School of Liberty

The State, does the following:

  1. Lies – “we’re improving the world” – reality “we’re destroying it, on purpose” to ‘achieve what we’re trying to do’
  2. Steals – “don’t steal, don’t pirate, don’t be violent” – they do all of that, or at least pay other people to do it (which is morally the same to me)
  3. Cheats – “…” – they cheat by using government against you, they cheat by using the information they have, that you don’t, against you, from the moment you are born, using it to entrap and enslave you (public schools, college trap, debt traps, unbalanced media symbolism, system designed to destroy families, etc.)
  4. Scares us into voluntary compliance and submission – false flag attacks, spinning things to their advantage, misdirection-overblowing bullshit to distract you from their important objective at the time.

I’m not sure how to best solve the shit these fuckers bag and sell wholesale, but I’m not buying any of it. That’s a start for me.
What should we do?
We need to think. We desperately need to think.

  1. They have superior technology (and other resources).
  2. They have guns pointed at us.
  3. They have a monopoly on what is acceptable and popular.

We need to think and solve this third problem bearing those first two things in mind.  Our solutions should be like theirs.  We should implement solutions that are passive ones.  For example, if people do what is most natural and comfortable to them, that is what will help them in the long run. If people follow their instincts, go for the attractive girl, go for the popular guy, that is what will bring them a better life in the long run. Thus, we should be popular…attractive.  If they listen to the music that sounds the most pleasing to them, performed by the sexiest artists, that’s what our solutions need to look like.  This is a multilayered problem, any of us that are involved in the solution are good people, the things we do will be good things, by definition, so I don’t give a shit about philosophy on a high level.  Everyone embraces the NAP, if they are part of the solution. They don’t have a double standard regarding force, violence, or fraud. So, when we accept this at the first, most basic level, and base everything we do on it, our choices are good and sensible. We don’t deal with evil people, we don’t deal with dishonest people, and we don’t deal with illogical people (to the extent that we can handle that problem).

With this out of the way, structure and implementation become more important.  Aesthetics, instincts, gut reactions, these are far more important than ‘warm and fuzzies’ and these are where we should focus.  To give an unrelated example, if you are selling a dessert, and it tastes amazing, and taste is your first priority, that’s great.  That’s your base, so now the problem you have is that your packaging isn’t as appealing as your competition, well you’d want to upgrade it, right?  That’s where we are.  We need to be just as appealing as our competition.  In all honesty, I’m not sure the best way to do that.  I can talk about it in simple terms, but I don’t know how to take a socially awkward person and transform them into someone who is happy and centered and does well in social situations.

Except for ‘player school’ type education(pickup artistry, etc).  Which isn’t the worst thing a socially awkward person can go through.  It’s possible to be offputting to people who are overloaded with Christian values, so it comes across the wrong way to people, most of the time.  ‘Player school’ is about teaching good people how to present themselves effectively, so they can communicate as well as their less-good counterparts, or about smoothing out the rough edges of those who need polishing.

And let me also add, let’s be intelligent.  If you don’t think player school is about this…do you understand the result?  Do you think it’s a good thing, if an intelligent person, with integrity, can also act intelligently, and socialize well?  And not just speak intelligently…but also be understood, by all, by those with greater and lesser knowledge (and intelligence, in some cases)?  This is the goal, for me, and it’s a worthy goal for us all, so regardless of any counterargument to the idea of what I consider pickup artistry to be, we have the opportunity to exercise intelligence, and learn what is good about it and use the effective elements in a way which we approve of, to help our cause.  When you do this, you are acting with both intelligence and integrity.

This is one of the problems with the world today.  We are dominated by a class of people who act with intelligence, and act without integrity.  They are not all necessarily Satanists, but If I had any criticism —Sidebar— of Satanism, it would be this.  There is integrity, only in the realm of violence and goodness in one’s circle.  Once they hit their circle of ‘like-minded people’ and move outward, integrity goes out of the window.  The rest of the world is considered lower class, less than human, regarded as a different species, if the Satanist considers him or herself a human.  This is bullshit, a lack of empathy.  All rational action must include both intelligence and integrity.  In my view, Satanism, then, is reactionary, compared to religion.  The new Satanist wakes up and says:

“Theists act without integrity.  Theists act without rationality (intelligence), and harm and take advantage of others as they spread their irrational beliefs.  These irrational beliefs unduly burden me.  They harm my self-esteem and they harm who I am.  These beliefs are an attack on my own self-worth.  I am against them and I adopt rational beliefs (intelligent philosophy).  I choose to strike back.  I claim myself.  I am who I am, and I stand confidently.”

And in standing, the Satanist reclaims their self-esteem, their self-worth, they save their enthusiasm.  And that’s great.  But they leave their integrity behind.  This is their departure from rational philosophy.

Why ‘strike back?’  Why not just reject the abuser and walk away?  Why not say, “fuck this, and move on.”

The Satanist says: “I choose to act in opposition to the Theist and theological philosophy.  I will act with integrity, only with those that are like me.  Only with the strong, that are like me.  I claim my enthusiasm in my actions, because I act with power and strength.  And I adopt the same lack of integrity, the same parasitic approach, outside of my circle.”  Or maybe… it’s even worse.  Maybe even more infantile…?

“I will get you back [you faceless, nameless society] for what you’ve done to me!  Because you’ve made it difficult for my kind to exist, you Theists, you [loosely, Christians, but really all self-depriving, slave-faiths] ‘Christians’ especially you pitiful slaves, you deserve to be worse slaves than you are, now.  Out of spite for you, I wish that your slavery be worse than it is, I rejoice in my superior knowledge and I hold you responsible for your slavery and happily take advantage of you.  I am happy to be a parasite, a plague on you, just as your masters were (or would/could have been) a plague on me.”

And it’s ironic.  Because the Satanist is ‘the enemy,’ the ‘adversary,’ is s/he not?  Would not the Satanist play the role of Lucifer?  In the Bible Lucifer brought the light.  So Lucifer, the Satanist, then brings light, knowledge, the correct role (to follow the mythology) is to rise and Illuminate the cowering mass of slaves, in society.  So the Satanist, to the degree which s/he takes their role from Christian mythology, they give freely the truth to the masses.  But instead, they choose to hide what they know and walk in power and project that power, for their own aggrandizement.  Instead of projecting ‘light power,’ “white magic”, if you will, they choose to project dark power, “black magic,” which is lame.  Instead of deriding the weak, scaring them, and taking advantage of that which they have been conditioned to revile and recoil from, the Satanist could exist as someone to aspire to.  A good role model, for the weak slavish Theist/’Christian.’  One can be Atheist and ‘Areligious’ without being anti-Christian in his/her values.  To shock Theists/’Christians’ is at best, to stoop to their level.  At worst, it’s sadistic.  On another note, slaves are devoted followers.  I suppose anyone who slavishly emulated you would be a distraction from or a perversion of the value system you intended to promote.

That would be lame, too… but back to the mythology.  The light bringer could certainly illuminate without offending, one could be self-indulgent without ‘shock-value,’ the way rich people openly consume.  (Enthusiasm).  One could also be openly charitable without any irrational bullshit. And unapologetically awesome.  Period.  All of the three (enthusiasm-intelligence-integrity) without any of the negatives.  Instead they choose to be those things, but also to hide their worship/spirituality in privacy (no comment on this, just stating it), and display their ‘positive’ qualities in an ‘offensive’ fashion.

This critique, in a sense, is social, and in a sense it’s more than social.  But the crux of this is that the Satanist reclaims his enthusiasm, uses his intelligence, and abandons integrity, using it in a double-standard fashion.  That’s not good enough for me, and it’s not good enough for a rational society.  A rational society requires integrity, and rational people should turn their backs on any who lack integrity.  That ensures a civilized society, because it kicks out people who act without integrity, who act without consideration, compassion, true humanity, it makes sure any would-be worthless, vagabond, uncivilized shitbags end up where they belong.  Alone, and as far away from us as possible.

What sort of people would be good for shunning…people like those promoting bullshit in the entertainment industry.  Those assholes promote slave values, they send mixed signals, such as popularizing consumption (novelty, frivolity) without popularizing intelligence (thrift, frugality) along with it.  Or those that promote bullshit slave causes (protect ‘the environment’) which put forward integrity without intelligence (care and concern for others without care and concern for oneself).  They pervert good help and true compassion by conflating it with sacrifice.  Or the assholes in the political media, who make stupid remarks like people have “a right to healthcare” in a good society, thus promoting negative intelligence (this ‘right to healthcare’ doesn’t make any sense) with positive integrity (having empathy and compassion for others like you).

To add to this irony, the Satanist elevates him/herself, but only to the level of the parasitic ‘Christian’ she was once dominated by.  She claims intelligence, claims enthusiasm, rescues, then, her self and her mind, from the ‘Christian’ master, and in doing so, becomes a master herself.  Think ‘slave morality’ vs. ‘master morality,’ ala Nietzsche.  But she owns only half of her integrity.  Society is to be society, only to the degree to which those who have as much power as we do, exist?  Though to be fair, Satanists stated values are not to harm children.  But why bother saying that, if you wish ill on your fellow human slaves?  Any human that would oppose a Satanist, is a child, until the light of reason touches them, both in mind and heart.  Does that not make sense?  I am really asking, here, too…because I find a contradiction here.

1-Those who would disagree with rational philosophy (I am just realizing that this term is redundant, but it’s necessary to state it this way, in this period in time… so those who would disagree) could simply be ignorant.  In that case, why treat them as lesser beings.  I would be happy, personally appeased if the Satanist ‘plan’ was to ignore irrational people who choose to be ignorant, even when the truth is before them.  That is the rational way.

2-Those who would harm children are clearly harming the defenseless, and those who would harm the ignorant ‘on paper’ (either with the threat of government force, or harm them through economic trickery) are doing the same thing.  They are just harming a different kind of child.  Children are non fully-developed adults.  So a child is simply an (usually) enthusiastic adult who lacks knowledge (one piece to effectiveness/intelligence) and discipline (non fully-developed brain, still learning integrity).  These ignorant adults, then, (possibly, counter arguments welcome) lack knowledge, or integrity, likely because they’ve been psychologically damaged.  Most of the people I’ve talked to, about the truth, refuse to accept it, because it means they’d have to deal with either some profound neglect or have a lot of catching up to do, they would have to learn how to take care of themselves, in a serious sense.  Another equally common problem is the trauma of the truth.  It is simply a shock to many, and most people wish to remain in their comfort zone, and not deal with it.  I can’t fucking blame them, either.  I’d rather be comfortable, too.  And these people are probably pretty set and in a good place…I guess, right?  I don’t know.

Let’s clarify these two points.  Discuss if you can resolve any confusion created here.  Because if Satanists were not double-standard wielding nihilists, I would be one, too.  I believe a healthy, rational person, understands, and expresses positive enthusiasm, intelligence, and integrity, and I believe the three feed on and encourage and protect each other in a well functioning personality.  The Satanist misses the point.  He expresses positive intelligence, negative enthusiasm, and negative integrity.  (I’ve explained how above.)  Rational philosophy would go a step further.  From my perspective, Libertarians/Voluntarists are practitioners of rational philosophy.  (Reminder, that those public people who are part of the Libertarian party are Libertarian.  Liberty and politics do not mix.  They talk about the NAP, but do not follow it to all of its rational conclusions.)  A Libertarian would defend the ignorant, probably through Agorism.

The Libertarian would distinguish between those who held or were sympathetic to irrational ideals and those who acted on them, and would deal with people with integrity, and avoid (freeze-out) people without it.  This way the hostile ignorant would be left out in the cold, and the passive ignorants, those who went along (which is most people) would not be taken advantage of.  To whatever degree they could be part of the solution, they would blindly contribute to it.  Which would be a good that negates the kind of bad we see from the same people today: the opposite of the way ‘warm and fuzzy’ people become teachers and blindly indoctrinate and brainwash young children, thinking they are doing a ‘public service.’  (That’s only a half-truth, anyway.  I suspect most of the people who work for the government are lazy and are bullies at heart.)  The same way (almost all) soldiers, police officers, government employees, political activists, etc., end up promoting the problem and contributing to others’ enslavement.

There’s a “release valve” that when used, can allow someone to accept the truth, because they’ve been properly prepared for it.  I don’t know what that is.  If that’s not true, we can go the route of the State.  We can choose to promote rational philosophy, and propagate it such a way that it takes hold with the young, and we leave older people alone, and our opponents simply die off.  This is how statism and the fucking ‘socialist paradise’ have taken hold.

Sidebar over.  Socializing is a ‘game’ or an art and there’s a ‘theory and practice’ for every art. Schooling/training is about teaching the theory/practical aspects of an art.  That’s what you do.  That’s what people need to do when they are presenting themselves socially, and it’s what we need to do as a movement.  We Libertarians, we Voluntarists, we need to go to ‘player school.’  We need to present our awesome philosophy both emotionally as well as intellectually.


What the Hell is Bitcoin, anyway?

You don’t know. I am in the pulpit. (Yeah!) You don’t know what the hell Bitcoin is.  At least, I don’t.

This is what you do know. It is possible to encode and encrypt data and send it around. This means transactions are ‘secure,’ the way your phone calls, text messages, and emails are secure, too.  Those are communications transactions, folks.  We know how ‘secure’ those are.  SO…I call bullshit on that.  Bitcoin is no more secure than a cell phone.  The good news is, a cell phone is secure enough, right.  Most of us can lock our cars (if you drive) and be reasonably sure no one is going to break into them.  Same can be said for a phone call, most can be reasonably sure there isn’t anyone nearby spying on or intercepting our phone calls.  Likewise, our financial transactions are ‘secure,’ … what else do we know?

So…there is such a thing as ‘Bitcoin’ and something called ‘mining’ these ‘Bitcoins.’ This reminds me of SETI@Home. SETI stands for the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence. SETI@Home was/is (who knows) the software one could download to help with the search.  But you don’t know…at least, I don’t. All you know is the same thing as Bitcoin. And in the case of SETI, you downloaded software and the software analyzed radio transmissions from space, and attempted (you think) to decode them or look for patterns or signs of life. Right? Sure. Sounds good. Maybe that is exactly what it is. But again, you don’t know. Again, I don’t. Now Bitcoin is the same. When you are mining Bitcoins, for all you know, you are actually cracking encrypted data for a centralized organization. You. Don’t. Know. I don’t fucking know. You could be cracking people’s phone calls, you could be cracking people’s passwords, you could be cracking encryption of foreign intelligence. You don’t have a fucking clue what you are fucking doing when you are mining Bitcoins. Just saying. You. Don’t. Know. So what the hell is it, anyway?

I don’t know. FSK says the entire transaction history is transmitted to every Bitcoin client, or something to that effect. That’s scary, if you’re conductin business you’d prefer to hide.  But if I were a ‘coining man,’ I would mine Bitcoins too, and I would invest in them if I got a higher return than my current investments. Right now, the cost benefit is better to stick with what I’ve done in the past. Not to mention, Bitcoin is already popular. Which in my mind means most of the opportunity has dried up. Let me take this as an opportunity to say, what you need to do, is be excellent.  All of us need to utilize our intelligence, with enthusiasm.

That, to me, is the definition of excellence.  It’s intelligence applied with zeal, with zest.  With enthusiasm.  To do that, you need to solve problems in your life, pursue your desires, in a way that is of the utmost intelligence.

Zeal (from Bing dictionary)… “enthusiasm: energetic and unflagging enthusiasm, especially for a cause or idea”
Zest (from Bing dictionary)…”citrus peel used as flavoring”
… just kidding.  The other definition is “hearty enjoyment: lively enjoyment and enthusiasm”

SO let’s pursue what we want in life with both…

Intelligence (same source)… “the ability to learn facts and skills and apply them, especially when this ability is highly developed”

So if this works for you, get it done.  If not, no worries.  But to me, the important thing is to get it done.  Now when I looked up excellence (same source) I got:

“the quality or state of being outstanding and superior” …

I want to be outstanding, and superior, if that’s what it takes for me to enjoy my life.  Bottom line, I want an outstanding life.  And not according to anyone else’s opinion of what that is, but of my own.

Anyway, if you can gain advantages from using Bitcoin, best of luck to you.  My goal here is to illustrate the possibility (please read FSK’s post) that Bitcoin is not what you think it is.  It’s possible to be the victim of a bureaucratic attack, by the data they collect from your Bitcoin usage.

Bitcoin can be used against you, optionally so, and only in circumstances when you’ve run afoul of some shitbag bureaucrat.  That’s my 0.02.  This falls in the category of the petty use of secret government knowledge, not to mention the misuse of technology.  Anytime power falls into corrupt hands, the result is corruption.  I’m going to start calling these bureaucratic attacks, and the abuse of technology.

This is the effect of high technology in the communications industry.  This is the reason our calls, emails, internet habits, and financial habits, are tracked and data mined, then used against us.  Not to mention our movements (location based services, GPS, and the stupid cameras used to recognize faces and license plates from people’s cars).


Next Steps

What should we do next?  Now that you know about freedom, now what?  For those who don’t know much about freedom, I will make a to-do to write about it.  There are so many facets to this.  I am thinking about my children, and about their children.  What I intend to do is to build the free society right now.  I want to build it socially and economically.  I want to start replacing bloated parasitic services with efficient, intelligent, private services.

I’m not yet sure about the best way to do that.

We need a blueprint. We need a blueprint for freeing people from the matrix. We need to know what it takes to safely bring back a mind from the fractured state many live in today.   There’s a psychological marker for people who naturally free themselves.  I don’t have any interest in posting about it, since I believe pretty strongly that people who are working toward their sad little worldwide hamlet would love to find it, drug it, or tuck it away in a cage.  They may have already done so.  It could be that these assholes are so familiar with this kind of person, that they figured out how to silence or cripple enough of them before they can hurt them in any way.

How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World is an interesting book. It’s good writing by someone who is exactly what I believe many of us should strive to be. someone who is part of the first vanguard, so to speak.

But what else do we need to be successful? How do you organize something that is to accomplish something large, while keeping it small, at the same time?

That’s my goal.  We need to be able to communicate this to others, to be able to assess where they are, and to move them along to the next level.  We need a language and terminology as much as we need tests to assess and teaching materials to educate.  A school for freedom, of sorts.  The trick is, this stuff needs to fly below the surface, it needs to all be natural and normal.  Because if we educate people about the truth, and are unabashedly direct about it, we’ll just hit the usual defense mechanisms, and have to deal with people’s programming and false selves.  And this is so gay, it’s not worth wasting time on.

That’s a good first step.  Create details for what people need to know to be free.  The things a person believes when their mind is free…or at least the things they rationally acknowledge, it’s not even that these things are actual beliefs, they are just what flows naturally from an unencumbered person.

Private Food for the Win – Hershberger Keeps His Shirt

This story is interesting.  It’s about a gentleman the state presses criminal charges against, for selling food privately from his farm.  The story describes how the state of Wisconsin, is attempting to force farmers who sell food privately, to comply with the same coercion and pay the same wasteful taxes as a grocer or a warehouse club.  In the author’s words, they “equate Hershberger’s Grazin’ Acres member-only food club with a Sam’s Club or Costco box store membership operation.”  To the state, “there is no such thing as privately-available food, [and] we are all under the thumb of “The Man” and his clipboards and forms…and orders.”

When the state brought this matter to court, they also made sure Hershberger and his defense could not discuss raw milk, food safety, or criminal intent.  And one of the charges was for the violation of a ‘holding order’ they also barred him from mentioning details about.  In other words, the only ‘relevant’ facts were what the man did or failed to do, and whether or not what he did or failed to do complied with the state’s demands (laws, statues, for all you mainstream thinkers).

Criminal intent, is one of the elements of a crime, to my knowledge.  In many criminal cases, the complaining party has to prove that the defendant intended to violate their person or property, or deprive them of it.  Why then, would the state move to block the jury from hearing facts about Mr. Hershberger’s intentions in establishing and running his food club?  Simple, right…to make sure only their demands can be discussed in court, and whether or not they were complied with.

That is patently obvious.  Obvious.  This is obvious coercion and obvious bullying.  We make the rules, we tell you what to do, and if you don’t do it, we’ll take you to court, humiliate you, deprive you of your time, your money, your person (we’ll kidnap you and throw you in a cage) and your property.

And simply because we decide what you will and will not do.  We are your masters.  Period.  Right…?

Wrong.  I digress.

That’s one side of this.  The other side is this farm movement thing.  This natural foods thing.  This is one of those rich topics.  How many processed foods out there, how many genetically modified foods, and of those two groups of substances, how many of them are 100% protective and good for us?  For example, rubbing alcohol, to my knowledge, is good for disinfecting cuts, etc, so is topical (povidone) iodine.  Both of these substances are good for what they do.  And they are very helpful substances.  Granted, I am not talking about long-term use or taking either one internally, since they are for external use.  Topical iodine includes polymers, so it is partially questionable when considering use on the skin.  There are probably better forms of iodine to use.  I am not a medical expert, so I can’t be sure about how bad it is to use this form of iodine.  There are certainly purer forms that do the same work in probably the same amount of time, but…ask a doctor.

These were just two handy examples for me.  That said, my question is this.  These are ‘man-made’ products.  These are good products.  Where are the man-made foods, that are also good products?  Anything.  How about white flour, no, one can safely conclude the typical variety (enriched, bleached wheat flour) is not good for just about everyone but the starving who would choose between flour and starvation.

What about corn chips?  No, probably made from genetically modified corn, right?

What about candy?  No, preservatives.  What about food-grade wax?  What about it?  I have not looked into it.  I can keep asking, but my question here is what is on the list of man-made foods that are good for people.  I ask this because of the ‘farm food’ movement, the ‘traditional food’ movement.

I would pick traditional food, slow food, slow-cooked, traditionally prepared food over something packaged and processed, but statistically speaking, I have a hard time believing everything that comes from a corporate supply chain, unless it’s specifically produced as an ‘organic’ product, or some other ‘slow/trendy/traditional’ method, that everything from this corporate supply chain is bad for you.  And I am scratching my head, wondering, whether we are being propagandized into going traditional on purpose.

This is how the state works.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  The continual progress of serfdom, is propagandized good intentions which lead to bad results.

Thiesmann Thinks LeBron Could Play Football, but What Exactly is a ‘Physical Specimen’?

I read this article about LeBron James, today.  Interesting article about how Joe Thiesmann sees in him the ability to develop into a successful NFL quarterback.  He says James could spend a few years in the NBA, and become a QB about the time most guys retire.  That is quite the high recommendation, I’ll say, but I would also point out that Joe Thiesmann made the following comment: “He’s the most tremendous physical specimen in all of sports.”  What the %^&*?  What is a ‘physical specimen’?  Why not just call him an athlete?

Can anyone attach any meaning to the term ‘physical specimen,’ so I can calm down?  When I first read that, I finished the article.  Then I went back to it.  What the %^&*?  That reminds me of a metaphor I’d thought of before, but hadn’t completely thought out.  Athletes today, especially ‘minority’ athletes, especially black athletes, are modern day slaves.  In a sense, coaches and athletes, and maybe team owners and athletes, remind me of the slave owners in the movie, Django Unchained.  The ‘person-as-property’ metaphor was especially clear during the man-dingo scenes.  That reminded me of a couple of coaches/owners and ‘their athletes.’

I spent some time as an athlete in high school, in the South, and I wonder if things work this way in the North, too.  Coaches tend to treat their athletes much like a cattleman treats his cattle.  With a kind of calm, protective, fatherly nature, but also with the sense that they own you.  Much like the cattleman owns his cattle.  Speaking of people-as-property, when did the various armed government organizations, especially military agencies, spy ‘services’ like the CIA and the SS and maybe MI6, those other than police agencies start referring to people as ‘assets’.  Why not just call them agents?  Did screenwriters just adopt that out of nowhere because it sounds cool…or do they actually call their people ‘assets’?  That’s another example of the principle-agent problem.  Just kidding.  One thing is for sure, I got that same sense of person-as-property, when Thiesmann called James a ‘physical specimen.’  There’s a kind of odd detachment with a term like that.

Can you tell how this sits with me?  Not very well.  I don’t see him leaving the NBA and becoming a quarterback.  The author of the article/post also thinks it’s a wild idea.  It works, except for the part about him spending three to four more years in the NBA.  I think you just killed it right there.  If he really does have a ~5 year plan to continue in the NBA, why talk about him becoming a QB now? It’s like those movie previews that come out nine months before the movie opens.  Really?  Nine months?  That’s cruel.  Especially for those of us for whom entertainment is one of the highest pleasures in life.  It used to be that way for me…I’d watch a movie preview and go through the worst kind of excitement-frustration-disappointment mood swing … and then watch the next preview.  What’s worse is when the preview comes on before a movie I am not at all excited about watching.  Unfortunately that happens more often than not.  I digress.

Racism!  Just kidding.

I just don’t have the patience, especially for something like sports, to keep up my enthusiasm (or actually remember) for four more years, while LeBron finishes his career in the NBA, to see whether Theismann’s idea panned out.  The overall topic of the article is nice, but calling him a ‘physical specimen,’ as though he was some sort of scientist, … actually that’s it.  He used the term specimen, and the detachment implied in referring to a human being, or even that person’s athletic ability, as a ‘physical specimen,’ I find, at the same time reduces that person to the level of an animal.  Not the sort of thing I like to see, regardless of the detachment or perspective athletic coaches have when approaching their craft.  There’s no reason to look at players the way a researcher looks at lab animals, or the way a plantation owner looks at chattel.

That said, the rest of the comment balanced out well.  I don’t think he meant anything by it, but it certainly made an interesting tidbit for me.  The full quote is here: “He’s the most tremendous physical specimen in all of sports. I think he’s certainly talented enough. He’s intelligent.”  Still, ‘physical specimen’ … weird.  He could have said “he’s physically the most tremendous athlete in all of sports.  Period.”  He was speaking, I think, of the fact that LeBron is six-foot-eight, two-hundred and fifty pounds.  He’s a superhero in the physical sense.

There probably is something to the notion that athletes are a kind of modern-day slave.  Something between the slaves of the 19th century and the gladiators of Rome.  Or the movie Gladiator.  But if you did not know, I am not a fan of the US/western issue of ‘racism.’  I don’t think anyone should care about it.  I note it, but I believe the best use of your time is to acknowledge any discrimination you practice, any that is practiced against you, and act accordingly.  If you believe a race to be unsafe, or unsavory, act on your belief as you see fit.  Never be ruled by stereotypes … don’t judge a book by its cover, if you have an opportunity to read it, but if you don’t, I recommend not rushing to a negative judgment, except to the extent that you are protecting your safety.  That is more important than not being rude.  More important than politics, in my opinion.

Stefan Just Lost

I just watched this debate, where Stefan debates Sam Seder, a guy I’ve never heard of.  Stefan basically rolls over, and shakes the guy’s hand (figuratively) at the end of the debate.  It was hard to watch.

Two things stood out.  When Stefan explained how a free society would handle pollution, Sam dismissed it as unrealistic.  Stefan called him on it.  He rightfully reminded him that people could not imagine the best way to work a farm without slavery, but Sam bodyslammed him.  He controlled the debate from there, he told Stefan he did not see how his ideas would work in reality.  Sam told Stefan he was not able to make his case.


Stefan’s response to that was to call out the logical fallacy that Sam used.  Something about a Scotsman.  It basically means Sam played a shell game with Stefan.  He asked for evidence, Stefan gave him evidence, then Sam dismissed the evidence and said it was not evidence at all.  The main thing, is that he successfully owned Stefan.  He made it sound like he knew best, knew what he was talking about, and controlled the debate.  I realize, because I understand the facts, arguments, etc, that Sam had no idea what he was talking about, and that he didn’t make much sense at all, but I also acknowledge that Stefan did very little to make that clear.  And his moderator moderated more for Sam, in my opinion.  I thought the moderator was an anarchist too.  Too bad.  The guy often hurried them off to another topic when Stefan needed more time, and needed someone to step in and stop Sam from talking over him.  Ironically, in the sense that Sam was arguing for someone with ‘absolute power’ to step in on someone else’s behalf, like the less fortunate, the downtrodden, and the defenseless…ironically, this is what Stefan needed.

Later they discussed Social Security.  On the Social Security discussion, Stefan made it clear that the ‘best government program’ is a ponzi scheme.  Sam agreed it was the best government program, and hammered away the (bullshit) idea that it successfully keeps a majority (3/4 I believe) of elderly people out of poverty and that it was not a ponzi scheme (more bullshit)…because people would continue to pay into it.  In his fantasy world, a ponzi scheme is only a ponzi scheme when people decide not to fund it anymore.  Basic definition from the bing dictionary: “[when] profits are paid to early investors from money actually invested by later participants,” you have a ponzi scheme.  It does not matter whether later participants keep coming in, it’s still fraud.  But it’s ok, because it keeps 3/4 of the elderly out of poverty, right?  What about all of the elderly?  How many of the elderly that are still in poverty in spite of this program, actually paid into it?

Moving on, Sam also ignored Stefan’s protest that social security works by stealing from the poor and giving to the retired/disabled.  Sam’s response was a mainstream debate talking point.  He said the rich were getting away with not paying their fair share (bullshit).

I just do not know what to say.  I was frustrated listening to this.

Stefan argued against emotion and logical fallacies, and all he did was patiently call the fallacies, and move on.

The video quality was poor.  I suspect the video was captured on Sam’s side of the debate, and as a result, connection issues showed up when Stefan was speaking.  Sometimes when Stefan spoke, video slowed down.   His voice slurred when the video slowed, and it made him sound retarded.  This in itself is bad.  Even the idea that Stefan would post the video, in that condition, anyway, was bad.  Some kind of editing should have taken place.

Stefan did the Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist community a disservice in this debate.  I think the number one accomplishment on his side of the debate, was introducing himself to Sam Seder’s audience.  The number two priority was to debate a statist and win, and in my opinion, he lost.  Stefan knows this too, I think.  I think he knows that this debate was as much about the appearance of being correct as it was actually saying things that were correct and made sense.  Instead of this occurring, Sam took the authority by talking over Stefan, and by just sounding like he was the authority, and by taking the position that Stefan needed to convince him.  He put icing on that cake by adding the comment that Libertarians call into his show all the time, and that he debates them on a regular basis.  In other words, “I’m right, and I’m used to wrongheaded people calling and trying to convince me with their wild ideas.”

That’s what was the most disappointing part.  Stefan knows that appearance and reality are important, he understands the “cult of personality,” he introduced the term to me.  In all manner of irony, this debate, was podcast number 2239, and the prep he did before hosting the Peter Schiff show, some time in June of 2012, was podcast 2235.  In 2235, Stefan made a comparison between how people decide political debates vs. scientific debates, and explored what it would look like if the scientific community used this same method to decide between competing ideas.  He said people decide political debates by looking at superficial qualities, like the physical attractiveness.  So people would agree with Einstein, for example, because he had great hair.  In other words, people would agree with Sam Seder because he sounded confident.  Because he sounded unconvinced and Stef didn’t sound so convincing.  Disappointed.  Check out either podcast if you are interested.  If for nothing else, than to look for a good example of what not to do in a debate, or what to do, in the case of Sam.  Not that he did everything right, but he controlled the debate, and sounded in control, even though he spouted nonsense.

The Importance of Aesthetics

We really only need these to ‘market ourselves’ to others. I find that other people look for these foolish monikers and stereotypes to distinguish one type of person from another. What I have learned is that once we are discussing a particular issue I can pretty quickly distinguish by making shared assumptions and watching the reactions of others. An example is when talking about global warming I frequently say “I want the same things as you do, I believe that humans should all live in a safe and clean environment, and that every animal should have every right to survive, as well as in preserving the beauty and purity of nature” and then I depart from the party line by noting that the data is full of contradictions and that the proposed solutions are false and support contrarian agendas. Not to mention that government has both created and exacerbated the problem, if it even exists at all. Who says carbon emissions are bad? These are facts, statements that are positive, the normative statements can remain constant i.e., “is your heart in the right place or not” and we can debate facts, assuming the other person actually has a brain which they can separate from their heart for 15 seconds or so, to process a fact…most people do not have brains, they have knee jerk media programs that trigger responses they heard on television or read in some media rag. I digress.

Aesthetics are important for deciding how much of our time we wish to spend and how much of our enthusiasm we wish to show in certain things and situations. Also, aesthetics program our responses to various ideas, such as what to talk about when there is blank silence or an opportunity to begin a conversation. That is a key aesthetic distinction. It may simply be a finite partially overlapping list of issues, for many people.

This is something I am looking into creating. What is the list and how is it organized, for select groups. Doing this will give me aesthetic definitions I can use. I can both use them to find compatible personalities and I can use them to augment my own, and again, “market myself” to others. After all, aesthetics serve two purposes, in my view (these are, of course, secondary to any survival ensuring programming they ride on top of, for example, avoiding food that smells bad would be a primary purpose of the sense of taste / smell for obvious reasons). The two purposes are, first to satisfy our desires and lead us toward fulfilling activities, in essence, to please us, make us happy, aesthetics are the pleasure organ of the personality. Aesthetics are indeed, the reproductive organs of the social self. They are also the body of the social self…the character of the social self. The aesthetics show us off and make us noticeable and attractive to those that would be attractive to us.

And in the pleasure seeking mode, they also lead us away from those that would not be interested in or interesting, to us.

This is probably a good beginning of some deep discussion on this topic.