@adam-l Very interesting. Are these not pathologies though? I wouldn't expect a majority or even a significant minority, enough to destabilise the function of reality, to exist. Heck, maybe I'm wrong and to be well adjusted is the aberration? Which I suppose is answered by

They live an animalistic existence, following their "heart" (instincts), and they form the bulk of the followers of the perverse, psychopathic leaders.

this?

I dunno if you're familiar with the term min/maxing, but it speaks to the method of optimisation, mostly used in video games, where the greater scope of the game is sidelined for the results of the game. Trim away the fat, the experience and the process and hasten the result or reward. It seems society has been doing that to itself for some time, to a fault.

@SouthPoleProductions

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.

I don't remember where, when, or from whom I picked this up, so take it for what it is. But apparently, the dominating nuclear weapons' wargame doctrine now (for all major players), is that the one with the best anti-nuclear defence is the one most likely to strike first. Hence, the "nuclear arms race" is now more about anti-ballistic weapons and such.

(The context was Russia being annoyed at NATO placing "missile shields" in Eastern Europe, with NATO arguing that they're "just shields".)

It used to be that everyone raced for the biggest, baddest, most numerous nukes, until it became pointless, because both sides could destroy eachother times over anyways. So it shifted into who can neutralise the other side's nuclear response to a first-strike; That party being the most likely to actually initiate a first-strike.

@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