@Stigma

My take on those issues, i.e. how people work and who is serious and who's not:

(It's loosely based on psychoanalytical concepts).

There are a couple of different psychic structures in people. You've got the psychotics, and these you can usually tell off the bat or very quickly. (These are not necessarily schizophrenics, they might be quite functional and never enter a psychotic crisis).

Then there are the neurotics, which are basically "the normals". These come in two varieties: the obsessives, out of which scientists and Betas come, and the occasional benevolent leader, in specific eras.

And the hysterics. These are interesting, in that the lack certain qualities which we consider patently human, e.g. the capacity for autonomy. These are often jovial, pleasant types, and make nice good weather friends. But enter a crisis, and the void starts showing. BPDs are a pathological example of them.

And then there are the perverse. The psychopaths are in here. They take you on a spectacular wild goose hunt.

Now, the discussions that go nowhere, that you describe, are with the hysterics and sometimes the perverse. It's the new thing, "postmodernism": these people don't have anchors to reality, they latch on to things, other people, fads, stuff. (You can already start to see where women for in this scheme). Discussion with them is about the feels, not the facts. They live an animalistic existence, following their "heart" (instincts), and they form the bulk of the followers of the perverse, psychopathic leaders.

@adam-l Just watched it, good recommendation. I had been anticipating the 9/11 and subsequent war on terror segment. Hearing Bush and Blair again in those clips makes me even more exhausted to hear the new faces of those exact same political parties saying the exact same words - but what makes it worse is that the exact same people are hearing them and going along with it again.

Well anyway, the rest of the documentary is pretty fascinating. I'm fairly disconcerted at the idea of reality having peeled off into being entirely fake and gay, and it points to my wider frustration with conversations or efforts to truth seek - because of course you've first got to establish which sandbox you're playing in, the real or the fake and gay, and then you have to figure out if whom you're interacting with is operating in the real or the fake and gay, and if it's the latter then it is entirely a waste of time... worse still, you could be occupying what you think ought to be real only to find out it's been coopted and is actually now fake and gay.

I do wonder what sets someone apart from the fake and gay long enough to say "hey wait a minute" - and for others to blithely accept it.

Another interesting point was the Aladdin predictive algorithm. I'd not heard of that before and I do wonder what it's capabilities are outside of the market context... but then I guess he who controls the spice markets, controls the universe world.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=to72IJzQT5k

@Stigma

I see it in a way simpler way then the charts. Charts can be faked, charts (as well as other shit) are part of politics and politics is mostly a lie.

We can assume that any big enough country or prosperous or ambitious will try to construct nuclear weapon.

Iran is full of angry dudes that dont like being subjugated. Of course they will do everything to change it. Times change they cant be sure that they wont be getting a sHort and sharp end of stick sometimes in a future.

No charts needed.

Would Iran use it? We know that pakistan an north Korea didn't.

What would happen if X would try to nuke someone... factors:

• what are the defences of destination (not everything reached the destination so retaliation possible)
• defensive capabilities that are not yet known but would be used
• how much facilities are infiltrated, -
• compliance level of staff to start nuclear war, maybe even self sabotage

Trying to nuke someone and failing would be disastrous to the aggressor as of now, unless securing success.

Nuke is a serious game. We got a problem that will never go away.

Sidenote

Hard to belive that Iran didn't use air defence at all, that might suggest

• they wanted to test their rockets against the Israel's dome in retaliation
• decoy facilities
• they already have it