dusty frog

Telegram messenger is available for major platforms and has pretty features that could allow better FDR usability on the go. It also has desktop versions. So it may be beneficial to utilize the network content delivery features like instant notifications and pseudonym chat rooms with up to 5 000 users: https://telegram.org/blog/channels-2-0 https://telegram.org/blog/supergroups5k Somewhere has been mentioned the Telegram network files could be up to 1.5GB in size with no specified limits on quantity. That may be at least the worth considering either as content notification system, or even as a backup or mirror for FDR podcasts for instance. Although not directly related, there are chances YouTube could impose either discrete or total ban on FDR content. In that regard, there should be alternative content delivery and distribution sort of plan b.

From what I read some browser security related add-ons block WebRTC either completely or partly, due to privacy reasons. P2P video chat without anonymity would be no go for many. There are plenty of messangers allowing real-time audio and some video, multi-platform as well. Furthermore, making anonymous decentralized P2P AV chat rooms would be cool, but the problem with the idea is rather fundamental. Real-time chat room communication is easy to spot and de-anonymize by just temporarily disconnecting the suspect caller from the network.

@DustyOne Indeed, it's a pipe dream. Current two centers of collectivists power both understood the importance of democracy and ideology as the most effective tool pair to keep their power over population in a neatly masked and sort of "civilized" way. Political correctness, communism, national orthodox movement, you name it, are just fancy wrappers that might be changed on-the-fly if required any time. Your sarcasm about pretty damn good system is accepted, why would the ruling "elites" destroy their voting basis voluntarily by removing the most dependent on them out? Sure they either don't want to admit the inevitability of the global collapse they directly responsible for, or simply can't do anything to stop the train. I'd guess the first one is more probable. The competition between those centers probably forces them to maintain the permanent fear for loosing the power, thus the politics of ever expanding state facilities and collectivism as the only way to keep overall control. In fact, those centers have so much in common that I'd not want to even imagine what happens to our real last tiny hopes if and when they would merge into one world government or just agree to divide the world yet again.

Sheeple with average and below IQ simply don't care about reasoning or evidence. They have their hobbies to brag about. When state became their best provider, women don't care anymore to be feminine or mothers transferring the family values. Asking interesting or challenging questions will just turn their backs on you. They will choose convenience over honesty any day.

I don't think the democracy in its current form is a feasible or sustainable social system. Don't we see that practically everywhere? So called "modern" democracy just can't provide any required protection against manipulating sheeple's psychos. Collectivists ideas will just rule among people with relatively low IQ. Democracy just has to be radically revamped to adapt to the current world situation. Lazy and rapists should have no any rights to vote or, as the matter of fact, even be welcomed to stay in the society. As such process can't be made easily and quickly without a war, looks like the only way to go is kind of Augusto Pinochet dictatorship that would make the necessary changes and preparations at will.

Deep or on the surface. Militia as territorial defense that consists of all men capable to be effectively involved, the ordinary folks, sure. That's indeed the best for many hybrid type attacks. But those are too light and not suited for defense against heavily armed forces. For such defense there is the complimentary need for the professionally trained fist with coordination of different forces. And its not so clear as one would like to think - attack is a must - to eliminate the threat in the most efficiently way (total operational time, timing and resources/casualties). Including actions outside the border. Take or leave, aggressive people with low IQ will be around for foreseeable future.

I'm sorry too, as English isn't my native and I'm obviously late and slow in comprehension.

Indeed, the situation is awful. Abuse of natural and human resources is enormous, with staggering inefficiency. Uncontrolled mass migration and fertility rate skew for lower IQs. Add to that mess a widely accepted paradigm of forcible wealth re-distribution. Global socialism of languasites brings minds paralysis. It becomes understandable why it's so hard to survive. Competition is tough because of unprotected globalization and the overall ballast is simply unbearable. Without that hook, there shouldn't be any unsolvable challenges to have a great quality time for family and personal creativity. Moreover, after say 45+ to the end of one's life there coming another important possibility for honor & respect in society - to spend some time teaching others. Education is the key to changes, there is a screaming need for education of young and mid-aged parents and teachers. I don't see capitalism's undertaker yet. Maybe when the IQ < 110 starts to be a rarity? But yes, for now the time is running out...

Army is just that, a brutal force. It can be motivated in either direction. Do you think Muslims unleashing children without reason? Spartans threw down ill/invalid/with syndromes/ newborn babies. Unfortunately, people with IQ < 90 are still there in enormous quantities, so I wouldn't be so sure about "natural" evolution taking care of that. I'd guess people (sheeple?) with low IQ are required to stabilize the society as they are inherently dependent on a boss or a manager. Perfect disposition for the big state with fat government.

I agree. Except your belif about "getting people on the right level". In general that seems impossible to acheve. IQ is 60-80% human genes, the biology. The big problems start at mean IQ and less... Unless a way to change genes discovered. Or... you probably remember Spartans, right?...

Hmm... It looks like you are missed my demographic point here with inclination of limiting the scope to a discussion whether a some even tiny sort of governmental presence should exist in an ideal world nobody saw yet. To children protection. In the real world waiting when "little or no reason" situation suddenly escalates to "a reason to act" would mean ineffectiveness thus failure to be able to actually protect. We know there are dangers. Taking preemptive measures is essential to prevent or minimize them. That's also a reason. We know there is a danger of terror attacks. So someone has to coordinate efforts against the terror in advance. Would many of us willing to voluntarily pay for such efforts without a government or another entity collecting a tax? Would a tiny strip state Israel survive so far without its government coordinating defense forces, foreign relations and, most important, its collegiate and uniting role as a protective shell for the nation?

I don't think so. What I meant by "increasing our demands and hopes towards the state" is that as we, i.e. the entire population, have ever lowering intelligence (due to biologic differences like different groups having different fertility rate + migration & negative selection) the authoritarian state becomes the only choice to keep some sort of stability in the society. If you still do believe into one free global society (see the flashing red word "global" here?), I'll have no other choice but to disappoint you!

Well, our morals are not changing too fast but rather we are losing our morals incredibly fast. And while we are keeping a lot of aggression and gradually increasing our demands and hopes towards the state, the explosive mixture is almost ready Not very sure about your last prognosis though... as a singular global means no choice and yet total.. all-inclusive mighty state.. yet again...

Those two words just stroked me. I'd refrain to take the stance on your entire statement. Nevertheless, mother nature in human history suggests us the building global societies is possible only with use of a lot of force, blood and atrocities, and, for sure, the power of state or similar authority. Humans aren't the same, every race, ethnic group has its subtle and significant differences. That's why IMHO even in an ideal post-state world there will be several nations with their own territory and somewhat different protectionist principles.

NAP should be respected internally, with specific accent on education to train people to distinguish the NAP boundaries, until everyone is able to automatically recognize the edges of NAP applicability. That's the crucial requirement for the survival. History teaches us the lessons, does she? It's like a boxer has to have perfectly developed reflexes to choose the most appropriate strike immediately, automatically, even subconsciously. As attempts to fight with direct and indirect brutal force, coupled with sophisticated means of financial and ideological corruption from the inside will for sure be launched against such plan simultaneously. NAP isn't a religion or even the complete system of believes, it's just what it is - the principle. The important one. But not the self-sufficient. Aggressive and violent invaders, terrorists and collaborators have to be kept out of the planned society. None of NAP is applicable to those. Where do you see a self-contradiction?

The original link (fixed).

A post-state within all the time enlarging today states seems a bit fantastic. New exodus? Looks like there is no readiness in minds for that. The state is formed peoples mind for generations, there is strong need to have at least two more that would be educated a fresh "post-state" values style. To answer the question "Who?" maybe folks like Donald Trump would realize the need to "implement and coordinate" a tithe combined with educational efforts? Networked distributed cells of quasi-collective "we" to enforce and protect the model (seems that some flexible structure just has to be in charge just for the sake of coordination of efforts and power to keep a protective shield around on those initial stages). I see two words flashing red in that sentence. "Global" - that simply would be against the Mother Nature, biology and history; an utopia if you ask me. "Democracy" - better forget that raped term as we know it in the modern society sense; its current implementation has nothing to do with evolution, logic, moral values, reasoning etc.

I wish that would be that simple. We are living in the world practically entirely occupied by the disperse set of totalitarian ideologies and ill beliefs & wishes rooted from those. In that situation there are two sets of what is "bad for you": 1st - to merely survive and keep the lives of those who close out of danger or repressions ("genes survivor"); and 2nd - believe in what you think is right and loudly stay for the principles, morals, etc ("fighter for better future"). Unfortunately, the two mentioned are in conflict with each other and even opposing when one needs to choose means to proceed.

Looks we carried out of the topic, so I'd hope only briefly.. I'm using the definition of Religion as 'adhering to a particular set of moral beliefs'. You are right, "he might hit back" as written is not a moral belief, but it leads to a moral belief, through reason, that hitting only gets me hurt...which is not good. The fact the hitting hurts does not necessarily leads to forming moral beliefs - it's the great honor (for a terrorist) to kill infidels and die for .... NAP only works on people that can reason. The punishment in NAP is to vindicate the victim, by applying the same loss to the criminal. Punishing a person that can't reason is not punishment in their eyes, only hate. Therefore, applying the same loss of the victim to a person that can't reason is not the same. The punishment would have to be altered to make it equal. 1. That looks like a contradiction. If you willing to apply different punishment for a killer, depending on his state of mind, what signal would be injected into the environment for potential victims and future killers? The loss of life is exactly that and equal irrespective the killer. The public, potential victims will start to fear the punishment is becoming softer or even skipped altogether, if the prospective killer will take appropriate measures. 2. Requirement for altering the punishment does limit us/DRO to taking necessary measures in timely matter when the motives and actor is unknown in advance or could not be identified for some reason. In such cases A mild example would be a NAP spirited DRO cordon to surround a home area with hiding criminal(s) just waiting for an appropriate moment to escape - how much such a surrounding might cost say after 3 months? the true possible consequence, so they can reason their own mortal beliefs. An ideology (as the core part of ones belief system) may teach potential criminals to be resilient to any consequences they may encounter. That's that simple. They might get it from the childhood environment, propaganda groups, less potential IQ genes... I don't get your argument for going into profound disorder. You would rather die off then to let some other countries die off when they are going to die off anyway? I didn't say it was going to be pretty. I would just like to get the largest population I can to survive. I would love to help everyone. I don't think it's mathematically possible, but we can try. You almost answered yourself. The profound disorder due to inability to see any rational feasible possibility to change the trend OR make an escape from the totalitarian state (as the State AND state of minds). Math possibility you mentioned is exactly that. You just can't draft all the people into that as their state of mind and lifestyle has nothing to do with the projected purpose (an implementation plan). Nevertheless I'd think there are millions or maybe tens of millions who would take a plunge if and when they would feel a feasible opportunity would arise. BTW that's one of the reasons why I don't believe that some 1000 sq.miles area in Brazil (as suggested somewhere) would suffice. And we wouldn't NAP against Terror attacks because they wouldn't share our belief in it. Completely agreed! But even here - that implies the reasoning for our reaction would depend on what terrorists believes are - and we don't have a time for even think about what their reasoning might be or even who they are - as that's a war, at which the timing is crucial to survive.

I'm not so sure about that. IMHO the possibility "he might hit back" isn't a moral belief, but rather empirically accumulated knowledge (based on experience, memorized reflex). Religions share a lot of templates, including behavioral, moral principles, etc. That doesn't explain the huge differences how they practically applied. Moreover, many ideologies share those templates as well... The problem is we could talk ages to extract and show a pure virtue and wisdom about how great the NAP or Jesus, Kabbala, etc. are - but that would keep us as far from the implementation goal as only imaginable. As Stef recently stressed - "If tolerance is a value, then intolerant cultures must be kept out." We'll never succeed inside and nearby states or entire regions where do rule rude ignorant people poisoned with totalitarian ideology having almost unlimited modern technological intelligence + zero tolerance to use brute force whenever they'll see fit! That's why it's so easy to sink into the state of profounded disorder. All the noble principles may work inside rather homogenic mono-national societies, provided there are no immediate existential threats. I'd see the two possible options: either somehow to obtain the power in a rather sizable (that it could take in a millions of immigrants AND also sustain from short-mid term dangers) country like Argentina, Australia with quick buying and/or forcing out those who otherwise would stay and oppose by all means; or, to take (purchase, make an agreement, or even capture by force) a some suitable territory (a coast is a must) in the third world where (civil) war, or level of corruption would be "suitable" to expect the positive outcome. Note for all the purists. Good example is state of Israel. There 99,9% probability there will be a war shortly after such an attempt, so the military and militia would be among the first priority tasks, and NAP against terror and hybrid attacks would be suicidal.

Phase 1: Voting back to our roots Libertarians were below 1% almost all the time, they will hardly ever get 50+% in a foreseeable future. Both major US parties elites (D. Trump excluded from that definition) are running strong state (collectivists) system. If democrats win this time as expected, that would mean unconditional disability to stop the trend of ever increasing power of state. A collapse or essential degradation of the totalitarian state power may take another hundred years. Nuke would practically eliminate a prosperity of any society, maybe except rats

Q. Does it involve waiting for a crash and implement at that point? Well, keeping borders closed didn't work in Europe. Over 1 million influx of intolerant aggressive carriers of destruction only in Germany. There simply no time to wait for a crash or 500 years either. As there will be no nation or mono-ethnic group left that will be able to make the required changes in a one to two generations from now. Also, the current collectivists governments will fiercely fight against any sizable attempts to build a stateless territorial entity as their shadow puppeteers would lose power over it.