EUbrainwashing

Finding Cogitative Harmony in a Statist World The solution to the quandary of 'the state' is to see it for what it is: an illusion. 'The state' does not exist, it is only the sum of the people who act as though it is real, who believe it is real, that makes it appear to them as though 'the state' is real at all. Those who do believe that 'the state' is real, is indispensable, has good utility, believe also 'the state' is endowed with powers no individual, and therefore no group of individuals, can legitimately take upon themselves: the initiation of the use of force. Use of force in self-defence is permissible but use of force to exert one's will against others is never permissible except, apparently, in the imaginations of those who believe in the legitimacy and utility of 'the state'. It is not 'the state' that beats a protester, that steals goods from reluctant tax-payer, that kidnaps and imprisons a dissident, that goes to war, that bombs families in their homes. It is the sum only of the actions of the individuals who believe in 'the state'. Those 'statists' are lost in a delusion, true, but there are masses of them. It is a mass delusion! It is a mass delusion in a belief in a thing that does not exist but that they, the believers, believe does exist and that they believe has the right to powers that exceed those that are natural to a man. The believers believe the power of 'the state' is legitimately greater than the natural powers belonging to any individual, that 'the state' rightly has extra powers, that 'the state' holds the right to powers above the natural powers, that 'the state' rightly has a super-natural power. This sort of belief is a religious belief, an unquestioning dogma, a blind capitulation to an inevitable existence and legitimacy. And belief in this religion, the religion of the supernatural power that is 'the state', is so deeply ingrained in almost everybody, so all encompassing and fundamentally indoctrinated, it is a cult. A cult religious belief. Not 'like' a cult, it is a cult. So I do not want to add to the worries for you, dear reader. You have, no doubt, found all this 'stuff' you see wrong with the world, and, I trust, concerned yourself with seeking solutions; but if you are going to worry you may as well worry about the right thing! The solution we should be seeking is that we need to get rid of the false paradigm of the cult belief in the religion of 'the state'. For whilst we retain 'the state' we will never be free of the harmful effects caused by 'the state'. (Because the very existence of 'the state' is the cause of the greatest propensity of harmful effects). I accept: it is not so easy to see this solution, to the harm, as leaving an effective mode-of-operation for human society to function within. I know, I understated. To see this requires a pealing back of the multi-generational layers of statist indoctrination, from childhood, from school, from home, from life, from almost every direction. Indoctrination that we are all constantly exposed to. To realise, to learn how to see, that humanity is infinitely capable of finding solutions, good and proper solutions, without central planning and control, is to see that: not only would the problems caused by 'the state' be dispensed with, in its absence, but that the utility of a stateless human society is far more efficient, faster to react, more creative of wealth, more innovative, infinity more peaceful, more compassionate, more durable, infinity more logical, defiantly more enjoyable, more harmonious and on and on, without the illegitimate false utility of 'the state' utterly spoiling it all, life on this Earth, for almost everybody. Better still: you will also realise, upon reaching this conclusion, that you already are free yourself. That whilst 'the state' may try, and often succeed, in forcing you to need to comply, 'the state' can not force you to believe in it any more. 'The state' cannot make you believe it is moral, legitimate, truthful, necessary. And with that understanding, that understanding of your existing, innate, freedom, your sovereignty within yourself, with that understanding comes happiness. Anger occasionally, perhaps from frustration and such, but the happiness of being a free man, albeit for now in an un-free world still burdened with the primitive doctrine of rulers being necessary, but an understanding that brings happiness nonetheless. The leader of the most powerful sect within this cult religion however must be deluded unless he just knows it is a cult and is working within it simply out of some sort of pragmatism - which I sincerely doubt is the fact. Delusion and mental stability do not coexist well.

Everything we understand is seen to operate in a predictable rational manner: is natural. Everything we do not understand will also be found to be natural. Everything must have either a point of origin or be infinite. Everything that is not infinite must originate through a natural process, a natural system. This natural system, from which everything originates, must be infinite. 'Everything' includes the present universe and whatever caused it.Logically: all things flow from an infinite natural source (even one outside of the bounds of time and science as we vaguely understand them to be). This source must be consistent in producing a variety of causes and those causes produce consistent effects.Nothing can be 'supernatural' for, if it exists, it must be natural albeit just outside of our ability to understand or conceptualise (which would include: a concious, omnipotent, all seeing, perpetual, mechanism of creation that has a rational far beyond our comprehension and of which there is no evidence except, supposedly, the existence of the natural systems of the physical universe including life).

In regard to question No1 the premise being a generally false conclusion diverted from an interesting point: can property taken by force ever rightly belong to an aggressor or the subsequent beneficiaries of the aggressor's estates? Take for example the lands in Britain taken following the Norman Conquest from the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy - especially where there is good evidence from the Doomsday Book of who owned the land before the invasion of 1066 and who their heirs are today. Nemo dat quod non habet

Money and Currency - Money is a store of wealth that may be possible to use as a means of exchange and currency is a means of exchange that may be possible to use as a store of wealth. Definitions are important. *** Centralised control, whether 'the state' acting as if the market or, ostensibly, the 'market' acting as if 'the state', fails (as does tickling yourself fail to raise a chuckle). What central 'control' is supposed to do is 'sense and react' and therein lays the two fundamental problems: 1/. the input is always going to be faulty (how can such a system be sensitive enough, accurate enough, smart enough to take account of every permutation)?2/. the output is always going to be faulty (how can such a system be reactive enough, delicate enough, effective enough to take account of every permutation)?And that does not take account of the two secondary problems, (problems that would remain even if the system of centralised control, be it faux market or state, did not suffer from the two fundamental problems):a/. the centralised control is always going to attempt to manipulate the market by way of attempting to provide favourable conditions bias to suit its own agendab/. the faulty outputs and bias manipulation of the centralised control will distort the market away from the form it would otherwise naturally be drawn to. Centralised control treats the economy as though it is one big thing and that then all the micro commercial activities will feed from that initiative, as if little piranhas swarming onto whatever gigantic carcass has been fed to them. That may be fine for feeding identical fish but the economy is rightly comprised of totally disparate elements - it is an ultimately diverse ecosystem.The great thing about diverse ecosystems is that, left alone, they manage themselves. There is still a form of centralised control of economies but that is because: each and every element of the whole is a self regulating economy in itself. The effect of each element, free to act in its own best self interest, is that a system of each element's independent economy acts upon a plethora of spontaneous and autonomous sub-economies to effectively create a whole.It is not only imposable to replicate or replace the effectiveness of this type of system, it is unnecessary to try (unless the intention of influencing is for one sub-economy to do so in order to attempt to change the whole for reasons of self-interest). It is unnecessary to try to replicate a system of sub-economies because: since the sub-economy system is so refined and reactive it cannot be bettered for servicing the interests of the sub-economy system as a whole.There is no such thing as 'the economy', it is just a conceptual idea to explain the 'system of sub-economies' as a whole, just as there is not such thing as a forest, that is just a word for the conceptual idea of many trees, plants, animals living together in one place, symbiotically acting as a if a whole too.

Makes me seethe that the Police will readily perform such a ploy - the ultimate corruption. I would have liked William Becker to not have missuse the term 'anarchists' to describe the lawless thugs. Anarchism is just where there is an absence of rulers. That does not mean there is an absence of law. The violent thugs certainly took advantage of the momentary and clearly calculated absence of ruler lackeys (the police) but that does not make the thugs anarchists in the proper sense of the word. If there were no rulers the victims of the thug's predations would have been able to defend themselves and, the knowledge of that probability, the attack would likely not have occurred.

In question No2: the caller, in telling the story of the tragic episode that resulted in a car accident that killed five people, admitted he was driving behind and following the car that crashed. Well if his friend was driving at 70mph then so must he have been to be right there at the moment of the accident. What I would have liked to know is: was the caller driving at 70mph as well just to try to keep-up or were the two cars 'racing'. It sounds to me as though the caller could have contributed to the situation that caused the accident and if instead of 'keeping-up' or whatever had just dropped-back and driven safely. That would have taken the pressure off from the lead car to keep motoring along too fast to stay ahead. So I am thinking SM missed-out on this detail which, if he had picked-up on it there could have been a different process to the call and even the conclusion. My thinking is the called added to the circumstance that caused this accident. When I was a youngster, in the motor trade, I would frequently be in a situation where we would be driving in a convoy of two or more cars and we understood the ever present temptation for competitiveness, especially with young guys in quick cars, and understood the inevitably resulting risk. So it was a golden rule: not ever to race on the road - the opposite was the order: to drive to the highest standard of road-craft and show-off that skill instead (just as rewarding when you get it right). I do not think the caller can come to terms with this event until the contributing factor of the two car's racing is faced.

Because all your posts to this are just wittering on about 'theoretical maths' which I have never mentioned. Where am I talking about maths? I do not know what you are getting at so it is YOUR JOB to explain.You state 'There's nothing infinite in this universe' - do we defiantly know that the universe is not of infinite size? Can you verify that point for me please?

I could reword that statement to: 'Everything' includes the present universe and whatever caused it' - since I can see 'everything that came before it' infers a presumption for a continuation or sequence of things and an elapsing of present universe type time, as we vaguely understand it, taking place before the present universe came to be.What came before this universe could be apparently nothing and this universe itself be comprised of nothing too (which means: this universe is, in terms of net-sum, not so different to the nothing that existed before and caused it - just a different state of nothing).Since the 'everything' that came before the present universe could simply be 'nothing' and that 'everynothing' then comprised the natural source from which all things (or nothings) have flowed.I do not know what came before this universe (unlike may apparently behave as though they do) so my 'everything' has to be rather non-specific to encompass all possibilities including a non-state of nothing.

That all sounds nice and dandy for which I thank you since your comment that you did not have a 'clue' what I was writing about was false and erroneous.Clearly you did have a clue since I was writing under the atheism section and some of the words used must have made sense to you even if the order they were in did not. You did not give me anything of value to respond to.To say you 'do not have a clue' is only insulting my ability to communicate, warrented or not, and is not starting a conversation it is starting an argument. There is enough of that negative crap to be found on the internet without dealing with it here.Try this:Everything we understand is seen to operate in a predictable rational manner: is natural.Everything we do not understand will also be found to be natural.Everything must have either a point of origin or be infinite.Everything that is not infinite must originate through a natural process, a natural system.This natural system, from which everything originates, must be infinite.'Everything' includes the present universe, whatever caused it and everything that came before it.

Then why are you responding? Can you justify that assertion?(And my statement is not a belief but a logical deduction which I am happy to change if shown reason or evidence to the contrary).First Direct Evidence of Cosmic Inflationhttp://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-05

A. Where am I saying that?B. Where am I talking just about this universe?If this universe is not infinite what came before it caused it and will likely occur after it.

Since this 'infinite natural source' clearly operates outside of the bounds of time and science as we vaguely understand it to be I regret that I am not going to be able to meaningfully define it (but I'll let everyone know as soon as I can).I presume that the natural source of everything we can detect and imagine is infinite simply because I am not necessarily referring just to the universe as we know it, but rather the 'natural source' from which the universe came to be (if it has not just existed in one form or another infinatly itself).In other words: I am saying the source which caused the universe to come to be (and perhaps even time and space) will be a natural source of some sort and if that source was itself created in some way then something must have existed to create that, ad infinitum.

What is a eurosceptic? The very word is overtly reminiscent of Newspeak. Hog-wash I say, the term is nothing less than pure EU-brainwashing terminology. The EU can define all the bla-bla-bla terminology they wish for between themselves, but they may not cook-up that which describes their dissenters. That's for me, and my like, to define. I am an EU dissenter, I am an EU atheist. I am NOT an EU agnostic. To describe anyone and everyone who is not just a lock, stock and barrel EU zombie (or grubby-fingered benefactor) by use of such a handy little catchall catchphrase terminology as 'skeptic' is more than just a lazy writer's falsehood. It is a contribution to the EU's PR brainwashing agenda. A cog in the grinding-wheel, consciously granted or not. The term 'skeptic' is a detractor devised to takeaway any depth of objection from those who call-out against the imposition of this undemocratic tyranny to which our so called political representatives fain nothing but the most feeble and tepid of stances. Skeptic - a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions Doubt - a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction - archaic fear; be afraid Rhetoric - the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques - language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content

Granted. It is true: if I got the opportunity to rule the world, I would take it and by day three I would probably be strutting around in polished riding boots planning my next palace.

To be generous to ourselves I think we are using discussion to help form and better our thinking, by striving to consolidate and express our own thoughts and then by exposing them to the appraisal and correction of others (as indeed you say of yourself in your truth tag-line).