Donnadogsoth

A note of ringing sanity. And is it possible to have a war of one man against one man? And if so, then if the aggressor should be killed in self-defense by the target, you would consider that murder also?

Notice the pronunciation the host uses: MOOSE-leem, (Muslim), the way a sympathiser would say it. I recommend the more traditional Western pronunciation: MOZZ-lem, (Moslem), or else Mahometan.

What happens if two separate but functionally identical computers run the same simulation at the same time? Doesn't this violate the principle of identity of indiscernibles?

You just said war is genocide. "There are people in the world that accept that murder is immoral, but regard genocide (war) are righteous, benevolent, and necessary." Is all war genocide to you, then? All deaths caused by all wars are murder?

Are you telling me prosecuting World War flipping Two was genocide on the part of the Allies?

I know we we have had our disagreements, dsayers, but you can do me the favour of understanding the metaphor. Does the present world order--made up of people who in some sense have come to a consensus which they have codified in constitutions, laws, and policy statements--act--through its agents--as though the NAP applies to countries? Or contrariwise, does the present world order have no such explicit or implicit set of constitutional, legal, and policy statements that would allow for anything resembling a consensus, even a consensus among the more enlightened countries if not the entire world?

What do you suppose the "sweet spot" is between having too few children to maximise the joy of their presence, including amongst each other, and having too many children that creates the "large family syndrome" maximising competition for mother's affections?

I am aware that the present world order doesn't recognise the legitimacy (or, often, even the existence) of the NAP. The NAP's specific application to the individual human, nor its recognition by the state, is not what I am asking after. Those are being addressed well enough elsewhere. My question is whether, under the best possible interpretation of the global order's mandate, constitutions, and bills of rights--its spirit, if you will--the NAP can be said to at least theoretically apply to countries, as if the countries (sovereign nation-states) were sovereign human individuals forming a community of actors governed by the NAP. Or, does the present community of nation-states not even recognise the NAP as operative amongst itself, even theoretically as an ideal, even implicitly?

A central question of philosophy is the relationship between unity and diversity. How can anything be one, and yet have parts? This can apply to the Universe or it could apply to a table lamp. What I'd like to address here is the relationship between you and your favourite hat, in these terms. The first question is where does the hat exist? You have a mind, but your mind is not the entire Universe. Or is it? The hat exists outside of your mind. Or does it? All we know right now is that there is you, there is the hat, and there are questions revolving around that pair. Let us propose that your mind is separate from the Universe, sovereignly separate in fact, and made in the image of the Creative Potency of the Universe. This we can know from science, which tells us man discovers laws which he can exploit to his advantage, making new technologies and new forms of society, unlike any beast. And the process of discovery of laws exists in a sovereign mind only, there are no committee geniuses. So in very very brief that's a human, a creative being distinct from the Universe, and yet a part of it. In that case, the mind is not only distinct from the Universe, it's distinct from all other objects in that Universe. It's distinct from hats, table lamps, and laws, all of which exist in the Universe, too. But the fact that you are aware of the hat, means that it is in some sense in your mind. A reflection of the hat, perhaps, is cast into your mind by the hat-itself. So the hat-reflection exists in your mind, and the hat-itself exists outside of your mind. Now, a group of anything is greater than the sum of its parts, and we commonly call that “greater-than” a relationship. A lamp is composed of parts useless for illumination in of themselves, but when those parts are fitted together, we have a unity, a relationship, a distinct and useful thing called a lamp. So with any relationship, even a group of pebbles which may be only useful for counting. The primary relationship between any individual thing in the Universe is not with any other individual thing in the Universe. Rather, the primary relationship of such a thing is between that thing and the Universe as a whole. The Universe is one thing, indivisible. You can't have half a Universe, any more than you could have half a hole. So the Universe is the sum of influencing factors which relate to any given individual thing. Let's apply this to the mind/hat problem, by introducing Leibniz's Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles. This states that if two things are functionally and formally identical, then they are the same thing. Now, again, we have the hat-reflection, and the hat-itself, but we also have a third thing, a relationship between the two, which make them together greater than the sum of their parts. A question may arise, whether those three things, mind, hat, and relationship, don't themselves constitute a thing which has a relationship governing it. This is incorrect. For the mind to be in a relationship with its relationship, it would in effect be in a relationship with itself, which is redundant. As per the identity of indiscernibles, there is therefore no second or subsequent relationships between the mind and hat. Next comes the tricky part. The hat-reflection in the mind, is a reflection of the hat-itself, and is a perfect reflection. This does not mean the mind perceives or understands it perfectly, because the mind itself is not perfect, but the reflection itself is not degraded or digitised in any way as it is cast from the hat-itself into the mind. In in the mind, the hat-reflection acts as though it really were the hat-itself present in the mind. Just like the individual relates primarily to the Universe as a whole, the individual elements of a group relate primarily to that group as a whole, which determines their dynamic. In the mind/hat relationship, then, they both relate primarily to the relationship as a whole, which forms a dynamic of interaction between them. This, again, does not constitute a relationship distinct from the whole, because the whole is and includes both the mind and the hat. The interactive dynamic between mind and hat are perfect, without deviation, existing in a preëstablished harmony. Thus, there is no difference between the activity and form of the hat-reflection, and the hat-itself. They are indiscernible. Consequently, they must be identical. The hat remains not-the-mind. The mind remains not-the-hat. But the reflection (remember, reflection, not component) of the hat into the mind is identical to the hat-itself, which means that the hat is at one and the same time distinct from the mind, while being in intimate ontological intercourse with that mind at the same time. The Universe is the ultimate relationship between parts. It is the One to the Many. And it embodies the same kind of dynamic between its parts, as the relationship between the parts of a lamp do its. Since everything reflects everything else in the Universe, and those reflections are perfect, and therefore indiscernible from their external actualities, it means that the entire Universe is a unity, even as its components form a plurality. This is not a contradiction, as you will see. The individual things of the Universe exist, for they have differing natures, but their natures are reflected into one and all, in such a perfect way, that their reflection and their external reality are one. Thus the hat exists in the mind and outside of the mind simultaneously. In other words, the mind and hat respectively relate primarily to the Universe, which relationships define them respectively. The mind's nature relates to the Universe on its own terms, the hat's nature relates to the Universe on its own terms, etc.. So even though the mind and hat exist mutually within each other—for the mind reflects into the hat even as the hat reflects into the mind—they have separate natures and are thus distinct, though in a species of communion, as though a ghost had come through the wall. The absolute unification exists in terms of their relationship, just as the Universe's absolute unification exists in terms of itself as a relationship between all things. The reason for the distinctiveness of all things, is therefore due to their imperfection of reflectivity. For if two things reflected each other perfectly, from those things' respective perspectives, then they would be indiscernible and therefore identical. Thus, the basis for individuality is ignorance. The possibility or intuition of transcending this ignorance forms the basis for the pantheistic religions.

Good post, Sayo. Pray, what do you think Trump is lying about, with regards to what he says he will do once in office?

Thanks for the update, AccuTron. It's worrying, but remember that the Chernobyl grand-scale effects that spurred 40 million iodine treatments in Europe turned out to be a nonevent. I'm hoping Fukushima is likewise, just as I hope humanity embarks on a serious drive for fusion so we can phase out these problematic and merely penultimate energy sources, given how bad some of their safeguards have proven.

Thanks for that thoughtful post. Would you consider yourself pro-white, Sayo? As in, you oppose genocide against any race, whether it is a soft genocide (non-violent) or a hard genocide (violent); and you wish to stand on principe; and you love the white race to the degree you want it to survive and flourish? I realise Africans have had a hard time of it, to say the least, and I support efforts to "bring the boil down" on the cauldron, to so speak, but in my terms Africans aren't being genocided, but rather they are being set up for genocide under a world depopulation program. The soft white genocide will be complemented by a hard black one, and the destabilisation of the latter is assisting prosecute the former.

You can't argue with a drunk. These people are drunk on hate.

A choice quote, WasatchMan; thanks.

The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. These dishonest genocidalists and bullies need to turn off their white-designed computers and while they're at it stop using white-created written languages. Go make your own stuff.

The problem with the unscrupulous fighting the scrupulous is that if it becomes known that the latter will not fire on civilians, the former will start strapping civilians to their tanks, embedding civilians in their squads, chaining civilians to their artillery pieces, and keeping civilians with them in their camps, their ammunition dumps, their oil refineries, and their convoys. So, because the scrupulous are so scrupulous, the unscrupulous win. The solution for this is not to outright murder anyone, not to outright target any civilian, but to make it clearly known that there is no value in a human shield, that that shield will be blown up or shot through as though it isn't there. And the ones shooting through it will know in their hearts that they are not the efficient cause of these deaths, but rather the ones using human shields are the efficient cause, by pushing innocent people into the lines of their enemies' fire. Trump isn't wrong, he's just unpolished. He's a political diamond in the rough who just needs some philosophical tumbling in order to turn out a fine defender of WTC.

Thinking further about the primal characteristics of man qua man, woman qua woman, and human qua human, I realised that they align into threes. Each three subsumes into its own category. To review, I discuss the twelve characteristics here: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45094-what-is-human-qua-human/ Honour is the natural companion to beauty. Honour is the most important trait a woman would look for in a mate, genetically speaking, she wants a man who will stick around. Beauty is the chief lure for men in a mate. These are capital traits, which go with Reason. HONOUR<>BEAUTY<>REASON..........CAPITAL Courage and Nurturing are the natural counterparts. Nurturing is the important thing for a woman to do for her children, and courage or fierceness is the trait most prized in defending the brood. These are all emotional traits, which go with Agape. Courage<>Nurturing<>Agape..........EMOTIONAL Strength and Guile are also counterparts. Strength is a man's chief advantage over a woman, and a woman's response is cunning, trickery, and seductiveness. These are dangerous traits, which go with Curiosity. Strength<>Nurturing<>Curiosity..........DANGEROUS Lastly, there is Mastery and Intuition which are analogues. Mastery of tools and the external world is analogous to the development of the machinery of intuition. These are technical traits, which go with Praxis. Mastery<>Intuition<>Praxis..........TECHNICAL Thus the complete table is: HONOUR<>BEAUTY <>REASON..........CAPITAL Courage<>Nurturing<> Agape..........EMOTIONAL Strength<>Guile <> Curiosity..........DANGEROUS Mastery<>Intuition<> Praxis..........TECHNICAL

Your menstruating heart It ain't beating enough for two --Faith No More, Midlife Crisis Suppose the problem is not too little empathy, but too much. The liberal-left poses on the moral high ground, yet is misandrist, anti-father, and anti-white. And no demographic is further from respect than older white men (soon to be dead white males). When, through political correctness training and enforcement they control the press, the politicians, the police and the professors, their definition of love is the one that seeps into the cultural aquifers from which everyone, including older white males, draw. And, evidently, older white males are good at taking a hint. Better that we were taught nothing about love from these people, than taught this type of love.

It might be due to a lack of free will in dreams. In a dream one is basically like an animal, wandering through life in a way that might be wondrous to experience, but which lacks wonder, so to speak. Lacking one's freedom of will one goes with the flow, acting but not contemplating.

I empathise, FireMinstrel. Is there an age at which we write a media zombie off as a lost cause, and worry only about the generation to come after that?

How political correctness rules in America’s student 'safe spaces’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12022041/How-political-correctness-rules-in-Americas-student-safe-spaces.html The femiblob, which I've talked about elsewhere, is like an amoeba. The nucleus is the oligarchy, which is motivated primarily by greed for power, and which works to arrange or exploit the activities of the protoplasm, which is motivated by vengeance. It may be malicious vengeance as in the case of black criminals or Islam, but it may also be suicidal as in the case of self-hating whites. Of course the latter can be malicious and the former can self-hate, but those are the generalities. This article talks about the latest extension of the political correctness pseudopod into our Universities. Now, the only purpose of political correctness is to silence wikkum—white, hetero, Christian males and their allies. Political correctness is discursive duct tape, designed to shut us up, shut us down, so we can be marginalised and erased. Specifically, here, the trend on University campuses is to encourage the use of the phrase “I'm triggering!” as an excuse for a person, putatively at University to gain knowedge, putatively rational, putatively a young grown-up, to avoid listening to anything he or she has decided is “too much” and “traumatising” to him or her. The relevant phrase might be, “deaf and dumb.” But we can't take this as merely collegial silliness. This is the Tentacle coming through the Universities, into the workplace, into the home. Just as the Street, full of banter and free interaction, degraded to the semi-free space called the Mall, and then to the political lockdown known as a Box Store, so are “safe spaces” set to expand, first to envelope all Universities, then government and public spaces, and neighbourhoods, and then where you work, and then where you live, as your own children, raised on K-to-U public education, including television and Internet, will begin schooling and policing you. And, soon after that, the laws will change to make “triggering” your child illegal. More parents off to the prisons and more children off to the foster homes. Where does “triggering” come from? I won't answer that here but I will answer what it is: It's infantile narcissism made policy. It appeals to the youth who hate their parents and all they stand for, and see this “wave” of anti-parent, anti-civilisation ideology—communist, anarcho-communist, political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity, sexual racism, white-shaming, all of it—they see the femiblob rolling along like Godzilla absorbing the (Western) world piecemeal, and they feel a thrill at the prospect of rolling along with it. “Safe spaces” as a way of annihilating a small piece of their University, provides that thrill. “I'm triggering!” is the psycho-political equivalent of “I'm orgasming!”

Three problems with this article: (1) They presume that sticker-allocation, about as meaningless a task as imaginable, scales up to helping a fellow child who has fallen and hurt themselves. (2) They invert morality by saying that those who make moral judgements about justice regarding violence are less moral. “Overall, religious children are less tolerant of harmful actions and favored harsh penalties.” And this a bad thing? The Christians and the Moslems are to be applauded for taking a stand against unjust violence, it's the secular kids who are lagging behind. (3) They ignore the fact that the Abolitionists—and the people who actually abolished the slave trade and slavery proper--were Christians, in cherry-picking their human rights advocates to be secularists.

I've read we have anywhere from 1.2 to 1.5 billion. Sounds like a lot, I agree. But the numbers are misleading alone, because they don't account for the ongoing decline and the increasing rate of decline. The average white birthrate is, by my calculations, 1.6 per woman, which amounts to around a 25% drop in population per generation. Add to this forced immigration, forced assimilation, mandatory “diversity” education from Kindergarten to University, and race-mixing propaganda. The trajectory is clear. “The global centre of gravity is changing. In 1900 Europe had a quarter of the world's population, and three times that of Africa; by 2050 Europe is predicted to have just 7 per cent of the world population, and a third that of Africa. The ageing and declining populations of predominantly white nations have prompted forecasts of - and calls for - more immigration from the young and growing populations of developing nations to make up the shortfall.” --The last days of a white world http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world The Arabs are often different-looking from the Europeans. Arabs often have a swarthiness, dark eyes, black hair, and very little of the variety that characterises European population as a whole (eye colour, hair colour). The Middle East has residual white genetics, and I think it used to be as white as Europe, but millennia of mixing has changed them. There are some fairly pale girls there but overall they've got a tint. The Syrian refugee problem is compounded by their religion as well (and language and culture), which has a history of invading Europe and taking prized white slaves. Why would the European slaves have been prized if the ones in the Middle East were just as white? Extended families may not be warm, but they have a phenotypic affinity. Most people prefer to marry within their race despite massive and increasing efforts at promoting race-mixing. Right now we're starting to see terroristic verbal attacks on whites-in-general, and soon whites-in-particular, for being “sexually racist.” I think my shivers at the prospect of peer pressure to marry non-whites trumps your shivers at the prospect of being naturally fond of seeing and interacting with racial kin. You should use race as a defining characteristic because it lends artistic beauty to your self-identity. It's not the only characteristic; I speak about the importance of religious identity (though I promote Christianity as universal), of cultural identity (especially European classical culture which is properly universal), and linguistic identity. Race is a kind of culture-gone-to-seed, a language of bodily form, and a source of solidarity. Having a common religion, culture, race, language, history and territory is massively healthy for an individual, helping him adjust to life and making him far less vulnerable to addictive behaviour. Homogeneity is healthy. Variety is a spice, but you can't live on nothing but spice. Of course, the crucial interpolation in any serious discussion about race is the concept of a common humanity which allow bridges to be built, without demanding that the continents be smushed together to form Himalayas of confusion, as advocated by the multicultural religionists. I find your point about the State intriguing. Really, this (racial) problem wouldn't exist without the State to propagandise about, lure, import, and sustain the Third World. I have to think of this further and welcome any other thoughts about it. About point (8), the sticking point will be when white nations collectively exercise their rights to decouple themselves from the runaway diversity train, whether via State involvement or purely voluntarily. Thanks for your thoughtful reply!

Though you don't know it, you are probably genocidal. The reason you don't know it is your entire society is either mute about the subject or else bends towards denying that it is happening, while celebrating the conditions that contribute to it and hoping for the day when it is complete. The genocide that is being conducted, is a “soft” genocide. It is not taking place with death camps and armed guards this time; it employs obvious but largely non-violent means, foremost among them the paralytic and terrorising effects of shame-words, to dispossess and eliminate—you guessed it--the white race from the world. Very clearly, you're genocidal if you: (1) deny the white race exists, (2) deny the white race is shrinking; (3) use the word “racist” to shame a white person into silence about white genocide; (4) promote race-mixing between whites and non-whites; (5) promote non-white immigration into white countries; (6) support censorship of ideas that oppose white genocide; (7) oppose economic and social policies encouraging whites to have babies; and, (8) reject the right of whites to form homogeneous enclaves both (a) in reality, and, (b) in art. But what is the opposite of being a genocidalist? It's not being neutral. Ask a Holocaust survivor how he or she feels about neutrality being the opposite of genocidal. No, here, the opposite of genocidal is pro-white. That sounds scary, doesn't it? All sorts of bad connotations have gotten connected with the pro-white concept, like burrs on a woollen sweater. And this was partly intentional on the part of the social doctors and media masters. But part of it is due to the legacy of what I call Dark Racism, a racism based not on healthy love and, to the degree that love is thwarted, righteous anger, but on a quality of metastasised hatred. But it doesn't have to be that way. Being pro-white is a wholesome thing, a clarifying thing, and a motivating thing. It doesn't mean you have to be an asshole, or a criminal, or violent. Rather, it means loving your race as an extended family. Does that mean you can't love the human race as well? No! In fact it's highly recommended. That said, just as your immediate family is special to you in a way that humanity is not, so race is an intermediate category for love between family and species. So, very clearly, you're pro-white if at the very least you: (1) are not genocidal toward any race (i.e., not a hypocrite); (2) place principle above sensation; (3) love the white race!

Neocons are a group of conservatives whose views descend from philosopher Leo Strauss, who in turn was a disciple of Nietzsche. Strauss talked about the elites as being those capable of withstanding the revelation that there is no good or evil. The book I read about this in, by Webster Tarpley, also talked about the neocons' Nazi connections through Prescott Bush and others, but I no longer have the book so I can't reference the chart he had. Essentially neocons are conservatives stripped of Christian goodwill and small-c conservative impulses--i.e., the impulse to actually conserve something. Hope this helps.