Think of civilization as a very primitive multicellular organism that takes humans and turns them into asexual cells that perform various specialized functions. When I say "very primitive" I mean you have to look back _far_ beyond 600 million years ago (the point at which cellular specialization reached its pinnacle in sexual reproduction) to find anything among multicellular organisms this primitive. The "people" are an illusion. They aren't people. They're poorly functioning specialized cells -- poorly functioning since they retain vestiges of their sexual individuality.
Given that picture, you can start to see how these immobile organisms would have ridiculous immune systems and would be riddled with peripatetic parasites that jump from organism to organism exploiting their weaknesses and moving on before death of the organism. One of the key features of a virulent parasite like this is that it attack any nascent immune system and take it over -- sort of the way HIV infects the stem cells that are supposed to produce white blood cells and causes them to, instead, churn out HIV. The organisms these parasites infect are maintained in an utterly clueless state. So basically, you have to figure out how to trick the parasites into doing something that is more like what they would evolve to do if they werevertically transmitted (hence forced to evolve symbiosis) rather than horizontally transmitted from immobile host to immobile host<http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_ewald_asks_can_we_domesticate_germs.html>. Careful, though.... if you are to open about what you are doing -- exposing the parasites as parasites -- there are mechanisms set up to sic the host immune system on you. On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > *But in the sense of dealing with the perverse realities of current > authority structures.* > > What is the best way to work within the current authority structures? > > It seems to me in this current day and age that the current authority > structures are based on corporate control of governments by international > companies who have the money, organization, propaganda outlets, and > influence to move people and governments to their collective will. > > For example, maybe Fox news and Rupert Murdock would be an appropriated > prototypical customer. > > A strategy based on this reality would be prudent, not bottom up popular > attitude shifting. > > > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:56 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> As Alan Fletcher said "Sounds even worse than a Rossi event." >> >> Rossi events don't "prove the existence of" anything significant. They >> "raise public awareness" and appear to have had no impact on *anything*. >> Oh, we can *speculate* about *invisible* impact, but the fact remains >> that there are no customers coming forth and saying that they have >> purchased a Rossi device, nor are there any changes in public policy nor >> even admitted behavior of stake-holding funding sources. >> >> Due to centralization, we live in a very perverse authority structure >> that, even when vital interests are at stake, is impervious to all but very >> carefully crafted presentations. Rossi's behavior I can understand if he's >> willing to sacrifice share-holder opportunity in order to buy further >> discredit of centralized authority structure. But when you have 2 >> competitors racing for the market, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that >> we are dealing with "fools" -- not in the technical sense, but in the sense >> of dealing with the perverse realities of current authority structures. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Because you cannot do it without having proved the existance of >>> something, that is, a high power reactor. So, you do both. >>> >>> >>> 2013/7/16 James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> If the point of raising public awareness is political then what is the >>>> point of pursuing politics if not to change policy? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Daniel Rocha >>>> <danieldi...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> The difference it is that you wanted to change a policy. They want to >>>>> raise awareness about the existance of something. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2013/7/16 James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>>> You want to know what it takes to overcome political opposition from >>>>>> bureaucratic insiders to outside competition: >>>>>> >>>>>> Look this guy >>>>>> up<http://web.archive.org/web/20081212071704/http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery/testimny.htm>. >>>>>> He seems to have some experience dealing with that sort of thing. Clue: >>>>>> Defkalion's approach to politics has a log way to go and there is no >>>>>> evidence they are pursuing the route they need to make it work. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> But politics is important in this business. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2013/7/16 James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Public awareness works for politics. Market awareness works for >>>>>>>> business. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>>>>>> danieldi...@gmail.com >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>>>> danieldi...@gmail.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>> danieldi...@gmail.com >>> >> >> >
