It's just a matter of days, now...

I have created a CreateSpace location with preview capacity, and uploaded the Mental Unity Equations in .pdf format. Anyone and everyone is welcome to view them here:

www.createspace.com...

These equations will not make a lot of sense unless the reader has some grounding on the theories upon which they are based. Those theories are posited in The Collective, By William R. Herr. The Collective is a restatement and extension of the theories originally expounded by Gustave LeBon in The Crowd: a Study of the Popular Mind. A free copy of The Collective is available here:

www.createspace.com...

Moderators: These digital copies are of work to which I hold the copyright. Distribution of the latter in the form of review copies (which this is) does not compromise any legal or ethical rights. There is no intent to solicit the purchase of my book. This is simply an attempt to share knowledge by the most expedient means possible, rather than flounder in the discussion of theories which have not been distributed between conversants. I humbly request your understanding in this matter, as the equations in the former link cannot be translated directly into text.

Thank you,

William R. Herr

Originally posted by Lonewulph
reply to post by herrw

 

Just a matter of days?

Well done first post. Thanks for educating the people, but I don't think neither Obama or Romney, and their supporters, got the memo...


They just keep telling us, don't worry....be happy...everything's gonna be okie dokey.

At what point will the 'off world security forces' that are mentioned in the other 'Gary Mckinnon Hacker' thread be called in?

edit on 20-10-2012 by Lonewulph because: (no reason given)

A president makes no decisions within a vaccuum. He or she exists to give face to a larger group of decision makers. And, as I am showing through the equations, these decision makers appear to be puppets of a larger group.

Originally posted by MyHappyDogShiner
reply to post by herrw

 

Yeah,it is a downer,but a great first post.

Maybe you should do what all the happy drunk optimist/religious zealot types keep telling me...

Life seems like that to you because you have a bad attitude,go enjoy yourself celebrating every stupid profit generating holiday.Don't worry,be stupid and happy,there is no dark side if you don't want to see it...

They tell me this to no avail,because I look at them and see plainly why what you of speak of WILL happen.

Mankind never created a damned thing in this world but imbalance.

There is a great leveling coming,and it won't be pretty.

Based upon my studies, the problem is caused not by the evils in the world (indeed, I have to look upon the 'evils' as necessities of existence or else lose my objectivity), but rather because of flaws which were unknowingly introduced into our current governmental system. The theories that I expound were not popularly distributed until the late 1800's, and have not been effectively expanded since that time. Since their initial introduction into popular thought, they have been used to dominate large populations... including ourselves.

Yes, I see a levelling on the horizon, if you want to call it that. However each levelling is simply a transition towards new ideals of 'normal'. Neither is necessarily better or worse for the larger group, although some are much better or much worse for the individual.

Originally posted by Lonewulph
reply to post by Miccey

 

Not sure what troll means
But I support the OP, simply said I don't think the powers to be got the memo.
Joke fell flat I suppose.

I got the joke, so no worries. I value all input, regardless of whether or not it agrees with my theories. No one ever achieved any semblance of truth by only speaking to himself.

Despite your research and study in collectivism, your ascertions are still predictions.

And I have yet to see any predicitons in the last few years come to fruition.

It doesn't seem to matter if we use mysticism, psychology, religion, or economics to make predictions---they are notoriously unreliable.

I predict that none of your projections come true.

And I second what was said in an earlier post here: Human nature is always the variable.

reply to post by okyouwin


Thank you for your response, and I agree that my qualifications section (such as it is) isn't very impressive. I included it only to ensure that everyone knew from the outset that I am just a crackpot author whose pedigree is unimpressive. That was by design, and not by chance. I can't effectively study anything from within a slanted system, so I remain always on the outside looking in, on purpose. It helps that I prefer my life in that manner (as does my wife).

I further agree that I didn't go far enough in describing the theories that led to the equations, nor was I able to share them up until now. I have found a way to do so, if the kind moderators will allow it to stand.

I welcome your thoughts. Keep in mind that the equations are relational and not mathematical. Yes, it would be easily possible to plug numbers into them for an arbitrary result, but the result would say absolutely nothing. It is the nature of the variables and the way that they interact which is important. Also keep in mind that the equations do not predict specific occurrences. They predict increases in mental unity and the types of potential responses which result.

reply to post by MRuss


Then I hope you are correct, and I am nothing more than what I portend to be: a crackpot.

I hold that human nature is eminently predictable, when those individuals are joined together in groups. But I will agree to disagree.

Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by herrw

 

So...

No Christmas this year eh?

I disagree. I am a firm believer in the goodness espoused by St. Nicholas of Bari (btw, for those who do not know, he was a cardinal in modern-day turkey who produced his miracles in the midst of a famine). Good old St. Nick always finds a way of walking by the house and tossing coins down the chimney

reply to post by moniesisfun


If you want evidence, open your eyes.

It's not more complicated than that. The politicians just want you to think it is more complicated.

Originally posted by Ghost375
Why do you think this will happen in the next few days?

And, fyi, our monetary system is a complete and utter fabrication.

Yes, Keynesian economics is flawed. Currently, the majority of economic thinkers follow his theories, rather than those of the austrian school. Both schools of thoughts have their problems, and need to be adjusted for what I like to call 'real life problems'.

I consider that it will happen in the next couple of days because time is a motivating factor. In the equations (shared above) time (d) decreases the effect of a given threat by the inverse of its square (much in the way that magnetism and gravity decrease in potency as distance from the source increases). The application of prestige (i.e., leadership) has the capacity to multiply or reduce the effect of any particular threat regardless of nature. However, as western society has divided itself into two warring sub-groups which each consider themselves morally superior to their adversaries, each has overlooked a third sub-group which actually controls them both. That is the nature of the equations. Apply them to just about anything, and see if they work (read: don't trust me one iota).

reply to post by herrw


I agree, human nature is very predictable.

So predictable that when things don't turn out the way most people predicted, then people become very upset.

Originally posted by Skarr
I'm very impressed.

I'd like to zoom in on one detail, if I may:

Next, business spikes. This will take all of a week. Banks will loosen their hold on their reserves of cash. That cash is worthless to them unless it is used, but up until this point they've been afraid to take the risk of releasing it. The cash drops into the economy like an atomic bomb,

I see this as one of many possible outcomes. I may be missing a piece of the picture. In my view, banks will be smart enough to realize the implications of releasing a flood of money, and will coordinate a much slower release. (You can boil a frog if you increase the temperature slowly.)

Your thoughts?

You assume that a group of bankers is more intelligent than a group of common men. A group of individuals is only as intelligent as its commonalities. If it has diverse input, the diversities cancel themselves out rather than supporting each other. In the end, the resulting decisions of the bankers will be based on the most gutteral of instincts rather than on slow, considered progress.

Bankers are nothing more than people with power. People with power regularly fall into the trap of believing 'if I say it, it must be so.'

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by herrw

 

I agree, human nature is very predictable.

So predictable that when things don't turn out the way most people predicted, then people become very upset.

I never understand why any individual might become upset that his or her predictions were shown to be invalid. Meteorology began as a generalized set of predictions based on incomplete data. As predictions failed or succeeded, the process was refined until we have the climatological models of today. Why should predictions of human activity be any different?

reply to post by herrw


Oh, I don't know....

Maybe because one is based on inanimate objects, and the other on incredibly complex subjective beings....

Originally posted by drphilxr
reply to post by herrw

 

probably mentioned by now - but did you mention the short, intense

middle eastern nuclear exchange that would erupt at the same time

or just following all those conflicts?

That should add significantly to the mess. And set the stage for the next

larger, exchange.

edit on 10/20/2012 by drphilxr because: less

I tend to avoid something as specific as that. In order to understand and predict how individual nations will react to a specific stimulus, I have to not only look at their manner of leadership, but also the psychological nature of both their leadership and their citizenry. What are the predominating ideas and ideals of the (relative) moment? To what degree have their situations changed as individuals in relation to their peers? Is there a motivating factor which could be used to establish the necessary unity of opinion? That's a tall order, and one which is better pursued by faceless minions within large nameless government bodies.

I can see the monetary policy, which is not entirely dependent upon motivation. I can see the trends which follow. I can see the direct results in the real world, and invite you to do so as well. For instance, on the next occasion that you pass by a rail-yard, take the time to take it in. Those rail yards should be stuffed to capacity with containers waiting for delivery. What you will see will likely be what I have been seeing: yards which are empty of any goods except for the occasional container. What you feel, and what you see around you, are good indicators for your current condition regardless of what you are otherwise told.

reply to post by herrw


I recommend William Klingaman's book, "1929 The Year of the Great Crash."

The US was as politically divided then as now, but eventually enough of the people woke up to the lies that the corporate bankers were feeding them.

I think people are slowly starting to wake up to the con of the Free
Market. Then maybe we can create a true third party and throw off the elites who run our country from both parties.

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by herrw

 

I think that, while seemingly valid, your conclusions are an oversimplification.

The famines which have swept Bangladesh, India and sub-Saharan Africa have not always preceded regime change.

We have also seen regime changes without hunger as the prime impetus.

We, as a species, are notoriously complex.

I tend to think that I have not simplified enough, but will happily and peacefully disagree with you. In every revolution, a hunger threat was always an issue. Note that a hunger threat does not necessarily directly involve the amount of food on one's plate. A hunger threat can also include your best friend being hungry, or a reduction in the normal stockpiles of food at a grocery store. It can include a sudden increase in the price of food, or a sudden reduction of one's abilty to access that food.

Hunger provides the gutteral response necessary to exchange leadership, although such change does not always need to be violent. We have seen non-violent response to hunger threat in the past, and will continue to do so. Also, the presence of a hunger threat does not necessarily mean that a change in leadership will occur. Such threats may be mitigated by the application of prestige in the correct manner. A security threat--that being an immediate threat to life and limb--combined with a hunger threat almost always results in uprising (regardless of the success of such venture). Also note that if a hunger threat continues for a long enough period without resolution, it becomes normal and ceases to be treated as a threat. In such cases only further change in the severity of the threat can spur revolutionary response. More simply stated, a hunger threat is a change in the way that you access your food, regardless of your class or station in life.

Thank you Herr for posting your thoughts. Not everyday that I get to read the thoughts of an obvious genius. I bought your book and plan to delve into it tonight. Only then will I feel like I can re read your comments, and perhaps have something to offer in return.

Best thread of the year in my opinion.

Originally posted by dogstar23
reply to post by herrw

 

Really interesting post and perspective. S&F for that. Not sure I agree with your outlook, though the premise is solid. I'm looking forward to delving further into the thread, though I will add this from a point of knowledge - currently, transportation costs for goods average about 2%. Should diesel fuel rise from the current $4.15 average in the US to $12.45 (tripling), transportation costs for goods will rise to more like 4% (assuming the cost of those goods doesn't change.) doubling the transport coats is a big deal, but moving $500,000 in goods from LA to NYC currently runs about $5000 by truck, less by train. Its not as big of a deal as you'd think.

Excellent response. I used to believe the same thing, until I delved further into the transportation industry and the conditions under which it operates.

Consider the following:

Large carriers transport goods on a contractual basis. Worded into the contracts is a fuel surcharge, usually, which is figured weekly. The price at which the shippers feel they can sell their goods determines the total transportation cost which they can absorb. Smaller carriers tend to have fewer contractual relationships and instead rely upon brokerages to generate business. The brokerages bid on truckloads of goods, with the understanding that their maximum rate is dictated by the cost of goods less the cost of transport. In the end, it comes down to what the market will bear.

Now, add into the mix hyperinflation. If hyperinflation begins on a monday, and fuel prices are tabulated on mondays, then the large carriers must absorb the hyperinflating cost of fuel for a week before they may again yield a profit. Even then, the profit will only be earned for a single day, after which they will return to unprofitablity. For smaller carriers, there is not enough gold in their war-chests to absorb the costs. The small carriers will fall first, much like Arrow did a few years ago. Companies such as Swift and Werner and JB Hunt would survive for one or two weeks before they exhausted their reserves and were forced to park their trucks. Smaller companies would, I expect, cease transport altogether within the first few days. Independent owner-operators would simply go out of business because the market for trucks would likewise fall through the floor.

After this, the government would be forced to nationalize the transportation industry, or allow city-dwellers to starve. Once the nationalization takes place, how does the government trade for fuel? Under hyperinflation the only means to do so would be to print more money, thus causing further inflation. See the nasty cycle? Soon you have to nationalize the food outlets, establish curfews and/or martial law, and then the S really does HTF--if only because the United States is a country with idealized roots in armed resistance.

Originally posted by Bluesquid
Thank you Herr for posting your thoughts. Not everyday that I get to read the thoughts of an obvious genius. I bought your book and plan to delve into it tonight. Only then will I feel like I can re read your comments, and perhaps have something to offer in return.

Best thread of the year in my opinion.

No one is a genius. We all have a certain amount of attention which we can devote to any given subject. I'm a horrible cook, lousy as an auto mechanic, and my dog won't listen to me. I'm sure that you have a great deal of advantage upon me in at least one of those three failings, if not the many many more which were not listed.

That being said, thank you. I hope you find it germaine.