Zicutake USA Comment | Search Articles

#History (Education) #Satellite report #Arkansas #Tech #Poker #Language and Life #Critics Cinema #Scientific #Hollywood #Future #Conspiracy #Curiosity #Washington
 Smiley face

[Calculate SHA256 hash]
 Smiley face
Zicutake BROWSER
 Smiley face Encryption Text and HTML
Aspect Ratio Calculator
[HTML color codes]
 Smiley face Conversion to JavaScript
[download YouTube videos in MP4, FLV, 3GP, and many more formats]

 Smiley face Mining Satoshi | Payment speed

 Smiley face
Online BitTorrent Magnet Link Generator


Why Michigan, Notre Dame and Other Teams Throw So Many Games

"The history of the great events of this world is scarcely more than the history of crime." -- Voltaire

This is for all the Michigan fans out there who struggle to understand why the Wolverines' proud football tradition has been on such a severe downward spiral in recent years. And what I'm saying here about my alma mater, Michigan, also goes for some of my other favorite teams, including Notre Dame, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Butler, North Carolina, the Chicago Bears, Chicago Cubs, Chicago Bulls, Indianapolis Colts and Indiana Pacers.

High-ranking Freemasons are responsible for most of the corruption that's decimating college and professional sports. And sometimes they fix games to punish me for breaking away from the Masonic cult into which I was born or to punish me for something I said, wrote or did in the days and hours leading up to game time, or even during the game. See this post:
College and Professional Sports Are Crooked as a Dog's Hind Leg

All this is possible because the Masons have had me under illegal surveillance my entire life. And for the past 10 years, I've been under illegal surveillance in the "privacy" of my own home with top-secret, classified, military-grade surveillance equipment that allows the perpetrators to see through the walls of my home. See my other blog:


George Washington in Masonic regalia
Masons have infiltrated all our institutions, and they've been plotting to destroy the United States and merge it into a global fascist dictatorship known as the New World Order for hundreds of years. They were responsible for establishing the U.S. government from the start. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and virtually all the Founding Fathers were Masons.

Quoting from the article linked below:

"Freemasonry is the Church of Lucifer masquerading as a fraternal mystical philanthropic order. It fronts for Illuminati central bankers who started the United States as a vehicle to advance their New World Order."

"Benjamin Franklin, who was the Grand Master of a French lodge, raised millions of francs crucial to financing George Washington's army. He was the first to submit a concrete plan for military collaboration and political federation to a Congress representing all colonies. He established a chain of Masonic newspapers in all of the colonies."

See this: http://www.henrymakow.com/the_united_states_is_a_masonic.html

Another thing you have to understand about the Freemasons is their obsession with occult numbers. Watch for these numbers in the final scores, halftime scores, score by quarters and statistics of games that are fixed by the Masons: 3, 6, 9, 13, 22, 23, 26, 30, 33, 55, 63 and 66. See this:
Freemasons Leave Their Fingerprints All Over the Crime Scene

The number 33 is an important number to Freemasons because the 33rd degree is the highest degree of corruption available in the Masonic power structure. That's why Michigan lost to Florida State, 33-32, in the crooked Orange Bowl game on Dec. 30, 2016.

The number 63 is significant to Masons because they assassinated President Kennedy in 1963. And on the weekend of the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's public execution, they used the number in the final score when the Michigan basketball team "lost" to North Carolina-Charlotte, 63-61, on Nov. 24, 2013. And 61 was the year President Kennedy was inaugurated, so both numbers in the final score were a reference to President Kennedy.

If that game wasn't fixed, how else can you explain a team with three NBA prospects in the starting lineup losing to a bunch of players recruited from the local YMCA on national television? Are you really so naïve that you believe it was all on the level and that college basketball games are never fixed? LOL! 

In football, Devin Gardner deliberately threw the interception into heavy traffic that would have won the Ohio State game on Nov. 30, 2013. He could have scrambled around and found something better if the fix hadn't been in. And Michigan could have trounced Kansas State in the bowl game if they hadn't been required to take a dive.

Gardner was also instrumental in throwing the Notre Dame game on Sept. 6, 2014, when he tossed three deliberate interceptions. That "loss" was the first time Michigan had been shut out since 1984 -- a record-breaking streak of 365 games.

Speaking of fixes, see this post about how the Cubs threw the NLCS in 2003 and the National League East in 1969: http://sportsfraud.blogspot.com/2013/09/cubs-orioles-both-took-dive-in-1969-to.html

And see this post about how the Notre Dame women's basketball team was forced to Throw One for the Gipper against Connecticut in a Final Four game in April 2013:

And see this post about the fixing of some Michigan and Notre Dame games, as well as some Cubs games and more: http://brussellsprout.blogspot.com/2010/08/all-my-favorite-teams-take-dive.html

In order to understand why the Michigan football and basketball teams have been chronic underachievers in recent years despite having so much talent, you need to realize that in most cases, they're losing games on purpose because the fix is in. But  don't let the cover-up crew throw you off track. See this:

In some cases, games are fixed as a matter of organizational policy -- the NFL, NCAA, NBA, MLB or NHL. For example, the Patriots won the Super Bowl after the 2001 season as a "patriotic" gesture following 9-11, and the Red Sox won the World Series in 2013 because of the Boston Marathon bombing.

The NCAA does the same thing by manipulating late-season games to get the matchup they want in the BCS Championship Game. In 2011, Boise State, Oregon, Stanford and Oklahoma State were all required to take a dive in November when they were in danger of qualifying for the BCS Championship Game. That was the year Alabama lost to LSU during the regular season and avenged that loss in the championship game.

Notre Dame benefited from the same sort of scenario in 2012 to qualify for the BCS Championship Game and give the NCAA the matchup they wanted against Alabama, but then the Fighting Irish were forced to throw the national championship game.

Schools with small followings such as Boise State and Oklahoma State don't stand a chance of making it to the finals.

Notre Dame is a frequent victim of the game-fixing scandal because I grew up in South Bend and was a classmate of Mike Parseghian's at Jefferson Elementary School in the fall of 1964. That was the year that Mike's father, Ara Parseghian, began his illustrious career as the head coach at Notre Dame. Also, I lived in South Bend during the 1990s while I was working for the South Bend Tribune, and my daughter graduated from Notre Dame.

Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction. But unless you accept the truth about game-fixing, you'll never be able to understand why Michigan football teams show so much promise one week and then look terrible the next.

Another Michigan meltdown
For example, in 2010, they started out 5-0 and then lost 6 of their last 8 games to finish 7-6. That was Rich Rodriguez's last year at the helm, but it wasn't Rich Rod's fault any more than it is Jim Harbaugh's fault, and it wasn't Brady Hoke's fault or Lloyd Carr's, either.

I believe the main reason why Carr retired while he was still fairly young and in good health was that he was tired of having to throw so many games -- especially the ridiculous spectacle of the Appalachian State debacle to open the 2007 season at Michigan Stadium.

Anyway, since Michigan is always in the Top 20 in recruiting classes, and frequently in the Top 10, they should have a Top 20 team every year unless their coaches are truly awful, and I don't believe they are. The Wolverines have now lost five of their last six games against Michigan State. Is MSU in the Top 20 for recruiting every year? I don't think so. Presumably then, Michigan usually has more talent than MSU.

But talent doesn't count for much when the fix is in. We've seen proof of that during the last decade.

Is Mark Dantonio really a better coach than Lloyd Carr, Rich Rodriguez and Brady Hoke, and is MSU's staff really that much better than Michigan's? I don't buy that, either. The truth is, Michigan loses to MSU, Ohio State and other schools on a regular basis because they're required to throw the game. It's not the fault of the players or the coaches, it's just something that's required by the Masonic power structure that rules college football and the rest of the world.

The Michigan team that opened this season by trouncing Appalachian State 52-14 and the 2013 season by clobbering Central Michigan 59-9 is the real Michigan team -- the one that's allowed to give 100 percent on both sides of the ball. The only other time last season when that was the case was in the 42-13 victory over Minnesota. Every other game last season was tampered with to one extent or another, and all the games since the season opener this season have been as well.

Not that Michigan State and Ohio State are allowed to make it through the season unscathed. They're occasionally required to throw games too, or at least to shave points. Ohio State's 26-23 "loss" to Purdue in 2011 is a case in point. And the Buckeyes were forced to take a dive against Wichita State in the NCAA Tournament in 2012.

See this video for examples of how the Buckeyes threw the Wichita State game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jniUM2N4Yc

Ohio State defenders let Wichita State's best shooters get an uncontested look at the basket from three-point range at 5:05, 6:41 and 7:25. The last one was at a crucial point when the Buckeyes trailed just 62-59 with a couple minutes left in the game and still had a chance to win. Also note the deliberate charging foul inflicted by Ohio State at 6:19. Players getting "out of control" is a common tactic used to throw a game when the fix is in.

Michigan State was required to shave points in its season opener in 2014, a 26-13 victory over Western Michigan, and also in their 14-0 victory over Purdue. And the Spartans were required to throw the second half against Duke in the 2013 NCAA Tournament. The year before, they took a big dive against Louisville. And they took a dive against Connecticut in the 2014 tournament.

Game-fixing has been going on for most of my life, but I didn't really wake up to the fact that some of it was being directed toward me until a few years ago when I noticed that Michigan football and basketball were both in a tailspin.

Michigan football used to have a tradition of having excellent defensive teams, even when their offenses were notoriously conservative. They lost five Rose Bowls under Bo Schembechler in the 1970s, including 10-3 to USC in 1970, 13-12 to Stanford in 1972, 14-6 to USC in 1977 and 17-10 to USC in 1979. They also lost to Washington, 27-20, in 1978.

They were a big favorite against Washington that year, and that game was definitely fixed. The others probably were as well, especially that Stanford game. Michigan was 11-0 and ranked fourth in the country that year when they lost to Stanford.

But even when they lost a game back then, they were never embarrassed. It was usually a close, hard-fought struggle that left the opponent just as battered as Michigan. Those Rose Bowl games were all like that. Now, it's not unusual for Michigan to get blown out by 20 points or more.

They used to give up 10 points or less in almost every game in the 1970s. Now they sometimes give up more points in a single game than they used to give up for the entire season. A few years ago, they defeated Illinois, 67-65. And I'm talking about football, not basketball.

Speaking of basketball, Michigan was forced to throw the NCAA Championship Game in April 2013. See this: http://sportsfraud.blogspot.com/2013/04/corruption-is-widespread-in-college.html

Notre Dame has been required to throw lots of games, including the infamous loss to USC in 1974 when the Irish blew a 24-0 lead. In that game, USC scored 55 unanswered points to trounce the Irish, 55-24. It was by far the worst loss in Ara Parseghian's career at Notre Dame, and two weeks later, Ara (pictured at left) resigned, even though he was still a young man in the prime of his career. He was probably disgusted that he'd been forced to participate in such an obvious fraud. See this:


I never watch a game live anymore because if I do, it always results in a Michigan loss. If Michigan wins, I usually just try to catch a few highlights on ESPN or the Michigan web site.

Exposing the game-fixing conspiracy is my way of gaining some measure of revenge for all the heartache the Freemasons have caused me and all the other Michigan fans during the last decade. Not to mention the coaches and players.

If we had an honest Congress, we could get an investigation of the game-fixing epidemic. But Masons control the Congress, the NCAA and every other institution in this country, so the truth would never be allowed to see the light of day. We'll just have to settle for knowing the truth ourselves.

Maybe if enough people figure it out and stop going to the games, we can put an end to the game-fixing epidemic and restore the integrity of college sports. Until that happens, Michigan football will probably continue its relentless downward spiral, and Michigan basketball will continue to lose games in which they're big favorites. And to a certain extent, so will Notre Dame, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan State, Butler, North Carolina, the Chicago Bears, Chicago Cubs, Chicago Bulls, Indiana Pacers and Indianapolis Colts.

For example, the Colts lost at home, 38-8, to the lowly St. Louis Rams on Nov. 10, 2013, and then the Hoosiers struggled to defeat LIU-Brooklyn, 72-71, at home on Nov. 12.

On Nov. 16, 2013, Michigan needed three overtimes to defeat Northwestern, thanks in part to Jeremy Gallon deliberately dropping a potential game-winning touchdown pass. See the obvious game-fixing stunt at www.mgoblue.com

Then on Black Sunday, Nov. 17, the Michigan basketball team, ranked seventh in the country with at least three NBA prospects in the starting lineup, lost to unranked Iowa State, 77-70.

Meanwhile, Notre Dame, ranked 21st and an 11-point favorite, lost at home to unranked Indiana State; and North Carolina, ranked 12th and a 13-point favorite, lost at home to unranked Belmont. Two more of my favorites took a dive -- Notre Dame, because I grew up in South Bend, and North Carolina, because I live in the Tar Heel state now. See what I mean?

And then, back to football, there was the Iowa debacle on Nov. 23, 2013, when Michigan blew a 21-7 halftime lead, got shut out again in the second half, and lost 24-21. I'm not buying that one, either.

From what I could tell, it looked like Gardner coughed up the ball for no reason whatsoever to seal the deal. You'd have to be pretty naive not to realize he did that intentionally.

The most glaring fix of all on Nov. 23, 2013, was when Arizona, with former Michigan coach Rich Rodriguez at the helm, annihilated fifth-ranked Oregon, 42-16. Another obvious insult to Michigan fans because now he's suddenly successful again after leaving Ann Arbor. Like I was saying, he's always been a good football coach, and he would have been successful at Michigan if he hadn't been required to throw so many games.

But on Nov. 23, Rich Rod finally received his big reward for throwing all those games at Michigan. Are we really supposed to believe that Arizona's defense, which had already given up at least 20 points seven times that season against lesser offenses, was suddenly transformed into the immovable object against one of the most explosive offenses in college football?

If you can buy that one, I have some beachfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you. It's right next door to Rich Rod's place.

The Venn Diagram of Christmas Traditions

I love Christmas. I love everything about it, apart perhaps from the predictable fundamental Christians bleating on about the so called War on Christmas and their irksome ill-informed insistence that Jesus is the reason for the season.

A few years back at my local church, I sat through the vicar’s ranting sermon shoehorned into the school carol concert. It was blatantly aimed at heathen parents like me that no longer routinely grace his ever-dwindling flock. I felt honour-bound to boo him for his pious absolute claim on Christmas. The dig in my ribs from my wife however reminded me that it’s still generally considered bad form to boo the vicar – even if he is clearly talking out of his arse. But despite the dodgy sermons proclaiming Jesus to be at the centre of Christmas, I still think it’s a great time of the year.

In fact the very reason why Christmas is so great is precisely because it is a non-discriminatory celebration, far wider and more encompassing than the mere strategically relocated anniversary of the alleged saviour of one particular faith group.

That’s not to say that the baby Jesus lying in a manger surrounded by adorable toilet-trained livestock isn’t a vital and welcome part of the imagery and tradition of the season. It’s just that he’s not at the centre of it any more so than a barefooted John McClane in the Nakatomi Plaza or grumpy TV executive Frank Cross being violently punched in the face by the angelic Ghost of Christmas Present.

The modern Christmas traditions we’re all familiar with (at least in the western world) have drawn from Christian, Pagan and Secular sources, and they all add value. If we map them onto a Venn diagram there’s quite clearly someone else at the centre of our Christmas traditions and, thankfully, he does not concern himself with our arbitrary faith boundaries.

With the obvious exceptions of Cliff Richard and eggnog, I like everything on this diagram. Those who claim that Christmas is under attack from the politically correct forces of secularism and consumerism are merely trying to purge the season of its equally worthy non-Christian elements.

So, beware of any one set on this diagram who try to claim sole ownership of the winterval. The true spirit of Christmas is not about hijacking the seasonal festivities for the exclusive celebration of one particular ideology. Christmas is for everyone, Christians, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics and adherents of any other conceivable faith group who would care to come and pull a cracker with me.

Merry Christmas everyone
Christmas 2013

Reindeer, Brian Griffin, a Pencil Named Steve, and the Psychology of Storytelling

One day I was in a grocery store here in Southern California, and I saw a display of some Christmas
decorations -- two reindeer who were being sold at a deep discount because their antlers had broken off.

I felt sad for them. I did not cry, and I did not feel badly enough for them to buy them. But my sadness, however fleeting, was spontaneous and genuine.

I quickly asked myself if I would have felt the same sadness if the ornaments did not have eyes and mouths, if they had not represented living creatures. Suppose they had been Christmas coffee mugs with broken handles. Would I have felt sad?


One of the truly strange things about human beings is our ability to form emotional attachments to so many different things -- other humans, animals, even objects that resemble humans and animals. Perhaps most strange is our ability to form strong emotional attachments to things that do not even exist.

Brian Griffin for example.

He is a dog, who acts like a human, and who does not exist.

Brian's non-existence did not stop many viewers of Family Guy from getting very upset when that show recently killed him, the family dog who had been on the show from the beginning. He was run over by a car, and the family quickly replaced him with another talking dog. This one was named Vinny and he sounded like a cast member from The Jersey Shore.

Social media was quickly abuzz with surprise from all and anger from some at this narrative turn.

Someone posted a picture of the tattoo that memorialized Brian. Soon there were petitions calling for the show's creators to resurrect Brian.

And they did. Though it was done so quickly that his death clearly was never intended to be permanent. His best friend Stewie has a time machine, after all, so changing Brian's fate was easily within the show's realm of possibility. The story of bringing him back most likely was being animated at the same time as the story of his death. (I have not heard what the Brian-tattoo dude plans to do now.)

The outcry reminded me of the famous death of Little Nell, a frail little girl from the Charles Dickens novel The Old Curiosity Shop. Dickens serialized that novel in a magazine in 1840-1841, and his audience could see her death approaching (unlike Seth McFarlane's audience). Readers begged him to spare Little Nell, and many were heartbroken when she finally died. William Macready, a famous actor of the time, wrote in his diary: "I have never read printed words that gave me so much pain."

One of the many powers of storytelling is its ability to tell us false things and evoke true emotions. Although the deaths of Brian Griffin and Little Nell were unreal (as were their lives), the audience reactions were very real.

Storytelling depends upon the very human and psychological process of identification. When someone says,"I could identify with that character," we usually take that to mean "I could see aspects of myself or my experiences in that character's personality or experiences." But identification is more complicated than that.

Identification can also be called a type of introjection, which is the process by which someone absorbs into their psyche, behavior, or beliefs some aspect of the outside world. That is, a character on the big screen or the small page may experience a great deal of fear, and then members of the audience feel something very similar -- even though they are under no threat. Similarly, they might feel anger, even though nothing bad has happened to them; but something bad has happened to the character in a story, and the audience absorbs those sensations into themselves, even if only temporarily.

But this process also involves an element of projection, which is the psychological process by which a person believes his/her own emotions or ideas are possessed by another person. This can be positive or negative. A person could reject his own feelings of guilt and project them onto another person, assuming the other person is behaving in a guilty manner when he is not. Conversely, a person could feel happy and assume the people around him are happy too, even though they are not.

In the example of representations of living things, this is a strange, mirror-like dynamic. In the grocery store I saw the broken reindeer, and since they resembled living animals that I would feel sympathy for, I was able to project onto them what I would have felt in that situation -- sadness or vulnerability, as if they were those lonely inhabitants of The Island of Misfit Toys on the Christmas TV special Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. Having projected those human experiences onto non-human objects, I then identified with that sadness and vulnerability.

When I talk to my classes about the powers of storytelling and its dependence upon this human obsession with relating the world back to ourselves, I illustrate it with a great example: Jeff Winger's "Steve the pencil" speech in the pilot episode of Community (watch the speech here).

Winger tells his friends that "people can connect with anything." To illustrate this point, he says, "... I can pick up this pencil, tell you its name is Steve and go like this [breaking pencil] -- and part of you dies just a little bit on the inside."

So true, Jeff. This type of gullibility -- this desire to be told lies in order to experience real emotions - makes humans different from other creatures and gives storytelling its greatest power.

Creating custom username list & wordlist for bruteforciing.

During brute-forcing every time you need custom  password list & username list. Username list is as well as important as password list, it should be unique for every organization.If we use traditional large number of username list , then it will be tedious process.Custom username list also useful in username enumeration.

Creating custom username list:-


During information gathering stage , you may use jigsaw script. It is great script for gathering employees `s details like fullname, position, department, email addresses.You should use script with your jigsaw credential.

some times email address`s initial can be username of employee.So you can get different username from output of jigsaw script.

(2)Username script:-

If you have full name of users then you can use username.py script to generate possible username by using different combination of first name & last name.

I also write bash script which generate possible username using first name, last name & birth date.

Creating Custom word list:-


Custom Word List generator. CeWL is a ruby app which spiders a given url to a specified depth, optionally following external links, and returns a list of words.


wyd is a password profiling tool that extracts words/strings from supplied files and directories. It parses files according to the file-types and extracts the useful information, e.g. song titles, authors and so on from mp3's or descriptions and titles from images.


People spend a lot of time preparing for effective dictionary attack. Common User Passwords Profiler (CUPP) is made to simplify this attack method that is often used as last resort in penetration testing and forensic crime investigations. A weak password might be very short or only use alphanumeric characters, making decryption simple. A weak password can also be one that is easily guessed by someone profiling the user, such as a birthday, nickname, address, name of a pet or relative, or a common word such as God, love, money or password.


                                                 ---- 2013.10.13       

荣格:“one who looks outside dreams,one who looks inside awakes.”





“模拟理论” 提出:我们到底是生存于一个模拟出的 “现实” 之中,还是一个真实的现实之中? 这个理论的目的是证明,它的 3 个命题中,至少有一个是正确的,但我们不知道是哪一个。3 个命题如下:
几乎所有技术完全成熟的文明,都没兴趣进行 “先祖模拟”(模拟祖先生存环境的模拟世界):这种电脑模拟技术已经足够成熟,使得模拟出的人物具有自己的意识。
完整的理论需要严密的概率推算,但这个理论的基本概念不用牵扯到数学也可以解释清楚。假设命题 1 是假的,也就是说,有很多处在我们这个发展阶段的文明,最后都可以达到技术上的完全成熟。若假设命题 2 也是假的,即在达到技术成熟的文明中,有很多都有兴趣投入大量资源,建造一些 “先祖模拟”,就可以认为,这些技术成熟的文明,有可能建造数量庞大的模拟世界。所以,如果有许多文明都决定用自己的能力,建立这些 “先祖模拟” 世界,那么模拟出的多个世界,就会比真正的历史所包含的东西多得多,这意味着几乎所有有着类似于我们经历的观察者,都生活在模拟世界中。回到前面所说的 “观察选择效应”,我们应该认为,我们正生活在一个模拟世界中,我们是典型的观察者之一,而不是独一无二的真实世界中的那些观察者。
这一理论与生存危机的关系有两层。首先,上述 3 个命题中的第一个,即几乎所有跟我们类似的文明在达到技术成熟前都会灭亡,直接明显地指出了我们面临着多大的生存危机。如果命题 1 是真的,那么很容易推论出,我们在达到技术成熟前就会因灾难而灭亡。另一个与生存危机相关的是命题 3 :如果我们生活在一个电脑模拟的世界中,那么就可能出现一些在真实世界中不必担心的外部灾难,比如说,这个模拟系统可能会被关闭,或者维持我们这个模拟世界的真实世界中发生其他干扰。

論模擬理論與理論理論之間的爭辯  台湾清大哲研所1999曾嘉彥论文提要:
在我們理解他人心理中,常識心理學(folk psychology)扮演什麼角色?   一般來說,我們有解釋、預測、詮釋他人行為的能力,而這個能力是什麼?在當代心靈哲學中,有一派理論認為:我們之所以有解釋、預測他人行為的能是,是因為我們擁有一套常識心理學將常識心理學當成解釋他人行為所依據的理論(folk psychology as a theory),我們運用常識心理學的規則、原則來理解他人。因此,常識心理學在理解他人心理上,扮演著很重要的角色。   相反的,另一派的理論則不如此認為,他們認為我們有解釋他人行為的能力,並不是因為我們擁有一套常識心理學,而是我們運用自己本有的模擬能力(simulate),我們可以將他人的心理狀態,像是信念、欲望等,假裝成是我自己的,經由模擬能力的運用,我就可以解釋他人行為了。因此,常識心理學在解釋他人行為上,並未扮演重要的角色,而是模擬能力才是我們理解他人心理的重要基礎。   以上兩種說法就是本篇論文所要討論的焦點。我們稱第一個觀點為「理論理論」(Theory theory),因為他們將常識心理學當成是一套解釋他人行為的理論,常識心理學是解釋他人行為時不可少的。從對於常識心理學的不同詮釋來看,又可以分為「內在式」(internal)詮釋的常識心理學,和「外在式」(external)詮釋的常識心理學。   第二個觀點,我們稱之為「模擬理論」(Simulation theory),他們並不將常識心理學當成是解釋他人行為時重要的依據,而是我們本有的模擬能力,就是因為我們擁有模擬能力,所以我們才可以解釋他人行為。從對於模擬過程的不同說法來看,又可以分為「以自己作為他人模型」(using oneself as a model)、「將自己放置在他人情況中」(putting oneself in other's place)、「徹底模擬」(radical simulation)/「投射模擬」(projection)的模擬過程等。
从模拟理论探讨“观想”。maya幻化、观想、梦境,形成多种层级,而意识在这些层级之间往来切换、转换,这个首先显现出来的便是维度以及时间的方向性的变化,亦即空间自由度与时间任意度。意识在许多不同层级的幻相之间转换,于是形成了相对的真实,世界是以相对的真实的方式而存在,而宇宙的终极实相指的是被我们认识为宇宙意识的那个宇宙本体,那个绝对的真实 - 道。相对的真实是我们通往实相的阶梯,或者说相对的真实是音阶,而实相是大音希声创造之音,所有可能音阶的始源与总和,在这里,来到绝对真实的宇宙本体实相的大门。

------ 未完,只是一篇草稿,后面还有很多,暂时先写到这里 2013.9.16



        台北  →  高雄              ←心(林)
(台北车站)  (高雄车站)      ←脑(树)

入出定以David Bohm的语言来说便是隐卷序与展出序的过程。序(时)位(空),就如到电影院看电影,电影票上记载几排几号(序),根据这个序,观众找到他的座位(位)。就位以后,观众便从在这之前的现实世界里,一步跳跃而进入电影的相对幻相世界。因而序位是现实(清醒)与幻相(梦)的转换界面,而意识就是那位观众,序位便是坐标点(序为坐标,位为坐标所标示的那个点),也就是太极MKB中心点(太极、心),或就个别丹田Cakra而言开Cakra中心所在(丹-神圣空间及其中心微小空间,指心轮F#。就各Cakra言,亦可如是观)

意识为振动子,意识密度的变化为振动,波动为其显现的基本形式,并且以此表现为宇宙万象。这样的波动本质上是中性的,随后才演化成心物世界的阴阳性质,因而中性的意识密度波动(就四维时空而言它表现为纵波,以收缩膨胀的方式同时性、非地域性地在微观量子态下放射其波动,收缩相应于整体BC宇宙循环演化之向心及个体入息,膨胀相应于整体BC宇宙循环演化之离心及个体出息)可以穿越心物而不与心物世界产生交互作用,心物世界对它而言实际上只是以一个幻相的方式存在,当然,就一个主要是心或物的存在如人或纯物质而言这幻相却是相对真实的。中性的意识密度波动,可以理解为一种纯粹的意识精神体的宇宙生命,个体意识是祂在主要是心或物的存在体上的一个反射。从microvita mv观点来看,+mv面向心灵、-mv面向物质、中性的mv面向意识。


意识的根本为至上点,现实的根本为物质点,两者为一体之两面。至上点(物质点)=物质点(至上点),(物质点与至上点的关系请参见BC Brahma Cakra相关各图文),因而就个体而言,意识亦为其现实(表明了当我们抵达意识或物质的基本极致之点时,对我们来说意识和物质是同一个东西),这就构成了意识是借由现实物质世界的循环演化来成就其为意识,在这层意义上宇宙是唯物的,反言之宇宙也是唯识的,两者之间的这个循环演化的动态过程则被视为宇宙心灵(BC宇宙循环演化离向心的R、T阶段)。宇宙心灵的这个动态过程(物质产生于这个过程的T阶段的极致,亦即所谓的物质点)是我们在实际意义上所谓的现实世界,就这样的观点而言宇宙是唯心的。

此图另可参见《Brahma Cakra, OM' and Fibonacci sequence》一文

Uruguay OK's first national marketplace for Marijuana


MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay (AP) — Uruguay's Senate gave final congressional approval Tuesday to create the world's first national marketplace for legal marijuana, an audacious experiment that will have the government oversee production, sales and consumption of a drug illegal almost everywhere else.
The vote was 16 to 13, with the governing Broad Front majority united in favor. The plan now awaits the signature of President Jose Mujica, who wants the market to begin operating next year.
Two-thirds of Uruguayans oppose a government-run marijuana industry, according to opinion polls. But Mujica said he's convinced the global drug war is a failure and feels bureaucrats can do a better job of containing addictions and beating organized crime than police, soldiers and prison guards.
"Today is an historic day. Many countries of Latin America, and many governments, will take this law as an example," cheered Sen. Constanza Moreira, voting with the Broad Front majority.
Uruguay's drug control agency will have 120 days, until mid-April, to draft regulations imposing state control over the entire market for marijuana, from seed to smoke.
Everyone involved must be licensed and registered, with government monitors enforcing limits such as the 40 grams a month any adult will be able to buy at pharmacies for any reason or the six marijuana plants that license-holders will be allowed to grow at home.
Congress' lower house approved the bill in late July, and senators rejected all proposed amendments, enforcing party discipline before Tuesday's debate to assure the outcome.
Former Health Minister Alfredo Solari, a Colorado Party senator, warned Tuesday that children and adolescents will more easily get their hands on pot and that "the effects of this policy on public health will be terrible."
But Sen. Roberto Conde, a former deputy foreign minister with the Broad Front, said marijuana "is already established in Uruguay. It's a drug that is already seen as very low risk and enormously easy to get."
Mujica, a 78-year-old former leftist guerrilla who spent years in jail while many others experimented with marijuana, said the goal is to reduce drug use. A government ad campaign launched Friday makes the same point, warning of pot smoking's dangers to human health.
"This is not liberalization of marijuana. It can be consumed within certain parameters established by law. I think it will reduce consumption," Sen. Luis Gallo, a retired doctor who favored the bill, told The Associated Press.
The government got help from a national TV campaign and other lobbying efforts supporting by billionaire currency speculator and philanthropist George Soros and his Open Society Foundation and Drug Policy Alliance. In September, Mujica met with Soros and billionaire David Rockefeller in New York to explain his "experiment."
These deep-pocketed connections drew criticism from Mujica's opponents.
"I would say to Mr. Soros, to Mr. Rockefeller, and to the president of the republic that you don't experiment with the Uruguayans. We are not guinea pigs," Colorado Party Sen. Pedro Bordaberry said Tuesday.
Hannah Hetzer, a lobbyist for the Alliance who moved to Montevideo for the campaign, watched closely from the Senate gallery.
"Uruguay is seeking an alternative to a failed model. I think that this is the beginning of the end of a prohibitionist model and the beginning of a more intelligent focus," she said.

USC 55, Notre Dame 24: Epic Comeback or Masonic Hoax?

On Nov. 30, 1974, Notre Dame lost to Southern Cal, 55-24, in what was thought at the time to be one of the most incredible comebacks in college football history. The Irish jumped out to a 24-0 lead before USC ran off 55 unanswered points.

But was it really an amazing comeback, or was Notre Dame required to throw the game? Thanks to ESPN Classic, I can now provide the answer: It was all a Masonic hoax.

You see, something truly amazing was going on at the same time as the Notre Dame-USC game, and that was the burgeoning (and ill-fated) romance between yours truly and the girl I was destined to marry and who was destined to divorce me as part of the Masonic plan to destroy my life. The Freemasons hated me for breaking away from the satanic cult into which I was born, and for choosing good over evil, and for refusing to sacrifice innocent, defenseless children to Satan.

We were both sophomores in college, home for Thanksgiving weekend, and one of my "friends" suggested that we go out on a double date. Our dates were two girls who had graduated from Niles High School in Niles, Michigan, with us in June 1973, and we went to see a double feature at the U.S. 31 Drive-In.

The movies that were showing were "Gimme Shelter," the story of the satanic rock and roll band, the Rolling Stones, and their ill-fated concert in Altamont, California, at which a fan was stabbed to death while Mick Jagger sang "Sympathy for the Devil," and "Jimi Plays Berkeley," a documentary about a Jimi Hendrix concert in Berkeley, California.

My future bride was the daughter of a Knights of Columbus member who was also the president of the local Notre Dame fan club. And since the Knights of Columbus have long been infiltrated by Freemasons, it's obvious to me that her family was co-opted into the Masonic conspiracy to destroy my life. See this:


There's lots more about the Freemasons and how they control college and professional sports here:

At any rate, Notre Dame football had always been a big part of her family's life, and by the time we arrived to pick her up, there was already a somber atmosphere in the home. As I recall, USC had already taken the lead and was pouring it on. Her dad was in no mood to socialize.

I wasn't much of a Notre Dame fan at the time, and I didn't think much about it. I was more interested in the daughter. I started to fall in love with her that night, and we were married a year and a half later. That's another story, addressed elsewhere on this blog.

Also addressed elsewhere is the fact that I was born into a satanic cult, somehow escaped, and was then targeted for destruction by the cult. My "romance" with the young lady in question was a key element in the grand scheme of things. So that first date was all part of the set-up.

What I'm alleging is that Notre Dame was required to throw that game as part of the Masonic ritual that was to become my life. And since all high-ranking Freemasons worship Satan, Freemasonry is essentially a satanic organization.

For example, after Notre Dame jumped ahead 24-0 in the second quarter, USC scored just before the end of the first half and deliberately missed the extra point. Actually, it was blocked, but the kicker deliberately hooked a low line drive into the Notre Dame defense to make it appear accidental.

I know this because I recorded the game when it was shown on ESPN Classic recently. If I hadn't had a chance to watch the game again, I probably never would have figured it all out.

By missing the extra point, that left the halftime score 24-6, and since 6 is a satanic number, the message was that this game is going to be turned upside down as part of a satanic ritual. The score of 24-7 just wouldn't do.

To start the second half, Notre Dame kicked off to Anthony Davis, who was widely known to be the most dangerous runner on the USC team, and one of the best running backs in college football. He had scored six touchdowns against the Irish in their last visit to Los Angeles in 1972, and Notre Dame had avoided kicking to him in the first half. Why would they deliberately kick to him to start the second half unless they intended to throw the game?

Davis took the second-half kickoff and ran it back 102 yards for a touchdown to cut the Notre Dame lead to 24-12. The Irish kickoff coverage was uncharacteristically terrible, as Davis sailed along virtually untouched.

After a lousy punt, USC took over on the ND 38-yard line, and Pat Haden completed a long pass to John McKay. Then Davis scored again, and the extra point made it 24-19.

On the ensuing possession, Tom Clements completed a pass to Pete Demmerle on third down and eight for an apparent first down, but Demmerle uncharacteristically coughed up the ball despite not being hit very hard at all. Now USC had a first down at the ND 36.

Three plays later, Davis ran it in for another touchdown, and also ran in the two-point conversion to give USC a 27-24 lead. All this against a defense that had effectively contained USC in the first half with no trouble whatsoever. Are we supposed to believe that Notre Dame's vaunted defense just collapsed in the second half?

On the next series, Jim Lampley was reporting from the sideline, and USC offensive tackle Otis Page was mugging for the camera in the background. This was significant because Otis had been a high school classmate of mine in 1970, 1971 and 1972 at Saratoga High School in Saratoga, Calif. He was one year behind me in school, so he would have been a freshman at USC that year. I noticed that he got into the game in the fourth quarter after USC had taken a commanding lead.

I believe Page's national TV appearance was deliberately engineered by Freemasons at ABC to further emphasize that this game was being orchestrated by the Masons specifically for me.

Since my father and both of my grandfathers were 33rd-degree Masons, they viewed my defection from the cult as a betrayal of their satanic way of life. I just saw it as doing the right thing. But by refusing to sacrifice innocent children to Satan, I incurred the wrath of the Freemasons, and I've been paying for that decision every single day of my life ever since.

In any event, I believe the Masons used their influence with ABC to send me the message that they were tampering with that game specifically for me.

After the Otis Page incident, Notre Dame was then forced to punt and gave up a 54-yard return, again with uncharacteristically poor coverage. Haden then connected with McKay on another touchdown pass, as Notre Dame's secondary again fell apart and left him all alone. The extra point made it 34-24.

After Clements threw an interception, Haden completed another bomb to McKay against blown coverage to put USC ahead 41-24 just before the end of the third quarter. Notre Dame had given up a school-record 35 points in the third quarter.

Erick Penick fumbled to start the fourth quarter, and Haden immediately exploited Notre Dame's suddenly pathetic secondary for a 16-yard touchdown pass to Shelton Diggs and a 48-24 lead.

Clements' third interception of the day was returned for a touchdown, and the extra point made it 55-24. The number 55 was significant because both my future bride and I were born in 1955. I believe the number was intended to further stamp this particular game as part of the Masonic ritual that was to destroy my life.

Late in the game, Dennis Thurman fumbled a punt return for USC, which helped ensure that the Trojans wouldn't score again and erase the magic number 55.

About two weeks later, Ara Parseghian resigned as the Notre Dame coach, no doubt because he was disgusted that he'd been forced to participate in such an outrageous fraud. He was still a young man at the top of his profession at the time.

P.S. Ara's first season at Notre Dame was in 1964, when the Irish were undefeated going into the season finale against USC in Los Angeles. They ended up losing, thanks to some crooked officiating, especially on USC's game-winning drive in the final minutes..

Lots of Notre Dame games have been fixed since that time. In my opinion, the Irish were forced to throw the Mississippi game in 1977, but they were rewarded when undefeated and top-ranked Texas was forced to throw the Cotton Bowl to the Irish after the 1977 regular season, paving the way for Notre Dame to win the national championship.

Another game that was suspicious that season was the USC game, when the Irish broke out the green jerseys and throttled USC 49-19.

Notre Dame really did have the best team in the nation that year, in my opinion, but they got some help from Texas and a few other teams along the way. Even if Texas hadn't been required to throw that game, I believe Notre Dame still would have won, but they wouldn't have won 38-10. A blowout was required to give the Irish the momentum they needed to vault from fifth place to first place in the final polls.

Later in the day on Jan. 2, 1978, following Notre Dame's victory over Texas, undefeated Oklahoma took a dive against Coach Lou Holtz's Arkansas Razorbacks to open the door for Notre Dame to claim the mythical and meaningless national championship.

Fix the NFL -- Limit Substitutions

Is it worth the cost?
Football is my sport.

I like it so much that I was even a fan of the USFL.  That is, until Donald Trump got hold of it and, like his hair, made a mess of things.  Before he stepped in, the USFL played during the months that the NFL did not, and that gave me pretty much year-round football. Trump helped move the league to direct competition with the NFL, which quickly killed it. But while it lasted, I loved having two football seasons, and the USFL even gave me a pro team in my hometown: The Oklahoma Outlaws played in Tulsa.

However, even though I love the game, I do not want people to sacrifice their health for my entertainment.

Many sources have reported the number of concussions in the NFL and their long-term health effects.  Some reports have asked whether the size of players has contributed to this problem (such as this NPR report).

So if the NFL cannot find a solution to the problem of concussions and brain degeneration among  former players, I propose this possible (but very unlikely) solution: Allow limited substitutions so that most players play both offense and defense.

Nearly all of the rules would stay the same, but changing the roster rules would change the players and the play on the field.  I am not proposing the details of how that limited substitution would work; there are many possibilities.  And I really doubt my idea would ever implemented, but the plan is something to think about.

(The Arena Football League does something similar, and I must admit I never have been a fan of that game.  But that it because its game is significantly different from traditional football.)

Alan Page, DT, 245 lbs., 1967-1978
I doubt a 300-pound lineman would have the stamina to play for nearly the entire game. He would need to shed weight in order to play that long. If the game were changed this way, we might see player weights closer to those in 1960s and 1970s. Offensive linemen then weighed about 250 pounds.  Today they consistently weigh 300 or more. The same numbers are true for defensive linemen.

For example, Alan Page was a Hall of Fame defensive tackle who played at about 245 pounds in the 1960s. He was even voted the league's Most Valuable Player at one time.

Linebackers and running backs have gained weight. Wide receivers and defensive backs have perhaps gained the least weight, yet even those players are heavier today than in the past.

How might lighter players reduce concussions?


Warren Sapp, DT, 300 lbs., 1995-2007
The force generated by the collision of two men weighing close to 300 pounds is greater than that of two men weighing 250. The force of today's collisions influences injuries to the brain.

Alternatively, the NFL could simply limit the size of players: no one on the team above 250 pounds. But would that result in a lawsuit claiming discrimination?

I think limited substitution also would change collisions because of self-preservation. At various points in the game, players would need to conserve their energy. So bringing a ball carrier to the ground would be sufficient; there would be no need to "blow him up" on every play. Watch game film from earlier decades, and the tackling was different; it was more often a matter of form than force.

In general, I think that would hold true for other parts of the game -- form over force. Technique would be more important than brute force.

I am old enough to remember the players from the 1970s. I cannot say that I enjoyed the game less then than I do now. I cannot say the increased violence of the game has enhanced my enjoyment of the sport. I think the game is most enjoyable when players demonstrate skill more than strength -- when they leap, dive, change direction, spin, etc.

One also could argue that my change would turn NFL players into "true" athletes, in the sense that they would need well-rounded skills. There would not be the specialists we have now -- like pass rush specialists who are in the game for 15 plays, perhaps.

Without those specialists, some might say, the quality of the game would drop. An analogy: Those who compete in the decathlon in the Olympics probably cannot win medals in the individual events, so in that sense they are not as good as the specialists. But specialized athletes cannot compete in as many sports as the decathletes. There would be trade-offs. But hopefully there would be one big advantage: fewer concussions.

Other changes would come about. Team rosters would be smaller. There would be no need to have 53 men on a team. So the players union would not like the new rule; it would mean fewer jobs.

However, smaller rosters might mean players are available to form new rosters. That is, the league could be expanded to a couple of new cities. Or we could bring back the USFL and have year-round football again.

I could go for that.  

XPATH Injection Tutorial

XPath is a language that has been designed and developed to operate on data that is described with XML. The XPath injection allows an attacker to inject XPath elements in a query that uses this language. Some of the possible goals are to bypass authentication or access information in an unauthorized manner.

We are gonna learn using simple example. Download code from here & put it in your local server directory.(Code is created by Amol Naik )

Sample XML Document which we gonna use:-

<!-- Employees Database -->
  <Employee ID="1">
  <Employee ID="2">
  <Employee ID="3">
  <Employee ID="4">

Bypass Authentication:-

Browse to the login.php page; here we can see simple login form.

Bypass Authentication

If the application does not properly filter such input, the tester will be able to inject XPath code and interfere with the query result. For instance, the tester could input the following values:

Username: ' or '1' = '1
Password:  ' or '1' = '1

Bypass Authentication using XPATH injection
Looks quite familiar, doesn't it? Using these parameters, the query becomes:

string(//Employee[uname/text()='' or '1' = '1' and passwd/text()='' or '1' = '1']/account/text())

As in a common SQL Injection attack, we have created a query that is always evaluated as true, which means that the application will authenticate the user even if a username or a password have not been provided.

Blind Xpath Injection:-

If there is no knowledge about the XML data internal details and if the application does not provide useful error messages that help us reconstruct its internal logic, it is possible to perform a Blind XPath Injection attack whose goal is to reconstruct the whole data structure.

Browse to the search.php page. Enter any number, When you provide number it will display FirstName related to their ID.

Blind XPATH Injection
Enter ' or '1' = '1 in search , & you will get all FirstName regardless of any ID(Number).

Blind XPATH Injection
In blind Xpath injection we have to provide special crafted query to application, if query is true we will get result otherwise we will not get any result.Till now We don`t know about any parent or child node of XML document.

Guessing of parent node:-

Supply following query to application & observe result.

' or substring(name(parent::*[position()=1]),1,1)='a

Nothing append , we don`t get FirstName of users.It means first letter of parent node is not "a". Now supply following query

' or substring(name(parent::*[position()=1]),1,1)='E

Blind XPATH Injection
You get result , It means first letter of parent node is "E"

To guess second letter of parent node supply following query

' or substring(name(parent::*[position()=1]),2,1)='m

Following the same procedure, we can extract the full name of the parent node, which was found to be 'Employee'.

We can also get child node. Browse to the xpath.php page & enter following query.


You got output from parent node Employee id 3 & child node whose position is 2.

To get whole document put following query.


Blind Xpath injection
It`s just concept how to retrieve data from XML document using XPATH injection.XPath contains two useful functions that can help you automate the preceding attack and quickly iterate through all nodes and data in the XML document:

  • count() returns the number of child nodes of a given element, which can be used to determine the range of position() values to iterate over.
  •  string-length() returns the length of a supplied string, which can be used to determine the range of substring() values to iterate over.
I used recon-ng xpath bruteforcer for xpath injection attack & we will get back end XML file.


Useful Links & Blind XPATH injection Tools:-



XPATH BLIND EXPLORER:-  http://code.google.com/p/xpath-blind-explorer/downloads/list

XCAT:-  https://github.com/orf/xcat

Mr. Jones is rather concerned

Something is happening here.  But you don't know what it is - do you, Mr. Jones?

Is there anyone else in the room who's here because he's just plain embarrassed by the present world?  The past is a foreign country, someone once said.  If the past is a foreign country, someone else said, a reactionary is a patriot of that country.  Almost an exile from it.

And unlike the presentist, who sees the past as a tiny, backward and contemptible province of his vast eternal present, the reactionary knows the opposite.  The present is a province of the past.  Yes, it's true - like any province, it has its specialties.  The food, for instance.  The iPads - superb.  The movies - never better.

But overall!  Stuck here like Ovid among the Pontic Greeks, Augustus beyond deaf to all appeal, the civilized man can only murmur: barbarus hic ego sum.  Does he wish for friends?  He has no shortage - he could not imagine better.  No, what he really needs is a better grade of critics.  The bar is too low.  And when you're trying - absurdly of course, but with real feeling - to write sub specie aeternitas, that's what kills ya.

In Rome, of course, critics were no problem.  Out here in Pontus, it's pretty much all, you talk like a fag.  What makes the provincial critic so grimly, hilariously terrible is that he imagines himself not just equal to the wits of the metropolis, but vastly superior.  Is it even possible to respond?  Shall the man of letters respond: "excuse me, 'Dr. Lexus,' but I am resolutely heterosexual - as if it mattered - and 'my shit,' as you call it, is anything but 'all retarded'?"

But the present world, province though it be, has some advantages.  It does exist and we do have to live here. So, from one barbarian to another, perhaps a brief comment is in order.

Not to the original source.  Argue with Dr. Lexus?  Really?  With Mr. Jones?  When Mr. Jones is not quite sure whether he's a belletrist or a Stasi-Mann (apparently "Doxing 101" is the cornerstone of the media and communications major these days at Pontus State); when neither he nor his undoubtedly overworked copy editor can balance a quote, place a comma, or master the mysterious art of the proper noun - forget it, Ovid.  It's Pontus.

No, obviously no one should ever respond to a journalist.  (Or a Stasi-Mann.)  It's a mistake to think these people have opinions.  They have careers.  They're paid by the click and not paid well.  If you or I had Mr. Jones' job,  we'd write what he writes or lose it - maybe in slightly better English.  It's a mistake to anthropomorphize Mr. Jones.  He's a piece in a machine.

The basic nature of constitutional government is the formalization of power, and democracy is the formalization of mob violence.  Why is America's constitution democratic?  Because the Puritan mob drove Charles I (who, like Louis XVI and Nicholas II, was basically just a nice guy) out of London in 1642.  In a present world where mob violence is a thing of the past, we wouldn't expect to see genuine demotic opinion actually matter in the political process - much as we wouldn't expect to see feudal knights matter in a world that's invented the musket.  For instance, the closest thing America has to a non-astroturf political force is the Tea Party.  Which doesn't even litter.  Nor does it matter, and this is not a coincidence.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to call journalism the last real remnant of American democracy.  The job is about two things: minting clicks for slave wages, and feeling important.  (You might say that journalists are paid both in money and in power.)  Anything that can produce a good Two Minutes' Hate punches both buttons.  If one Mr. Jones misses it, the next won't.  I've seen the future of journalism in America.  It's called Upworthy.  It's exactly what Pontus both demands and deserves.

Fortunately, the Pontic mob has both the attention and the testicles of a gnat, and its bite-to-bark ratio is really difficult to understate.  Since I regret everything pathetic in the present world, and especially the death of all kings, I mourn even King Mob.  (After all, Priestley got exactly what he deserved.)  In this case, though...

Anyway.  So much for Mr. Jones.  But Pontus does offer its rewards, even intellectually.  When I think of the Pontic critics, my mind turns always to Buck Harkness.  The tragedy of Buck Harkness, "half a man," is that he was born with all the ingredients to be a Colonel Sherburn.  But nurture played him false - the bar was too low.  In Pontus, half a man is all the best of men can be.  (In Rome, I'd be instantly exposed as a ridiculous poser for talking about Ovid when I never even learned Latin.  Whereas in Pontus, just the fact that I've heard of Ovid makes me sound like a fag.)

Take David Brin.  Insomuch as Pontus has real writers - real critics, even - Brin is one.  When I was twelve I read one of his books and really enjoyed it.  Something about superintelligent mutant dolphins in an alien ocean.  He has ideas, too - I've been meaning to read this for a while.  It's not terribly controversial to me, and, you know, 20th-century ideas.  When there's so much of Maistre I haven't gotten to yet.  But it offended a lot of the usual Pontic pundits, and who can argue with that?

But really.  Your Pontic Buck Harkness shows no signs of ever having read anything pre-1922, except inasmuch as he was maybe assigned an excerpt from it in college.  Colonel Sherburn shouldn't have to argue with Buck Harkness and his mob.  If he's really Colonel Sherburn, he just sends them home.  It's less a fight than an episode of Knockout Game.

So for instance, Brin seems very big on the Enlightenment.  It would be interesting to know the last book from the Enlightenment he read.  If he's read any.  My suspicion is that what he reveres is not actually the actual Enlightenment, but the "Enlightenment" as taught in 20th-century universities.  Did you know that powdered eggs are actually made from actual eggs?  Imagine a science-fiction dystopia in which, perhaps on board your starship, you ate powdered eggs for breakfast every day.  Eggs, to you, are powdered eggs.  Real eggs are illegal.  Or something.  But one day, someone smuggles an actual chicken on board...

When I think of the Enlightenment, for instance, the man who jumps to mind is Hume.  Pontus is a busy place and perhaps you don't have time to appreciate Hume yourself.  I've read a good bit of his History of England, which is excellent and really ought to be updated in the proper spirit.  But I'll just quote Wikipedia, which of course contains the truth on all subjects:
David Hume was a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist known especially for his philosophical empiricism and skepticism. He was one of the most important figures in the history of Western philosophy and the Scottish Enlightenment.
Unfortunately for Buck Harkness, Hume's ideal form of government was... a "civilized monarchy":
In a civilized monarchy, the prince alone is unrestrained in the exercise of his authority, and possesses alone a power, which is not bounded by any thing but custom, example, and the sense of his own interest. Every minister or magistrate, however eminent, must submit to the general laws, which govern the whole society, and must exert the authority delegated to him after the manner, which is prescribed. The people depend on none but their sovereign, for the security of their property. He is so far removed from them, and is so much exempt from private jealousies or interests, that this dependence is scarcely felt. And thus a species of government arises, to which, in a high political rant, we may give the name of Tyranny, but which, by a just and prudent administration, may afford tolerable security to the people, and may answer most of the ends of political society. 
But though in a civilized monarchy, as well as in a republic, the people have security for the enjoyment of their property; yet in both these forms of government, those who possess the supreme authority have the disposal of many honours and advantages, which excite the ambition and avarice of mankind. The only difference is, that, in a republic, the candidates for office must look downwards, to gain the suffrages of the people; in a monarchy, they must turn their attention upwards, to court the good graces and favour of the great. To be successful in the former way, it is necessary for a man to make himself useful, by his industry, capacity, or knowledge: To be prosperous in the latter way, it is requisite for him to render himself agreeable, by his wit, complaisance, or civility. A strong genius succeeds best in republics; a refined taste in monarchies. And consequently the sciences are the more natural growth of the one, and the polite arts of the other.
Moreover, when we read the Enlightenment, we pay it very little respect indeed if we read it as if it was the Bible.  Hume today would both read and judge himself, and so must we.

For instance, Hume genuinely believed that the way to gain "the suffrages of the people" was for a politician to "make himself useful, by his industry, capacity, or knowledge."  Was he... a moron?  Did he... talk like a fag?

No, his work is a product of its time and place - the Whig aristocracy of 18th-century Britain, a marvelous synthesis of the old Puritan and feudal strains which somehow preserved the virtues of both.  It really was (to some extent) true that the Puritan middle classes of his era were a remarkably virtuous people.  Empowering them with republican forms created a regime that wasn't called Augustan for nothing, and laid the foundations for the empire in whose ruins we live.

But even by the late 18th century, this structure, really a settlement of the great 17th-century conflict, is crumbling.  The engineering does not work.  The republic is too strong for the monarchy and begins to tear it down.  And the virtue... oh, now I'm making myself cry.  Where did all that Puritan virtue come from, anyway?  It brought down the Stuarts.  But it was not born under the Stuarts.

Hume would be the first to point out that the constitution of any country depends on the actual people of that country.  Republican forms are not an end in and of themselves.  When virtue is widely distributed, these forms are a way of concentrating and employing it.  You will find writers who believe republican forms can build a virtuous state from a vile electorate.  Hume is not among them.

No, I suspect the average Pontic will accuse me of a little bait and switch here.  When he thinks of the "Enlightenment," he doesn't think of the Scottish Enlightenment.  He thinks of the French Enlightenment.  He goes "full Rousseau."

To explain what a sane 21st-century reader should think of the French Enlightenment - once again, not worshipping it in medieval scholastic fashion, but judging it in Enlightenment fashion - I have no better quote than the great dialogue of Taine, from the close of his Origins of Contemporary France.  Who?  Hippolyte Taine.  Yeah, I know.  He sounds like a fag.  Worse, he's quoting (probably with some editing) another obvious fag, La Harpe:
It seems to me, [La Harpe] says, as if it were but yesterday, and yet it is at the beginning of the year 1788. We were dining with one of our fellow members of the Academy, a grand seignior and a man of intelligence. The company was numerous and of every profession, courtiers, advocates, men of letters and academicians, all had feasted luxuriously according to custom. At the dessert the wines of Malvoisie and of Constance contributed to the social gaiety a sort of freedom not always kept within decorous limits. At that time society had reached the point at which everything may be expressed that excites laughter. Champfort had read to us his impious and libertine stories, and great ladies had listened to these without recourse to their fans.
Hence a deluge of witticisms against religion, one quoting a tirade from 'La Pucelle,' another bringing forward certain philosophical stanzas by Diderot. . . . and with unbounded applause. . . . The conversation becomes more serious; admiration is expressed at the revolution accomplished by Voltaire, and all agree in its being the first title to his fame. 'He gave the tone to his century, finding readers in the antechambers as well as in the drawing-room.' One of the guests narrates, bursting with laughter, what a hairdresser said to him while powdering his hair: 'You see, sir, although I am a miserable scrub, I have no more religion than any one else.' 
They conclude that the Revolution will soon be consummated, that superstition and fanaticism must wholly give way to philosophy, and they thus calculate the probabilities of the epoch and those of the future society which will see the reign of reason. The most aged lament not being able to flatter themselves that they will see it; the young rejoice in a reasonable prospect of seeing it, and especially do they congratulate the Academy on having paved the way for the great work, and on having been the headquarters, the center, the inspirer of freedom of thought. 
One of the guests had taken no part in this gay conversation; a person named Cazotte, an amiable and original man, but, unfortunately, infatuated with the delusions of the visionary. In the most serious tone he begins: 'Gentlemen,' says he, 'be content; you will witness this great revolution that you so much desire. You know that I am something of a prophet, and I repeat it, you will witness it. . . . Do you know the result of this revolution, for all of you, so long as you remain here?'
'Ah!' exclaims Condorcet with his shrewd, simple air and smile, 'let us see, a philosopher is not sorry to encounter a prophet.' 
'You, Monsieur de Condorcet, will expire stretched on the floor of a dungeon; you will die of the poison you take to escape the executioner, of the poison which the felicity of that era will compel you always to carry about your person!' 
At first, great astonishment, and then came an outburst of laughter. 'What has all this in common with philosophy and the reign of reason?' 
'Precisely what I have just remarked to you; in the name of philosophy, of humanity, of freedom, under the reign of reason, you will thus reach your end; and, evidently, the reign of reason will arrive, for there will be temples of reason, and, in those days, in all France, the temples will be those alone of reason. . . . You, Monsieur de Champfort, you will sever your veins with twenty-two strokes of a razor and yet you will not die for months afterwards. You, Monsieur Vicq-d'Azir, you will not open your own veins but you will have them opened six times in one day, in the agonies of gout, so as to be more certain of success, and you will die that night. You, Monsieur de Nicolai, on the scaffold; you, Monsieur Bailly, on the scaffold; you, Monsieur de Malesherbes, on the scaffold;. . . you, Monsieur Roucher, also on the scaffold.' 
'But then we shall have been overcome by Turks or Tartars?' 
'By no means; you will be governed, as I have already told you, solely by philosophy and reason. Those who are to treat you in this manner will all be philosophers, will all, at every moment, have on their lips the phrases you have uttered within the hour, will repeat your maxims, will quote, like yourselves, the stanzas of Diderot and of "La Pucelle."' 
'And when will all this happen?' 
'Six years will not pass before what I tell you will be accomplished.' 
'Well, these are miracles,' exclaims La Harpe, 'and you leave me out?' 
'You will be no less a miracle, for you will then be a Christian.' 
'Ah,' interposes Champfort, I breathe again; if we are to die only when La Harpe becomes a Christian we are immortals.' 
'As to that, we women,' says the Duchesse de Gramont, 'are extremely fortunate in being of no consequence in revolutions. It is understood that we are not to blame, and our sex.' 
'Your sex, ladies, will not protect you this time. . . . You will be treated precisely as men, with no difference whatever. . . . You, Madame la Duchesse, will be led to the scaffold, you and many ladies besides yourself in a cart with your hands tied behind your back.' 
'Ah, in that event, I hope to have at least a carriage covered with black.' 
'No, Madame, greater ladies than yourself will go, like yourself in a cart and with their hands tied like yours.' 
'Greater ladies! What! Princesses of the blood!' 
'Still greater ladies than those. . .' 
They began to think the jest carried too far. Madame de Gramont, to dispel the gloom, did not insist on a reply to her last exclamation, contenting herself by saying in the lightest tone, 'And they will not even leave one a confessor!' 
'No, Madame, neither you nor any other person will be allowed a confessor; the last of the condemned that will have one, as an act of grace, will be. . .' He stopped a moment. 
'Tell me, now, who is the fortunate mortal enjoying this prerogative?'
'It is the last that will remain to him, and it will be the King of France.'"
Imagine the fate of poor Condorcet. He has drunk his own medicine. Condorcet, the scientist! Lucky the scientist whose hypothesis is never tested.  Condorcet's was tested.  Unlucky Condorcet - unlucky France.  Who can see France today and not realize that it has never recovered from the Revolution?  Go to Saint-Denis.  See the looted tombs of the "thirty kings who made France."  Then get back to the RER as fast as you can - you're in a ZUS...

But most agonizing of all for this scientist, he (like La Harpe) has thought scientifically.  He has seen his hypothesis tested, and (presumably) stopped believing in it.  You have not. Or, well... Buck Harkness has not.  He did study science at one point, didn't he?

Imagine that revolution is a drug.  It's seeking FDA approval.  This drug, it's claimed, creates social harmony, good government, the "reign of reason."  The mechanism has been studied.  Philosophers everywhere agree.  The chemistry seems plausible.

At what point in history do you approve the drug?  After the French Revolution?  The Russian?  Where, in history, do we see the drug produce its claimed results?  Everywhere - from France in 1789, to Russia in 1917, Libya and Syria in 2012 - we see social catastrophe, mass murder, and the most rigid and savage of military despotisms.  Historical comparisons are difficult, of course, but when we're talking about a therapy, the first comparison is obvious: the patient before, the patient after.  I mean, duh.

And yet, the good doctors of philosophy, not giving a shit about Hippocrates (obviously a fag) continue prescribing this medicine.  The Enlightenment cannot heal itself.  It cannot judge itself.  Having given birth to the monster of Jacobinism, it produces this same monster again and again - in the 20th century and even the 21st.  It finds a perfectly functional, if hardly perfect, absolute monarchy, and replaces it with chaos and terror and death - the rule of the gun at its most direct and barbaric, the "Turks and Tartars."  Then it pats itself on the back.  Freedom! Yeah, man, freedom!  You talk like a fag who doesn't believe in freedom, man.  Freedom is cool.

But David (no relation to Sergey) Brin lands what he's sure is a deadly knockout punch:
North and South Korea.
Oh, dear!  Tell me, Mr. Harkness: what is the difference between Kim Jong-un, Elizabeth I, and Louis XIV?  Let's see: all three are absolute monarchs.  One of them is an insane dictator who throws whole families in concentration camps.  The other two... talked like fags?

The enormous chutzpah by which a loyal disciple of the Age of Revolution attributes the North Korean monster to a reactionary absence of revolution can't be overstated.  Who is Kim Il-sung?  Is he more like Louis XVI, or more like Robespierre?  North Korea is not the converse of revolution.  It's the product of revolution - exported overland from America, through Moscow out of John Reed.

In fact, Korea was a perfectly successful and flourishing nation before we spread our cancer there.  To the extent that anything of Korean culture remains after the devastation of the 20th century, it is the culture of the Chosen Dynasty.  This empire was utterly determined to preserve Korea as Korea, adopting a policy of isolation very similar to that of the Tokugawa in Japan and the Qing in China.

Alas, all three failed, or we'd have a Japan, China and Korea that actually was Japanese, Chinese or Korean in some sense, you know, other than the language, the script and the gene pool.  What a treat that would be!  To have an actual non-American civilization, alive and well and living in the 21st century!  Give me a passenger pigeon while you're at it.  Indeed, the mentality of Commodore Perry is very like the mentality that clubbed the passenger pigeon to death with sticks, and ate it.

Instead, after a century drenched in blood, largely through bizarre Cold War PR games that no one really understands yet, we end up with an American puppet state in the South and a Communist prison state in the North.  Certainly the American puppet state is preferable to the Communist prison state.  The whole Anglo-American tradition, which created this monster of revolution and unleashed it on the world, is also the most immune to it - on some days, you could even believe you were living in Hume's "civilized monarchy."

What shines through every line of Brin's screed is this revolutionary passion for murder, desolation, destruction.  The Voltaires and the Condorcets, in France's civilized monarchy, could play with this same fire like a toy.  At present the power of the fire seems pretty weak (which is why I can write this stuff, without a mob burning down my house) - it really is a toy.  A tacky toy.  On the other hand, we still export this toy, and it just burned down pretty much the entire Middle East (except Egypt, which somehow has by the skin of its teeth escaped - infuriating the NYT no end).

And there's something else, besides its revolutionary heritage, that few of us notice about North Korea: it's at war against the entire civilized world.  At least, the entire civilized world would love to replace its regime, which is pretty much the definition of "at war."  If Washington doesn't bother with the Korean equivalent of "Qaddafi must go" or "Assad must go", it's only because it doesn't believe it can get itself obeyed.

In a world that was willing to tolerate the Chosen Dynasty, the Chosen Dynasty would still exist.  It died because it couldn't secure itself against a hostile world.  Burke in his Letters on a Regicide Peace describes the foreign policy of the Jacobins, since inherited by America:
In other words, their will is the law, not only at home, but as to the concerns of every nation. Who has made that law but the Regicide Republick itself, whose laws, like those of the Medes and Persians, they cannot alter or abrogate, or even so much as take into consideration? Without the least ceremony or compliment, they have sent out of the world whole sets of laws and lawgivers. They have swept away the very constitutions under which the Legislatures acted, and the Laws were made. Even the fundamental sacred Rights of Man they have not scrupled to profane. They have set this holy code at naught with ignominy and scorn. Thus they treat all their domestic laws and constitutions, and even what they had considered as a Law of Nature; but whatever they have put their seal on for the purposes of their ambition, and the ruin of their neighbours, this alone is invulnerable, impassible, immortal. Assuming to be masters of every thing human and divine, here, and here alone, it seems they are limited, "cooped and cabined in"; and this omnipotent legislature finds itself wholly without the power of exercising its favourite attribute, the love of peace. In other words, they are powerful to usurp, impotent to restore; and equally by their power and their impotence they aggrandize themselves, and weaken and impoverish you and all other nations.
It's small wonder that a regime that dares to fight against the universal revolution, and actually has preserved itself, would be a bit Spartan and more than a bit insane.  Revolution created North Korea, but the North Korean state has an obvious desire to evolve into something much more like the Chosen Dynasty - the general process of recovering from revolution.

In a world in which Americans actually cared about North Koreans, rather than just using them as rhetorical pawns, or salivating about their chances of causing yet another revolution or civil war, Americans would see that the easiest way to let North Korea heal is to acknowledge the Kim dynasty as what it is: a monarchy.

If rather than exporting revolution 24/7, US foreign policy was actually capable of respecting, supporting and securing its sovereign peers the way, you know, classical international law of the Enlightenment era suggests, the Kims would have no need for their concentration camps.  Possibly they're so insane that they'd keep them anyway - but I suspect not.  Historical examples of a genuinely insane monarch are rare - he has trouble hanging on to his throne.  The regime in North Korea has a very simple problem, which is that if it relaxes its grip it explodes.  The only actions that the outside world can take which will solve this problem: remove the regime by force, or accept and support it.  I don't see anyone proposing either, which leaves me to think Americans don't actually care very much about the aquariums of Pyongyang.

So when he considers the faith in revolution as a whole, the sane man must consider it as a kind of satanic church of murder.  It is as irrational as it is dangerous.  Or to use a simpler word: insane.  There is a kind of symmetry here: to Pontus I appear an insane barbarian; it seems natural to me, therefore, to view Pontus as a country of insane barbarians.

Insanity has consequences - big and small.  The "Arab Spring" is big, but at least it's far away.  I want to talk a little more about the local consequences and knock out another critic or two.

David Brin didn't come up with his Korean "evidence" by himself.  He got it from a fellow named Scott Alexander, who's produced a gargantuan and humorless "Anti-Reactionary FAQ."   Again, the constant embarrassment of life in Pontus is that you wish for better critics than you have.  I really ought to give this thing the thorough reaming it deserves.  But in general, it's not bad enough to be funny and not good enough to be interesting.  I'm a busy guy and my motivation does flag.

Alexander is a disciple of the equally humorless "rationalist" movement Less Wrong, a sort of Internet update of Robespierre's good old Cult of Reason, Lenin's very rational Museums of Atheism, etc, etc.  If you want my opinion on this subject, it is that - alas - there is no way of becoming reasonable, other than to be reasonable.  Reason is wisdom.  There is no formula for wisdom - and of all unwise beliefs, the belief that wisdom can be reduced to a formula, a prayer chant, a mantra, whatever, is the most ridiculous.

I know a lot of people involved in Less Wrong and I have a lot of sympathy.  I even met its charismatic leader, Eliezer Yudkowsky, once.  For a reason which at the time I couldn't quite place, he made me think immediately of a historical figure: Shabbatai Zvi.  But why?  Reading through the comments on Mr. Jones' article, I finally realized why:

Eliezer Yudkowsky of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute here. [...] "More Right" is not any kind of acknowledged offspring of Less Wrong nor is it so much as linked to by the Less Wrong site. We are not part of a neoreactionary conspiracy. We are and have been explicitly pro-Enlightenment, as such, under that name. Should it be the case that any neoreactionary is citing me as a supporter of their ideas, I was never asked and never gave my consent. Some kind of note in the article to this effect seems appropriate. Thanks.

Also to be clear: I try not to dismiss ideas out of hand due to fear of public unpopularity. However I found Scott Alexander's takedown of neoreaction convincing and thus I shrugged and didn't bother to investigate further.
Indeed! That one certainly comes through loud and clear.  In related news, Shabbatai Zvi did not become a Muslim because the Sultan threatened to chop off his head.  No, it was because he found the Koran convincing.  He had certainly never heard of Islam before October 20, 2013.  But once he did, wow, Islam!  Poor Shabbatai - I'm still trying to work my way through "The Cow."

Look, it's no secret why people believe in the revolution.  The revolution is powerful.  Eliezer Yudowsky is, without doubt, rational, and it is the highest form of rationality to serve power.  By doing so, one serves oneself, and what could be more rational?  As a bit of a cult leader myself, I declare that Less Wrong will now and hereafter be known as "Less Wrongthink."

And yet, because one has to lie to oneself to serve a lie, there are certain tics and insanities that actually affect one's daily life.  Take Scott Alexander - who is, in fact, a psychiatrist by trade.  Surely he agrees with my definition of insanity: living and acting in a world that is not the real one.

I would much rather criticize his other posts than his gargantuan FAQ, because I think they are more interesting and illustrative.  The other day he posted one I quite liked - about FDA's (insiders say "FDA," not "the FDA") decision to kill consumer genetic testing:
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to voice concern at your decision to ask the company 23andMe to halt genetic testing.  As a doctor...
Alexander goes on for many paragraphs in a voice of perfect reason.  Everything he says is true, right, politely and elegantly stated, etc, etc.

Which is exactly the problem.  First of all, this is a person who believes - ostensibly - in democracy.  In other words, historically speaking, he is insane.  Yet his actions bespeak actual sanity, because they bespeak an actual, practical knowledge that he is not living in a democracy.

Alexander sees that his government has made a bad, stupid, irrational and really downright evil decision.  But he does not go out and try to convince his readers (all 10,000 of them, perhaps) to vote differently.  In his actions, he reveals that he's perfectly aware that this highly touted failsafe mechanism against bad government, always and everywhere, does not in fact exist.

That, in fact, the elected officials of American democracy have little or no effective control over the actual agencies of USG - and if these elected officials in fact ceased to exist, USG would continue as it is.  In fact, to anyone who knows Washington, it's quite clear that USG would work not only just as well without a Congress or White House, but in fact somewhat better.

Instead, following Maine's law, Alexander adopts the oldest monarchical method of correcting abuses.  That is, of course, petitioning the king. But there is one little problem here - which still reveals some actual insanity.  Namely, Alexander suffers under the terrible delusion that someone in Washington cares what he thinks.

Actually he does not think of himself as addressing his letter to Margaret Hamburg, Jeffrey Shuren and Alberto Gutierrez.  These actual, individual human beings, whose government (in this matter) is no less absolute than any king, are unlike a king anonymous and mysterious.  If he had a king, he would actually know who the king was.  Moreover, he would have some reason to know whether the king was actually someone who cared at all what he thought.

Actually I suspect that Alexander does not sees himself as ruled (in this matter) by these individual human beings.  I suspect he sees himself as ruled by an abstraction, in this case Science.  Who wouldn't want to be governed by Science?  Again we see Maine's law in action - consider the number of monarchies that have convinced their subjects that they are not ruled by a man, but governed by God.  God, of course, listens only to prayers.  Science hears open letters, especially when sent by a scientist.  And so on.

But in fact, these human beings are what they are - bureaucrats.  Their stated reason for killing genetic testing is a deep, sincere concern for the health of Americans.  But it's curious, isn't it?  If they are reasonable and motivated by this concern - Scott Alexander's points aren't exactly recondite.  Surely the King, oops, the Commissioner, has thought about this matter?  What could possibly impede Margaret Hamburg, Jeffrey Shuren and Alberto Gutierrez from noticing these obvious arguments?  Can it be... that they haven't been reading Less Wrong?

Of course not.  Actually, the most parsimonious explanation is that since they're bureaucrats, they care about the one thing almost all bureaucrats care about: power.  By acting effectively, by smashing something and getting away with it, they display their power and their testicles (or ovaries) expand.  It's basic chimpanzee ethology, also applied to our strange mutant human clade.

If we have to ask (in the real world, where we are ruled by human beings, not the imaginary world where we are ruled by Reason itself) why FDA killed 23, the answer might well be quite familiar to the court of Versailles.  Namely, Sergey Brin (no relation to David), has found something younger to boff, and 23 has found itself deprived of its krysha.  I don't know.  It could be true.  Or not.  I'm just speculating.

But in the real world where we actually live, what is the easiest way to get rid of Messrs.  Hamburg, Shuren and Gutierrez?  Is it... an election?  Um, these are permanent civil servants, "We the People" don't have the power to fire them.  Or to elect anyone who can fire them.  Or... really any power at all, when it comes down to it.  So, if USG is abusing its power - what?  What is your real-world course of action?  What can USG be replaced with?

I have an answer, actually.  Alas, Pontus doesn't seem to like my answer. 

Fine!  Let Pontus be happy, therefore, with the barbarian chieftains it serves.  Live more rationally, with less wrongthink.  Write fewer open letters, and learn to love USG.  Be satisfied with power as it is.  Augustus is a son of a bitch, no doubt.  But he's better than the Augusti that will follow.  Sit back, relax, stay out of the ZUS or your local equivalent, and learn to enjoy the decline...