The destruction of the US is completely planned and scripted.
Doesn't the fact that the 2000 page Patriot Act was written and passed immediately after 9/11 seem odd?
Doesn't the fact that all the governments in the world were immediately prepared for the virus with masks, thermometers, checkpoints, curfews, border closures, house arrests, and bailouts make you wonder?
@KeepTakingTheSoma @freepatriot Note, that just like the roman empire, the US has enormous problems with debt, devaluation of the currency, and an enormous military. The roman empire eventually lost its grip, and we are living in a fascinating time in history to be able to watch a former empire starting to lose its grip.
The queustion is, how long time will it take? 50, 100, 200 years?
Will the US break up into its states again just like the roman empire was transformed, over time, into multiple countries in europe?
The whole world seems to be going to hell in a handcart thanks to the activities of the globalists. We can only presume that they have created a bolthole for themselves while the rest of us get screwed. I'm just along for the ride now.
I think they do not believe it can fail. Like Enron or USAID.
@amerika @freepatriot @KeepTakingTheSoma This seems plausible. Since we do know that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, I would be very surprised if the people in power would ever realize that it could end. That level of foresight and humility I cannot see happening based on the psychology of our leaders.
Because the voters vote for them because they promise impossible things.
Impeach the voters. Restore the Kings.
@KeepTakingTheSoma @amerika @freepatriot I think this is built into modern western democracy. Just the fact that a person thinks he is "ready" to tell others how to live their lives shows a dangerous psychological flaw in the person and is why I belive that democracies, over time, become more and more authoritarian.
Democracy, as we have implemented it today, is not old. Most nation states appeared in the 1800s, which makes modern democracy about 200 years old or so.
It could be that what we are seeing is just a natural consequence of a flawed system.
'Just the fact that a person thinks he is "ready" to tell others how to live their lives shows a dangerous psychological flaw'
Eugenics is much more sensible: simply remove those who are living in a way that is incompatible with the needs of your civilization.
I do not agree democracy is new; its flaws remain exactly the same as they were before ancient Athens. The psychology is what distinguishes it.
@amerika @freepatriot @KeepTakingTheSoma Let me add to the idea of removal, your idea of exile. I think that is a good start, and also something which has been practiced quite often, by societies, throughout history.
To a certain extend, we today, "exile" our unwanted to prisons.
I prefer exile. I think prisons are useless except to keep the insane away from the rest of the people.
The problem with exile is that they either come back or do something horrible to someone else in another land.
@amerika @freepatriot @KeepTakingTheSoma True. Moving prisons to africa or albania as some european countries are now exploring is a great step in the right direction.
When it comes to coming back, border controls, and yanking their citizenship will help somewhat.
The last point, the exiles terrorizing other countries is a problem though.
I wonder if the Mars colony will be for those escaping Earth, or those exiled from it.
@amerika @freepatriot @KeepTakingTheSoma I guess we'll have the answer in a couple of decades.
It strikes me as likely that because of the high cost of space travel, only colonists will be sent, and they will leave the human detritus here on Earth.
@amerika @freepatriot @KeepTakingTheSoma In the near term, this will be the case. But fast forward 300 years or so, and we will have expanded to mars, the moon, and beyond. Extrapolating scientific progress more or less guarantees this.
If we get easy/cheap space travel, I think 99% of humanity is going to get exiled to a nearby planet.
The big problem, as I see it, is that as societies age, everyone goes insane.
The "System" determines who succeeds, so people adapt to that and lose adaptation to everything else.
At some point, everyone is mental and common sense is alien.
"Since we do know that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
I do not agree here; it depends on the person with the power.
Grok this and you will have a deep insight into esoteric nihilism!
@amerika @freepatriot @KeepTakingTheSoma Could be that some individuals are resistant, but society is a game of averages.
In terms of individuals, I suspect they are rare, and that to find them would be very difficult. Then, once found, persuading them to take on power would be even more difficult.
I know one person who's in the 100 million EUR range who turned down the opportunity to become a minister since he saw no upside in it, and he preferred the pleasures of doing business instead.
As for the human being at large, some experiments that indicate that power corrupts are:
The Stanford prison experiment, the Robber's cave experiment, and studies on power and corruption (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2134).
I can add that in order to see how this is true, most, if not all of us here, need look no further than our day to day politicians or middle managers. I think the fact that absolute power corrupts, is almost beyond doubt, and solving this psychological problem (if it is possible) is the key to building thriving socities.
With all of the above, it is of course not proven that not a single person exists with the capability of resisting the temptations of power, but I am skeptical. Since power is dangerous, I prefer a cautios approach here, and personally assume that we are all susceptible to this mental bug, until proven otherwise.
The Stanford Prison Experiment was basically fraudulent, and I think you will find the same of the other stories.
When you think about it, anarchy is telling people how to live too: "live in an anarchic society."
Humanity evolved leaders and hierarchy for a reason, and the absence of these means a tragedy of the commons where the most cretinous take over.
@amerika @freepatriot @KeepTakingTheSoma I think it has been criticized, but I also think that it has not invalidated and eradicated all knowledge resulting from it.
Yes, the function of leader exists, and leaders do get things done, but the original point I'm making is that power corrupts, and that is completely compatible with the fact that leaders exist and that leaders get things done. if anything, a study of this phenomenon, might yield techniques and knowledge which makes leaders better, and which makes us better able to protect ourselves against bad leaders, by avoiding, exiling or not voting for them.
In my view, "power corrupts" is more egalitarian thinking: the quality of the person does not matter in this theory, only the external influences. I think this is the type of thinking that makes societies go insane over time.
I agree it makes sense to study power and leadership, but the real factor that scares all of us is that the quality of leaders matters most. A quality person does not seek power _except_ as a means to do good, as you have noted.
This is a major debate in the first and second chapter of The Republic.
@amerika @freepatriot @KeepTakingTheSoma This is indeed the truth, and one problem discussed in the republic, but also a problem I have never seen a satisfactoriy answer to throughout all of philosophy and political science.
When it comes to my own view, it is not egalitarianism that govern my thinking, it is individualism, risk minimization and self-defense.
Sure, if I had a perfect, selfless leader, with enormous competence, I say "go for it" but given human psychology, it would take a lot of evidence to convince me of such a man, if the stakes are as high as say, unlimited power over all the united states.
I think it is egalitarian to talk about "human psychology" as if we were all the same.
@amerika @freepatriot @KeepTakingTheSoma
But we are all the same depending on the point of view.
We're exactly the same when it comes to limbs, senses, metabolism, organs, etc. That's basically what's makes us the human species.
Where individualism comes in, is with the brain and the mind. Our likes, dislikes, dreams, hopes and aspirations.
So taken as a whole, we are individuals, but that does not exclude the fact that we do share common traits, ideas, organs, abilities etc.
Psychological bias for instance, is based on functions which evolved for monkeys to survive in a cold hard world, and that is why we are all, more or less, susceptible to the same ones.
With the creation of the brain and the mind, we have gained the tools to free us of our biological past in many ways, but there are still many ways in which we are still slaves under our biology and genes.
"Depending on the point of view" means either (a) leaving out necessary data, a bad model, or (b) an aesthetic or moral preference, not a scientific (consider all factors) one.
@amerika @freepatriot @KeepTakingTheSoma Do you mean a or b? Because if a, I think my position is the one with better scientific support, the better model. If b, then I better understand your position, and even though I disagree, I'm pretty sure I will not find the philosophical arguments to convince you of my position. ;)
Both apply. Points of view are products of our genetics, for the most part.
@amerika @freepatriot @KeepTakingTheSoma I do not think it is so valuable to speak of points of view as products of genetics, since genetics is closer to hardware, and the mind is the software.
In my opinion, points of view are products of information, evaluation, and decisions based on that.
I simply don't see what clarity or utility is gained by saying everything is the product of genetics? It limits the discussion, doesn't open up any new vistas. By saying that it is the products of the mind, evaluation, information etc. we can continue exploring how they are done, rules, laws, trying to optimize them etc.
Another aspect is that genetics does not operate at that granularity. They have no concept of for instance, socialism. If you prefer that to other isms, is more a question of your life conditions, culture, how you were brought up, your studies, socio-economical background etc.
I'd argue, that building a model based on those concepts will yield _vastly_ greater and more accurate predictions, than trying to find a gene or a cluster of genes that predict socialism.
However!
Since we are talking about the material, it does lend itself beautifully to the way of science. So _if_ a scientist does manage to isolate a socialist gene, or socialist gene cluster, which predicts with great accuracy a future socialist, I would have no choice but to revise my opinion and acknowledge that you were right.
To my knowledge however, no such gene or gene cluster has ever been proven to exist.
"genetics is closer to hardware, and the mind is the software"
That's a big assumption, and one not borne out by research past or present.
"everything is the product of genetics"
We are either Darwinists, or not.
I think more clarity of this can be had on the mailing list, where I post the current research.
@amerika @freepatriot @KeepTakingTheSoma
It is not an asumption. It is an anlogy. Yes, the mailinglist is a much better place for it! =)
Worse, they're actors. They act out a role in exchange for votes to get money. That is democracy by design.
I both agree and militantly oppose.
Empires can stop collapsing; they just have to avoid #DEADS (democracy, equality, atomization, diversity, and socialism).
What a lot of citizens don't know is that the empire was never for them; it was for the deep state to enjoy the fruits while using its citizens to fund it. Many citizens never knew they were part of an empire; they thought they were part of a freedom project or whatever the propaganda told them to think.
The decline will be rapid and beggar lots of ordinary people. Those who caused the problems feathered their nests years ago and will simply walk away to spend more time with their money; they will leave others to mop up the mess they created.
So many harms caused to make criminals rich and powerful dressed up as something noble.