Veganism and libertarians

Some people think veganism is libertarian.  Because an animal deserves the same respect one human a human gives to another, by following the NAP.  This sounds nice and feels nice, but does veganism work?  Let’s look at it more carefully. 
  1. Eating meat is healthy and thus necessary. Thus a healthy human is a hunter either directly or indirectly. Veganism works at the expense of human’s fertility and longevity. (We must compare to veganism, not vegetarianism, if this is a moral issue … which incidentally it’s not. see #2)
  2. This is not a moral issue.
    1. An animal cannot be held responsible for its actions.
    2. An animal cannot provide restitution after harming a person, or their property.
    3. This is why you cannot extend the NAP to an animal.
    4. A wild animal walks into traffic, and causes an accident. Can you call the animal’s insurance company and file a claim? Of course not. Can you expect the animal to make someone whole? Ever? No. A person loses their life as a result of the animal initiated accident. Who should be responsible? Anyone? No one. This is why you cannot extend the NAP to an animal.
  3. Feelings emphasized here. If you feel like animals should be left alone, we can all respect that. Just don’t expect anyone else to follow it, see #4. What you want or feel about what other people do holds no moral obligation over anyone else. It’s no different from me feeling like men should open the door for women. It’s personal preference, not a moral issue per se. A man/woman can do whatever s/he wants. Likewise, a human can too, whether they hunt animals for food, sport, hygiene, spite, or any other reason.
  4. Incentives.

    What if you gave incentives to people so they had a reason to do what you asked, and benefit themselves at the same time? As a vegan telling non-vegans they should extend the NAP to animals (which they can’t, because animals can’t be held responsible and can’t reciprocate), why should anyone do anything for you? As a libertarian, would you demand anything from another person?  Or would you grant them the freedom to explore their humanity while granting other humans the same freedom?  Why would you ask them to jeopardize their minds, bodies, longevity for a cause that has no personal benefit to them and no moral conviction? How is this any different from tyrants (people in the state) saying people should follow the tyrant’s orders and give up their time, property, or their own bodies, just because those tyrants say so? Not even for money.  Wouldn’t better incentives go a longer way?  Here are some ways you could incentivize veganism.

    1. Win-win.  Try to understand why people eat meat and animal products, and provide to those people (at a cost of course, but equal or less than the cost they pay for animal options) a reason to switch to a vegan solution.  Provide vegan foods that support the same health, vitality and fertility animal foods do, for example.  Provide ‘vegan’ options that allow people to follow the NAP and still hunt if they do it for sport or enjoyment (video games)?
    2. Social.  Make veganism popular and start a social movement. Your followers would know you are vegan and imitate you by being vegan themselves.
    3. Ostracism.  Make your entire community a vegan one, and refuse to do business or form friendships or intimate relationships with any non-vegans.
    4. Put your money where your mouth is.
      1. Buy land where animals live and protect them from human predators.  Other libertarians, out of respect for your property rights, would not trespass on your land or harm your animals.  You might encourage others to follow suit.  You would give your cause legitimacy, and elevate it above the moral pronouncements of tyrants.  Again, telling you what you can’t put in your body or what you must put in your body is no different from telling you if you can hunt an animal or not.
      2. Pay people to be vegan — if you are wildly successful in other areas, just pay people to do what you want them to …

In my opinion, these are all excellent options that support other vegans, make vegans the partners of non-vegans and not their enemies, and elevate veganism from a popular virtue-signal into a legitimate movement.

Oligarchy and Science, Philosophy, Politics

According to this talk, the Venetian nobility were responsible for a great shift in philosophy, with regards to the Catholic church, the noble societies and well-regarded scientists in Britain, France, and Italy, as well as the resulting wars between Britain and France, culminating in the French Revolution.  They were responsible for Newton’s rise to permanent prominence in Western science and scientific history and they were responsible for the Enlightenment in France.  The perceived purpose, was to create animosity between Britain and France, and, I assume, topple the French monarchy, for defying the will of the Venetian nobility during the reign of Louis XIV.

I find this interesting, only with regards to many of the grenades lobbed by the author.  In short, factions are formed, with scholastic philosophers (?–Do your own research as I did some cursory checking myself to try to put some context around this) on one side, like Leibnitz, and reductionist materialists on the other side, like Isaac Newton.  Hypotheses and a different approach to the scientific method, as well as a reliance on “formalism and authoritative professional opinion.”

“Since the days of Aristotle, they have attempted to suffocate scientific discovery by using formalism and the fetishism of authoritative professional opinion.  The Venetian Party has also created over the centuries a series of scientific frauds and hoaxes, which have been elevated to the status of incontrovertible and unchallengeable authorities.  These have been used to usurp the rightful honor due to real scientists, whom the Venetians have done everything possible to destroy.”

Of additional note is the metaphysics of the primacy of existence vs.  the primacy of consciousness paradigms.  If I am reading correctly, these men promoted the primacy of existence, by supporting a change in methodology.  Instead of reasoning from first principles, and creating hypotheses from existing relationships, they promoted a devotion to the results of experimentation (empiricism) and reasoning from what could be demonstrated and observed objectively.  Being born several hundred years later, of course I am not surprised or in any way bothered by the latter approach.  However, I do not take issue with the former approach, either.  This is where it gets fairly complicated, at least in my view.  In short, I believe Plato’s approach relied on the primacy of consciousness.  Aristotle’s was the primacy of existence.  Aristotle was more of a materialist and believed in objective observation.  Plato started in the mind, in the ‘forms.’ Plato’s overall intention was likely comprehensive, while at least the Venetian/Newtonian camp was individual.  So a ‘descendant of Plato’ might take an idea or a relationship found in one scientific field, and then hypothesize about that relationship in a different field or application.  Then use that hypothesis as the beginning of his exploration.  The ‘descenandt of Aristotle,’ the Newton/Galileo/Descartes …  it is unclear to me the exact approach they would take.  Perhaps they would simply test every permutation and combination of two (or more) variables, looking for reproducible observations, that held consistently.  If so, they would only hypothesize (perhaps) after they began to experiment and record data.

The Venetians were responsible for the rise of Rene Descartes in France, Newton in England, and Galileo in Italy.  Galileo’s views steered scientists overall, away from Kepler’s, and Newton’s away from Liebnitz’s.  Descartes were not covered in the source.  I am inclined to assume similar meddling in the affairs of the scientific community occured in France, to bring Descartes to prominence there.  Newton was described as a charlatan, and a cultist kook, who plagarized the work of Leibnitz.  Galileo was also criticized as having plagarized Kepler’s work.  All in all, while the politics is interesting, I find the science more interesting, and if I am to summarize with little information, it appears the Venetians manipulated the scientific community, for its access to other groups, particularly the nobility and their impact on public support for various causes, and with this manipulation, succeeded in attaining their political objectives.

Personally I am more interested in the scientific implications.  Another writer adds to Tarpley’s work, labels the Venetians as satanists, and points out the ‘principle of poverty’ and the suppression of scientific achievement by the infiltration and subsequent takeover of the scientific establishment.  I am inclined to believe that this is what has occured…as I have observed a deliberate suppression of innovation and human activity that would have eradicated poverty a hundred years ago or more.  What value was lost in the trajectory of scientific inquiry turning away from Kepler and Leibnitz? I have heard of a similar turning away occuring in the history of the Germ Theory vs the Terrain Theory.  Pasteur supposedly plagarized the work of Beauchamp and promoted the germ theory over the terrain theory.  However, in my analysis, and I would say this across all of these controversies, it is unclear what value was lost by turning away from the theory the leaders in each field left behind.  If you ask me, terrain theory makes sense some of the time, it overlaps with germ theory, and sometimes each one comes to the same conclusions.  We know that reductionist Newtonian physicists also often come to the same conclusions as non-reductionists, in some cases.  A brief reading of Newton and a comparison of some of his work to Kepler’s shows that his calculations were derived from Kepler’s.  The quote below addresses some overlap between both Newton and Kepler and Galileo’s work.  With regards to reductionism, the impact is positive (source).

“Theory reduction is the process by which one theory absorbs another.  For example, both Kepler’s laws of the motion of the planets and Galileo’s theories of motion worked out for terrestrial objects are reducible to Newtonian theories of mechanics, because all the explanatory power of the former are contained within the latter.  Furthermore, the reduction is considered to be beneficial because Newtonian mechanics is a more general theory—that is, it explains more events than Galileo’s or Kepler’s.  Theoretical reduction, therefore, is the reduction of one explanation or theory to another—that is, it is the absorption of one of our ideas about a particular thing into another idea.”

Science is ultimately about productivity.  It is about making human energy more efficient.  The only places I see reductionism as counterproductive are when it is applied to human agency and intuition…the notion that we are all just automatons deep down, runs counter to civilizations and human values.  Reducing individual people to complicated computer programs only serves to distract us from improving civilization.  The better our values and relationships with one another, makes us that much more successful, i.e., more peaceful, prosperous, and beneficial to the rest of mankind and our physical environment.  The other place is with respect to religion.  If you believe there is a soul, have at it.  I do not believe theorizing about a soul is necessarily the province of science.  I cannot say for sure whether it is the province of rational philosophy.  The problem there is the scope of rationality.  How can one observe and reflect on something which they are incapable of observing? This is why I do not see the value in philosophizing about the existence of an immortal soul.  I may be echoing the views, interestingly, of a reductionist.  From that I wonder whether there is a non-reductionist perspective on this.  Perhaps that speaks to some of what was lost by these manipulated revolutions in the scientific community.  Overall, if we gain productivity when applying reductionist science, then it may be useful to apply it, assuming all our courses of action are otherwise equivalent in morality and ethics.

The Civil Rights Movement, In Current Context

Someone posted on FB, defending the violent looting and pillaging that is happening in American cities right now. He compared MLK’s protest tactics, such as blocking a major road or a highway, to the violence that is happening right now. And for me a rant ensued. Here is that rant.

The civil rights movement ended in affirmative action, an expansion of the welfare state, followed by the drug war, and how did it turn out for blacks? They got to vote, got greater illegitimate children, got more broken families and welfare mothers, got gangsta rap and ghettos, got more aborted black babies than ever, got an infestation of gangs and drugs in their communities and lost their best chance of truly integrating into American society.

Oh but blacks got affirmative action and welfare benefits and college assistance programs. GTFO. Before all this crap black people were just like the other immigrants, they were quietly doing what they needed to do and they were close knit and taking care of themselves. You don’t hear Mexicans or Chinese or Japanese (who were outwardly, visibly oppressed during WWII) whining because the media isn’t meddling with them. They are living their lives and taking care of themselves.

Blacks are literally the only race it’s sensitive to be racist around. Every other race gets made fun of in the media. That’s by design. Don’t think this race tension is anything other than manipulation. Anyone who thinks what MLK did was admirable needs to look at both sides. The black community is worse off. 60 years after the civil rights movement began and the media is still able to pretend there is an honest race war going on. [Facebook User] you’re either brainwashed or a troll. And if you think blacks need more sympathy and more help you hate blacks.

This is a good topic for a series.

LondonReal 5/1/2020 Review: Dr. Andrew Kaufman – Unmasking the Fiction of the Coronavirus Pandemic

Summary, the corporate and government response to Covid19 is excessive. The overall death rates don’t bear it out. Depending on where you look, death rates are largely normal overall, or are actually lower. The response was inconsistent. For example, Walmart, Target, and Costco, with large facilities that draw large numbers of people and have them in the same space for an extended period of time, where, given the large numbers of people, it is difficult to control people’s movements. For all of this, those places stayed open and small restaurants and bars and other establishments were ordered to close. The media is exaggerating the severity and the CDC is issuing guidance that goes against reasonable and established medical protocol, apparently in an attempt to inflate the numbers. Virology theory is wrong. Ironically, one of the first vaccines, smallpox, got its beginnings taking infected pus or other excretions and putting them in an open wound on whom the doctor intended to vaccinate. The man that developed the smallpox vaccine tested on his son, and he ended up paralyzed. Researchers have never been able to isolate a virus, any virus(?), certainly not sars-cov-2. At least not correctly. People are getting censored for mentioning 5g and coronavirus in the same posting. Uh-oh…

Also, have compassion for the people who are not as open minded as you are. We were all taught to not only respect authority but defer to it. And to basically not start thinking for ourselves before we ask someone in authority to tell us what the truth is. And in a situation absent an appropriate authority we do not believe we are capable of discovering the truth on our own, nor are we capable of making an educated guess about it. It’s important to remember firstly that people have their own authority to make up their own minds, and we must respect that. And in respecting it, we acknowledge they might not always agree with us, or want to hear us either (my words here).

My thoughts. In the dialog Dr. Kaufman mentions Koch’s Postulates. This is part of the criteria he uses to show the virology behind the Covid19 test is inadequate. He says those involved did not follow the proper protocol to isolate pathogens in order to properly test for the virus. I also heard on The Propaganda Report podcast about Koch’s Postulates, basically rules which parasites and bacteria follow, for isolating the pathogen and probably other stuff I’m forgetting. Virology doesn’t follow these rules, of course. Kaufman’s approach to virology is interesting, but his analysis was at a scope that is far more theoretical than common sense. So he talks about things that one would need access to a lab or would need to trust a researcher’s writing to accept, and then from those things he draws his conclusions. This is a challenge because I am a completely open minded person, and generally if someone questions something I’ve believed to be true for a long time, my ears perk up. Why are you questioning this…what do you know?? So Kaufman had my full attention, here.

But the host also didn’t ask good enough questions. He didn’t ask about things like herpes, or HPV, or influenza. I’m only about an hour and 15 minutes in, at this point in my commentary. To be a bit more balanced, his Covid19 analysis is good. Not new, but good, and his questioning of how they’re testing for it and not following the proper protocol, basically, that’s all good info. Also new, for someone like me. The things he says about 5G are also really useful, I need to listen again and get the references so I can find the source material. Particularly when he says there’s evidence smart meters cause problems, and the evidence 5G causes bone marrow not to work properly, leading to low red and white blood counts. Although, I have the same conclusion on his 5G statements. There’s no way I can know this just by hearing it from him, that it’s correct. I would have to read the source material to confirm he’s interpreting it correctly. This is important, since for one thing, I’ve personally lived with some form of wireless technology, for about 20 years now, and have not observed any known ill effects.

Personal experience aside, at this point people need to find a way to do their own studies. We’re pretty close to the tipping point, for example, where if you live near 5G you might be harming your health. So you need to decide now, whether you’re going to build your home differently (use concrete, or lead, or other RF blocking structures), possibly think about reinforcing your vehicles, reinforced clothing, etc. Assuming the 5G stuff is correct. More on virology, around the 1:40 mark. My recollection here is sketchy: He says exosomes are functional structures that cells produce or something like that, and that the process of taking infected fluids, adding antibiotics, and combining that with animal cells (like a kidney from a rhesus monkey or something), causes the animal cells to create exosomes, and often the testers recognize the exosomes as the actual virus. He also points out that prominent virology researchers admit that exosomes and viruses are similar and can often not be distinguished. So all of that makes sense and is good stuff. Again, not something I can verify on my own, with my own brain, I’ll have to rely on someone else for some of the pieces of this. That part I’m less excited about. The best arguments, in my opinion, are self-reinforcing. By the virtue of logic and usually simple premises that rest on established causal relationships people can point to from personal experience, it is an easy task to put forward something novel yet counter narrative and counter intuitive, at the same time, because of the natural flow established by the parts of the argument.

An example of this, for me, is the twin towers collapsing on 9/11. All the official explanations seem really, really, stupid, when you look at the facts of the building’s structure, and how fast it came down. Those are just basic intuitive things that people have ‘experienced’ in that they’ve seen video before of buildings being brought down by explosives because they were being deliberately demolished. And we don’t need to rely on the opinion of a researcher to know that what we’re seeing in the prior videos is the same as the ones from 9/11. So a parallel like that or 5, would have been good to really bring home the idea that virology is still an unproven theory. Well, he did bring home one solid point, which was, well, maybe two, actually three. It turns out that the CDC is primarily funded, privately, by the CDC Foundation. According to Dr. Kaufman. And that this foundation is funded mainly through corporate interests, in the same industry, naturally. So there is a huge conflict of interest. I just totally jumped topics, but bear with me. The German version of the CDC, it turns out, was named after Dr. Koch of the Koch’s Postulates reference above. The Robert Koch Institute was the name, IIRC. In Germany, again, IIRC, a man had a court battle after funding a $100,000 prize, to anyone who could provide evidence of the virus that causes measles. One person rose to the challenge, failed, and sued, and lost in a German court. Kaufman says the court brought in experts to evaluate the testimony and under their scrutiny, the plaintiff’s case did not hold up and the challenge prize remains unclaimed. A court concluded that thus far, no one has successfully presented evidence of a measles virus to the sponsor of this prize.

The host of this show has the interesting approach, and I think it may be an act, of acting like a normie, constantly, as he talks to the guy. He kept saying things like “something’s not right” and going back to those feelings. In his introduction he says he’s been podcasting for eight years, if I’m not mistaken. So you’ve had a show for eight years, and you act like you’re new to this stuff…except we know you’re not. Likely not. Especially given that he’s livestreamed with David Icke before, and is doing it again soon. I am not a normie and haven’t been for a long time. I give something of a pass to anyone around or under the age of 25. For me, I started waking up at about 24-25, and I remember the things I believed before that point. I voted at one point. I supported war, at one point. Believed it was the right thing. But there’s a second perspective here, with the approach the host takes. He acts like he’s just connecting normal people to people with an eyes-open take on everything. Now, he is, but he’s also asking questions and making comments, as any good host would. And in that he’s playing a role and helping steer the conversation. He should be asking about what comes next. Instead he’s having a conversation about alarming topics, and his replies to things are more or less to say “something’s not right” or just to change the subject. That’s where he loses me. Especially when he’s then grateful to his guest for having the courage to stand up and say the things he’s saying. It’s tough to criticize people on your own side. Overall, it’s a good, informative show, and you should check it out. Really, this is coming from a good place.

But the normie thing does not work for me. Maybe he puts on an act, for his audience. And I can appreciate people who are like that, but I’m not. Damn right, something’s not right. Something’s all fucked up. We live in a beautiful world. Genuinely. We live on a beautiful planet, with wonders and terrors, but with open arms and full bounty to every man and woman who wants to live well and be happy. We live in a paradise. And yet, there are people determined to convince us all that the world is a terrible, treacherous place, and it’s full of people who are not nearly as caring or as responsible or as intelligent or as honest and hardworking as you are. Take your pick of any combination of, or all of those. Believe what you read and watch and listen to in the media and you’ll think you are indeed a rare and precious person. And on some level, you are. You are irreplaceable. Every one of us is unique and irreplaceable. But we’re not alone in how much we care about others, how intelligent and prudent and honest and loving and just genuinely compassionate and beautiful creatures we are. There are so many of us out there. And it’s time for us to connect and support each other. We — the humans of this planet — are here for you.

Those of you who would think otherwise, think twice. Have a little faith, and project a bit. And know that people out there are just as good people as you are yourself. Too many ideas about the world come from the media. It takes a certain self-awareness to see how much of one’s perspective comes from other people. I hope people will have the self awareness to see this, and to listen to themselves and each other more than the media.

Overall, a good episode. For normies and the informed, alike. Check it out. You can find it here.

Coexistence with SJWs, Mrs. America, and Other Thoughts

I’m inclined to disagree with this post.

I’m also inclined to agree with this post. It is impossible to coexist with a group of people who wants to replace your value system with their own, to destroy your customs or replace them with their own, and to remake the society you share with them, in their image. For this reason, people who consider themselves woke should be looking for new communities in which to live. People should stop trying to live with people who don’t share their value system. It’s tough, because on the one hand, people probably locate in places, stay in places, that is, or move to other places, because of things like family and money. Less likely is it that people relocate because of their personal values.

People cannot be ruled peacefully. I’m sure every government has slaughtered someone for a crime with no victim, or at the very least threatened someone to part with their person or property but never had to follow through on the threat because whatever was demanded was given. In that case, they used the threat of violence, can we consider that peaceful? No. It’s inevitable that if you live with people who do not agree with you ideologically, under a government, you run the risk of them gaining control of that government and using it to enslave you. It’s possible to at least enjoy slavery under a government whose edicts you agree with or at least tolerate. But if you see those edicts become increasingly difficult to stomach over time, then the situation grows increasingly untenable. It also, as it becomes more tenuous, becomes less likely to have both outcomes, one being a peaceful outcome and the other being a coexistent outcome. My advice. Leave. GTFO while you can.

This is a good article, and it brings up excellent points. The FX TV show Mrs. America, villainized Phyllis Schafly, an incredibly influential woman who lead a conservative, anti-communist campaign in defense of the American family and traditional women’s roles in American society, during the 70s. Cate Blanchett plays Schafly and the writer of this article picked up a post from FX of a speech Blanchett’s character gives on one of the episodes, and some of the twitter responses. First off, the speech is excellent and everything in it is true. Second, the writer links to an excellent article about Phyllis Schafly, assuming it’s all true…wink, wink, you have to be skeptical and get the full story. Check out the article.

But if true, Phyllis Schafly was an incredible woman. She lead a campaign not just to effect change in the political sphere, but also to protect the heart of American society. That’s fantastic work, and something few people could understand the importance of, I think. In part because we all spend so much of our time working, or trying to recover from work. We spend so much time pedaling a mouse wheel, we have little time to reflect and think of our world and effect change in it, real lasting change. Survival both socially and materially are important, but so is the inidivudal legacy. The mark we make on the world, that makes it a better or worse place. This woman left the world better than she found it. Again, assuming the article is true. Equally incredible, this woman lived to the ripe old age of 92, and made it to the year 2016. So she was born in 1924! Her parents may have been part of the generation (or at least her grandparents) that enjoyed a classical education. For more on that, see here.

Another excellent point he makes: Women in modern society, how unhappy they are, specifically in the years since the second wave of the feminist movement. And of course, because the point of the movement was not to liberate women, but to weaken them, and drive a wedge between them and men, and ultimately weaken society so it is easier to dominate and control. Such a slow process. I have to give credit to the banksters and propagandists and other tricksters and cowards for being so dedicated, so disciplined, and so effective.

I may start following this blog, because of this article. Now to my criticisms. We can certainly coexist, although I believe a certain strength and brutality of character is needed. Let me be clear on the context for this brutality. We must be clear about who and what we are dealing with. Ideas are very much enemies in this time, maybe in all times. And the way one deals with their enemies must always end with either they themselves avoiding them, defeating them, or their enemies withdrawing, defeated or destroyed. So the thing that needs to happen here is no different. These ideas are our enemies, not necessarily the people wielding them. We’ve got to be brutal as we attack the ideas and destroy them or get the people wielding them to withdraw, otherwise we’re not upholding our values. Maybe this is not for everyone. There are ways of handling conflict, one way is to engage it directly and speak out against it, one way is to avoid it, and I’m sure others exist. This is another good topic.

For those in our community, we can shame, ridicule, gently tease, or outright shun to let people know their ideas are not welcome. If we’re not doing this, we’re not properly defending our community. Ideas can work like viruses and can destroy the fabric of one’s mind, one’s relationships, one’s community, society, etc. This is what we’re facing in the world today. People apparently didn’t know or didn’t care and did little to contain and defeat the bad ideas that are now shouted in the media from all directions. But I like avoiding. I support GTFO, women not sleeping with men who follow bad ideas, and likewise with men not sleeping with women who follow bad ideas, instead shunning them and shaming them for having stupid notions about the world, or about people, or about life. This SJW xyz-shaming nonsense is nonsense. Virtue signaling is a good call out for people who try to call someone out for [insert issue here]-shaming, like slut shaming, or some other type of shaming. Nothing wrong with pointing out shaming, however, when the shaming is done nonsensically. An example of this is free will shaming. People shaming other people for not listening to the authorities and trusting their own judgement. This is stupid and needs to be called out.

Society would be stronger if people just started doing this with confidence. In a free society, people associate voluntarily. The current society has forgotten what it means to associate with people in your own community. Like attracts like. Perhaps opposites attract on some level, but ‘birds of a feather,’ and you can judge people ‘by the company that they keep,’ are useful phrases here, because in the current system, people are forced into a ‘melting pot,’ beginning at schools, and continuing with shopping in public, standing in lines, waiting in traffic, using public transportation, which by the way is going to be an incredible cluster after the “new normal” finishes working its way through those wonderful (dismal, retarded, commie) cities with well developed public transport systems (not including taxis and ridesharing…mainly buses, trains/subways). Holy hell, I’d love to see how they plan to implement the social distancing b.s. with regards to that situation.

This isn’t 100% true, you still see people associate with their own people in community and racial and sometimes various social groups. But the attitude for a lot of people is we’re all just people and we just move in and out of relationships and there aren’t any groups and we’re all ‘the same,’ whatever that means. So “who are we to judge each other?” And so on. Judging others is rational and healthy and another thing missing. Shaming, teasing, judging, shunning, and calling people out are all things that absolutely need to be done in the current situation and in past and present as well. This is how individual people defend themselves from destructive ideas on a social level. This defense is necessary to preserve or restore any community to a healthy, functioning one, and is frankly the only way I can see healthy people coexisting with SJWs. Hopefully with enough encounters with appropriate negative feedback behaviors, they’d look into their ideas more and change them. If not, they would find their own clan and associate with it. I need to add ignoring as well. Ignoring bad ideas followed by avoiding the ideaholders is a great way to deal with this issue also.  In all cases, bad ideas bring negative outcomes, which is why they deserve negative reinforcement.  Don’t get me wrong, you should hear someone out, until you understand them.  Keep an open mind.  But once you understand them, you are not obligated to agree, coddle, sugarcoat, tolerate, or whatever you’d do with some outsider that you’re stuck with in a work situation or other such temporary brief encounter you just want to get through so you can move on with your day.  We’ve all had those.  Inside your community, be it your school or your church or sports team or friend group or work or wherever… you have to decide for yourself what your community is.  Inside that zone, stand up for your values, again, even if only by ignoring and shunning.  Something that overlaps well here (and is another good topic) is the difference between non-assertive versus assertive behavior.  Most of the interactions we have might be (if we’re workers or school attendees) some form of (quasi) forced association, anyway.  With regards to that, there’s no shame in not being assertive.  Without it every person’s community is doomed to more of the same, slow erosion and destruction by the vultures and hyenas and useful idiots that mindless zombie representatives of a political agenda are.

How to Destroy the Human Race

Someone posted on Reddit a question about how to destroy the human race.  This is not a 100% answer to the question, but a sarcastic reply to provide some insight into what is happening on Earth right now.

Pay them. Offer a massive amount of gold to world leaders and business leaders and convince them to manufacture a fake drama where the nations of the world are all against one another. Then use that drama to create a “weaponized” virus outbreak. Test for a real virus that really exists, but isn’t all that harmful. Use the money to convince medical authorities and media to go along as well. Promise them fame, insider knowledge, and a share of the spoils. Use world leaders’ influence to buy off state/provincial and local governments complicity as well (ala Federal funds).
Convince the public through mass media and Orwell style propaganda messages to fear one another and avoid each other for ‘health reasons.’ Use ‘health’ as an excuse to subvert fundamenal human rights in each nation (to organize, to practice religion, to speak freely on any topic, due process before law, presumption of innocence, freedom from unreasonable searches, etc.) while using your media connections to create fake assent and generate real assent from useful idiots supporting the subversion because it’s the responsible thing to do.
Then when you’re satisfied the fools are properly doing your bidding, offer a vaccination to protect them from the next “pandemic.” Make it mandatory to access services you’ve coopted, such as shopping in state approved stores, (socially distanced of course), or sending their children to state run schools (i.e. state brainwashing centers). Lace the vaccine with a deadly virus that eventually kills its host, perhaps only those who take the vaccine, so you remove the most gullible of the herd, or perhaps worse, one that spreads and kills indescriminately. Within time the entire race will be destroyed. Simply have the good sense to create a virus that cannot survive unless the host is alive, and when all the hosts (humans) have perished, your evil plan will be complete.
My reply to the question ends above, and the rest are my further thoughts that I didn’t post…
I started midstream. A slow plan is better so you meet minimal resistance along the way. Use a communist/socialist policy and government influence to nationalize the country’s currency. Use this to generate unlimited fake currency and use this to bribe governments, create insider industry groups, and generally fund your subterfuge. Indoctrinate generations of useful idiot followers through the school system, funded federally as well, and continued complicitness with the media until you have an indoctrinated race of automatons who believe whatever they are told, as long as it comes from the official channels. The same race will do what they are told as long as the official channels say so.
Fastforward back to the present. Use the weaponized virus crisis to institute a digital tatoo that can be read electronically and verified in a secure database (blockchain). Use this tatoo to keep tabs on who everyone is and whether they’ve received approved innoculations. As part of continued safety measures, expand this to include more information on the users of this tatoo, and tie it into everything digitally related to the person. Implement a “social credit score” system in the most authoritarian of the nations where economic and personal restrictions are placed on a person if they do not follow the dictates of this system. This allows for automated authoritarian controls, that can now be visited on a person in the most petty forms of bureaucracy imaginable.
Once the entire race is accounted for, and all authoritarian measures are in place, use the digital system you’ve created to eliminate people by changing their requirements so they work themselves to death, then spend all their money in the healthcare system before they die, or take a vaccine that gives them cancer, then spend all of their money and die, etc.

Watching TV and Living, For Real

I was watching a TV episode, and a guy was killed by a group of vampires, in a jacuzzi. The vampires were female, and of course he thought they were just women who were interested in him. One minute he thought he was going to get some action, and the next minute they attack him, he tries to get away, and they tear him apart. The water turns red with his blood, they pan out, up high, then they move on to another scene.

It’s a horrible scene to think of. And even though they didn’t show every detail, but I still ended up feeling bad for the guy, and bothered by the scene. I took a breath and had a “…man, what did I just watch,” moment.

What is it like when each of us watches something disturbing on TV? I’m sure some of us just stop watching and move on. Some of us tell ourselves it wasn’t real. Which it wasn’t.

But does that desensitize us a little bit to what we just witnessed? Does it put us in a situation where we care a little less about the pain and well-being of others? About others happiness and pleasure? About their frustration and their fear?

Does TV make us a little less empathetic to others? Everytime we process something and we have to tell ourselves it isn’t real, does it make it less potent when it really happens?

Or does it make it more potent, more immediate, and extreme?  What if watching TV makes the outside world seem intimidating?

Are people more real, more intense, and more lively in person, because we watch television? Or are they less interesting? It depends on how television affects you, and how respond to repeated contact with something.

Some people turn off to the things they see, both the negative, and the positive ones. Some people are emotionally open to the things they see, and their understanding deepens, the more they experience. These people reflect on their lives, and they grow. They are more than just spectators.

They live their lives, and don’t just experience them. What if life, versus mere experience, is the difference between reflection, and growth… versus stagnation, which is a process of entropy.  Both are processes of change, but growth is supportive, and moves us forward. The other, stagnation, is about moving backward.

What type of life do you want to live?


This is a big topic, so I won’t do it justice in one post.  But it is important, so let’s go.  There’s a basic example I got from somewhere that illustrates this idea succinctly.  Here it is:  If you had a bottle of water, and I had a dollar, and we traded, what that means, is you wanted the dollar, more than you wanted the bottle of water, and likewise, I wanted the bottle of water, more than I wanted the dollar.  But the most important idea here, is profit.  And why is profit important?  Because it happens on both sides of the transaction.

This is a huge concept that did not become clear to me until I heard this example several times.  The fact is, if I were out on a road trip, or in the middle of the desert, or at an amusement park, or even just down the street at the store, chances are, if I felt the need to part with a dollar to buy a bottle of water, it’s because the dollar is a better deal, right then, at that place and time, than it would be for me to go home and drink the water.  Or go someplace else where they’re giving the water away for free, or for me to think about it ahead of time, and pack the water in a bag, etc.

And because I don’t have to pack water in a bag and bring it with me, I am free to walk around with my dollar, and buy water, if that’s what I want to do.  But more importantly, I can do something else with my time, instead of thinking about packing a bottle of water and lugging it around to wherever I might end up going.

This is why people don’t make their own clothes, for the most part.  This is also why people don’t build their own cars and trucks, or make their own luggage, and dishes, and furniture.  People are just starting to, in the West, it would seem, at least the average city dweller … they are just starting to grow their own food, in their apartments, and yards.  I have neighbors who have their own chickens.  It’s a good idea, and it has its benefits, but it has its costs, too.  That’s one more thing a person has to do, equipment they have to buy, and time they end up spending making sure the product they are producing, is the way they want it, their equipment is maintained, etc.

This is all fine and good, but I digress.  When I can just show up and buy something, I get my time back, and I can use that time to write this post, for example.  I didn’t have to spend time building my own laptop, and I didn’t spend time mining ore to then melt down into my own jewelry, nor did I spend time growing plants or developing synthetic fibers for my clothes.  All of that time savings I got from not doing any of those things came from the money I paid someone else to do them for me, instead.  And the payment that person received was of course the profit.

And the time was my profit, which is so very important, because it’s the reason why in society today, we can successfully or cripplingly, depending on how you look at it, we can have 40% … 40 or 50%, I can’t remember, of the people employed in the US, work for some form of government.  That basically means nearly half of the people working are paid with stolen goods (taxes).

And despite that, the other people, those who work to have that money stolen from them are able to do so and provide for their families, most of them, anyway, some can’t and end up on welfare themselves, or worse.  Anyway, it’s a modern miracle we are so efficient that we’re able to provide for ourselves, produce such wonderful innovations, and on top of it all, support the parasites at both the top and bottom of society.

The state destroys abundance.  The state interferes and turns win-win into win-lose.  We can see this, when we think about robbery.  If I make $100 a day, and a robber comes by, once a week, and takes $100 from me, let’s say I end up with $400 a week.  So I lose $100 a week to the robber.

What if I need exactly $400 to feed my family, save for a rainy day, and otherwise scrape by and cover my expenses and obligations?  Well, then I never make any progress.  But worse yet, I don’t help anyone else, either.

The robber takes my profit, basically, and someone could argue I still have my rainy day fund, but let’s put that to the side.  The $100 is stolen from me, and assuming I can’t do anything about it but pay the $100, that’s $100 I can’t spend doing things I love and enjoy.  That means, maybe for my family to go out and relax, we need two incomes.  Which means we’re busier and spend less time together.  Which means we probably don’t end up relaxing as much.  It means we are more stressed and enjoy life less.

What if we were big into charity?  Well then, that’s $100 we can’t give away to help other people, either.  No matter what we had planned, we can’t do anything with it.  If we planned to spend that $100 a week having fun, we can’t, it won’t enrich our lives, because it’s stolen, gone, and with that money gone, and nothing I can do about it, I still need balance in my life.  If this was a regular guy robbing me, once a week, I could probably do something about it.  I could move, change up my habits so I don’t get robbed, maybe call the police as a last resort, (hahaha) etc.

But we all know who this robber is, right?  It’s the state.  The taxman.  And you can’t run from this guy.  So it’s worse.  You have to give up your money, which means you can’t do anything about it except either find a loophole or make less, or maybe there are other things you can do, which we’ll discuss in other posts…

But if the taxman is robbing me every week, then I’m losing out, and so is everyone else, so it’s not likely I’ll, if I’m your “average Joe,” it’s not likely I’ll do anything about this.  But I still need to feel like the work I do every day is meaningful, and useful, and if I’m not making enough money to enjoy life, how can I do that?  I can’t, so I’ll be frustrated that I don’t make enough money, I’ll probably blame my employer for that.  Or I’ll blame society, or maybe I’ll blame the rich?  Does any of this sound familiar?

  • Believing your employer is stingy and doesn’t pay you enough (maybe they don’t) or
  • Believing society is just corrupt, i.e., the world is full of flawed humans, and very few of us are actually good people or
  • Believing the rich are greedy and corrupt and everyone with a fortune either inherited it or got it by exploiting someone else

I’ve heard all those arguments before.  But none of them explain the simple exchange between a buyer (person with a dollar) and a seller (person with a bottle of water) and how the seller gets taxed.  When you’re an employee, you get taxed.  When you’re taxed, you feel like you’re short changed, and you are!  You’re on the losing end of a win-lose transaction.  You get win-win when you work and get paid.  Someone gets time, and/or services, and you get money in exchange (which allows you time or goods or services too, when you spend that money) … and just before you get your money, someone else walks in, takes part of the money, and gives you nothing in return.

Some people might argue ‘but the roads,’ or ‘but you went to school for free’ but really, have you driven on the roads?  Have you had enough potholes and traffic?  Want your money back?  Or do you ride the bus or train?  Also have you gone to school?  Most elementary and high schools in the US are funded by property taxes, federal funds (from inflation and income taxes) and other money.  So most people’s school was funded by money paid by poor people living in apartments and people living in homes, whether they had children in school or not.  And to top it off, these people did not have a choice if they did have children in school.  They had to uproot their family and move, or plan to move some place with a good school district if they wanted to send their children to a good school.  Or, get this, they had to still pay the property taxes, which were being stolen from them anyway, and then on top of it, pay again to send their children to a better school, because the public school was not adequate, did not teach their children what they want them to learn, etc.  So after having funded the government school involuntarily they still have to pay another school to teach them what they want their children to learn.  That’s not fair.

Could you imagine going to a restaurant, and being told what you could eat, not having any choice in the matter, and being told you had to pay, and if you didn’t like it, what you could do, was leave your money on the table and pay, then go next door to a pricier restaurant, and pay more money and get what you want?  And even there, the second restaurant answers to the first, so you probably still don’t get exactly what you want, and get some of what you want, and some of what you don’t.

Arent’t we all glad the government doesn’t control restaurants?

I digress.  Abundance is not found in any of these scenarios.  OMG this is a rambly post.  It’s so easy to get on this platform and ramble.  Enough.

Recap.  Abundance is about one thing, fundamentally, it’s about the fact that whenever we’re voluntarily associated with one another, we’re making each other’s lives better.  If you and I are friends, we each voluntarily choose to talk to each other and spend time together.  That friendship makes us both happier people, stronger, we’re better because we are friends.  That’s what abundance is, that’s what “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” means.  The amazing thing about this idea, is it is the very underpinning of economics!  When two people enter into an economic relationship, even if it’s just a one-time buy sell transaction, the buyer decided they’d be better off if they made the purchase, and the seller decided they’d be better off if they made the sale.  And the buyer gets time, and benefits from the good/service purchased, and the seller gets money to cover their costs, and profit to benefit them from their investment in the good/service they sold.  That’s abundance, because both sides profit.

It’s not enough to talk about profit on both sides of a transaction, without talking about the opposite, in this discussion, which is a win-lose transaction where one side gets a benefit and the other side gets nothing in return.  This happens when force or fraud is used in the transaction.  I didn’t cover fraud above, but force or the threat of force accompanies all taxation, all fines, and most monetary transfers to governments.

This means things like, unfair prices on services, even if a service is still rendered, like school, for example, which is why people still send their children to private schools, and why people go to college in increasing numbers, and take longer to graduate, and … the cost of college goes up every year as well, though this is due to more than one factor, one of the factors here, is that high schools increasingly put out unqualified students who are supposedly ‘ready’ for college.  It’s ironic, too, because of the money governments take and borrow to spend on schooling, and yet they still do a terrible job at it.

Fraud is something I will cover in a future post.  The short of it is if a seller misrepresents a good/service the buyer ends up paying more for it, thinking they are getting one thing, then finding out they are getting another thing, a thing they would have paid less for, if the seller was honest.  In that situation the seller makes off with the buyer’s profit, since they still have to invest time and energy to get what they originally wanted, and can’t necessarily get their money back.  This is what happens when a student goes to a government high school, and then spends a couple of semesters in college relearning the same subjects so they build their skills up to the college level.

Some people will blame the student’s parents for this … yet another conversation.

There are also iterative downstream societal consequences.  When you take a lose-win or win-lose interaction and replay it over and over through time, it makes a dent in the surrounding society.  Just like the fact that the police aren’t good at catching criminals, combined with the media’s overemphasis on violent crime, leads to people restraining their social interaction, their friendliness, and how much they mix with strangers (also known as stranger danger, creepiness, etc.) because people are generally afraid of becoming victims.  Well we have solutions to that, but we’ll get to them in another post.  For example, if people could pay for private security, or properly defend themselves against criminals, without also fearing an attack from the government (i.e. gun control), they could relax and be friendly, knowing they could protect themselves and their loved ones.

Still much more to this topic … but this is a good introduction.