Donnadogsoth

Check out Bruce K. Alexander's Globalization of Addiction for a detailed description of psychosocial dislocation and how it relates to the free market society. We are a civilisation of addicts: food, sex, money, gambling, adrenaline, you name it. We are not balanced people anymore (as the bathroom scales testify) and it is largely due to free market society atomising us, taking away the binding elements of culture. We don't have a culture anymore, we just consume cultural products. http://www.brucekalexander.com/

A free society would be to a large degree a free market society, which would be massively psychologically destabilising and productive of addictive behaviours. The counter to this would be culture, as including all the things which bind people together into an organic whole, a positive whole rather than the negative whole of mere money/use value. Beyond this, the society would eventually cease to function without the development of the population's creative mentation, so the culture would for long-term success be developing that. So we have the non-aggression principle, we have the ligamental principle, and the creative principle. And dozens of other principles would be added into that as part of their unfolding, but those are the main three. Such a society, which proceeds to freedom through beauty, would monitor the upbringing of every child, to see whether that child was being developed mentally or not. A family that was intentionally retarding its children's progress would be viewed akin to preventing them from learning to read. The child is not the parents' property, it is its own (human) individual, and so its interests are in part the interests of the society as a whole. A calculus would have to be developed for determining whether or not a child was in danger of losing its education, its culture, or whether it is merely being exposed to harmless idiosyncrasy (e.g. John Denver music). If I were not educating my child in terms of principle, of understanding principle, of science and art in particular, that would be the equivalent of me not teaching them to read. That would be a black flag on my social record, because I'm denying my children access to the wider world--denying them the chance to be creative. As long as I were teaching them that, to read, to discover principle, then anything else I taught them would be secondary and much less likely to incur action (removal) on the part of society as a whole. Certainly the removal of Christians' children on the grounds they were being taught Christianity would not be valid grounds in a free society as I have just described it.

Creationists should have trouble with the chameleon. They might think it is their friend by being so unlikely, but its ocular arrangement's very rarity avers against Creationism, for, if it is so useful, why aren't all animals like that? Evolution explains that it is an experiment conducted by Nature, not an engineering principle adopted across the board. Could the human hand be based on the Golden Section and thus beautiful in a way that a six-fingered hand or a four-fingered hand would not be?

Spice it up: If you're an Ancap, do you take the diamond?

Nations provide psychological stability. A purely free market society would be an atomising nightmare of psychosocial dislocation. Addiction rates to healthy, and increasingly unhealthy, behaviours would go through the roof. Nations bind people together--look at what happened when the North American aboriginals had their nations forcibly deleted, they became vulnerable to drug addiction in a way they were resistant to before. And I'm not bashing them, they're making strides in getting out of that condition, but I'm pointing out that when we lose a whole greater than ourselves, we collapse into spiritual poverty. "Free market" ain't a whole greater than ourselves, it's just $$$.

Why couldn't nationalism be "forcefully expansive" using the power of peer pressure? Would the end result differ much?

Astute observation, AccuTron. Is that an excuse for bringing in millions of aliens who "don't get us"? Or is the fact that feministed women no longer ask for male protection, including the protection of cultural standards allowing them to be distinguished from prostitutes, an excuse for ignoring the problem? I think the relevant point is that not only are we importing a rape culture, we've got a crop of degraded females who have been encouraged not to look for (white) males for protection from rapish aliens. As long as it's Islamoids doing it, it's OK.

My God, are we that far gone? Sweden is xenophilic, it seeks to import and sleep with as many aliens as possible, to the point that it is endangering its racial and cultural and religious and linguistic existence. That's suicide. And this "teach aliens to shoot" program is obviously part of that process.

Good post and all, but states don't have to be suicidally xenophilic. Just sayin'.

What do you suppose is the biggest factor in suppressing "explicit whiteness"--whites thinking and talking in explicit terms about their preferences to live among their own kind? Many whites think "implicitly white" whereby they'll execute white flight for example, but the "I prefer white people/white neighbourhood," or even the tamer "I would only date a white person" is still verboten.

The femiblob is oozing into Science... Even science is under attack by the Thought Police

You underestimate the mutational adaptability of Christianity. It has been on the ropes many times before and always come back at the last hour to rise to greater strength. It is still coming to terms with Science but when it has it will engulf Islam and Secularism and leave only the bones.

Oh God help us, Stephen Hawking is going to be our new Pope.

On the contrary, it's a universe without a Creator that makes no sense. Everything came from nothing for no reason? Or temporal things are somehow eternal? No, these are absurdities. I think you may be having difficulties with a God because you are essentially a materialist, in that you believe in what you see as the final reality. God isn't there, as such (no burning letters in the sky or what have you), and so you dust your hands and conclude there's nothing there at all. This is of course an unprincipled position, but if you're anything like the general tenor of this board you're clinging to a single principle (N-A-P) and have shovelled all the others into the wastebin. This begs the question of why we shouldn't--like the proverbial atheist who is merely one-god-less than the theist who is atheist for all the other gods--shear ourselves of that last principle and simply do as we wilt. I know God exists because principle exists, because we have a Heaven of principle and an Earth of process. The process is the result of substance, of efficient cause, and the origin of these substances or principles begs the question of who ordered them. Not everything is necessary--was the principle of sufficient reason necessary? Is the orbit of Ceres necessary?--and so there needs an Origin to explain them. Only an unimaginative fool would shrug off the necessity of God as the explanation for the existence of the Universe, the existence of principle, and instead merely presume that the sensuous cosmos is all there is, as if the senses were somehow primary rather than being shadow-play cast by principle into our minds.

As per Leibniz, God is, indeed, bound by the principle of sufficient reason, which applies to some things by the application of the principle of contradiction, and to others by the principle of perfection. That God conforms to these principles, well, you can say he's this or that, but he remains the Creator. Were you hoping for a logically contradictory Creator?

Are most communists capable of grasping what a performative contradiction is? Just because they're communists doesn't mean they've sunk their teeth into Marx at any depth.

You're not even trying. You're not young. You're old and settled like concrete. First, that man is made in the image of the immaterial Creator is an old, old understanding that only literalist dingbats would ever conceive of trying to gainsay. Second, who says the human body is a mess? Its a stunning example of workmanship and if it has its flaws, well, so is the flaw that it is mortal. I don't have any problem with choking, nor with my plumbing being the way it is. These are trivial and absurd bones of contention thrown into the arena by people too lazy in their agnosticism to even try to consider what is being told to them. If you don't see my indication of principle, of the need for principle, of the principled distinction that principles make between man and ape, at this point I don't see how anything I say could pierce your agnostic armour. Mores the pity but I won't waste any more time on you.

Why don't you?

Talking about mind, not body. Heaven not earth.

"On the outskirts of a meaningless galaxy" etc., is the old canard about how somehow we are insignificant because we are small and our sun is common and we are not in the dead centre of our galaxy. Which is all irrelevant and foolish, harkening back to colloquial definitions of beauty akin to crystal spheres and the like. A drop of cyanide in your milk is small, that doesn't mean it is insignificant. Your heart is off-centre, that doesn't mean it is insignificant. Humans are common in Chicago, that doesn't mean they are insignificant there. Your other critiques are agnosticism run amok, hinging on not grasping the nature of humanity as being made in the image of the Creator. That is, there is "heaven" and "earth". "Heaven" is the realm of principles or natural laws, "earth" is the realm of the senses. Every known created being dwells on earth, except for man, who is capable of dwelling in heaven. We can discover law, and introduce it into play thus creating otherwise-impossible manifestations and patterns on earth. Most specifically this refers us to our ability to increase our power over nature and thus our power to survive in the Universe. That is being made in the image of the Creator. Deny this, and one signs mankind's death warrant in this hostile Universe.

Yes, yes, we know, nothing created everything for no reason.

The opposite of deception is principle. I view principles as a sailor views stars: they are to navigate the waters of inky ocean by. If your “space alien” originated the Universe, the Earth, and you, then it would be the Origin, and God. A “god-dependant reality” would we one where the highest chance for good outcomes would be to obey God. On Christianity, if we understand the simultaneity of aeternity then we can understand how Christ (0-33 AD) can be said to have existed "from the beginning" and "still lives." Consider the following work: An Evening in the 'Simultaneity of Eternity' with Shakespeare, Keats, and William Warfield by Dan Leach http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/013_poetry.html

It's a conspiracy one way or another. The elites and their lackeys have conspired to swamp the West in nonwhites and to reduce white birthrates while alienating men from women and stamping out nationalist sentiment that would embolden the men to defend their women from the nonwhites. The question is what can be done. Holding our breaths awaiting the Glorious Worldwide Ancap Revolution (GWAR) will not turn off the immigration taps, only a mass push to reclaim national--and continental--destinies will do that.

Good find, algernon. Yes, this demonisation of Russia is part of the Anglo-American/NATO encirclement strategy intending to neutralise Russia as a potent actor in the world and stop the BRICS flank against the Wall Street/London hegemony. I remember seeing magazine covers five+ years ago with a red filter on Putin, Putin is the new enemy, Putin is Hitler, etc.. Absolute cynical manipulation and media corruption.

Those are all ways of earning or obtaining a $20 bill, except for the first one, which would be illegal by definition. Omnipotence is a misleading word because of this. Rather, God can do whatever can be done by God. God has a lot of power--the most power--a maximum of power--in other words, but is not omnipotent, in the common sense of "able to do anything" for the reason just given. The thing to realise is that “potency” doesn't mean “able to do the logically contradictory”. The notion that God should be able to “do anything” including the logically contradictory is a strawman set up by atheists. “Omnipotent” should be read as “having as much power as possible.” If the omnipotent being directly controls the governor of the federal reserve to issue one extra $20 bill, is it legal? Legal, but not directly created. If the omnipotent being makes lawmakers pass a law that accidentally-printed extra notes are legal tender, and then makes the machinery spit out one "accidental" extra note - is it legal? Legal, but not directly created. If the omnipotent being makes an extra $20 bill appear on the floor in front of you - it might not be legal - but we would not know - because he may have made it exactly alike to one he "disappeared" from someone's wallet. If it's exactly alike then it's the same bill, which was teleported. Now I know Descartes did not explain it as I explain it - but essentially the universe with an omnipotent being is the universe of Descartes' evil demon. We can in no way prove that we are not in that universe. Let's talk as though we are not, because then the talk makes sense. Demon or no, believing we are utterly deceived has no survival value. We may keep on the lookout for signs we are being less-than-utterly deceived, and strive to overcome that deception, but total deception is a futile consideration. We might as well doubt the existence of other people etc., which leads to sterile scepticism and solipsism.