Round the Clock: Beautiful Video from Cece Chapman

Round the Clock

Round the Clock: Beautiful Video from Cece Chapman

are all humans insane?

by nick nelson

humans tell stories. they tell stories in order to “make sense” of the world. a story is a pattern the human brain imposes on the data it receives from the world outside itself. the “sense” that the story makes seems to be necessary to the human in order to function in the world. how accurate are stories in describing the world the human exists in? i would say they are completely inaccurate - that they have no relation to the real world at all. humans live in two worlds - the physical world in which they are born, survive for a while, and then die - and the mental worlds of language and stories. “insane” and “schizophrenic” are two words that humans use to describe the mental states of some of their fellows. they are words that might be used to describe all humans, given the disconnect between their physical and mental lives. what makes a story and how are they different from humans’ physical lives? for convenience, i will refer to humans’ physical lives as “real life”. stories have beginnings. stories are self-contained. everything in real life is connected to an infinity of other things, each of which is connected to an infinity of other things… everything, or almost everything in stories is determined by motive, usually the motive of an individual human being. everything in real life is determined by circumstances, circumstances which are incalculable. and this only includes circumstances which humans can comprehend. there may be, almost certainly are, all sorts of circumstances beyond human perception or conception. stories express the basic fantasies/dreams of humans, in which people are "free" (or not) and have "power" (or do not). and, usually, are “good” or “bad”. or “ignorant” or “enlightened”. above all, stories have endings, resolutions. something happens “in the end”. everything in the story leads up to “the end”, and “the end” casts its light back on the events leading up to it, either justifying them, or putting them in a “tragic “ or “ironic” light. in stories, except in a few “ironic” or “experimental” ones (which only a handful or humans compose or read) nothing “just happens”. nothing happens because of an infinite (and therefore indescribable) series of connected events. even in stories where things “just happen” - there is often an “ironic” undercurrent - look how stupid/greedy/evil these humans are, how much better would things be if they were enlightened/generous/selfless…. in stories bad people have bad motives and they perform bad actions which have bad consequences. and they are stopped - and can only be stopped - by good people who have good motives and perform good actions that have good consequences. if goldfinger or professor moriarty are being pursued by james bond or sherlock holmes they have to be stopped by bond or holmes - they can't just slip and fall off the side of a mountain. these are the great majority of stories, that people listen to or read. two subsets of stories that might be considered different are “romance” stories, and pornographic stories. but in both there are “winners”. in the romance stories the female protagonist “wins” (and lives happily ever after) by ensnaring and taming a desirable mate. in the simpler pornographic stories, the protagonists (usually male) win, not “ever after” but in the moment by … you get the idea…

notes on world government

by a thoughtful citizen

part of this appeared in slightly different form on january 17, 2017 on the blog total world socialism now!

> in 1941, george orwell published an essay titled “wells, hitler, and the world state”. wells being h g wells, remembered today mostly for his science fiction novels, but in his lifetime world famous as a polymath, a writer of humorous and realistic novels and of popular books on history and science, and a tireless propagandist for what at the time were “progessive” and “advanced “ ideas - particularly the idea of human “progress” itself. orwell’s essay is well known, has been reprinted in various collections of his works, and is easy enough to find on line. the piece is generally seen as critical, even contemptuous of wells, and wells himself apparently took exception to it. it contains the following lines: What is the use of pointing out that a World State is desirable? … All sensible men for decades past have been substantially in agreement with what Mr Wells says… orwell, who was highly skeptical - to put it mildly - of the chances of actually establishing a world government , nevertheless assumed that it would be a good thing if it were possible, and also assumed that “all sensible men” thought the same way. by “sensible men” he meant the kind of people who would be called “liberals” today. that was in 1941. what about 2022? in 2017 i decided to search amazon for books advocating the cause of world government. my notes were as follows: “ world government.” i.e. to spell it out, a single government - most likely the united nations but in any case a single government - which will rule the world , replacing all the separate governments - china, the united states, nauru, the republic of san marino, and the rest of them - which now exist. as everyone knows, and has known for many years, world government is the goal of the “elites” who more or less rule the world now. notably the mainstream media, the majority of the scientists in the world (usually given as 97%) who are promoting the hoax of global warming, and the left wing academics who are brainwashing the world’s youth. but in searching “world government” on amazon and google and a site for available library books, i could only find a single book about the idea of world government - governing the world: the history of an idea, by mark mazower. professor mazower’s book, published in 2012, concludes with the sentence “the idea of governing the world is becoming yesterday’s dream”. i also found a number of articles denouncing the idea of world government and/or warning against it. but i could not find anything - anything at all - actually advocating world government. why is this? is it because a) the advocates of world government - who include, for starters, virtually all the journalists and all the scientists in the world - are so powerful, and so entrenched, that they are able to lull the world to sleep by keeping all references to their plans off the internet and other media, and that they are so confident of success that they do not feel the need to add new recruits to their cause or b) there is in fact, for better or worse, no movement for world government existing in the world today?” * that was in 2017. i tried amazon again in 2020, and had a bit more luck. I found two books listed. one, published n 1992, was entitled passport to freedom: a guide for world citizens. by garry davis. the other was published in 2008 and titled rescue plan for planet earth: democratic world government through a global referendium, by jim stark. those who are interested can attempt to find copies of the books. the davis book features encomiums by albert einstein and yehudi menuhin and others. they applaud the author and his intentions, but seem to stop a little short of actually endorsing world government. the back cover of the stark book includes quotes about world government and world peace by famous persons, including einstein again, and general douglas macarthur. i note these two virtually unknown books in a spirit of “full disclosure”, but do not think their existence affects my basic conclusion: there is in fact, for all practical purposes, no movement for world government existing in the world today . (later, i found a couple of wells’s books on the subject, restored to print.) is this not strange? it is preached endlessly, by all “major religions” and has been for centuries, that “peace” is good and that war is bad. the non-religious but “enlightened”, who constitute the ruling elites over virtually the whole planet, take this even more for granted than the avowedly religious. and yet everywhere it is taken even more for granted that patriotism - usually labeled “true patriotism” is a good thing. it is often upheld as a guarantee against war. but “world government”, if it is ever mentioned at all, is the most sinister thing that can be imagined - by the avowed radical, by the liberal, by the libertarian, and by the conservative alike, and to be accused of “globalism” is to be cast into the darkness - by all. “globalism!” the terrible enemy of “freedom”! and who would openly oppose freedom? but what is the purpose pf countries except to wage war - always, of course against the “invader” or against those who would violate “”our national sovereignty”. or, in the last resort “our national honor”. nations vow to protect their identities and distinct “cultures”. “culture” is good, and especially the “culture” of the “oppressed”, which is sacred. but is not much or most of “culture”, high and low, a celebration of war? it can be argued that even most “anti-war” cultural works - books, poems, movies, songs, whatever, - or works aspiring to show the “tragedy” of war, end up glorifying it by celebrating or admiring the heroism of the participants. such is the situation in the year 2022, where only a handful of crackpots - unknown and ignored crackpots - keep the phrase “world government” barely alive.