Mr. Wrong

It appears not.

Doesn't matter. God was edited into existence. Original context doesn't matter so much anymore, unless you want to look at the fossil record.

There's a fun thought experiment in store for you, and in the end I demonstrate how 'atheist' and 'MGTOW' are the same thing, which is pretty cool. But it's less to do with that example. Sorta jumping the gun but whatever. I'm starting a project I suppose you can help with or appreciate. Basically, I believe that where there is some content of truth within any perspective that's logically consistent. Yet, that truth isn't a matter of conclusion but one of relationship. So let's try a thought experiment! I'll show what I mean through numbers. Ex: I ask 3 people to solve for 'x'. The Christian says the answer is 3. The MGTOW says the answer is 5. The Conservative says the answer is 11. These numbers only represent some conclusion they've crafted in response to 'x' (some problem). Then they argue and carry on as they do. But then you ask this: Solve for 'y'. The Christian says the answer is 3.6. The MGTOW says the answer is 6. The Conservative says the answer is 13.2. Then you keep doing this over and over again. You can also do this merely by studying their content, of course. Now, all their conclusions are different. But you're not interested in their conclusions. Instead, you're interested in how their conclusions relate to each other. You want to see how x relates to y, how one conclusion they have relates to another. From there, you're trying to establish a trend. You're trying to see if irrespective of their conclusions, the way they relate to each other is the same. Think of it like a different language. The term 'fear' is different in a host of languages and you wouldn't understand them. But should you inquire their term for spiders, anxiety, terror, etc., you'd be able to establish how each term relates to the others and so finally understand their language. Takes a long time granted, but it's how you do it. Learn the word. Learn its relation. Learn the language. Yet what's more, if we delve into our own understanding of terms in our own language. We come to find out that we understand these terms through relation as well. Think about it. Not only is every word, every abstraction reliant on others to understand it, to frame it within reality. But without those others things existing, you wouldn't be able to define the term let alone even create the abstraction. It's like the physical law(?)of how everything that exists is an effect and produces an effect. So everything that exists does so by virtue of interaction. Be that with something else or time or whatever. It's a neat ontological idea and one that's been plenty explored - true too, I think. What that means is that everything that exists, or rather everything we recognize as existing, does so in our minds by virtue of relationship. It's not an 'is', it doesn't 'just exist'. There needs to be a how, a constitution of some sort. Science bears this out and might even be a product of our minds more than anything. See, every time we find a gap in a cause and effect system, we create something to be responsible for it. Then we try to demonstrate its existence in some fashion. If successful, we try to find a gap in this new cause and effect system, the next thing to be responsible for it, and so create something there and so on and so forth. Truly, those things, those particles for the most part, are placeholders. It's freaky, but they might not actually exist. They've all been the product of attempting to understand a relationship. We say that a proton effects an atom in this way which effects a molecule in this way which effects a larger molecule this way and so on until, I dunno, you form an apple. But we know in reality that where we started, the proton (or whatever the smallest particle we identify) is what the whole thing is supposedly made of. There is no 'atom'. It's a grouping of protons(in this example). Just like there is no 'forest', there's only a bunch of trees. So really, what we're doing when we create all these other particles from proton to apple, is we're creating intermediaries to better understand the relationship protons have to apples. We look at it like a step-by-step process, but we've actually no reason to. Nothing happens 'first' in this system, since it's only one relationship in reality: proton to apple and even then, it's we who are calling this set of protons an apple in the first place. The only truth we've actually discerned from this is the nature of the relationship itself. It's component parts are intermediaries only for our own understanding. It's seen as step 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., but there aren't any steps. Or if you want, there's only one. One that we separate into different steps because we can't understand it any other way: proton->apple. Again a freaky thought, yet our language works this way. What 'humility' (or any word) is, is a product only of all its relationships to its component parts as well as its outcome in reality i.e. how you understand it. So not only do you need the existence of these other concepts, these other words to define and so understand 'humility', but you need an entire network of other words all linked together in some fashion. You need a 'language Matrix', a universe. This operational network, this modeling of reality would thus be a product not of individuals, of certain intrinsic beings, but one of relationship. The words would only be like nodes in a computer chip(protons, molecules, etc.). They only SEND the SIGNAL along. They only TRANSLATE the RELATIONSHIP along. It's WHERE that signal is sent that determines the function and so purpose of the node. Imagine being inside a hollow white sphere dotted with little black circles on the inside surface. When you 'select' a circle it shows all its connections to the others using, I dunno, lasers. All of them are connected yet all of them are different. That's how I envision it. So yeah, entertain the thought. How you understand something isn't due to some intrinsic, innate, 'entirely distinct from everything else' quality, no. You understand it in how it has an 'entirely distinct from everything else' relationship to well, everything else you know ON THE WHOLE. No matter what it is it hits all the nodes, but travels along them in a different path. For example, the node for 'war' isn't connected to 'good' unless routed first through 'soldier' and then 'defense' or whatever. And yes, the relationship of even those nodes are created in the same fashion, having their own unique connections to other nodes and so on. The beauty is that their inter-connectivity is technically all the same giant Matrix, but starting at a different node yields a different perspective of this connectivity. So no matter what, your mind never links 'war' with 'good' directly, or whatever the nature of this would actually be. (It's a thought experiment after all). So on the whole, this is your model of reality. This set of relationships is your 'truth'. So in this thought experiment, the nodes themselves, the words are irrelevant. They're all equally 'words' or 'beliefs' or 'positions' or 'WHATs' without distinction. What distinguishes them is 'HOW'. It's their interconnections that determines their uniqueness. Now if that were true, then what someone says is true or believes is true isn't actually relevant to what's true or even, believe it or not, their own understanding. The node doesn't matter. What matters is its relationship to the other nodes. So consider another person's connected nodes. They may have two nodes connected that you don't. So to you, they might seem like entirely unrelated phenomena. But if their understanding of something shares the same relationship you have regarding something else, if they have the same inter-connectivity but starting at a different node, then suffice it to say you believe the same thing, but only in a different language. Get it? So if their node for 'war' is linked nearly identically to everything your node for 'pragmatism' is connected to, then it's entirely likely that your understanding of 'pragmatism' is actually their understanding of 'war'. Sounds like a neat if probably impossible idea, but that's what I'm looking for. I'm finding it too, BTW. Remember those numbers? x = 3, 5, 11 y = 3.6, 6, 13.2 Well, 'y' is a product of this equation: y = (x/5)+x This is what I keep finding. So long as these groups are attempting to discern truth, they're forced to do so with regard to a certain matter and within a certain perspective since well, everyone has their biases. But wherever they deem to find it, it starts to create parallel relationships to other terms. Their conclusions are different yes, but their relationship to their conclusions, and its relationship to others, begins to develop an eerie congruity. So it is that their conclusions may be absolutely false, but their relationship to their conclusions and subsequent relationships therein, mirror our own within a different, supposedly unrelated subject. I take it you want an example and good, clean one. Simple: MGTOW are to women what atheists are to God. Strip away what each of those terms represent and simply look at the relationship between them. Everything the atheist says of God is true of what the MGTOW says of women. Remember, the 'nodes' don't matter. It's the relationship between the nodes that does. Atheists claim there is no 'God'. It's a product of your own desire for it and subsequent projection of meaning into it. MGTOW claim there is no 'woman'. It's a product of your own desire for it and subsequent projection of meaning into it. Atheists attempt to reconstitute 'God' as it actually exists i.e. the effect it actually produces in reality. MGTOW attempt to reconstitute 'Woman' as it actually exists i.e. the effect it actually produces in reality. 'God' doesn't exist as described, so atheists study the nature of the theist (true believer) to best determine the nature of 'God' as an abstraction. 'Woman' doesn't exist as described, so MGTOW study the nature of the gynocentrist (true believer) to best determine the nature of 'woman' as an abstraction. Atheists don't pray. MGTOW don't hope (no NAWALT). Atheists don't tithe. MGTOW don't pay. Atheists don't attend church. MGTOW don't take 'Women's Studies'. Atheists don't become priests. MGTOW don't become feminists. Atheists don't value God, seeing only the possible benefits of delusion and social cohesion. MGTOW don't value women, seeing only the possible benefits of delusion and social cohesion. Now, this isn't just some mad-lib or 'fill-in-the-blanks' sort of scenario. This matter of relationship is 1:1. In this case, both represent the loss of an abstraction, the loss of a certain connectivity of nodes, and a reconstitution as how they actually exist. But amazingly, that reconstitution is exactly the same. We would think this is impossible given the nature of these concepts. But if we remove any notion of what they're meant to represent, to see them as empty words, as mere nodes in our model of reality, they can be absolutely equal given the same array of relationship. The same relationship to the self, to the individual. And that's what's happening. This is why Jordan Peterson has paralleled very well (I've done better - maybe) the link between Genesis and consciousness. Also, the nature of God as truth, Jesus as the relationship truth has to ourselves, and with the Holy Spirit as the process of reconciling this through discernment. I've already gone into the Christian with this same tool to great effect. I linked them with scientists. Again, uncanny and offers some explanation of why Christian Europe was so instrumental to the scientific revolution. The Holy Trinity is the Scientific Method. Watch a good preacher talk about God and shift him into a scientist talking about the nature of truth. It will follow suit. I've posted something related to this in the Religion section just now, if you're interested. Anyway, yeah. Finding evidence for this is all I'm up to at the moment. Atheist and MGTOW are well-established, but I'd like to try more. I know some will see atheist and MGTOW both as a product of disillusionment and that's all they really share in common. But if you look at the relationship they have to their beliefs, how it shapes their identity, intentions, interactions, and others, the commonality continues unabated. So if you take yourself as an atheist and shift your node, shift your perspective so that 'God' lines up with 'woman', you'll at the very least be able to better understand MGTOW. Sympathize too, since as a matter of language and its relationship to themselves, they aren't technically wrong on principle. I actually encourage you to try it - if you can. Write out your relationship to 'God' then convert it to woman, following through on all the same relationships 'God' had. The impetus to MGTOW makes sense too, after that. No personal motivations or intentions are required to create it. Just lose the abstraction of 'woman'. Same goes for atheist with regard to God, obviously. There is no particular intention or motivation required. Instead, a loss of intention is. Same for MGTOW and to the same result. I guess the takeaway is that when it comes to things that aren't real, that are just ideas - especially lost ones, we can better discern our understanding of them strictly through their relationship to other ideas, not of any intrinsic quality. It also serves to simplify so many things, given one can only have so many relationships to belief anyway, if you think about it. It could probably even be charted using maths. +,-,x,/ and all that. Your model of reality converted into algebra? Complicated as all hell, but I think we could do it. Hope this was fun. PS - There's a Numberphile video on YouTube regarding Surreal Numbers. Just Google it. Watch a mad-genius create our entire collection of numbers(means more than it sounds) using only this ' : '. He's half the reason I think I'm right about this, since he's created everything using only the concept of 'greater' and 'lesser' or: 0 and 1. If I'm right about nodes, at the most basic level it is binary i.e. connected or not. There's other parallels though, obviously. The philosophical process of attribution i.e. distinction i.e. individuation, as a major one.

I've included sections for whatever takes your fancy. Sorry it's long, but it's cool. With the rising popularity of Jordan Peterson and his attempt to translate the Bible outside of metaphor and into the realm of psychology and philosophy and whatnot, I thought I'd show you a bit of what I know. Should be a good read. I'll unpack just TWO WORDS for you: WHY DOES THE BIBLE COMMAND US TO 'FEAR GOD'? Because God represents truth. Period. Whether you believe in God or not, look at it that way. If God is what's true, he's what's real (truth irrespective of our limited understanding). That doesn't mean he's everything good and bad or nice or frightening. It only means that he's everything that is. Your interpretation of what is doesn't matter. He's only everything that has happened to you and will happen to you. There isn't any moral content there though, since it's not a matter of what ought to happen or shouldn't happen. It's what did and what does. So do you fear the truth? Yes, you do. Why? Because you're inherently self-righteous. There is some belief you have that creates a foundation for yourself that isn't true. In fact, all beliefs are like that. Everything you believe about yourself is a lie in some fashion. You don't quite understand what you are or who you are. You have labels for things, but delve into your understanding of those labels and you'll find some gap in your understanding. So you fear God in that he threatens to reveal the untruth, the lies you have about yourself or the biases you have or whatever. But at the same time, the truth is not a malevolent threat. It merely exists. It's just an 'is' and you're afraid of it. So then, if the truth isn't malevolent, how is it benevolent? Because it's knowing the truth that best assists you in literally everything. No matter how awful reality has become, it's understanding that reality that best equips you for it. So yeah, what's real can be awful and devastating and all sorts of bad, but it's only understanding it that will help you overcome it. Not knowing why it's happening will lead to ruin. Deceiving yourself into believing it's something other than it is will lead to ruin. So indeed, you have a fearful relationship to the truth. But you also have an adoring one, a loving one, a thankful one, an honorable one and a respectful one. Even regarding the worst thing that happens to you, it's only the truth that will allow you to overcome it. The truth of the origin of your depression. The truth of of WMDs in Iraq. The truth of which way to escape a burning building. It. Does. Not. Matter. The truth is always honest with us by definition. It's our relationship to truth that creates all these different feelings towards it. The reason 'fear' was chosen as the ultimate phrasing for this relationship is because it allows for all the others, but also puts us in our place with regard to truth. We have to submit to it. We're nothing in comparison to it. We owe it our survival. We owe it everything. It's not terrifying in the sense that it will harm us. It's terrifying in the scope of it's power. It's the sort of terror or awe that's inspired by a power beyond comprehension. And yes, we naturally fear that. Something beyond comprehension MEANS we can't ever understand it and thus the truth CANNOT prevail us - totally. So the truth - the ULTIMATE TRUTH i.e. God, is inherently terrifying to us. But he's no threat. Like the universe or reality itself, contemplated in all it's majesty - if we could, would drive us insane. Yet, comprehending it is exactly what we must do to survive. The reason Peterson talks of self-knowledge and death as the same thing, is because he's talking about shedding the ego such that we're able to better understand reality without bias. Christians phrase this as 'receiving God'. So as I see it, it's 'receiving truth'. Of course, there is no better way to receive the truth then when you eliminate your biases, your self-righteousness. But since the self is based on these biases, you have to 'die' in order to better receive truth. You have to give up the old biases, the old self-righteousness, and be REBORN as someone more humble. Someone less self-righteous and so more willing to understand truth. Hence the DEATH AND REBIRTH of Jesus as man's salvation. This is impossible to do since we've all some self-righteousness by design. Descartes proved that. (Cogito ergo sum). So instead, this 'new life' is one of introspection and vigilance against the self - the ego. So now whenever you're keen to believe something or impose something as true, essentially to assume or presume something, you stop yourself. Yes, you're always going to have the tendency to assume things and you're always going to have old assumptions you didn't purge. But so long as you remain vigilant you can take on less new assumptions and remove more old assumptions and so move closer to truth. And that ladies and gentlemen, is the EXACT same relationship we have toward truth when engaging the scientific method. We're agnostic about everything 'real' and the entire exercise is trying to prove ourselves wrong. It's trying to prove where we've got the model wrong - which is true by definition, rather than trying to prove ourselves right. The current model is always wrong. It's not 'incomplete' until you find where it was wrong. Where Newtonian Physics didn't work anymore or whatever. Then you hopefully fill in that gap (General Relativity in this case), and then you proceed to find where relativity is wrong and then determine the model to be incomplete once more. See, any belief you have is wrong. It's incomplete - always. You have to challenge that belief to discern so in the first place, and then take on a more true perspective should you discern how it was WRONG. Then you do it again and again. It's the death and rebirth cycle of Jesus. Over and over and yes, like the bible says, it moves you closer to God i.e. truth. And people still don't understand why science erupted from Christian Europe. Good Lord. And remember, that's TWO WORDS. HOW TO READ THE BIBLE AS AN ATHEIST: If you want to do this yourself: God is reality. Jesus is self (self-righteousness i.e. YOUR truth). Holy Spirit is the process of attribution (philosophical individuation). This probably doesn't make sense so: God is Conclusion. (Objective) - Rock Jesus is Hypothesis. (Subjective) - Paper Holy Spirit is Experimentation. (Predictive) - Scissors You can actually read the bible under this pretense. Read it as though the Holy Trinity represents the steps in the scientific method or the 3 states of knowledge you may possess. No matter what you pick, their relationship takes on a 'rock-paper-scissors' dynamic. Rock is what's real. Paper is what's believed about what's real. Scissors is the means of reconciling that belief with reality. Maybe even 'Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis', if you'd like. So long as the relationships the triad have to each other are the same, it's actually the same thing you're thinking about and referencing: the operation of thought itself. Blows your mind. 'Rock' is immutable and permanent (truth), but we're ignorant of it. (God, The Objective) 'Paper' is mutable and constantly being replaced (belief), but it is believed due to lack of alternatives. (Jesus, The Subjective) 'Scissors' is always a methodology (action), but it determines more of 'Rock' and so alters 'Paper'. (Holy Spirit, The Predictive) Finally, the whole damn thing follows the model of 'cause-effect-outcome' or 'cause-effect-purpose'. The reason outcome and purpose are necessary to this is that the 'outcome' or 'purpose' is a change in the state of reality itself. An effect doesn't exist merely on it's own but is a change in reality itself since it changes the entire universe. We don't like to think this way, but it does. This effect changes the state of the universe such that a repetition of that effect or indeed the cause of it, will actually be ever so slightly different. Think gravity, quantum threads, that sort of stuff. This theory was always embedded in our understanding of cause and effect since the 'bounds' of any subsystem of cause and effect (a thing) aren't real. As such, they alter the substrate in which such effects may occur again. So the 'outcome' of any cause and effect system alters the next iteration of 'cause' (Know more of God). In understanding the nature of that alteration, it brings with it a better understanding of the universe as you know it (Rebirth of Jesus). So you know more of the next cause and more of the prior one, since you know more of how the universe reacts to them. This is where everything becomes wonderfully and necessarily teleological as a matter of mind, though not necessarily of reality. Where attributions of purpose become necessary to any means of understanding and as a matter more of utility than truth. It's what allows for the progressive, growing nature of understanding (Holy Spirit leading to God). Really neat. GOD IS THE ULTIMATE MEME And yeah, such that each of these different things have been created in the search for truth or to catalogue it, that they've managed to assist humanity in survival i.e. interacting with reality in knowledge of what 'works', they've proven their utility and, dare I say, truth. But it's the truth in their relationship that matters. God ain't real. Nor Jesus or the Holy Spirit or, depending on who you talk to, objective reality and all that. But this single triad and the relationship it has within itself crops up everywhere that people have tried to determine what was true....and managed to find SUCCESS in it. Basically, since reality didn't kill them and so their ideas with them, there was truth-content in what they believed. They operated FUNCTIONALLY with reality. They PREDICTED truth. Understand of course that 'God' was never originally written this way. Rather, we was edited into existence. What worked was kept. What didn't was scrapped. Whichever Christian survived, physically and socially, passed on his 'wisdom of God'. Those that didn't perished and so didn't pass their untruth on. So what the Christian represents is a modern-day 'social-species' with all prior iterations representing a social FOSSIL RECORD. Get it? Memes evolve with genes according to reality and according to their purpose: survival. Hence the bible, by virtue of it's longevity, is packed full of truth regard the nature of physical reality but more importantly: social and psychological reality. Though it's all masked in metaphor - nearly a different language. Anyway, this is how you read the bible as an atheist in an effort to become a cultural Christian. TRANSLATING THE BIBLE INTO A RATIONAL LANGUAGE I haven't decoded it, but I do know how to a good degree. I just need hands. I've done Genesis up to Adam's exile. Figure at this point I should start showing people. Peterson is being quite helpful, but the lens of a personality psychologist, while creating a far clearer image, is narrow in its scope. So he's very right about very little, which he admits to. Particularity is never a bad thing, but it's like understanding quantum physics without knowing anything about antibiotics - as a species. You can focus into an ever-greater understanding of just one thing, but in that way it becomes less and less integral to the whole. Better to use your knowledge of atomic structure to examine living tissue and so find and attack the bacteria we're so weak to. Something very little but also very true has great potential in other matters, but you have to know how to apply it there. So philosophy, in particular philosophical individuation (the nature of attribution and distinction) and ontology, could yield it. Stef could do it - I think. Imagine the prestige, to indulge in self for a moment. It wouldn't be a selfish pursuit either. You'd be able to link purpose with Christians of all sorts and unite libertarians across the religious spectrum. Even better, you'd also provide an ultimate arbiter, an ultimate standard that the more rebellious libertarians would be forced to yield to as a matter of logic and principle. You know, 'Unite the Right'. I'm not speaking crap either. This is how to do it. You reveal to these different 'sects' the nature of their belief and with that the congruity between them that they can't see. Their division is an illusion. It's been a matter of mind and not action/purpose for generations. They are divided only in motivation/intention. They will yield the same outcome together, but differ in their interpretation of it. So they infight based on false pretenses. But if you reveal to them that both of their interpretations are a skewed vision of the same thing, you can generate cooperation. Neither is likely to forsake their own interpretation, but they will come to see their interpretation in their 'rivals'. As it stands, I've found the congruity between Christians, atheists, scientists, libertarians, and MGTOW with a few hints unexplored in MRAs, 'centrists', classical liberals, ethno-nationalists, and I think a few others. It's always there, this triad - at least on the 'Right' or rather the 'Not-Insane' wing of politics. So anything but the Far-Left and hey! Wouldn't you know it? We're united on that front. Well gee-whiz. It's like we might just be standing for the same thing and not just AGAINST the same thing. I'm excitedly rambling. I do that. Oh yeah, I'd love to talk to Stef about this but he monologues about his own position (admit it, but it's good for the show) and this would most certainly be a teacher-student exchange that I'm not sure either of us wants to enter into. It would interrupt his flow and is, I think, something difficult to explain over Skype. Lucky for me, I'm local. I could actually meet in person too. Would love to. Imagine that? It would be nice if you guys read this and critiqued it. Though truly, take the triad to heart and start reading the bible or listening to Jordan Peterson's work on Genesis. Watch it sync up with Peterson. It would be uncanny were it not for the nature of memes I just talked about. Though again, tip of the iceberg. So such that anyone cares well, spread this around I guess. Hope it helps, if you're interested in this sort of thing.

Was on vacation. Sorry for the late reply. I mention and praise Luther in the treatise, actually. People misinterpret what happened during the reformation. I hadn't known of any rise of the SJW during Luther's time, but I'm excited to hear of it. Any more info or sources you have on that is only going to better my argument. Anyway, Stef and just about everyone else are dead wrong about the reformation. They've transformed it more into a self-serving narrative than relating it to how people actually operate. The narrative goes that the people were ignorant of scripture and when it was finally translated for them, they were able to form their own beliefs and so shatter the collective. Nope. Wrong. This isn't how people operate. The disparate beliefs between Christians were always present and yes, they were remedied by the monopoly the priests had over the holy text though more integrally, the monopoly they had over the LANGUAGE. Essentially, any ambiguous language allows for personalized definition and with its shared use regardless, a projection of your definition of terms onto all others. That said, there is no greater an ambiguous language than an utterly foreign one. So in reality, Christians had several different beliefs that weren't being communicated, for reasons of deference or fear or through the plain inability to claim anything of a text you can't read. Though more importantly, their disparate beliefs were masked in the projection inherent to the ambiguous language. So all the hymns, the rites, everything was individually interpreted and personally validating. As such, people projected their experience of such things onto others, as though they were joined in the act of validating themselves too. For example, Jane believes [X] about God and by doing [Y] with everyone else, believes that everyone else must also believe [X] about God. Yet, Bill believes [Z] about God and by doing [Y] with everyone else, believes that everyone else must also believe [Z] about God. So in short, it created a false collective of people who didn't share the same individual beliefs, but rather the same belief about everyone else in the collective. That the collective believed what the individual believed. So it's sorta the same belief in a way, but not really. Anyway, by translating the Bible Luther removed the AMBIGUITY endemic to this collective, though specifically its language. From then on, the differences between believers could become more readily recognized, not created. So really, Luther's translation served to DISILLUSION the church more than anything. That's the reality of what he did. Luther demonstrated to the church that their collective was a lie and that they were fundamentally operating on self-righteous projection, using the nebulousness of the language and rites and everything within the church in order to do so. So if what you say about social justice rising after this break in the church well, that accords entirely with how it may be formed as an effect of schism which I cover in the treatise. Essentially, every schism results in 3 groups: Traditionalists who stick to the old criteria for the identity. Reformers who fashion new criteria for the identity. Nebulizers who deny the need for such criteria for the identity. Basically, nebulizers are akin to those feminists who, when met with a claim of what constitutes a woman, will protest, "Doing that or not doesn't make you a woman! It's irrelevant!" Though they repeat this claim of irrelevance ad infinitum until the term in question, in this case 'woman', loses all meaning and becomes a hollow term. That is to say, EVERYTHING becomes irrelevant to its construction. So nothing makes you a woman save for mere proclamation, yet nothing can be claimed to be entirely divorced from influencing it, given there is no means of determining its bounds. It's like a thing that's literally everywhere but is also nothing. This is so obviously an effect of language and not anything else. It makes me want to scream that it's gone unnoticed. So 'woman' is the most important and influential thing in the universe that must be considered in all matters, but whose nature is ultimately impossible to determine and should you do so, you're a sexist because you discriminated it - you made it something. This, you'll note, is no exaggeration as this is what has happened to it - given none can properly define 'woman' anymore. It's a language virus. It has everything to do with the nature of words, which is why social justice and the 'identities' therein, are all just words that have succumbed to nebulization - meaning loss. That's it. Also, you're right about the necessary exploration of purpose, but purpose is already integral to reason by virtue of the process of philosophical individuation i.e. how we create things. Look: Everything that exists is purposeful i.e. produces an outcome. There is a way to create it, and there is something that it does. It has an existence in reality and an interaction with reality. Hence its production of outcome. When we relate this outcome to our own understanding of reality we call this 'purpose'. It's what we expect will occur based on our understanding of how something exists. It's an aspect of prediction. For this reason, every 'what' is in reality a 'how'. This transcends all physical boundaries and permeates our very language. That is to say, every single concept we have is purposeful by definition and WHAT it is is necessarily HOW it is. No exceptions. The reality of this is only that this is how our minds work. Everything, every word when used to described something is necessarily an attribution of purpose. Even a rock, as you will interact with a rock based on your expectations of it i.e. its outcome and so will manifest it purpose in that instance. It's inescapable and thus why IDENTITY is the core issue the West is struggling with. Why? Because if every word is an attribution of purpose, then every word you use to describe yourself becomes an attribution of purpose to yourself. Ergo IDENTITY is purposeful and in order for anyone to consciously manifest purpose, they must do so through behaviors. So an identity is a role, every single time. Yet, in the 1960's we destroyed the sex role for women and now 'woman' has come to mean nothing. Like clockwork, it was inevitable. All social justice is is the largest amalgamation of people who've severed identity from describing purpose. I invite you to read the treatise or watch the Etymology of Social Justice (which isn't a typo). Thanks for your time.

You will need to read the treatise in its entirety, should you wish to understand it in full. Every answer is there. Though you could just as easily watch the big 3 hour one. That'll cover the philosophical matters with little animations and everything. The Etymology of Social Justice will provide the particular answers you've asked here. 1) The further one is divorced from the realistic consequences of their actions, the more they're able to entertain beliefs that aren't congruent with reality. Though more importantly, the self-righteousness inherent to mankind as an effect of philosophical individuation (read the treatise) is something that can only ever be tempered. In other words, we learn more of reality not through investigation and revelation but through disillusionment. So we believe ourselves to be right about everything - up until we're proven wrong, which we then adopt a new position of self-righteousness all over again. This is demonstrated in science which recognizes this quirk of human programming. They remain agnostics in all things and endeavor to prove themselves wrong, as opposed to right, which they contend is fundamentally impossible. Basically, the self is our single foundation from which we view the world. As such, that foundation is taken for granted and what I mean by that, is that it's taken as true. The 'self' is always what's true to us. This is why every belief you have is what you believe is right. The very concept of rightness is self-referential. Again, take a read or watch to see why. Though to that point, the nihilism, relativism, and narcissism endemic to the Left is a product of that full-stop. Now, I won't say that the Marxist propaganda had no effect - it did. But it hardly infects anyone with something so consciously recognized as a philosophical or political or even moral position. Not even resentment is a motivation, as Stef appears to believe. Rather, Marxism allows for the persistence of terms without meaning. Though I believe I covered that. The phenomenon of 'special snowflake' and 'everyone's a winner' taught in public schools removed the criteria necessary to distinction. In this case, the distinctions of success and individuality i.e. being special. It then transformed them into hollow terms. With everyone being special, valuable, and everyone winning no matter what, the mechanism by which we develop distinction, philosophical individuation, was corrupted. This lead to the phenomenon of how nothing could yet remain valuable (covered in the language series) which resulted in the denial of individuality necessary to maintaining one's 'value' with regard to no criteria. I called this nebulization and yadda yadda yadda. So with self-righteousness a core of human consciousness itself (as argued in the treatise) shielding it from disillusionment allows for the phenomenon of nebulization to manifest which results in this Leftism we see today that I've dubbed antithesism. So it's an entirely natural, spontaneous phenomenon that manifests in different magnitudes based on what environmental pressures can or can't keep it in check. So abundance, welfare, things like that are able to catalyze it. Meanwhile, hardship, identity, and purpose are able to keep it in check. But fundamentally it all stems from self-righteousness and the denial of reality one must engage in to maintain it. 2) The treatment is to force those who've succumbed to nebulization to define terms. The oldest philosophical mandate there is, defining terms breaks their minds because it robs them of this nebulous, indistinct identity they've claimed for themselves. It also dissolves their camaraderie which has been demonstrated numerous times. The only belief they truly 'share' in common is that of a personal self-righteousness, resulting in similar behaviors though not bound through any mutuality - technically speaking. That illusion is what keeps them functioning as a collective. Severing that illusion, like Luther did when he translated the Bible, is all that needs to be done to shatter them like Christendom. You will note that nobody attempts this. As for the link between this and IQ well, the greater doubt of the high IQ individual facilitates philosophical individuation and so disillusionment. So their self-righteousness is far more tempered than low IQ individuals, which has already been observed. Though this raises the obvious corollary that women aren't technically attracted to confidence but rather conviction - which follows given mating habits of 'bad boys'. I was on vacation. Would've replied sooner.

I've done it! I've been exploring social justice at an intuitive level, attempting to discern some sort of universal human psychology that would allow for spontaneous manifestation. That's a fancy way of saying I've been trying to find something natural to humans that can create social justice without any outside influence. I've been entirely dissatisfied with Stef's contention that base desires like greed, envy, resentment and plain old failure can allow for the social justice virus to take root. Well, take root curated by propagandists and ideologues but I digress. No, I contend that this is entirely an internal process, requiring not even the existence of other people to manifest. I believe it to be an entirely personal phenomenon - which very much accords with social justice. Both with their narcissism and egomania but also with their projection. After all, the root of all projection is a belief about oneself, not a belief about others. So all that said, I located the source. I wouldn't be posting here after so many years otherwise. As the title suggests, it's been hiding in our language the entire time. Turns out, the dissolution of meaning in language isn't just an effect of social justice (or cultural Marxism, whatever name you have for it). Rather, that dissolution is responsible for each of their 'positions' and not the other way around. I use quotations though since through this perspective, these 'positions' are transformed ONLY into ex post facto justifications, rendering what you probably recognize as the core of the ideology as basically a denial matrix. In essence, what you understand as social justice is really a network of excuses that developed out of logical necessity. A logical necessity borne from a deeper, more primal axiom that necessitates these excuses, lest reality challenge and ultimately disprove it. One that they don't recognize but operate on regardless. To say it plainly, social justice is an enormous ex post facto justification acting as a defense mechanism, both for their own peace of mind and against external challenge to it. It is, practically speaking, a system of denial. That said, this is why addressing these ex post facto justifications is so ineffectual. You're addressing only their excuses, NOT the belief those excuses are designed to maintain. Their ultimate rationale as a SJW isn't predicated on these 'positions' nor are these positions properly concluded. I mean to say that they are arrived at only by virtue of necessity, not reason. Whether it's their economic foolishness, their political beliefs, their rampant sense of victimhood, everything. It all comes back to this single source found in the corruption of language. So I'll say it now and make the largest claim I can make here: I can link EVERY SINGLE SJW belief and behavior to this common origin with an uncanny consistency. Not because I'm some great intellect, but rather because it's the truth. It's so consistent because it's true. Period. I've been obsessively robust regarding this matter. Frankly, I wish I were just speaking big - I'm not. I'm more desperate to be proven wrong as this obligation, without actualization, is killing me. I need substantiation. I'd prefer to be wrong but dammit if I haven't figured this out. It even goes so far as to explain the nature of political binary and the nature of the Christian religion too. I'm sure you've noticed Stef's 180 on Christianity over the years. Well, I can provide the answer as to what Christianity is alluding to and for that reason, why it's been so integral to both maintaining and creating Western civilization. And why SJWs hate it so much. For those of you in the know, Christianity is an enormous allegory (metaphor?) to philosophical INDIVIDUATION (for the love of God, this is the answer to EVERYTHING). To that point, Jordan Peterson is correct when he submits that the Genesis story is explaining the manifestation of consciousness, given consciousness is predicated on, or the other way around, individuation. It's a 'Chicken and Egg' sort of thing at that point. The only reason I managed to figure this out is because individuation turns out to be the OPPOSITE process employed by SJWs. Or rather, their denial necessitated by their axiom requires them to take on the exact opposite process to individuation. You basically understand this as mere denial, but it's more particular, precise, and complicated. Think 'perfect denial'. Yes, such a thing exists and I call it 'nebulization'. If you're only interested in the axioms at work and their interplay, see this video (visuals included): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6ag4EA7xBw This will give you God, consciousness, and social justice on a silver platter. It's intuitive, given that was the methodology of my work. Also, if you're one of those math wizards, you'll notice that my presentation of the process of individuation parallels the construction of the Surreal Number System. I'm not going to state that my position has some mathematical proof to it, but it's absolutely the same thing. It's up to you whether or not maths and philosophy must remain separated. I admit it excites me, given the implications. Consider the following video an introduction covering the superficial concepts in a more entertaining format: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4yhY41WQmI If it means anything to you, I've shown my face and outed myself. I'm prepared to live honestly in that regard. This is as different and new as any theory out there, though of course I argue that mine is the correct position. So if only for curiosities' sake, I invite you to delve into this matter. I guarantee that at least one perspective you have will be replaced with something you consider to be more true. That alone is a benefit, I think. Moreover, you'll find that this hardly challenges anything you believe. Instead, it will add on it making you MORE RIGHT rather than proving you wrong. Basically, your observations and conclusions will be preserved. You'll just have a far greater understanding of those conclusions and their implications. You'll also know the kryptonite to social justice, free of charge. Take it. I owe Stef that much. So here are the two links you can best put to use: Entire Treatise: https://document.li/nDr6 Introductory Version PDF: https://document.li/I5oM Introductory Version Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enU3i68FcVg Listed above is a secondary introduction that's more in-depth than the video I posted prior, but if you're interested at all in my work, read the treatise instead. I admit that due to your understanding already, the first 4 chapters may come as a bit of a refresher albeit more in-depth, but I promise you nothing but revelation after that point. Truly, I have to set up a lot of dominoes before I can prove myself as thoroughly as I intend. When it comes to what I call Antithesism (the best label IMO), all should be made clear - and I mean that. To you, there will be no double standards, no hypocrisy or irrationality left in the social justice warrior. You'll understand their motivations to a tee. Nothing will seem strange anymore. Of course, I can only relate to you my experience of this perspective, but this is where I'm at. It's over for me. I want to bring you to where I am. I don't want some vain distinction. I want you to know what I know and if not here, then where would something like this find purchase? Please, read. Now, I can answer what questions you may already have, but if you've interest in a new perspective you're best to read the treatise itself. You'll find the answers in there and anything you find contentious in my reasoning, especially regarding the perspective of the SJW, remember that it is only how THEY need to think. It doesn't have to follow necessarily from reason nor accord with your particular understanding of consciousness or psychology. Yet from that point, the consistency must be maintained. I'm glad to be informed of any errors. Hell if I'm mostly right, I'd love this to become a collective effort of FDR itself. Show the world what we can do. Thank you for your consideration and don't give up.

Well they don't know this to be true - at all. Otherwise Stef and 'everyone' would cease being confused by these ideologues and attack their core beliefs rather than their ex post facto justifications for them; like feminism itself which is just an enormous justification for 'woman' as an identity existing without criteria. They'd also stop assuming that the 'identities' SJWs et al mention are in anyway the same as the ones we use which by definition describe an exerise of agency. In other words, they'd stop playing into the hands of ideologues and making futile their efforts. They'd also have discovered the logic of 'r' and 'K' before the science regarding it and outlined that logic before I. Nobody knows this to be true or at least they know the term 'bias' but have no understanding the breadth of it's influence and application. As a philosopher I give Stef way more credit than that so I must assume he doesn't know this already. That is, he doesn't know how ideologies are formed and their relation to an unspoken alliance according to self-righteousness and not the claimed content of the ideology itself. Furthermore he doesn't know that ideologies are predicated on the separation of identity from behavioral criteria and this engenders behaviors that define what is called 'socialism' and why it operates as an ever expanding hive-mind. No one I know has any clue Torbald. Did you read it all and miss the forest for the trees or what? I mean, did the entire summary just tell you things you already knew? As for the axiom bit, I'm still going to challenge you on that. Existence and rightness are nigh interchangeable in this context. That is, a 'rightness' with regard to the observation of one's existence and with that observation, how one observes themselves to exist. One must assume that their observation of their existence is 'right' or 'correct' in order to assume that one exists at all. Yes the act of even posing the question necessarily assumes 'I' or 'I exist' which is why I 'I am right' exists subsequent to it. Consider that 'I am wrong' applies itself to 'I exist' resulting in 'I am wrong that I exist' which is, of course, a self-defeating argument. There is no need to include 'as?' in the axiom. That is, no need to ask 'I exist as...?' since 'I' implicitly assumes the 'as'. Now I suppose logically it shouldn't, but 'I' is the self which is necessarily something or in this case 'as something'. That 'something' is ourselves as individuals. So just as the axiom 'I exist' exists without reference to an external comparison but is consistent, so too would be your claim (should you make it) that 'my identity exists' or '[Enter your name here] exists' or 'Will Torbald exists'. If there is some way to divorce oneself, one's identity from 'I', I would like to hear it. Otherwise I am pretty certain 'I am right' is an axiom. Furthermore 'rightness' doesn't require any reference to an external comparison given it only deals with the self ('I am right') and given that this rightness is based on nothing more than one's belief about themselves, said rightness is consistent with itself. Consider again 'I am wrong' in this context: 'I (who I am, my identity, my self, my 'soul') is wrong.' Except with regard to that. And that. And that. You get the idea. Also, 'wrongess' assumes the existence of alternatives, of other 'I's' or selves. What is 'right' or true doesn't require reference to any such alternatives. It merely must be, must exist in order to be 'right'. So 'rightness' can operate without reference to anything external while wrongness cannot. Ergo rightness or, as a whole, self-righteousness can exist as an axiom. This isn't to say such rightness is at all objectively true, but nevertheless exists as an axiom we all share. Also, the problem with claiming that 'I am right' is a mere bias is that it is absolutely impossible to challenge. It's not simply an inclination nor does it exist in a system wherein non-bias can even exist. It is the only belief one can hold with regard to the self. So if it's not an axiom and not a bias, what is it? Maybe I'm all sorts of wrong here and it is just a confirmation bias, but then obviously I don't understand how it isn't an axiom.

Oh whoops! I understand the contention. I didn't define 'axiom' in the summary. My mistake. I am using axiom not in the philsophical definition as follows: An axiom or postulate as defined in classic philosophy, is a statement (in mathematics often shown in symbolic form) that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question. The definition I use is the logical one: Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof (for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.) So the axiom exists without reference to or comparison to or contrast to anything. It is assumed true i.e. axiomatic. It isn't self-contained at all and really, that's the issue. A 'rightness' operating without any criteria. Said criteria is only found and used to justify the axiom ex post facto. It's the old observation that 'everyone knows that they're something, but they don't know what.' These justifications are called ideologies. It's why (self) doubt is so integral to learning and to science and why we needed to adopt it as a methodology. It's because a 'rightness' is always assumed. Self-righteousness is the default. Doubt isn't. Read on and besides it's like I said, I may be wrong when I claim that everyone operates on these axioms. But I've made one hell of a case that SJWs and Feminists and ideologues of all sorts certainly do.

So in having spent the better part of 5 years invested in the atheism, men's rights, and anarchist communities it wasn't until around 7 months ago that I began to catalogue my beliefs regarding these topics. Not to my surprise they coalesced around particular principles that I had been holding to and so engendered my involvement in these areas. Yet something I hadn't expected happened. I discovered a coalescence with regard to my enemies. That is, I found a link between feminists, theists, and statists though I quickly whittled that down to a commonality through ideological belief. Well of course right? But that commonality wasn't just that they were ideologues but that they shared the exact same belief in common. I had discovered a singular belief common to all ideologies that to do this day I've been unable to disprove. Quite a claim right? It was a few months later I discovered that with the addition of a single psychological relationship to identity, one could develop a conservative or liberal mindset. Fast forward another month and I am blown away by r/K selection theory and how it accorded with my own observations. Now granted my only exposure to r/K is through Stef himself so I am unaware of the entire breadth of the argument presented by Anonymous Conservative. Yet in Stef never mentioning this angle or rather this explanation I feel it is my duty to outline some of it here. Suffice it to say, I may have discovered the actual logic to the 'r' and 'K' mindset respectively. That evolution engenders these is almost without a doubt, but I contend that even as biological motivations, they actually rely on one logical axiom and then one more relationship to identity. That is to say, 'r' and 'K' are the result of a logic system that evolution is responsible for implanting. It is like computer code. The evidence for my theory which I will provide Stef albeit in a messy, first-draft form, is that it goes further to explain the phenomenon of social justice and feminism and the 'arguments' and perspectives they purport to have. When my theory is taken into consideration what they say makes logical sense though granted it must operate on a single false axiom from the start. From here I have begun to predict their response to current events with an accuracy that one would consider prophetic but really it's elementary. Again, quite the claim. Karen Straughan expressed interest in the material regarding the feminism aspect and she has been sent a copy. This is the best means I know of to contact Stef and the crew and so here I am. Now while I imagine I've made some mistakes in my own reasoning, the bulk of the treatise I've written is with regard to the logic system of the Left or 'r' demographic with the 'K' taking a backseat so to speak. If I have failed (should any discrepancies be discovered) in my attempt to establish this logic system as a necessary part of human psychology, that doesn't mean it isn't how the 'r' and 'K' operate regardless. It just means they're operating on faulty reasoning whose origin is unknown rather than entirely disproven. That there exists problems with both the 'r' and 'K' would naturally have us assume that their's is a faulty system of reason to begin with. But I digress. The summary is attached as a PDF file and was written for Karen in particular. There is also some conjecture regarding MGTOW and reference to a previous conversation we had had. These shouldn't confuse you but I want to make you aware of this regardless. This summary is about 15000 words and the treatise itself is about 100000 words. It's not as though it takes more than a few pages to argue my point but that the breadth of its applications are so vast I took the time to explore many of them. Now in the summary, given that it was written for Karen in particular, doesn't explore in full the claim that all ideologies are fundamentally founded on the same belief, but the greater treatise does. If the summary whets your appetite for it I will provide it with Mike's blessing (given the size of the file it too large). Though really, it's so elementary you'll figure it out yourself and kick yourself for having missed it. Or I'll tell Stef in an interview. It's so obvious and seemingly trite as to make you question your ability to think and observe the world at all when it's full influence is demonstrated. Stef said, though I'm sure he was quoting another, that ideology was the creation of arbitrary categories (or something like that). As it turns out I was establishing just that, save I had established that ideologies were axiomatic identities that existed without criteria. This will prove to be an important distiction. I guarantee it. All the best everyone and, should this argument prove useful, consider this my donation to FDR. Stef, you said getting therapy was payment enough but hell, I can still do more. Why not establish a logical axiom upon which all ideologies are based, the logic system for 'r' and 'K', and with that the 'key to the kingdom' with regard to human allegiance itself? This is going to make Bill Whittle's head explode. Or maybe I'm wrong. Only one way to find out. PS - The summary was written in the span of 36 hours so please, I needn't be shown any spelling or grammatical errors. There are plenty I'm sure. Summarization of Treatise.pdf

MGTOW definition: Men that seek to preserve their personal sovereignty (autonomy) with regard to and with an understanding of gynocentrism. No MGTOW is married. MGTOW and marriage are incompatible for this reason as personal sovereignty is relinquished in marriage to women and to the state. This is due to the conflating of the relationship between marriage partners and the contractual relationship to have and raise children as one and the same. They are not. The latter is a chosen obligation while the former is a voluntary association. Yet since the law designed to enforce the contractual aspect of marriage is carried over into the voluntary relationship between both partners men find themselves essentially wage slaves if they are married. Alimony demonstrates this carry-over quite well given it's a punishment based on the contractual aspect but applying itself to the voluntary relationship. This is why Stefan views alimony rightly as what is essentially ex post facto prostitution. Furthermore it is demonstrated in no-fault divorce as 'no fault' is a perfectly justifiable reason to end a voluntary relationship but not a contractual one. Until Stefan and MGTOW realize this conflation they'll be arguing at cross-purposes. Furthermore, it's funny you'd mention Spetsnaz as a MGTOW of a different sort than Barbarossa when Spetsnaz would tell you that he draws inspiration and much of his knowledge of MGTOW from Barbarossa.

Just had a thought and while it may not be original (might be though) I would be remiss if I didn't bring it to the attention of people that could do some good with it. I believe Stefan and everyone else arguing for the good in marriage and those arguing against it, namely MGTOW, are overlooking something integral to the argument. Here is the problem as I see it: A committed relationship and marriage are not the same thing. Marriage is a business contract to sire and bring a child to adulthood. The relationship between the husband and wife in lieu of that contractual obligation is a free relationship and should be strictly voluntary. We actually do recognize this with no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce, which ensures that one can annul a marriage at any time due to dissatisfaction, has erroneously applied itself to both relationships. With regard to the personal relationship yes, one should be able to end the relationship without fault. It is voluntary. It is merely a recognition of our right to free association (and freedom from association). But one should not be able to annul with regard to the child-rearing relationship without fault because it is a business contract and not a voluntary relationship. See the difference? Thus men are choosing not to marry (and/or arguing against it) because they recognize that the contractual relationship itself is absurd and antagonizes them in it's current state. The spousal relationship in lieu children on the other hand, a voluntary long-term relationship, remains appealing though. Given that the law and most people generally make no distinction between either relationship men cannot reconcile their desire for a voluntary commitment to a partner and the business contract of marriage to sire and bring a child to adulthood. It certainly makes the entire concept of love farcical when women insist on marriage (forced obligation) to prove one's commitment (voluntary dedication). In this way they are antithetical. This lack of any distinction sullies both relationships in the eyes of men which can be best demonstrated in alimony law. First though consider that child support is a necessary and warranted punishment/insurance for breaking your contractual obligation to sire and bring children to adulthood. This is sensible (except the laws are absurd but let's pretend they are fair). Alimony on the other hand exists as a punishment for breaking the voluntary relationship between both partners. Stefan correctly recognizing this practice as immoral and akin to prostitution because it is a payment/punishment for past association. Men (and some women) correctly view this as hostile to even the concept of a loving relationship but have failed (to my knowledge) to correctly identify it as a contractual punishment for what was never truly contractual i.e. the voluntary association between both partners. Therefore, my solution is to design a new contractual relationship that deals strictly with child rearing. The rest of the relationship must remain untouched by government interference and any contracts whatsoever. So for example no-fault divorce would be ended but in the recognition that the husband's and wife's relationship to each other in voluntary and divorce itself deals directly with the contract to sire and bring children to adulthood. Contracts will be drawn up dealing with child support, what warrants fault in the case of divorce, etc. The voluntary aspect of the relationship will remain unmolested. Then and only then will men choose to marry again because it makes the contractual part of marriage meaningful and sensible and also preserves the freedom of association of a loving relationship. So in essence, identify that the spousal relationship involves two relationships one of which is voluntary (personal association) and the other involuntary (through contractual obligation to raise children) and treat both separately by law and by us as well. When anti-marriage people argue with pro-marriage people both are arguing at cross-purposes. Anti-marriage people are right in identifying that a marriage (voluntary association with a partner) should be strictly voluntary. They are wrong however when they argue the same position for child-rearing contracts or simply throw the baby out with the bathwater. Pro-marriage people are arguing that the institution of marriage is essential to child-rearing (as a lawful obligation) and are correct in that regard but are incorrect when applying that same position to the voluntary relationship between both partners. Much of this contention between these camps comes from the conflation of both relationships as the same and this is made especially difficult when the same word, marriage, is used in reference to both. If you want to extend an olive branch between both camps, to at least some in both camps anyway, this is how you do it. Suffice to say, 'marriage' and 'marriage' aren't the same thing. Until then I think any further argumentation without reference to this is going to make either side look foolish and fruitless in their efforts because both sides are as right and as wrong as the other and any people swayed by their arguments merely deepen the divide and fill their ranks with those that don't understand the truth of what's going on. I hope that helps. I'll try and communicate this to the MGTOW community as well.

This youtuber, MatPat, is an expert with regards to growing channels. He can demonstrate how less videos can result in greater growth and even overall views per video. His channel views alone should be enough to back up his claims of expertise (besides the fact he advises large channels) since at 4 million subscribers he gets 75%+ views per Game Theory video. That's massive considering youtube stars such as Markiplier actually rake in less views that he does even though he has a channel 1.5x larger. Even PewDiePie can't compete with those percentages. Yes he has higher view counts but not higher percentages which is key. According to the system MatPat uses he will not, or at least attempts to prevent, subscriber burnout. He gets 75%+ of total subscriber views for each main video and he intends to keep that percentage locked as the channel grows. Imagine if Stef had those same percentages? In essence, MatPat is an expert in creating return customers. I suggest Stefan and the crew look into this if they haven't already and, should they see merit in it, consult this man on how to grow FDR. He may even suggest that the second channel actually hinders Stef's growth. Who knows? He's gone so far as to analyze the youtube algorithm and monitors it for any changes. He makes a good albeit quick case that playing the algorithm is key to getting views and what worked before a new update might not work now thus one must monitor it regularly. It's a scary thought that the distributor, youtube, could be unintentionally destroying your channel but it is a reality. Anyway, here is the video: Y'know, Stef's analysis of movies is fun, but perhaps he could attempt to do what MatPat does with his Game Theory show? Present an interesting theory and argue for it but in the realm of movies or popular books. For example, recall the post Stef had read about Harry Potter being a mental patient in a mental health facility called Hogwarts? That theory was interesting and dare I say brilliant. Mix in the sort of editing style that people appear to enjoy the most (use stock images, no talking head, etc) and this could make for an interesting addition to the channel. If the analysis of MatPat determines that Stef should make less of [X] type of video or space them out more, he will necessarily have more time for other things. We know that some shows are more popular than others like his 'Truth About' series for example. On that note I don't think Stef should address the title of the series in the way he does. It's called 'The Truth' but recently he's tempered that by calling it an opinion. Well, I think he would be better served to explain that, in using the methodology of reason and evidence, he has determined that this is indeed the truth. In calling it that it is left to us, the viewer, to prove him wrong otherwise we cannot claim that Stef's 'truth' isn't actually the truth given that he has adhered to the method by which we would determine it anyway. Suffice to say Stef isn't making a truth claim without evidence thus we can't dismiss it without evidence either. But neither should Stef temper his claim my calling it an opinion. To me the title of the series has always been an open challenge wherein to disagree necessarily requires we refute his reasoning and evidence and not merely his opinion. We can't just say, "That isn't the truth!" because we have no idea what the truth is ourselves. We cannot make such an objective claim. Therefore we must do our due diligence with regard to the topic in order to disagree or just shut up and refer to Stef's reasoning and the evidence he provides. I think making this point, though less harshly, at the beginning of each video would be effective at incentivizing others to investigate the topic themselves (hopefully bringing them to the same conclusion and thus subscribing) and for others to share it as a strong challenge to others. I can't be the only one who sees the title as an open challenge. I think that has a lot to do with it's popularity. Anyway yeah, something to consider for everyone and the FDR crew. Best to refer to an expert with regard to growing the channel until you are one yourself. I guess that's my advice.

When he actually accused her of irrationality that was my favourite part. It's not everyday an accusation of irrationality is itself such a sterling example!

While I want you guys to enjoy and discuss this video what I really want is for Stefan to do another video where he dissects a TYT host. Why this one in particular? Well because this will probably make the TYT viewership and TYT themselves the angriest and thus make the most noise to our benefit: "Stefan Molyneux the Anarchist Libtard Strikes Again in Support of Men's Rights!" It's this very form of enraged word-of-mouthery that brought Karen onto TYT in the first place no? I say why not? It's only going to take, what, an hour to respond to Cenk and without any prep? Better yet try and analyze his behavior given that he LOSES IT on her. There is more to say about Cenk's reactions than his arguments. As an aside, I reveled in the schadenfreude of seeing a man I used to admire being struck down by the very thing that had me leave TYT and progressivism altogether: men's rights. I even sent him an email long ago explaining that he should watch a few of Karen's videos. Today was just a super-duper day. Enjoy:

If you want the super short answer just watch Inception, perhaps again. People still argue what the movie was about but it's actually pretty obvious to me. I think. The movie is about what is takes to convince somebody. That's it. The two safes in the film are where each character's first principle is stored. DiCaprio changes his wife's first principle to, "I'm dreaming," which eventually drives her mad in reality. Whatever beliefs you hold are based on a first principle; many of them the same one but others not. My first principle, were I to represent it mathematically is 1=/=0. This equation is summed up in the all powerful word 'is'. What is 'is'? It's one not equaling zero.

DISCLAIMER: I couldn't talk about existence without hitting on the topic of determinism so, well my hands were tied. Any gap I left in the argument would get filled by either determinism or free will (individualism) so I had to tackle them. It's why I've put this disclaimer here to begin with and I'd hate to have any discussion removed for, well, a bias. If my ideas here are truly worth exploring then they're going to be explored elsewhere. I'd prefer if it began here though. If anything I've written were to be read by the FDR team this would be it if only because I haven't yet jotted down how self-sacrifice doesn't and has never existed in reality. This is the first time I've ever written any of this down and the first for many of these arguments too. I don't want it refuted, I want it refined. Hopefully there's enough truth in it to warrant that. If anything, holding to this position and arguing for it should make anyone on either side of the debate leave you alone. They'll never again ask you what reality is. They'll never again ask you what a concept is. They'll never again ask you what the difference is and they'll never again ask your opinion on it. FORWARD (yeah I put a forward in): This was something else. I don't know if I'm nuts or what but this should challenge, or entertain, people on any side of this question. I tied it into philosophy itself. I also used the term individualism as the opposite of determinism. It's not really but it better relates my point if I even have one. I just posted this through a sock puppet account under Stef's 'What is Existence?' video which I still have yet to watch. It's my understanding that the topic of determinism is a no-no, at least I think it still is. Believe me I didn't want to go there but as it turns out I may have, and I'll leave it up to you, added a little something special to whatever debate is left. Suffice to say when it comes to free will and determinism, both are correct, both are wrong, people who hold either view have never truly spoken to each other and, before you even ask, no I'm not advocating for agnosticism at all. In fact I advocate for both determinism and individualism operating at the same time and being mutually compatible. Bonkers right? I didn't think that's what was going to happen but it did. First on the point of requiring a creator, this is a product of humans having evolved with their recognition of cause and effect tied into their ability to recognize individuals and their capacity for thought and intention. This is paramount to understanding everything I'm about to talk about and it's informed quite a lot of my perception of the universe. I suggest you spend a lot of time thinking about that. So in other words, when we evolved the ability to recognize another person we simultaneously evolved the ability to recognize what effects they caused. This makes sense considering how we, even today, understand what another human being is by this very standard. We have words for their ability to both create and understand cause and effect like intention, agency, motivation, and so on. What went wrong in all this is that humans, especially primitive ones, saw intention in all effects in the natural world too. The wind was caused by another being because humans only understood effects as being caused by other beings. This belief that a being is causing all the effects in the natural world is none other than the belief in a god. This is why even atheists can claim a feeling that there is a being that controls and manipulates the natural world. It's a byproduct of our understanding of cause and effect. Taking this one step further, I doubt there is any other way to evolve an understanding of cause and effect given that without the concept of an individual, another person or being, every effect is caused by the universe and nothing else. There would be no difference between cause and effect. Humans and other animals would be perceived as no different than rocks or air or space. It would be a 100% deterministic existence. Second on the point of the mathematical code (physics) that appears to operate consistently through the universe, this is total speculation on my part but it makes sense to me: the universe can and only does work one way isn't a demonstration that it was coded specifically for a purpose or by another being. As the fallible humans that we are we can make mistakes. We are able to create models without full knowledge and understanding of the universe and thus errors are a part of every model we can create. Errors aren't a part of the universe however. They are a creation, a byproduct, of our individuality. Can a rock have an error? No. Can I add 2+2, get 5, and have that be an error? In my own mind yes, but the act of writing the numbers down with a pencil, the mechanical motion of my arm, the movement of electrons in my brain, the physical structure of every atom involved, all of these didn't falter even a bit. The universe doesn't have errors. See it's not a code. It's not, "The universe is a code," but rather, "The universe is is." In even the limited way we can understand the meaning of the word 'is' that's the universe. The universe is 'is'. Error only exists in concepts. Third on the point of why we have something rather than nothing, well the universe is binary...to us. What is the significance of a binary universe? Well it's both very simple and very perplexing. Take time now and try to define either existence or non-existence without the use of the other. Done? You cannot. They require each other to exist and in that they aren't really any different. I mean consider the statement, "Non-existence exists." It makes your brain explode. So on the point of the universe being binary, binary code, existence is 1 and non-existence is 0. Everything operates on binary because binary is how existence...exists. Is there any energy in [X] position or not? 1 or 0? Is there less energy in [Y] position or not? 1 or 0? The question isn't, "Why do we have something rather than nothing?" They require each other. What is existence? It's not non-existence. What is non-existence? It's not existence. Existence itself is the universe. Let's use the word universe this time: what is non-existence? Not the universe. Even in describing what non-existence is we require an entire universe to do so. So what it all comes down to is that the concept that we can have one without the other is a problem in our reasoning and nothing more. Again it's a byproduct of our ability to recognize and understand individuality. Without this we wouldn't see existence and non-existence as separate things. They would be the same. Of course everything would be the same as everything else and we'd just be deterministic. Cause and effect would be the same too. We'd be no different than rocks. Now, the true Big Question about the universe isn't why it exists but how a perfect system of reality, a singular...thing, was able to evolve the concept of individuality at all. In the entirety of the universe there was never a single individual or even the concept of it...until there was. How did a universe create a creature that then created the concept of a universe not existing which is so impossible the universe could not and will not ever create it? Even individuality comes with it the concept of one being separate from the universe. That should have been impossible. Hell, the first time humans divided by zero was a milestone in things the universe should never have created...yet did. If you found any of those questions interesting you missed my point entirely. Tee hee! Again, humans see the universe as binary. It's not really, but that's how we can understand it. Those questions I just asked were preying on our propensity to do this. Concept of the individual? Can't exist without it's opposite. The concept of an error? Same thing. Existence and non-existence require each other. To me the concept of the individual is as paradoxical as the concept of determinism. I contend that they, like existence and non-existence, require each other to exist. In fact, break down individuality and determinism to their most basic parts and you're just dealing with existence and non-existence all over again with regard to free will. The arguments for both self detonate and all either side is doing is arguing exclusively for one as if they are mutually exclusive. Consider these examples: I believe I am an individual. The universe is deterministic. The universe created the concept of individualism. Determinism created individualism. I believe I am predetermined. The universe is individualistic. I created the concept of determinism. Individualism created determinism. What I think all of this comes down to is that there is no example of an opposite in the entire universe since all opposites are a question of existence vs non-existence. What is the opposite of [X] position? It's not [every other position in the universe] or no position. What is the opposite of heat? It's not cold because it's on a spectrum. What is the opposite of energy? Not energy, which is just non-existence. Even our categorization of the universe, our attributing of INDIVIDUALITY to different mechanics of it, is wrong. Is there a difference between a particle and a wave? No. Matter and energy? No. THIS atom and THAT atom. No. When you're dealing with what the universe is outside of the concepts humans use to understand it (where the concept of objectivity is able to exist) it's just the universe. It's a singular '1'. There is no standard to distinguish what a particle is versus what a wave is. What the position of Jupiter is to the position of our Sun. The ability for humans to successfully interpret what reality is is what objectivity itself is. A successful interpretation is objective truth. It's not reality itself, it's just a small observable chunk of reality fed through the system of logic and reason producing a result that is able to appeal to others' logic and reason. The concept of objectivity itself can't be applied to the universe, just our understanding of it: 'Humans, possessed of their ability to conceptualize individuality, are able to develop an objective standard for their interpretation of a deterministic universe.' Weird I know, but I think that's what's going on. Both sides of the argument between individualism and determinism are trying to apply objectivity to the universe. You can't do it. All you can do is apply objectivity to concepts of the universe and, indeed, that is what both sides are doing. One side argues that the ability to think, reason, choose, [insert Stef's argument here], proves that individuality exists. The other argues that the concept of an individual is just that, a concept, and thus our actions in reality are at the mercy of cause and effect since we are no more than atoms at the whim of physics. Both are correct. What the person arguing for individuality is actually arguing for is that, 'our ability to successfully interpret the universe is objectivity itself.' He's right. What the person arguing for determinism is actually arguing for is that, 'reality isn't subject to or will change according to our ability to interpret it'. He's right. What either fail to grasp is that the only way to understand and interact with each other and the universe, to interact with whatever true reality is, is through concepts and thus objectivity is entirely exclusive to an interpretation of reality. It boggles the mind yet only an interpretation can be objective whether that interpretation is individualism or determinism or whatever. In other words, a thought can be true but not the truth of the thought. I can state in truth that I like ice cream but I cannot prove it in reality. The thought exists, yet the truth of it is unknowable. I require concepts like logic and reason to do so. As do you, not to mention a myriad of assumptions. Attempting to apply truth to reality is no different at all than asking questions like, 'What is the meaning of the universe?' or more trivially, 'What does it mean for the universe that I like ice cream?' Actual reality cannot be objective or true or any of those things. There is no meaning. It's just an 'is' as the Buddhists would put it. I understand that this sounds like an appeal to agnosticism but far from it. In fact agnosticism, instead of trying to apply objectivity to reality as individualists and determinists do, apply the concept of subjectivity to the universe. This takes form in the twin camps of those who claim nothing can be known of the universe at all and those who claim that our thoughts alone are enough to shape reality itself (infinite multiple universes). So to sum that up: 'Objectivity isn't a measure of the truth of reality but rather a measure of the adherence to themethod we use to interpret the truth of reality.' Objectivity is like the code used to compress a JPEG. Yes you lose information in the compression. Yes the image is of lower quality than the original. Yes the result is certainly not the original and cannot be reverse-engineered into the original. Yet so long as the coderan perfectly it was objective. A solid method, in fact the method, is all that has ever mattered in determining truth. We call this reason and logic and have turned it into the twin disciplines of science and philosophy. It is the only method for determining truth because running the code itself is objectivity. It doesn't matter what you believe but rather how you believe and I'm not just saying that to be quaint. I 100% mean it. In fact I dare say Stef, at some level, already knows this: 'Reason equals virtue equals happiness.' What someone believes is entirely a product of how they believe thus arguing over theproduct of a faulty method is entirely pointless. If you've ever watched a debate or heard the sentiment, 'You argue for the audience not your opponent,' you're already aware of this. You cannot change a person's conclusion without first changing their method. This is why, perhaps subconsciously, Stef always delves into why someone believes what they believe or asks about what they ask about. In this way he's the most effective debater on the planet (Disagree? Step up!) and perhaps the first to finally marry the remainder of the 'scientific' method (just the method really) to philosophy. It's not enough for Stef to prove that what someone believes is incorrect. He finishes the job and seeks to prove the all important WHY. Not why they are wrong but why they believe falsehoods. Philosophy you see doesn't exist to eradicate untruth. It does only as a consequence of it's actual goal that has been lost up until quite recently. Neither does it exist to pursue truth as that is for logic and reason itself. Did you never wonder, given their adherence to logic and reason, what the difference was between philosophy and science? It's described as 'thin' but it's not. The difference is that science uses logic and reason, operates the objectivity code, in the interpretation of reality. Philosophy uses logic and reason, operates the objectivity code, on itself. Why? ERRORS. God knows there are errors. If everyone's code was running properly we wouldn't need philosophy at all. So much truth is elementary and the rest can be left to science. No, what philosophy was meant to do, and what Stef does when he delves into why people believe as they do, is to eradicate false (not even faulty because there is only one) methods. Stef and others like him are debugging people. This is why, besides projection, people will label 'Stef's philosophy' (as if it's his and not just logic and reason) as a cult. It's because they recognize that it's not just peoples' beliefs that change but their entire methodology. However, given that such people aren't introspective (all introspective means is one's ability to recognize their own methodology including assumptions) they see another's intent in the change of the other person. They see Stef's intent - his 'brainwashing' - instead of a change in the method of the other person. Gee, now where do we have an example of people, especially the religious, attributing an effect to another's intent? That pesky byproduct of the recognition of individuality. You think religion is old? You have no idea. Hey quick question, "What's a false methodology called?" Answer: "Culture." This is why the religious can get along despite their texts commanding unbelievers be slain and even hate atheists more than anyone despite no atheist text or intention of harming the religious on their part. It's why statists at each others throats and blaming the worlds ills on each other stand in unison against anarchists. It's the method of belief that unites them. They can communicate an interpretation of reality they both understand and thus better identify with each other. When we speak to them we speak another language and, in fact, they find it threatening no matter what. Why? Philosophy is designed to correct and destroy these false methods. Philosophy is an attack on everything you believe falsely. Hell, is it any wonder we have the term 'mind virus?' That would make philosophy the anti-virus software of humanity. Last thought: consider that if our centers of logic and reason functioned on a level that could understand the entirety of the universe (which I believe would be impossible) the knowledge that '1=/=0' is sufficient enough to facilitate the entire understanding of said universe. In fact, that's what every single conceptual model comes down to. That's all math is. Everything we know is a product of that single equation and, fancy that, you need one in order to prove the other. Sound familiar? Existence =/= Non-existence. As for the original question, 'What is Existence?' Well I've defined existence as 'is' itself. What is is? Can you even ask that question? Is is... Can you even answer that question? I contend that you cannot. It's a paradox in the same realm as defining existence and non-existence without reference to each other. In fact it's the same thing. We just don't have a word for the opposite of 'is'. I suppose 'non-is' is the best we've got which should help demonstrate how this use of opposites is, again, strictly bound to concepts and not to reality. So to number all the super controversial things I've said: 1) The ability to perceive and understand cause and effect is a byproduct or is a necessary component of individuality. 2) God is the attribution of personal intention to cause and effect which came as a consequence of evolved individuality. 3) Attributing intention to cause and effect is necessary in order to evolve individuality. 4) The universe does not have errors. 5) Errors are strictly conceptual. 6) The universe is interpreted as binary by humans. 7) Existence and it's opposite, non-existence, cannot be defined without the use of the other. 8) The inability to conceptualize existence apart from non-existence by humans is why we interpret the universe as binary. 9) Individualism and determinism are paradoxical beliefs. 10) Individualism and determinism require each other to exist. 11) The reason the argument persists is that both sides assume they are mutually exclusive. 12) The are no opposites in the universe; only in concepts. 13) Attributing individuality to the mechanics of the universe is incorrect. None of it is separate. 14) Objectivity is strictly conceptual and cannot be applied to the universe 15) Objectivity is the successful use of the ability of humans to utilize the method of logic and reason to interpret reality. Objectivity describes the use of this method, not reality itself. 16) Humans, possessed of their ability to conceptualize individuality, are able to develop an objective standard for their interpretation of a deterministic universe. 17) Both sides of the determinism argument are trying to apply objectivity to the universe. 18) Objectivity cannot be applied to the universe; only the use of concepts to interpret the universe can be objective. 19) What the person arguing for individuality is actually arguing for is that, 'our ability to successfully interpret the universe is objectivity itself.' 20) What the person arguing for determinism is actually arguing for is that, 'reality isn't subject to or will change according to our ability to interpret it'. 21) Individualism and determinism is the application of objectivity to reality. 22) Agnosticism is the application of subjectivity to reality. 23) There is only a singular method to determining truth. 24) The singular method to determining truth is objectivity itself and when used properly it is said to be objective. 25) Reason equals virtue equals happiness is a rephrasing of item 24. 26) What is believed is a product of how one believes. 27) Arguing against the conclusion from one's methodology for belief does not change their conclusion. 28) Changing one's methodology for belief is the only way to change one's conclusions. 29) Stef explores why people believe what they believe in order to change their method. Their conclusion changes merely as a consequence. 30) Philosophy uses logic and reason not as an interpretation of reality but as an interpretation of itself in order to find and correct errors in the method. 31) People label philosophy itself as belonging to Stef and the change in people's methodology as brainwashing by Stef for the same reason they attribute the intention of a being to cause and effect. 32) Introspection is the ability to recognize and analyze one's own methodology for determining truth including one's assumptions. 33) Culture is a false methodology. 34) Methodology, objective or otherwise, is what people identify in others as camaraderie or as threats. This is why the religious identify with each other despite their incompatibility. The ability to be religious is the foundation to their beliefs not the belief itself. 35) Objective methodology is virtue. 36) Belief is irrelevant compared to method. Everyone identifies and interacts according to their methods and not their beliefs. 37) All conceptual models rest on the axiom that 1=/=0 thus existence does not equal non-existence is just another way of communicating 1=/=0. 38) The universe and existence are merely other terms for the word 'is'. 39) The word 'is' cannot be properly defined as a concept as it is the foundational axiom of all conceptual models and conception itself. 40) ' IS ' = [1=/=0] If anything this should have provided some zany reading while on the toilet. That's where I do most of my reading anyway. It's the best I'm going to hope for and hey, if I'm so off my rocker as to not even be correct enough to be wrong, well I'm just living up to my name.

Yup, I found the podcast at least. Thanks.

That's it. Why was it dropped from youtube though? Anybody? There is a specific comment I wanted to quote.

I'm not certain if it was the threesome one. Perhaps it was. I know it had something to do with the Dominant partner controlling her finances.

They're both not it. It was a call-in show.

From Wiki: BDSM is a variety of erotic practices involving dominance and submission, role-playing, restraint, and other interpersonal dynamics.[citation needed] Given the wide range of practices, some of which may be engaged in by people who do not consider themselves as practicing BDSM, inclusion in the BDSM community or subculture is usually dependent on self-identification and shared experience. It featured a woman being totally dominated both inside and outside the bedroom if I recall correctly.

I can't find it on youtube. I was hoping to give it a re-listen as well as read some of the comments. Thanks in advance to whomever helps me out! I suppose it's worth mentioning that it was a Call-In Show and not a podcast. I guess there's a difference?

The weird thing about shaming a man for the size of his penis is that you are shaming him for his supposed inability to pleasure a woman. You would think that the oppressive, woman-hating patriarch that Stef is according to some detractors would mean that he doesn't care whether or not he satisfies, but that he is satisfied. Honest to god, the 'you have a small penis' insult is one of the best ways to demonstrate what gynocentrism is. Literally, 'You are a loser because you lack the ability to please women'. That feminists will levy this at supposed misogynists demonstrates to me their cognitive dissonance. Then again, what a feminist thinks misogyny is is different than what it actually is.

From what I know of MGTOW having been one for a while, I have a special dislike for Rocking Mr. E. He is to me what statists are to the anarchistic part of me and for exactly the same reasons.