Mindconnection eNL, 2015-09-06

Home

In this issue:
Good News | Product Highlight | Brainpower | Finances | Security | Health/Fitness | Factoid | Thought 4 the Day

Item 1. A concussion blood test can help doctors quickly diagnose concussions. Read the full story here:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/540401/two-companies-close-in-on-a-concussion-blood-test

Item 2. DNA tracking has revealed that ivory poachers focus their evil in two areas. This information will help authorities nail these killers. If they can zero in on the big ivory cartels with military force and put them out of business, far fewer elephants (and the rangers who try to protect them) will be killed.

Presently, these cartels arrive in an area with heavy firepower and murder any rangers they find. So it's not the case that the ranger shows up and says, "OK, you guys are busted and I'll write you a ticket." It's that the ranger is helpless against the invaders. But now with the prime killing places identified, there's no reason to put rangers at risk. Those areas can be monitored, and a quick, powerful response delivered.

Item 3. It's no longer necessary to tap Obama supporters and other brain-dead individuals for heart transplant donations. This development changes things dramatically for the good:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/540861/transplant-surgeons-revive-hearts-after-death

Item 4. Cancer cells programmed back to normal. Read the full story here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11821334/Cancer-cells-programmed-back-to-normal-by-US-scientists.html

Of course, the vast majority of cancer is self-inflicted and behavior-driven. It is better to prevent it than to have to try to stop it. We've covered cancer prevention and early-stage cures extensively in this eNL.

Item 5. A new cancer treatment using specially designed stem cells can target and eradicate tumors throughout the body. It's in clinical trials, now. Of course the best way to nail cancer is to eliminate behaviors that cause it: things like smoking, and eating junk instead of a variety of nutrient-rich vegetables.

Item 6. Barry Soetoro, the criminal who uses the alias "Barrack Hussein Obama" (instead of his legal name) has been indicted on 3,957 charges of felony fraud. Every bill he has signed has been repealed.

OK, that's wishful thinking. But doesn't just thinking about it make you feel good all over? Spread some cheer, and instead of saying, "Have a nice day" say, "It will be a great day if Obama is ever indicted." You'll make informed people smile.

Click the picture to get to the eBay page.

RACE SPORT RS-LED-180W LED Combo Bar (32" 180 Watts 10700 Lumens) AUTO LIGHTING

• Each LED is 3W.
• Dual LED rows.
• Thermally managed heat sink.
• Made & developed for extreme off-road use.
• Aircraft-grade aluminum casing.
• Waterproof & dustproof.
• Long life expectancy.
•  32".
• 180W.
• 10,700 lumens.
  
   

Many people use stupidity as a weapon, and they are quite effective with it. Two intelligent people can settle a disagreement with facts and logic. But these two tools of the intelligent have zero effect on those who weaponize stupidity.

A person in "brain on" mode cannot reason with a person who is in "brain off" mode. Attempting to do so sucks down brainpower at an incredible rate, often leaving the intelligent person emotionally drained and exhausted. Once you're in this condition, you're vulnerable to manipulation and mind control. Weaponized stupidity has exactly this effect, and is typically used to set the victim up for further abuse (manipulation and mind control).

How can you defend against it? Before I answer, let's get a little more background.

People with unreasonable positions often use use stupidity as a weapon. That's because, in a battle of wits, they are unarmed. So they change the rules of engagement, opening one salvo of stupidity after another on the person they wish to defeat. For them, it's not about learning something or getting at the truth. It's about "winning" the fake contest that they've dreamed up in their weak little mind.

The person whose nexus resides in the realm of reality (facts and logic) often does not know there is a contest going on. It appears there isn't, since the attacker is unreasonable and apparently confused about reality. So you need to recognize when you're under a stupidity attack.

First, what it is not:

• It's not a stupidity attack if the other person has facts from one source and you from another and things don't mesh. That situation can be resolved by two people who are interested in discovering the truth. They compare and evaluate sources. They may agree to disagree, or one person may reject the source he was relying on in light of better "creds" in the other source.

• Or sometimes, the sources do match up but the weight each individual places on specific bits of information will vary. That is not a stupidity attack, either.

• Or sometimes, each is working with incomplete information and thus they reach different conclusions. But they do so honestly, and the conclusions follow from the information they do have.

• Two different views can be equally right, and either defended or not defended. I sometimes disagree with my climbing partner Shawn about the best way to solve a new route; we are usually both right (or wrong, as the case may be). These disagreements end in a shrug, because each of us has made his case and there's nothing more to be said. I have yet to find his view actually wrong; it's just different (sometimes) from mine.

• And so on and so on. The various permutations of using logic to reach conclusion from facts are not stupidity attacks.

A stupidity attack is what's used to "defeat" the other person when the attacker has a severe case of HUTBS (Head Up The Butt Syndrome)--or just does not know what he's talking about and does not care to know.

Here are some signs you're under a stupidity attack:

• The other person clearly is making things up as he goes along and clearly doesn't know anything about the topic.

• The other person's claims about his situation seem extraordinarily severe ("I'm having heart surgery" or "I owe my company $4,000") and the claims are just made but not substantiated.

• Enough of the other person's "facts" conflict with reality that you know he's ignorant on the subject.

• You've gotten your facts from many reliable sources, yet the other person insists they are wrong (and has no credible sources).

• The other person uses non-sequitors or other logical fallacies.

• The other person mischaracterizes what you said.

• You detect a very strong resemblance to an Abbot and Costello routine.

• You feel like you're personally being attacked. This is often quite subtle. In a real conversation, the issues are attacked but the other person isn't. In a stupidity attack, the attacker tries to put you into an emotionally off-balanced position by suggesting (or stating) some deficiency about you. For example, you're narrow-minded or you think you're a know-it-all. That last one is a favorite of the hopelessly ignorant.

You cannot defend against this attack with facts and logic. The attacker isn't interested in the truth. The attacker is interested only in making you wrong or controlling you in some way.

Some things you can use to defend against the attack:

• Walk away. This is arguably the most effective defense. By refusing to engage with the attacker, you end the attack. You can figuratively walk away from e-mailed attacks (don't answer them), phone attacks (hang up), or attacks via other means by simply stopping communication.
   

• Confront the behavior. "You're rejecting facts and logic. This tells me you have zero interest in the reality or truth here, so you have some other agenda. That would be either to make me wrong or to control me. I do not permit either outcome, and I find this behavior deeply offensive. Can we move on, please?"
   

• Redirect the person. "OK, one or both of us stepped in something unpleasant there. Clearly not a good topic for us. So, changing the subject, did I tell you about my cousin's kid who shot a bear with an arrow? Amazing story."
   

• Change the rules of engagement. They did it to you, so do it to them. "From your nonsensical responses, I take it you concede this debate to me. All you've done thus far is prove that your view is baseless in the extreme. I agree with you that you are wrong. No need to expend more time and energy convincing me."

Which of these four defenses is best depends on the situation. Generally, the "Walk away" defense is preferable so that you're not wasting your time dealing with malicious stupidity attacks. Simply ignoring them saves time. But you may not have that option. Maybe you're at a business meeting or a family gathering, and you're under attack. You don't want to leave. Each of the remaining three strategies has a different tone of aggressiveness. Each is assertive, but different kinds of attackers warrant different levels of returned attack.

And remember, some people will be stubbornly stupid no matter what you say or do. These people invariably go into an Abbot and Costello routine, twisting what you said into something else and then arguing against that. They do this because they are dishonest and mentally feeble, relying on their ability to bludgeon others with stupidity.

Waste no time on these fools. In a group setting, they will spew stupidity rapid-fire at you, relying on your civility and manners to force you to sit there and take it. Don't. Tell them, "Stop talking to me. That's not a request." If they don't stop, leave. You won't be seen as rude. Your exit will highlight to everyone else how annoying the stupidity spewer is. It's a strong move, not a weak one.

Whatever you do, don't try to "argue" with someone who uses stupidity as a weapon. Some people do this maliciously, but many others do not know any other way to "converse" with other people. Engaging with these stupidity addicts wastes the limited time you have on this earth. You could spend that same time in a rewarding, or at least non-toxic exchange with someone who is honest and rational. This latter choice can be richly rewarding in both an emotional and an intellectual sense.

• Unemployment (the real unemployment, not the fake numbers) has doubled.
• The number of people on food stamps, pretty much doubled.
• Home foreclosures are up, hiring is down, and property taxes are up.
• Real wages for non-executive positions (that is, most jobs) have actually decreased in real dollars.
• Prices of essentials have increased dramatically.
• The prices of food, in particular, have gone way up. Compare the price of a head of cabbage to what it was in 2009. And the heads are smaller, now.
• Where price has gone down, so has the quality of the item.
• The cost of medical insurance has skyrocketed.

What caused all of this, and what can you do about it?

The cause is well-understood. The problem is it's not well-understood by most people. If it were, things would be very different.

In 2008, titular President George W. Bush (serving under Dick Cheney) signed off on the 2009 budget. It had a $400 billion deficit. Note that the deficit is the difference between federal taxes (a small part of which is the 1040 tax) and federal spending.

Before the close of 2008, President-elect Barry Soetoro, the illegal Indonesian immigrant who goes by the illegal alias Barrack Hussein Obama, conspired with Nutcase Nancy Pelosi (who fervently believes violent criminals should be protected from their victims rather than the other way around, except she grants herself an exception to this idea by accepting armed guards at taxpayer expense) to add another $800 billion of pork to that budget. This bloomed the deficit out to $1.2 trillion before Soetoro even took office.

These are huge numbers. We're not talking about millions, but about a thousand times that amount when we are talking about billions. Trillions are a thousand thousand times millions. Huge.

Of course, Soetoro blamed Bush for the total $1.2 trillion while not mentioning to the zombie public that 2/3 of that deficit was Soetoro's own doing.

This "doing" of his amounted to an attack on America. And the attacks have kept coming, year after year. Why are these "attacks" and not merely "budget deficits?"

Since Soetoro took office, the national debt, something under which we were already staggering, has doubled. That's the cumulative size of the attacks. The sheer magnitude of what Soetoro aggressively pushed to spend makes these deficits criminal acts with criminal intent. If he were a USA citizen instead of an illegal alien, he could be convicted of treason for these acts.

What do massive deficits leading to a doubling of the national debt actually do to the economy? If all of the money had been invested in something productive and our infrastructure, then the resulting revenue would offset the investment over n months (n is a variable used in financing calculations). Since we're talking about a national economy, n must necessarily be a smallish number. You have to start seeing a positive cash flow back, within maybe 18 months. Some short period like that. Because the economy is much like a living thing, you can't hold it under water for very long without severe repercussions.

And we have those repercussions (mentioned at the start of this piece). Not only that, there is no positive cash flow;  Soetoro has run these same outsized mega-deficits every year of his rule.

But, wait. Everything I've just told you applies to normal financing situations. The WAY this debt is financed makes it even worse. It's financed with a combination of counterfeit money and IOUs.

The nonFederal nonReserve creates the money on its books (as if they had just printed new $100 bills). Out of thin air. That means each dollar created deprecates each dollar that already exists. When you do a trillion of these every year, you have severe deprecation. When this counterfeiting takes place, economists say the counterfeiting organization (typically a central bank) is inflating the money supply. That's where we get the term "inflation." It does not, contrary to what some morons and illiterates aver, mean a general rise in prices. Inflation is a form of stealing. It's a criminal act.

With each token in the money supply severely deprecated, prices stop being reliable indicators of value. They stop reflecting what's real. This, also has repercussions for an economy.

So let's recap what the nonFederal nonReserve does. It creates funny money, diluting the value of existing money. Severely. It hands this funny money over to selected banks ($49 trillion from 2009 - 2012 alone!) or to the Federal Treasury. When it handed over the $1.2 trillion that Soetoro caused to be deficit spending, it then issued an IOU for the debt. So it gave us nothing and now we owe it trillions of dollars.

We've just gone over a few issues with the national debt, but things get a lot worse when you look deeper. For example, the vast majority of federal spending is illegal. That's right, it's barred by existing law. But it's done anyway.

So we have this crushing debt for funding illegal activities (crimes), but we owe it to a third party that gave nothing in return for gaining the receivables. Under contract law, the federal debt can be cancelled because we are not obligated to pay it. The three elements of a contract are offer, acceptance, and consideration. Consideration means you pay something or perform a service. The nonFederal nonReserve didn't pay anything, and the only "service" it provided was that of corrupting the existing money. Not only that, there is underlying fraud so the contract, if it did exist, would be null and void.

But the federal debt won't be cancelled under the current system because it's a tool of theft. Look at how many people it has impoverished (opening comments, again), by robbing them.

There is a solution. We must replace the current criminal regime (in power since Wilson) with a lawful government. That means no more wasting your vote on "clean end of the turd" games as if there's any difference between a Republicrat and a Demopublican. Vote in the affirmative for law and order (Libertarian) or vote for ANYBODY except a member of Crime Central.

We need to lobby for a repeal of the illegal Federal Reserve Act, an abomination that came about under highly dubious circumstances. That means writing to your misrepresentative in CONgress and explaining what I've outline above and that you object to the stealing and the devastation it's caused.

It might not hurt to write scathing letters to the honchos of the Demopublican Party, insisting they clean up their "Obama" mess and get the criminal indicted. Of course, they won't do it. But they will get the message. At the very least, they will be inclined to offer resistance to our dictator's crazy schemes and his aggressive assaults on our country during whatever time he has left in office. Let us hope he does not stay for a third term. We'll be lucky to survive his second one.

To greatly lower my risk of dozens of diseases, I don't eat meat, wheat, corn, or soy. These diseases include Alzheimer's, various forms of arthritis, colon cancer, various kinds of vascular diseases, and a long list of connective tissue diseases and disorders.

When people try to foist these foods on me, I say no thank you. Then they ask why. Then I tell them what I just said above. Then they scoff as if I'm an idiot who is brainwashed and disinformed (or it just shows in the roll of their eyes).

Sometimes I'll say, "I'll bet you think that's a little crazy, because there is no scientific evidence for my position. Am I right?"

They'll laugh and agree.

Then I'll say, "For evidence to be scientific, you must use a control group or something like a double blind study. Do you agree with that or disagree?"

Now they hesitate.

"Well, it's true. You can look up the definition of scientific evidence."

"Based on the definition of scientific evidence, there is no scientific evidence that if you step out in front of an oncoming train you're going to die. So why would you not step in front of an oncoming train? There has never even been scientific inquiry into how much it would hurt if you cut off this finger right here, the one with your wedding band on it. Yet I see your finger is still there. Why?"

We do not need scientific evidence to verify that the foods I refuse to eat are toxic and highly correlated to the aforementioned diseases. The only exception is meat that isn't from grain-fed animals; it's the grain diet that makes the meat toxic. Would I eat wild game? Definitely. Organic, grass-fed meat? Sure thing. But these attributes must be explicitly stated when referring to meat, which is overwhelmingly grain-fed in the USA meat supply.

The toxicity from these grains often manifests itself as inflammation. You can look that up. Wheat, corn, and soy, the Monsanto versions that are grown today. Lots of inflammation from eating these. That HAS been scientifically proven. Call this fact "Dot number one."

Another thing that's been scientifically proven is that inflammation is a huge risk factor for the aforementioned diseases and many more. Call this fact "Dot number two."

All I did was connect the dots. Now do you see why I don't eat meat, wheat, corn, or soy?

• The best workouts are short and intense.
• A good diet contains far more flavors and satisfaction than the typical American diet.

Mickey Mouse is known as "Topolino" in Italy. The government there is "mickey mouse," too. Ours is more like what comes out of Mickey Mouse's hind end.

Those who don't deliberately choose to think are enslaved by those who count on others not to think.