How to Tell if there's a Conspiracy

Conspiracies exist. Everywhere. A conspiracy is defined as an attempt to do something unethical, which you don't want anyone beyond your circle of friends to know about. Of course, there are times when doing something unethical is necessary, usually to protect yourself. However, unfortunately, there are certain people in the world who are ignorant of the effects of unethical actions, which are always bad. These kinds of people commit conspiracies and think they'll "get away with it." You never get away with a conspiracy, but if you were trying to protect yourself, or something similar to that, then you may be able at least to survive the negative effects of the natural consequences of when the truth comes to light.

How to Tell if There's a Conspiracy:

You check the independent channels. They won't know all of the truth. This is because they're independent. They don't have a lot of social resources, so they can't access all of the truth. Some of them, you can't trust. Some of them have been infiltrated by conspirators who don't want the truth to be known.

You check the people who you think are committing the conspiracy. They'll mechanically repeat the exact same thing: "There is no conspiracy here." Or something relevantly similar to that. If they actually did make a mistake, and as a matter of fact they are decent people and not conspirators, they will send out marketing information revealing exactly what the mistakes were, who made them, and what they're doing to correct the problem.

You check the people who you trust, who have seen the truth. This is called an empirical observation. Eventually, you'll find a couple empirical observations through the appropriate channels which contradict the last mechanically repeated statement, "There is no conspiracy here." Then you know there's a conspiracy.

However. Even at this point, not all the questions have been answered. You don't know for certain who is the one committing the conspiracy. Depending on how much you've been hurt by the conspiracy, it's up to you to determine how extensive of an investigation you want to make to determine who the real conspirators are, and it's also up to you to determine how you're going to use violent means (like the government or the law) to neutralize the conspiracy and bring the criminals to justice.

This goes for corporate conspiracies, Illuminati conspiracies, government conspiracies, raver conspiracies, Satanist conspiracies, Buddhist conspiracies, etc.

Why Psychiatry is Holding the World Hostage

I apologize for breaking my word to everyone. I sobbed uncontrollably writing this. I hope you will please hear me out. I am out of faith, and cannot continue, unless at least some people read this and understand. Please hear me out.

Let's get back to the basics. Psychiatry is the practice of psychologically identifying a diseased mind, then physically disabling the mind to neutralize the disease. The political purpose of psychiatry is to make the social argument that these diseased minds must all be physically neutralized. Their argument is, because of biological problems, a certain mind must necessarily produce nothing but diseased thoughts and actions, and that this physical reality supersedes all philosophical, moral, religious, and legal concerns. I can argue, from these premises, that psychiatry is necessarily holding the world hostage.

In order to hold the world hostage, what you do is declare that you are ready to kill the physical world for the benefits of your aims. Either it's my aims, or the entire world. Psychiatry makes this false choice. It says, "You must either sacrifice your faith and trust in your physical brain, or sacrifice your soul, according to my aims." It makes this point very strongly. It says, "I am ready to prove, to the entire world, that certain physical brains cannot be trusted, at all. I will use fear, and emotional manipulation, I will destroy your family relationships and all your friendships, I will destroy your psychological wellbeing, and every aspect of your health, to convince you, and everyone, that some people are fundamentally bad, as a result of their physical disease." If you do not agree with their point of view, they will do EVERYTHING to prove that physical brains cannot be trusted. The only way to appease this THREAT is to confess, to everyone, everywhere, that because of your physical condition, and racial heritage, you are fundamentally evil. And you must believe it, with all your heart, forever and ever. You must prove this belief physically, by taking medications, forever and ever. This is what they mean by "insight." Once you have this knowledge, they award you with the compliment that you have good insight into your illness.

It is therefore a test for the fundamental goodness of human beings whether or not we accept psychiatry. If we don't, I can't see any hope.

An End to This Blog in the Foreseeable Future

There may be more to say on this site. And I haven't exactly taken the time to market it. However, at present, I feel it's time to close up shop.

I can point to one area in particular—creativity—where I have some definite ideas which I feel I should express, perhaps, at some point. Nevertheless, there are good reasons not to.

For one, as my experience with blogging about psychiatry has shown, it's my most important ideas to which no one is inclined to listen. So even if I were to blog about creativity, I'm not sure anyone would really pay attention.

But more importantly, I have to note the reality of contemporary society. My opinions on creativity point to a new idea of how economics ought to work. However, the reality of our society is that no matter what I say about how it ought to work, the fact is, there is no such thing as an economy at all.

An economy implies a system whereby mainly commodities (though also services) are traded for mutual benefit and the growth of wealth. This is not what we have. What we have is a system whereby human beings are given an excuse to preoccupy themselves with pointless pursuits (i.e. work) in order to render them inert until their eventual deaths, for the purpose, I think, of allowing the rich to have a playground of human slaves, with no responsibilities, and no barriers to their various frivolous and destructive pursuits.

What this means, in terms of my philosophy of creativity for the purpose of economic development, is that introducing it would be a moot point. Obviously, a philosophy for creative development would be intended to make people money. But that is impossible. Money, in our society, doesn't exist. The little Treasury Notes we carry around are not money, but a slightly more complex form of food stamps. They don't buy commodities for the purpose of growth, but are simply a) a form of Monopoly cash to make us think we're being productive, and b) a way to expedite token nutrient delivery from Monsanto.

One can see, obviously, that a system of creative economic philosophy, while it may make you money, it will certainly not guarantee you food stamps, or Monopoly cash. So I see no point in introducing it. The only people whom it'd benefit are the ones who actually have money—the very people who do nothing but cause everyone harm, all day, every day. They don't need any more help. They've already succeeded.

Therefore, I see no need, necessarily, to contribute to this blog any further. I am announcing that I plan to make no more contributions for the foreseeable future. Thank you all for reading, and I appreciate the web hits. I hope I've made some contribution to something, despite the fact that this world is fucked up beyond repair.

Yes, Jimi Hendrix was That Good

I just wrote the following for pay (I hope) in an article of tips for learning to play guitar:

Read books.

Read novels, plays, the epistemology of Descartes, and the history of the Jewish people. This is perhaps the strangest advice you've heard, but it is essential. The pop industry makes millions of dollars off the idea that they can sell bad music that all sounds the same and no one will notice. Well, no one notices because they don't even know their own culture. As Bob Marley says, "If you know your history, then you know where you're coming from." He is a legendary guitarist and musician, not because he could play scales at the speed of light and make weird sounds like Jimi Hendrix, but because he knew exactly where he was coming from.

But then I thought about it: what if the reason why Jimi Hendrix could make all those weird sounds is because he really could play scales at the speed of light?