Donnadogsoth

shirgall, we agree on something!

The meat of the issue is you're an antihumanist who would prefer the human species dead and buried, or, better still, never to have existed in the first place. This really places you beneath contempt, as just another ISIS-class lunatic.

Antihumanist hypocrites never, I have noted, lead by example.

Thanks for this interesting post, more interesting than actually watching the film I'm sure. Islamic terrorism is like John Carpenter's The Thing: It comes from afar, invades quietly, "taking over" various people who become sleeper agents that spontaneously erupt into gory violence attempting to kill or convert all nearby. Bill Warner on YouTube talks about how wherever Islam enters a society, eventually that society will either push it out and extinguish it, or else the host religion will be subjugated and extinguished. The examples given were Turkey, for the latter, and Spain, for the former. Essentially we owe our science, art, and liberties to the Crusaders who stopped the Muslim conquest. But now the threat has ceased to be military (except for ISIS) and become stealthy, terroristic, the creatures are agitating for Sharia law, they're building their numbers and preaching to their masses, all the while hating everything the West stands for. It's a thorny infection, very difficult to combat on its own terms. The West as is is hopelessly impotent to stop Islamic conquest. We've lost our nerve and our economy, we're bound up in paradoxes of "tolerating" the intolerant, which in turn reaches back to "love thy neighbour". Love those who are and who wish to remain aliens? Hostile aliens? Deceptive, terroristic aliens who emerge spontaneously from a body of a "religion of peace" (and which aren't? Satanism maybe?) to do Satanic acts, very clearly in the tradition of the past 1400 years of Satanic action by Islam. No answer for this one its own terms. Bomb them a bit, throw ground troops at them, stomp ISIS, but the infection remains. Dirty business. The only answer is a general uplift in ideas on the part of the global populace. The more people listening devoutly to Beethoven, reading Schiller, studying Gauss, the more people philosophising in general, the more people will be reasoning well enough to take an enlightened view and see the structural problems aggravating the situation: US-Britain-NATO geopolitics destabilising the Islam world and elsewhere, the lack of mega-project engineerig developing Asia and elsewhere, the lack of clean water infrastructure globally but increasingly especially in the US Southwest, the lack of proper education worldwide, these along with proper policework are the ultimate antidotes to terrorism and the tyranny of the mob.

Seems perfectly coherent to me. Eternity creates as do we. We are, among all animals, made in its image. View that as a small part of a larger hologram if you like. All this talk of evolution and brains is just materialism run amok.

It is if the universe creates material things based on creating physical principles, and we create things based on discovering physical principles. We're not ants, we discover.

Saying that humans create, in the realm of principle, as does the creativity at the origin of the universe, is certainly reasonable. To deny such is to say either that humans are not creative, or the universe is not creative, or both.

Superstition is an unreasoning belief. Creativity is a scientific fact and a perfectly reasonable belief.

"Superstition" isn't the essence of Christianity, the concept of dedicating one's life to higher principle is, specifically the concept of creativity characterising mankind as being in the image of the Creator. Any "Christian" civililsation that lacks that dedication to principled creativity can be characterised as mere "superstition".

A fine topic for Easter! The OP is talking in terms recognisable to Philo of Alexandria who reinterpreted the Old Testament 2K ago. Christianity is certainly compatible with reason; I defy anyone to tell me what non-Christian civilisation could accomplish that Christian civilisation couldn't. But to get at the OP, the question is whether the concept of a Christian anarchocapitalist society is coherent, and I think it is. Christianity is founded on the commandments to love God and love one's neighbour. Anarchocapitalism prevents neither, and therefore by first blush has nothing preventing adoption by Christianity.

I remember listening to a podcast by the transsexual writer Melanie Phillips, in which she complained of examples of male-dominating logical unpleasantness like "written contracts". She said she would work as an underground agent against men, using her intimate understanding of male psychology "against them." So what are we approaching, a whimocracy, where women's whims are more important than fact or principle? AVFM termed this "infantriarchy" or rule by infants--women--ahem, the elite feminists--whose whims are translated into action by white knight bureaucrats and their bully boys.

If I'm dumping nuclear waste on your lawn, yes, you can shoot me, just as if I were assaulting you and feared for your life. If I'm dumping used motor oil on your lawn, you can respond legally or even with main force to stop me, and if I then assault you and you fear for your life, you can shoot me. "Pollution" ranges from farting in an elevator to poisoning a well, just as theft ranges from stealing a stick of gum to defrauding you of your house, so the valid response to both ranges is likewise a range from moderate legal action to death.

In my previous posts I was trying to establish a baseline for viewing certain types of pollution as aggression. If I dump nuclear waste in your backyard, or into your water table, that's an aggressive act. Anyone can see that. Less invidious polluting actions can be judged based on how close they come to that ultimate example.

I'm guessing that's a "yes" to my questions?

Wow, this is really odd, to find the majority of posters here supporting pollution as not in violation of the NAP. Let's say you agree pollution is not aggression. Then let's say I take a barrel of PCBs or nuclear waste and dump it in your back yard. Are you cool with that or do you do something about it? How about me burying my nuclear waste deep enough to let it leach into the water table?

My limited experience of online anarchosocialists or anarchocommunists is that they're self-righteous and impervious to rational debate. I was booted from an ancom forum once for defending the idea that truth exists. Bitter, unpleasant people who are probably harbouring deep rages against society. Offline, I remember meeting an ancom who basically handwaved every problem away, but was pleasant and personable enough.

Thanks for the video. (1) If there are no property rights how can the concept of theft exist? (2) How will you apply your philosophy to the conquest of Outer Space?

I exclusively use a basic version of Phoenix Command.

I am a gamer, I have run RPGs successfully before. The last game I ran was in 2004, though, due to rusticating circumstance. It was the fag-end of a ten year campaign played in post-holocaust Australia to general approbation and delight. I have an idea for a game to run. I imagine it could welcome 3-4 players. Presuming schedules meshed, the technical hurdles would be the Skype connection and the preparation. The setting would be post-holocaust Denver, but not in the way you think. More investigative-horror-sci-fi. In this setting, Denver was destroyed in a terrorist nuclear attack in 2005 and has been rebuilt as the shining architectural and social gem of the world, rechristened “Freedom City“ or just “The City“. It is part of a renaissance of freedom, art, science and creativity that has raised global optimism to in some cases a frightening pitch. Is the worldwide utopia just beyond the cusp? But there are hints that not all is well in The City. A few people notice things...not quite right, even as what is right distorts with historical undulations. Certain people have disappeared. War is on the horizon in Asia and Africa. Someone has broken the Internet. Do YOU dare to probe the mysteries looking for answers?

I appreciate your critique. I don't have anyone around me who agrees with me, including none of my friends, but that's okay. The truth will win out in the end, God willing. About the general welfare, as the US Constitutional Preamble refers to it. The economy, according to LaRouche, is to be viewed as a single agro-industrial enterprise, which acts like an organism, specifically in terms of having a "structural geometry" (paraphrasing) that is identical to that same geometry defining living organisms. The term is "negentropic" as opposed to entropic. So, an economy can exhibit characteristics of being entropic (dying and shrinking) or negentropic (living and growing), similar to how a living organism's circumstance or condition can be tending towards dying or living. This also speaks to survival versus successful survival, as LaRouche in "In Defense of Common Sense" writes that mere survival is a swimmer in a choppy sea managing to take one more breath, survive one more minute. Whereas successful survival would be securing an increase in infrastructure of survival, such as boarding a sound boat. In these general terms we can see that an economy can be healthy or unhealthy, negentropic or entropic, and thus successfully surviving or merely and increasingly less so surviving.

Surveillance is invasive because it gets inside our "bubbles of space". A human is used to having a bubble or zone of space around himself almost all the time, and extreme physical proximity by others can be disconcerting or offensive to us. A camera zooming in on my face is invasive, it's like someone walking up to me chest to chest, touching me, or sitting and staring at me unblinkingly. With surveillance tech we all become superheroes capable of penetrating each others' bubbles of space. It's offensive and intrusive. Invisible fingers of the state and the corporation touching, touching, touching us. Conditioning us. There's something Imperial about it: the Emperor can see but cannot be seen. We can't see who's watching us with these devices. This creates paranoia and submission.

Welcome to the FDR, Logan18. I'm a bit of a misfit myself, also rusticated. Hopefully you will find some stimulation here.

I agree with you. Though, the Onion is actually a good source for knowledge about current events, in terms of how sick the host culture has become.

Thanks for the welcome and the book recommendation. If the one-world-government elite count among the "evil men" along with Roosevelt, why is Roosevelt's name all but forgotten now?

To the degree that autonomy doesn't contradict survival, yes. But as we all know there are people who use their autonomy to injure society. I'm thinking of murderers and anti-nuclear activists for example. Murderers we put in a box, concrete or pine take your pick. What should we do to anti-nuclear activists who are trying to bring down civilisation itself by preventing economic progress?