Malovane

Well, it's hard to ascertain anything with certainty about the life of humans before recorded history, but we can take a look at various tribes that exist today to see how they may have operated. On your points: 1. Probably not true for all, or even most tribes, since the males typically had a monopoly on force over females - and even the weaker men. In some current African tribes, you'll find that they pretty much gang rape the women, and this is considered pretty normal. 2. Physical and emotional coercion developed as a survival tool. Being in a tribe was probably more along the lines of being in a screwed up family in severe poverty. 3. True for all of history, really - though we're getting closer to the possibility of absolute control. 4. Many tribes enslaved members of other tribes. Many still do. 5. Yes. Research shows they often split when the local area can no longer support the numbers they have. A couple incidents I've read about indicate that they might leave in pretty bad blood fairly often, as they had been fighting over the scarce resources. 6. Yep - lots of war. Quite territorial. Again, this can apply to internal politics as well. Some tribes are peaceful (like the South African bushmen), but plenty of others don't really abide by the non-aggression principle. Even without a chief, they still form internal alliances. 7. Sometimes, probably. Most current inter-tribal wars deal with gathering fresh women and food (the latter of which might include people). 8. Hard to say. For many South American tribes, pretty much all of them accept that being raided by other tribes (and raiding other tribes) is just a fact of life. It's their mechanism for maintaining the health of their tribe. Tribal life could be considered anarchic. But it would probably best be defined as a more socialist-anarchist environment.

Considering that the Pope came out in 1950 and said that the theory of evolution wasn't antithetical to Christian doctrine, I don't think Catholics would object to it overmuch. They haven't been literal creationists in centuries, and never really had a doctrine saying that it should be taken literally, rather than allegorically. It was purposefully left open, because even the founders of the Church were dubious about the story of Genesis. The small myriad of young earth fundamentalist churches out there already know this about the Catholics, so they probably wouldn't say much. I would, however, expect reactions from people who attended Western leftist indoctrination camps, known as public schools, to think this was some radical deviation from Catholicism, which it is not. Gregor Mendel was an Augustine monk, for gods sake.

One of the reasons I don't read Cracked anymore. What used to be a collection of somewhat humorous articles on offbeat topics has turned to something else. For a while, it seemed every other article had some weird snarky remark against Ayn Rand, or Atlas Shrugged - that seemed very strained to inject. Even if I wasn't a Rand fan I would have been puzzled by the inserts - they were that out of place. Now it seems to throw out a few articles a week that are full blown socialist propaganda, heavy on ad hominem, well poisoning, and very light on facts or truth. Much like the article in this thread.

My god that would be awful under the current power dynamic: What entity owns most of the land capable of producing gold in the United States (and is gobbling up more and more)? What entity has proclaimed dominion over all bodies of water within the United States, where gold can be found? What entity owns the largest gold reserve on Earth? What entity currently controls the reserve currency of the world?

Decent human beings are often the targets of people who like to exploit that decency - like narcissists and other sociopaths. I personally find it totally appropriate for anyone to check out publicly available information on someone - such as what they post on Facebook. Once you post to a public site, it ceases to be "private" and an invasion of "privacy" when the public views it. This is not hard to comprehend. I would actually encourage such information gathering, to an extent. If the other person has seriously opposing values to you, has conflicting stories, or has blatant problems, it would most likely be a waste of time and effort to even go out on that first date. Assuming you are looking for a relationship, that is. The only part where I think this would be immoral is if someone tailors their approach or personality to the public information of someone else to appear more attractive to that person. A nice thought, and can work well if you have a great degree of self knowledge and social instincts. However, what many people are attracted to, and get turned on by, is the absolute worst thing for them. Narcissists, for example, can make you feel great, for a time - then come patterns of control freak manipulation and domination. The anima of a man and animus of a woman can get corrupted over time - leading to uncontrollable attraction to dangerous people.

This is not true. From the Kickstarter website FAQ :

Well, the US civilian labor force stands at roughly 156 million people. This includes legal adults who are not imprisoned or going to school, and not of retirement age. The current labor force participation rate is roughly 63%, or in real numbers - around 98 million people. State, local, and Federal government employs 22 million of those people directly. This isn't including contractors, which is estimated to be around 2 million at the Federal level, and unknown at the State and local levels (think of all the road construction crews and the like). We can probably estimate 26 million people work for some local, state, and federal agency. So, the private sector is roughly 72 million people. That means there is roughly 23% of the population producing private wealth, and around 31% employed when you throw in the government employees. So, whatever way you look at it, less than a third to a quarter of the US is working for the other portion in some form or another (and I contend that government workers provide dubious, if not outright harmful, services). Now - the US GDP is roughly $16.4 Trillion, as reported by the Federal government. What most don't realize is that this includes Federal, State, and Local government expenditures - which comprises 40% of the GDP. If you simply cut that off of the GDP, you're looking at a $9.9 Trillion Private Domestic Product. but wait - where did the government get the money for that 40%? They take it from the Private sector, which is, in the end, left with around $3.3 Trillion, or about $45k per private sector employee. That's not a lot when you want to grow a business and/or feed a family. Add into all of this that the American economy is largely based on selling each other shit the Chinese make, and banks playing with numbers, you can see we're pretty screwed.

Can't act human? Domesticated cattle, like the majority of animals in the world, do not have the capacity to reason, or affect the world in any meaningul way other than eating and pooping. As such, there is no capacity for a deep and intimate relationship between cattle and humans. These animals have been bred as food for thousands of years, and likely wouldn't exist without humans having done so. Sure, one can empathize with these animals, as they're social creatures. It's one reason that ranchers do not allow themselves to name their animals - it's much more difficult to slaughter them. If you want to go down the route of empathizing with food sources, put down that celery and lettuce. Science has shown that plants feel pain and stress as well, and even communicate with each other when being harvested. You won't have a lot of choices on what to eat. Fruit, milk, nuts, and honey are some options. But under such a diet, your health would suffer. For myself, I'll continue with my practice of eating cows, lambs, pigs, chickens, rabbits, buffalo, and whatever else I feel my body needs, and be grateful for it. Until, that is, we are able to mass produce synthetic foods that satisfy nutritional requirements.

If you are talking about the impact the cattle might have on the desert tortoise, you might be surprised to know that tortoises eat cattle dung. This actually comprises a significant portion of their diet: https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/viewFile/10776/10049 As ranching declines in the region, so does the numbers of tortoise. Now, as for the "bureau of land management", they have been actively killing the same tortoises they state they are trying to protect due to "budgetary constraints". If you are talking about possible threat to vegetation, there was one point in the 1930s where land became overgrazed in Nevada, during a drought. This was bad, and many cattle died. But normally, herds simply keep the deserts trimmed of brush - which can cause massive brush fires that threaten all life in the area. The reality is that the simple act of grazing his cattle on this land is maintaining it, and generating life. Now, contrast that with what the BLM are apparently trying to do in this area, which is to give the land to a company to build a solar plant. Sounds green, right? Unfortunately, no. The plants they are building now are not based on solar cells, but rather on arrays of mirrors that heats water. What is the effect? Lots of animal death, seeing as the air temperatures can hit 1000 degrees: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304703804579379230641329484 They also use vast amounts of water. Obviously a precious commodity in the desert.

Well, the founders of the United States viewed "rights" a bit differently than other countries do. Following John Locke, and a handful of libertarian contemporary philosophers, they settled on the idea of natural, or god given, rights. Tyranny can always be resisted, was the thought - if there is a will, there is a way. The US 2nd Amendment is simply a recognition of that fact, though the current US Federal government doesn't seem to recognize it as much as it used to. Indeed, it was only a few years since the founding before they started treating the Constitution as more of a "guideline" than a set of rules. Lincoln virtually annihilated it. Now, virtually every day there's some crazy story about Federal abuses. It's true that the libertarian philosophy runs deep in America. The majority of those people labeling themselves "conservatives" in this country have a libertarian streak. Many "independents" do as well. Questioning "authority" has been an integral part of American culture for a long time. However, this culture is changing in some extremely unhealthy ways, and the sources of the assault are vast. Confidence and achievement are being replaced with narcissism. Hard work is taking a back seat to taking a welfare check. If people do work, they mostly just compete with their neighbors, going into deep debt for the newest toys. Valuable and genuine relationships have been replaced with 1000 "friends" on Facebook. People call the state to use force if they get too much salt on their hamburger. A bulk of the populace is drowning in cortisol during the day. We're generally living the plot of Atlas Shrugged on a day to day basis. I did a quick peek on some leftist sites over this recent Bundy standoff. You would probably be surprised to see how many people were advocating the immediate massacre of the protestors, without even listening to the reasons behind it. Naked, raw, unadulterated fascism. Our government is rapidly shifting to this footing, and using every tool in the book to do so. Constitution be damned. Now, with modern technological advances, particularly in computing and behavioral sciences, we are entering a very trying time. We could easily be swallowed by total authoritarianism. There's a big chance that this would be, regardless of the human resistance to such a thing, a permanent situation. On the flip side, we have more of a chance to create a truly free society than we have ever had before. Will America have a civil war/revolution in the near future? With as much anger as there is out there, signs point to it being very possible. However, if the populace overthrew the Feds (which they likely would), there's no guarantee that a "better government" would necessarily take hold, or that a free society would form. The global economic collapse that would result from such a war throws such chaos into the mix as to make the outcome unpredictable. It's far preferable to hold a cultural revolution - though our time is running a little short.

One thing I'm reading right now is Self-Therapy: A step-by-step guide to creating wholeness and healing your inner child by using IFS. It's by Dr. Jay Earley. Still reading it, and haven't done the exercises so I can't comment on the effectiveness for myself, but it does get very good reviews, and I can see how it could be effective. It is based on parts theory (which I am a believer in), and can be done entirely by yourself, unless you have had some severe trauma. The basic theory is that we are all comprised of parts. This method splits them up into three main types: Self, Protectors, and Exiles. Self is that part of us we have when born, and it is naturally curious and compassionate. Most work in this version of IFS is done when in this state, by separating your "self" from other parts - and having dialogues with those other parts. Protectors are your defenses. This could be aggression, avoidance, intellectualism - you name it. If you have an abundance of internal dialogue - these are your protectors. Some may be healthy, and others may not (and can cause strife in your outer world), but they all serve to protect you from pain. Exiles are parts of yourself you have locked away due to bad experiences. Shame, neglect, emotional abuse, etc. This could be from childhood, or even from recent events. The point of the exercise is to understand your protectors, accept and reintegrate the exile, and transform your protector into a more positive role. A lot of energy in the psyche is spent keeping the past buried, and much emotional energy is tucked away along with that. Going through processes like these, many have reported resurgences of creativity.. old desires reawakened, and more. As you have stated that you wonder what you would say to your child self - this book might be helpful to you. Primarily you need to just be understanding, compassionate, and inquisitive. Your "child self" (and in this form there are many) should usually give you indications of what it needs.

Dang, can't see the link. As for Stefan singing Floyd - it's apparently in the "silver" files section.

Well, music is an incredibly powerful tool for broad communication, when the time is ripe for it. I would imagine that with all that is going on in the world, people will soon need some truth passionately belted at them. I wish you the best of luck, especially if you have influences such as Maynard and Pink Floyd. Two of my favorites - got a link to your project? Perhaps Stefan would be amenable to using some of your music. I did listen to a short podcast of him singing "wish you were here", after all.. As far as him getting cold, I can see what you're saying, though I haven't seen that particular video. That can happen when you think in systems, and compare reality as it exists to the ideal. I believe you are right - he should realize that shame is not the correct path to reach those people, and if he uses that tool he contradicts his own values. Just paint the vision. I would say in his defense, however, that for what appears to be an xNTJ he seems quite passionate about people and able to be quite intimate - which are typical difficulties for that type.

The Quran doesn't have many passages on slavery, though Mohammed does endorse sex with slaves as "lawful and good", amongst some other gems. The Hadiths are a bit more complete, and full of rules on dealing with slaves, like: Unbelievers could be made slaves if taken in war. Raping slaves is good, though "coitus interruptus" with them was not. Slaves cannot marry, unless arranged by the master. and much more.. by all means, read it yourselves. This was all codified into Sharia law, along with reams of new rules. As a result, it became a massive and monstrous institution, particularly by the Ottomans, which at times had armies made out of eunuchs (horrifying when you think a very small percentage survived the process) and vast harems. Stefan was quite correct in his assessment of slavery in the Middle East, and I'm a bit surprised he didn't go into *why* it was worse in the East than the West a little more than he did, since it hits on some core principles.

Well, INFPs and ENFPs are an eclectic lot. Easily the most free-spirited of the MBTI. You never can tell what floats their boat. You all seem to be snowflakes, which is what humans should be in my estimation. They are both strong in Fi (introverted feeling). This is primary within INFPs and secondary within ENFPs. Introverted Feeling deals with personal preferences, beliefs, and morals. If they feel strongly about a particular belief, or particular creative activity - there is little anyone can do to shake them of that. It's not simply a part of them, but "them". Extraverted Intuition is the secondary process for the INFP, and primary for the ENFP. This is a very creative process, which takes somewhat random ideas and throws them together in an experiment. It often leads to great humor, interesting art, and bewildering conversations. But, all I've met seem to be freedom loving. If INTJs and INFJs had a rallying cry, it would be for truth. For INFPs and ENFPs it would be for expression of self. That said, it's hard to say you're in the wrong place. Out of curiosity, what attitude did Stefan present on people and artists that you disagree with?

Well, first I would ask the obvious question "why do you think I am unreasonable?", or "in what instances have you noticed that I have been unable to respond unreasonably?". Then I would listen empathetically to their critique, and study the story that they present. From there, it's hard to say.. Are they trying to get you to do something, or believe in something? Could you possibly give some context behind this scenario?

Bear in mind the time this was written, and the era it was set (somewhere between the 1930s and 1950s). While Dagny was more qualified, she was a woman. James probably inherited the bulk of the company stock for that reason alone.

I do believe you are correct. I've been dealing with chronic fatigue and pain for many years. My childhood wasn't great (narcissist psycho for a father), and my early 20s were probably even more scarring. Like most people, I simply repressed the emotions and tried to forge ahead. I believe this did induce long term pain, and that it's your body saying that you need to resolve an issue. Becoming completely independent reduced the pain and fatigue quite a bit, much like your case. Being around toxic people can take a toll it seems. About to start some of the "Home Coming" exercises by John Bradshaw to see if I can resolve the remainder. A little weird and uncomfortable, but worth a shot, eh?

No, it's not a coincidence at all, particularly if you get into Jungian cognitive theory. INTJs and INFJs share the common dominant cognitive function of "introverted intuition". Basically, what this function does is take various models from your subconscious mind that have been forged by past experiences, and whenever something does not "fit" the worldview, the mind kicks in and tries to understand. This manifests in attempts to find a solution, or simply to understand the truth - and derive a single unifying principle toward that end. Both of these personality types truly excel at understanding systems for this reason. Many INTJs I have met are fiercely individualistic and often trend toward objectivism (like Ayn Rand), though the cynical can come up with some awful solutions (like Karl Marx). While INTJs more often focus on science and engineering, they can really step in and take a whack at human systems when they feel the need. With their secondary cognitive of extraverted thinking, which stresses organizing the external environment, they can be a real catalyst for change if motivated. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a fair INFJ community here, either (I am one, after all). They share the individualist bent of INTJs, and can be highly idealistic - and very passionate about those ideals. See Ron Paul, Calvin Coolidge, and Thomas Jefferson... Most of the other personality types simply aren't interested in philosophy, or if they do - they trend towards moral relativism. So, yes - you're going to have a large sample of INTJs and INFJs here, which are actually quite uncommon in the West (1-2% of the population).