Väggen försvinner / The Wall Disappears
A new perspective by me and my friend Johanna Ovelius Gustavsson.
Välkommen!
You are not stupid - It’s the state and the schools that make you ignorant.
http://thewalldisappears.blogspot.se/
Short: walldis.co.nr
Description of THE WALL and presentation of our course
In English
http://thewalldisappears.blogspot.se/p/englishpres.html
På svenska
http://thewalldisappears.blogspot.se/p/svenskpres.html
Gender and racial discrimination, exploitation and so forth are only effects. The real problem is that it is possible to suppress the people with false Science or false descriptions of the world; that supports Might Is Right. Or like this. We are not genuine citizens.
- Home
- Site Map
- Contact
- Hyper Artistic Science
- Mini Workshop
- This is How the Schools Train People to Be Fascists
- We All Want to Change the World
- Workshop
- The Beatles – Björk
- The Hyper Implicit Bias
- Stop School Shootings – Stop Platonism
- Intro
- Summary
- Get Out! - Section Zero
- Section One
- Section Two
- Section Three
03 November 2013
23 October 2013
Homeland Teaches You – To Be Obedient – To Fear the Political Elite
They give you the message everywhere they can. You cannot miss it. And at the same time they can say it is just entertainment.
In Season 3, Episode 4 of "Homeland," titled "Game On". "Carrie" Mathison, (Claire Danes) meets Leland Bennett (Martin Donovan), a lawyer who gives her following arguments.
Bennett: You know how this works. You said so yourself.
Carrie: Meaning what?
Bennett: Are you familiar with the term Controvercialize?
Carrie: No.
Bennett: That’s what they are doing to you. They turn you into a story. … You are a liability to a lot of people that have a lot to lose. So far, they have kept your name out of the press. But how long will you think that’s gonna last? And what happens then? I tell you what. You are destroyed. … And in a six month or a year if you have not killed yourself by then. They’ll do it for you. You are naive to think they will not. You will slip in the shower. They will force feed you Lithium until the heart stops, and they’ll hang you in a doorknob and call it suicide.
That is how they produce Scapegoats and make them disappears in one way or the other.
A search on SUICIDE + WHISTLEBLOVER give interesting results https://www.google.se/
webhp#q=suicide+%2B+whistleblower
Like these:
List of whistleblowers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers
JPMorgan Chase Whistleblower: 'Essentially Suicide' To Stand Up To Bank, Loren Berlin, 05/07/2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/linda-almonte-jpmorgan-chase-whistleblower_n_1478268.html
.......
Game On (Homeland), Original air date: October 20, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_On_(Homeland)
Homeland (TV series)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_(TV_series)
Lithium (medication)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_(medication)
Scapegoat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat
05 October 2013
Snowden Reveals Much More Than Total Surveillance
Updated (language fix): 13 November 2015
It is not the recently disclosed total surveillance that is interesting. The real thing is the answer to: Why seams any argument valid that is based on mistrust of the citizens?
This question and its answer highlight what is deemed to be a taboo – in a world where it is proclaimed that we are able to talk openly about everything.
It is political incorrect and a taboo to ask fundamental questions that reveal what the political élite and the academic tradition will not talk about. Two examples, of such questions, are: What precisely is democracy? and How is it possible to create knowledge in any science? You simply cannot give a concrete answer to these and many other fundamental questions within the Western tradition of thought.
The Western tradition of thought, was constructed to protect that Might Makes Right/Might Is Right.
Consequently, it is only possibly is to obey. Therefore, any argument that you are a threat to law and order is valid. Or to be even more precise any argument that proves that you are wrong, if you put the established order to question, is valid.
Thus, you cannot object to: total surveillance.
Of course you can try to find any argument against it. But, all your arguments will be futile, lame and lack any value or power.
The substance of the word Subject, or Subjectivity, underlines this simple truth.
“… from Latin subjectus one under authority … literally, to throw under, from sub- + jacere to throw …”
Merriam-Webster, Origin of SUBJECT,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subject
Please, listen carefully to Snowden, listen to what he really says in the first great interview. Down below are some of the best.
"… But over time that awareness of wrongdoing sort of builds up and you feel compelled to talk about. And the more you talk about the more you're ignored. The more you're told its not a problem until eventually you realize that these things need to be determined by the public and not by somebody who was simply hired by the government. ..."
"… NSA and intelligence community in general is focused on getting intelligence wherever it can by any means possible. It believes, on the grounds of sort of a self-certification, that they serve the national interest. ..."
"… I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model. ..."
"… if you realize that that's the world you helped create and it's gonna get worse with the next generation and the next generation who extend the capabilities of this sort of architecture of oppression, you realize that you might be willing to accept any risk and it doesn't matter what the outcome is so long as the public gets to make their own decisions about how that's applied. …"
The interview in text
http://www.policymic.com/articles/47355/edward-snowden-interview-transcript-full-text-read-the-guardian-s-entire-interview-with-the-man-who-leaked-prism
Edward Snowden, Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
The NSA files, The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-nsa-files
NSA 'exceeded Orwell's imagination' - Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger says depth of NSA surveillance programs greatly exceeds anything the 1984 author could have imagined, The Guardian, 230913.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/23/orwell-nsa-surveillance-alan-rusbridger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Rusbridger
Freedom of Information, A British newspaper wants to take its aggressive investigations global, but money is running out, by Ken Auletta, The New Yorker, 071013.
Especially funny: “You’re an editor, but you have a responsibility as a citizen as well.”
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/10/07/131007fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=all
It is not the recently disclosed total surveillance that is interesting. The real thing is the answer to: Why seams any argument valid that is based on mistrust of the citizens?
This question and its answer highlight what is deemed to be a taboo – in a world where it is proclaimed that we are able to talk openly about everything.
It is political incorrect and a taboo to ask fundamental questions that reveal what the political élite and the academic tradition will not talk about. Two examples, of such questions, are: What precisely is democracy? and How is it possible to create knowledge in any science? You simply cannot give a concrete answer to these and many other fundamental questions within the Western tradition of thought.
The Western tradition of thought, was constructed to protect that Might Makes Right/Might Is Right.
Consequently, it is only possibly is to obey. Therefore, any argument that you are a threat to law and order is valid. Or to be even more precise any argument that proves that you are wrong, if you put the established order to question, is valid.
Thus, you cannot object to: total surveillance.
Of course you can try to find any argument against it. But, all your arguments will be futile, lame and lack any value or power.
The substance of the word Subject, or Subjectivity, underlines this simple truth.
“… from Latin subjectus one under authority … literally, to throw under, from sub- + jacere to throw …”
Merriam-Webster, Origin of SUBJECT,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subject
Please, listen carefully to Snowden, listen to what he really says in the first great interview. Down below are some of the best.
"… But over time that awareness of wrongdoing sort of builds up and you feel compelled to talk about. And the more you talk about the more you're ignored. The more you're told its not a problem until eventually you realize that these things need to be determined by the public and not by somebody who was simply hired by the government. ..."
"… NSA and intelligence community in general is focused on getting intelligence wherever it can by any means possible. It believes, on the grounds of sort of a self-certification, that they serve the national interest. ..."
"… I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model. ..."
"… if you realize that that's the world you helped create and it's gonna get worse with the next generation and the next generation who extend the capabilities of this sort of architecture of oppression, you realize that you might be willing to accept any risk and it doesn't matter what the outcome is so long as the public gets to make their own decisions about how that's applied. …"
The interview in text
http://www.policymic.com/articles/47355/edward-snowden-interview-transcript-full-text-read-the-guardian-s-entire-interview-with-the-man-who-leaked-prism
Edward Snowden, Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
The NSA files, The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-nsa-files
Some More
NSA 'exceeded Orwell's imagination' - Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger says depth of NSA surveillance programs greatly exceeds anything the 1984 author could have imagined, The Guardian, 230913.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/23/orwell-nsa-surveillance-alan-rusbridger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Rusbridger
Freedom of Information, A British newspaper wants to take its aggressive investigations global, but money is running out, by Ken Auletta, The New Yorker, 071013.
Especially funny: “You’re an editor, but you have a responsibility as a citizen as well.”
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/10/07/131007fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=all
12 September 2013
Hur politikerna blev allsmäktiga med hjälp av den akademiska traditionen
Finns nu på:
www.staten.co.nr
NY SEKTION TILL BOKEN
Hur politikerna blev allsmäktiga med hjälp av den akademiska traditionen
Du ska tvingas till att vara fri – exakt så – står det i den bok som eliten säger är stommen för samhället och ditt liv. Det är även så att tvånget ska vara dolt. Grunden för vad de kallar för exempelvis psykologi, sociologi och demokrati är alltså att Du ska t-v-i-n-g-a-s till att vara fri.
Jag visar, med maktens egna ord, HUR deras terrortrick fungerar.
FÖRSTA AFFISCHEN VALET 2014
Kunde liksom inte låta bli.
DÄRTILL
Nya uppgifter kräver ny taktik – hungerstrejk först när jag har många läsare
Jag har tidigare satt olika datum för en hungerstrejk för att lösa upp alla band mellan den akademiska traditionen och staten. Jag tror fortfarande att det är en bra idé hungerstrejka. Men, sättet att genomföra har förändrats på grund av vad jag nu har skrivit. Nu visar jag på sammanhang som direkt berör vår vardag. Det medför att det nya materialet kan röra upp heta känslor. När det samtidigt är få som öppet vågar tala och skriva om vad som kan bevisas; är det för farligt att ensam protestera offentligt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)