Is there an implementation plan for Stefan's stateless solution?

[Sima]

I listened to Stefan's podcasts, and as far that I understood, state is a result of authoritarian family.

People who are not used to express free will as grown ups,

because they didn't learn that while being children.

They want rules and therefore the state.

So the discussion goes back to peaceful parenting. 

 

The podcast "Guys like Lenny " was about this. 

[John R]

I didn’t watch the pod cast, but from what you wrote about it, it sounds correct to me.  It also agrees with my previous post.  And peaceful parenting is the perfect example to link the two.

 

There are 3 levels of peaceful parenting:

Level 1 example: “Don’t hit” - This added zero morality to the child so the child will find virtues elsewhere.

Level 2 example: “Don’t hit. Because it’s wrong” Or “Don’t hit. Apologize”. – Once the parents are gone, it’s not longer wrong or has to apologize.

Level 3 example: “Don’t hit.  Apologize or he might hit you back.” – This gives the child the ability to reason.  You are showing the child how to act if they are found in a similar situation.

 

Level 3 is what we are talking about when referring to peaceful parenting, so let’s break down the example:

“Don’t hit (the action). Apologize (the government), or he might hit you back (the moral belief).

 

Now if we look back at all 3 examples we see that we can’t have true peaceful parenting without moral beliefs.

And if the ‘action/moral belief’ is consistent then you have religion.

This template works for all religions.

 

Let’s look at a current State run religious example: “Don’t hit. Pay a fine or go to jail.”

 

So, Nap works by not only making the ‘action/moral belief’ consistent, but absolute equals as well.

[dusty frog]

...Level 3 is what we are talking about when referring to peaceful parenting, so let’s break down the example:

“Don’t hit (the action). Apologize (the government), or he might hit you back (the moral belief).

 

Now if we look back at all 3 examples we see that we can’t have true peaceful parenting without moral beliefs.

And if the ‘action/moral belief’ is consistent then you have religion.

This template works for all religions.

 

Let’s look at a current State run religious example: “Don’t hit. Pay a fine or go to jail.”

 

So, Nap works by not only making the ‘action/moral belief’ consistent, but absolute equals as well.

 

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.

[John R]

I think you are over complicating my argument.  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.

 

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.  And in regards to a child, they are learning reason, so you also need to inform them of the true possible consequence, so they can reason their own mortal beliefs.

 

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. 

 

And we wouldn't NAP against Terror attacks because they wouldn't share our belief in it.

[dusty frog]

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.

[John R]

People are so afraid of the consequences of  individual NAP moral beliefs that they forget about freewill (reason) when using it as a religion.  If you could type every single infinite motal belief of NAP into a computer, using reason (freewill), there is only 1 common outcome into being happy...DO NOT DECEIVE.

 

So, in using the terms of todays religions it goes like this:

 

Because of freewill, Gods only purpose is to show you the devil.

[John R]

Looks we carried out of the topic, so I'd hope only briefly..

I think we are on topic and thank you for your participation

 

So, I’m saying that everyone starts with a blank slate.  We need to be programmed to reason and through reason, choose our beliefs.  That’s crazy! I could choose that drugs and prostitutes are moral? Yep, but using religious speak, those morals would be a sin.  But in today's language, they would be bad for us.  So, how do we find a balance that we can survive and be happy?  We need Newton and his third law.  For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (as long as it’s not corrupted) gives us these ‘Absolute Morals’. As long as we stay on that line, our survival/happiness ratio is maximized.  Ofcourse, we are human, so to stay on the path is impossible, but as long as we know where the path is, we can find our way back.

 

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.  With the help of a religion of ‘absolute morals’ we found the bastard and revealed his trick.  He told us he was corruption instead of deceit.  We pulled the curtain away on The Wizard of Oz and said, “LOOK!  It’s not the lie that is the cause, it’s the liar!”

 

Now that we have found him, we can stop him.  And we can also look back at the damage he did…and it is enormous!  He is in Government, Religion and even language.  He is in the Bible and the Dictionary. How can religion be defined as “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects” and “an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods”? IT CAN’T!

 

Life’s only desire is not to die (the Soul).  With this argument, we can’t think in terms of 'how good we want to live, because it can give false positives and corruption.  We need to look at it by ‘how not to die’. In other words, finding what is bad for you makes it easier.

 

Here are some good ones, with the corruption underlined:

 

Non-medical Surgery is bad for me, except for abortion.

 

Suicide is bad for me but not others (besides being the complete contradiction of life) 

[dusty frog]

 

We need to look at it by ‘how not to die’. In other words, finding what is bad for you makes it easier.

 

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.

[John R]

Unfortunately, the two mentioned are in conflict with each other and even opposing when one needs to choose means to proceed.

You got it man!  You are right on the brink!  Smash those 2 people together with Newton's Third Law.  If people Morally believed 'an eye for an eye', They would never gouge anyone's eye out, therefore no punishment. And, people can be reprogramed through reason (freewill).  We are just at odds with this, because of our language (More on this later).

 

My closing argument

 

The fact that you believe or don’t believe in God is irrelevant in this argument.  That argument is on a higher level.  How we have reason is irrelevant as well (Maybe they’re linked?).  The current point is that the Plan maximizes the 'happiness-to-life expectancy' ratio of the individual and, in turn, the society. With that being said, I’m Christian, so I’m going to riddle the rest of my closing statement with religious undertones to show how close the plan is linked to Christianity (The corrupt version of Gods Plan).

 

I believe I’ve found the Ark of the Covenant (a proof for “Absolute Morals”).  This Ark only speaks God’s language.  Any Corrupted actions will give false positives. So, in order to get a Good reading, we need to tear down the Tower of Babel and Baptize the action.  

So, we must first ask this question:

 

Do I believe this action is accepted by my society? (It can be global acceptance, but let’s stick with country for now).  If not, you need to cleanse the corruption and try again. If you can’t cleanse it, the moral is not accepted in your society.

 

There are two types of corrupt ‘actions’ in society:

 

1.       An action with a purpose attached to it:  Vote – to trade for a promise

 

2.       An action with multiple meanings or actions

a.       Abortion – medical surgery  - Surgery with the purpose to better my health

b.      Abortion – non medical surgery  - Surgery without any purpose to better my health

 

Once you cleanse your action down to the lowest common denominator, we can drop it in the Ark and see what it tells us.

 

2 part proof for an ‘Absolute Moral’: Both answers need to be answered correct.

1.       Happiness (answered “yes”)

a.       Would you want this action performed on you?

b.      Or If the action is being performed on you: would you want this action performed on your family?

2.       Life Expectancy

a.      Is there any threat to my health? (if answered “yes”, go to b.)

b.      If so, because of freewill, is this threat worth the risk? (answered “yes”)

(Moving is not moral, but worth the risk – Original Sin)

 

Funny… Freewill is only involved with your life expectancy (“Hold my beer while I try this!”)

 

Stef, On March 29^th you sent out a call to arms.  We need to find a plan soon, or we are going to fall into chaos.  I started with trying to fix the government.  But, I realize government is irrelevant when it comes to religion.  I believe I found that plan.  I think you were looking for God’s ‘Uncorrupted’ Plan all along.

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcS-NglyU3M

[J.Stenitzer]

I've seen many of Stefan's videos on economics.  When he 'debated' with Peter Joseph I noticed something not talked about by either.

 

I've seen Peter's solution and notice that he's been at it for a number of years, seems like about 8 or more years and doesn't seem to have a plan to implement the solution that would work without removing the current system.  Note that this is aside of the validity of the system, and only focuses on the implementation of the plan.

 

I also can't seem to find one for Stefan's stateless solution.  Best guess is that it's to raise awareness of the solution and get the people to act on that.

 

Q. Is there any detailed implementation plan for the stateless solution?

 

Q. Does it involve waiting for a crash and implement at that point?

 

Q. Is there any coordination of efforts on this?

 

Thanks, KarlJay.

 

I think that it's funny that you find it necessary to ask the question. The idea of any person planning the social order of the world is a very "governed" idea in the first place. We are obsessed with someone laying out for us how it's going to be, but in the absence of a coercive government who is to say which plan gets enacted, or how?

 

Any number of complimentary or competing plans is going to arise and in the genuine absence of violence, the best ideas will eventually reveal themselves automatically. Of course in the real world there will always be coercive people on a quest for power, which makes the whole topic of a better world through anarchy a bit laughable in my opinion. 

 

Who could possibly "implement" or "coordinate" a post-state world on their own?

[John R]

Sorry.  It just came to me.  If this Proof is true then we now have a definition of 'God's Plan' - A global free society, through the democracy of Freewill (Heaven on Earth).

 

Look at that! The Ark of the Covenant is a ballot box! 

[dusty frog]

Who could possibly "implement" or "coordinate" a post-state world on their own?

 

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).

... A global free society, through the democracy of Freewill (Heaven on Earth).

 

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.

[John R]

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'm sorry.  I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not.  Both those statements can go both ways (except it goes with mother nature, not against).

[dusty frog]

Nice assertion. Care to back it up with an argument? Particularly, can you explain how a "coordinating" "protective shield" "flexible structure" that "just has to be in charge" would ensure the NAP is respected? It sounds to me like you're proposing a state that would somehow bridge the gap from "state" to "no-state," but that seems self-contradictory to me...

 

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?

[dusty frog]

I'm sorry.  I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not.  Both those statements can go both ways (except it goes with mother nature, not against).

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.

[John R]

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.

Thank you, I think I'm clear about your argument.  I don't believe mother nature has changed, only human morals.  We can try to use human history to find the answer, but if we step back we can see that nothing in history ever worked (our morals are changing too fast), while nature hasn't changed.

I do agree that there will be different free states across the globe, do to slightly different principles.  But, eventually we could all be under one free society.

[dusty frog]

Thank you, I think I'm clear about your argument.  I don't believe mother nature has changed, only human morals.  We can try to use human history to find the answer, but if we step back we can see that nothing in history ever worked (our morals are changing too fast), while nature hasn't changed.

I do agree that there will be different free states across the globe, do to slightly different principles.  But, eventually we could all be under one free society.

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...

[John R]

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...

I agree here too, except you are confusing global state with global society (global state is by force)

[dusty frog]

I agree here too, except you are confusing global state with global society (global state is by force)

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!

 

[John R]

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!

I think you are still over complicating the argument.  I think the problem is we need to get government out of your reasoning.  Like, in the 'murder person C or I'll kill you' arguement, Person C is irrelevant.  I don't know too much about IQ, but it sounds like the Flynn Effect is related to society's ability to reason.

There is an infinite amount of situations to reason on. The more of those situations that you have trained on, the better chance you have with ones you haven't.  The Government is taking away your need to reason, so the Flynn Effect is dropping.

 

Stef, lit the fuse yesterday...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kler8K4tIPM

 

While Stef is taking on the world solution, we can help with making a small change to our own Peaceful Parenting.  We need to remove any notion of a government in our teaching of reason:

 

Don't hit, you'll get in trouble (NO)

Don't hit, he might hit you back (Yes)

 

Don't steal, you could go to jail (NO)

Don't Steal, you wouldn't want someone to steal from your family (YES)

 

The only purpose for government is 'Self Government'; to protect children and people with little or no reason (Watch them, so they don't get hurt).

[dusty frog]

The only purpose for government is 'Self Government'; to protect children and people with little or no reason (Watch them, so they don't get hurt).

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?

[John R]

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'm sorry, the 'governmental presence' I was talking about was love (or your soul).  You are a guardian to your children.  When they are young they have low reasoning skills.  Your job is to be there and stop any altercation from happening, then tell them why it would be bad to do what they wanted to do.  As they get older, they develop their reasoning with help from you.  This lets them be able to start being unsupervised for short periods of time.  Eventually, they have developed their reasoning enough that they can live on their own. 

One problem with this process is 'playdates' or babysitters.  If the person guarding your child is not on your level (the 'do what you want' person), things start to fall apart.

And people that unleash a person, with no reason or little reason onto the world, is equivalent to the devil unleashing a demon on earth.  That demon might have all the good intentions in the world, but without guidance, he is doomed.

 

I agree with you that all the other stuff sounds hard to handle.  I don't know how it will all play out, but if we can get people on the right level, I believe it will be alot easier.

 

A thought about the Languasites came to me this morning.  They have already begun to adapt into their final form.  I call it, 'the devils Hail-marry pass' (his first and last trick).  Sarcasm = "you believe your reasoning over me?"  If we look at the bible, the book of Genesis, there is a chapter called 'The fall of man', the serpent convinced Eve to take a bite of the apple with one sentence, "you will not certainly die". Now, read that sentence with sarcasm. 

 

Edit: HaHa!  Get it?  The devil is a serpent because he has no arms or legs to stand on (with his argument)!

[dusty frog]

And people that unleash a person, with no reason or little reason onto the world, is equivalent to the devil unleashing a demon on earth.  That demon might have all the good intentions in the world, but without guidance, he is doomed.

I agree with you that all the other stuff sounds hard to handle.  I don't know how it will all play out, but if we can get people on the right level, I believe it will be alot easier.

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?...

[John R]

Please, don't confuse this plan with breeding an army of invaders by the use of force.  In fact it's the opposite of that.  It's breeding an army of defenders by the use of freewill.  Protect your children.  If you unleash them onto the world without reason, then you be damned; and let God have mercy on their soul (maybe they will find a guardian angel).  And with natural evolution, the Low IQ people will be breed out.

[dusty frog]

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.

[John R]

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'm sorry, I can't show you the plan.  I guess, I just can't get the right words out.

[dusty frog]

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

[John R]

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

No.  If you are truly trying to understand my argument (which I think you are), then it's my fault for not explaining it proper.  And, don't worry about your english, its my first, and only, language and I can't seem to use it.

My intent was not to get this deep into the plan (how to defend against aggressors), but let me try.

Newtons 3rd law: for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction.  Another way to look at it, is in opposites (up/down, left/right, yes/no, good/evil).  An army is just an organized group of fighters.  What you do with that army is based on freewill (attack or defend).  'Attack' is by force and 'defend' is to stop the attacker (no more).  And the army would be more like the militias of the revolutionary war.  everyday citizens, not paid to fight, but defending their family, so they can live in peace.  

[dusty frog]

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.

[John R]

Sorry to divert slightly.  I just heard a podcast to from Alanis Morissette.  This podcast is the closest thing to implementing the plan, without the knowledge of what the plan actually is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMpRtNGVTK8

[John R]

I’d like to talk about Stef’s version of The Cave.  I’m messing up the view count because I’ve watched it at least 10 times.  Beautiful stuff!

 

That said, I think the story is incomplete.  The most important parts are missing, such as the force that pulls, and the people working the shadow puppets.

 

The philosopher realizes the key to his chains is in his hands.  He gets up and looks around.  He sees an enormous cage that houses the fire and the people working the shadow puppets (no guards).  The shadows are ridiculous to him now.  The only way to talk to his family and friends is to pretend what they see.  He tries to convince them that they have the key in their hand, just so he can have someone to talk to.  He could be doing this for years or decades.  He might actually get some people to unlock their chains.  And together they keep on fighting to unlock more chains.

Then one day, the philosopher convinces a stranger to unlock his chains.  The Stranger stands up, looks around and says, “Look! There is an exit”, and they walk out together.

 

Bible speak again (sorry):

A philosopher helps people unlock their chains; a Prophet shows the Philosopher the exit.  A Prophet only works on a philosopher and a philosopher only works on the chained.  A prophet can be a philosopher, but a philosopher can’t be a prophet until he has seen the sun. If you mess with the system you might get murdered.  

 

EDIT: I just thought of an epic Philosopher that helps take chains off though comedy...Ricky from trailer park boys!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO1RLnJBQzc

 

EDIT 2:  With the corruption (or mis-interpretation) of 'absolute forgiveness'  Christianity fell like this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcTsxs-anU

 

EDIT 3: Sorry, don't want to bump.  I just wanted to comment on the '4 ways rules can be enforced' video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzY1D1flhT8

I think it was good, but over complicated.  I think Newtons 3rd law works here too.  There is one formula to enforce rules, but it can be stacked for multiple levels of rules. It goes like this:

 

"I want the love of, and fear the punishment of ______________"

 

It could be God or State, or for kids it could be Parents or Guardian...whoever you love, trust or envy (stack-able).

 

To get the love, you need to love and obey.  This will result in fearing the punishment less, because you are not going to break the rules.

If you don't care about the love, you will fear the punishment more, because the punisher doesn't care about you.  But, this also results in 'nobody to impress', so is the punishment worth it?

 

With Fear, you have to deal with punishment, which means government and its Wack-A-Mole tactics...The downward spiral of Society

 

 

I go to an Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and I can't recall my Pastor ever talking about Hell.