Yes, it is quite clear it was written before the war and it deals with the ancient legends.

The completion and editing follows along in the concept originally established and it is set in VERY ancient times - before the more recent and also plagiarized (Like the Grail legends) Arthurian tales. Beowulf was a strong factor in it and part of his earlier writings as well.

Beowuld is very ancient and of unknown authorship.

The Verbal Tradition of the Bairds was indeed the archetypical development model that Tolkien followed.

What do you mean Robert, Can you cite us some parallels?

Archetypes and linguistics or NLP are all within the realm of the great Noam Chomsky who has moved on to political insight and activism (Thank God).


After listening to Vlad Putin describe his move to stop elections of territorial governors and give all power to himself to appoint them as a tactic needed to fight the war against terriers I came across this recent Chomsky book called Hegemony or Survival.
Noam Chomsky suggested that leaders, facing the choice in the book's title, might well opt for hegemony over survival. "There is ample historical precedent," he wrote, "for the willingness of leaders to threaten or resort to violence in the face of significant risk of catastrophe. But the stakes are far higher today. The choice between hegemony and survival has rarely, if ever, been so starkly posed."

Thanks to the declassification and release (by The National Security Archive) of documents related to America's first Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), developed in 1960, we now know just how true this was over four decades ago. What we know, in fact, is that our military high command had laid out, and our top civilian leadership approved, a plan for the possible launchingof a first strike meant to deliver over 3,200 nuclear weapons to 1,060 targets in the then-Communist world. Had all gone well, at least 130 cities would have simply ceased to exist. Official (classified) estimates of casualties from such an attack ran to 285 million dead and 40 million injured -- and some military men feared that the lethal effects of fallout on the United States itself from such an apocalyptic attack might be devastating. Given the underestimation of those fallout effects at the time, such an attack might indeed have meant, in a world of bizarre imperial conundrums, hegemony rather than survival. As it happens, we've had a SIOP ever since and still have one today. But what kind of an instrument of overkill it may be remains highly classified.

The paperback version of Hegemony or Survival, America's Quest for Global Dominance (part of The American Empire Project series) has just been released with a new afterword by Chomsky in which he returns to the subject of dominion and fate. He considers ways in which the Bush administration's elevation of force as a principle above all else has driven up the levels of terrorism, of violence, and of danger to long-term survival. It should not be missed -- and neither should the book.

The Resort to Force
By Noam Chomsky

As Colin Powell explained the National Security Strategy (NSS) of September 2002 to a hostile audience at the World Economic Forum, Washington has a ``sovereign right to use force to defend ourselves'' from nations that possess WMD and cooperate with terrorists, the official pretexts for invading Iraq. The collapse of the pretexts is well known, but there has been insufficient attention to its most important consequence: the NSS was effectively revised to lower the bars to aggression. The need to establish ties to terror was quietly dropped. More significant, Bush and colleagues declared the right to resort to force even if a country does not have WMD or even programs to develop them. It is sufficient that it have the ``intent and ability'' to do so. Just about every country has the ability, and intent is in the eye of the beholder. The official doctrine, then, is that anyone is subject to overwhelming attack. Colin Powell carried the revision even a step further. The president was right to attack Iraq because Saddam not only had ``intent and capability'' but had ``actually used such horrible weapons against his enemies in Iran and against his own people''-- with continuing support from Powell and his associates, he failed to add, following the usual convention. Condoleezza Rice gave a similar version. With such reasoning as this, who is exempt from attack? Small wonder that, as one Reuters report put it, ``if Iraqis ever see Saddam Hussein in the dock, they want his former American allies shackled beside him.''

In the desperate flailing to contrive justifications as one pretext after another collapsed, the obvious reason for the invasion was conspicuously evaded by the administration and commentators: to establish the first secure military bases in a client state right at the heart of the world's major energy resources, understood since World War II to be a ``stupendous source of strategic power'' and expected to become even more important in the future. There should have been little surprise at revelations that the administration intended to attack Iraq before 9-11, and downgraded the ``war on terror'' in favor of this objective. In internal discussion, evasion is unnecessary. Long before they took office, the private club of reactionary statists had recognized that ``the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'' With all the vacillations of policy since the current incumbents first took office in 1981, one guiding principle remains stable: the Iraqi people must not rule Iraq.

The 2002 National Security Strategy, and its implementation in Iraq, are widely regarded as a watershed in international affairs. ``The new approach is revolutionary,'' Henry Kissinger wrote, approving of the doctrine but with tactical reservations and a crucial qualification: it cannot be ``a universal principle available to every nation.'' The right of aggression is to be reserved for the US and perhaps its chosen clients. We must reject the most elementary of moral truisms, the principle of universality -- a stand usually concealed in professions of virtuous intent and tortured legalisms.

Arthur Schlesinger agreed that the doctrine and implementation were ``revolutionary,'' but from a quite different standpoint. As the first bombs fell on Baghdad, he recalled FDR's words following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, ``a date which will live in infamy.'' Now it is Americans who live in infamy, he wrote, as their government adopts the policies of imperial Japan. He added that George Bush had converted a ``global wave of sympathy'' for the US into a ``global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism.'' A year later, ``discontent with America and its policies had intensified rather than diminished.'' Even in Britain support for the war had declined by a third.

As predicted, the war increased the threat of terror. Middle East expert Fawaz Gerges found it ``simply unbelievable how the war has revived the appeal of a global jihadi Islam that was in real decline after 9-11.'' Recruitment for the Al Qaeda networks increased, while Iraq itself became a ``terrorist haven'' for the first time. Suicide attacks for the year 2003 reached the highest level in modern times; Iraq suffered its first since the thirteenth century. Substantial specialist opinion concluded that the war also led to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

As the anniversary of the invasion approached, New York's Grand Central Station was patrolled by police with submachine guns, a reaction to the March 11 Madrid train bombings that killed 200 people in Europe's worst terrorist crime. A few days later, the Spanish electorate voted out the government that had gone to war despite overwhelming popular opposition. Spaniards were condemned for appeasing terrorism by voting for withdrawing troops from Iraq in the absence of UN authorization -- that is, for taking a stand rather like that of 70 percent of Americans, who called for the UN to take the leading role in Iraq.

Bush assured Americans that ``The world is safer today because, in Iraq, our coalition ended a regime that cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.'' The president's handlers know that every word is false, but they also know that lies can become Truth, if repeated insistently enough.

There is broad agreement among specialists on how to reduce the threat of terror --keeping here to the subcategory that is doctrinally acceptable, their terror against us -- and also on how to incite terrorist atrocities, which may become truly horrendous. The consensus is well articulated by Jason Burke in his study of the Al Qaeda phenomenon, the most detailed and informed investigation of this loose array of radical Islamists for whom bin Laden is hardly more than a symbol (a more dangerous one after he is killed, perhaps, becoming a martyr who inspires others to join his cause). The role of Washington's current incumbents, in their Reaganite phase, in creating the radical Islamist networks is well known. Less familiar is their tolerance of Pakistan's slide toward radical Islamist extremism and its development of nuclear weapons.

As Burke reviews, Clinton's 1998 bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan created bin Laden as a symbol, forged close relations between him and the Taliban, and led to a sharp increase in support, recruitment, and financing for Al Qaeda, which until then was virtually unknown. The next major contribution to the growth of Al Qaeda and the prominence of bin Laden was Bush's bombing of Afghanistan following September 11, undertaken without credible pretext as later quietly conceded. As a result, bin Laden's message ``spread among tens of millions of people, particularly the young and angry, around the world,'' Burke writes, reviewing the increase in global terror and the creation of ``a whole new cadre of terrorists'' enlisted in what they see as a ``cosmic struggle between good and evil,'' a vision shared by bin Laden and Bush. As noted, the invasion of Iraq had the same effect.

Citing many examples, Burke concludes that ``Every use of force is another small victory for bin Laden,'' who ``is winning,'' whether he lives or dies. Burke's assessment is widely shared by many analysts, including former heads of Israeli military intelligence and the General Security Services.

There is also a broad consensus on what the proper reaction to terrorism should be. It is two-pronged: directed at the terrorists themselves and at the reservoir of potential support. The appropriate response to terrorist crimes is police work, which has been successful worldwide. More important is the broad constituency the terrorists -- who see themselves as a vanguard -- seek to mobilize, including many who hate and fear them but nevertheless see them as fighting for a just cause. We can help the vanguard mobilize this reservoir of support by violence, or can address the ``myriad grievances,'' many legitimate, that are ``the root causes of modern Islamic militancy.'' That can significantly reduce the threat of terror, and should be undertaken independently of this goal.

Violence can succeed, as Americans know well from the conquest of the national territory. But at terrible cost. It can also provoke violence in response, and often does. Inciting terror is not the only illustration. Others are even more hazardous.

In February 2004, Russia carried out its largest military exercises in two decades, prominently exhibiting advanced WMD. Russian generals and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov announced that they were responding to Washington's plans ``to make nuclear weapons an instrument of solving military tasks,'' including its development of new low-yield nuclear weapons, ``an extremely dangerous tendency that is undermining global and regional stability,... lowering the threshold for actual use.'' Strategic analyst Bruce Blair writes that Russia is well aware that the new ``bunker busters'' are designed to target the ``high-level nuclear command bunkers'' that control its nuclear arsenal. Ivanov and Russian generals report that in response to US escalation they are deploying ``the most advanced state-of-the-art missile in the world,'' perhaps next to impossible to destroy, something that ``would be very alarming to the Pentagon,'' says former Assistant Defense Secretary Phil Coyle. US analysts suspect that Russia may also be duplicating US development of a hypersonic cruise vehicle that can re-enter the atmosphere from space and launch devastating attacks without warning, part of US plans to reduce reliance on overseas bases or negotiated access to air routes.

US analysts estimate that Russian military expenditures have tripled during the Bush-Putin years, in large measure a predicted reaction to the Bush administration's militancy and aggressiveness. Putin and Ivanov cited the Bush doctrine of ``preemptive strike''-- the ``revolutionary'' new doctrine of the National Security Strategy -- but also ``added a key detail, saying that military force can be used if there is an attempt to limit Russia's access to regions that are essential to its survival,'' thus adapting for Russia the Clinton doctrine that the US is entitled to resort to ``unilateral use of military power'' to ensure ``uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.'' The world ``is a much more insecure place'' now that Russia has decided to follow the US lead, said Fiona Hill of the Brookings Institution, adding that other countries presumably ``will follow suit.''

In the past, Russian automated response systems have come within a few minutes of launching a nuclear strike, barely aborted by human intervention. By now the systems have deteriorated. US systems, which are much more reliable, are nevertheless extremely hazardous. They allow three minutes for human judgment after computers warn of a missile attack, as they frequently do. The Pentagon has also found serious flaws in its computer security systems that might allow terrorist hackers to seize control and simulate a launch--``an accident waiting to happen,'' Bruce Blair writes. The dangers are being consciously escalated by the threat and use of violence.

Concern is not eased by the recent discovery that US presidents have been ``systematically misinformed'' about the effects of nuclear war. The level of destruction has been ``severely underestimated'' because of lack of systematic oversight of the ``insulated bureaucracies'' that provide analyses of ``limited and `winnable' nuclear war''; the resulting ``institutional myopia can be catastrophic,'' far more so than the manipulation of intelligence on Iraq.

The Bush administration slated the initial deployment of a missile defense system for summer 2004, a move criticized as ``completely political,'' employing untested technology at great expense. A more appropriate criticism is that the system might seem workable; in the logic of nuclear war, what counts is perception. Both US planners and potential targets regard missile defense as a first-strike weapon, intended to provide more freedom for aggression, including nuclear attack. And they know how the US responded to Russia's deployment of a very limited ABM system in 1968: by targeting the system with nuclear weapons to ensure that it would be instantly overwhelmed. Analysts warn that current US plans will also provoke a Chinese reaction. History and the logic of deterrence ``remind us that missile defense systems are potent drivers of offensive nuclear planning,'' and the Bush initiative will again raise the threat to Americans and to the world.

China's reaction may set off a ripple effect through India, Pakistan, and beyond. In West Asia, Washington is increasing the threat posed by Israel's nuclear weapons and other WMD by providing Israel with more than one hundred of its most advanced jet bombers, accompanied by prominent announcements that the bombers can reach Iran and return and are an advanced version of the US planes Israel used to destroy an Iraqi reactor in 1981. The Israeli press adds that the US is providing the Israeli air force with ```special' weaponry.'' There can be little doubt that Iranian and other intelligence services are watching closely and perhaps giving a worst-case analysis: that these may be nuclear weapons. The leaks and dispatch of the aircraft may be intended to rattle the Iranian leadership, perhaps to provoke some action that can be used as a pretext for an attack.

Immediately after the National Security Strategy was announced in September 2002, the US moved to terminate negotiations on an enforceable bioweapons treaty and to block international efforts to ban biowarfare and the militarization of space. A year later, at the UN General Assembly, the US voted alone against implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and alone with its new ally India against steps toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. The US voted alone against ``observance of environmental norms'' in disarmament and arms control agreements and alone with Israel and Micronesia against steps to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East--the pretext for invading Iraq. A resolution to prevent militarization of space passed 174 to 0, with four abstentions: US, Israel, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands. As discussed earlier, a negative US vote or abstention amounts to a double veto: the resolution is blocked and is eliminated from reporting and history.

Bush planners know as well as others that the resort to force increases the threat of terror, and that their militaristic and aggressive posture and actions provoke reactions that increase the risk of catastrophe. They do not desire these outcomes, but assign them low priority in comparison to the international and domestic agendas they make little attempt to conceal.

Noam Chomsky is a Professor of Linguistics and Philosophy at MIT. In addition to Hegemony or Survival, America's Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books), he is the author of numerous books on linguistics and on U.S. foreign policy.

Orpheus, Aesop, Beowulf and all ancient legends including the prose that the Father of Biblical Archaeology attributes to the Phoenician Kelts and is in the Old Testament.

The moral of the story would retain but the tales would vary to fit the people the story was being told to. Milman Parry of Harvard went and saw the trigger words and mnemonic devices used by the illiterate bards of Thrace (Yugoslavia) in the late 1930s (If my memory is right).

RTB, interesting essay but hardly surprising. We dress-up blatant conflicts of power in sweet-smelling garbs in order to interpret them as something more acceptable to the moral standards and expectations that society has more or less imposed on us. It has never been about the question of survival; life without domination and power is not worth living, or in other words, there is no point in survival without domination and power. It's sometimes amusing how people almost invariably choose to mis-interpret conflicts of power as whatever society or some authority tells them. There is no excuse for such gullibility, naivety, and weakness of mind. Nature is not forgiving, and neither should we. Let people believe whatever they want to believe, and let them rationalize things however they want, but in the end, Nature has the final word and will not shed one tear over the massacre of millions who were misled by leaders who were knowingly and willingly engaged in power struggles that were dressed-up as lies and fed to the collective sacrificial lamb. It is what it is.

/i\ambics?

Part of the ability to carry on complex conversations quickly - which I learned and constantly worked at from at least the age of four - was what I call tapes. I structured the knowledge into sections and integrated various words that would 'trigger' the tape and thus I was called Rent a Mouth by acid heads and the like when they had their parties and wanted some entertainment of a trippy sort as I have told you already.

The Ars Memoria is such a technique that involves visualizing various rooms then furniture then drawers of a castle.

There is a difference between this and the 'trigger' words that cause archetypical energy banks to affect listeners. But there is much structural similarity.

The voice modulation and what might be currently or recently called Mesmerism is even more noticeable - he tapped the energy in all the usages he made of ether and electricity. Modern medicine uses these things once thought quackery.

Milman Parry was a good scholar.

Yes, the Iambic Pentameter and pentagram are important.

My Ogham scholar/mentor said my manner of speech was Oghamic and my poetry the same. There were five dialects of Ogham and no other scholar of it seems to even know this. In fact he and his sister were the only two people who could speak these dialects.

Ah. This unknown has left a little verbiage I recall from other sites - Hi.

dress-up blatant conflicts of power in sweet-smelling garbs in order to interpret them as something more acceptable to the moral standards and expectations that society has more or less imposed on us. It has never been about the question of survival; life without domination and power is not worth living

Maybe he was right and I was wrong?
Maybe he always was right?
But if he was right then why I was wrong?
Vanity? Selfishness? Stubbornness?
It is so sad to be alone.
Is there somebody on this planet who can dare to say that I was right?
If there is no one, then what for all this?
What for am I?

These questions are like a torture.
Sad.

Can I find 6 people on this planet who can believe in what I want them to believe?

If not maybe better to end all this mess and abandon all this?

I agree.

Dear Enki

SO you are moved to open up a little more - this is good.

You say:

Can I find 6 people on this planet who can believe in what I want them to believe?

If not maybe better to end all this mess and abandon all this?

I ask you to give a reason why anyone should want others to believe what they want? Is it not better to enable others to be what they already are?

Face-readng and body language were important areas of study for me - partially because I was a sales tainer and salesperson.

Dear Robert the Bruce,

The process of enabling needs unity.
Besides for the creation of the new pure Source [new Spring of pure cold waters] one needs that unity.
What else you suggest me to do?

To find another Jonathan Swift or Francis Carsac?

To build new temple?
How to raise the pure waters of Helicon again?
Where I can find new Pericles and Numa Pompilius, new Pythagoras and Solon?
Where I can find new Solomon!
Is there new Francis Bacon?
I so much hoped that with transfer to hydrogen power the world will change to the best.

Where I can find new Lord Bolingbrook and Voltaire?
I am not speaking about Ben, Tom and George!

Maybe those are more respected and revered who destroy cities, spread fear and terror. Those who like tyranny and subordination, who never taught how to put brick on a brick?

Maybe the noise really is irritating and flies just must be squashed?
Who knows, maybe he is right.
Maybe he better understands mankind than I.
Maybe they deserve each other?
Maybe they deserve his company more than mine?
Man has freedom of choice.

Goodbye.

PS: The gates in Ararat valley are kept open, but few nock the door.

Mt. Ararat, the place where Noah’s ark is recorded in the bible to have landed after the Great Flood.

this thread is an enjoyable trip

my pleasure nodes have been triggered making me unable to resist the urge to chuckle

Ararat is the mountain that snagged the bottom of Noah’s ark, and it is the spiritual heart of Armenia. The Armenians make a legendary claim that they are descendants of Noah and so Ararat is central to Armenian self-identity.

Khor Virap Monastery is a shrine to Armenian Christianity. The monastery is surrounded by tall walls, and the gates are closed ...

Mt. Ararat and the myths that people create about that mountain that have been totally disproven are the stuff of 'miss'-story tellers.

But do we discuss that here?
It is just very beautiful and magnificent mountain which Enoch liked much.
And that is all.

Here is another very good clear picture.

I think this religious claptrap stuff deserves a separate board if someone really wants to sell Armenian Christian orthodoxy and the 'gates' that seem to bring forth threats to mankind. There are many communities we all know about for this kind of crud.

Nobody wants to sell. Honestly.

Yes, nobody is honestly selling and that is the probem. To be honest requires the kind of study and learning that sheeple seldom do.

I suggest not to discuss Theological concepts in this thread.

it is a kick-ass mountain. I'd like to ski down it. Big mountains always give me that 'spiritual' feeling when I stare at their gargantuanness.

It would make for a great snowboard run as well, lots of fresh stuff. Those mountains look very surreal, however they are nothing like the Canadian Rockies.

I also want to mention to some smart kids from smart corners, that jokes are not so bad when time and conditions are chosen so well that the jokes do impart fun and enjoyment to the all.
If the joke is constructed badly it may cause misunderstanding, even if it is in a form of a spam message.

RCT concept, in my opinion is a serious chapter in the Counterterrorism as an academic discipline, besides it has to be of practical importance for the investigation groups; besides being synergysed with Applications of the Percolations Theory a new methodology can be created to fight against real terrorist groups.

I am slowly coming to idea that RCT is not a crime from point of view of International Law. As there are no commonly accepted concepts on which such legislation can base on.
The moral aspects of usage of RCT can be matter of debate. But as the term Remote Controlled Terrorism is not accepted as a category of dispute, among counterterrorism experts, no moral aspect can be imposed upon that category, us ‘nobody’ can plainly define what can be considered as RCT.

By the way in some places of the world the Internet is not needed and messages are delivered on donkeys. As far as I know, until now, there is no technology of how to intercept donkeys. Hope, here the interested parties will be able to locate a plethora of pertinent truth.

Some even up to now use doves. Barbarians...

I want to mention, that though the below numbered threads were scattered over different forums’ sections due to “supreme will” of moderator or administrator I want to note to side reader that the following threads are strongly interrelated (in case if anyone is interested)

1. Words Matrix as Base Fractal of Complex Concept or Knowledge , present location: Neuroscience -> NeuroTechnologies
2. Delphi Oracle , present location: Philosophy & Science -> Philosophy (General)
3. Words Matrix & Delphi Oracle + Small Secrets (SS), present location: Philosophy & Science -> Philosophy (General)
4. Teaching Methodology and Words Matrix, present location: Neuroscience -> NeuroTechnologies
5. Shakespeare writings as Source of Correlation , present location: Miscellany -> Literature, Books, & Movies
6. Olivian Oracle , present location: Poetry & Art -> Poetry

As further movements of the threads are done without asking my opinion I have no ability to continue further monitoring of those threads, moreover I hardly will be frequent on this forum in future. I am sure that later fact will be pleasant for several interested people.

With best wishes to your good desires,

Enki

Words Matrix as Base Fractal of Complex Concept or Knowledge

I think that it is possible to diminish any complex concept or knowledge to very simple Words Matrix. This Words Matrix can serve as Base Fractal of that complex concept or knowledge.
I think that it is enough to use that Words Matrix to transfer any Knowledge from one place to another. Once being input into brain that Words Matrix will undergo some sort of evolution in time resulting in generation of the Initial Knowledge which were diminished to level of the Base Fractal.

Applications:

1. Remote Controlled Terrorism
2. Theology and Religion
3. Distant Brain Coding

What do you think about that?



Ok, taken by the opening of this topic, I have some questions, but only to see if I ma any where's close to the same or similar perception of the one that started it, Enki.

"This Words Matrix can serve as Base Fractal of that complex concept or knowledge."
If I understand this correctly, what you are basically saying is that the base fractal is the basic component of the brain that recieves, subliminal messages, or Words Matrix, and the words matrix being how one would percieve these images, as another would like to have you percieve them. In this fashoin, therefore permitting ourselves to being vulnerable to outside influences, by which the one that sent the words matrix, can now, and does have, the abilities by which to facilitate a willingness to being terrorized, therefore permiating terroristic assaults, and therefore becoming the terrorist, by which we now believe to be true (?). Rather a lot like hypnosis, or mind control, but to that of which becomes a conspiracy, of sorts, brought on by all that we would normally absorb, albeit, TV, magazines, newspapers, common conversation, and so forth (?).

Enki, if this is what you are saying, then forgive me, all, but I totally understand Enki, but don't understand where the rest of the problems are coming from.

Sincerely,
Aiyana

http://www.secretbeyondmatter.com