Iron Mountain- The Blue Print For Tyranny 5/14
Iron Mountain- The Blue Print For Tyranny 5/14
The claim was, that this is a hoax. I don’t think hoaxes work this well. History has been unfolding right before our eyes almost totally inline with Iron Mountain report.
Duration : 0:10:1
Iron Mountain- The Blue Print For Tyranny 4/14
Iron Mountain- The Blue Print For Tyranny 4/14
The claim was, that this is a hoax. I don’t think hoaxes work this well. History has been unfolding right before our eyes almost totally inline with Iron Mountain report.
Duration : 0:10:1
Iron Mountain- The Blue Print For Tyranny 3/14
Iron Mountain- The Blue Print For Tyranny 3/14
The claim was, that this is a hoax. I don’t think hoaxes work this well. History has been unfolding right before our eyes almost totally inline with Iron Mountain report.
Duration : 0:10:1
Threatening Emails – How To Respond
Have you received a threatening email? Or worse several threatening emails? How should you react?
First let’s go over what you should not do.
Do not reply. Do not threaten back.
Do not complain to their ISP and get their account closed. You’ll destroy evidence.
Now here’s what you should do.
You should always take any kind of threat seriously. You should immediately print out the threat and save the email to a disc. Take this in person to your local police station and make a police report. Then follow up with the police. Ask to have an appointment with the detectives assigned to your case . Make sure you follow up.
Unfortunately many police departments will not take an email threat seriously. They will try to parse the wording of the threatening email and attempt to make light of the threat claiming it can be interpreted in different ways. They may just tell you to turn off the computer, change your email and ignore it.
But stil make the report and stay in touch with them. Checking up on the status of the investigation. Try and meet with them in person and put a face to the names on your report.
If they tell you they don’t have the resources to try to trace the email and identify the sender they are probably right. Unlike CSI on TV not many police departments have a full time computer crimes division and if they do they are probably overwhelmed with cases.
But don’t lose hope. You can hire a private investigator that has the time and resources to locate and identify the sender of the email threat. An investigator that specializes in email investigations has the experience in collecting and preserving the chain of custody of evidence you’ll need for court. Many times they will have contacts with local police and prosecutors and can act as your agent in dealing with the police and assist in getting your case the attention it deserves.
Email threats are serious business and should not go ignored. They are clearly sent from someone that does not understand normal social boundaries and they could easily escalate into a real life in person confrontation. The person making the threats will often target the victims family , friends and coworkers if he is not stopped.
If you decide to hire a professional investigator to handle this problem be sure to check him out first. Some state require Pis to be licensed and or bonded. Do an online internet search to see if the PI has done these types of investigations before. Do they have a good reputation or are there many complaints from unhappy customers?
Beware of software companies offering do it yourself “detective software”. These softwares are deceptive in claiming they can offer unlimited searches for a one time low fee. This is impossible as many of the searches they claim to provide are only available to licensed professionals.
If a deal sounds too good to be true you can be sure that it’s a scam and you should stay away.
Ed Opperman
http://www.articlesbase.com/internet-articles/threatening-emails-how-to-respond-711418.html
The Origin of the 11d World Membrane as a Pascal Conic Section of Six 1d Strings in a 5d Projective Space
The biography of David Hilbert discusses a debate concerning whether it was an intellectual faux pas to advocate advancing the 2000 year old Theorem of Pappus to the status of an Axiom. This issue is notable from a number of perspectives, one being his 1920 proposal establishing the Hilbert Program of formulating mathematics and/or geometry on a more solid and complete logical foundation conforming to inclusively greater ‘meta-mathematical principles.’
Yet at that time, he proposed this could be done if: 1. all math follows from a complete or correctly-chosen finite system of axioms, and 2. this axiom system is provably consistent through some means like his epsilon calculus. Although this formalism has been successfully influential in regard to Hilbert’s work in algebra and functional analysis, it failed to engage in the same way with respect to his interests in logic, as well as physics – not to mention his axiomatizion of geometry, given the sketchy issue of regarding Pappus’s theorem as an axiom. Likewise, a similar problem arose when Bertrand Russell rejected Cantor’s proof that there was no ‘greatest’ cardinal number, and went on to defend the ‘logicism’ of his and A. N. Whitehead’s proposition in <i>Principia Mathematica</i> that all mathematics is in some important sense reducible to logic. But both Hilbert and Russell’s support for an axiomatized mathematical system of definitive principles that could banish theoretical uncertainties “forever” would end in failure by 1931.
For Kurt Gödel demonstrated that any such non-contradictory (self-consistent) formal system comprehensive enough to at least include arithmetic, could not demonstrate (both) its completeness (and/or, conversely, its categorical consistency) by way of its own axioms. Which means that Hilbert’s program was impossible as stated since there’s no way the second point can be rationally combined with assumption-1 as long as the system of axioms is indeed finite – otherwise you have to add an infinite series of new axioms, beginning, I guess, with Pappus’s! Likewise, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem reveals that neither <i>Principia Mathematica</i>, nor any of other consistent system of recursive arithmetic, could decide whether every proposition, and/or its negation, was provable within that system itself.
Yet beyond Hilbert’s faux pas concerning Pappus, one should note that Gödel’s theorem itself, in some realistic sense, then actually supports Hilbert’s basic idea of a deeper, more inclusive, ‘meta-logical’ foundation as a ‘Gödelian mapping’ that ‘covers’ all mathematics and geometry. Indeed, it was Hilbert’s student Gentzen who used a Gödel mapping ‘orders’ of ‘trans-infinite’ systems of numbers to actually prove Gödel’s theorem: so truly meta-logically validates ordinary arithmetic. In any case, though this conclusion also loosely conforms to Russell’s logistic ideations, it at once demonstrates a vast improvement over his criticism of Cantor’s proof for an infinite series of cardinal numbers – which, after-all, is the point of Cantors arguments in the sense that some ‘axiom of continuity’ like Archimedes’s is required to generate a infinite field of real numbers. Which makes Hilbert’s Pappian faux pas seem almost trivial in comparison – as I’d like to know how Russell expected to find some ‘greatest cardinal number,’ as well as how he expected to axiomatically describe continuity for an infinite range of numbers or points on a line; i.e. before, let alone after, any infinite axiomatic system became an additional issue!
In either case, had Russell, or Hilbert, truly taken Occam’s razor to heart, they’d likely both slit their own throats with it before revealing their biased assumptions and inconsistencies to the world to see for eternity. Which simply means why elevate some provable theorem to the status of an axiomatic assumption, or introduce your own inconsistent system of assumptions, when one is clearly better off leaving everything as is. Yet I’m elated to instead wield that razor properly in order to cut-up such icons a little bit posthumously – as if God wretched it from their suicidal hands, if just to reciprocally thank them for the lenient opportunity to show everyone once again why fools seem to habitually skew themselves as absurdist fodder for us “lesser” fools or “commoners” in some exclusive or “formal” organizational hierarchy. Which is why the wiser ones just say: the higher the monkey climbs up the tree, the more they get exposed to those underneath! (But then too always watch out below, before something blows out that hole back into your face!!)
In any case, this brings us back to yet another, older, so more pressing, issue that is directly connected to Pappus’s ‘hexagon theorem’ – as it was generalized by Blaise Pascal on a projective conic section, or 6-point oval, in 1639, when he was just 16 years old. Being naturally impressed by Desargues’s work on conics, he produced, as a means of proof, a short treatise on what he called the ”Mystic Hexagram,” so better known ever since then simply as Pascal’s theorem. Which basically (as defined by Wikipedia) states that if an arbitrary hexagon is inscribed in any conic section, where the opposite sides are extended until they meet, the three intersection points will lie on a straight, so-called ‘Pascal, line’ of that configuration.
Though this simple description verbally suffices, it might fail to convey the fuller, and more truly ‘mystic,’ aspects that earn the Pascal theorem and configuration the distinction of being regarded as the most centrally fundamental construct in projective geometry. And while diagrams would certainly help clarify things, especially the following descriptions, its hard enough re-formatting these articles content from the preferred notebook text to accommodate the differing formats of the web’s various e-magazines or article distribution services. In any case, it’s no coincidence that I not only made the Pascal conic the cover figure for my text covering projective and its subgeometries, but include a frontispiece of various 6-element conics relevant to all, including the Brianchon projective dual to Pascal’s. So any interested readers can go to the resource box and pull up at least the Pascal cover figure, if not the frontispiece.
Anyway, the text’s cover figure illustrates Pascal’s theorem represented on a simple hexagon formed by mutually inscribing a complete 6-point (15 line) and complete 6-line (15 point) representing the respective plane sections of a complete six-dimensional 6-line-at-a-point and a complete 3-dimensional 6-plane derived by recurrently sectioning a complete five-dimensional 6-point {being the simplest representation as a maximal spatially-extended projective set of vertices for this object}. This description thus emphasizes its deep significance with regard to encompassing entire dimensional gamete of the ‘axioms of incidence’ (before one goes one to introduce the additional set necessary to establish sense and that of continuity), beginning with those of the simplest axioms dimensional extension and 5D closure, along with its projective dual of six-lines at a point, which is then sectioned back down to the final incidence relations corresponding to six complete points on a line and six complete lines through a point. Likewise, one can add the 5-space with the 6-line dimensions to obtain an 11D manifold mapping what amounts to a finite projective geometry that is at once is both complete and categorically consistent (as it’s not concerned with infinite ranges of points or numbers, it’s not restricted by, but again supports, Gödel’s reasoning). So, for example, it’s quite interesting that J. W. Hirschfeld points out in his text on finite projective groups that no six-conics exist in dimension higher than eleven.
Which brings us to the crux of this article as it relates to the mathematical physics of (super) string, and ‘M’ or membrane, theory – which I have yet seen pared down by Occam’s blade to its essence in the foundations of geometry, thus prompting the summary here, comprehensible to a wider segment of intelligent folks. Superstring theory is based on a four-dimensional space-time or physical metric, that together with an internal six-dimensional (Kauler) manifold (or compact Calabi-Yau space) for what can now be thought of as 1D-strings of the 6-line-a-point; forming a total 10-dimensional system. But it became apparent by the 1980’s that a promising unification of physics within one quantum gravitational theory of superstrings was impossible since they branched into five distinct 10 mathematical groups (which led to the situation where a raft of mathematical eggheads, most with little interest in physics per se, began dominating the theoretic physics departments). Which led to a second ‘superstring revolution’ in the mid 90’s when Ed Witten concluded that each of the 10D super-string theories is a different aspect of what was originally called a single ‘Membrane theory’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_Theory), whose totality is naturally eleven dimensional and establishes interrelations between the different superstring group theories as described by various ‘dualities.’ For just as 1D strings are more manageable, finite extensions of singular points, groups of strings on a plane form ‘world-sheets’ as literal ‘2D membranes,’ where these so-called ‘branes’ can be defined of any dimension, starting with a 0-brane or point.
So though the total system can correctly be called an ‘11D World Membrane,’ Witten generically prefers to call it ‘M-theory,’ where M can stand for membrane, mother, mathematical, matrix, master, mystery, magic, or then, as Pascal would forcefully add, Mystic! In any case, there is little doubt that someday a full rendering of 6-dimensions of compacted 1D strings in a 5D space-time will fulfill Einstein’s dream of a fully unified physical theory.
But personally I’m far less concerned with ‘theoretical’ unifications than a comprehensive rendering of physics and cosmology, replete with a raft of confirmable data. For I’ve developed the first dimensionless or ‘pure’ system of (Planck) scaling I call ‘Mumbers’ or ‘membrane numbers;’ and which precisely covers the entire spectrum of particle and space-time physics. And while I don’t have the IQ, propensity or patience to follow or pursue higher mathematics for theoretic purposes, on the other hand, I’ve tested many, but have yet to find anyone, physicist or mathematician, who can successfully write a pure numeric equation for even one relation between distinct physical states. Likewise, standard super-string or M theory has yet to make any confirmed, or even confirmable, predictions – no more than I, at least, have seen anyone point out the geometric foundations of M-theory as a Pascal’s 11-dimensional section of a dual projective 5-space and a 6D six-string-at-a-point. So regardless my mathematical inadequacies, I can guarantee no workable ‘unified M-theory of physics’ can possibly be developed until the intellectual community accepts the meta-logical tautology of both Pascal’s mysterious 6-conic underlying the foundation of geometry, as well as the accompanying unified ‘dimensionless’ scaling that already represents a proven system spanning the whole of physics.
Sean Sheeter
http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/the-origin-of-the-11d-world-membrane-as-a-pascal-conic-section-of-six-1d-strings-in-a-5d-projective-space-750422.html
Iron Mountain- The Blue Print For Tyranny 1/14
Iron Mountain- The Blue Print For Tyranny 1/14
The claim was, that this is a hoax. I don’t think hoaxes work this well. History has been unfolding right before our eyes almost totally inline with Iron Mountain report.
Duration : 0:10:1
Clarity Crafted From Common Sense!
Let’s face it; we are all liberals, no matter how conservative we may be. The Puritans who founded America conquered dangers and disasters to win religious freedom, but they were liberals. In 1754, Benjamin Franklin depicted a rattlesnake cut into eight sections in his Pennsylvania Gazette. The eight sections of snake symbolized eight eastern seaboard colonies and the caption said “Join or Die!” It was a call to arms during the French and Indian war. By 1776, an image of a coiled rattlesnake, with “Don’t Tread on Me”, became an American icon of independence and a battle cry engrained in the Spirit of ’76.
What is different about the liberalism of the Puritans and the liberalism of the progressive movement in America today? In a word, the difference is morality. The Puritans personified deeply held, Bible based morality with their liberalism. When morality is stripped away from liberalism, the result is 30 million aborted babies over thirty years, legalized sodomy and the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), all protected by the immoral ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union).
Born in 1954, I was a classic Love Generation, anti-Vietnam War liberal, living at the speed of party! It is unbelievable; what our generation has lived through. The sexual revolution, women’s lib, the music revolution, the recreational drug awakening, the Civil Rights marches, the nuclear arms race, the space race, the information revolution spawned by the computer, the internet, satellites and cell phones are just part of what we have witnessed! What a wonderful life and evolution of our democracy, in our time!
Our choices for president in 1972, when I turned eighteen and got a draft card, were Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey. I did not vote that year. Most profound, perhaps, we stopped the Vietnam War to protect those poor rice farmers, from US troops. We quit and came home. Then, between 1975 and 1978, the Viet Cong and Khmer Rouge slaughtered about three million of those peasants who we demonstrated in US streets to protect, from US troops. How foolish we were!
The lesson is clear: really bad guys immediately fill the muscle void when good men stand down and go home. Those who rallied our utopian filled minds to stop the war were mostly silent about the genocide that ensued, after US troops were withdrawn. Our killed and wounded were sacrificed in great numbers. In the end, their mission and our allies were simply abandoned by Congress and our divided nation.
We grew up with Why We Fight, Victory At Sea, Combat, Black Sheep Squadron, Rat Patrol and other programs about WWII, the death camps and the cost of freedom on TV. This type of programming saturated the few over-the-air channels and we found it educational, entertaining and fascinating. Many of us still find it fascinating. It was all about the gritty, epic struggle between freedom and tyranny and it was very patriotic!
The Rifleman, Leave It To Beaver, Gunsmoke, My Three Sons, Bonanza, The Waltons, Wild Kingdom and All In The Family are just a few programs I recall that were favorites for lighter entertainment. And the Ed Sullivan show. It was all pretty wholesome fare and we loved it. The America of our youth is already gone forever, in case you missed its passing.
We watched in naive befuddlement while the Shah of Iran was overthrown by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard in Tehran, who used US hostages as pawns on TV for over a year beginning in 1979. Interest rates were sky high and lines at gas stations were longer than that. Our President at the time was a former peanut farmer and most of us watched, from afar, the rise of radical Islam without understanding it.
As a result of the gasoline shortages that followed, there was a lot of talk about energy independence. Certainly, the masses of us did not connect the dots between buying foreign oil and funding terrorism. Apparently, neither did our elected leaders who were most interested in re-election, as they almost always are above all else. In retrospect, what in God’s name were we doing? Oh yeah, partying! We watched while our secular, modern thinking but despotic ally was swept from power, our Embassy was overrun, our hostages were traumatized and the rest of us were slowly strangled at the gasoline pump. We were brain dead.
We watched our principled Ronald Reagan from a distance with admiration, as did millions worldwide throughout the 1980′s. When Ross Perot entered politics, he caught everyone’s attention by driving the national debate for a balanced budget and by opposing NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) with his famous “giant sucking sound” quote. Perot redirected enough conservative or moderate votes from Bush Forty One to put Clinton in the White House.
Bill Clinton really motivated me politically. When Clinton said that he did not inhale the marijuana he tried in college, it was obvious that he was a liar, a scrupulous manipulator and I was motivated against him immediately. The Adolescent President, Bubba, dragged us all into the abyss of political and moral relativism where anything goes, as Nixon had done decades earlier. It was more liberalism without morality.
Rather than recount the long series of terrorist attacks we suffered and mostly ignored, from Carter’s administration until 9/11, let it suffice to say that I was already paying attention to politics before 9/11 thanks to Bubba. Now we are aware that we are in the fight of our lives. We have let the radical ideology of our enemies morph into a giant violent network with global reach and influence and we even, indirectly, enabled it and still do.
Our strategic goal must be the triumph of human freedom over tyranny in Muslim countries, for our own safety too. It is in our interest, is moral and it will take a generation or two for freedom to achieve victory over this brand of fascism. For non-radicals like most of us, it is bigger than the cost of oil, revenge or even justice. Because of weapons technology, it is about survival for which radicals care not. Tactics, tools and diplomacy will need to adapt and be re-configured for each adverse circumstance until the right combination is found to achieve long term victory.
The hour is late. Since 1979 our enemies have been at war with us and teaching their children to be martyrs, en masse. Most of us were asleep at the wheel until September 11, 2001 and too many of us seem to have gone back to sleep again. Religious, ideological hatred and technology are growing against us, so America must fight for freedom for others once again. We can not maintain our freedom alone, we need allies.
While we are divided about the best ways to achieve the strategic goal of freedom over tyranny, it is clear to most of us that we must use all of our resources and tools, for generations. Clarity resulted from 9/11 for most baby boomers and that means war, and diplomacy.
Lightning fast global communications show our enemies a vicious political war internally which makes winning the wars of bullets and bones infinitely more difficult. Our political division emboldens our enemies to kill more Americans. They believe we will quit and go home, again. They have Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia as their proof and recruiting tools. Last but not least, our division demoralizes our own volunteer military forces.
A massive show of political unity at home is required because votes affect troop morale on both sides!
Purveyors of propaganda surround us. Seek and you shall find what our troops’ majority wishes are, but you must work at it. It is not easy if you prefer polling data of our military over logic. Polling questions will improve so answers cannot be so easily spun into interpretations not intended by the military volunteers questioned, if I have my way. When you are sure you know what our troops’ majority political wishes are, support them with your votes because only votes count. Our words of support, without our votes being aligned with our troops’ majority political wishes, mean nothing.
Our troops and our enemies have connected the dots between votes and troop morale, on both sides, can you?
Vote as if your life depended on it, because it very well might. This is how we found clarity, crafted from common sense; the hard way!
Average Joe Boomer
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/clarity-crafted-from-common-sense-74364.html