Daily Anarchist Forum
August 18, 2018, 07:24:20 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: July 11, 2018, 11:18:16 PM 
Started by James Redford - Last post by James Redford
I'm not sure referencing *yourself* counts as a legitimate reference.  Obviously, if you want people to refer to your other work, a link is necessary, but that doesn't make it a "reference".

You spoke the truth in your first sentence: you are unsure because you have not the slightest clue as to what you are talking about regarding this matter which obviously upset you and caused you to behave irrationally and ignorantly. Nor did I call them "reference[s)", despite your false quotes.

However, even though your imaginary phantom event never occurred, that nevertheless is just the standard Scholarly Method: it's just standard for scholarly and academic writers to cite their own works when said cited works address an issue pertaining to a matter under discussion. What your objection really consists of is epistemological relativism. You just plain don't like what I write about, and hence don't like me citing my own works, even though that is standard.

If some day you wish to get over your irrationality and ignorance, my above articles are the best for that.

 2 
 on: July 11, 2018, 11:14:48 PM 
Started by James Redford - Last post by James Redford
Quote
*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.

That's a pretty ambitious thing to say, especially since most of what follows seems to depend upon this being true, but is it true?  How do you go about proving it?

Read the post.

 3 
 on: July 11, 2018, 11:23:38 AM 
Started by James Redford - Last post by macsnafu
I'm not sure referencing *yourself* counts as a legitimate reference.  Obviously, if you want people to refer to your other work, a link is necessary, but that doesn't make it a "reference".

 4 
 on: July 11, 2018, 11:21:48 AM 
Started by James Redford - Last post by macsnafu
Quote
*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.

That's a pretty ambitious thing to say, especially since most of what follows seems to depend upon this being true, but is it true?  How do you go about proving it?

 5 
 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 .

 6 
 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 .

 7 
 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.

 8 
 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.

 9 
 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.

 10 
 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.

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!