Friday, 31 May 2013

Men of Yore: Philo Farnsworth

This is another in a series of posts about men from history who have either achieved great things in one form or another by pushing boundaries: either in themselves or in society or science or exploration of some form.  Boundary pushing and growth is what men do, it's their nature: to grow and push outwards.  We, as men, are the frontiers men, the first to discover/uncover new territory, in a metaphysical sense (i.e. including both material and the immaterial) that is later colonised and 'civilised' by the rest of humanity. 

It is also partly intended to show images, be they paintings, statues or photographs of the countenaces of men of yore.  Because, quite frankly, many men wear the countenances of women these days: smiling, smirking, cooing, rolling their eyes, looking smug etc.  It's a sign of the times, and by showing some images of men from the past, I hope to show some modern men why looking surly, frowning and giving hard-ball stares at people is something to do, something to practice.



Philo Farnsworth, 1939 (aged 33)



Philo Taylor Farnsworth (August 19, 1906 – March 11, 1971) was an American inventor and television pioneer.[2] Although he made many contributions that were crucial to the early development of all-electronic television, he is perhaps best known for inventing the first fully functional all-electronic image pickup device (video camera tube), the "image dissector", the first fully functional and complete all-electronic television system, and for being the first person to demonstrate such a system to the public.[3][4] Farnsworth developed a television system complete with receiver and camera, which he produced commercially in the firm of the Farnsworth Television and Radio Corporation, from 1938 to 1951.[5][6]
In later life, Farnsworth invented a small nuclear fusion device, the Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor, or simply "fusor", employing inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC). Although not a practical device for generating nuclear energy, the fusor serves as a viable source of neutrons.[7] The design of this device has been the acknowledged inspiration for other fusion approaches including the Polywell reactor concept in terms of a general approach to fusion design.[8] Farnsworth held 165 patents, mostly in radio and television.

Early Life
Philo T. Farnsworth was born August 19, 1906, the eldest of five children[9] of Lewis Edwin Farnsworth and Serena Amanda Bastian, a Mormon couple then living in a small log cabin built by Lewis's father in a place called Indian Creek[citation needed] near Beaver, Utah. The family moved to a farm in Rigby, Idaho, in 1918, where Lewis supplemented his farming income by hauling freight with his horse-drawn wagon. Philo was excited to find his new home was wired for electricity, with a Delco generator providing power for lighting and farm machinery. He was a quick study in mechanical and electrical technology, repairing the troublesome generator, and upon finding a burned out electric motor among some items discarded by the previous tenants, proceeding to rewind the armature and convert his mother's hand-powered washing machine into an electric-powered one
[..]
He asked his high school science teacher, Justin Tolman, for advice about an electronic television system he was contemplating. He provided the teacher with sketches and diagrams covering several blackboards to show how it might be accomplished electronically. He asked his teacher if he should go ahead with his ideas, and he was encouraged to do so
[..]

Philo worked while his sister Agnes, the older of the two, took charge of the family home and the second-floor boarding house (with the help of a cousin then living with the family). The Farnsworths later moved into half of a duplex, with family friends the Gardners moving into the other side when it became vacant.[14] Philo developed a close friendship with Cliff Gardner, who shared Farnsworth's interest in electronics. The two moved to Salt Lake City to start a radio repair business.[11]
The business failed and Gardner returned to Provo. But Farnsworth remained in Salt Lake City, and through enrollment in a University of Utah job-placement service became acquainted with Leslie Gorrell and George Everson, a pair of San Francisco philanthropists who were then conducting a Salt Lake City Community Chest fundraising campaign.[15][16]
They agreed to fund Farnsworth's early television research with an initial $6,000 in backing,[17] and set up a laboratory in Los Angeles for Farnsworth to carry out his experiments.
[..]
A few months after arriving in California, Farnsworth was prepared to show his models and drawings to a patent attorney who was nationally recognized as an authority on electrophysics. Everson and Gorrell agreed that Farnsworth should apply for patents for his designs, a decision which proved crucial in later disputes with RCA.
[..]
On September 7, 1927, Farnsworth's image dissector camera tube transmitted its first image, a simple straight line, to a receiver in another room of his laboratory at 202 Green Street in San Francisco.[17] Pem Farnsworth recalled in 1985 that her husband broke the stunned silence of his lab assistants by saying, "There you are — electronic television!”
[..]
Farnsworth Television and Radio Corporation was purchased by International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) in 1951. During his time at ITT, Farnsworth worked in a basement lab known as “the cave” on Pontiac Street in Fort Wayne. From there he introduced a number of breakthrough concepts, including a defense early warning signal, submarine detection devices, radar calibration equipment and an infrared telescope. “Philo was a very deep person – tough to engage in conversation because he was always thinking about what he could do next,” said Art Resler, an ITT photographer who documented Farnsworth’s work in pictures.[6] One of Farnsworth's most significant contributions at ITT was the PPI Projector, an enhancement on the iconic "circular sweep" radar display, which allowed safe air traffic control from the ground. This system developed in the 1950s was the forerunner of today’s air traffic control systems.[1]
In addition to his electronics research, ITT management agreed to nominally fund Farnsworth's nuclear fusion research.
[..]
Memorials and legacy
In a 1996 videotaped interview by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, available on YouTube,[56] Elma Farnsworth recounts Philo's change of heart about the value of television, after seeing how it showed man walking on the moon, in real time, to millions of viewers:
Interviewer: The image dissector was used to send shots back from the moon to earth.
Elma Farnsworth: Right.
Interviewer: What did Phil think of that?
Elma Farnsworth: We were watching it, and, when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, Phil turned to me and said, "Pem, this has made it all worthwhile." Before then, he wasn't too sure.



Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth




I think that it's important to note the encouragement and freedoms that he was shown in his youth which fostered his enthusiasm for electrical and mechanical appliances: when he was allowed to repair faulty appliances by his parents, and was encouraged to pursue his dreams of constructing a television system by his teacher.


Check out some of the other entries from the 'Men of Yore' series:


[End.]

Thursday, 30 May 2013

Havamal Snippets 58: The early bird catches the worm

It's Wednesday (Woden/Odin's Day) which means that it's time for another verse from the Havamal 'Sayings of the High One - Odin'. The poem full of wisdom, both everyday and ethereal. (The poem can be found in full HERE):
58. He should early rise,
who another’s property or life
desires to have.
Seldom a sluggish wolf
gets prey,
or a sleeping man victory.

(Source: http://heathengods.com/havamal/thorpe.htm)
Zeal, ernestness, hunger, desire. 'Will' is required for anything to succeed. The opposite of Will is Apathy. If you are Willful then you stand a good chance of success, if you are Apathetic then you stand a good chance of failure. This applies to acadmic results, physique, scoring with women. As the saying goes "turning up is half the battle."


[End.]

Tuesday, 28 May 2013

Look into my eyes; deep, deep into my eyes...






Medua, by Franz Stuck

The look of a persons eyes can have a grip on a persons soul/psyche in the same way (and to the same extent) that a woman's big, hemispherically shaped norks has a grip on a man's unthinking faculties.

If you want to know what the effects of different gazes have on people, then think of the different types of gazes first and try them out on yourself in your bathroom mirror.  To think of the different types of gazes, activate the mathematical part of your brain, and think of the different combinations of positions and movement that you can have with your eyes. e.g. pupils at the top, pupils at the bottom, pupils at the side; look at someone for a very short period of time, a medium amount of time, or a long amount of time (a stare).  Then look in the mirror and see what emotional effect the multitude of gazes have on you.  Below are three examples that spring to mind.



Terrifying Eyes
Notice that the pupils of the eyes are at the bottom of the eye.


Stare at someone with your grey-green eyes, head slightly cocked back, and the white part above the pupils, and they will either: dismiss you as a lunatic, be slightly un-nerved by you, or be en-tranced (literally) by your gaze.  This shows you the power that eyes have over people.



Sad Eyes

Notice that the pupils are at the top of the eye.


Conversely look at someone with classic 'puppy dog eyes', and your pupils will appear above the white part and will have the total opposite effect on that person.



Drunkards Eyes
Drunkard's eyes usually look quite 'lazy'.


Or, look into the eyes of a pathetic drunkard who is imploring you to give them some attention (in their characteristically childish way), and you will see that the eyes show that the persons soul/psyche is incoherent, chaotic and very twitchy (i.e. it could be friendly one second then savagely hostile the next, like flicking a switch).  The feeling that these drunkards eyes have on a person will either be: one of contempt, one of sorrow, or one of nervousness.


These are just three examples of how you can exert a strong emotional influence on people just by using a few muscles around your eyes.



Personal Experience
Typing this blog entry reminds me of a time during autumn last year when I was walking into town and a stranger stopped me on the way to ask the whereabouts of a church.  I stopped and looked around and then turned back looked him in the eyes (which widened quite considerably) and told him I didn't know.

I don't know why his countenance changed in the manner it did.  I had been listening to Metallica's 'Ride the Lightning' album almost repetitively for the past few months, and that may have had an effect on me (it's very potent music).  The mans eyes almost popped out of his head: they went really, really wide.  The kind of wide that you see in panic stricken people, like Bill Dautrive from King of the Hill.  The wide-eyes were also accompanied by a slight smile.  The kind of smile that you see when people are tense and/or nervous after being confronted by some information that they don't know how to react to.  You know?  The kind of smile when your upper body tenses slightly, and it causes your mouth to smile and the eyebrows on your head to rise slightly.  And if that's the kind of effect that you can have on someone without giving the gaze any consideration, any effort, then just think how much more of an effect you could have on someone when you intend to, when you really mean it, and will it.




Related Links: 



[End.]

Sunday, 26 May 2013

Havamal Snippets 57: Like begets like

It's Wednesday (Woden/Odin's Day) which means that it's time for another verse from the Havamal 'Sayings of the High One - Odin'. The poem full of wisdom, both everyday and ethereal. (The poem can be found in full HERE):
57. Brand burns from brand
until it is burnt out;
fire is from fire quickened.
Man to man
becomes known by speech,
but a fool by his bashful silence.

(Source: http://heathengods.com/havamal/thorpe.htm)
Likeness begets likeness. If you want to get smarter, learn from a smart man. If you want to get tougher, then fight a tougher opponent. If you want to become more emasculated, then hang around emasculated men listening to Alanis Morrisette and Coldplay. Depression is socially contagious and Obesity are also socially contagious, so steer clear of the morbid and the fat.


[End.]

Friday, 24 May 2013

Judging Male Feminists, Feminist Sympathisers and Manginas:

[Update: H/T to FeminizedWesternMale for pointing out a line from the film 'The Outlaw Josey Wales' that I missed.]


Do all male feminists and male feminist sympathisers deserve hostility from the Androsphere?  No.  Quite simply we don't know enough about them and their personal lives to judge them.  That doesn't mean that we should embrace them or try to convert them, simply that we don't know enough about the environment that they were raised to judge them properly.  Nor does it mean that we should assume that all male feminists or sympathisers aren't intentionally malevolent towards men, and wilfully propogate and perpetuate misandry (Mike Nifong of the Duke Lacross rape scandal for instance).  Rather it means that the male feminist should be seen to be a victim of the environment in which they were raised; and the environment includes all aspects, from family relationships, nutrition etc.

It may be possible to do some kind of psychological profiling of male feminsts in order to determine if they are more likely to suffer from standard psychological disorders, or personality types.  This is not intended as a method of stigmatising them, simply understanding who they are and why they are more likely to believe the lies that they do.  It would also be useful to the Androsphere in general, in much the same way that psychologists use the DSM to diagnose patients and find out what is afflicting them; so that they can be cured.  A male feminist who has been cured is more useful than a male feminist who is not.

This entry was inspired by a scene in film 'The Outlaw Josey Wales': Josey Wales is on the run from the Union because he's fought for the Confederacy.  Josey is in a saloon in a dirt-poor mining town which has half a dozen other people inside.

[Outside of a saloon, Josey Wales' dog growls at a passing bounty hunter]
[The saloon doors open.  The bounty hunter walks in.]
Barman: "What'll you have"
Bounty Hunter: "I'm looking for Joesy Wales."
[The saloon patrons become quiet.]
[Josey Wales is leaning against a wooden upright at one edge of the bar]: "That'll be me."
Bounty Hunter: "You're wanted Wales."
Josey Wales: "Reckon I'm right popular.  You a bounty hunter?"
Bounty Hunter: "Yes I am."

Bounty Hunter: "A man's got to do something for a living these days."
Josey Wales: "Dyin' ain't much of a livin'."
[Pregnant pause.]
Josey Wales: "You know this ain't necessary.  You could just ride on"
[Another uncomfortable pause.]
[The bounty hunter walks out of the saloon.]
[There's an uneasy silence in the saloon.]
[The bounty hunter's spurs jangle.]
[The bounty hunter walks back in.]

Bounty Hunter: "I had to come back."
Josey Wales: "I know."
[The bounty hunter pulls his gun.]
[Josey draws his revolver quicker and shoots first.]
[Josey kills the bounty hunter who falls through the saloon door.]
[Dark, melancholic musical score.]
[End of scene.]



The war, the civil war, the war between the North and the South, imposed itself on the bounty hunter too such an extent that he couldn't resist.  The bounty hunters mind become impregnated by the atmosphere of the war, the meme of the war, of war itself: that killing is the only way to make a living.  He couldn't resist, his mind couldn't resist, and so he effectively became 'war'.  The soul, the freedom that he once had, was destroyed by the force of the meme.

As it was with the bounty hunter, so it could be with some of the manginas/male feminists: they didn't 'choose' to become feminists of their own free will, but rather they 'succumbed' to the toxic ideas that were in the environment when they grew up in.  You could make a comparison with the biology of human procreation: the more female a given environment is (the womb) the more hostile it is going to be to males (sperm cells), so much so that the number of 'casualties' (sperm cells killed by the female white blood cells) will increase dramatically.
Related article: Hostile Environments and Men Dropping Out.


[End.]

Thursday, 23 May 2013

Men of Yore: Gregor Mendel

This is another in a series of posts about men from history who have either achieved great things in one form or another by pushing boundaries: either in themselves or in society or science or exploration of some form.  Boundary pushing and growth is what men do, it's their nature: to grow and push outwards.  We, as men, are the frontiers men, the first to discover/uncover new territory, in a metaphysical sense (i.e. including both material and the immaterial) that is later colonised and 'civilised' by the rest of humanity. 

It is also partly intended to show images, be they paintings, statues or photographs of the countenaces of men of yore.  Because, quite frankly, many men wear the countenances of women these days: smiling, smirking, cooing, rolling their eyes, looking smug etc.  It's a sign of the times, and by showing some images of men from the past, I hope to show some modern men why looking surly, frowning and giving hard-ball stares at people is something to do, something to practice.


Gregor Mendel


Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20, 1822[1] – January 6, 1884) was a German-speaking Silesian[2][3] scientist and Augustinian friar who gained posthumous fame as the founder of the new science of genetics. Mendel demonstrated that the inheritance of certain traits in pea plants follows particular patterns, now referred to as the laws of Mendelian inheritance. The profound significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century, when the independent rediscovery of these laws initiated the modern science of genetics.
[..]
Gregor Mendel was born into an ethnic German family in Heinzendorf bei Odrau, Austrian Silesia, Austrian Empire (now Hynčice, Czech Republic). He was the son of Anton and Rosine (Schwirtlich) Mendel, and had one older sister (Veronica) and one younger (Theresia). They lived and worked on a farm which had been owned by the Mendel family for at least 130 years.[5] During his childhood, Mendel worked as a gardener, studied beekeeping, and as a young man attended gymnasium in Opava. From 1840 to 1843, he studied practical and theoretical philosophy as well as physics at the University of Olomouc Faculty of Philosophy[.]
[..]
Mendel's work was rejected at first, and was not widely accepted until after he died. During his own lifetime, most biologists held the idea that all characteristics were passed to the next generation through blending inheritance, in which the traits from each parent are averaged together.




The belief of ‘blending inheritance’ of the biologists of Mendels day, seems to be the same belief of the political Left who live today.  They seem to want to androgynise the genders, and mix the races, and mix communism and capitalism all together, etc; in order to get ‘the best of both worlds’.  As Mendel showed, this isn’t possible.



Check out some of the other entries from the 'Men of Yore' series:
James Cook
Stephen the III of Moldavia
George Petrovich (Black George)
Vlad II, Prince of Wallachia
Skanderbeg
King Alfred, the Great
John MacDouall Stuart
Robert Owen
Richard Trevithick
Wyatt Earp
William 'Wild Bill' Cody
Andrew Carnegie
Duke of Viseu (Henry the Navigator)
Meriwether Lewis
Arthur Schopenhauer
Theodore Roosevelt
Rudolph Diesel
John Snow
Ludwig van Beethoven
Henry Ford
George Custer


[End.]

Havamal Snippets 56: No-one should know his fate

It's Wednesday (Woden/Odin's Day) which means that it's time for another verse from the Havamal 'Sayings of the High One - Odin'. The poem full of wisdom, both everyday and ethereal. (The poem can be found in full HERE):
56. Moderately wise
should each one be,
but never over-wise.
His destiny let know
no man beforehand;
his mind will be freest from care.

(Source: http://heathengods.com/havamal/thorpe.htm)
Too much wisdom is a bad thing, and a fatalistic worldview to boot. Why? Does this mean that our fates are determined beforehand? Before our mortal lives? If so, then how much agency/free-will do we have? Is it only a few degrees either side of your fate line? Does that mean that the genuine victims of the world actaully chose their suffering? Is this what Christ is talking of when he speaks about "not judging" other people, because they have actually chosen their lives, thus the actions are not bad? "All of the world is a stage and man is it actor" as Shakespeare said.


[End.]

Wednesday, 22 May 2013

Oswald Spengler: a man in awe of cycles

Cycles, the cyclical nature of history, reality, is what Oswald Spengler was in awe of.  I say BS to 'Marvelous', wonderful, fabulous, Spengler's theory of cycles and the rise and fall of civilisations, and how all civilisations were basically doomed to crash and burn from the moment they were conceived.

Did knowledgeable Spengler know nothing of Odin, Hoenir and Lodurr, and how they slayed the Tyrannical Frost Giant Ymir (the Norse equivalent of Cronus, who ate everything that he produced/gave birth to)?  Odin, Hoenir and Lodurr slayed Ymir for a reason, for a really good reason: to be free of the tyranny of cycles, of repetition, of fatalism, of determinism, of bad habits, of no future.  That's why Odin, Hoenir and Lodurr killed Ymir, to give you freedom that they never had.

Do you want to go back to the time of Ymir: The time of the tyrant?  The time of tyranny?  Do you want to throw away all that Odin and Hoenir and Lodurr have given to you, personally ('Wilfullness', 'Logical thinking', and 'Sense perception' respectively)?  Do you want to throw away the freedom to choose (the freedom to 'see' options even): the freedom to see more than one future; to have more than one type bread on the table; to wear more than one type of blue jumpsuit or set of overalls on the plantation that your master, the tyrant told you to wear.  Do 'You' want to reject all of that?  Do you, really?  If you do, and want to have your life dominated by cycles again, then.. pffft.. urgh, I have nothing to say to you.  Get lost and read Francis Fukuyama and bloviate about how 'the crash of the western world is imminent (part 4,952)'.  If you want to bind yourself to Spengler, Fukuyama and those other fatalistic SoBs then you're spiritually dead, you have no life in you, because all you want to do is stick heroin in your arm, time and time again, time after time after time after time, until finally the veins in your arm have retreated into your body which has rotted and turned into a corpse, and no-one cares about you anymore.  Get lost.

If you believe in repetition and perpetual cycles, then you believe that alcoholics and drug addicts and emasculated men can never redeem themselves and never ever get out of their self-destructive ruts.  You might even want to see kosher drugs-pushers like George Soros peddling/forcing their poison onto these poor, defenceless people.  If that is the case then I implore you to read around and see how miserable that 'fatalistic' outlook can really be.  It's that kind of fatalism, that kind of misery, that Odin, Hoenir and Lodurr did/do/will-do struggle to be rid of.  That's the type of fatalism that Oswald Spengler believed was inevitable.  That's why I think his basic premise is over-rated.

You must believe that fatalism isn't true if you want to shape the future, even if fatalism does have a role to play in perpetuating the present.


PS. This doesn't mean that I totally rejected cyclical patterns; we orbit around the sun, and the moon orbits around us, and both affect our lives.  Rather I'm stressing that Spengler ignored the importance of 'linear/forward motion' which is the companion to cycles, and over-focused on the cycles themselves.  If you focus on one at the expense of the other then you'll end up losing out (too much cycles = depressive outlook; too much linear motion = over-optimistic outlook).

[End.]

Sunday, 19 May 2013

Havamal Snippets 55: The wise man's heart is seldom glad

It's Wednesday (Woden/Odin's Day) which means that it's time for another verse from the Havamal 'Sayings of the High One - Odin'. The poem full of wisdom, both everyday and ethereal. (The poem can be found in full HERE):
55. Moderately wise
should each one be,
but never over-wise;
for a wise man’s heart
is seldom glad,
if he is all-wise who owns it.

(Source: http://heathengods.com/havamal/thorpe.htm)
Like with the previous stanza, 54[LINK], it seems to imply that too much wisdom is a bad thing. Perhaps wisdom and happiness (gladness) are two ends of the same pole. You can either tend toward happiness at the expense of wisdom, or wisdom at the expense of happiness.


[End.]

Saturday, 18 May 2013

The Dieting Industry:


[In 2011 the] U.S. Weight Loss Market [was] Worth $60.9 Billion(http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/5/prweb8393658.htm
  The dieting industry is an interesting phenomenon.  It is interesting because it reveals the character of the Western World at the present time.  It reveals that the Western world is a world that was built and sustained by men and has been largely inherited by women. 

The Western World as excelled so much in meeting the needs of the human being (food production and distribution, clothing production, shelter construction sources of warmth, access to water, protection from physical attacks by animals and humans) that women have nothing better to do that eat too much food and become corpulent, and then seek out another person to take responsibility for them loosing that weight; that weight that they CHOSE to put on in the first place.  That's what the dieting industry shows.

It shows that despite giving women an abundance of freedoms, personal freedoms that they have never had in the history of Earth, that women ACTIVELY seek out people to molly-coddle them and make their decisions for them.  That's what the Dieting Industry shows.  It shows that women (and feminised men) cannot and do not want to take responsibility for themselves.
The dieting industry also reveals other character traits of women:
-- The number of diets and dieting companies shows that women treat lifestyles like clothing fashions: something that comes and goes with the seasons.  Something that they DON'T commit to.
-- That women quite often 'aim to fail' rather than 'aiming to succeed'.  If women really wanted to lose weight, then they would, and the company that produced the 'perfect diet' would become the market dominator.  But there is no market dominator that excels in successful dieting, why?  Because quite simply women aim to fail where men aim to succeed.  That's why female headed households produce unsuccessful children (either criminals or social mal-adapts full of neuroses).

When men begin to take full control of society once more, then women will physically shape up.  And then the Dieting Industry will lose it's source of revenue, it's foodstuff, fat neurotic women, and will shrivel up and die.  Because, let's face it, male dominated households produce balanced children, and so a male headed society will produce balanced future generations, and a male headed society has no need for anything so superfluous as a dieting industry.

[End.]

Thursday, 16 May 2013

Havamal Snippets 54: Partial ignorance is bliss

It's Wednesday (Woden/Odin's Day) which means that it's time for another verse from the Havamal 'Sayings of the High One - Odin'. The poem full of wisdom, both everyday and ethereal. (The poem can be found in full HERE):
54. Moderately wise
should each one be,
but never over-wise:
of those men
the lives are fairest,
who know much well.

(Source: http://heathengods.com/havamal/thorpe.htm)
It's awfully cold and lonely the top of the organisation, the top of the ladder. More so at the top of Mount Noos (mind). To be at the top means to have your head in the clouds and to know the future, but be unable to shape it, that's where the loneliness comes from. Read the melancholic writings of Philip K Dick[LINK] and other prophets to see this misery incarnate: they are not especially cheerful people. They tend more towards the 'darker' the 'melancholic'. The anti-pode of this (of dwelling on the top of Mount Noos) is living on the Plains of Phusis (physical), living in the 'now', 'the present', 'living for the moment'. The people who live on the Plains of Phusis are happy, but dumb. Hence the stanza says: 'it is most pleasant to live when they don't know a great many things.'


[End.]

Monday, 13 May 2013

Scavenging:

Scavenging allows you to acquire goods in exchange for a little of your time.    Quite often scavenging can offer you a better return for your money/time than buying shop bought goods.

The quality of the garbage that you can recover depends on the quality of the garbage being thrown away.  If you live in, or can get access to, a wealthy middle class city, then your pickings will be a lot better than from a poor town.  For instance one municipal/public recycling depot near to where I live has a constant supply of near-new printers and other computer components, all thrown into the skip for landfill.  That's how much wealth is just being tossed away.  It's remarkable when you think about it.  Anyway, it's the same thing at the car boot sale at lunch time when they all pack up their fold-out table and go home: a melange of unsold goods dumped by the nearby rubbish bins because the owners don't want them anymore.

Don't worry about the stigma of sifting through garbage; you're the one that benefits by it.  If you spend half an hour scavenging for a bag full of items that would cost 2 or more hours of labour then you've made a decent saving.  Also don’t worry that it’s just part of a passing fad that SWPL or trendy MC’s do, because I’ve seen working class people do it as well.

You should be aware of the legal implications before hand though.  It seems that sifting through refuse can get you into trouble (theft, destruction of property, trespassing etc), so if you’re interested but don’t want to get nicked, then stick to bins on public property or ask the store manager and/or security staff before hand.

JD, a freegan, says almost everybody who shares his lifestyle will have encountered security personnel during foraging escapades. He says: “I have personally encountered a number of threats from store managers and the occasional policeman.


A few links (or just put the related terms into a search engine):


[End.]

Sunday, 12 May 2013

Havamal Snippets 53: For every wise man there is a fool

It's Wednesday (Woden/Odin's Day) which means that it's time for another verse from the Havamal 'Sayings of the High One - Odin'. The poem full of wisdom, both everyday and ethereal. (The poem can be found in full HERE):
53. Little are the sandgrains,
little the wits,
little the minds of (some) men;
for all men
are not wise alike:
men are everywhere by halves.

(Source: http://heathengods.com/havamal/thorpe.htm)
This stanza is an observation of the basic injustice of duality in the cosmos: for every wise man there is a dunce; for every strong man there is a weakling. The modern 'Bell Curve' of height, IQ or anything else attests to this. While the injustice of duality is covered in this stanza, the 'blessed AND cursed' aspect of duality is dealt with in stanza 69 when it explains that each man '..is not wholly wretched though he be in rotten health; one is blessed with sons, another with kinsmen...'.

The concept of duality is an important one to understand, because the cosmos was/is/shall-be created by God/Being/Will (call it what you will) dividing 'Nothingness' (zero) into two opposing things (in conceptual terms, 'A' and 'Not-A'). So for every -1 there is a +1, for every electron there is a proton, for every yesterday there is a tomorrow, for every man there is a woman, for every life there is a death, for every capitalist there is a communist, for every murderer there is a murdered, for every nobleman there is an ignoble rascal, for every nagging wife there is a brow-beaten husband, and so on. Once you see this, then you must understand that it is God/Being/Will that decides the Context in which the two opposing things will exist. For example:

Context: direction; opposites: inbound and outbound.
Context: extent; opposite: infinite and finite.
Context: monochrome; opposites: white and black.
Context: charged subatomic particle; opposites: proton and electron.
Context: human gender; opposites: man and woman.
Context: foot attire; opposites: workmans boots and stilleto shoes.

Humans are at one with God/Being/Will (as is the rest of the cosmos) so humans can Will certain contexts into being. In an everyday example if you approach a woman and act in a masculine manner then she will form the opposite, a feminine woman. When you know this fact then you can use it in everyday dealings with people: choose the Context and make the other person form the Opposite. Be a leader and they will follow, be a comedian and they will laugh, be an antagonist and they will be provoked to hating you.


[End.]

Saturday, 11 May 2013

Appealing to the Masses:


Appealing to the masses/herd to actualise political or social change (or single person with a herd-like mindset/mentality) assumes that the masses have both will-power and rational/critical faculties in the first place.  The masses have neither of these things.  If they did have these things then they would cease to be the masses. 

Now, to actualise any kind of change (either personal change or group change) one needs will power, because the masses don't have any will power then there's no point appealing to them, because they'll never get anything done.  It's like speaking to a lump of clay and trying to reason with it, implore that it would be in it's interest to shape itself into a clay pot.  It ain't gonna happen.

Lyndon Larouche and Alexander Dugin have both learnt this lesson.  Early in their careers they tried to be 'political agitators', formed groups, wrote books and tried to 'summon up' the will of the masses into actually doing something.  But they must've found out that it didn't work, because they ended up changing their methodology after a number of years.  Larouche attached himself to the Catholic Church and began getting lots of funding from private high ranking individuals; and Dugin began to fraternise with Putin and his circle of friends.  Putin.  Vladimir Putin.  One of the leaders of the G8, who leads one of the greatest nations on planet Earth.  Putin does not equal the masses.  If you want to exert massive political upheaval, then that's how you do it: you need to go to straight to the top.

Going to the top is how Christianity came to be so widespread: Bishops and missionaries went to rulers, the rulers, of European tribes and preached the gospel to them.  Then these rulers converted to Christianity and imposed it on their subjects - the masses.  Imposed.  I'll say it again: imposed.  From above.  That's how you exert massive socio-political change, by speaking to the top dog, and getting him to do the work for you.  Not by 'appealing to the masses'.

Charlemagne proclaimed war against the Saxons, announcing his resolve to subdue and convert them. (http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=finnemore&book=germany&story=charlemagne)

Contrast that with the method that Christian-preacher David Livingstone used.  David Livingstone tried to convert Africans to Christ for several years by preaching the Gospel and using reason.  After those years, how many converts did he win?  One.  Just one.  That's where 'appealing to the masses' gets you.  One convert for several years work.  Not exactly effective.  Not exactly worthwhile.


If you, personally, are interested in changing men's lives on a mass-group (e.g. societal) level, then take the missionaries approach and go to the leader of the society and deal with them on a one-to-one basis; or better still, become the leader of a mass-group and impose your will directly on to the group, onto the masses.


[End.]

Thursday, 9 May 2013

Men of Yore: Captain James Cook

This is another in a series of posts about men from history who have either achieved great things in one form or another by pushing boundaries: either in themselves or in society or science or exploration of some form.  Boundary pushing and growth is what men do, it's their nature: to grow and push outwards.  We, as men, are the frontiers men, the first to discover/uncover new territory, in a metaphysical sense (i.e. including both material and the immaterial) that is later colonised and 'civilised' by the rest of humanity. 

It is also partly intended to show images, be they paintings, statues or photographs of the countenaces of men of yore.  Because, quite frankly, many men wear the countenances of women these days: smiling, smirking, cooing, rolling their eyes, looking smug etc.  It's a sign of the times, and by showing some images of men from the past, I hope to show some modern men why looking surly, frowning and giving hard-ball stares at people is something to do, something to practice.



James Cook, 1775 (aged 47)



Captain James Cook, FRS, RN (7 November 1728[NB 1] – 14 February 1779) was a British explorer, navigator, cartographer, and captain in the Royal Navy. Cook made detailed maps of Newfoundland prior to making three voyages to the Pacific Ocean, during which he achieved the first recorded European contact with the eastern coastline of Australia and the Hawaiian Islands, and the first recorded circumnavigation of New Zealand.
Cook joined the British merchant navy as a teenager and joined the Royal Navy in 1755. He saw action in the Seven Years' War, and subsequently surveyed and mapped much of the entrance to the Saint Lawrence River during the siege of Quebec. This helped bring Cook to the attention of the Admiralty and Royal Society. This notice came at a crucial moment in both Cook's career and the direction of British overseas exploration, and led to his commission in 1766 as commander of HM Bark Endeavour for the first of three Pacific voyages.
In three voyages Cook sailed thousands of miles across largely uncharted areas of the globe. He mapped lands from New Zealand to Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean in greater detail and on a scale not previously achieved. As he progressed on his voyages of discovery he surveyed and named features, and recorded islands and coastlines on European maps for the first time. He displayed a combination of seamanship, superior surveying and cartographic skills, physical courage and an ability to lead men in adverse conditions.
Cook was killed in Hawaii in a fight with Hawaiians during his third exploratory voyage in the Pacific in 1779. He left a legacy of scientific and geographical knowledge which was to influence his successors well into the 20th century and numerous memorials worldwide have been dedicated to him.
[..]

Early life and family

[edit]James Cook was born in the village of Marton in Yorkshire, now a suburb of Middlesbrough.[1] He was baptised in the local church of St. Cuthbert, where his name can be seen in the church register. Cook was the second of eight children of James Cook, a Scottish farm labourer from Ednam near Kelso, and his locally born wife, Grace Pace, from Thornaby-on-Tees.[1][2][3] In 1736, his family moved to Airey Holme farm at Great Ayton, where his father's employer, Thomas Skottowe, paid for him to attend the local school. In 1741, after five years schooling, he began work for his father, who had by now been promoted to farm manager. For leisure, he would climb a nearby hill, Roseberry Topping, enjoying the opportunity for solitude.
[..]
Cook began working on trading ships in the Baltic Sea. After passing his examinations in 1752, he soon progressed through the merchant navy ranks, starting with his promotion in that year to mate aboard the collier brig Friendship.[6] In 1755, within a month of being offered command of this vessel, he volunteered for service in the Royal Navy, when Britain was re-arming for what was to become the Seven Years' War.
[..]
Death
The esteem in which he was nevertheless held by the Hawaiians [who killed him during a fight over the theft of rowing ships] resulted in his body being retained by their chiefs and elders. Following the practice of the time, Cook's body underwent funerary rituals similar to those reserved for the chiefs and highest elders of the society. The body was disembowelled, baked to facilitate removal of the flesh, and the bones were carefully
[..]
David Samwell, who sailed with Cook on the Resolution, wrote of him: "He was a modest man, and rather bashful; of an agreeable lively conversation, sensible and intelligent. In temper he was somewhat hasty, but of a disposition the most friendly, benevolent and humane. His person was above six feet high: and, though a good looking man, he was plain both in dress and appearance. His face was full of expression: his nose extremely well shaped: his eyes which were small and of a brown cast, were quick and piercing; his eyebrows prominent, which gave his countenance altogether an air of austerity."
[..]
Navigation and Science
Cook succeeded in circumnavigating the world on his first voyage without losing a single man to scurvy, an unusual accomplishment at the time. He tested several preventive measures but the most important was frequent replenishment of fresh food.[53] It was for presenting a paper on this aspect of the voyage to the Royal Society that he was presented with the Copley Medal in 1776.[54][55] Ever the observer, Cook was the first European to have extensive contact with various people of the Pacific. He correctly concluded there was a relationship among all the people in the Pacific, despite their being separated by thousands of miles of ocean (see Malayo-Polynesian languages). Cook came up with the theory that Polynesians originated from Asia, which was later proved to be correct by scientist Bryan Sykes
[..]

Legacy
His contributions to knowledge were internationally recognised during his lifetime. In 1779, while the American colonies were at war with Britain in their war for independence, Benjamin Franklin wrote to captains of American warships at sea, recommending that if they came into contact with Cook's vessel, they were to "not consider her an enemy, nor suffer any plunder to be made of the effects contained in her, nor obstruct her immediate return to England by detaining her or sending her into any other part of Europe or to America; but that you treat the said Captain Cook and his people with all civility and kindness, [...] as common friends to mankind."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Cook



From the brief description of Cook by Samwell it strikes me that Cook was what you could call a well rounded individual: he both valued his solitude and was bashful in front of others, yet his quiet manner didn’t tend towards cold heartedness, for he was a benevolent man who cared about his crew and was friendly towards all; so much so that even Britains enemie's of the time (USA) thought he should be treated well.




Check out some of the other entries from the 'Men of Yore' series:
Stephen the III of Moldavia
George Petrovich (Black George)
Vlad II, Prince of Wallachia
Skanderbeg
King Alfred, the Great
John MacDouall Stuart
Robert Owen
Richard Trevithick
Wyatt Earp
William 'Wild Bill' Cody
Andrew Carnegie
Duke of Viseu (Henry the Navigator)
Meriwether Lewis
Arthur Schopenhauer
Theodore Roosevelt
Rudolph Diesel
John Snow
Ludwig van Beethoven
Henry Ford
George Custer


[End.]