hey man, give Baum a little credit. He is literally singlehandedly responsible for inventing "good" witches in stories. Previously, witches were always evil old hags (in English-language literature). In addition, after he became quite famous (and rich), the guy still published a new book every single year. Why? Because so many kids wrote to him and he felt obliged to give them another fun story they could enjoy. Guy must've written ten thousand letters (by hand!) to kids over his lifetime.
Oh, I am giving him substantial credit! I am suggesting his story is relevant to a topsy-turvy 2022. I'm also comparing him to the narrator in the Princess Bride, which is objectively one of the greatest movies ever made.
I'm not sure I actually ever read the Wizard of Oz (although I've, of course, seen it multiple times, including some amazing stage productions). I've thought of it too this past 1 1/2 years, in terms of little man behind the curtain, who only has power because we give it to him.
Now you can read the Wonderful Wizard of Oz (Wonderful is in the title) one chapter at a time. Easy read either way, but you'll have to tolerate my commentary. I hope to make it worth the while.
Except that this time, the "little men behind the curtain" wield real power...
The problem is not theoretical and not even psychological.
How much longer will it take for people to realize that the eugenicist technocrats' control the global money flow? That is their ONLY weapon to enslave, maim, and kill everyone else.
Snapping out of fear is mandatory, if someone wants to live a human life, but it doesn't solve the problem of the oncoming artificial crises that will be used for introducing total control in the name of "saving lives."
The ONLY solution that might save the remnants of humanity is to introduce the people's currency, which takes away all power from the monsters. Until then, they will control the MSM, the politicians, the courts, "Medicine," production and distribution, all forms of communication, and everything that matters, while they can create year-long blackouts, famines and the resulting food riots, new plandemics, WW3 on TV, or even alien attacks with the flick of a switch.
If humans want to take control of their lives, they must take control of the money they use....
What do you think is the goal, purpose, end, or worthwhile intention for someone who "wants to live a human life"?
You mention saving the remnants of humanity, and end with saying those who want to take control of their lives must control their money: was there authentic human life before there was money, before there was a massive amount of people from which only a remnant might be saved? What do you want for people to do with their lives once they have salvation, once they have control of their money? What do you imagine them doing?
So you're just playing around at awakening minds and encouraging honor and courage in a dangerous time, so that you can play the academic? And, once you've admitted that, that you're not going to offer what you think a positive and authentic story about humans of self-possession and self-insistence reads like —not even when you single yourself out, and insist that you decide for yourself what your self-possessed life, do you answer the questions ("What does Ray Horvath want for Ray Horvath to do with Ray Hovarth's life once Ray Horvath has salvation?" and so on)— you deny being suicidal and insist you decide your question... but what's the question you're deciding, and whom with, and how does that insistence look from the other perspective, the perspective of the one to whom you insist you decide what that one cannot about you?
The curious thing about your comment earlier, now that you're saying this, is that you wanted to make the case that people are losing their control over their own lives because they had already lost control of their money —the form through which the people assert themselves as autonomous individuals— for when someone loses their own money control, they have also lost the means through which the values they express through choices also reflect the creative production of a self-reliant and self-exploring, intending person with unique participation in larger patterns of human social organizations. The ways they express themselves become confined to what the money masters dictate and how "eugenicist technocrats" redirect masses of human agency into channeled slaughters and "total control", so it is serious business to control money if one doesn't want to be slaughtered, lobotomized, atomized, or artificially undressed in public by the psychosurveillance full spectrum regime. You sounded urgent, because "The problem is not theoretical and not even psychological." But now it's academic to talk about what's the end goal for the people who want to save humans from the end goal of the people whom you say also say they want to save humans.
So now it's unclear if you want to engage the public in good faith, in honest conversation, or if you want to just . . . be academic? I'm not sure.
Real, pre-bourgeoise and pre-Grimm folk lore and tales did not so much teach morals, as they taught the realities of life. The Emperor's New Clothes does not end with everyone laughing at the naked emperor and his silly sycophantic courtiers; it ends with the boy and his family all languishing in gaol before being publicly executed, while the tailors get away scot free with the money.
And that story, that the deceitful lying egotists prosper off power and that power murders truthsayers embarassing it, did not fit the modern times and capitalist bourgeoisie buying "children's literature".
the brothers Grimm mostly collected those old tales and published them. if you can find older versions of their work reprinted, it's not the watered down pablum with happy endings that you see in modern fairy tale collections.
I guess some of them had happy endings, like Cinderella, where the evil stepmother and her daughters were sentenced to dance in red hot iron shoes until dead. still not the typical concept of happy ending these days though.
hey man, give Baum a little credit. He is literally singlehandedly responsible for inventing "good" witches in stories. Previously, witches were always evil old hags (in English-language literature). In addition, after he became quite famous (and rich), the guy still published a new book every single year. Why? Because so many kids wrote to him and he felt obliged to give them another fun story they could enjoy. Guy must've written ten thousand letters (by hand!) to kids over his lifetime.
Oh, I am giving him substantial credit! I am suggesting his story is relevant to a topsy-turvy 2022. I'm also comparing him to the narrator in the Princess Bride, which is objectively one of the greatest movies ever made.
I wholeheartedly agree -- with the sole exception of the ROUS scene - truly terrible
I'm not sure I actually ever read the Wizard of Oz (although I've, of course, seen it multiple times, including some amazing stage productions). I've thought of it too this past 1 1/2 years, in terms of little man behind the curtain, who only has power because we give it to him.
I also now must re-watch the Princess Bride!
Now you can read the Wonderful Wizard of Oz (Wonderful is in the title) one chapter at a time. Easy read either way, but you'll have to tolerate my commentary. I hope to make it worth the while.
Except that this time, the "little men behind the curtain" wield real power...
The problem is not theoretical and not even psychological.
How much longer will it take for people to realize that the eugenicist technocrats' control the global money flow? That is their ONLY weapon to enslave, maim, and kill everyone else.
Snapping out of fear is mandatory, if someone wants to live a human life, but it doesn't solve the problem of the oncoming artificial crises that will be used for introducing total control in the name of "saving lives."
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-fallacy-of-saving-lives?utm_source=%2Fprofile%2F42034032-ray-horvath-the-source-&utm_medium=reader2
The ONLY solution that might save the remnants of humanity is to introduce the people's currency, which takes away all power from the monsters. Until then, they will control the MSM, the politicians, the courts, "Medicine," production and distribution, all forms of communication, and everything that matters, while they can create year-long blackouts, famines and the resulting food riots, new plandemics, WW3 on TV, or even alien attacks with the flick of a switch.
If humans want to take control of their lives, they must take control of the money they use....
the Wizard did wield real power, just not the magical type he claimed.
he was solidly in control of the Emerald City.
he ruled with fear and awe.
that is the /only/ point I disagree with in your statement.
What about not playing the game? Emerald City is not the only place to live.
What do you think is the goal, purpose, end, or worthwhile intention for someone who "wants to live a human life"?
You mention saving the remnants of humanity, and end with saying those who want to take control of their lives must control their money: was there authentic human life before there was money, before there was a massive amount of people from which only a remnant might be saved? What do you want for people to do with their lives once they have salvation, once they have control of their money? What do you imagine them doing?
I never said humanity deserves to be saved. :)
For me, the question is mostly academic, except when it comes to my life, I insist on deciding myself.
No, I am not, and have never been suicidal! :D
So you're just playing around at awakening minds and encouraging honor and courage in a dangerous time, so that you can play the academic? And, once you've admitted that, that you're not going to offer what you think a positive and authentic story about humans of self-possession and self-insistence reads like —not even when you single yourself out, and insist that you decide for yourself what your self-possessed life, do you answer the questions ("What does Ray Horvath want for Ray Horvath to do with Ray Hovarth's life once Ray Horvath has salvation?" and so on)— you deny being suicidal and insist you decide your question... but what's the question you're deciding, and whom with, and how does that insistence look from the other perspective, the perspective of the one to whom you insist you decide what that one cannot about you?
The curious thing about your comment earlier, now that you're saying this, is that you wanted to make the case that people are losing their control over their own lives because they had already lost control of their money —the form through which the people assert themselves as autonomous individuals— for when someone loses their own money control, they have also lost the means through which the values they express through choices also reflect the creative production of a self-reliant and self-exploring, intending person with unique participation in larger patterns of human social organizations. The ways they express themselves become confined to what the money masters dictate and how "eugenicist technocrats" redirect masses of human agency into channeled slaughters and "total control", so it is serious business to control money if one doesn't want to be slaughtered, lobotomized, atomized, or artificially undressed in public by the psychosurveillance full spectrum regime. You sounded urgent, because "The problem is not theoretical and not even psychological." But now it's academic to talk about what's the end goal for the people who want to save humans from the end goal of the people whom you say also say they want to save humans.
So now it's unclear if you want to engage the public in good faith, in honest conversation, or if you want to just . . . be academic? I'm not sure.
Your rant doesn't pass for "honest conversation." Let the readers decide.
If you read my blogs, you might be able to coordinate the meaning of this post.
After that, you might need to use your sense of humor, if any.
If you still have a problem with my comment after that, I'll listen...
Real, pre-bourgeoise and pre-Grimm folk lore and tales did not so much teach morals, as they taught the realities of life. The Emperor's New Clothes does not end with everyone laughing at the naked emperor and his silly sycophantic courtiers; it ends with the boy and his family all languishing in gaol before being publicly executed, while the tailors get away scot free with the money.
And that story, that the deceitful lying egotists prosper off power and that power murders truthsayers embarassing it, did not fit the modern times and capitalist bourgeoisie buying "children's literature".
the brothers Grimm mostly collected those old tales and published them. if you can find older versions of their work reprinted, it's not the watered down pablum with happy endings that you see in modern fairy tale collections.
I guess some of them had happy endings, like Cinderella, where the evil stepmother and her daughters were sentenced to dance in red hot iron shoes until dead. still not the typical concept of happy ending these days though.
his other Oz books that follow up on the first one get a little bit darker and moralistic though.
if you've not had the chance to read them, I did find them interesting (and the art was fabulous in the originals.)