Great job, Counter! This is very insightful and thought-provoking as it points out that our relationship with nature can be an organizing principle to explain many complexities as we look around a failing world. Our exuberance is at an all time high as we consume more energy, emit more greenhouse gases, extract more resources than at any other time in human history. This is occurring despite the warnings that Nature herself is providing to us. So it seems inevitable to those who are watching the accelerating rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations ( https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ ) and global temperatures that we are nearing the point of decreasing per capita food production, a precursor of the Great Unraveling.
Al contrari . . . El judeomessianisme fa gairebé dos mil anys que escampa entre nosaltres el seu missatge verinós. Els universalismes democràtics i comunistes són més recents, però només han reforçat la vella narrativa jueva. Són els mateixos ideals.
Els ideals transnacionals, transracials, transsexuals, transculturals que aquestes ideologies ens prediquen (més enllà dels pobles, races, cultures) i que són el sosteniment diari de les nostres escoles, als nostres mitjans de comunicació, a la nostra cultura popular, a les nostres universitats, i sobre al nostres els carrers han acabat reduint la nostra identitat biosimbòlica i el nostre orgull ètnic a la seva mínima expressió.
Els banquers jueus han inundat Europa amb musulmans i Amèrica amb escombraries del tercer món . . . L'exili com a càstig per als que predicen la sedició s'hauria de restablir dins el marc legal d'Occident . . . El judaisme, el cristianisme i l'islam són cultes a la mort originats a l'Orient Mitjà i totalment aliens a Europa i als seus pobles.
De vegades ens preguntem per què l'esquerra europea es porta tan bé amb els musulmans. Per què un moviment sovint obertament antireligiós es posa del costat d'una religiositat ferotge que sembla oposar-se a gairebé tot allò que l'esquerra sempre ha pretès defensar? Part de l'explicació rau en el fet que l'islam i el marxisme tenen una arrel ideològica comuna: el judaisme.
Don Rumsfeld tenia raó quan va dir: "Europa s'ha desplaçat en el seu eix", va ser el bàndol equivocat que va guanyar la Segona Guerra Mundial, i es fa més clar cada dia . . . Què ha fet l'OTAN per defensar Europa? Absolutament res . . . Els meus enemics no són a Moscou, Damasc, Teheran, Riad o algun eteri bogeyman teutónic, els meus enemics són a Washington, Brusselles i Tel Aviv . . . Nacionalsocialistes van venir a alliberar París, nosaltres no el vam destruir.
Cap país segueix el seu propi curs en aquesta invasió perquè és una agenda política liderada per l'ONU i impulsada pels jueus i els seus titelles (polítics). La majoria de la gent simplement no sap ni entén que aquesta és una agenda política. Tanmateix, alguns aconsegueixen entendre que els polítics estan treballant deliberadament per importar musulmans i substituir gent, però això és tot, són com un ordinador que no pot funcionar perquè el programa no ho permet.
Nov 16, 2023·edited Nov 16, 2023Liked by The counter-intuitive 🐿️
I, all by myself, figured this one out. "Our oversimplified models of prey and predators or survival of the fittest...". That is correct: Darwin's "surv or fittest" is not very way of explaining nature or an accurate summation of how nature works. I could explain, but somebody would need to indicate they are interested in hearing about it. Looks like an excellent article, b.t.w. And plus: I also agree with the writer's emphasis (esp at the end) concerning reason, or rationality.
I subscribe to you therefore you have my email address. Since that is the original beating heart of Substack, you are able to send me an email. I don't have YOUR email address but you have mine. Maybe I could comment a little more right here; then, you can send an email and initiate a conversation. That's the original beating heart of the Substack system of doing things, where the newsletter writer on Substack uses an email address to send out newsletter. So, that email connection may be used either send your Substack articles to that individual, or anything else. There are a number of considerations as to why Darwin is wrong in major ways and seeing nature is error maybe. But these things are somewhat difficult to express in written form. However, I have thought on it for some time by now---that there are major things here or problems in Darwin and his followers. (Those who followed after him---successors.) For example. "Struggle for survival" is not what an animal is doing most of the time. They are searching out food (with success). They are eating, sleeping, or enjoying themselves. Birds obviously enjoy themselves, swooping around in the sky. It is not all "struggle." Maybe that resonate for you, maybe not. I don't know. If an animal is sitting or perching someplace, breathing in and out, is he/she struggling at that moment? Then why characterize it that way? What about ease? Homeostasis? Why frame everything as only struggle as if that is all they do. It does not mean the only fact of their existence is struggle. Why aren't there other ways to characterize animals' existence?
Well, my my my. I DO have our email address now. Because you are on my list. But now I am scared to write to you. I have to do the reading now. As they say in college. Do your reading kiddies!!!!#
This is quite good. You fixed it up? Oh, and one other thing. I thought likewise, about Jordan. Some guy came up to me one day and loaned me Peterson's first book. It seems honest. Take him off the list!!
FROM the ARTICLE: "While a large majority of people view the Earth as a fountain of infinite resources, forever at their disposal, another group of people believe in ‘Gaia’ as a self-organizing force, full of beauty and magic, which is life giving and equally furious..." This is a good-bad distinction. While I don't mind your doing that, I wonder whether you are aware. Those are two specific options, clearly. Also, you favor one over the other. That too is clear, isn't that so? So: When you say "a large majority of persons" they could be either white or non-white. Is that the case? It is just like that also with the other group. They too can plausibly be either white or non-white. Now the vast majority of individual human persons also has some element of "bias," which is to say liking their own kind. Although this is wrong in a pure, or a higher sense, many persons (the vast majority) have some of that sort of feeling.
So here in the beginning, the start of your piece, I am thinking that you essentially tell us which one is "your" group. (I too am in that group, b.t.w. When it comes to ideas there is bigotry as well. There must be. And I have made progress about this slightly "ethnic" bigotry thing too, that is to say the one between competing ideas. Including l. and r. This may be overcome but it make require some effort!)
In any case, here we have these sorts of groups: the Giaia people, and the fountain of wealth exploitation bastards, or resource exploitation suckers or resources abusers, who m we picture in black&white and who abuse everyone and everything, even others (people). And then on the other hand there is probably an argument for them. Otherwise, how could there be so many of these "capital-market" types? Some bias here is almost unavoidable but we are better people when we can get pat that..
FILE UNDER: "People and Ideas." (sociology of tribes)
What I favor is inconsequential, since we are 8 billion people. The large majority of people covers all the people (except children) on earth. Outside biophysical limits and planetary boundaries, how does it matter what I prefer or wish. A or B. X or Y. It has nothing to do with race or color or language.
Now that is evasive. You have bias. Let us provide one example. You are writing that essay (the present linked one to which this is attached as one of 6 comments) with the rabbit looking at its reflection as it runs from society whatever that meant. I think you have self-interest and bias. Publishing that essay was specifically YOU.... It was so you can become a famous Substack essayist. I think this is highly likely, because the only alternative would be pure egalitarianism. Boy, would I be wrong if this is not basically the case. But I think it is. Who did you write that for? For You! So that you may become famous. It wasn't for other people, it was for YOU. You are NOT looking for readers? Well if you are --- there must be some consideration of yourself----i.e. your own interests and the clinging to your own well-being. Why t. f. not? So that's pretty much a given.
Let us use an old thing that the Buddhists used to say, even recently. Or maybe they still say it, I don't know. You need to "look within." To a Buddhist, the fact that these other people are there does not change much. Maybe there are eight billion other people but you also need to make those choices that you need to make for yourself. That there are eight billion it does not impact the choices you need to make. How do YOU handle the fact of being you? Okay, so there are 8 billion separate people ---- they all think and have separate ideas, right?
Well, I still think it is about you and any person needs to manage his/her own life. You have your own beliefs. An article, by you, is about what YOU believe! If there are eight billion people, fine. There may be people on other planets as well. As I see it the article is not about what eight billion people think. It is about what YOU think.
"It was so you can become a famous Substack essayist." Not at all. What I write here has no consequence, in terms of what others may think, agree, not agree. The Rabbit In The Window and the quote, together is something which I relate. The harder you push your point, the further you may get away from the point of the essay - Our Broken Relationship With Nature. This You You Me Me, is not something I am interested in at all.
And the worst of all is when you feel like I am "against you." So, yeah., at some point it has to get personal. Not that I want you to feel that way. But on the other hand, I am interested in something you say here. Interesting indeed to hear that you "relate" to the combination of the picture and the caption for this story/article. I appreciate hearing that. The word "evasive" still works. You say I get further away from the point of the essay. But there is not any "point," right? All this to elude the feeling of being personal? And at some point it feels personal. That is what I am seeing.
Sorry, but nothing personal here or "against me/you". Your reactions are most welcome to a point, if they have any objective value or say makes one think further. However like I said earlier, the essay is about our broken relationship with Nature - and what different people think and do. You can see what you want.
How is it evasive since you asked me a question? Of what I favor or prefer. Just told you what hard science has to say. One cannot overcome problems of Overshoot, of Biophysical Limits, Ocean Acidification, Biodiversity Loss with mere White, Black, Brown race or ideology preferences. Nature does not work that way. And who doesn't have bias. Someone from outer space perhaps.
Well, I probably edited it quite a lot after you saw those first few line and answered. So, I would appreciate it if you would please read the whole thing in finalized form. You are very quick in answering, I noticed that!
Great job, Counter! This is very insightful and thought-provoking as it points out that our relationship with nature can be an organizing principle to explain many complexities as we look around a failing world. Our exuberance is at an all time high as we consume more energy, emit more greenhouse gases, extract more resources than at any other time in human history. This is occurring despite the warnings that Nature herself is providing to us. So it seems inevitable to those who are watching the accelerating rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations ( https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ ) and global temperatures that we are nearing the point of decreasing per capita food production, a precursor of the Great Unraveling.
Al contrari . . . El judeomessianisme fa gairebé dos mil anys que escampa entre nosaltres el seu missatge verinós. Els universalismes democràtics i comunistes són més recents, però només han reforçat la vella narrativa jueva. Són els mateixos ideals.
Els ideals transnacionals, transracials, transsexuals, transculturals que aquestes ideologies ens prediquen (més enllà dels pobles, races, cultures) i que són el sosteniment diari de les nostres escoles, als nostres mitjans de comunicació, a la nostra cultura popular, a les nostres universitats, i sobre al nostres els carrers han acabat reduint la nostra identitat biosimbòlica i el nostre orgull ètnic a la seva mínima expressió.
Els banquers jueus han inundat Europa amb musulmans i Amèrica amb escombraries del tercer món . . . L'exili com a càstig per als que predicen la sedició s'hauria de restablir dins el marc legal d'Occident . . . El judaisme, el cristianisme i l'islam són cultes a la mort originats a l'Orient Mitjà i totalment aliens a Europa i als seus pobles.
De vegades ens preguntem per què l'esquerra europea es porta tan bé amb els musulmans. Per què un moviment sovint obertament antireligiós es posa del costat d'una religiositat ferotge que sembla oposar-se a gairebé tot allò que l'esquerra sempre ha pretès defensar? Part de l'explicació rau en el fet que l'islam i el marxisme tenen una arrel ideològica comuna: el judaisme.
Don Rumsfeld tenia raó quan va dir: "Europa s'ha desplaçat en el seu eix", va ser el bàndol equivocat que va guanyar la Segona Guerra Mundial, i es fa més clar cada dia . . . Què ha fet l'OTAN per defensar Europa? Absolutament res . . . Els meus enemics no són a Moscou, Damasc, Teheran, Riad o algun eteri bogeyman teutónic, els meus enemics són a Washington, Brusselles i Tel Aviv . . . Nacionalsocialistes van venir a alliberar París, nosaltres no el vam destruir.
Cap país segueix el seu propi curs en aquesta invasió perquè és una agenda política liderada per l'ONU i impulsada pels jueus i els seus titelles (polítics). La majoria de la gent simplement no sap ni entén que aquesta és una agenda política. Tanmateix, alguns aconsegueixen entendre que els polítics estan treballant deliberadament per importar musulmans i substituir gent, però això és tot, són com un ordinador que no pot funcionar perquè el programa no ho permet.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/pardonne-mon-francais-va-te-faire
I, all by myself, figured this one out. "Our oversimplified models of prey and predators or survival of the fittest...". That is correct: Darwin's "surv or fittest" is not very way of explaining nature or an accurate summation of how nature works. I could explain, but somebody would need to indicate they are interested in hearing about it. Looks like an excellent article, b.t.w. And plus: I also agree with the writer's emphasis (esp at the end) concerning reason, or rationality.
Hi Jacob. Thank you for the comments and your welcome to explain in context. Lets communicate perhaps?
I subscribe to you therefore you have my email address. Since that is the original beating heart of Substack, you are able to send me an email. I don't have YOUR email address but you have mine. Maybe I could comment a little more right here; then, you can send an email and initiate a conversation. That's the original beating heart of the Substack system of doing things, where the newsletter writer on Substack uses an email address to send out newsletter. So, that email connection may be used either send your Substack articles to that individual, or anything else. There are a number of considerations as to why Darwin is wrong in major ways and seeing nature is error maybe. But these things are somewhat difficult to express in written form. However, I have thought on it for some time by now---that there are major things here or problems in Darwin and his followers. (Those who followed after him---successors.) For example. "Struggle for survival" is not what an animal is doing most of the time. They are searching out food (with success). They are eating, sleeping, or enjoying themselves. Birds obviously enjoy themselves, swooping around in the sky. It is not all "struggle." Maybe that resonate for you, maybe not. I don't know. If an animal is sitting or perching someplace, breathing in and out, is he/she struggling at that moment? Then why characterize it that way? What about ease? Homeostasis? Why frame everything as only struggle as if that is all they do. It does not mean the only fact of their existence is struggle. Why aren't there other ways to characterize animals' existence?
Well, my my my. I DO have our email address now. Because you are on my list. But now I am scared to write to you. I have to do the reading now. As they say in college. Do your reading kiddies!!!!#
This is quite good. You fixed it up? Oh, and one other thing. I thought likewise, about Jordan. Some guy came up to me one day and loaned me Peterson's first book. It seems honest. Take him off the list!!
FROM the ARTICLE: "While a large majority of people view the Earth as a fountain of infinite resources, forever at their disposal, another group of people believe in ‘Gaia’ as a self-organizing force, full of beauty and magic, which is life giving and equally furious..." This is a good-bad distinction. While I don't mind your doing that, I wonder whether you are aware. Those are two specific options, clearly. Also, you favor one over the other. That too is clear, isn't that so? So: When you say "a large majority of persons" they could be either white or non-white. Is that the case? It is just like that also with the other group. They too can plausibly be either white or non-white. Now the vast majority of individual human persons also has some element of "bias," which is to say liking their own kind. Although this is wrong in a pure, or a higher sense, many persons (the vast majority) have some of that sort of feeling.
So here in the beginning, the start of your piece, I am thinking that you essentially tell us which one is "your" group. (I too am in that group, b.t.w. When it comes to ideas there is bigotry as well. There must be. And I have made progress about this slightly "ethnic" bigotry thing too, that is to say the one between competing ideas. Including l. and r. This may be overcome but it make require some effort!)
In any case, here we have these sorts of groups: the Giaia people, and the fountain of wealth exploitation bastards, or resource exploitation suckers or resources abusers, who m we picture in black&white and who abuse everyone and everything, even others (people). And then on the other hand there is probably an argument for them. Otherwise, how could there be so many of these "capital-market" types? Some bias here is almost unavoidable but we are better people when we can get pat that..
FILE UNDER: "People and Ideas." (sociology of tribes)
What I favor is inconsequential, since we are 8 billion people. The large majority of people covers all the people (except children) on earth. Outside biophysical limits and planetary boundaries, how does it matter what I prefer or wish. A or B. X or Y. It has nothing to do with race or color or language.
Now that is evasive. You have bias. Let us provide one example. You are writing that essay (the present linked one to which this is attached as one of 6 comments) with the rabbit looking at its reflection as it runs from society whatever that meant. I think you have self-interest and bias. Publishing that essay was specifically YOU.... It was so you can become a famous Substack essayist. I think this is highly likely, because the only alternative would be pure egalitarianism. Boy, would I be wrong if this is not basically the case. But I think it is. Who did you write that for? For You! So that you may become famous. It wasn't for other people, it was for YOU. You are NOT looking for readers? Well if you are --- there must be some consideration of yourself----i.e. your own interests and the clinging to your own well-being. Why t. f. not? So that's pretty much a given.
Let us use an old thing that the Buddhists used to say, even recently. Or maybe they still say it, I don't know. You need to "look within." To a Buddhist, the fact that these other people are there does not change much. Maybe there are eight billion other people but you also need to make those choices that you need to make for yourself. That there are eight billion it does not impact the choices you need to make. How do YOU handle the fact of being you? Okay, so there are 8 billion separate people ---- they all think and have separate ideas, right?
Well, I still think it is about you and any person needs to manage his/her own life. You have your own beliefs. An article, by you, is about what YOU believe! If there are eight billion people, fine. There may be people on other planets as well. As I see it the article is not about what eight billion people think. It is about what YOU think.
"It was so you can become a famous Substack essayist." Not at all. What I write here has no consequence, in terms of what others may think, agree, not agree. The Rabbit In The Window and the quote, together is something which I relate. The harder you push your point, the further you may get away from the point of the essay - Our Broken Relationship With Nature. This You You Me Me, is not something I am interested in at all.
And the worst of all is when you feel like I am "against you." So, yeah., at some point it has to get personal. Not that I want you to feel that way. But on the other hand, I am interested in something you say here. Interesting indeed to hear that you "relate" to the combination of the picture and the caption for this story/article. I appreciate hearing that. The word "evasive" still works. You say I get further away from the point of the essay. But there is not any "point," right? All this to elude the feeling of being personal? And at some point it feels personal. That is what I am seeing.
Sorry, but nothing personal here or "against me/you". Your reactions are most welcome to a point, if they have any objective value or say makes one think further. However like I said earlier, the essay is about our broken relationship with Nature - and what different people think and do. You can see what you want.
How is it evasive since you asked me a question? Of what I favor or prefer. Just told you what hard science has to say. One cannot overcome problems of Overshoot, of Biophysical Limits, Ocean Acidification, Biodiversity Loss with mere White, Black, Brown race or ideology preferences. Nature does not work that way. And who doesn't have bias. Someone from outer space perhaps.
Well, I probably edited it quite a lot after you saw those first few line and answered. So, I would appreciate it if you would please read the whole thing in finalized form. You are very quick in answering, I noticed that!