Off-topic forum which is now, paradoxically, the on-topic forum. Any on-topic posts will be moved to the off-topic forum and verse-vica.

Moderator: Moderators


Postby RageAgainstVoid » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:48 pm

I've had some conversations in various places, and I'd like to share my thoughts also here.
It's just a list of my responds on various things, and maybe it not always makes full sense without context or appears non-sequitur, I just paste it here, and maybe add some in the future.


I think the actual problem is that in reality, no person is a pure liberal or pure conservative, in the sense that depending on the issue at hand, one person might be more conservative on one thing while more liberal on another.

Yet of course there are very distinct sides observable, in so far the parties form around what exact issues are treated how. But this can get very complex in the details. Details can be important though. And the sentiments around that are strong.

For example, I think conservatives agree that in front of the law people should be treated equally, in so far that you are judged according to the deed, not according to who you are. It shouldn't matter if you are a celebrity or homeless bum. law is law. Furthermore, if you work hard and lead a decent life, make good decisions, stay out of trouble, it is expected that you have a similar chance at a good future as anyone else who does so.

Communist systems put great emphasis on equality through rights, most notably the so called worker's rights. And while you had all these rights on paper... practically everyone was starving on the streets, if not tortured to death in internal repression for not conforming to the endless demands of the state. Because as it turns out, every written right is also a demand on the citizen. Simply piling up rights upon rights upon rights leaves no room for a productive freedom. Liberty is not a sum of rights. It is freedom from another person's demands on you. And this obsession on equality through rights has lead to the most unequal societies in the history of mankind.

I believe this is the reason why the founding fathers, while acknowledging a basic equality of human spirit, put clear emphasis on liberty, and why the sentence starts with briefly mentioning equality but mounts on elaborating the value of liberty. That you are given the chance for a successful life by your own choices in life, but not the guarantee for the same success. The price of freedom is that you are responsible for yourself and accept the cards you were dealt by life.

Capitalist systems that emphasize freedom rights above equality rights have produced the most diverse societies on earth with the most freedoms for even minorities, while also sporting the least poverty.
By putting equality above freedom, communists have achieved neither freedom nor equality, for anyone. The least diversity on top of that, and the most uneven distribution of wealth.
They also have the worst environmental footprint, by the way. It is strange, at about everything they claim to fight for, they end up doing 10 to 100 times worse.


I don't know what exactly went through their head, but at least it is likely that modern socialists knew about the US constitution, and they interpreted things decidedly differently in a certain way. The results are well documented. So at least we know better now how not to interpret it.


I'd like to present our conservative friends here with a little challenging thought experiment though.

In the sciences like physics, it is known that common laws and principles have certain boundaries in which they work.
A law of nature may well be true, but there do exist conditions in which nothing behaves as you would expect.
These conditions may not be very common in our normal lives, but they are there.
And the more we reach for the stars, these problems become relevant.

History has taught us well the value of individual liberty, personal responsibility and clear limits to what power the state has over you, no matter whether it supposedly is "for your own good".
But things don't hold still. Even if we don't believe in the solutions of political progressives... things do progress at least technologically, with massive changes on our lives.
The operational conditions for even those tried&true principles become more heated, and it remains to be seen how functional they can remain.

Another example is biological systems themselves. When you look at the human body, it features both principles of most amazing decentralization, but also of centralization, at the same time. The body seems to employ whatever principles works best for a specific purpose. Holding steadfast to the principle that everything should be decentralized, you would question why the heart is an organ of such central importance. Wouldn't it be advantageous to have many little hearts distributed across the body, so that if an enemy stabs your heart, you are much more likely to survive? You can bet that over the course of millions of years, nature experimented with all kinds of approaches to that, and somehow it concluded that keeping it centralized, but increasing protections of this vital organ, worked out best overall. On other aspects of the body, it concluded otherwise.

Even judging from that, we can still say that from observing all the different societies around the world and history, our way of life here today worked out most successful as is. So however our principles were applied, from public life to family life, seemed to work out pretty well so far, though, clearly there are significant differences of how people lead their lives, as well as how successful they are, even within this one society.

Having said all that, now here to the challenge:
As new production technologies like 3d-printing become available that enable a new level of self-empowerment and self-sufficiency, there are all kinds of ideas of why this is wonderful. And it plays so well into our most favourite philosophy: how best do you limit the power of the state, than by being practically independent, be it by renewable energy sources and even actual production. Curiously, while this sort of Star Trek Replicator tech, is the wet dream of any right wing Prepper out there, it also is the dream of many communists: finally the people own the means of production... at least enough of it, to not be bullied by big corporations.

It really is weird how all these political interests can converge in one technology... whether you seek more independence from government, or from corporations... or from normative society/market forces.

.... but ....

while from your own perspective this sounds great, suddenly you are maybe not so sure if you like the idea when at hand to your every neighbour, because exactly how much self-empowerment do you trust your neighbour with? Already people are experimenting with producing their own small fire arms through 3d printing. A certain kind of people is very enthused about this, because of how it currently side-steps government regulation. Other people are worried more about their neighbour's decency and in handling such a weapon, than they are about government regulating this. Right now we don't even really know how government would regulate this. Now you can say, what's the problem, I just print my own weapons too, so everyone has it and keeps each other in check. But there are two challenges here:

Without any possibility of regulation at all, it means truly anyone can have it. And as technology advances you will see more and more powerful weaponry available to just about everyone.
Every child, every toddler, every drunk, every nutcase, everyone in a state of impulsive rage... with the push of a button you have your weapon. Just for fun, of course.

But let's spin this thought further. Let's be very imaginative about it, just to test out limits. What if replicator technology allowed anyone to produce a nuke with the push of a button. A nuke that can also go off at any time with simply a push of a button. Much of our common day discussion I think revolves around what danger of what kind of weapon. it makes sense to a lot of people that regulations become stricter as the weapon becomes more dangerous. In principle, anything can be a deadly weapon. We don't regulate kitchen knives. The question seems to revolve around, how much damage can a given weapon inflict on the public, and is normal law inforcement equipped to deal with it. Well, given the scenario, that everyone would be capable to create weapons of mass destructions at home, possibly without any way of regulating it, and the worst case scenario is the total annihilation of everything in a several miles radius... I think with even a chance of 0.0001% that someone exists who is crazy enough to do it, you'd still feel very uncomfortable. You just know, someone out there will do it.

This leads to a problematic idea... that after all, a certain amount of oppression of individual rights by community interests are possibly wanted by the citizens. That there really are individuals who you really would prefer not to have the very same rights as you do, like in having this or that weapon, more so than distrusting government to regulate that. And what's the difference between you not allowing it to them personally or the government. I suppose the problem comes back to, who controls the government, you or them. Maybe this crazy guy, from your perspective, gets the government to prevent only you from making a weapon, while he can to protect himself from you, because from his perspective you are the crazy one. The survival of civilization would then not depend on whether regulation is good or bad on principle, but what kind of regulation in particular is good or bad. While this is an extreme example, there are many aspects in our lives today, in handling dangerous substances for example, that really do need high standards of regulation, because of costs of a possible fallout are just too high. But on many more topics, maybe not quite as lethal, this keeps being a heated discussion all the same, with hopefully the side winning that is truthfully correct in its judgment. Because while some might make the case that every order is just arbitrary... we all know it's not. You need a certain amount of order, and you need it to be reasonably working well according to the real world problem at hand.

I don't have all the answers for this. But it's something to think about. There is no Holy Cow in this other than our continued well being. And there are just so many ways things can go awry, one way or the other.


I did not mean to say the forefathers directly referenced from the experiences of 20th century communism, but I did mean that they already understood that this sort of emphasis on equality was a bad idea, as was later proven, for the reasons I gave.

Seriously, that this sort of equality on scale was never a big thing in the history of humankind, was because people actually understood this is a bad idea beyond family bonds. It's common sense part of the natural life. The major religions, that served as guidelines for how to organize society and life, made a point of how a human is ultimately judged by his own deeds. You reap what you sow, and by that you get what you deserve. Furthermore you don't need to scale all the way up to 20th century communism to already see the cracks in the firmament, many things have been evident before, many of the phenomena people experienced before in some form or another.

But your statement that no one could have explicitly predicted the failure of Communism actually is demonstrably wrong, because as a matter of fact, among several people in one form or another, Nietzsche did especially well. This too has nothing directly to do with the US founding, but it goes to show what thinking people actually are capable of. He predicted the whole emergence of Social Justice as the ideological ground work for communism, and he painstakingly dissected its psycho-pathology. It's a quite haunting read, really. He is famous for this quote on god's demise, but this was not his point of pride, but his greatest worry: he understood that the ever greater search for ultimate truth in Christianity would eventually mount into modern science, and the moment it would be born, it would question everything, all cultural values, including Christianity. He was deeply concerned about the time of disorientation that would follow, and with what grand schemes people would try to fill the resulting hollow. Marxism wasn't simply an economic paradigm, it was an attempt to reinvent the human being from scratch. the result was the greatest horror in the history of mankind. And he very accurately predicted most of what would happen, how people would think, the arguments of privilege, identity politics, victim culture, Social Justice, pretty much all of it, down to the mass murders.


Marxism is not simply just economics and implementation, it's an entire way of being, it's a moral orientation, and in that the replacement of religion.

An example of this is the following:

It starts with the question, why has this other person more than me? much, much more even?
Oh I know why, because this is in truth all our stuff. He stole it from us, that's why.
Why don't we form a mob and take all the stuff away from this rich person, and redistribute it among ourselves.
After all, we would deserve it as much, we are equal, and this is in truth ours as well.

It starts with resentment, grievance, jealousy and vengeance. These sentiments inform its thinking.
This problem was known for all millennia. And this is what Religions addressed beforehand.
They made a moral imperative out of why you should look less at what others have, and concentrate more on what you can make out of yourself.
And religions did this for good reasons: humanity saw a plenty what happens when these lowly sentiments are the guide in life.
It's not simply about whether this can work. Marxism was not simply about how to make this "new" idea of an utopia work.

At the start is the redistribution of all wealth, before the utopia can set in by whatever means, be it industrial or slave labour. At the start is the reckoning with the earlier master class.
The problem wasn't actually whether it could work. If the Soviet Union would have worked perfectly and sustainable, you would have seen the same number of people murdered in the concentration camps.
Just a reminder: Marxists/Maoists killed more than a hundred million people in concentration camps, because of their natural identity or their political orientation or improper behaviour. The nazis killed about six million this way.

And the reason this happened was, because their ideology was severely informed by an overboarding sense of injustice, born from their idea of equality.
Read the Gulag Archipelago to get a better sense of what sort of thinking drove the mass murders, purges, cleansing and tortures.
And it just never stopped. And what believe and behavior is grounds for punishment kept changing, because the revolution just kept going, it kept eating its children, forever throughout,
because the moral grounding of it was so negative, their ideas of equality became their own mechanism of evil that kept going for its own sake,
because no matter what they did, it was never equal or ideal enough, and there was always someone else to blame for it than themselves.
Their entire frame of mind is rotten to the core, starting from the basic premise. Which is why the economic technicality becomes near irrelevant.

But in one form or another, this sort of evil, was what humanity had plenty of experience with.
I believe this is the real reason people did not place this sort of emphasis on equality rights. it's not simply economics.
It also explains why Nietzsche could so well predict the events decades before the perpetrators were even born.


Excerpt from Zarathustra.

Behold, this is the hole of the tarantula. Do you want to see the tarantula itself? Here hangs its web; touch it, that it tremble!

There it comes willingly: welcome, tarantula! Your triangle and symbol sits black on your back; and I also know what sits in your soul. Revenge sits in your soul: wherever you bite, black scabs grow; your poison makes the soul whirl with revenge.

Thus I speak to you in a parable—you who make souls whirl, you preachers of equality. To me you are tarantulas, and secretly vengeful. But I shall bring your secrets to light; therefore I laugh in your faces with my laughter of the heights. Therefore I tear at your webs, that your rage may lure you out of your lie-holes and your revenge may leap out from behind your word justice. For that man be delivered from revenge, that is for me the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow after long storms.

The tarantulas, of course, would have it otherwise. "What justice means to us is precisely that the world be filled with the storms of our revenge"—thus they speak to each other. "We shall wreak vengeance and abuse on all whose equals we are not"—thus do the tarantula-hearts vow. "And 'will to equality' shall henceforth be the name for virtue; and against all that has power we want to raise our clamor!"

You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamors thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue. Aggrieved conceit, repressed envy—perhaps the conceit and envy of your fathers—erupt from you as a flame and as the frenzy of revenge.

What was silent in the father speaks in the son; and often I found the son the unveiled secret of the father.

They are like enthusiasts, yet it is not the heart that fires them—but revenge. And when they become elegant and cold, it is not the spirit but envy that makes them elegant and cold. Their jealousy leads them even on the paths of thinkers; and this is the sign of their jealousy: they always go too far, till their weariness must in the end lie down to sleep in the snow. Out of every one of their complaints sounds revenge; in their praise there is always a sting, and to be a judge seems bliss to them.

But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangman and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice! Verily, their souls lack more than honey. And when they call themselves the good and the just, do not forget that they would be pharisees, if only they had—power.

My friends, I do not want to be mixed up and confused with others. Some preach my doctrine of life and are at the same time preachers of equality and tarantulas. Although they are sitting in their holes, these poisonous spiders, with their backs turned on life, they speak in favor of life, but only because they wish to hurt. They wish to hurt those who now have power, for among these the preaching of death is still most at home. If it were otherwise, the tarantulas would teach otherwise; they themselves were once the foremost slanderers of the world and burners of heretics.

I do not wish to be mixed up and confused with these preachers of equality. For, to me justice speaks thus: "Men are not equal." Nor shall they become equal! What would my love of the Superman be if I spoke otherwise?

On a thousand bridges and paths they shall throng to the future, and ever more war and inequality shall divide them: thus does my great love make me speak. In their hostilities they shall become inventors of images and ghosts, and with their images and ghosts they shall yet fight the highest fight against one another. Good and evil, and rich and poor, and high and low, and all the names of values—arms shall they be and clattering signs that life must overcome itself again and again.

Life wants to build itself up into the heights with pillars and steps; it wants to look into vast distances and out toward stirring beauties: therefore it requires height. And because it requires height, it requires steps and contradiction among the steps and the climbers. Life wants to climb and to overcome itself climbing.

And behold, my friends: here where the tarantula has its hole, the ruins of an ancient temple rise; behold it with enlightened eyes! Verily, the man who once piled his thoughts to the sky in these stones—he, like the wisest, knew the secret of all life. That struggle and inequality are present even in beauty, and also war for power and more power: that is what he teaches us here in the plainest parable. How divinely vault and arches break through each other in a wrestling match; how they strive against each other with light and shade, the godlike strivers—with such assurance and beauty let us be enemies too, my friends! Let us strive against one another like gods.

Alas, then the tarantula, my old enemy, but me. With godlike assurance and beauty it bit my finger. "Punishment there must be and justice," it thinks; "and here he shall not sing songs in honor of enmity in vain."

Indeed, it has avenged itself. And alas, now it will make my soul, too, whirl with revenge. But to keep me from whirling, my friends, tie me tight to this column. Rather would I be a stylite even, than a whirl of revenge.

Verily, Zarathustra is no cyclone or whirlwind; and if he is a dancer, he will never dance the tarantella.

Thus spoke Zarathustra.


Setting up the model of three branches of power -- checks and balances -- technically is the most important foundation to ensure the liberty of citizens from tyranny. The intention of liberty as most important grounding anchor to everything else is implicit in the choice of this model of government from the start. But as a work in progress, of course things became clearer and more elaborate as work progressed. That in itself doesn't tell us much about the intellectual discussions of the time revolving around the project to its eventual conclusion.


There are many dangers in the world, and different people have different sensibilities to what kind of danger is more relevant.
Then people will argue what is the biggest danger, to have it even more relevant. And if a danger is just big enough, discussion goes into action.
And actually, what some people will argue is precisely what not to do. What you are not allowed to do, in order to solve the problem.
And if it's not about what you are allowed to do, it's what is demanded you must do to solve the problem.
And as the looming danger is conveyed as growing bigger, so is the list of things you are not allowed to do or you are forced to do, by the government.

At some point people will question, wait a minute, let's reinvestigate the facts of how real this danger actually is, that is used to justify the infringements on our freedom.
Whether it is about the looming danger of attacks from foreign forces on our homeland, or about the problems from climate change.

It really doesn't have to be a great conspiracy. It's a development that keeps going into a certain direction.
Though I do think there is a small number of people that actually know where this is going and facilitate it on purpose.

Or to be more precise, the argument really is what is more dangerous, Climate change or Communism.
Because basically the Left tries to solve this problem with communist principles.

Now you may think this is funny and trivialize the danger of communism, just as the right likes to trivialize environmental problems.
And half-jokingly you may think a variation of the old "Better red than dead" from the cold war era.
(though honestly? communism killed so many millions, I don't think this an apt slogan.)

But I am not so sure what to say. I do actually think that many environmental problems are already actively solved by the free market.
Environmental problems are mostly technical problems, with a clear path of technical development to solve them.
For example a closed loop economy with zero waste / full recycle which we are already working on.
And we are working on this because it's good business. Trash becomes a valuable resource.
Just as many renewable energy technologies actually have a practical application on their own.

So there is a valid question, about how big is the danger really, what can we do about it anyway, and is this problem even solving itself, such that big government intervention is not really needed.


But also, I must honestly say this:

I know a bunch about what goes into modern productions, for example what kind of chemicals are needed etc.
And boy am I glad there are regulations on how these substances are to be used and savely disposed, by qualified personnel.
No, I do not simply trust the decency of producers, to not just dump this shit into our backyards to save costs.
I very much want that they are worried about legal consequences if they do. Don't even dream about it, pal.

I also know various instances, where bans on certain substances in products were enacted, because it made either customers or workers really sick.
It was things where you really couldn't wait until somehow the market comes up with better ways, you had to act fast and hard.

So yes, I see this as an active discussion what regulation make sense, that keeps going.
And naturally, you will have people make their arguments this way or another. It's ok.

But I want to say this. While I am concerned about that government has grown too big,
and like others here I tend to be very very suspicious about many of the suggested regulations.
I also think we cannot go exactly back to the state of the year 1800 or something.
the bigger size of our government today is not simply because of marxist subversion.
I also think it's not just the liberals that increase government for their goals, it's also conservatives.
And the reason for that is practical: technically we live in a much more complex and dangerous world today.
Much of the industry and chemistry we rely on today did not exist back in the day.
And it does require more regulation, because the potential damages really are that much higher on mistakes.
So as we grow more powerful and complex, we also have to be more careful about the consequences of our actions.
That our government is bigger today than in the past has in part good reasons.
It is also going to grow some more due to this technical progress.

Yet, I really do believe that we have to keep a very critical eye on these developments.
Like I said before, all I really want is to survive. I don't want to be poisoned by free industry nor tortured by big government.


Look man, I do think even for the truest of the True Conservatives(tm), there are reasons why in a given situation they would approve the increase of government/bureaucracy/spending/regulation. It's more a question of how well justified this is in their interest.

And the maybe best example of that is 20th century communism itself. If we had not dramatically ramped up our military capabilities, the communists would have gotten us for sure, because they sure as hell were ramping up theirs, that's all they ever do, living their war on life, not helping the poor.

Now we can have a conversation about how neo-cons have ever since unnecessarily rode on it, but back in the day the reason was real, and frankly, I still would be very careful about shrinking it. It's not the cold war today, but the competition out there is real. You wanna keep your upper hand on that. The other players still are not simply nice now.

and what you do about it? cut spending? hope that the hyper-individual neo-hippies on their free market of floating islands with Non-Aggression-Principles come up with a solution to save us all? Well I guess, some privatized military development is actually useful and bound to give us an edge. But it be foolish to think the military doesn't need some form of strong central command.

That's the conundrum we are in. Communist countries are all about the military, and it makes sense, because the strong hierarchy command structure, that's proven effective in combat situations, goes along the authoritarian mindset of these progressives. They just want this principle applied on everything else in society to arrive utopia.

First of all centralization is an agnostic principle, it's a technical concept that has a merit and use case of its own. And conservatives know this, there are trusted institutions and organisations in society, created by conservatives for conservatives. It's just a question of how big exactly and not misusing it, like liberals do, right.

But I suppose the solution of globalist progressives is the ultimate centralization of everything, the One World government that would make all wars between nations unnecessary. Which is very convenient, because then they can concentrate on internal repression without any opposition.

Or was it the world of No-Government at all, where we all float on the seas in our tiny bubbles... until people start to gang up on other folks, as they've always done, and we are back at who sports the biggest numbers, as it's always been.

So you tell me how to navigate this damn shit, brah. On one hand we have to have a government strong enough to compete with other governments around the world, so we don't get hostile take-over, on the other we must keep tabs on it that it doesn't become cancerous. What a freaking egg dance.


I've heard theories that Marx's end goal was not the government holding the means of production and a planned economy indefinitely, the end goal was for the people overthrow the government entirely and then a libertarian utopia.

This has got me thinking. Communism was a huge fail everywhere it was tried. Why? If the end goal is a libertarian meritocracy why didn't it happen? Was communism ever fully implemented? No modern anarcho commie wants a libertarian order. Have they been misled for generations?

In capitalism, the means of production already ARE in the hands of the people. It's just that some people have more of it than others, because they are free to excel whatever way they wish and can.

Does that suddenly not make them people anymore? Not regular citizens of the state? Because they have more? Apparently that's the real problem. Here you see the dehumanization already start, so do not wonder about the vicious brutality.

All kinds of people in society have more than others in some way or another. And whenever there is an attempt to blank the slate, you just wait a short time and they are as unequal as they've ever been again.

So what does that mean? The war on inequality can never end. And what do you need for it? The authority of ultimate power. To forever punish whoever dares to rise above the rest. You can never give up.

There is no War to end all Wars. The marxist revolution can never end. The fires burn until truly nothing but ash remains. Only when all life is snuffed out, nothing can rise above the rest.

And that's exactly how communism looks when it's over. Nothing. but black ash. Death. Decay. The end of everything. ground zero for it all. and peaceful silence. no offense. oh virtue.


I think this has to happen from time to time or else slowly everything trickles to the top. Some of this is based on ability, but a lot of it is based on the inherent advantages a big company has over small businesses. Like at first maybe they are just better skilled, but then the skill advantage stacks on top of the size advantage and it just snowballs.

When you have seen the pictures of what this blanking the slate actually means in practice... no thanks. I'll make do with the little I have just fine, thank you very much.

And it really does not have to happen. Not the socialist way anyway, because again: it actually already happens all the time in capitalism itself.

Capitalism is the true revolution. It is full of the most legendary revolutionaries of all time. God bless them.
It is the civilized revolution, not the bloody barbaric. It is the creative revolution, not the destructive.

Our market today looks nothing like it has 50 years ago. In fact it looks nothing like it has 20 years ago. Not even anything like 10 years ago.
The history of the market place is full of giant companies that were once incredibly powerful and seemingly undefeatable, and which now are insignificant to inexistent.
Where is Yahoo? Where is AOL? Atari? Who really talks about IBM much anymore? And how did Apple make such a comeback from the fringes of death?
And while these behemoths were dominating the market, how did Google start? In a dirty garage by two students who still lived with their parents.
It is laughable to remember how small Valve was before Steam. The entire gaming market was in the firm grip of brick and mortar publishers -- who cares about them today?
Did Notch have to burn down Activision before he could create Minecraft? Why did the free market then reward him this much? They were inspired, not aggrieved.
And these sort of stories are countless. These people did not succeed because they had to destroy everything first. They succeeded because they were diligently creative.
But what's even more important: You don't have to defeat Goliath, you don't have to kill him, to make any decent living. The market is big enough to live your own life just fine as is.
If you are any productive at all, what does it matter that Goliath is much bigger than you? You do have a real chance for a decent living besides, all kinds of people do it out there.
And you know what only matters for that? Learning a useful skill, and asking what people need done. And leading a modest and thankful life. That is all, my friend.

When Marxists create a blank slate, it stays blank. They don't know how to create. They just destroy.
And once the destruction is done, they have learned nothing more. Because they hated it anyway.

It is not much different with Fascists of course. When Germany was defeated, the land was a pile of smoldering rubble. Cities and industries in ruins.

Thanks America. First liberating us from Fascism, then protecting us from Marxism. The people never were more satisfied.
And all you had to do was giving us a chance away from tyranny, and by god, you really are the least of tyrants. All you offered was friendly competition.
Your economy was overwhelming compared. We had nothing anymore. We had no means of production. No one did, not the state, nor the people.
How did we start again? By creating the first primitive tools and machines by hand. With which we created slightly less primitive machines. etc
But how would we ever possibly compete with you in anything again? How did we create all we have today, if the pre-requisite for success in a free market is that everyone around be no more than you?
All we did was trust in ourselves and learn. From our mistakes. And from your success. It works.

Same story with Japan. For god's sake, you even bombed them nuclear. They were a post-apocalyptic waste land.
Germany and Japan had a choice: either resenting their American victors, or learning and befriending them.
And by god, there is no better friend in the world to have than Americans.
Only a poor fool would think otherwise, which is why they are still poor fools.
And whoever tried their luck in communist friendship, ended as a zombie.

And this is also why the USA had to be so overwhelming in its power, because it was not just protecting itself, but the entire free world, from the ceaseless encroachments of fascism and marxism all over while it lasted.


This is how the Left behaves: whenever there is something bad in the world, it can only be because of US foreign policy and capitalism.
That is a forgone conclusion. You see a starving child? you see poverty? You see conflict and strife? You already know the answer to why. It's so simple.
What other possible reason could there be? Could the people themselves be possibly at fault for a given problem? Their incompetent governments maybe? Or their backwards cultural values?
No way, it can only be because of the influence of someone thousands of miles away. That must be the most important reason for it.
And also an ever so convenient excuse for their corrupt leaders to distract from their own failures.

How is it that Abu Dhabi in the Middle East became prosperous from dealing oil with the West, while Venezuela with all its oil is a starving hell hole?
Because we love the Arabs so much more than dirty South Americans? Why has Iran so many problems, but not the Emirates? Both have oil. Both are Arabs.
Do we love the Chinese unconditionally? Is that the reason they improved their economy? They still have problems, but for the most part you know why.
The Left loves the narrative of the resource stealing West. But the prosperity of the West is based on producing useful products from resources that have no intrinsic value on their own.
Oil is just useless dirt in the earth, if you don't know what to do with it. You can't drink it. You are not simply rich because you have oil.
You are rich because either you know what to do with it, or you sell it to someone who knows what to do with it.

If you want benefit from capitalism, of course you need to be competent at it. No one owes you, and free people have a variety of character.
When stranded in the wilderness, you need to learn practical survival skills. What else makes sense to do? Blame the forest for not accommodating you?
Will complaining about the harsh life in it do you any good? Will burning it down in anger help you? You just die quicker. Better start learning how it works, how to avoid its dangers and reap its benefits.
What kind of animals there are, how they behave, what fruit can you eat or not, how to make fire, how to build shelter, how to handle sickness, how to prepare yourself for different seasons, etc pp.
You don't spend your time philosophizing why the forest is unfair to you. If this is how you spend your time, you don't need to wonder why the forest treats you badly. You treat yourself badly.

The fastest way to learn skills is by learning from someone already successful, who has figured out most of the problems. You only learn if you overcome your resentments to the successful for being successful.
How do you set up governments properly, how structure public life, how deal with crime, how set up family culture, how to concentrate on scientific endeavor and foster Entrepreneurship.
How to deal with corruption, how to make proper trade deals on the market without getting shafted, how conduct negotiation, how to handle hostility.
This is all about learning skills. Anyone can do it, but first you need to properly orient yourself.

It took the West quite some bloody time to figure all this shit out, and it learned a lot from others. And countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, The Emirates, all kinds of countries all over the world,
that didn't consider themselves enemies of the West, managed to become prosperous like the West, from absolute poverty, in just 50 years.
You know what kind of countries blame US foreign policies for its problems? North Korea and Iran.

You can make a list of what wrong others did to you. You also can make a list of what much good they did.
But neither of it is the actual reason for why you end up good or bad. Most of all it's you, what you make of it.

You need to change your life, and orient yourself towards the light and heaven, like a tree would.

Nein, nein, nein! Do not be so little! When I say answer it, I mean respond to it, to Them.
User avatar
More like Rage Against Roids/Rrhoids
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:23 am
Location: Ravenna

Re: Conversations

Postby RageAgainstVoid » Sat Jul 14, 2018 11:38 am

Here goes another round:


Of course America is an empire. It sure messed some around in the world.
A lot of those they messed with probably deserved some of it.

And the forest is full of animals stronger than you.
But this alone doesn't explain anything. It doesn't mean you are helpless.

The existence of Microsoft alone doesn't explain, why Apple could make it, and others would not.
Microsoft did what they could to push Apple out of the market. Many powerful companies fight unfairly against upstarts.
But this alone was not reason enough to explain why some fail, while others make it anyway. Apple changed to meet the challenge, and succeeded.
What is here to learn, is the question. What can others learn from those that succeeded against the odds. That's what's really interesting.
AMD is a laughing stock compared to Intel in terms of resources and market share, and Intel is known to be hugely anti-competitive in many ways.
Yet look at what comeback AMD recently accomplished. And no one remembers Cyrix. What did AMD different than Cyrix? What better than even IBM?

This is the question. How you deal with it. Everyone had it hard, everyone suffered in some way or another.
This alone does not explain why some made it through better than others. This is the point.
Not whether there were injustices or not, as they've always been, as everyone has always done.
The Middle East has a huge history of doing conquest and colonialism. It brought Europe to its knees many times.
Yet why could it not fortify these advantages in the long term? How did Europe survive? How could it rise despite?

Because clearly, it is not impossible to have success in the face of difficulty. And those countries that find success, clearly share certain attributes compared to those that don't.
Like not having too much grievances about the past, but productive lessons. All kinds of countries have at some point or another experienced such injustices,
yet this alone did not hold them back forever, some recovered much faster than others despite harsher injustices.
The deciding question is the conclusions and consequences these people drew from their experience of hardship.

Again, many countries that are shining jewels today, were at the state of absolute destruction and poverty just 50 years ago.
Yet other countries that were in some form or another exploited at whatever point, had in fact much more infrastructure and alternatives.
They had a much better starting point 50 years ago. And even though clearly many of the injustices were reduced and vanished, they did not advance the same.

When I say Germany and Japan decided to bury their resentment and consider America its friends, I did NOT mean the Americans were simply nice to them.
The aftermath was TOUGH, and while we had no natural resources to exploit, every production machinery that was not destroyed, they took for themselves.
as well as they took many of our best engineers. These were our resources. We were left with near nothing, but a lot of trials.

After WW2, the entirety of Europe was in ruins. Most of its goods destroyed. Whatever it had amassed before was largely gone. The slate was clean.
Europe's larger history does not explain the absolutely mind-blowing developments of the past 50 years. This success is something else entirely.
And many countries figured out that the interests in favour of the USA, are not automatically disadvantages to everyone else.

India was not simply just exploited by the UK. Of course it was tough. But this is not all there was to it.
The UK introduced many important advancements to their country. So did many colonialists on the host countries.
And india, despite all its own proud cultural heritage and beauty... it too had dark shadows of its own.
It's not simply, the foreign oppressor abused the innocent victims. Indian culture enslaved and oppressed plenty on its own through its deplorable caste system.
And what you will find is in fact, that many of these countries had a recent history of slavery all on their own, in fact much much more than the West ever had.
Actually, even though the West exploited these countries in some form or another, it often ended their own oppressive slavery of others meanwhile, and the periods of exploitation were much shorter than theirs.
If slavery and exploitation is all there is to our success, why did other countries not benefit of it like the West? Not even close to our success?
In fact communism were ALL about slave labour, its entire economy depended on exploitation of others. And the West had its greatest periods of growth when they were at their lowest of it.
Exploitation and slavery does not at all explain the success of the West, as it doesn't explain why those others couldn't succeed more on their own by doing it themselves before.
And it alone does not explain why some countries are more successful than others. Some countries decided to learn more than others. From their oppressors, not in opposite spite to them.
Most of these countries that went from absolute zero to hero in the past 50 years had no history of doing exploitation and slavery at all, in part because they didn't even exist before. Often they were themselves subject to slavery and exploitation.

The important point I'm trying to make is, that what holds these people back most, is the perpetuation of grievances in the population, by Socialists or Nationalists or other fundamentalists.


this is pretty much what the Romans thought about the German tribes: ridiculously stupid and backwards. And it was very much demonstrable by their customs.
The Romans civilized the Germans through conquest, as have many other people experienced in one way or another throughout human existence.
And slowly the Germans started to learn from the vastly superior cultural advances in the mediterranean regions to the Middle East to the East Asia.
And then as fate would have it, the Europeans figured out some advancements themselves from which others would have to learn later.
Then Germany made several bad mistakes again, payed a bitter price, and had to learn difficult lessons yet again from others.
There is no shame in this. Everyone learned from everyone. The only shame is in resentments preventing learning.


Yes, yes!, of course my friend, this is the entire point! What we DO about it. Introduce more socialism to help them?
Educating them more on why the West was so mean to them? Indulging their own resentments with agreement?
Sending a sort of help that leaves them with nothing to do and nothing to learn?

If you really want to help, to quicken things, and you really can, what we do is teach hard practical skills.
And nothing else. Nothing else than that, my friend. And there are liberals, right now, good people,
who are busy building schools in the Congo, and not agreeing with all that Social Justice crap at all.
And friend, it works! This actually works! It's one guy at a time, but it works.
And with each more, their conditions actually improve, right there at their home.

You don't need to make things easier for those you want to help. Make it harder! Challenge them!
It's to let them grow on the challenge. No matter how unfair. Just equip them with useful skills.

But also, no, no, no! my friend, not at all. Many of the successful countries today, had no functioning government. They had precisely no functioning infrastructure.
They didn't even have much value orientation anymore. Many of their best people died in the war or were deported after, much skill got lost, industry was gone, living space didnt exist.
And even worse, whatever skills they had left, were either often irrelevant, outdated. They had to learn entire new skills they never had before. They. had. to. learn. They learned.
And the only ones they could learn from were their enemies... everyone around them was still their enemy, and full of resentment from the war.
so how do you learn? First of all by overcoming your own resentment. You must make friends. Your enemies. Friends. Forgive yourself. And them.
Simply ignore the naysayers. let them face their own fate. You don't need to fight them at all. Orient yourself to the good of life. Whatever little good you manage.
Let it grow in you, and concentrate on what matters in life. Family, hearth and home, and finding work, whatever you can find, whatever is needed.

And all you do if you want to help them -- all you ever do is teach practical skills that make them useful on the market.
And encourage them about opportunities on a free market. The value of freedom.
Not more equality. Freedom. For everyone! Their chances. Despite the odds! Try harder! Pain is good!
Let them experience the pride and satisfaction of their growth on the challenges, however unfair. Life is unfair! In everything, always!
Don't support their resentment. Don't remind them of it either. Don't agree with them on it. Actively argue against it when it comes up.
That no matter what difficulties you've been through or still encounter, sometimes you will meet good people, sometimes bad,
find the good and make deals, simply avoid the bad, no hard feelings, and continue your life. That's the secret.
That is all who succeed anywhere ever did. Keep running, keep struggling, it's hard, keep it productive.


Black conservatives are very successful in society, earning more money on average than comparable whites,
They have stable families, little to no problems with police. Often they worked themselves up from poor conditions.
Which is why they would be such a good model, if they were allowed to exert more influence on black communities again.

What black Conservatives argue is similar to what I have tried to explain earlier:

That it is not about whether discrimination exists. Of course there is discrimination. These black conservatives themselves experienced some of it.
But much more important is: what can it actually explain. How do you handle it. What do you make of it. What policies are actually effective.
The more you look at the facts, you find that discrimination in and of itself doesn't explain very much.
And that of all possible factors that determine your success in life today in the year 2018,
discrimination is among the least significant factors, even if it still exists.
Which is why obsessing about it, especially in legislation, is so ineffective.

There are many people that despite discrimination succeeded greatly. Blacks that don't have the problems of other blacks.
Other minorities that experienced harsh discrimination in various forms, and yet ended up much better than the majority.
And there are even all kinds of whites that experience harsh discrimination of all sorts!
Because there is an infinite amount of reasons why people may not like you besides the colour of your skin.

And in fact, most hostilities, conflicts and wars are not waged between different races, but between members of the same race.
This is another of the fallacies of the left: they think racism/sexism is the most important problem of humankind,
and once you eliminated that with all your might, everyone is happy. But for example whites in Europe slaughtered each other brutally for centuries for all kinds of reason.
All people around the world discriminate and kill each other for all kinds of reason other than race, Most muslims are killed by other factions of muslims,
most blacks by other blacks, most asians by other asians, etc, for all kinds of reasons.

Joseph Stalin is on record for saying "The good thing about the Red Army is that it knows no racial hatred..." Mao and Stalin are the greatest mass murderers of all time.

If you use all your resources fighting racism and discrimination, you have exactly solved, 0.000001% of reasons why people hate each other.
And as it turns out, it's actually worse than that... because this sort of obsession about eradicating discrimination actually increases the resentments between people.
So instead of decreasing reasons for hostilities by even just 0.000001%, you actually increase it to 200%. That's what these liberal anti-discrimination policies tend to do.
Because people overall just don't like being told what to do. And whatever goodwill they might have had before is quickly gone completely then.
You can't force people to like you. You can only earn it with smart choices. And as it turns out, you really don't need _everyone_ to like you for finding success.
No one is liked by everyone. Most people are disliked by most other people. And it doesn't really matter. Other things are much more important.

And the more people succeed by a smarter approach to life, more effective conservative policies,
and build trust and respect by their accomplishments, despite the difficulties,
the less discrimination they experienced. It's a positive feedback loop.

Thus these black conservatives argue, if the total elimination of all possible discrimination and difficulties obviously is not required to succeed,
maybe the resources that are used to fight it should be invested in much more effective causes.
And they even tell you which ones exactly. Which ones worked for them personally.
Which ones worked for everyone who took the time to listen with an open mind.
For example, how exactly to improve practical education and leverage it on the market.
How to effectively communicate and negotiate with various people to reach your goals.

This is what black conservatives figured out for themselves. This is why they lead immensely successful lives.
Their key solutions come from free market business principles, not activism or legislation or socialism.

For example, when you try to build a start-up, you need investors. Turns out it is very difficult to find investors.
People are very suspicious about investing their precious money into your stupid idea.
99% of people will tell you, they don't like your idea. Or don't trust your ability.
99% will discriminate against you, and invest that money elsewhere.
That is what nearly every business start-up experiences at first.

And how business people deal with this difficulty, without state regulations, is how black conservatives deal with it, to great success.
And turns out, as they will tell you, if you approach life appropriately, you end up realizing that society is a lot less racist than you thought.

If only these conservative blacks were allowed to speak in black communities, to share their skills and knowledge, instead of being shut down and beaten up by liberal "activists".
But it matters not. Because crafty, determined and faithful as they are, they will eventually overcome and win even this, as they always do in life. They just go ahead and win. Fair and square.


Another important core value of religions, is forgiveness. Making your peace with the world.
Forgiveness towards those who have wronged you, forgiveness to yourself, forgiveness to god and the world.
And God's forgiveness to you and everyone who has done wrong. This is God's mercy. This is the self-sacrifice of Jesus.

When the moral orientation of Marxism replaced traditional religion, it put the focus on vengeance instead forgiveness.
Just like it put a pathological emphasis on compassion over conscientiousness. The old order is the enemy.
And the new order, first of all is about the punishment of all those not compassionate enough.
It is not about whether this can work, not about help. It is about punishment.
Everyday, they are enthralled with all the injustices of the world.

There was a motto among socialists for a while. "Don't be evil."
Supposedly this was meant to solve the problem of why communism failed.
But with this motto already we were back in the fangs of how it all started.

Here are two other mottos from recent years that illustrate the problem:
"Everyone is secretly racist, and we have to point it all out."
"Make racists afraid again." -- a play on the "Make America great again"

If your definition of racism is so broad that everyone is racist,
and fear of punishment is the only effective way to stop them,
then you suddenly understand why marxism managed to murder so many people in the past.

"Don't be evil" easily slides into "Search and destroy all evil".
Because that's the point. The world is not good enough, because there is suffering.
And there is suffering, because there is evil. Hence you must eliminate evil to end suffering.
So who could possibly be responsible for this? We have to find and stop him.
Utopia can only arrive, until all evil is identified and ended.
But it never arrives, the search for evil never stops.
Until there is no man alive.

It ignores that struggle and suffering is integral part of everyone's life. You live, you suffer. For countless reasons.
Just suffering itself cannot be measure for evil, lest the world itself, life itself, must be evil.
Eventually you must search and destroy life. And that's exactly what communism looked like.

People are not perfect, and whether you want or not, you will always cause a grievance to someone.
You will always be guilty, just for living. On how many ants did you step when running through a forest?
How many people did you disappoint, when choosing another lover? What business did you ruin, when buying another product?
You live, you choose. And every choice is a discrimination against another. And every breath you take, harms something.
Even when you die, your last act is causing grievance to your friends and family.

It's not about eliminating all causes for struggle and suffering, but learning how to deal with setbacks in life.
Life is all about experiencing setbacks. You must learn how to deal with it and grow on it.
You have to become stronger and more skilled, so you can forgive.
So you don't have to murder humanity in vengeance.

The mixture of vengeance and compassion became so deadly, because you feel ever so more vengeful towards those who do not show enough compassion.
And those who are more successful, apparently do not share their success enough with those who are less successful and still struggling and suffering.
Would you not be equally successful otherwise? They evidently have not enough compassion, if you are not equals. They don't do enough to help others become equals.
How can you live content with yourself, how can you go about your own little life, while anywhere in the world, someone still struggles and suffers. -- It's utmost infuriating.
You are guilty of not having enough compassion and hence are worth of all vengeance, by those that struggle and suffer more than you.
And it is their compassion that after all makes them superior to you. Well not a real compassion. A real compassion would make them focus on what they can do themselves to help others.
They'd be too busy struggling to build a school in the Congo than thinking about you and why you have it too good, why you don't do enough to help them, help others, help them help others.
Rather it is vengeance disguised as compassion. How they can take you down, to help others. But it becomes eventually clear:
it really is not about helping others, it's about helping themselves first, by taking you down. The suffering of others is just ever more justification.
And this has proven to be the most deadly mechanism ever. The 20th century has shown, there seems to be no limit to the cruelty this moral can unleash.

Marxism is a religion that Satan himself would have invented to spite God. And maybe he did.
Satan's vengeance on God, because God is content, and ever so much more than Satan.
Satan is not evil. Satan is struggling and suffering. And justified to hate god and all his creation.

Nein, nein, nein! Do not be so little! When I say answer it, I mean respond to it, to Them.
User avatar
More like Rage Against Roids/Rrhoids
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:23 am
Location: Ravenna

Re: Conversations

Postby RageAgainstVoid » Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:39 am

The last century wasn't a period of "colonialism" but active crisis management, in regions that are severely conflicted regardless of Western involvement. And it's far from simply dethroning governments "we didn't like".

If messing with governments were simply about getting free stuff, we could have done that to the Emirates too. But the West has paid for everything. The West wants nothing more than stable trade relationships.
The West would vastly prefer if these regions were stable free market democracies like us, with fair deals and fair trades. This would vastly increase everyone's wealth, because actual wealth is something very different than you think it is.
Notions of how we profit on mayhem or exploitation in these regions, is peanuts compared to how much more wealth we could generate together if the Middle East looked like Europe. That it doesn't really is not so simple as to be our fault, even if you seem to think so.

Your concept of wealth seems to be, "every wealth we have is wealth they don't have". But this is not how wealth works in this day and age. If the Middle East were at our stage of development, the wealth of everyone in the world would increase almost exponentially.
Because actual wealth has to do with generation of knowledge, much more than the resource itself. The wealth of a people depends most of all on their knowledge and skills. And the best of all: everyone's knowledge in the world amplifies each other. For every people catching up with us, everyone wins.

Which is also why it's such a pity China is controlled by a repressive regime, which tremendously slowed them down. And by slowing themselves down, they slowed everyone down.
The cheap production they offer by exploiting their own population in sweatshops is nothing compared to the advantages for everyone in the world if they were a properly developed society like ours.

We don't really need cheap labour or cheap resources anymore. Most of all we need great ideas. It's all about the ideas now. And a great idea from one side of the world spawns another couple great ideas around the rest of the world.
Nein, nein, nein! Do not be so little! When I say answer it, I mean respond to it, to Them.
User avatar
More like Rage Against Roids/Rrhoids
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:23 am
Location: Ravenna

Return to The Fast and the Spurious

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests