smarterthanone Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 I am going to explain why as much as we have people like Stef and McInnes and Crowder and Shapiro and many others going around trying to educate people, we can never dig ourselves out of the hole. Three Reasons: 1. Not everyone is capable. A huge portion of the population will just never understand, period, ever. These people have already been given power through government programs, voting, etc. 2. The amount of effort it takes to convert actual intelligent people either from leftist ideologies or middle positions is ridiculous. I didn't want to be involved or look into things for over a decade. Casual exposure over a long time finally got me interested enough to research and form my own opinions. I think this is far more typical than someone just watching 5 videos and then being libertarian or conservative of some kind, its I think a much longer process to build firm beliefs. 3. Not all intelligent people who understand this will support libertarian/conservatism. For example, the Obamas and Clintons and such, they must be smart people in order to get where they got, however, they see more benefits to them individually by driving the lefts machine vs other options. I bet they understand all this stuff and would do anything to gain more money and power. Another example is say someone intelligent and understanding of how this all works but say they never saved for retirement and now live off social security. They will not vote or promote the loss of their income because its against their self interests. For these three reasons, I do not think its possible to effectively reduce the size or scope of government in order to make a difference. You cannot get a steady majority to hold for a long period of time. Now you may think, what about the past? Well the government has grown steadily through the entire history of the United States, so we never had a steady balanced equilibrium of liberty, it was always constantly being eroded. We can also look to other governments, how many times in history has a large government decreased drastically through peaceful means? It's obviously not something that happens. I think we are done. The best we can hope for is to hold fast in our current position as best as possible through the rest of our lives.
barn Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 Hi @smarterthanone Wow! You didn't leave out nothing by the 'sound' of it. What do you think the Internet means to society? (as in: integrated) 1
ticketyboo Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 7 hours ago, smarterthanone said: I think we are done. The best we can hope for is to hold fast in our current position as best as possible through the rest of our lives. My own idea is that having large numbers of people capable of and interested in acting ethically (UPBs) is downstream from group selection, and group selection is downstream from a K-selected environment. Western civilization has been r-selected for a long time now, which is why the people are so terrible. You can't make a good civilization out of bad people. Anyone that cares about virtue should be seeking to destroy the West, not save it. Or rather, they should be seeking to completely remake the West, which is something that can probably only be done after the present civilization has been destroyed. The most intelligent people gather the most resources for themselves and create the most r-selected environment for themselves. Intelligence is hereditary, so this carries on for multiple generations. This is why the elites are so r-selected and so against the people (e.g., the Clintons). Scott Adams has the Moist Robot Hypothesis, which he more recently started referring to as the Persuasion Filter (I guess that's better persuasion than calling people "robots"). I believe most people are not educable, but merely trainable (or "programmable", under the Moist Robot Hypothesis). The West has trained its people to hate their race, hate their nations, and hate their culture. Government schools, the elites, and the Hollywood entertainment industry have trained Western people to self-destruct their civilizations. And so they will. 6 hours ago, barn said: What do you think the Internet means to society? Stef says it's a revolutionary technology that has a chance to defeat the cycles of historical civilizational rise and fall. I don't think Stef is an optimist, however. He merely says it offers a chance.
RichardY Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 Basicially Spinoza's reasoning at the end of his book "The Ethics". He also ridicules Descartes idea of the body being influenced by animal spirits via the pineal gland. The so called third eye in the occult.
smarterthanone Posted August 28, 2018 Author Posted August 28, 2018 On 8/23/2018 at 2:08 AM, ticketyboo said: My own idea is that having large numbers of people capable of and interested in acting ethically (UPBs) is downstream from group selection, and group selection is downstream from a K-selected environment. Western civilization has been r-selected for a long time now, which is why the people are so terrible. You can't make a good civilization out of bad people. Anyone that cares about virtue should be seeking to destroy the West, not save it. Or rather, they should be seeking to completely remake the West, which is something that can probably only be done after the present civilization has been destroyed. The most intelligent people gather the most resources for themselves and create the most r-selected environment for themselves. Intelligence is hereditary, so this carries on for multiple generations. This is why the elites are so r-selected and so against the people (e.g., the Clintons). Scott Adams has the Moist Robot Hypothesis, which he more recently started referring to as the Persuasion Filter (I guess that's better persuasion than calling people "robots"). I believe most people are not educable, but merely trainable (or "programmable", under the Moist Robot Hypothesis). The West has trained its people to hate their race, hate their nations, and hate their culture. Government schools, the elites, and the Hollywood entertainment industry have trained Western people to self-destruct their civilizations. And so they will. Stef says it's a revolutionary technology that has a chance to defeat the cycles of historical civilizational rise and fall. I don't think Stef is an optimist, however. He merely says it offers a chance. I don't think you can rely on ethical people. There can never be a system in which everyone is well reasoned and educated to the degree where it is possible. You could have a society in which you banish people who do not meet the correct level of understanding but that means peoples kids and wives and things could be banished. I don't think people would allow that and maintain such a society. I think a feudal society with a benevolent land owner is the best that could be hoped for.
ticketyboo Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 9 hours ago, smarterthanone said: I think a feudal society with a benevolent land owner is the best that could be hoped for. We're likely to end up with global corporations as the feudal lords, with the employees as their serfs. One of the problems with globalism is that it detaches elites from dependence on the local populace. The elites have no need for loyalty to or from any particular nation's people. This is why they hate nationalism so much. The number of small businesses is decreasing. People are dependent on their big corp employer for income and health insurance. If you tweet something that the global corps disapprove of (they are strangely all politically aligned), you can be unpersoned (Roseanne, James Damore, Alex Jones). We're part way there.
J.L.W Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 3 hours ago, ticketyboo said: The number of small businesses is decreasing. People are dependent on their big corp employer for income and health insurance. If you tweet something that the global corps disapprove of (they are strangely all politically aligned), you can be unpersoned (Roseanne, James Damore, Alex Jones). We're part way there. What is your source on this? The number of small business should not be increasing in America from what I have seen. I think the main query comes down to parenting. I know cool guys who are naturally intelligent but have swallowed the leftist propaganda because, at least I think, bad parenting really does create the need to look up to the State. I think religion may have once stood as a useful balwark against these sorts of traps but is now massively weakened. One thing about the situation we are in at the moment is because the lack of a heirarchy has created a certain levelling where you get some extremely intelligent and previously well employed people working in jobs that are below what they would get in a well functioning society. I used to work with a guy who was very high up in a BBC like organisation in Venezuela. I think as a lot of people are exposed to different viewpoints and... REALITY then their thoughts on things will change. For instance, the type of braindamaged mind that agrees with leftist propaganda is going to have a moment when that neurosis is challenged in the real world.
smarterthanone Posted August 29, 2018 Author Posted August 29, 2018 13 hours ago, ticketyboo said: We're likely to end up with global corporations as the feudal lords, with the employees as their serfs. One of the problems with globalism is that it detaches elites from dependence on the local populace. The elites have no need for loyalty to or from any particular nation's people. This is why they hate nationalism so much. The number of small businesses is decreasing. People are dependent on their big corp employer for income and health insurance. If you tweet something that the global corps disapprove of (they are strangely all politically aligned), you can be unpersoned (Roseanne, James Damore, Alex Jones). We're part way there. That's because people are weak. Weak people are not capable of doing what needs to be done therefore they need to rely on society to survive aka be another part of a corporation one way or another. I'm sorry to say but if you rely on say social media like Alex Jones, you cannot ever be free from undue influence because you rely on an outside party. Strength starts with your personal strength of mind BUT what is needed is complete self reliance from society and then building from scratch new systems of function to start a society from the ground floor. Imagine you had a clear dominance over ever single interaction in your life? You could do pretty much anything. Say you owned twitter as a private corporation, only you then could post anything you want on twitter. So in order to rely on twitter you ought to build or buy twitter. This is asking too much of most people because they can barely figure out how to survive while using all the tools at their disposal let alone saying no to most opportunities in order to be free of influence. There are people more like me who are actively working to not only reduce influence (such as someone who lives in the woods and is self sufficient) but then to rebuild civilization by building their own systems to replace the status quo.
ticketyboo Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 On 8/29/2018 at 3:18 AM, J.L.W said: On 8/28/2018 at 11:33 PM, ticketyboo said: The number of small businesses is decreasing. People are dependent on their big corp employer for income and health insurance. If you tweet something that the global corps disapprove of (they are strangely all politically aligned), you can be unpersoned (Roseanne, James Damore, Alex Jones). We're part way there. What is your source on this? The number of small business should not be increasing in America from what I have seen. We may be in agreement. I said the number of small businesses "is decreasing", you said "should not be increasing". An increasing percentage of people work at large businesses:
Meister Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 I have a very high IQ (north of 130) and realized very early on in my life that almost all people are useless idiots. You just have to accept that people are morons. I treat them like large and dangerous children. There is nothing you can do about it. That’s just how it is. I have to say that I’ve grown very fund of Molyneux lately. I wouldn’t pay anyone for therapy (because the therapist would almost cerainly be an imbicel), so listening to Molyneux has motivated me to somewhat be my own therapist. He really does provide great value to people and I hope he and his family are happy and do well.
Recommended Posts