Start to put down your communist militia, and then take your retirement.
Tim, at some point on situation, reactions like yours are those of frightened children who don't know what to do? You want to talk, but that talk as bring us nowhere for the last 200 years because most people like you have no understanding of what is really going, so you called the communist militia psychopath. That's not what they are. They know exactly what they want tribal organization with an elite and a collective. You don't even read the book of great intellectual who talked about it (Popper, Hayek, Pinker, Peterson....). Why do all people like you refuse to use their knowledge and depth of understanding? Aren't you smart enough, are you afraid?
For example, romanticism has introduced the concept on a political level of take it or leave. In other words, if they can have it their way, there will block until they have it their way. Schopenhauer explained all of this, and pinker after him. Popper explained that the irrationalist attitude is to be confuse between natural laws and man-made laws, which lead to irrationalism and magical thinking. They think that what they believe is equal to the law of gravity. Certainly, you must be crazy to go against the law of gravity. That's what they think about people like you.
Just one question. Why don't you read the great intellectuals who have tried to understand what is happening to us as a civilization, and why don't you quote them regularly to explain the situation to the others? What stop you to do that?
It's really back, the idea that the state is like a living organism that we have to worship (Plato and mostly Hegel in our modern Area who worked for the Prussian to push the idea that people must put their faith in the state. Marx took much of his thesis from Hegel.
It's really back, the idea that the state is like a living organism in which we have to worship (Plato and mostly Hegel in our modern Area who worked for the Prussian to push the idea that people must put their faith in the state.
It's really back, the idea that the state is like a living organism that we have to worship (Plato and mostly Hegel in our modern Area who worked for the Prussian to push the idea that people must put their faith in the state.
It's really back, the idea that the state is like a living organism that we have to worship (Plato and mostly Hegel in our modern Area who worked for the Prussian to push the idea that people must put their faith in the state. Marx did take much of his thesis from Hegel.
Thank you for the explanation. Very informative.
Thanks PragerU for their contents and simply to exist.
The two sides are irreconcilable and one is literally at war with the other. Why do you not split? If the civilized people do not want to be at war, than to split is the only way to save themselves.
Absolutly, races exist therefore ... I see no reason to mention it every time and to see it everywhere. Are you racist sir?
Hey, I can help with that. At least to understand (I don't care about vice)
Killing the hubs
For a few years now, we have international leaders worried about the Internet and human behaviors. They have engaged in discussion with big Internet players and come up with the idea to use algorithms to filter what it is written in hope that it will alleviate the problem. Nobody denies that there is a problem. The question is how to solve it. Should we control everything or led the system auto-control itself? No doubt that there are good philosophical, political, sociological, psychological, economic arguments that can be made from both sides, but none of them matter because they will all failed at the end. The reason is the existence of hubs that concentrate on a same 'Internet place’ a huge number of users.
To understand what I’m talking about, you need to know about a research result. I quote ‘By August 2000 Pastor-Satorras and Vespignani had confirmed, the result of Steve White, a computer expert at IBM, concluded that computer: computer viruses defy predictions of the classical epidemic models.’ In other words, computer viruses do not act like biological viruses. I quote ‘The source of this discrepancy, however, remained unclear to them … my research team found the missing piece. On the Internet, computers are not connected to each other randomly. Rather, the underlying network has a scale-free topology … In scale-free networks, the epidemic threshold miraculously vanished. That's, even if a virus is not very contagious, it spreads and persists … The source of this highly unexpected behavior lies in the uneven topology of the Internet. Scale-free networks are dominated by hubs … because each hub is linked to a very large number of other computers, it has a high chance to be infected by one of them … and to infect a lot of them ’. Excerpt from the book ‘Linked’ by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi.
My hypothesis is that we can take the result on virus propagation to understand bad communication that impact greatly the quality the relation people have on the Internet. What is important is that the information that transit from hubs cannot be controlled by rules. Their origin comes from the topology of the network, and that’s where we have to act is on the creation of hubs. We need to greatly reduce the size of hubs and their ability to communicate with each other. Attempt to control information has failed and the only way to reach some degree of success is to turn to totalitarianism – erasing the account of every person that is caught by the rules which are more and more drastic. The problem is the big Internet player like Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter,… their very existence, no matter their activities, will produce a tsunami of bad behaviors on the Internet. 'Kill the hub' is the true solution.
Now, we know the attraction that a centralized and planned organization has on many elites. Plato was already writing about it. Hubs look to have some sort of perfect design for those elites. To go local and small communities is the only way to save the most active part of the Internet.
... While being on the watch list, or doesn't. Reality is such a matter of feeling. Make your own reality and you will feel the bliss... Sorry, I don't buy it.
It's the age of dishonesty as Schopenhauer explained it. excerpt from from a fucking book, that i'm late to publish :D
3) The age of dishonesty. “This is the origin of that philosophic method, which entered the stage immediately after Kant (Fichte, Hegel…Heidegger, Wittgenstein), of this method of mystifying and imposing upon people, of deceiving them and throwing dust in their eyes – The method of windbaggery. One day this era will be recognized, by the history of philosophy, as the age of dishonesty” “…these so-called philosophers do not attempt to teach, but to bewitch the reader”. Schopenhauer, book ‘Grundprobleme’ (4th ed. 1890). Dishonesty is not to be understand as a bad character trait, but the affirmation of what you are, almost a virtue that you wear proudly. When there is no truth, no reality outside what you feel then being dishonest is a public statement that there is no such thing as truth. It’s a virtue signaling, telling to which tribe you belong.Conclusion: They don’t care if you do not understand their reality, they will ignore you. A bug is more important than you. You’re nothing. If they can’t escape a confrontation, they will lie, not only to get what they want, for it’s their duty to do so. They can be no understanding and when they get what they want, which usually is power, they will put you in a situation where you might die. Irrationalists believe in the rationality of their thoughts, using essentialism, which has contaminated all of our modern knowledge and culture. Between the scientific method and essentialism, there is no happy ending.
In this age of dishonesty, the philosopher Paul Boghossian, now asks people, who want to engage in an argument, if their ideas are falsifiable (falsification is a method promoted by Karl Popper). This is equivalent to ask if someone accepts that you may have understood his/hers ideas but still be in disagreement. The connection being, that if both understand the ideas of each other, but are still in disagreement, the only way to settle the question is to put to test the ideas, which means that they are falsifiable.
We have here the link between essentialism and falsification. If a theory like Freudism, Marxism, post-modernism or even string theory is not falsifiable it will be ‘infected’ by essentialism sooner or later because it has no defense. Essentialism must be eradicated from our educational system. All elites must explicitly reject it and know how to handle ideas in a more rational way and how to put them to test. If we want to settle the warfare between the people of reason and emotions, the first step is to make essentialism a relic of the past.
They're not crazy. They're at war against the civilized people.
There not crazy. There are at war against the civilized people.
They're not crazy. They're are at war against the civilized people.