Sitting on the fence is comfortable.

Today, while "using" facebook, I noticed an add that read something like, "Carl Sagan's dream was a world of rational thinking." Below was a picture of "the DNA fish" (as opposed to "the Jesus fish.")

I clicked it to discover that the DNA fish, is an actual moniker for an organization working toward the dissemination of science to (at least,) the folks on this planet with computers and access to the internet. 


I'm a huge fan of Sagan, his work and what he was able to accomplish in his life, for we mere mortal men and women. I stand firm by my conviction that he was one of the most important men of the twentieth century. Everyone should read "Pale Blue Dot" and "Demon Haunted World."


Obviously, I'm also a fan of reason and understanding, so I wish all the best to "the DNA fish" whatever that might be, and for whatever it is worth. However, I do have my own fish to fry with both Sagan and the DNA fish, same as I do with any extremists.


There are things in this universe that continue to be unexplainable, Sagan leaves no room for the possibility of magic, if I may. It's not that he isn't open, for instance, to the idea of God, he just doesn't pretend to understand what that means. But he also thinks that to believe in nonsense is counterproductive. Why can't we believe our nonsense and not let it interfere with progress? The same complaints could be said of anyone who claims that we all must reside on either side of the following equation: we evolved from monkeys or God created us.


Obviously this is not a balanced statement. There is more room for play between those to options than between any liberal/conservative dichotomy. The fact that there are people existing, firmly entrenched in either of these camps means that we need work, still.


I'd like to suggest that everyone who finds themselves believing anything that they might find classified in one extreme or the other, simply examine why. For instance, why couldn't we just, for instance, believe whatever the hell we want about the religions of our choices and yet work toward our own futures despite those thoughts. 


So many of our problems are produced by our inability or refusal to be forward thinking creatures. If this is true we have no one to blame but ourselves.

A summary of the book

Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self by Brian Taylor
When one does philosophy, one dismantles strings of concepts into their respective parts to examine both the parts themselves and the relationships the parts have with each other. This semantic reduction provides us the best possible opportunities for finding truth. This was exactly the type of skill Brian Taylor needed to write his new book Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self, postpaper publishing, ISBN: 978-0-557-99909-5http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/postpaper

The book began as a series of blogged essays in a response to the “Authenticity” movement presented by the like of Eckhart Tolle, Andrew Cohen and to a lesser extent, Dr. Phil. These men, and others, were coming to conclusions on the idea of authenticity that were, among other things, subjective fallacies, rife with interpretation and possibly counterproductive. On the other side of the coin we had skeptical guru Michael Shermer or perhaps Richard Dawkins making up one half of the “four horseman of the non-apocalypse.” These men, “scientists,” were and still are guilty of the same faults as their spiritual counterparts, interpretations rather than knowledge. Brian Taylor wanted to know, “Are there any actual answers in the arena of the self and its power?” As it turns out, reality is far stranger than ever before known and we actually know so much less than we think we do, if it can be said that we know anything authentically, at all.

After four years of research into our ideas about the self through the ages, the sciences of the self and what the self is, this book comes to the conclusion that the modern self, you and I today, are not only manipulated, but that manipulation is sought out, required and pre-programmed. This is a book about how we are all being intentionally hyper-manipulated without our knowledge, by whom and to what end.

To “anti-social engineer” is to counter this phenomenon of modernity through critical consciousness, dubbed “assignee's prerogative.” This self direction is aimed toward eudaemonia, which is an Aristotelian idea roughly meaning “happiness and promotion,” and it is further suggested that virtue is found in the mean between excess and deficiency, in these concerns. This sounds rather simple in such a paragraph form, rest assured, chasing the meanings and relationships of these ideas to any philosophical depth requires a maze of rabbit holes and someone to guide you through them. Taylor is nothing if not thorough in this regard.

Entertaining, personal, conversational, exact and profound, this book has a strange undercurrent, almost a charge running through it. Most clearly defined in it's most opinionated moments, there is a subtext, not a call to arms but to a social contract. Taylor says, throughout the book, that it is specifically battling social engineering, the command, hidden or not, “think this about that.” Yet, he too wants us to think a certain way, a centrist “golden mean,” a path of no extremes. Making an argument against his ideas is difficult, regardless of the talking points he uses. (These vary from possible moral objections we may hold for prostitution or murder, to social norms such as supporting the troops or the war on terror.) In his most controversial moments, when objectivity is at its thinnest, the author's existentialism shines through and he suggests it's better to not claim to know something than to suspect something incorrectly. The exception to this rule is when the social engineering is secret, malicious, degenerative or merely in error.

There are things that we can do anti-social engineer our hyper-manipulated selves and Taylor spells these tasks out clearly. Firstly, social engineering, be it delivered by a television commercial, ideology, civility, social construct, etc. is to be expected and recognized. Then Taylor presents us his Philosophy Generator which is described as “a dismantling of paradigm” and a way to determine if any particular social engineering is more persuasive or manipulative. If we are able to first know what it is we are deciding, then do our best possible thinking on the matter, which is what working through the Generator is for, we should be able to be confident in our decision, whatever it may be. Furthermore, given the standardization of awareness, contemplation and centrist philosophy, it should be expected that the same benefit experienced by individuals would transfer to societies.

The book ends with a chapter called “God wears a yellow hat.” It is concluded with a list of 24 interesting intentions, (23 actually, one of them is missing,) this list is not meant to be a complete index of the topics discussed, but rather an indication of the book's scope. The war on terror, the war on drugs, food transportation, consumerism, capitalism, communism, false flags, rehumanization via technology, God, 2012, patriotism, culture, globalization, human rights and religion. There is an entire chapter devoted to a reasonable discussion between the two sides divided over the conspiracies associated with September 11, 2001. This book discusses conspiracy as it dismantles thought, which is a strange dichotomy. Taylor seems to want to convince us that he is a reasonable man, with a reasonable method and if such a man can find a reasonable conspiracy, we can take the suggestion from the fringe to the mainstream. He may be right. However, this is not a conspiracy book, this is a book about thinking.

One comes away from the experience of reading this book enticed to do more and this is the goal. Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self is about taking responsibility and looking ahead, prudently. It doesn't want to take anything away from you, you're entitled to have your beliefs as the author has his. We need our beliefs and we even need social engineering, these things are part of a natural, healthy species. The dangers of our beliefs are represented by the lack of awareness of them and the inability to think critically about them. Taylor argues that, if in fact we are not thinking well about the things we believe, we are not living up to the reasonable purpose we have as human beings. This appreciation of hyper-reality and our place in it defines our authenticity and is the promise expressed by the 21^st Century Enlightenment.

Link to Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self (free pdf)http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_69/9255000/9255625/2/print/Anti-Social_Engineering_the_Hyper-Manipulated_Self-1.pdf


Relevant and Popular Essays:
America's Nervous Breakdown
On the right to Anonymous Protest
Problems with Patriotism
the War on Reason
Capitalism isn't Evil, it's Stupid
Shame Theory
Conservatism is Unnatural

In Defence of Google

(or "How I learned to stop worrying and love my lack of privacy online.)

Fact is, you have no privacy.
Everybody is freaking out about something that they shouldn't worry about at all, because privacy doesn't exist.

All this new Google feature is going to do, is record your web browsers history, only during the time you are SIGNED IN to GOOGLE.
So, just don't sign in, (if for some reason you have an aversion to properly motivated advertising, which is the worst thing Google's going to "do" to you.)

However, if you must, you can turn this new Google History feature OFF.
No media outlet seems to be talking about this, (because a non-story doesn't sell.)

So here's how to do it.

First, open a new tab (or window) so you can read these instructions while you go to where you need to.

1. Sign into any Google service. (Gmail, blogger, youtube...)
2. Usually, there's a title like "My Account" or some other link that points you to the Google Services page. What we are looking for is your DASHBOARD. So, if you see DASHBOARD click it, if you don't click MY ACCOUNT.
3. If you didn't find DASHBOARD in the previous step, click it now. You may need to click PROFILE AND PRIVACY, depending on what site you're at. Then click DASHBOARD
4. Your Google DASHBOARD has all your google products. Under the main heading at the top is MANAGE ACCOUNT. Click it.
5. Now you're looking at your account settings. Scroll down a bit and you'll see SERVICES. One of these services will say VIEW, ENABLE OR DISABLE WEB HISTORY. Click GOTO WEB HISTORY.
6. Now you'll see whether or not your web history is enabled, disabled, etc. If it's disabled, ENABLE it. Then click REMOVE ALL WEB HISTORY. Then click PAUSE.
7. Now sign out. You just permenantly paused Google from collecting your web history, while signed into Google products.

Enjoy continuing to get innapropriate internet advertising and enjoy being no less safe on the net.

There is no such thing as internet privacy.
Anybody who wants your info can get it, easily.

The News, the real NEWS and how to get it

It has always been difficult to get "the news."
If we were living a thousand years ago, it would be the same.
Story then, had to travel by man on horseback or camel, if it were from a distance, perhaps pigeon if nearby.

Now, our story comes from ourselves, in real time.

Our modern technocracy affords us the luxuries of quantity and speed, but our ability to determine the substance or worth of any news has not really increased.
This is because a polished turd is still a turd.
Our news, if not genuine, is not news at all.
And our news is not genuine, most of the time.

Avid readers of mine know, as does anyone with an appreciation of the peril and promise of Philosophy, that language itself is a slippery slope. The semantic deception of dialectical theses aside, even when we allow ourselves the common sliding scale of understanding, the News is blatantly subjective. So how are we to acheive any real understanding from any real knowledge in a world awash in opinion? By carefully sampling from as many sources as possible and searching out the golden mean.

Here's how I do it:

On TV, I watch whatever channel I want, knowing that any particular channel could have numerous intentionalities, as could any individual or group holding influence over the channel, plus the personalities of producers, anchors, reporters, etc. I use CBCnews and RT CBC is pretty clean, RT is heavily subjective, but they report on stories that the mainstream doesn't, plus theirs is a heavy "northern European" influence. Obviously, it's worth keeping an open mind. (Decide, if you must.)

So I also watch CNN but usually only when I need a "deeper American" coverage than the CBC provides. I never watch FOX because, although it is sometimes funny, keeping an open mind does not include wasting my time. 

But, with the exception of Canadian news, I don't get my "world news" from the TV. I get it all from the net. Here's how I do it:

Above Top Secret  This is the world's foremost conspiracy discussion forum. It's chock full of nutbars. Seriously, I've been a member for a few years now, I know. However, despite having to wade through a bunch of stories about UFOs and Alien Agendas, ATS consistently breaks 90% of my stories to me. This is because ATS members strive to be "the one who breaks it." At abovetopsecret.com, it is required that the breaking news forum provide sources for their articles. These sources, of course, require another evaluation. They vary from the usual alternative sources: RT, the guardian, sky, wired.com, huffington post, etc. to the mainstream. (Any newspaper you'd care to mention.)

-On the ATS main page there is a button that says RECENT POSTS. These are your headlines. Scan through them, right click any that interest you open in a new tab. Then read your newspaper, or skip it.

If there's a story breaking, twitter usually gets jammed up with humans posting it play by play. (Excluding blackouts, for various reasons.) But people often tweet links that lead you to other things. This can be helpful, as can knowing people in various places in the world.

Who should you listen to? Everyone.
Who should you believe? No one.
Try to determine the intentionality of the parties involved in giving you the message, then do the same for the subject(s) of the message.
How do you do that?
You read my book. It's free.

Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama = Win / Win

“First they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win.” -Gandhi.

If Ron Paul wins the republican nomination he will run neck and neck against Obama and numbers as of January 1^st, 2012 indicate this could happen. I believe, as the economy continues to crumble and more Americans demand change, this ticket could even win the Whitehouse. Of course, Paul, should he win, would be shut down in his efforts, one way or another. For the will of the people does not necessarily reflect the might of the system. Yet even if Paul doesn't win, his platform will be so pushed into the forefront of the American psyche that his proposals will be demanded, as a necessary product of our times. That is to say, Ron Paul hasn't moved into the mainstream, the mainstream has come to realize that he was right all along. (America isn't for revolution because Paul exists, but rather because conditions are ripe for revolution.) This change is coming, if not now, soon, because it must. The American dream has been hijacked. The grand conspiracy is real, known and documented, yet somehow continues unabated.

Ron Paul is touring the country talking to one packed stadium after another and he's doing it alone. He hasn't any corporate backers, his pockets are surprisingly shallow. He's achieving his success through 21^st century grassroots movements and without the help of the media. In fact, CNN and FOX news admitted to “accidentally” providing misleading news stories about Paul's lack of success. It has been suggested by some that there is a rampant smear campaign against Dr. Paul. The reasons for this are obvious, if you know anything about Paul's platform, which is a threat to the status-quo; anti-military industrial complex, anti-banker, anti-income tax, anti-big corporation, anti-big gov. Paul himself has said, in a rather telling, all encompassing sentence, “As long as you want to run this world Empire at a trillion dollars a year, believe me, you can't solve this problem.” To be anti-American Empire, it would seem, is to be anti-American. So how is it that Paul has such popular support? Simply put, it means America is waking up to the fact that its morality is flawed, its intentionality is either directed at money or power and is self serving. Much of the rest of the world hates America, not due to envy, but rather due to its inability to mind its own business. Most Americans are people of principal, why shouldn't the “American way” follow suit?

“We have broken from reality. A psychotic national ignorance with a pretense of knowledge, replacing wisdom. An epidemic of cronyism, a central bank that deliberately destroys the value of the currency in secrecy, without restraint, without nary a whimper.” Paul believes we print money to pay for illegal wars which renders Americans poor, or dead. His solutions are extreme, measured against the current norm, but they could be the answers we (the 99%) are looking for. Ron Paul has been nothing if not consistent in his message, for over thirty years. (Something very special in politics.) The drums he has been beating carry the same rhythm: “End the fed. Stop taxing so much. Stop spending so much. End the Empire building. End the wars. Stop intervening. Stop policing the world. Stop lying and stealing. Return liberty. Return to the constitution.” These ideas, while being good, right and true, in my studied opinion, shall most likely not be delivered unto the world by the likes of Ron Paul, not because he can't win, but because the machine won't let him. This change is yours to make or break.

If Ron Paul wins the Presidency, he will be shut down, by any means necessary. The only way America can win back the right to be proud again is if the people move the agenda forward. It only takes a few wrong people in the right places to stop any change and those people are currently entrenched. Paul will not change their minds, they will have to be removed. They will not go lightly, there will be friction. Only the masses behind the movement will have the force required to get the foxes out of the chicken coop. A new Centrist paradigm is needed to succeed. We must all come together to agree that these extremes we swing to are not solutions, but the very causes of the problems we have. Then we must be willing to fight to change them. This is the new Beginning.

If Barack Obama wins the Presidency, he will not be able to hold back this American desire for change. Imagine an “Occupy Wall Street” like movement, with a leader like Ron Paul, funded by other libertarians, possibly the Koch Brothers, organized, earnest, smart and strong. We'll have an American Revolution unlike anything we've seen. It will be unstoppable, (although, they will try, often by removing liberties,) because it must win. It is insane to expect the same causes to return different results and with Obama you will get more of the same. Thus, you can expect more of the same resistance from Americans, only more effectual. This is why an Obama vs. Paul Presidential race would be the best thing for America. Regardless of who wins, the revolution takes place. It's going to hurt, it's going to be ugly, but it's necessary. Without the Revolution, America will fall apart like every Empire before it, which would the latest and greatest betrayal of the latest and greatest dream.