Please…… Help Fight Against the Sale of Children for the Purpose of Sex Trafficking and Child Pornography

1. Watch this entire trailer……

2. Go see this movie when it opens on July 4th, and………

3. Consider Paying it Forward

The Sound of Freedom


This is a true story. I watched an hour long interview with Tim Ballard, the subject of this movie, and Jim Caviezel. Tim quit his job as a Department of Homeland Security Special Agent so that he could literally, 'save the kids'.

He is 'The Real Deal'. Jim Caviezel is the actor who plays him in this movie.

These men are literally doing 'God's Work', Tim, by performing this work, and Jim by shining a light on this literal EVIL that is among us. For instance, at my workplace, two men were fired and incarcerated within the last 6 months for child pornography. That happened because they were 'incautious' enought to watch it on a government computer. Think of how many are watching on their private computers, and don't get caught. This is a huge problem worldwide, and our country is a primary contributor to this (no other word for it but)…….. Pure Evil.

We have a moral obligation to do what we can to fight against this….

Please help.

Please take a material step and stand up for goodness, on this Independence Day.

Thank you, Elizabeth

Expand full comment

I hypothesize that we come by our deep faith in technology honestly, over millions of years, in which each innovation, each new knapping technique used to make a stone tool, yielded survival benefits, during millenia in which extinction was always a possibility. This remained true for those of the upper classes if not for the poor since the Neolithic, but at some point it stopped being true. There has also always been an evolutionary arms race between predator and prey, so innovative weapons have yielded an advantage since life began in the primal ooze. And, now, feeling as if we are faced with extinction, depending on what epistemological sources we rely on, (though, arguably there is certainly ongoing extinction for plant and animal species), perhaps an ontological primitive, or an old adaptive response surfaces unconsciously, and we await technology as the savior it has always been in history and prehistory. Perhaps this is part of why we got seduced by Operation Warp Speed, and now can't believe in the damages the highly technological vaccines are inflicting. How to interrupt this? We are blinded by it, like the Los Alamos scientists, who didn't know if they would fuse all the molecules in the universe together, and set off the Trinity Test anyway. Just hubris, or weird old adaptive psychological memory, not unlike the ancient behavioral immune system?

I read somewhere that some are blaming the Copenhagen Interpretation for our inability to collectively find truth. There were those who blamed the Surrealists for World War II.

Such a thought provoking post!

Expand full comment

"Science is undeniably one of the greatest achievements humanity has ever produced"

At the light of the climate change "science", we could also say that science is undeniably one of the greatest achievements propaganda has ever produced.

Technocracy and democracy are mutually exclusive. Making technocracy compatible with democracy is also the fruit of propaganda. Does Schwab personify democracy?

A survey made among a majority of people subjected to permanent globalist propaganda is likely to show that propaganda works.

Expand full comment

Seems we have been successfully manoeuvred into a situation where every single aspect of our “humanness” is deemed to be nothing more than mere commodity. Love, family, friendship and the age old pursuit of happiness are evaluated purely in regards to their overall financial value to the state.


Expand full comment

Dear One Existence

thank you for clarifying your views. To extend the conversation in what I hope will be a conatructive way I shall claim that in order for us to "reason" we must have "principles of reasoning" that are the solution to the philosophical problem that is called The Problem of Induction. The problem is of how, in a logically permissible way to select the set of inferences that will be made by a model of a physical system from a larger set of possibilities. Starting in the year 1963 and ending in the year 1980, this problem was solved by the Late Ronald Arlie Christensen. He solved this problem by enunciating the rule that the induced model expresses all of the available information about the conditional outcomes of the events of the future for a given physical system but no more. This solution generates the principles of reasoning that Christensen calls "entropy minimax" after "entropy," the missing information in an inference to the conditional outcomes of the events of the future for this system per event. Circa 1980, Christensen published his findings in the seven volume "Entropy Minimax Source Book."

However, most builders of models of physical systems continued to select the set of inferences to the conditional outcomes of the events of the future that would be made by the models that they constructed through usage of the intuitive rules of thumb that are called "heuristocs. This method had the logical shortcoming on each occasion in which a particular heuristic selected a particular set of inferences for being made by the model, a different heuristic selected a different set of inferences for being made by this model. In thos wau. the method of heuristics falsified the Law of Non-Contradition (LNC)). The LNC was amongst Aristotle's three Laws of thought. This phenomenon has left most of us without the Principles of Reasoning that one needs in order to reason.


Terry Oldberg

Expand full comment

typo alert: I meant to type "this way" rather than "thos wau"

Expand full comment

Dear One Existence:

I am sorry to say that I cannot respond as the thread of our conversation is lost.


Terry Oldberg

Expand full comment

I found it somewhere after I had written - don't worry!

Equally cordially,

One Existence

Expand full comment

Techne’ needs to lead to phronesis in order for nations and communities to thrive.

Wisdom belongs to God and few humans who have received His Grace.

Science separated from humility leads to war and destruction.

Excellent article and comments...

Expand full comment

Or else the results of the survey were fabricated by either slanting the questions, stacking the responses, or both.

Yet another possibility is our old friend Orwell's "double think": the ability to hold two mutually contradictory beliefs at once. The population were well enough conditioned during the pandemic to accept such contradictions and did so quite happily. After a single dose of officially blessed nonsense has been swallowed once, subsequent resistance by "the individual" to further such absurdities becomes non-existent.

Or else the whole thing was invented! (This is where we've come to.)

Expand full comment

“Reason has hard limits, and a large portion of the world slips right through its grip”

-John Micheal Greer

Expand full comment

I would recommend a book by Patrick M. Wood, The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism. Patrick is an expert in the field of Technocracy, having studied for over 40 years, writing several books on the topic. I believe if the people participating in this poll knew exactly what they were voting on, they would not see it as an option at all...quite the contrary. Humans need Source Creator, God, if you will. All people including "leaders" need a connection to Source of all life. We need Natural Law to guide and inform us and recognition of our inherent freedoms and Sovereignty. Technocracy in itself has not a soul...logic without source is open to corruption. I strongly advise anyone to research Patrick M. Woods books...I found the aforementioned book on amazon.

Expand full comment

As it is prone to corruption it is corrupting THE ETERNAL LIFE by its own PRIDE, ARROGANCE AND HUBRIS leading to death in and by itself.

ETERNAL LIFE is self-sustaining as it is UPDATING ITSELF by the eternal process of CREATION!

Expand full comment

One Existence:

Thanks for taking the time to reply. The theory that a desire for totalitrarian rule over themselves is created by ignorance of complex systems theory is presented by Prof. Desmet in "The Psychology of Totalitarian rule." In public policy research that I have conducted I have discovered that tgnorance of this theory is the cause of a number of public policy disasters, one of which is to replace fossil fuels by more expensive renewables. Left leaning people tend to make this mistake and right leaning people not to do so, as predicted by Desmet's theory.

Expand full comment

Thank you for your thoughts - albeit not sure to which comment it refers, which might be the reason that I cannot completely follow your train of thought. Clarification is highly appreciated!

Expand full comment

I like this approach to good government, but there are difficulties in how to decide on the best policy, not only on a criterion for its use, but for who is most likely to be affected in both favorable and unfavorable ways. What I wish to propose is that the introduction of the knowledge of our social system of macroeconomics needs a complete revision so that it is greatly improved and becomes true science which is arranged with any biased or political or even commercial effect being eliminated. This is possible only when we recognize this subject to be a true science (to replace its current pseudo-science form) and therefore should not be subject to any unjustified biasing.

This knowledge is vital for good government decision-making and is now available due to my research and discoveries of how it can and should be organized in a cold-logical way, to replace past unsound intuitions. The following article is an introduction to my free e-book which derives a better way for understanding of what it REALLY comprises and how it ACTUALLY works.

Making Macroeconomics a Much More Exact Science

Today macroeconomics is treated inexactly within the humanities, because it appears to be a very

complex and easily confused matter. But this does not give it fair justice, because we should be trying

to find a viable approach to the topic and examine it in a way that avoids these problems, and for us to better understand of what it comprises and how it works.

Suppose we ask ourselves the question: “how many different KINDS of financial (business) transaction occur within our society?” The simple and direct answer shows that that only a limited number of them are possible or necessary. Although our sociological system comprises of many millions of participants, to properly answer this question we should be ready to consider the averages of the various kinds of activities (no matter who performs them), and simultaneously to idealize these activities so that they fall into a number of commonly shared operations.

This approach uses some general terms for expressing the various types of these transactions, into what becomes a relatively small number. Here, each kind is found to apply between a particular pair of agents—each one of which has individual properties. Then to cover the whole sociological system of a country, it requires only 19 kinds of exchanges of the goods, services, access rights, taxes, credits, investments, valuable legal documents, etc., verses the mutual and

opposing flows of money.

The argument that led to this initially unexpected result was prepared by the author. It may be found in his working paper (on the internet) as SSRN 2865571 “Einstein’s Criterion Applied to Logical

Macroeconomics Modeling”. In this model these double-flows of money verses goods, etc., necessarily pass between only 6 kinds of role-playing entities (or agents). Of course, there are a number of different configurations that are possible for this type of simplification, but if one tries to eliminate all the unnecessary complications and sticks to the more basic activities, then these particular quantities and flows provide the most concise yet fully comprehensive result, which is presentable in a seamless manner, for our whole social system and one that is suitable for its further analysis.

Surprisingly, past representation of our sociological system by this kind of an interpretation model has

neither been properly derived nor formally presented before. Previously, other partial versions have

been modeled (using up to 4 agents, as by Professor Hudson), but they are inexact due to their being

over-simplified. Alternatively, in the case of econometrics, the representations are far too complicated

and almost impossible for students to follow. These two reasons of over-simplification and of complexity are why this pseudo or non-scientific confusion has been created by many economists, and it explains their failure to obtain a good understanding about how the whole system works.

The model being described here in this paper is unique, in being the first to include, along with some

additional aspects, all the 3 factors of production, in Adam Smith's “Wealth of Nations” book of 1776.

These factors are Land, Labor and Capital, along with their returns of Ground-Rent, Wages and

Interest/Dividends, respectively. All of them are all included in the model, as a diagram in the paper.

(Economics’ historians will recall, as originally explained by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, that there

are prescribed independent functions of the land-owners and the capitalists. The land-owners speculate in the land-values and rent it to tenants, whilst the capitalists are actually the owners/managers of the durable capital goods used in industry. These items may be hired out for use. Regrettably, for political reasons, the concept of these 2 different functions were combined by John Bates Clark and company about 1900, resulting in the later neglect of their different influences on our sociological system-- the terms landlord and capitalist becoming virtually synonymous along with the expression for property as real-estate.)

The diagram of this model is in my paper (noted above). A mention of the related teaching process is

also provided in my short working paper SSRN 2600103 “A Mechanical Model for Teaching

Macroeconomics”. With this model in an alternative form, the various parts and activities of the Big

Picture of our sociological system can be properly identified and defined. Subsequently by analysis, the way our sociological system works can then be properly seen, calculated and illustrated.

This analysis is introduced by the mathematics and logic, which was devised by Nobel Laureate

Wellesley W. Leontief, when he invented the important "Input-Output" matrix methodology (that he

originally applied only to the production sector). This short-hand method of modeling the whole system replaces the above-mentioned block-and-flow diagram. It enables one to really get to grips with what is going-on within our sociological system. It is the topology of the matrix which actually provides the key to this.

The logic and math are not hard and are suitable for high-school students, who have been shown the basic properties of square matrices and the notation of the calculus. By this technique it is comparatively easy to introduce any change to a pre-set sociological system that is theoretically in equilibrium (even though we know that this ideal is never actually attained--it simply being a convenient way to begin the study). This change creates an imbalance and we need to regain

equilibrium again. Thus, sudden changes or policy decisions may be simulated and the effects of them

determined, which will point the way to what policy is best. In my book about it, (see below) 3 changes

associated with taxation are investigated in hand-worked numerical examples. In fact, when I first

worked it out, the irrefutable logical results were a surprise, even to me!

Developments of these ideas about making our subject more truly scientific (thereby avoiding the past

pseudo-science being taught at universities), may be found in my recent book: “Consequential

Macroeconomics—Rationalizing About How Our Social System Works”.

Please write to me at chesterdh@hotmail.com for a free e-copy of this 310 page book and for any additional information.

Expand full comment

I like this from ACIM -

'Perception has a focus. 2It is this that gives consistency to what you see. 3Change but this focus, and what you behold will change accordingly. 4Your vision now will shift, to give support to the intent which has replaced the one you held before. 5Remove your focus on your brother’s sins, and you experience the peace that comes from faith in sinlessness. 6This faith receives its only sure support from what you see in others past their sins. 7For their mistakes, if focused on, are witnesses to sins in you. 8And you will not transcend their sight and see the sinlessness that lies beyond.

Expand full comment

Have people been blind these last three years? Haven't they seen what an utter catastrophe can result by over-educated but stupid and malicious "experts" who have ulterior motives and are both power-hungry and greedy? Enough of control by fools! Remember: it is generally the sociopaths and psychopaths who seek positions of power. Politicians are bad enough. "Mad Scientists", especially those who belong to the Cult of Scientism, are far worse!

Expand full comment

This substack - https://badlands.substack.com/p/expand-your-thinking and the book it talking about maybe will explain part of results of survey

Expand full comment

The fundamental laws of logic (non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity) do not change. These are the necessary conditions of meaning/sense and our common structure of understanding. Proper knowledge (not just our shared convictions) has only two forms: a priori (formally provable for a given set of premises), and what I call the ‘knowledge of the record’, which consists in accurate reproduction of recorded information. Most of what we take to be ‘rational knowledge’ are only assumptions, working hypotheses, misrepresented as knowledge. These are a priori false beliefs because every conviction that cannot be proven to be true violates the principle of sufficient reasons and therefore the law of non contradiction. In short, rational knowledge does not change; once proven to be true it is forever true for a particular set of premises.

Expand full comment

NOTHING CONTROVERSIAL - up to the point where "premises" and "principles" enter the stage.

Once the premises, principles, assumptions are obfuscated enough - carelessness, stupidity, maliciousness, assumptions upon assumptions ..., let us call it BLINDNESS - the most stupid idea becomes palatable to the even intellectually capable person, simply by adding WORLDLY INCENTIVES to the mix and MADNESS REIGNS SUPREME.

Anyone who cannot see the reflection of my words in world affairs of the recent/present history/developments is lost in THE DARKNESS/ MENTAL PRISON CELL I AM REFERRING TO - NO EXCEPTIONS!

Look up the video on YT DelBigtree interviewing DelGrasse Tyson about DEATHVAX scientism....

Expand full comment

Premises can be assumptions too, and typically are. The same applies to principles. These are all claims of knowledge that are rarely true knowledge, at best acknowledged as personal preferences (which are not even truth claims).

Expand full comment

Absolutely - which is the whole point of my comment ... BUT ... without the OBFUSCATION part.

To expand on this I have to introduce THE UNKNOWABLE - GOD ALMIGHTY - as THE ETERNAL-INFINITE cannot be grasped by THE FINITE-LIMITED - HIS CREATION.

All assumptions, principles, premises are crutches that are used by THE HUMAN MIND - left hemisphere of the brain if you will - to get its head around the ETERNAL-INFINITE out of which it arose - without going down this road about how, why and when. What do I mean with that? You put limits to the part of THE INFINITE-ETERNAL you are studying in order to be able to study/investigate anything at all. Take the example of THE ECONOMY which is an ETERNAL subset of THE ETERNAL. You cannot take all interactions into account because you would run into the problem of THE INFINITE called feedback loops. Which is why you cut out one subset of the economy - putting boundaries, assumptions, premises in order not having to worry about the loose ends - and study it as though the loose end are fixed. MS Excel is a good tool to observe this. Put in a formula into a cell which feeds off a result that at the same time is a result of the formula it feeds!


How do you study a system .... well I am running into the problem of trying to describe THE INDESCRIBABLE - GOD ALMIGHTY is THE SYSTEM HIMSELF creating INFORMATION that fed back into HIM the information that HE HAS CREATED ETERNALLY.


Expand full comment