Search the Community

If there's one group that's more universally hated than Nazis, it's pedophiles. Playing fair is not working out. We need to fight fire with fire. I do not advocate violence, mostly just out of integrity because I personally would not put my body and life on the line to fight the communism, violence and profound insanity of the left. The entrenched leftist establishment is not going to be defeated by valiant intellectual struggle... Arguments are not working. Philosophy is not working. Humor and satire is not working. Public shaming is not working. Winning elections is not working. Everyday I get more and more convinced that more visceral tactics are needed. The best way I can think of to do this is to start smearing conspicuous leftists as pedophiles. With many thousands of very committed and creative cyber-sleuths on The Donald sub-reddit, 4chan, Twitter, etc and the amazing things you can do with Photoshop and audio/video editing software quiet damning digital evidence could be created easily. It would spread so fast and far. The left has been calling Trump Hitler and his supporters Nazis for almost two years, the majority of the country and world doesn't believe them but a fringe of idiots really do and are willing to commit violence. Which is deleterious to free speech and is enough to silence a lot of Trump supporters. There's grotesque logic to it... If, by some time warp, you met a genuinely murderous Nazi it would be as appropriate to punch them as it would be a to bunch a real pedophile that abused children. Look at this guy the Mayor of Berkeley, complicit in the violence and strangling of the free speech at UC Berkeley @@JesseArreguin His fat face just screams I'm a pedophile! The left is profoundly cowardly, if a few highly vocal public leftists suffered real consequences for the evil ideology they push, the hysterically vocal tone of the leftists will change rapidly. The reason the leftist thugs wear face masks is because they really do fear social ostracization, they don't want to be caught on a viral Youtube video attacking a defenseless woman that their friends, family and future potential employers will see. Public leftists will face the same social ostracization if they are exposed as pedophiles. . Just writing this makes me uncomfortable because it's not in my character to lie about about people and slander. But the left is so determined to drag western society into a genocidal apocalypse the only other alternative I see is countering their nasty bloody violence with more violence. As you read this totally callous leftists are conspiring to take down Trump, to beat Nationalism, to kill free speech and they have no scruples whatsoever. Who was it that said... If the left could put us in camps. They would. Stefan himself said in his recent video that perhaps the time for arguments is over. Perhaps it's time for action. This would require organization, fund raising, thorough vetting, media manipulation, covert communication, counter intelligence and real skills with photoshop and AV software. I'm not going to do it, but somebody should. I would give you money to do it, and so would a lot of people. Just let me know your Bitcoin address!

I’ve been digging into the philosophy of Freedomain Radio and Stefan Molyneux and I find this concept of the non-aggression principle- which obviously did not originate from FDR but which is central to the philosophy- to be quite muddy. What does it mean to initiate violence or aggression? I think the idea that it is only the ‘other guy’ that initiates violence is akin to what Girard called, “the romantic lie” The ‘romantic lie’ is Girard’s idea that our desires and purposes arise from some creative inner depth within ourselves. The truth is that our desires are generally inspired by the desires of others. We want things not because they are inherently desirable but because someone else's desire for them has made them attractive to us. We see it in advertising where the products are not presented on their merits but as the possessions of attractive or prestigious people. We are invited to enjoy some quality of being that belongs to the person who has the product and not the product itself. Desire is never a straight line between a subject and an object but always has some ‘other’ as it’s model. Desire is essentially borrowed desire. "There is no such thing as ’natural desire’, otherwise it would be instinct. If desire had a fixed object it couldn’t change and it would be the same as animal instinct. Therefore desire always come from the ‘other’. This other, if he is close enough socially, physically, will necesarily become our rival when we desire his object. Human desire is changeable by its very nature. Beyond the basic things to which instinct or appetite direct us, our wants and our abilities are shaped entirely by imitation of those who surround us and those we admire. This is how we develop our entire cultural repertoire, beginning with the language we speak. We learn because we want to be like those from whom we learn. Aristotle say humans are the most mimetic of creatures. What Aristotle doesn’t point out is the shadow side this aptitude for imitation, which is the way it leads to rivalry between those who desire the same things. This rivalry will be most intense between those who are most alike in their interests and affections. The paradox is that the closer you are, the more your goals will be the same. This will be true at the highest level, at the intellectual level. If we are close intellectually, we are going to look for the same things and there will be moments when we feel that the other is more successful than we are. In fact, it’s everybody’s tendency to feel that the other is more successful. It’s also everybody’s tendency to feel “I am more successful” or “I should be more successful” but anyway the problem will be there because man is essentially a dynamic individual who wants to occupy the entire stage. This individualism will lead us into competition with the people who are closest to us. Aristotle says tragedy is conflict to the death between people closest to each other. The closer you are to someone, the greater the possibility of conflict given what man is, his goals and his individual imperialism. This is the unspoken truth of social existence that is hidden by the ‘romantic lie’ but revealed in the greatest works of literature." "I offer my hand. You take it. We shake hands. But if you don’t take my hand and if you put your hand behind your back, I will also put my hand behind my back. In other words, I will reciprocate a friendly action, you will reciprocate it too. But if there is no good reciprocity there will immediately be a bad one which takes over. And this is what I think the specialists of human relations have not noticed enough. That far from lacking reciprocity, we can not get out of it. But it’s very easy to shift from good reciprocity to bad reciprocity and terribly difficult to shift from bad reciprocity to good reciprocity and I think the problem of mankind is really precisely that. That whichever reciprocity we have, we are not going to be able to get out of it, it will be a vicious circle into which things will always get worse and worse, because even good reciprocity can become bad by force of repetition. We are very different from animals in that respect. I think that reciprocity begins with a glance. We look at each other. This is a very striking thing in my view. When you look at animals fighting on TV, even the two goats that hit precisely the center of the forehead. They don’t look at each other. They don’t look at each other before the fight, during the fight, or after the fight. There is a total lack of glance. This is so true that Kipling had a special theory, which was typical Kipling. He was a genius, but in the Jungle Book there is that story that animals can not stand the glance of man, which is human superiority- it’s not true! If you look a cat in the eyes too long, the cat will be bored, will go to sleep. But men will never go to sleep. They’ll rise to the challenge and they’ll fight. I think it is the good and the bad of man. It’s inescapable. We are terribly mimetic, and being mimetic we are inevitably open to conflict. What is vengeance? Vengeance is doing what the other guy does, always the same thing. But it’s the ultimate in bad reciprocity. To stop it by killing the opponent. And all men know how to do that and only men (and women) know how to do that because animals don’t have intra-specific murder. So when people say, “Humans are violent, animals are much less violent”- they are right. If we didn’t have culture, in the human sense, there would be no humanity. Humanity would have destroyed itself at birth. When the mimetic power rose in the relationship between animals- and we know that it rises, and we know it today scientifically through the mirror neurons. The higher you get, the more mirrored neurons you have and the more mirrored neurons you have (with man) the more you do the same thing. But this ‘doing the same thing’ includes enough violence to kill. And we call it vengeance. The human species is the only one which threatens it’s own existence from birth.” René Girard

I thought I'd give my thoughts on this topic because it seems I have an issue that doesn't seem to be all that common (or at least not that obvious) around here. I've had a mixed experience with bullying in my life. Particularly in terms of mental bullying and psychological domination. In the house I grew up in. Insults were thrown about with total abandon and with accompanying rage. It seemed like the only way to carve out enough space for me to breathe was to issue a humiliation or shaming remark to someone that would act like a kind of mental cattleprod shock, that would temporarily dent the ego of the other and keep them away for a small amount of time. On a few occasions when the abuse and hostile atmosphere got too much I would lash out, I remember feeling satisfaction at striking my brother's skull with my fist. My violent fantasies in regard to my family are all to do with blows to the head. Looking back, obviously I loathed them for what went on in their heads the most. Physically nothing about them offended me (why would it?). Different brains in the same bodies would have been great. The fantasies I have had in the months of defooing all involve tying them up and issuing baseball bat blows to the head. Even now in conflict I feel the same way. In arguments if I feel attacked or cornered I slip into a terminator mode of detachment where all I see before me is a few pounds of offensive meat encased in a skull that if I cannot strike directly, I will use all my self-knowledge and knowledge of psychology to break it and turn it in on itself with shame, humiliation etc etc. I understand this will cause me no end of grief in my life if I cannot work through it. I think my prior counsellors have been intimidated by this 'inner bully' that I have and so when it came up their empathy dropped like a power line in a rainstorm, and the therapy continued in a kind of lifeless way until things petered out. In particular I feel women simply disengage when this part of me comes up, even if it is attacking those who are not present, because obviously they know it's ire could be turned on them too. I think (from what I gather), a lot of people in FDR are bully victims, and though they may be defooing and feeling lots of anger. This is the first time it has surfaced for them and so it is manageable. Whereas for me it feels as if my inner-bully surfaced rather early and has become a malignant and extreme part of my personality. I feel it stands in my way and isn't so nice to deal with for anyone. I was wondering if any of you have had similar experiences and what helped you handle it?

"Levoy Finicum was Shot and murdered in Cold blood today in Burns Oregon today by the FBI and State Law enforcement. He had his hands up and was shot 3 Times." Bundy FB says https://www.facebook.com/bundyranch [LIVE] Breaking Burns Oregon: Reports of Shots Fired - Casualties and Hospital Lockdown

Last weekend I took a break from writing my book to record a few new videos. Here's one of them on universalizing the principle of non-abuse.

Stef has mentioned several times about a bipolar person becoming violent but then turning it off at will; that they must have some control over it. I might be able to help with this because they do. I am 100% disabled, diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder I, II, mixed episodes w/psychotic features, and PTSD. Yet, I have never beaten anyone while in a state of anger. But I think I have an idea where it came from. In the 70s there was a trend—fad being apropos—that when you get angry you should release that anger on something non-living. I was told to use a sledge hammer on rocks, chop fire wood, or hit a heavy bag. (Years later research showed this to be a terrible idea because then you just associate anger with violence.) Fortunately, during the same time frame, I had a teacher at a boarding school that began to teach me martial arts and meditation. This countered the fad of channeled destruction. In order to fight with skill you must remain calm, light, supple, and fully aware—you cannot do this in a state of anger. So, when a person would make me angry where the desire to fight was triggered I actually calmed down and could walk away if needed. As to why violence is seen in certain people with these conditions it may have to do with the way they handle moods, emotions, and the fight-or-flight response. The mood of someone with bipolar disorder fluctuates in ways beyond their control. Some attempts are made with chronic medication to handle mood but this is a band aid on a gushing wound. If a bipolar person wants to maintain healthy mood levels they must avoid stress—sadly bipolar people are drawn to it because mania is a hell of a drug! In a state of mania I can sleep as little as two hours a night, my senses become more acute (now I have permanent hyperacusis), I would have endless energy (work out for up to 18 hours of a day), and everything just felt better. But there is also the crash where you then stay in bed for 18 hours a day and can barely move to take care of yourself. For emotions of the bipolar person you have a very serious problem, you become the emotion while in certain states of mania or depression. I have described it being like a gun where when the trigger is pulled the emotions are fired. A normal person will still be holding the gun but a bipolar person becomes the bullet—they can lose control. (Note: not will lose control.) These cases happen under duress and not in a normative state—this is where the person is approaching, or in, a state of psychosis. When it comes to the fight-or-flight response some bipolar people can turn it off. Yes, I am completely serious; they can take control of that reflex. I’ve done it many times. If you have ever been in an emergency situation where the world seems to slow down as things are taking place, imagine being in full control of using that while it is happening. That is a part of what I am talking about. After the fact however you are still quite stressed. Now we need to look at those things listed and see how they are useful: Let’s picture a world of pre-history, pre-civilization, your tribe is under attack and you have certain members that can take on a threat with heightened senses, heightened reflexes, little need for sleep or recovery, they control the urge to flee, they become empowered to fight anything in front of them to the point of death. They feel invincible. They fight while everyone else gets to safety. This is a matter of survival. Do you understand why they have such a need for recovery after the event? Also, keep in mind this would be short term and not for months, or years, on end—that’s where modern society has caused such an issue. (Note: sex helps most bipolar people recover; how much of a hero would they be?) To return to the original question: If a bipolar person is under constant duress, has been taught to use violence to curb anger, but loses emotional control toward a particular perceived threat they will attack that target. You avoid this with mindfulness training (a.k.a. meditation), appropriate exercise, martial arts when necessary, and drugs when the person approaches psychotic states of mania. What was a natural state was corrupted to an unnatural one.

So I'm currently trying to DeFOO but I'm not sure how to go about it. I remember Stefan mentioning a few times that talking to your parents about your childhood is very helpful but to be honest, I couldn't be bothered. I've been seeing a therapist for over a year and we're discussing the options of either writing a letter to them or confronting them in person. Let me give you some background to better understand my situation. I'll try to keep it short: I have an ACE score of 7. I've never been close to my parents and they've never taken any interest in me, the youngest, or my 3 other brothers. We've never, ever had a meaningful conversation as far as I know - it's only ever superficial like "how's work?" or "how's the weather?". I think I've been depressed most of my life. School was hell with being bullied about my weight, feeling like an alien and my mother managed to make things worse. In my teens I was self-harming, almost committed suicide, became a truant and eventually moved out at 17 when I graduated from the shit pit that was high school. I was really messed up at 17 but getting away from home was probably the smartest thing I've ever done. My childhood: I have a lot of memories of violence in my family. My two eldest brothers are around 10 years my senior and I have memories of my father beating the shit out of them and choking them against the wall while my mother screamed and threw plates. With the rest of my siblings, I was spanked and hit on a regular basis; anything from once a week to once a month. Until I was 17 I suppressed the memories of being sexually abused at around 5 or 6 by my second eldest brother (Let's call him Dave). Only recently I started remembering more details of sadistic behaviour from Dave, such as pinning me to the ground and spitting in my face while I screamed, or he would pick me up by the ankles and purposely swing me around close to the wall of our house outside, making me believe he was trying to smash my face in, or even kill me. My parents blamed me for his behaviour by saying shit like "you shouldn't be playing with him then". As for the sexual abuse, my parents knew about it. I have a memory where my mother walked in on Dave manipulating me to touch him inappropriately and she didn't do anything about it. Instead she pretended nothing was wrong and even thought that leaving me in Dave's care ALONE was an okay thing to do. Recently I realised that I started piling on weight and started a very long war with eating disorders after the sexual abuse. In my teens my mother saw the scars on my arm from self-harming and instead of talking to me or getting me help, she pointed an accusatory finger at me and, of course, I would completely shut down and lock myself in my room. If she heard me crying in my room, she would get angry. I spent the next 10 years moving further and further away. My parents live in the arse-crack of nowhere in south-west Ireland and I ended up moving to the Netherlands 4 and a half years ago. I spent the past 10 years feeling guilty about not seeing my family enough and spent a lot of money on travelling back and forth. Not once have my parents bothered to visit me, and they never had a mortgage and don't have any debt as far as I know. I have thought about confronting them in person but at this point I don't see why I should spend so much time and money and resources on people who never loved me and never protected me. I know for sure that I will never get a satisfying answer and I will never be able to repair this relationship. Am I justified in just writing them just a letter telling them that I never want contact again? The idea of confronting them physically is terrifying so I sometimes wonder if I am just chickening out or not? I've thought about calling into the show but I feel like I'm all over the place and I would just be wasting Stefan and Mike's time. Thanks in advance and sorry for the lack of structure in my post. I'm having a hard time putting my thoughts and feelings together.

I listen to The Art of Manliness Podcast every now and then and I came across this interesting conversation about biological origins of male aggression. I immediately thought of the FDR shows I've heard on the topic and wanted to share. What do you guys think? http://feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/173724074-artofmanliness-86-demonic-males-with-dr-richard-wrangham.mp3

If your circumstances require you to have regular contact (eg. a few times a week) with someone who threatens you with physical violence and who actually uses physical violence against you, how should you deal with them? My situation: - I am a student living in a house with 23 other people. - I can't afford to move house and I don't want to leave my friends in the house. - One person in my house threatens me with physical violence (and actually uses physical violence) if I do something that annoys them. I don't intentionally annoy them and none of the things I do puts anyone in danger (eg. setting things on fire) or gives anyone any difficulty (eg. blasting music at 2am). - The violence that is threatened would cause serious bodily harm, but the violence that is actually used does not. - This person shows no remorse and, during and after the use or threat of violence, shows no playfulness(i.e. it's not just a joke - not that that would make it okay). - This person is female and I am male. She is about 30cm shorter than I am and she must weigh about 20kg less than I do. So not many people are genuinely sympathetic towards me as the victim. - Police involvement is out of the question. So how should you mentally deal with someone like this, and how should you deal with them when you're in contact with them?

I saw this article that someone posted on my facebook feed: http://www.buzzfeed.com/spenceralthouse/male-survivors-of-sexual-assault-quoting-the-people-who-a In part I'm glad it was shown, especially on buzzfeed which is very feminist. Some thoughts that I had while reading: -how sad and angry I am for what the participants went through, in both the experience itself, and the way that it was received by others -I noticed that many of the people in the article were transgendered - and does that make a difference? It sounds like many of the transgendered people were women when they had their experience, which makes me feel like the article was still implying that rape is more of a female-oriented issue in general. But that may not be accurate, since I don't know if they include female transgendered individuals in similar articles about women, who were raped when they were still physically men. Either way, I think I would call it a good thing that this article attempts to show that men are also victims of rape, and that they require empathy too. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152144338807452&fref=nf

https://www.change.org/petitions/president-barack-obama-end-police-brutality#share

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/07/14/miami-cop-fearing-termination-altercation-speeding-internal-affairs-lieutenant/ A Miami officer pulls over a man who was speeding. The man refused to show his ID and tries to get out of the car. In retaliation, the officer puts his hand around the man's neck to hold him back. After a few words, the officer throws the man to the ground and pins him. A few other officers show up to help the officer out. It turns out the man is an off duty internal affairs lieutenant. The other officers pull them off from each other, say some words, and then drives away. On one hand the lieutenant broke the law. His job is to live by the law and enforce it, otherwise he is a hypocrite and defines his job as unjust. He was not charged for speeding and was free to walk away despite breaking the law. In the other hand the officer was aggressive towards the man, so much as putting his hand around his neck and throwing him to the ground. Unless there were threatening words mentioned towards the officer from the man, none of these seem justified on any grounds. The only thing in defense of the officer is when the lieutenant opened the door, which he should not have and should have known not to do. In the end the officer was discharged.

I commented in another thread that spanking works, which makes the argument for peaceful alternatives with people who spank their children difficult. I was surprised to find that some of the community here think that spanking doesn't work at all. Perhaps the problem was in my use of the word "work", but I think it goes deeper than that. So after netting a lot of downvotes I left the conversation alone. I think it deserves some more consideration though so I'm creating this thread to discuss it further. DISCLAIMER: I'm not encouraging, endorsing, or defending spanking! My argument is this: Spanking "works" in the sense that it causes children to obey the commands of parents. It is the most basic and primitive form of expression and control. Children from a very young age understand that physical pain is bad and will change their behavior to avoid it. Parallels can be seen in the stereotypical master/slave relationship where beatings and whippings are employed to, in effect, force slaves to work. Prisoners of war can be physically tortured into obeying their torturer and divulging military secrets. Violence is used by social animals to assert dominance over peers and establish a pecking order. The effectiveness of violence is a rudimentary fact of nature that cannot be ignored and doesn't need to be spelled out. Conceding a point to anyone who uses violence against children may leave some of you feeling dirty, but there is an unfortunate truth here. Violence can be used to manipulate obedience from a child. So when someone says that spanking has worked for them and that their children are very well behaved because of it there are many things you could say, but you cannot say that spanking does not work.

A really interesting video showing the attitude of violence against men by women filmed in Fitzrovia, London - the 'creative industries' centre of London and hence home to some the most well educated and intelligent men and women in the world. http://www.trueactivist.com/this-is-what-happens-when-the-public-sees-a-woman-abusing-a-man/

Nothing sinister is going on here...

Can anyone help me narrow down or find a really good video that goes indepth into the effects of war on soldiers, the breaking down of children for future recruitment, ptsd, violence, etc. Things of this nature? I know i've heard it before from Stefan, I just cant find what I'm looking for. Any assistance would be appreciated! P.S. - Im not talking about the 2 newest ones, the "No Thanks For Your Service" and the "Truth Behind Fort Hood". Thanks again!

So, sitting on my bed in my room writing this, since I can't fall asleep, coughing out my lungs. No, no that bad, just a virus or something messing with me Anyway, there is a topic that I have thought of (and still am thinking about), that bugs me. A lot. It's the ''Against me'' argument (is it correct to call it an argument?) that Stef presents. In case you aren't familiar to this argument, heres a video with Stef laying it out: Anyways, what is bugging me is that I understand what Stef is saying. I agree with what he is saying. And there is a part of me, that would like to live that argument. I think. But, there is also (I think) a part of me that wants to keep the social life I have. That doesn't want to ask this simple question. Having the social circles I have today, engaging in social communities, just keep rolling along. Then again, I am a fairly certain, that a BIG, part of me, wants to find people with virtue to hang out with. I think those are rare. And, having people in my life that are lacking virtue, will most certainly keep me from meeting people with virtue. Let alone finding myself a virtuous woman to spend my life with. THEN AGAIN... It's scary to make the decision. To get people that endorse violence against you, out of your life. Darn it. I guess I don't have much of a question to ask. It's just a choice I have to make. Have any of you chosen the philosophical path, i.e. ''I minimize the amount of people in my life that are against me''? If yes, what's it like? If not, why not? Is there a third alternative?

So here is an important moral question: Is a crime found in the accusation of criminality, or in the comission of the criminality? Some examples to illustrate: A man steals a phone. If he is caught, but the person who was stolen from forgives the criminal and gives him the phone out of free choice, was the theft a crime? In this case the lack of accusation causes there to be no crime comitted. However, is the man still a criminal? even though his actions were forgiven, is he a criminal simply by comitting the crime?

The idea of "country" is also what keeps freedom fighters fighting, rather than just moving and emigrating. Why fight militarily against governments when you can just move to another country? Sure there are costs, like having to learn another language, etc, but is it really worth dying or fighting? (For me personally, it's just not worth it. Just take your family and leave. You can't sway the outcome much, and there is huge personal risk. The potential prize is what, a better government for one country? If it was to rid of all governments, maybe I might think about it.)Why do freedom fighters fight? I'm sure a large part of their bag of reasons is nationalism, combined with ethnic pride. Having some moral and emotional stake in the geography inhabited by their own ethnicity that contains the traditions, culture, and maybe even physical monuments significant to history. The way I see it, they stand their ground and fight mainly because of the same lingering loyalty to their "country."So yes, the governments are bad, and they propagandize, cause wars, predate on their tax farms, etc. That's a given. I want to make a point beyond that, and shine my little light on the motivation of freedom fighters. If they didn't fight, then there would be no war (granted, it would be so much easier for governments, etc, but lets put that issue aside).As far as the motivation of rebel freedom fighters, the lingering idea and belief in "their country" is probably the biggest reason they stand and fight.

A very impromptu video: an analysis of Skylar Grey's song "Love The Way You Lie," that is a consummate example of Stockholm syndrome and a toxic repetition of unprocessed relationship patterns.

I spend some time on reddit, which is quite the "melting-pot" amongst internet forums. Every now and then I'll see a video (like today) of someone being an asshole and then getting knocked over or punched, and it's celebrated. I'll read through the top 50 comments and find no dissent at all. Then I post something like "Wow, that could have been handled a lot of other ways. What if that person was seriously injured?" or something to that effect. I'll get about 10 downvotes in as many minutes (but of course never a decent rebuttal), and then my comment is below the threshold to be shown to most users. What really troubles me is that these aren't secret agents of the state, trying to destroy the voices of peace; they're our neighbors reveling in unwarranted aggression. Just felt like venting. It's nice to have a little corner of the 'net where you aren't shunned for wanting peace!

Hi everyone - I was inspired to make this video by a recent update by the local media about the Vancouver riots that occurred in 2011. Any feedback is welcome! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhf8vp3bk9M&feature=youtu.be

Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net