So a Oz of fine silver is now 121 pounds, around a 165 dollars. To be clear I dont care about your individual wealth, but IMO you are currently in the middle of one of the biggest transfers of wealth in history, of course you all need to do your own research and decide for yourselves, but where is the harm in getting some if you can actually get physical silver as a hedge against your neo nazi WEF regime

Google:

Entelechy is a philosophical term for the realization of potential, representing the vital force or internal drive that directs an organism or system toward its full, intended purpose (actuality)
. Coined by Aristotle to describe the completion of potentiality, it implies a "becoming" or "having the goal within".
Definition

Philosophy: The complete attainment or actualization of a form or potential; the inner principle that guides development.
Vitalism: A, often non-scientific, hypothetical agency that directs the growth and functioning of living organisms (e.g., healing).
General: The fulfillment of a potentiality or the ultimate goal/perfection of a concept.

Etymology

Originates from Aristotle’s Greek term entelécheia.
Composed of: en (within) + telos (end, goal, perfection) + echein (to have or hold).
Literal meaning: "having the end/perfection within".
First known use in English was around 1593.

Usage

Aristotelian Philosophy: Used to distinguish a thing's final, active state from its mere potential.
Biology (Vitalism): Historically used by Hans Driesch to describe an organism's capacity for regeneration.
Psychology/Self-Development: Refers to the internal motivation and guiding force for self-actualization, or becoming all one is capable of being.
Literature/Philosophy: Describes the inherent, driving force behind development or the attainment of an, often, unattainable perfection.

Example: An acorn has the potential to become an oak tree, but the entelechy is the internal blueprint driving it to actually become that tree.

I Am As I Am
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_Nm9RwNfCU8&si=pVOP82W7ImnxX9Oq

Epistemic Collapse: or, 'Why some people will never leave their beliefs behind?'

Epistemic collapse is a real psychological condition. It occurs at the precise moment a person realizes that the framework they relied on to determine what is true ie: institutions, education, media, authority... is fundamentally false.

This is not a matter of changing opinions or learning new information. It is an existential event. When the structure that answers the question “How do I know what I know?” fails, the mind enters free-fall.

Reality loses coherence. Meaning fragments. People experience it as everything I thought was true was a lie, the floor dropped out, nothing makes sense anymore.

From that moment, there are only two possible outcomes.

If epistemic collapse happens with an anchor, the person can pass through it without psychological fracture. An anchor must be external, transcendent, and independent of the systems that just failed.

If epistemic collapse occurs without an anchor, the result is far more dangerous. A person raised inside a closed, system-approved worldview who experiences collapse without a transcendent truth to fall back on faces two outcomes: psychological fragmentation, anxiety, nihilism, dissociation, despair... or defensive re-attachment to the lie they already know.

Most choose the second. They cling to falsehoods not because they believe them, but because abandoning them would mean psychological disintegration. That is why people defend absurdities with religious intensity. It is not belief. It is self-preservation.

What epistemic collapse primarily damages is not the intellect, but conation... the will. When truth frameworks collapse repeatedly, the person loses confidence in their ability to choose truth at all. The will becomes hijacked and redirected away from truth-seeking and toward psychological survival: belonging, identity preservation, safety. At that point, reasoning no longer persuades, evidence no longer penetrates, and debate becomes impossible... because reasoning assumes a functioning will oriented toward truth.

That is why this is not a thinking problem. It is a captured-will problem. And that is why argument fails. Until conation is restored, no amount of logic can pull someone out... because the battleground is no longer the mind. It is the will. - Stay anchored in TRUTH.

“Only the dead have seen the end of war”

The famous quote is almost always attributed to Plato. However, no such sentence is found in the philosopher's writings. In fact, it comes from George Santayana (1863–1952), a Spanish-American philosopher, who formulated it in his Soliloquies in England in 1917:

“Only the dead have seen the end of war.”

The false attribution 👎

In 1962, General Douglas MacArthur cited the words in his farewell speech at West Point Military Academy and named Plato as the source. From then on, the legend spread. Later, popular media such as the film Black Hawk Down (2001) also picked up the quote, again with Plato's name. Thus, a modern reflection became a seemingly ancient truth.

The meaning of the quote 📜

– Santayana wanted to respond to the experience of the First World War: Wars do not really end, they return in new forms

– The false attribution to Plato reinforced the effect: If even the philosopher of antiquity had said this, it must be a natural law of history

"War is merely the continuation of politics by other means."
- Carl von Clausewitz; On War, 1st Book, 1st Chapter, Subchapter 24

The picture 🖼

The painting Death Rides Over the Battlefield by Werner Wilhelm Schuch (1843–1918) was created around 1890. It shows the personified Death, in a red cloak, riding a black horse over a battlefield - an allegory reminiscent of the Thirty Years' War. Schuch, originally an architect, turned to painting in the 1870s and specialized in historical and landscape depictions. His "riding Death" is part of a long European tradition in which war and death appear as inseparable companions.

#IMPERIUM

⚔️ HISTORIA MUNDI ⚔️
https://news.1rj.ru/str/historiamundi/1963

In 1905 George Santayana published “The Life of Reason, or The Phases of Human Progress”.

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

https://bsky.app/profile/airplaney.bsky.social/post/3mbprbrfo4s2a

Microzymas: The Life Forms that Rewrite the Rules of Reality with Dr. Marizelle Arce
👁 5.2K 👍 390
📥 20.01.2026
👤 Andrew Kaufman
🕒 01:03:25
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ETjYwztslOM
📼 720p, 💾 460.4MB, @Gozilla_bot

2026 Week 4 Spot The Symbolism 4 https://yabasta1.wordpress.com/2026/01/24/2026-week-4-spot-the-symbolism-4/ #spotthesymbolism #symbolism #BoardofPeace

Fantastic post on X by Archeohistory

@histories_arch

Contrary to popular belief, Christopher Columbus did not prove the Earth was round when he sailed west in 1492. Ancient Greek scholars like Eratosthenes had calculated Earth's circumference around 240 BC, and educated Europeans throughout the Middle Ages accepted the planet's spherical shape. Medieval universities taught spherical Earth geography, and sailors understood basic celestial navigation that relied on this knowledge. The real dispute surrounding Columbus's voyage wasn't about Earth's shape—it was about its size.

Columbus believed he could reach Asia by sailing west across the Atlantic, but he drastically underestimated the distance. He calculated Earth's circumference at roughly 18,000 miles when the actual figure is nearly 25,000 miles. Spanish scholars correctly argued that no ship could carry enough supplies for such a journey, which is precisely why they initially rejected his proposal. Columbus only succeeded because an unknown landmass—the Americas—happened to lie in his path. Had the continents not existed where they did, his crews would have perished long before reaching Asia.

The "flat Earth" myth emerged centuries later during the 19th century, when writers like Washington Irving romanticized Columbus's story to portray him as an enlightened hero battling ignorant medieval superstition. Irving's 1828 biography depicted Columbus defending Earth's spherical shape against church officials who supposedly believed in a flat world—a scene Irving invented entirely. This fictional narrative served contemporary cultural purposes, positioning modern science against supposedly backward religious thinking, but it had no basis in historical fact.

The myth persisted because it offered a compelling story about progress triumphing over ignorance. Textbooks repeated the tale for generations, and it became embedded in popular culture. The truth—that Columbus was wrong about his calculations while his critics were essentially correct—makes for a less satisfying narrative. Medieval scholars were far more scientifically sophisticated than the myth suggests, and Columbus's success resulted from fortunate accident rather than superior knowledge.

Understanding this historical reality matters because the flat Earth myth distorts both medieval intellectual achievement and the nature of Columbus's voyage. It perpetuates false narratives about the "Dark Ages" and obscures the actual controversies surrounding Columbus—his treatment of indigenous peoples, the consequences of European colonization, and the exploitation that followed. The real history is more complex and more troubling than the simplified myth of a lone visionary proving basic geography.

The Alien Interview Tape Might be REAL! - Jon Stewart | DEBRIEFED ep. 69 - Area 52 YouTube

I, quite honestly, don't know what to make of this guy?
On the one hand, his reintroduction of the original 'Alien Interview' video, from the mid 1990s, is quite commendable and I still view it as likely the only credible footage of an 'Alien-like' being captured on film, I do have a few issues with the man (Mr. Stewart) himself and his associations with US ProWrestling, his several failed political campaigns and his own admission that he's being limited by what he can say? (Though the latter, I can forgive, after all, theres some things that I myself am limited to talk about, as ive stated publicly before).
But then he goes and mentions something that I've used as a gauge, with many of you in private chats on here, for how much you actually know about the UFO subject and whether you're someone who's (shall we say) someone I should be wary of?
S. A. B. R. E
I've not heard anyone else even talk about this, or even know what it means and that kind of makes this guy stand out to me...

https://youtube.com/watch?v=WM0AtxRN-l0&si=iHMxljqI_nG7yHnI