 weeks due to technical issues. Thanks for hanging in there.
Clint Richardson is back for his 5th time. This time I was to be on his show: A World Without Gray, but over frustration at his radio station, 5 minutes into our interview he quit. So we moved the interview to my show. So we ended up interviewing each other and just had a general conversation. Here we discuss smart technology and many other topics.
A protégé of Walter Burian, Clint Richardson is back for his fourth installment on the CAFR, or Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Clint has been on previously to discuss his videos The Corporation Nation, Lethal Injection, and his investigation of my own local School District, CAFR SCHOOL: RIM of the World Unified School District Expose. Clint has what I consider the most important information out there today on our economy and how it actually functions.
A former Hollywood sound designer and musician, a crisis of conscious led him to begin researching, writing, and eventually producing primary research documentaries exposing the very research that Hollywood is designed to hide from the masses. Now unable to work in his industry of study (for this Hollywood betrayal), Clint applies his professional sound talent and newly learned video skills, as well as a devotion to first-hand, primary research and writing, to contribute to the âWaking Upâ of the population at large. His credo⊠expose âthemâ until they dispose of him.
Clintâs Documentaries include:
The Corporation Nation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkfMuvVuETQ
The Corporation Nation 2: The Great Pension Fund Hoax: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhkWueEjewM
Lethal Injection: The Story of Vaccines http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UioC6ARoLEM
And the CAFR School series.
Other links to Clint:
http://realitybloger.wordpress.com
Video version:
Audio Version:
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:26:20 — 60.1MB)
I am no philologist, so I would like to learn more about the claim of an etymological derivation of “government” as meaning “mind control.” I have searched three or four online dictionaries and have not been able to confirm that claim. They all seem to indicate that the suffix “-ment”, following a verb or adjective stem, has the purpose of indicating a noun that is the result of the verb or the thing that is the characteristic of the adjective. According to the dictionaries, “mental” and “-ment” both can be traced to quite distinct proto-indo-european (PIE) terms for the mind and for a noun-ification (a word I just made up, sorry) suffix, both of which happen to have a “mn” sound but which are different words in PIE.
Obviously, the fact that two words have a similar sound does not imply derivation from the same ancestral word.
Still, I’m willing to learn.
I don’t think the officially recognized epistemology of the word government excludes prevents thinking people from seeing a different meaning. Words are symbols, and just like in visual art, symbols have overt and covert meanings, induced by context.
I find the understanding of ‘mind control’ when hearing ‘government’ pinpoints the core activity of this organization.
Welcome back Jan and Clint!
Yes, mind control is a sine qua non of government. But to actually say that the word is actually derived from ancient words for “mind” and “control” is another matter, and I cannot find any evidence for this, and doing so opens one up to attack from statist trolls.
As is stated in the conversation with Clint, it’s from middle English. Look up “governmente” on a google book search for instance. Rich has also covered this extensively, but then it was you making the ad hominems last month.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22governmente%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=%22governmente%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=WxW&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=el0tUZeWB-TdigLum4HIAQ&ved=0CA0Q_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42965579,d.cGE&fp=f3138182002d88a9&biw=1920&bih=992
Thanks for the links; I’ll have to study them a bit.
By the way, regarding “Rich” there was no ad hominem. As I said, it was a matter of prioritizing ones time – I don’t have forever to sit through hours of crap because a blind pig might find an acorn or two.
Just another point: Ad hominem is a fallacious form of argument, but in choosing to stop listening to the religious crank I was not making an argument at all, I was making a decision.
see my refutation of this below…don’t call into the old jordan maxwell trick of taking a word and seperatly doing the etymology on it’s parts, then transitioning to another, similar word part that means something else to make some pretty inaccurate connections…
Oxford Dictionary:
Middle English: from Old French governement, from governer
It certainly makes sense if the Middle English got it from the ruling French – Normans – ahh, the dearly beloved Royal Family.
Also, could it be a genitive ‘mentis – of the mind’…’Ruling of the mind of others’?
I.E. philology is a fascinating area and many of our words have creepy origins like this.
I certainly think so. And I also agree. I’ve thought of looking into that French connection, so thank you.
Government:
From the Latin gubernaculum. Signifies the instrument, the helm, whereby the ship to which the state was compared, was guided on its course by the âgubernatorâ or helmsman, and in that view, the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government.
[hmmm, âis but an agency of the stateâ â so the state is not government itself, itâs an âagencyâ of⊠]
[âŠ]
The system of polity in a state; that form of fundamental rules and principles by which a nation or state is governed, or by which individual members of a body politic are to regulate their social actions.
[hmm⊠rules and control of actions⊠whose actions? Human? How do humans make actions? With their minds?]
A constitution, either written or unwritten, by which the rights and duties of citizens and public officers are prescribed and defined, as a monarchical government, a republican government, etc. The sovereign or supreme power in a state or nation. The machinery by which the sovereign power in a state expresses its will [!] and exercises its functions; or the framework of political institutions, departments, and offices, by means of which the executive, judicial, legislative, and administrative business of the state is carried on.
The whole class [!] or body of officeholders or functionaries considered in the aggregate, upon whom devolves the executive, judicial, legislative, and administrative business of the state.
[âŠ]
The regulation, restraint, supervision, or *control* which is exercised upon the individual members of an organized jural society by those invested with authority; or the act of exercising supreme political power or *control*.
[Hmmm, restraint, supervision, *control*, exercised upon individual members of a society by those invested with authority [ad vericundiam] or the act of exercising supreme or political power or control – Power or control. ]
Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edition. Pg. 625
Middle English “Governmente”
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22governmente%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=%22governmente%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=WxW&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=el0tUZeWB-TdigLum4HIAQ&ved=0CA0Q_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42965579,d.cGE&fp=f3138182002d88a9&biw=1920&bih=992
-mente http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-mente
ï§
Interlingua
Etymology
From Latin mente, ablative singular of mÄns (“mind”).
Suffix
-mente
1. Used to form adverbs from adjectives, compare English -wise, -ly or -ally.
physicamente – physically
Derived terms
[+] Interlingua words suffixed with -mente
Usage notes
After a final -c the vowel -a- is inserted, e.g. physicamente (note use of physica rather than physic; *physicmente would be incorrect)
________________________________________
Italian
Etymology
From Latin mente, ablative singular of mÄns (“mind”).
Suffix
-mente
1. Used to form adverbs from adjectives, compare English -wise, -ly or -ally.
fisicamente – physically
Derived terms
[+] Italian words suffixed with -mente
Usage notes
Usually, the feminine form of the adjective is used, e.g. fisicamente (note use of fisica rather than fisico; *fisicomente would be incorrect)
________________________________________
Neapolitan
Etymology
From Latin mens
Pronunciation
IPA: /-’mÉntÉ/
Suffix
-mente
1. used to form adverbs from adjectives, compare English -ly, -wise
________________________________________
Portuguese
Etymology
From Latin mente, ablative singular of mÄns (“mind”).
Suffix
-mente
1. Used to form adverbs from adjectives, compare English -wise, -ly or -ally. â[quotations âŒ]
Usage notes
Usually, the feminine form of the adjective is used, e.g. fisicamente (note use of fĂsica rather than fĂsico; *fisicomente would be incorrect)
________________________________________
Spanish
Pronunciation
âą IPA: /Ë…-menÌȘ.te/ (usually stressing that syllable from original adjective)
Etymology
From Latin mente, ablative singular of mÄns (“mind”).
Suffix
-mente
1. -wise, -ly, in a specified way; used to form adverbs from adjectives.
normalmente â normally, usually
fĂsicamente â physically
comĂșnmente â commonly
locamente â crazily
you cannot dissect a word then define it’s parts, etymology requires a historical study of the whole word in context. otherwise you can do any tricks you want.
from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=ment&searchmode=none
“MENT – suffix forming nouns, originally from French and representing Latin -mentum, which was added to verb stems sometimes to represent the result or product of the action. French inserts an -e- between the verbal root and the suffix (e.g. commenc-e-ment from commenc-er; with verbs in ir, -i- is inserted instead (e.g. sent-i-ment from sentir). Used with English verb stems from 16c. (e.g. merriment, which also illustrates the habit of turning -y to -i- before this suffix).”
But even if you were right that it’s rule and mind, it can just as easily mean “rule by the mind” or “mental rule” that is, to let rationality rule as opposed to chaos and anarchy.
Your definition puts the e before the ment, not after as in middle English and the examples I provided. Furthermore, you’re missing all of the work by Larken Rose, Lysander Spooner, and the references in this show that refute the idea that it’s rational to give your autonomy to someone else, and it’s furthermore irrational to assume that things would fall into chaos, and your definition of anarchy seems quite narrow. See again, Larken Rose.
Government translated into Italian and Portuguese is governo; Spanish is gobierno. Interlingua is not a natural language. In other words, no -ment or mente in the lexis, so the above citations are red herrings. I believe the etymological claim was made in English.
Middle English spelling was non-standardized. Yes, you can find governmente in the literature, but you can also see government, gubernmint, guvermint, goverminte, etc. Failure to provide these known alternate spellings while highlighting only one is a logical fallacy known as sample bias.
Because spelling is so often non-standardized, philologists rely on the spoken word rather than the written. This is why dictionaries include the IPA (international phonetic alphabet) next to every entry. 10 out 10 dictionaries agree that government is pronounced with 3 syllables, not 4. I know of no native English speaker who pronounces it otherwise. Thus, as 10 out of 10 dictionaries agree, mente and -ment though similar in spelling are not derived from the same root. Rather they are false cognates like bat and bat or down and endow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_cognate
Thanks, Gerald, here’s from Oxford:
mint, v.1 Now dial. or arch.
(mÉȘnt)
Forms: 1 myntan, 2 mintan, 2â3 munten, 3â6 mynt, 3â7 minte, 4, 6 mente, 5 munt, 6 ment, mynte, 3â mint.
[OE. myntan, perh. from *mynÄttan, f. myne thought, intention: see min n.]
â 1.1 intr. and trans. To think. Obs.
2.2 With inf. (rarely with clause). To purpose, intend; also, to make an effort, attempt, endeavour; to venture.
[...]
Also, when you’re using dictionaries, which I often find errors in, is this not a standardized way of “spelling” – see the Jose Barrera interview, where in the Whundian system of scholarship has determined the origin of these words? How they are to be spelled by the masses through their own universities? To whose benefit? See also Richard Grove and Kevin Cole’s latest, posted to the front page. Who wrote the dictionary definitions? Did they look into this issue? Why is it that Oxford cites what you show above, mint, minte, etc, as also forms of the word “mind”? Your statement, however, is the same as “a million Frenchmen can’t be wrong.” – and is an appeal to popularity and authority. To say that 10 dictionaries agree, is that not saying that 10 Whundian PhD scholars who were put in place by government to their university chair positions all agree that it’s not mind control? Is it possible that there is an underlying agenda here? Clearly there is with the PhD system itself. Having studied the history of the PHD system and how governments use universities to control thought, your argument doesn’t all that impress me.
mind, n.1
(maÉȘnd)
Forms: 1 áŽemynd, 2â3 imunde, 3 ymunde, 2â4 munde, 2â7 minde, 3â4 muynde, muinde, 4â5 mende, meende, (5 myynde), 4â7 mynd(e, 3â mind.
[ME. mynd, repr. (the prefix áŽe- being lost as in all other ns.) OE. áŽemynd fem. (also neut.) = OHG. gimunt, Goth. gamund-s memory:âOTeut. *gamunÄi-z, f. *ga- prefix (see y-) + *mun- wk.-grade of the root *men-, man-, mun- (:âIndogermanic *men-, mon-, mn-) to think, remember, intend. A parallel formation with different ablaut-grade is OTeut. *gaminĂŸjom neut., whence Goth. gaminĂŸi memory, ON. minni neut. (Sw. minne, Da. minde) memory, memorial. Other derivatives of the root are OE. munan, áŽemunan to think, remember (= ON. munu, Goth. gamunan), myne thought (see min n.1), manian to admonish. Outside Teut. the root (Skr. man) is represented by innumerable derivatives, e.g. Skr. mati thought (= L. mens:âOAryan mâčncircblâști-), manas mind (= Gr. ”ÎÎœÎżÏ rage); Gr. ”ÎÂ”ÎżÎœÎ± I yearn, L. meminÄ« I remember, monÄre to advise.]
I.I Memory.
â 1.I.1 The faculty of memory. Obs. [...]
For an example, let’s use the word “abracadabra” – a word for magic and spells, correct? Where does this word originate? Oxford claims not to know. However, it’s very simple. It comes from ABCD, such as words like Abecedarian – one who studies the alphabet, or ABCs, – A-B-ra-C-a-D-abra, hence why magic is related to “spelling” – it deals with letters and words, or the misuse of this knowledge by the sophists to control others. Hence why government officials such as the “magistrates” – from the word “magi” or magician, perform their rituals and cast their spells, or laws, as government – for no other purpose than to steer or control the public mind – and specifically in a direction that benefits the oligarchs and elites. As Jose points out in our interview, the magistrate is the same as the ancient priestly scribe, even dresses the same, who uses rituals and spells to create things that don’t exist, like “corporations” – from the Latin “corpus” – or body, or, even the body of gods, “Corpus Christi” – Body of Christ – such as Joe Atwill and myself and others have pointed out, that even these religions were created by government for mind control of the masses. No matter how you spin it, government is in fact mind control and has no benefit, or very little, to the general masses and is clearly created for control, as Larken Rose and Lysander Spooner and others have prooved, and that giving up your autonomy to the elites and magicians and priests to control you and everyone else – has no benefit – except to them. Who performs the “actions” of government after by ritual magic it’s been created? Who but the people themselves who put on costumes and then act or perform in a manner, as if under a spell, that they would never act like under their own prerogative? It’s “the law, the government told me to do it, I was following orders” – as is the the Policeman’s or Nazis’ or Zionist’s creed.
Even if we use your examples above in Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, etc, this all still goes back to the Latin form “gubinare” – to steer or control. To steer or control what? As we can see that government by its very nature is based on sophism and ritual magic and getting everyone via ritual magic and spelling to give their autonomy over to the elites and those who’ll extort their money for their own gain. Again, with Mint, or Mente, etc, we can in fact trace this origin to mind, and in fact all aspects of government deal with the mind of man, and nothing else.
Sure, a man can use machines to “govern” the flow of a river, but this is still control. In relation to man it’s control of the mind no matter how you look at it. Now matter how you spin it – the result is the same – mind control.
Thanks, Jan. Do you have the IPA for mint? /mInt/ is not the same as /mÉnt/. These would be false cognates. Also, the designation v.1 Now dial. or arch, suggests this is another word, a verb not a noun, and a dialectal or archaic usage.
Concerning your appeals to logic, we are largely in agreement. Rose and Spooner both make convincing arguments against ad verecundium. However, neither discusses the etymology of government, so this would be a red herring or putting logic before grammar as you like to say. I don’t believe my argument for 10 out of 10 dictionaries is the same appeal to popularity as 1 million Frenchmen. Philology is a science, and science requires both induction and deduction to avoid confirmation bias (logic before grammar). All scientific conclusions are tentative upon the introduction of further data and evidence. Moreover, they must be explainable, observable, repeatable, and testable (which is all I’m doing here though I get called a troll). An appeal to Newton’s laws of physics is not an appeal to a false authority. Do you have any proof that dictionaries have overlooked the issues you raise? If not, this is shifting the burden of proof, and I would suggest writing to the OED to submit your new data and evidence. BTW, your use of mint is also from a dictionary.
Your response raises other issues , some of which are related. The etymology of abracadabra is likely as you say, but when you say itâs âsimpleâ or Joseâs work is âconclusiveâ you are denying the scientific principle of tentativeness. BTW, Dictionary.com tentatively agrees: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abracadabra?s=t, but the OED likely requires more verification. Neologisms are new words that may or may not be accepted into common usage. For example, the word âgrokâ first used in Robert Heinleinâs Strangers in a Strange Land has not been commonly accepted, whereas Charles Dickensâ âscroogeâ has. While we know where âgrokâ and âscroogeâ first appeared, it seems no one is quite sure who first coined the term âabracadabraâ. Again, if you have definitive proof of the etymology, Iâm sure the OED would be interested in seeing it.
The cool thing about science, under which Iâd include philology, is that you donât have to be impressed by me or my background, itâs the testing and explanation of evidence that matters. Again, we are largely in agreement that Oxford and Ph.Dâs donât matter much and can be an appeal to false authority. Moreover, the universities and their scientific research have been corrupted by government funding and that corruption is undeniably increasing, but one must be careful of painting with a broad brush aka fallacy of composition. Just as there is still a remnant of the logic in Americaâs educraption, there is still a strong tradition of the scientific method within linguistics and other sciences, and the OED definition of government predates the Ph.D. system. Moreover, you may be surprised to learn that anarchist scholars in science, especially linguistics, are not unheard of. Iâm glad you are challenging the etymological research of the OED; in turn, I hope you appreciate when I challenge your or Joseâs research. If itâs good science, itâs not personal.
You are 100% correct that dictionaries and researchers have agendas or overarching beliefs. But Iâd challenge that you, Jose, Larken, Lysander, and Iâll include myself, do not also have agendas or overarching beliefs which may introduce bias into our conclusions. Big claims require big proofs because individuals have individually subjective biases. Your claim that âall aspects of government deal with the mind of man, and nothing elseâ is a big, non-tentative claim, which should be tested. We agree that government by definition is irrational violence. We also agree that the opposite of violent aggression is self-education, aka engaging oneâs mind and thinking independently. You may use the trivium method and I may use the scientific method, but ultimately our conclusions about government are 99% in agreement because weâve applied our minds to the questioning of supposed authorities. Since we both did our 15,000 hours of public school service, both drank fluoridated water, got vaccinated, grew up on mass media, etc., yet still did not fall victim to the popular view that government is good, this to me is strong evidence that government is NOT mind control. My big claim would be: the mind once engaged cannot be controlled.
Hey Jan and Clint if you are reading this. I got hung up on something. Clint you were talking about the citizenship requirement for presidents and read from the constitution. You stated that people got hung up on the first line and didn’t read the rest. If I understood you correctly, you were saying that the remainder of the paragraph negates or contradicts the first part by saying “and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. To me it is not saying “or” it is saying “in addition to the above requirements”. The fourteen years deal would be for people who were born in the US and spent most of their life overseas. At least that is how I read it. I am no legal expert but it does not seem to contradict itself. I hope that made sense. Chris in MT
I think I pointed this out as well. But it’s all magic anyway.
And thanks for the link to Clint’s blog – there’s a lot of interesting analysis there.
My only, slight quibble is that there is a paucity of alternatives offered. Analysis is a breaking down, but after analysis one needs a synthesis, a putting back together, otherwise you’ve got just a pile of pieces. A world without gray would supposedly be a world of black-and-white. I’m with you all on “natural law” being a suitable starting point, and I would be very interested in what a (necessarily complex) civilization built upon natural law would look like.
Hi Jan and Clint,
Thanks for all the work you guys do!
Your discussion with Clint ended up on the subject of Corporations….I was just curious if you guys have heard anything about something called “The One People’s Public Trust” that is growing fast all over the Internet right now? They have claimed to have traced back all world governments to be operating as corporations under the UCC system and also claim to have legally foreclosed upon them under that system. Do you or Clint have any thoughts on this?
Thanks Jan Irvine–its damn good phucking philosophers like you and Richardson and Grove and Corbett are really changing heads! Real ACTION is happening NOW. its so f ing exciting and scary and positive in spite of the appearance of hopelessness. Granted we aren’t out of the woods yet…..because some people want absolute power, always and thrghout time, it will never stop…and so likewise, we will never stop- healing the mind, and the heart.
I love you all.
Using PayPal AT ALL, whether paying or receiving,is as much or more risky for your privacy and finances than using a tablet hooked up the the Cloud.
I had to check my premise of whether or not I was worried.
sent from my IPad-
How’s that? Any evidence? With clouds you’re HANDING them your data. They’ve already got it. With paypal the exchanges are done via email. It was pretty risky in the early days, but I’d like to some some evidence that using paypal is more dangerous than handing over all of your data and information to someone else.
Did you read the terms and conditions for Paypal? All buyers and sellers info is owned by them…anyway, I use paypal for my business. I may be splitting hairs here, but this is another example of putting the energy you have into the correct focus. It this interview, you guys are speaking pretty generally and cover a lot of topics….I don’t wan to get hung up on minutia about which is riskier ,however, I think it’s worth mentioning that as time moves on, and technocracy is at our doorstep—whom will survive to pass the torch of this knowledge.?
Will it be those who stand firmly rooted like the Oak? or those whom remain supple, like a reed in the wind?
I suppose I can go into pay pals terms and conditions to provide you with the proof. You’ll have to be patient as I’m in the middle or re listening to this podcast.
Thanks.
Every bank has that shit. Not just paypal. But I was asking for the onus of proof.
It could be as simple as handling the technology before it handles you…
I’m with you on the disadvantages of the cloud, but there are ways to enjoy its benefits while disarming or side-stepping its drawbacks:
Here’s how I backup my private files:
Install Dropbox – I have the 100 GB account.
Install Truecrypt, an open-source, client-based encryption application.
Create a Truecrypt container (tc) file/volume in your Dropbox folder, of say, 20 GB (whatever).
Run a scheduled backup of your files to your tc volume.
Nice thing is that, although it might take a week or more to initially synch the tc file to the cloud (i.e., to the Dropbox server), resynching after that it will only take an amount of time roughly proportional to the size of any changed files. Why is that? Because both Dropbox and Truecrypt do their job cluster-by-cluster, the default size of which is 4 KB on a Windows volume. So, if the only file your edited today was, say, a 20 KB document, then that’s all the data that gets uploaded to the Dropbox server (taking seconds), and not the entire tc file. Thus (barring a local breach of security on your computer such as a keylogger) you are proof against data loss, or loss of privacy, while enjoying the ubiquity that comes with the cloud.
We weren’t discussing private clouds, but those owned by the large corporations. If you encrypt every single thing, maybe it’s ok. But it’s best to set up a cloud with your local neighbors and avoid anything you can’t monitor. But please don’t confuse government owned companies like Microsoft and Apple and their attempts at eliminating personal storage and the integration into Windows 8, et al, with your drop box.
I prefer a TPM module and some encryption locally. And without a local TPM, you’ve nothing to bar a local breach.
Most readers won’t know what you mean by TPM. I was addressing the wider audience, and have no interest in impressing anyone.
So your answer to corporate clouds is to have an entirely “private” cloud, assuming that you trust your neighbours and their kids to be as responsible as you are, but with no details of how the readers are to do any of this.
I described a workable “hybrid” cloud that I use right now, and that almost anyone can understand and implement from the description that I gave.
I trust my neighbors and their kids and a system with public oversight, more than I do a corporation and government thugs who steal 1/3 of my money each year and people I don’t know and can’t reach out to. Please go back and study my 4 interviews with Larken Rose. You might also find interest in the trivium studies on the left.
I’m not trying to impress anyone. I was specifically addressing you and your cloud use and how without TPM your not safe: “I prefer a TPM module and some encryption locally. And without a local TPM, youâve nothing to bar a local breach.” Nice circumstantial ad hominem. Most people around here understand what doing grammar is. For a guy who runs fallacy a day, why is it for the last several months, many of your posts are filled with such underhanded innuendos and fallacies, as if you’re trying to impress someone? I’m pointing out the fact that you have no security locally if you’ve no TPM module. Therefore, your data isn’t safe, on either end of the cloud. It’s maybe “safer” – but if someone goes into your house they get your data, or your encryption key and your done anyway. But how secure is your encryption that you’re using? Even that can be hacked. It just takes time. I know someone who works for the feds doing just this, it’s their job, and most encryption isn’t too secure. It may take them a month or two to crack it, but they have dedicated systems just for that.
Go ahead and attack me for suggestion a local, verifyable system that you and your neighbors establish vs. government owned clouds via their holdings in these major corporations as Clint has laid out – via money from extortion. As you live in the most fascist country on Earth, please do tell me why I should ever trust Microsoft or Apple or the government with all of their underhanded shit and spy technology, over my local neighbor and friends. You might not also understand about Linux as well. Linux is a system that is built on just that type of community.
Please apply logic here, Robert. Thanks. If you can’t remember the fallacies, there’s this website – http://fallacyaday.com/
“if someone goes into your house they get your data, or your encryption key and your done anyway.”
Well, sure: You need to secure your console, and no amount of technology can avoid that need.
It’s also the case that we can’t rule out the NSA having the means to crack (for example) Truecrypt’s encryption.
And sure, I didn’t mention Linux, since, like, one cannot mention everything, and simply expanding the scope of an argument is not a fair tactic of discussion.
So, because I can’t describe a perfect scheme, then what I do offer is of little merit? Come on, you can do better than that.
Your invoking local neighbourhood” TPM is simply handwaving, unless you put up a description of how to do it. The operative concept here is, “compared to what?” An inpracticable scheme is NOTHING.
Also, my description assumed a pre Windows 8 operating system, as is still the case with 90%+ of the computers that people are using (and will continue using for some years to come).
R42,
I love reading your posts because they are logical as hell but then sometimes you overgeneralize or use absolutes like 90% of users will continue to use windows 8.
Indeed, just like his over generalized statement about neighbors and their children and trusting them… but if we raised them with the trivium, which Robert studies and teaches, then wouldn’t that negate most of that irrationality and poor, uncritical behavior? Seems obvious to me. And when does government EVER have your interests in mind? NEVER.
No, I’m not invoking the TMP as hand waving. It’s a simple fact. Those around here can look up terms as they know, for the most part, how to do grammar and you’ve no need to fill in for their mental capacity, Robert.
So an entire system exists out there that’s based on exactly what I’m talking about, Linux, and of course you don’t mention it because it doesn’t fit with the trivium or your attack on children.
I already said your data may be “safer” that way (which you omit and then attack me for saying that your offer has no merrit – leaping to false conclusions), if you’re being watched and have no TPM, you’ve no way to secure your data. I don’t need the description of how to do it. I don’t need to detail every how to of IT here. I merely need to state what it is and others can do their own grammar. I’m not here to hand hold the kiddies, or put them down and call them incompetent or dishonest in massive generalization fallacies.
“I love reading your posts because they are logical as hell but then sometimes you overgeneralize or use absolutes like 90% of users will continue to use windows 8.”
I do computer consultancy for a living, so I’m just extrapolating from my experience, that most of the PCs I encounter are running Windows XP, and therefore not talking out of my arse. Windows 8 has much less compelling reasons to upgrade to from the previous version (Windows 7, or even Windows Vista) than the upgrade from Windows 95 to Windows XP. 90% won’t be far off the mark for, say, the next four or five years.
That’s my grammar, as compared to some people who would offer an opinion from their armchairs.
Also, my comments about neighbours and their irresponsible children is based on my consulting experience, although thankfully, in recent years I mainly look after business customers.
At least 90%+ (and that’s being very conservative) people will never use Linux because it has nowhere near the range of apps that Windows has, and the interoperability at the desktop level is still not quite there. In my twenty-five or so years in this business I have not once been asked to look at let alone install any Linux system, so, although I have from time to time downloaded and installed various Linux distributions, I am yet to find it more than minimally useful. And its simply a fact that I would be very unwise to voluntarily recommend it to any customer without their prompting.
Apple machines are too proprietary, fashion-driven, over-priced, and have all the potential privacy drawbacks of Windows machines, so I don’t recommend them except when a user is already accustomed to them and has a particular set of apps that they must use, such as the Adobe suite as commonly used by graphics arts departments.
This all has nothing to do with the trivium. Also, criticizing something that Jan, or anyone else, says, even in the most brutal manner, is not a personal attack, let alone “an ad hominem.” People who say that one is using “ad hominem” simply because one is not nice to them or their ideas is a misuse of the term. Once again, ad hominem is a particular kind of fallacious argument. It is not “not being a nice person.” I’m not a nice person, actually somewhat abrasive, and on the niceness scale I’m probably about where Mark Passio is, and maybe a tad lower than Jan Irwin (and that’s saying something
.
“Ad hominem” is not even saying that someone is a dickhead, moron, religious nutcake, etc. Those may be perfectly valid conclusions after hearing enough of the person’s communications, and valid reasons to ignore them from that point onwards. That’s because we don’t live immortally in philosophical bubbles but in the grunge of a reality where every remaining minute is a precious gift. Furthermore, it is a sheer presumption to declare that someone else must listen to three hours of someone whose preliminary remarks have warned one that the potential benefit is likely to be lower than the cost. Really, that decision is ones personal discretion to make, and it is no fallacy that it is not the same decision that someone else might make.
Jan’s TMP comments are hand-waving because absolutely anyone can make such remarks at no effort. An IT person has encountered effortless “read the fucking manual” or “get a real operating system” Internet smart-aleckery in response to requests for help to give negligible weight to such comments. People who want advice want practical advice, as a general rule.
Actually, despite myself, I tend to like Mark Passio, and Jan, anyway. And I certainly respect their honest efforts.
“I do computer consultancy for a living, so Iâm just extrapolating from my experience, that most of the PCs I encounter are running Windows XP, and therefore not talking out of my arse. Windows 8 has much less compelling reasons to upgrade to from the previous version (Windows 7, or even Windows Vista) than the upgrade from Windows 95 to Windows XP. 90% wonât be far off the mark for, say, the next four or five years.”
Uh, yeah, I did the same for many years, as is stated in the conversation. So I wonder who you’re reffering to here with your empty innuendos? Though I might agree that most won’t upgrade for 4 or 5 years, Microsoft has made it nearly impossible to buy a new computer without it, and the whole intention of their selling it for $40 over December and January was to get it out to as many millions as possible – what was the estimated number of sales? 40 million?
“Thatâs my grammar, as compared to some people who would offer an opinion from their armchairs.”
So apparently your grammar is inaccurate because you’re too busy ignoring the fact that I have a background in IT, that I was a computer store manager, that I was a network administrator, and I’m Cisco CCNP / CCDP. So you’re a consultant. Fantastic. I was too for many years. What’s your point? I still stay on top of the IT world.
“At least 90%+ (and thatâs being very conservative) people will never use Linux because it has nowhere near the range of apps that Windows has, and the interoperability at the desktop level is still not quite there. In my twenty-five or so years in this business I have not once been asked to look at let alone install any Linux system, so, although I have from time to time downloaded and installed various Linux distributions, I am yet to find it more than minimally useful. And its simply a fact that I would be very unwise to voluntarily recommend it to any customer without their prompting.”
Again it appears that you haven’t done any grammar, as in countries like China, Linux has a major place in society. I’m in doubt that you’ve even used Linux by your statement here, as today for the average user that would go to a Mac for instance, Linux comes with everything needed, including Libre Office and hundreds of Free apps. The software center has thousands more free applications, nearly every one for free. Maybe you ignored the interview where I discussed this too. Furthermore, there’s about no Microsoft application that won’t run at the kernel level in Linux – such as right now I have Office 2010 installed along with Libre office on my Linux Mint install. So you don’t even have the most basic understanding of Linux. But my point in bringing up Linux was an example how how a community oriented program works, and not your red herring into how many people have Linux installed – which is 100% irrelevant to the discussion, so try to stay focused.
Linux people are typically computer competent: people who are willing to do a little grammar. Just because computer companies don’t sell computers at your local store with Linux already installed – forcing the proprietary OSs like Windows and OSX onto users who would otherwise be happy with an opensource and free choice that has far more security – and again, doing your grammar and actually using the system, anyone would know that Linux is up to par for the basic computer users across the board, not needing any additional software to be installed – though thousands of applications are available – again for free.
More and more companies are porting software for Linux due to the maneuvers by Microsoft and Apple, especially nearly the entire gaming industry, so this is causing a large movement of people now to Linux. But being that Linux hasn’t had a major electronics store be willing to sell systems with it installed on it – for one reason – there’s no profit motive for the store in FREE – this can’t be used as an example against Linux itself, as this is putting the cart before the horse and is entirely lack of grammar.
“âAd hominemâ is not even saying that someone is a dickhead, moron, religious nutcake, etc. Those may be perfectly valid conclusions after hearing enough of the personâs communications, and valid reasons to ignore them from that point onwards. Thatâs because we donât live immortally in philosophical bubbles but in the grunge of a reality where every remaining minute is a precious gift. Furthermore, it is a sheer presumption to declare that someone else must listen to three hours of someone whose preliminary remarks have warned one that the potential benefit is likely to be lower than the cost.”
While it may be true that someone is a dickhead or moron and constantly resorts to fallacies in his thinking, you again seem to have failed in your studies of the trivium and fallacies as the fallacies of poisoning the well and killing the messenger specifically deal with your sort of fallacious logic. As I have often cited, what about the boy who cried wolf? Do you always ignore him, or is it more intelligent to go check if there’s a wolf? What if one time the moron is correct? You see, you’ve failed your trivium studies and this is why every post of yours if filled with fallacies, ignoring your own website. Contrary to your bogus appeal to emotion and lame reasoning for using fallacies: “we donât live immortally in philosophical bubbles but in the grunge of a reality where every remaining minute is a precious gift.” it’s the very reason why we check into things before we dismiss them. Just because the fool on the hill is crazy doesn’t mean that when he says an army is coming to attack the village you don’t go and look. Because we’re immortal we use our intelligence and 5 senses to verify the information on each and every occasion and don’t use bullshit excuses that because Robert is wrong here, and is usually wrong, that every thing hence forth that comes from Robert’s mouth is bullshit. But that’s your reasoning. This is not the trivium or using logic or critical thinking, as I’ve pointed out to you too many times in the past, this is thinking with fallacies and lies and then making excuses to justify them.
To assume that something that takes hours to listen to is more costly to the benefit is based on **pure assumption** and not 5 sense reality. Again you must kill the messenger and think with fallacies to even attempt to justify such faulty thinking. The entire point of using the trivium and logic is to verify the information with our 5 senses, because it takes a lot less time to spend, say 3 hours on fact checking something, than it does to spend a lifetime believing in myths and lies. Again, this is the point of the trivium and learning to come to certainty with any information and not dismiss it with poor thinking and fallacies as you have here. Again, I recommend the trivium study section to the left, and if you’re in doubt of what the fallacies are and how to remove them from YOUR OWN THOUGHTS – see your own website, fallacyaday.com
Again, you resort to your fallacious hand waiving remarks because you must assume that others aren’t intelligent enough to spent a few seconds, or even hours to look things up – simply because this is your own bias and attitude – as your own fallacious statements prove above.
I’m tired of your tail chasing, Robert. Take your anti-Trivium, fallacious attacks and underhanded remarks someplace else.
….anyway I learned A LOT from Clint’s blog, jan I wonder what number this episode of A World Without Gray is, the one you guys did together. a
Also this is a very interesting interview with him and Vicky Robinson
http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/a-world-without-gray-episode-3-for-land-and-country/
She could use an intro the whole fictitious person thing , and Clint needs more trivium skill to be able to communicate to her.
(IMO)
The audio feed to the station failed, which it does often, so 5 minutes in, Clint quit the show, and we never did more than the intro. There’s nothing to find.
That’s Vicky Davis, not Robinson. My bad.
I switched from Windows to Linux a couple days after hearing this interveiw and couldn’t be happier! Thank’s and welcome back Jan!
Awesome!
how simple a process is it? i’m not au fait with linux – do i have to completely format my hard drive and remove the windows operating system? any information would be greatly appreciated. thanks in advance.
Linux is pretty easy. It actually only needs a small space on the hard drive, such as a 30 or 40 gb partition is plenty for most uses. You can just resize another parition or put it on a free space. So that means you can leave your windows on while you get used to it – so you can dual or multiboot. You may also run it in Windows, you may run Windows in Linux, you may also run Linux directly from a CD or USB jump drive to learn it, though it operates much slower this way. It doesn’t even need to be installed to work though. The hardest part about Linux is deciding which one you want, and how you want it. As there is no one to dictate to you how you are to do things nor how it should look.
I would start by playing with the most popular distributions and see what you like. And that’s the nice thing: you can download each one for free, burn it to disk and run it straight off the CD without ever installing it, so it makes it real easy to go through them to decide… but the USB jump drive might save you a lot of disks. The most popular are Mint and Ubuntu, and there’s a few flavors of Mint, but that doesn’t mean you need to choose them. These are “Debian” distributions, and there are others that are Susi, Red Hat, etc etc etc. There are over 1000 distributions. If you decide you don’t like any of them, then you just release the “Steve Naive Linux Distribution” yourself, with all of the cool things you like. You can’t make money on the OS itself, but you can make money on services and support that you provide to others.
Just do your grammar and dig in. You’ll find all that freedom is fun. What will you do with no one to tell you how you should do it?
Just remember to give yourself a few days to start getting the hang of it. There are huge online Linux groups to help you with every type of fix and command while you learn and set up. The command line is similar to Mac, since Max OSX is based on BSD Unix which is similar to Linux. Linux is just the PC version of Unix – for free, where as BSD is proprietary.
thanks for the clear response jan i greatly appreciate you taking the time to pass on all this information and indeed you are right – i should just learn for myself rather than rely on you or someone else to spell it out for me.
cheers for the heads up on both accounts.
You’re very welcome.
I’m not a US citizen, but Splitting the Sky (Dacajeweiah) aka John Boncore/Hill who is one hell of a Mohawk traces it all back to the Iroquois Constitution, or Great Law: GAYANASHAGOWA, compared to which Aldous Huxley’s class pretention is pretty small beer.
As for the generic “art” of government, I’d say it is of course literally related to mind control, but in its individual ethical interpretation it concerns (enlightened) control of one’s own mind. Once you permit anyone else to control your mind, well you’ve got the government you deserve. If you are incapable of controlling your own mind however, then you should seek guidance, a master/mistress; ideally, a spiritually developed teacher. If you are unable to exercise any such self-determination then you surrender your will to circumstance and are of necessity a slave to external determinants.
Aleister Crowley produced a Thelemic version of the Dao De Jing; he considered Laozi’s treatise to be the most coherent example on the art of government ever composed. In Crowley’s philosophy the right exercise of government should be a direct function of the true will of each and every citizen that constitutes its polity. So it then falls to each of us to find out what our “True Will” really is, no simple task perhaps.
So far as I can see, such organised Magickal Governance simply does not exist anywhere as yet; nor will it ever unless we take the necessary steps to constitute it ourselves.
I guess you know all about Linux Beach, Jan? http://linuxbeach.net/catalog
In my opinion Clay Claiborne’s “Vietnam ~ American Holocaust” is arguably, if not the most, then one of the most powerful and significant documentary films ever produced in the USA.