Archive for the ‘Arguments’ category

Why I don’t listen to social academics and authorities

December 18, 2015

This was my reply to a general internet comment about a person that preferred to believe in academics over random internet commenters like me, because academics had put the work into studying their field and subject.

Con artists have also put half of their life into being professional or studying the bag of tricks, but that doesn’t necessarily mean trust is automatically conferred due to their expertise in comprehending the system.

I prefer to trust in my own judgement over those of sub average or average social authorities. But that’s a question of hierarchy and cultural shock. Some are brought up to defer judgment to a technocrat elite or nebulous authority of elites, although their proof of eliteness is often untested and due to even greater levels of authority, not proof in and of itself.

In the same fashion that the collective defers ultimate authority and obedience to the “System” and individuals resist outsourcing authority/responsibility to unseen bureaucrats in the “System” or strangers, there are cultures which have preferences on a scale, but they are not purely in one camp or another.

On the note of collectivsm -> slavery, that revolves around the issue of which type of slavery. As I term it, there’s Slavery 1.0, Slavery 2.0, and Slavery 3.0.

A system where the uneducated and those who were economically subsistent and reliant on the powerful, such as women or Irish workers, foreigners that don’t speak your language, or lower class servants in the ancient Roman empire, would allow for Slavery 1.0, as the lower class can move to a higher class merely by having education (Roman and Greek slaves could buy their own freedom due to money from their education) or from having resources. They are still subordinate to the ruling doctrine, such as the Helots under the Spartans, or squires under Knights, or serfs under kings and royalty. Yet the unlanded commoner may become a knight, a lesser noble, due to deeds or special favor.

A caste system that does not allow genetic cross transfer or social mobility, such as the Hindu’s caste system with the Untouchables, Islam’s 750+ AD slave trade in Africa and the ME, or 1830’s American Democrat slave plantations, would qualify under Slavery 2.0

A space faring civilization which uses a meritocratic or not system in which a significant percentage of their resource production is manned by slaves, would be between a 2 and a 3. The slaves now comprise a significant portion of the population and is critical for the proper functioning of it. They are so essential, that it would be hard to equate them to the uneducated and disarmed slaves of the American Democrat plantations of 1830. Like the slave soldiers of the Ottomans, once they begin acquiring a critical cog in the system and also power, they may be called slaves later on, but actually treating them as inferior to everyone else, becomes less feasible.

On another note, the United State’s current mainstream culture can be summed up with these precepts.

1. Obey All Authority over you, no matter the orders given.
2. The selfish outliers will be punished.

The tradition and culture may have been focused on the individual, but it has now become the sub culture, not the mainstream. In this fashion, sub cultures can take over the mainstream and reverse the demographics, much like a game of Go. As for a society of individuals not allowing slavery, that of course depends on their definition of an individual. To the Democrat plantation land owners, an individual or a human was only classified as a male white land owner. Women, foreigners, and blacks were genetically considered different and/or inferior. The blacks were born and bred to work the fields so that the white aristocrats would have leisure and time for philosophy and art, the epitome of civilization. That was their justification under their society, why they fought for it. Well, technically the land owners didn’t fight, they were exempt from military service in the US Civil War 1.

What determines the system of slavery and whether it is used or not, is the hierarchy of the social status quo. If the hierarchy is any kind of top down system, there will always be an under class, an inferior spot at the bottom of the totem pole. Some hierarchies try to make this less intolerant by having their servants commanding those lesser than the servants, so that most people can have a superior and an inferior. Like feudalism, that can become stable over time: if the bottom class isn’t a caste system but can actually move up, so they can acquire subordinates of their own. If, however, a society rejects the top down hierarchy system, and adopts a bottom up hierarchy like the Grey economy of the internet, or the non aggression principle of liberty or something other equivalent, post scarcity Banksian derived/based culture, then there is no need for a superior or inferior in a class or hierarchy system.

Average common humans will still prefer to be in a hierarchy, much as pack animals will fight until an alpha, beta, and every other rank below it are established so that everyone understands the order. But voluntary equality or superiority or inferiority between individuals isn’t really an issue equivalent to a System enforcing that hierarchy.

The Moral Righteous of Fighting the Democrat party

July 31, 2014

http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/2006/05/history-of-republican-evil.html

While all the lines are not as clear cut as presented, given what actually happened in history, this should give people a good idea of why they shouldn’t feel guilty about poking a needle in the Left’s eye on this subject matter.

Assignment in Eternity: How humans think

May 24, 2012

“We defined thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct answers. Look around you. Most people do that stunt just well enough to get to the corner store and back without breaking a leg. If the average man thinks at all, he does silly things like generalizing from a single datum. He uses one-valued logics. If he is exceptionally bright, he may use two- valued, ‘either-or’ logic to arrive at his wrong answers. If he is hungry, hurt, or personally interested in the answer, he can’t use any sort of logic and will discard an observed fact as blithely as he will stake his life on a piece of wishful thinking. He uses the technical miracles created by superior men without wonder nor surprise, as a kitten accepts a bowl of milk. Far from aspiring to higher reasoning, he is not even aware that higher reasoning exists. He classes his own mental process as being of the same sort as the genius of an Einstein. Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal. “For explanations of a universe that confuses him he seizes onto numerology, astrology, hysterical religions, and other fancy ways to go crazy. Having accepted such glorified nonsense, facts make no impression on him, even if at the cost of his own life. Joe, one of the hardest things to believe is the abysmal depth of human stupidity. “That is why there is always room at the top, why a man with just a leetle more on the ball can so easily become governor, millionaire, or college president- and why homo sap is sure to be displaced by New Man, because there is so much room for improvement and evolution never stops.

“Here and there among ordinary men is a rare individual who really thinks, can and does use logic in at least one field-he’s often as stupid as the rest outside his study or laboratory-but he can think, if he’s not disturbed or sick or frightened. This rare individual is responsible for all the progress made by the race; the others reluctantly adopt his results. Much as the ordinary man dislikes and distrusts and persecutes the process of thinking he is forced to accept the results occasionally, because thinking is efficient compared with his own maunderings. He may still plant his corn in the dark of the Moon but he will plant better corn developed by better men than he. “Still rarer is the man who thinks habitually, who applies reason, rather than habit pattern, to aU his activity. Unless he masques himself, his is a dangerous life; he is regarded as queer, untrustworthy, subversive of public morals; he is a pink monkey among brown monkeys-a fatal mistake. Unless the pink monkey can dye himself brown before he is caught. “The brown monkey’s instinct to kill is correct; such men are dangerous to all monkey customs. “Rarest of all is the man who can and does reason at all times, quickly, accurately, inclusively, despite hope or fear or bodily distress, without egocentric bias or thalmic disturbance, with correct memory, with clear distinction between fact, assumption, and non-fact. Such men exist, Joe; they are ‘New Manf-human in all respects, indistinguishable in appearance or under the scalpel from homo sap, yet as unlike him in action as the Sun is unlike a single candle.”

DaWade. ASSIGNMENT IN ETERNITY (Kindle Location 1206).

This miniature essay on human thinking was something I thought quite applicable to the modern day status quo. The number one advantage humans have over any other species is our ability to think. We cannot outmatch the physical or body power of other animals nor the persistence and numbers of insects. This has formed a key part of my education in H2H training.

Many people, even with the tools provided to them by the internet, do not make effective use of such tools. Things are tl;dr, meaning it was too long for them to read. They want something summarized in 2 or 3 sentences, usually at your expense. They want to hear the interesting and fascinating thoughts of the creative author, but don’t want to deal with the process and work required to produce that product. It’s as if they are parasites and they get angry if you refuse them or call into question their vice-full lack.

In the current environment of welfare, redistribution of wealth, nationalization of American companies, and socialism writ economically, politically, and spiritually, this is just as, if not more, important to understand than ever before.

Happy New Years

January 4, 2011

As a greet for the coming spring, here’s a list of links Book posted when she got back.

I highly recommend the article on what questions to ask LibProgs.

The Average Human

October 20, 2010

Here’s an example of an average person and my response to them.

Such things should be properly explained and dealt with, after all. The light must be shined upon the darkness for truth to prevail.

Michael Yon’s Crack Addicted Monkey

June 22, 2010

Okay, people should know by now that there’s a certain popular issue on Yon. Not just over the horizon but actually here or even behind us.

So in the interest of finding out the truth, we have an audio recording of Michael Yon on the G Gordon Liddy show with James Hanson, Jimbo at Blackfive 5.

If you believe yourself a great analyzer of voice tones and judgment based upon that, you can certainly try your hand at an assessment.

More details at TC

War of the Sexes

January 11, 2010

First it was the Two Americas. Then it was race warfare. Then it was class warfare between the poor and the rich. Now we get to see gender conflict. Of course, it all started with one thing: Leftist Ideology.

Neutral in Bias more or less

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_4_darwinist_dating.html

Advocate for Men’s Rights and some have resentments against Women.

http://www.venusianarts.com/

the-misandry-bubble.html

how-game-secured-american-independence/

http://www.inmalafide.com/2009/10/06/eternal-solipsism-of-the-female-mind/

The Rebuttal

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2010/01/fact_checking_t.html

http://www.thedonovan.com/swwbo/2010/01/the-futurist-is-apparently-the.html

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/01/11/the-need-for-an-honest-21st-century-debate-about-abortion/

On a related note, there’s book’s narration of the abortion history.

There’s a lot to read, so skim the longer posts. You’ll get the tone right off.

Here’s some fire in the sky and ice on earth.