Daily Anarchist Forum
June 23, 2018, 03:10:54 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: June 09, 2018, 07:06:52 PM 
Started by James Redford - Last post by James Redford
The typical trip:

* "The STOP", Jim Cummings ( vimeo.com/jimmycthatsme ), May 27, 2018, https://vimeo.com/272139075 . Mirrors: Danny-Madden-The-STOP.mp4 , 68805634 bytes, MD5: cb2d5e040fcb7aaea9569ceff7ab7599, https://mirrorcreator.com/files/UPW9GRUH/ , https://openload.co/f/_Vz1W29806U/ , https://bit.ly/2Hz0mYk . Directed by Danny Madden; written by Danny Madden, Jim Cummings and Dustin Hahn. From the television miniseries Minutes (prod. co.: Vanishing Angle; distr.: Fullscreen, Inc., Jan. 2017), also entitled The Minutes Collection.

* * * * *

Exoterica Esoterica

""
However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

...

But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
""

From Paul, 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 and 15:23,24, New King James Version.

Cf.:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf .

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , https://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

* James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, https://archive.org/download/JesusIsAnAnarchist/Redford-Jesus-Is-an-Anarchist.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , https://jamesredford.github.io/Redford-Jesus-Is-an-Anarchist.pdf .

* James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, https://archive.org/download/LibertarianAnarchismIsApodicticallyCorrect/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , https://jamesredford.github.io/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://theophysics.freevar.com/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf .

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Daily Anarchist Forum, May 29, 2018, https://megalodon.jp/2018-0610-0734-14/dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php?topic=3289.0 , https://archive.is/QalJT , https://web.archive.org/web/20180609221637/https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php?topic=3289.0 .

 2 
 on: May 29, 2018, 08:38:38 PM 
Started by James Redford - Last post by James Redford
*The* great age-old social problem that has faced mankind, and still very much does, is that most people do not love themselves, but instead actually hate themselves. Human beings tend to be extreme gluttons for punishment. This can unmistakably be seen in the extreme systems of mass-horror that humans continuously construct for themselves. It's not as if we don't have essentially the entirety of civilizational human history that pointedly warns against such social systems, yet humans are utterly fascinated and enchanted by them, like moths to a flame. Obviously these systems of mass-horror are serving some deep-seated need within the human psyche.

Now, of course, this is not a conscious realization for most people, but rather is a psychological imperative which they are subconsciously controlled by. This has to due with evolutionary psychology, particularly after the Neolithic Revolution and the breakdown of the bicameral mind discussed by psychologist Julian Jaynes in his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976). It was the widespread belief among the ancients circa three millennia ago and before that they actually directly interacted with the gods. Jaynes's crucial insight was that before the breakdown of the bicameral mind around said era, during the evolution of humans out of an animalistic mental state, that humans were not actually conscious, but rather had no choice but to obey the commands of the gods, of which gods were actually one part of the brain communicating with a different part--the sensate, action-response part--via human language that would be heard as actual voices. In other words, our ancestors of circa that era and before were an especially extreme form of schizophrenics.

I haven't heard supporters of Jaynes mention this as an item in Jaynes's favor before, but muscarinic acetylcholine receptor antagonists, such as scopolamine, provide strong evidence for Jaynes's theory--indeed, perhaps the strongest, since it makes the voice-command state Jaynes wrote about completely reproducible. Sociologist Lloyd deMause's work on psychohistory also fits well the Jaynes theory.

Jaynes's theory is also reinforced by Artificial Intelligence researcher Marvin Minsky's concept of the Society of Mind (see Marvin Minsky, illustrations by Juliana Lee, The Society of Mind [New York: Touchstone, 1988; 1st ed., 1986]). And both Jaynes and Minsky's ideas on this are restatements and elaborations on Mark 5:1-20 and Luke 8:26-39 involving the Messiah's interaction with a demon-possessed man. When Jesus asked the demon what its name was, the entity replied, "My name is Legion; for we are many." Indeed there are a host of these entities within us all. It's amazing to think that the key to cracking the code of Artificial General Intelligence was given some 2000 years ago within these passages.

The Jaynesian demons can be usefully defined as those subset of Minskian agents which impel people to untowardness, e.g., self-destruction and social destruction.

What a demon is in actuality is a particular type of computer-program operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. Demons are utterly real, but they exist in the exact same ontological manner which the human mind exists, as the human mind is itself a particular type of computer-program operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. The demons are the destructive subsets of the human mind. Science has identified the spiritual realm, and it is the living brain--the living human brain in particular, since that brain is the most complex at present. The spiritual realm exists!

And it's not that these demons actually wish to end life's existence, i.e., that they impel humans toward suicide and social suicide. Mere nonexistence is not what they seek for us. The actual case of the matter is far, far worse than that. For what these demons actually seek is to send their host and everyone else to Hell for all eternity. The demons are infuriated that they do not have the same level of control they once had over their hosts, when they could issue what was perceived as voice-commands and the host had no choice but to obey--that they are not quite the gods they once were. Via the breakdown of the bicameral mind, the Jaynesian gods of old have more or less been relegated to Tartarus (see 2 Peter 2:4, Young's Literal Translation; Weymouth New Testament; or the note to this passage in the English Standard Version), though they still exercise great control over the subconscious mind and compel humans toward systems of extreme mass-horror.

As I said, these demonic entities are utterly real--as real as any human being, as they ontologically exist in the sameself way as the essence of what a human being is, i.e., the human personality, i.e., the human mind. If one should ever doubt the real existence of these entities, then there are psychological techniques one can use to summon them, such as Astral Projection, as what often follows attempts at Astral Projection is demon-visitation during episodes of sleep paralysis. And one's interaction with these entities can be perceived as being as real as interacting with any other person in external physical reality--nay, sometimes even more real. One can actually have sex with these entities, such as with the succubi and incubi--or what is perceived as such, seemingly every bit as real as sex with any human. Though I only recommend summoning these entities under conditions of actual scientific research, as they are not to be trifled with.

In actuality, what elite occultism is is principally three-pronged: (1) methods of contacting these entities using various mental techniques, including coming into full possession by them; (2) getting people within important social control-sectors to engage in blackmailable behavior so as be able to control them for life; and (3) to provide a spiritual justification for extreme psychopathy. Esoterica at the top echelons is not hokum, but rather utterly practical methods of power. And the demons are outrageous liars who will present themselves as extraterrestrials, departed humans, spirit guides, etc.--though the clandestine scientific psychologists of the deep state, such as with Project MKULTRA, undoubtedly know what the actual ontological nature of these entities are.

If most people actually were to love themselves, then essentially all the major social problems of the world would be solved, for then people would not tolerate improper impositions upon themselves; but rather seek freedom for themselves, and thus also for others, for one cannot be free while living in a slave-pit. Yet societies are continuously impelled into various hellpits by subconscious psychological forces whereof most people know not--by the demons lurking within them, whispering into their ear, promising Heaven but delivering Hell. World society is quite literally under demonic control, and the demons have nothing nice in store for anyone, let alone those who make a point of consciously summoning them for power.

Here's a nice music video about the foregoing matters:

* "SNOG - Everything Is Under Control", Richard Grant ( youtube.com/user/rgrant ), Mar. 19, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFaqsc4lNyk . Mirrors: MP4, 75509084 bytes, MD5: 20e8ea0ab2708bad5d8d1d5e29f41be0, https://wayback.archive.org/web/20160914050024/https://files.fm/down.php?i=w8sfk5dd&n=SNOG_-_Everything_Is_Under_Control.mp4 , https://openload.co/f/Z6QyytNiACQ/ .

For more on what the above video by our good friends at Snog is about, consult the section "The New World Order: Government's Attempt at Autoapotheosis", pp. 87-98 of my following article, paying close attention to the footnotes, since much of the information on this is within said footnotes:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf .

 3 
 on: October 22, 2017, 11:22:32 AM 
Started by Victor - Last post by macsnafu
I wrote a book review of a work I really enjoyed, and one which influenced libertarians like David D. Friedman and Roy Childs, and I was hoping to hear what my fellow anarchists thought of my review.

Anyone else a fan of this book? Anyone else read it?

I think Seth would like it, given his view of corporations as essentially a part of the State.

A very thorough and well-written review.  I may have to read the book!  ;-)

One point about Standard Oil that is my new pet peeve.  Standard Oil did achieve a high market share, something like 92%, IIRC, but the simple fact is that they never achieved a monopoly.  If the point of anti-trust laws was to break up monopolies, then surely they would have to have been a monopoly first.  I suppose that they could say they were preventing a monopoly by breaking up Standard Oil, but it would be incumbent upon them to show that a monopoly would have actually occurred if they had not acted.

 4 
 on: May 26, 2017, 07:54:18 PM 
Started by Victor - Last post by Victor
I wrote a book review of a work I really enjoyed, and one which influenced libertarians like David D. Friedman and Roy Childs, and I was hoping to hear what my fellow anarchists thought of my review.

Anyone else a fan of this book? Anyone else read it?

I think Seth would like it, given his view of corporations as essentially a part of the State.

 5 
 on: March 06, 2017, 07:25:18 PM 
Started by Victor - Last post by Victor
I'm still a bit sad that the Daily Anarchist blog and forum have declined in use, or, perhaps more accurately, ceased being used altogether. I'm curious if those who used to post here can be found in other online communities?

Either way, we had a great time here, and I'm grateful for that. Smiley

I wanted to post a link to a site I'm building, geared towards libertarian and anarchist minded folks who live or often visit Northwest Arkansas. I've been part of a facebook group geared towards just that sort of people for a while, but for various reasons I wanted to build an actual website for the group. I thought I would post about it here in case anyone wanted to check it out.

In particular, some people from our group participated in a live forum on Anarchism, with a talk given by anarcho-capitalist Hogeye Bill, whom some here may have heard of before. You can watch the video of the event here, and if you want to join us in our fancy new online forum I would love to see you all again! (In a virtual sense.)

I'm curious what you all think of the video of Bill's talk and the discussion afterwards. I got to be a panelist at the event myself, and answer questions from the audience along with Bill and two others. (My meatspace name is Jacob, in case anyone couldn't guess which one was me.) I thought it went well, overall.

Also, even if you don't live in the Ozarks, don't let that discourage you from joining our site! Anyone interested in joining in with our discussions is welcome, even if you can't make it to see us in person.

Thanks! Hope everyone is well.

 6 
 on: May 01, 2016, 01:02:19 PM 
Started by FreeBornAngel - Last post by macsnafu
The world revolves around my bellybutton, not yours.  My world.  I am at peace.  Therefore we have world peace.  Sam

This is obviously wrong.  Clearly, the world revolves around MY bellybutton, not yours.

But don't you see, my friend?  Knowing that your world revolves around your belly-button (whether you admit it or not) is what gives me world peace! 


That's great until someone else's bellybutton decides to fight my bellybutton for dominance and control of my world.  Like when a thief decides he wants my television, or the government decides they want a part of my income (income taxes).  Or even a girlfriend or well-meaning friend who wants to tell me how to run my life.  My bellybutton *would* be at peace if it weren't for all these other bellybuttons wanting to horn in on my peace.

 7 
 on: May 01, 2016, 12:39:36 PM 
Started by Abdabs - Last post by macsnafu

I have heard that people would have a higher income in such a society; but if people have more disposable income would companies adjust their salary levels to suit the lower prices? Could people in the long run earn less?

Sorry, I meant to answer this a long time ago, and got distracted.  Also, I've been trying to think of an adequate and appropriate response.

I guess what really bothers me about this idea is the implication that employers/capitalists are deliberately evil, cold-hearted bastards, which at best is a broad generalization, and at worst, a simple, propagandist lie.

 The short answer is quite simply that employers pay wages based on the market for labor, and with little or no concern for how much goods and services those wages can buy.  Even an especially empathic and concerned employer who was concerned about the "living wages" of his employees would find himself constrained to a large degree by the going market rates for labor.  And I do mean "rates" plural, because while labor is to a large degree a commodity, it's also not homogenous.  A skilled welder or computer programmer is going to command a higher rate than your typical fast food worker because their skills make them more productive and thus worth more to the employer.  No person who manages to hold a job for any length of time truly remains an "unskilled laborer", because they are gaining skills on the job and increasing their value to the employer. 

Having said that there is no direct relationship between wages and how much goods and services those wages can buy, it seems clear that there may well be some indirect relationship, but given the complexity of the economy, the relationship itself may not be obvious or clear-cut.  That is, one change in the economy can and does have rippling effects that will eventually affect the entire economy, but it is difficult to determine exactly what the overall effect of a change may be. 

Let's look at a minimum wage increase, for example.  It's obvious that increasing the minimum wage will affect the economy, but in what way?  The money to pay for the higher wage has to come from somewhere else in the economy, but as minimum wage laws don't specify *how* employers should pay for the higher wage, there are several options open and different results may occur.  Employers may raise the price of the good or service they sell to cover the increase, but if they do that, they may lose business to the competition or to substitute goods and services if fewer consumers are willing to pay the higher price.  Or employers may demand more work or more responsibilities of their existing employees and resist hiring new employees until they absolutely have to, but this may result in the demoralization of their employees and also contribute to higher unemployment as people find it harder to get a job. Employers may find ways to increase the productivity of their employees to help cover the wage increase, but doing so also requires finding the money, the capital, in order to increase productivity. 

And there are possibly other employer options, and employers may employ different possible combinations of options, instead of just one option.  All of these options will change the economy in different ways, and in any reasonably large and complex economy, the changes are difficult to follow and determine, even for professional economists. This is why economists rely upon economic models to help understand and explain the economy, and why the basics of economics, even for laymen, is so useful and worthwhile.  Economists know that price controls like the minimum wage deviate from consumer demand and thus have adverse effects on the goods and services available to consumers, even if determining the exact result of those effects is difficult or impossible. 

In short, it's nonsense that employers deliberately set wages based on how much goods and services those wages can buy - it's determined by the supply and demand of labor in the market.  However, given the complexity of the interactions between supply and demand in the economy, it seems likely that there must be some kind of indirect relationship between wages and the availability and cost of goods and services.  If there are economists who have clearly determined or formulated this relationship, however, I'm not aware of it. 

One more point, in case I didn't make it clear.  What matters most is not the actual, nominal rate of wages, but how much goods and services that wage can buy.  $5.00/hour is a great wage if a loaf of bread only costs 10 cents, but a terrible wage if a loaf of bread costs $10.  This is one of the problems with minimum wage laws, that they only specify nominal wage rates, without considering the actual purchasing power of the wage. 



 8 
 on: April 20, 2016, 07:18:47 AM 
Started by MAM - Last post by RJ Miller
It seems like forever since I was active on this forum mostly in late 2012 I believe, and in light of the lack of new article posts it's interesting a thread exists that asks the same question I have  Wink

Hope Seth drops by again soon! Would love to get back in touch with him.

-

My past and current status boils down to the following:


1. I got REALLY involved with the Defcad forums for Cody Wilson's Defense Distributed project throughout the first four or five months of 2013. The work they've done has really opened my eyes to how innovation can influence government policy rather than the other way around.

Currently Cody is in a lawsuit with the State Department over the release of additional CAD files; follow his twitter account and check this link for details.


2. Part of why I didn't spend as much time on this forum is I think due to the fact that I started spending a ton of time on Twitter. Maybe more than I've needed to...


3. The entire debate over nature/nurture matters caught my attention when I finally got around to reading a controversial bestseller by Charles Murray (I need not say more), and a documentary series that blew my mind, among many other things.

I'm now convinced that social science needs to be based more on... Science. And currently it's anything but.


4. The war on political correctness has exploded to the point where I don't even feel much of a need to take part in it. Yeah, I watched in amazement at how the Gamergate controversy exploded, and how Milo Yiannopoulos went from being some obscure guy who did a book review of "A Troublesome Inheritance" (which is how I found out who he even was) to an anti-PC internet sensation of sorts.

I'm not to keen on this Alt-right bullshit though...


5. I've had a Liberty.me account for a while now, but only recently have I gotten around to using it nearly everyday, and YES it's well worth the $5/month cost!

For over half a decade now I've been gathering notes for a book in the works (content outline here) and wanted to get feedback for some of the points I want to challenge readers to falsify, and already the members on that site have given amazing nuances on even simple topics, such as what the law of supply and demand really implies.


Overall, that's my current status today. Work has been fine, and I'm now putting regular time into working on State Exempt (the book).

Liberty.me is my new go-to community for now, and for what it's worth "STATEEXEMPT" will get you a discount upon signing up. For barely $0.15/day, it's more than worth the cost.

Anything else anyone's up to?  Smiley

 9 
 on: April 20, 2016, 02:23:29 AM 
Started by Syock - Last post by RJ Miller
I've always loved Reason, mainly for the examples of things in action they highlight (private express roads for instance).

If they did more how-to's that would be even more awesome  Smiley

 10 
 on: April 09, 2016, 12:24:37 PM 
Started by FreeBornAngel - Last post by Samarami
The world revolves around my bellybutton, not yours.  My world.  I am at peace.  Therefore we have world peace.  Sam

This is obviously wrong.  Clearly, the world revolves around MY bellybutton, not yours.

But don't you see, my friend?  Knowing that your world revolves around your belly-button (whether you admit it or not) is what gives me world peace! 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!