Magnetic Synthesizer

Why I think I am doing this: I'm not sure what the optimal behavior is in regards to the marxist left and to a lesser extent, actual racists (??? meaning) and the alternatives are rather polarized, where one or more are likely to stand clearly detrimental in comparison to the rest. For example, should I hold the position that I am a racist, and others are wrong for being one or the other? Depends what kind of racist. Disclosure of preliminary position: I believe there are aggregate differences between races. Where the degree to which some traits are present, and the distribution of that presence, is different between, for example, japanese, caucasians, non-caucasian whites, blacks, etc This will likely be true in absolute terms if you select any criteria to categorize people into two or more populations and then prevalence of any trait. Though you will at-least sometimes not be able to overcome methodological uncertainty or reach practical relevance. Does this belief make me racist? Because if it does. Then it would be absurd to deny it if it is indeed the correct position. It would just be a ridiculous opening for abuse as the calling of non-racists racists (same with sexist, etc) causing a defensive reaction. '' ;You're a peaceful person.' 'No I'm not I swear! Please stop calling me that! Here's a bullet in your face!' '' / a little humour. ''RACIST'' current google definition: a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another. Second part makes me a racist. Here's why. I will refer to the ideal of ''lowest prevalence of Non-Aggression across time'' Given my (excluding obscure exceptions) ideals, some individuals are more conducive to my ideals (meaning they lead reality towards my ideals) than others. They are superior. It is highly unlikely for the sum of two genetic groups of humans to be equally superior in regard to this ideal. In my view, a more complete case would involve methodological individualism explaining how these differences promote or undermine NAP violations on a mass scale. A huge task I do not expect anyone to accomplish with absolute precision. Though I think anyone disagreeing is intellectually dishonest. ''RACISM'' ''the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. noun: racism'' Here, in my understanding, I am not a racist (if defined as belief in racism) because I do not believe in characteristics or abilities specific to that race. Maybe some genes are unique, but frankly I don't care. I think ''characteristics'' in this context, refers to a more prominent difference. Furthermore this definition of racism, does not talk about statistical prevalence, rather the absolute (assuming no race mixing) existence and non existence of a trait, respectively in each race. An example of a difference not ''prominent'' in the intent of the definition: Two races have statistically equal intelligence, but each has a different configuration of genes, that achieve the same thing. Maybe one gene configuration is more resilient to DNA damage, lets assume that's not the case. I don't think believing in any such finding makes someone a racist, or does it? Verdict: I think we should group 'racists' of the type that discriminate based on prejudice of other's behavior that has a real statistical reality and merit to it with 'non-racists'. In other words, we shouldn't group everyone who is not race blind together into ''racists''. For example, we shouldn't call people who acknowledge facts presented in this presentation as racists: The Truth About America's Survival _ Demographics and the 2016 Election (found on youtube.com) We should only group people who discriminate against other races regardless of those race's behavior. So: Race Denier: SJWs Race Realist: haven't thought a lot about this one. Racists: discriminate against other races regardless of those race's behavior. Debate: Should we have more words, different definitions, who do we call who and how do we respond to us or others being called racist? In case you wanted to know about the author: As of now, I may be mostly race blind in my daily dealings, but when it comes to policy decisions on a mass scale, such as state policies, I will take race into consideration. Though I am starting to accumulate experience and would rather predict that I will discriminate more rather than less in the future in subtle ways (in fact, even though I am unable to point to past discrimination, I expect to already discriminate subliminally/subconsciously)

Pinochet comes to mind. Really? is that everyone's boogyman? last time I checked it was the absence of state intervention. Really

So in other words, they will lose respect for an instance of state law but not the ideal of state law?

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/271325590080978944/280039687232421888/Marty_Robbins_-_Aint_I_Right.mp3

If people lose respect for the law, do they stop marginally supporting the state? Wouldn't we have market law rein supreme? I think about this and I remember the many times I've made proposals in the interest of people, trades, and where these people rejected it. I suspect, people are too stupid to have anything other than slavery. Too stupid to generate the contracts and market for law. They'd readily bow to opportunist politicians, en mass, and overpower the rest, not because they are biologically superior, but because they are retarded. I hope a group will come along, a group that will see better and outcompete everyone else. I don't care if the lesser die in the process. They are no moral allies to me. ''why hasn't anarcho-capitalism be tried'', ''because it's inferior and failed where it was tried'' some say. Or maybe, just maybe. It is as all the ground breaking improvements and iterations, they were scorned by the retards of the time. Science wasn't tried, not because it was inferior, but because it wasn't tried. Wouldn't you think.

edit: here's the video time stamped, if u watch the 20min it contains what I'm refering to. If you watch more It'll include even more of the same.

Either you give them moral responsibility and moral consideration or you give them neither. We're guilty for their crimes because we don't stop them. Why? because we have shepherd's responsibility? because they are livestock? oh oh oh ! Oh no, you see, we must give moral value to the livestock. In your own constructs, you said to be careful not to remove free-will for others but not yourself and in so doing take all the blame. Was it not an universal? edit: here's the video time stamped, if u watch the 20min it contains what I'm refering to. If you watch more It'll include even more of the same.

Best scenario is 1+ freedom foundation(s) survives and we're good. All the leftarchists can self-remove themselves through communist starvation. Top snek. What do you think? I think we should focus on the survival of freedom, not on the survival of our enemies. The commies in Venezuela can die. Any of our allies should have left before it went to shit. My way for liberty has two parts: -Outpopulate commies through superior reproductive economics and migration (to avoid their suicide rituals). -Prevent establishment of a planetary super-state.

haha 11:30, I think the view of memetics and genetics are the reason why these topics are emotionally charged. It's because they are close to inconvienient truths (to some).

We have to make both the arguments from reality and arguments from morality, and especially, the arguments from morality.

Telling people that the free market is good is better than ''Oh, well, that's the free market'' Idk if it it's good or bad, but that's what it is. (Mwahaha I don't care.)

We should say: That's to the greater benefit of others.

We need A.I. general snek to relentlessly and reliably plot the rise of anarcho-capitalism.

Written in 1956, LUDWIG VON MISES brings insight into the anti-capitalist memetic forces throughout society of a time not too distant from ours. He provides both information and explanations. Maybe some of you will enjoy it. I've read till page 50 so far. I've learned quite a few facts I didn't know of and got acquainted with very plausible explanations behind what drives these memes. ''One may wonder whether Sir William Harcourt was right when, more than sixty years ago, he proclaimed: Weare all socialists now. But today governments, political parties, teachers and writers, militant antitheists as well as Christian theologians are almost unanimous in passionately rejecting the market economy and praising the alleged benefits of state omnipotence. The rising generation is brought up in an environment that is engrossed in socialist ideas.'' For my not so popular semantics above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics you can get it from: https://mises.org/files/anti-capitalistic-mentality3pdf/download?token=H2MnKaZC https://mises.org/library/anti-capitalistic-mentality

Source of information discussed: Are these some variant of ''dead souls''? I don't think they are. I'm sure dead souls would do this, but not that those who do this are necessarily dead souls. There's some weird things going on that I am not aware of. I know individuals who've confessed to me that ''I don't know what I should say'' is how they think. Let me elabortae on this last piece. I heard them say this and I made the distinction with individual internally driven behavior and what I suspected was their mob appealing behavior. She confessed that that is how she operates. They are in some part, bots that work with '' *If* mob *then*. IT's like ''I don't know what society wants me to do now'' ''I live for society''. 1. Pretending knowledge (dishonesty). 2. Activism on ignorance. Dangerous. This behavior is clearly harmful in general. Imagine if everyone did this: I'd be some kind of bad similar to 1984 newspeak. This is my initial porpositions: Let it sink in. THEY ARE FULL OF SHIT. They act as if they know what they are talking about which I think is whta most idiots developped as a skill in state school examination because it's easier than to actually learn for them! Especially since their ''muh feels'' answers are accepted in gender studies Someone else's contribution: most of those answers are as vague as a horoscope adult children raised by the bias of the plebeian to hate being proven wrong, whose default answer to anything is either not committing, or talking about muh feels

Can you also point my to a reliable source on the semantics of Bills Notes and Bonds? I have my own, but I don't know if it's the ones used there.

The us debt is short term, less than a year 6 months. So it does affect the budget. If they lower interest rates they don't get higher interest rates. > risk free rate go to zero where it would naturally go anyways if the Fed didn't intervene to begin with.'' bye

I'm siding on with Peter Schiff, the traders are hungry for fantasies and will eat anything. I don't know what is worse: watching mainstream hypocrisy or mainstream finances. They say Trump is bad for the economy. But when he gets elected, now he's good! (It's like some are trying to build a psychological ponzi scheme while others are useful idiots acting as a magnifying glass) Here's an example of a contradictory set of beliefs: - Trump will stimulate aggregate demand by increasing the deficit! (expansionary fiscal polic) -There will be Higher interest rates and they will boost the dollar and/or the economy! You can't both have higher interest rates and stimulus fiscal policy. With the current debt levels, the moment the interest rate increases by a say 4%, your entire budget is going to get sucked out into interest payments. Well unless the market goes full bunkers and somehow pays for it. Don't know where it's going to come from though.

Can something be made of of anything other than random, deterministic or fixed attributes? I use a Information Matrix view of the universe. It's the most universal and versatile in it's ability to create a model of reality with it. A random attribute has properties that change overtime undetermined by the previous state of reality. A deterministic attribute has properties fully predictable from reality. A fixed attribute has innalieably properties but can't change over time. It does not require a cause. An Information that change overtime undetermined by the previous state of reality or anything in other words. An Information that is determined by another piece of information. An Information that cannot be changed. Like a natural law (such as one that governs relationships between other pieces of information). You can combine the attributes, for example, to achieve specific probability distributions. You have one random component. Then you have a fixed component that limits what is possible from the random component (ex: annihilating everything) Then you can also have a deterministic attribute that estbalishes in relation with the attributes of other things, an outcome for which it is attributed to.

What term would be ideal to be used in place of ''property rights''?

I don't even think it's an illusion, it's a mistaken concept. Whatever you experience can be conceptualized ot be perfectly consistent with reality.

Looking for the best podcasts for knowing Stefan's position on ''free will'' and I came here in hope that some of you know the score and are eager to share. To elaborate, I prefer watching an excellent distillation such as ''an introduction to reality'' than to through 17 videos. It seems to me that a general request to know his position doesn't cut it for being on the show and that I need a specific question or criticism about his position.

Bump, still as relevant.

I lean towards the belief that there's likely not much wrong with you and you're much better off testing yourself against the reality of quality people than the average bot.

Hi, I want to host a meetup in Montreal given at-least one other willing participant. I found out that meetup.com is not a free service in terms of creating a meetup. If you know a better service, I'd like to know. This can work fine: http://freedomcells.coeo.cc/map/ Also, there's the discord. https://discord.gg/5sj26B9 At this point I'm curious enough to see how a free-domain radio listener would turn out. So there is no need for specifics. I'm looking for certain things, but I don't need to find them all. As-long as I find one, I'll be happy. It would be unique in person.