In this week's episode of The Great Game on Rogue News, Matt and V unpack some deep structure American history starting with the question: why did Andrew Jackson kill the bank of the United States?
I have a lot of repect for your insights and your historical perspectives. However, telling people that their thinking is wrong is insulting and arrogant. While I agree with you that Xi is a political beast, it would have been great if he had posted himself as a beacon of light against the tyranny that the west is suffering under. Instead, people that are looking for hope did not find it in his speech. His speech was depressing. I also think that his speech can be interpreted as not getting in the way of an enemy that is is self destructing.
Wrong thinking in a time of crisis gets people killed, and I'm not interested in encouraging folly when a viable pathway to survival exists for people who have the wisdom to see beyond surface words and look with their minds' eyes into a higher domain of causality which I hope I was able to help you see throughout my presentation. I would never dare to just condemn "wrong thought" and then leave nothing to justify why I passed judgement in a harsh manner
I totally agree with you that thinking wrong in a time of crisis can get people killed. I do strive to look at things with my mind’s eye, but are you inferring that the mind’s eye only contains a singularity of truth? That cannot be possible when interpreting a political speech. Like poetry a political speech is open to producing a plethora of metaphors, which metaphor is the truth. Then you are asking us to know what’s in Xi’s heart, this process opens up even more complexities. Is there only one river out of interpreting someone’s words and thoughts?
I would though, like to apologize for the tone of my response, you deserve much better than that. On a positive note you have me reading Plato’s Republic, and I’m trying to read more about Benjamin Franklin. The Rising Tide Foundation and your work have been inspirational.
Hey. I'm happy you're jumping into Plato and Ben Franklin's writings. Very good soul food and great exercises for the mind muscles. Also don't forget to read the Trial and Death of Socrates (4 important dialogues), Meno, and ideally Gorgias. The Republic is a bit more challenging. For Xi's mind, I imagine you watched my full presentation which goes in depth into his policy actions and some deeper historical currents at play. You can't know 100% of anything like what's inside the mind of someone from a literalist standpoint, but you can know the general principles someone is operating on based upon their actions (unless they are a puppet synthetic personality type in which case they decide nothing and their actions are never their own anyway)
I have a lot of repect for your insights and your historical perspectives. However, telling people that their thinking is wrong is insulting and arrogant. While I agree with you that Xi is a political beast, it would have been great if he had posted himself as a beacon of light against the tyranny that the west is suffering under. Instead, people that are looking for hope did not find it in his speech. His speech was depressing. I also think that his speech can be interpreted as not getting in the way of an enemy that is is self destructing.
Wrong thinking in a time of crisis gets people killed, and I'm not interested in encouraging folly when a viable pathway to survival exists for people who have the wisdom to see beyond surface words and look with their minds' eyes into a higher domain of causality which I hope I was able to help you see throughout my presentation. I would never dare to just condemn "wrong thought" and then leave nothing to justify why I passed judgement in a harsh manner
I totally agree with you that thinking wrong in a time of crisis can get people killed. I do strive to look at things with my mind’s eye, but are you inferring that the mind’s eye only contains a singularity of truth? That cannot be possible when interpreting a political speech. Like poetry a political speech is open to producing a plethora of metaphors, which metaphor is the truth. Then you are asking us to know what’s in Xi’s heart, this process opens up even more complexities. Is there only one river out of interpreting someone’s words and thoughts?
I would though, like to apologize for the tone of my response, you deserve much better than that. On a positive note you have me reading Plato’s Republic, and I’m trying to read more about Benjamin Franklin. The Rising Tide Foundation and your work have been inspirational.
Hey. I'm happy you're jumping into Plato and Ben Franklin's writings. Very good soul food and great exercises for the mind muscles. Also don't forget to read the Trial and Death of Socrates (4 important dialogues), Meno, and ideally Gorgias. The Republic is a bit more challenging. For Xi's mind, I imagine you watched my full presentation which goes in depth into his policy actions and some deeper historical currents at play. You can't know 100% of anything like what's inside the mind of someone from a literalist standpoint, but you can know the general principles someone is operating on based upon their actions (unless they are a puppet synthetic personality type in which case they decide nothing and their actions are never their own anyway)
I was just introduced to your stuff and even though I think I disagree with you on ideology, we are in agreement regarding America. You’ll probably find this interesting: https://fascio.substack.com/p/civilizational-states-self-determination?utm_source=activity_item