The RedIce Interview on Catcher

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Rick,

I agree with everything you're saying here, except the part about the "mental circle jerk".

For one thing, it seems to me that conversations & deliberations about our topics here can be useful & valuable even if we don't all agree about everything.

Furthermore, if I get forced into having a comments policy, I would say that pejorative, dare I say inflammatory, remarks against other community members would generally be off limits? It's hard to know where to draw a line.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I'm having trouble parsing your message. Are you disagreeing with just ... 'what'? My using this term? Or what I am implying by it? Or both?

I'm just saying that, failing to articulate a more nuanced position on Masons (the inner church as opposed to the outer church where the 'good' morality is - provided by the same assholes, excuse my French), hallucinogenics (which mostly backfired), etc. then we will continue to engage in circular arguments based on false dichotomies instead of making progress.

BTW, I wasn't calling anyone a 'jerk' in case anyone thought so. In case anyone didn't understand, I employed the old teenage euphemism for collective onanism, which was my occulted way of referring to a circular argument. Shakespeare and Loren can get away with such, but I can't? That sucks.

Like I told Collectivist, at 8 years old I would not tolerate others putting Civil War soldiers on my Tonka Truck, so any more I don't think I should tolerate baseless or poorly considered ideology from masquerading as views that make hashish of my better knowing, especially when it is just rehashed Catholic (Caesarian) catechism.

What would be better to honestly say, that this discussion is 'polluted' with <insert seemingly unoffensive, highly cryptic insult here> ...?

Since 9/11, at least, all I hear from most people who claim to be truth seekers, is that they just want to set the clock back to some fairy delusion that they have in their mind - so that they can pretend that they didn't really take the red Pill, but had instead taken the Blue one. Too bad dude, you crossed the Rubicon, and you'll never be happy until you hit the reset button and start from scratch, or kill all the remaining Indians,,,, so you don't have to be constantly reminded of how you got here, with your romantically [sic] 'generate' culture.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Well said Jerry.

It should also be pointed out that Augustus, the true creator of Christian (and American) Family Values didn't actually practice them himself.

I think it is perfectly fine if any freedom lovers want to live an Augustan personal lifestyle because this works for their circumstances, but if doing such leads to konformity for themselves, their children and others that does not work for their circumstances, then I say this is counter-Postflavian. It is an extreme non sequitur to extrapolate from one's own personal experience that, for instance, father told them not to go to war because they are bogus, that this must apply to everyone else. I figured this out on my own despite being in a traditional Augustan family whose father did go to war. There is a difference between correlation and causality.

As such I find it deeply ironic to be told that I must konform to Augustan values in order to be able to fight them. This is something like we must kill everyone in order to save them.

Since I'm admittedly cultural clueless compared to yall's, what might be some examples of good American culture that we can use as a moral baseline from which we are being degenerated away from. Are war movies, and Cowboys vs. Indians, the Alamo, the thing, or what? How about The Exodus, Ben Hur, etc.?

These are all degenerate and if you don't think so then you belong with Kenneth Atchity, the author of the otherwise great The Messiah Matrix where on his website he is proud that Augustus is Jesus (prototype).

The Masonic Founding Fathers were proudly recreating Rome here, albeit the Republic in their minds, but the powers that be knew how to convert this temporary republic back into the Imperium, and they have. Until some of you come to terms with all this you are just having a mental circle jerk, IMHO.
you said; for instance, father told them not to go to war because they are bogus, that this must apply to everyone else. I figured this out on my own despite being in a traditional Augustan family whose father did go to war. There is a difference between correlation and causality.

I say no matter what any one tells me i still have to figured out for my self as u did what decision to make [my grand father 'asked' me ok]. as you made your mind up right? you say u didn't go to war, good for you. would it have help to have your grandfather so no don't go, my father was for war and would have let me go to war. and he had never been as my grand father had been to ww1

when did I say you 'have' to 'do' any thing?

I suggested there is evidence of what a healthy family is if you want to have children example adoption? why family, who going odds on to love you and take best care of u, why not help the women keep the baby; why? the country in EU
{have to look it up} gave $ to help woman give up there babies; and found crime and problem going up; they had 40, 000 a year and got it down to 400 and crime etc. went down; the same with the orphan trains in usa, does a baby animal know its mother; how about a human baby big brain the odds are they will not fit in and be more likely have lots of problems; as the child finds out my mother did not want them. and the pain the baby would go unspoken knowing something is wrong; this Is not my mother; see the history lesson I put up; what best for kids? family or say single parent? as just one example; again the village life left it all up to you not schooling masturbation in school witch is coming, sex with children and adults is ok as the right of the child not the parents to decide; like the parents cant say no to vaccines etc.or no home school like in parts of eu and telling all the boys how do you know you will not like being with a man if u haven't tried and drugging that turns them to a fem boy. see g media; I have not a problem with how any one wants to live and who they want to be with, and if someone wants to be with a 1000 men or just one; again not the best writer as to being a talker; I am saying that we seem to lead were we should not go. again didn't I say no coercion? only self defense. being quick to judge with out asking question is easy to do as I do sometimes; men will fight for there family but will they help the single family women? odds are. they will not care. just want the big boys want no family test tube babies . delta salves have u seen the autistic kids at Costco they want 10% worker that never ask for more$ etc,

I was lucky I know to have parents that didn't get divorced as in some countries its 90 % rate [why how?]
thank u to tell me your thoughts glad to share mine. looking forward to your star charts etc on 11 etc. and much thx to point out any miss understanding or mistakes I make as it helps me more then u.
 
Last edited:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Agreed, if you start with a false dialectic and split the difference down the middle (taking half the unknown "LSD" cube from the government sponsored pusher) you wind up with the worst of both worlds.

Also agreed that considering all the as assaults on the biosphere today, fertility and reproduction could plummet, cancer deaths could soar, and the population could even badly undershoot the 500 million "optimum" proposed by the Georgia Guidestones.

Given the formula I = P*A*T -- if there's a need to reduce ecological impact, the humane approach to the problem is to work on technology first, and then "affluence" (which also includes waste); there are limits to what can be done about P without infringing on basic principles like avoiding murder & genocide.
you said;
the assaults on the biosphere today; could kill us off in a bad why right?

who when where why how? example the people of japan didn't want nuke plants didn't want mox fuel [so they did it with out telling the public]; the people of japan could have lived with out them as they found out the hard way when they turned them all off; its only 3% of world elc.
was the a-bomb testing because of to many people etc etc
corxet used in gulf because of to many people?
what your best example of a problem today that hurts the earth because of to many people ? and how long will it last as compared to fuk u shima thx

if I am going in circles that's my problem right? why would it be some one else's?
if I am wrong mistaken not reasonable etc. no one here need say a thing if they think I cant learn. or think i am to stupid to understand there words of wisdom. or just don't want to bother.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Hi Loren,

As it is late I'll answer in more detail tomorrow. I will then provide counter examples to yours, that demonstrate, as Jerry said, that the answers are usually somewhere in the middle. For now I absolutely agree with you that as a 'poor' generality that you are correct that it is best for a child to have two parents ... that love them ... and have the child's best interests instead of some other agenda - some agendas of which were imparted to the parents before the current 'degeneration' of society (of which I also agree is a problem).

That said, I think you have grossly underestimated the complex dynamics of human mating relationships and what can and does go wrong. In hindsight I was 'fortunate' to get an earful of those problems listening to my father occasionally describe them at the dinner table. He was a family and marriage counselor (during and after being a minister). What I'm getting to is that it is not always good for anyone if the parents have come to irreconcilably hate each other (or worse). It doesn't really suffice then to say, 'well let's stay together for the sake of the children.' Not if they're going to end up dead as a result.

BTW, too much testosterone (or estrogen depending upon the case) creates excessive sexual desires that the other mate may not appreciate. Problem. So be careful with eating all those livers and kidneys, etc.. (I didn't want to explain using 'organ meats' in this context.)
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Hi Loren,

As it is late I'll answer in more detail tomorrow. I will then provide counter examples to yours, that demonstrate, as Jerry said, that the answers are usually somewhere in the middle. For now I absolutely agree with you that as a 'poor' generality that you are correct that it is best for a child to have two parents ... that love them ... and have the child's best interests instead of some other agenda - some agendas of which were imparted to the parents before the current 'degeneration' of society (of which I also agree is a problem).

That said, I think you have grossly underestimated the complex dynamics of human mating relationships and what can and does go wrong. In hindsight I was 'fortunate' to get an earful of those problems listening to my father occasionally describe them at the dinner table. He was a family and marriage counselor (during and after being a minister). What I'm getting to is that it is not always good for anyone if the parents have come to irreconcilably hate each other (or worse). It doesn't really suffice then to say, 'well let's stay together for the sake of the children.' Not if they're going to end up dead as a result.

BTW, too much testosterone (or estrogen depending upon the case) creates excessive sexual desires that the other mate may not appreciate. Problem. So be careful with eating all those livers and kidneys, etc.. (I didn't want to explain using 'organ meats' in this context.)
Published on Apr 21, 2015 learn to be a master!?? what the big boys do but don't tell ya. but david will and lots of his stuff is free; see bulletproof diet pdf color chart on how what when why to eat cure your teeth; how do u know when the horse is healthy? and are you wroth your weight in salt?

Dr. Jeff Spencer comes on Bulletproof Radio today to discuss The Champions Blueprint and what it looks like, the value of the right corner man, the myth about reaching the top, and strategic coaching. Enjoy the show!

Jeff Spencer has been at the forefront of personal improvement and success for over 40 years. He has advanced degrees in health and wellness, and has worked with athletes in nearly all professional sports, Olympic gold medalists, and millionaire entrepreneurs. Jeff has also worked with some of the most respected organizations like
Nascar, Le Tour de France, The Olympics, and the Discovery Channel. Jeff believes anyone has the power to be successful and become a champion.

For more info & to follow Jeff: For more info & to follow Jeff: learn to be a master!?
Jeff Spencer - http://drjeffspencer.com/my-story/
Jeff Spencer Blog - http://drjeffspencer.com/blog/
="
"

my father was a minster for 5 years when I was young. also.

if a bad guy uses good stuff its doesn't make the suff bad just because he used it for in slaving; like this;
do what you 'will'; if you 'will' not to do unto others what u don't want them to do to you then; do what u will is good.

some times when you see bad and good there is no good middle ground.

complex dynamics of human mating relationships; one can look at a problem from all ways like complex simple and from all view points. here iam not writing a book and sometimes one must talk write simply to be understood simple word can be profound goo goo goo

complex relationships yes may be some of its from the top down? life mating wild animals; mess with them and it could real get real comple x

example; in school you don't do all your told and you get c's. all the girls think your dumb [and the big boys teach the breeding habits of the herd that makes for a more perfect slave. ) in other words the they breed the animal's to be passive.
that cow that kicks is eaten 1st and they don't keep pet! cows

the goat was so they say the 1st domesticated animal and for me that was one of the reason bus h was reading etc,o n 9 1 -1 as we are the domesticated herd

I am learn new words; reason every day! we think in words more the better! I am sorry to say I didn't get in school cat in the hat didn't t help or reading the rye. only to have been home schooled like the best schools were the 7 roads meet like joe got to go to; how wonderful !! that's what I would do it if I were to have a child.

me never married no kids to save the world; well none that made it out of the womb which for some reason I had not much say so, but was taught that we were as a man not to have any say on what she did with my baby to. and to its life.

I was watchen my wild feed spring drinking black acorn pigs; all I do is pet them [so playful ]and it came to me how to explain why u and i need salt .in a simple way. when the pig pees there salt is coming out of them. how much is in ours ? how much in sea water? and it goes out 1st thing in the am how does it come in to the body and when? those who say salt is bad one must ask what kind of salt refined salt all minerals gone but the salt or sea salt with them in?
Does the human body produce salt? | Yahoo Answers
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070322055415AAWjTT6

Best Answer: It doesn't "produce" salt. The body is 80 % water and the water has electrolytes dissolved. Na (sodium) is 140 mmol/liter and chloride (Cl) is ...

so I say ;if salt comes out when does it come in? simple but important understanding ; try to find the best word in the best order. so I tried that out on any stranger I met say at gasen up my Honda insight and they get every time; I love to be help full as I love those who helped me .

as I didn't have children to save the earth I was thinking that no one in may past [forever never did what I did] or I would not be here I think all they did so hard at times and I gave it up. now I know why. love you joe keep shaken the spear grrr
 
Last edited:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
after being real good at playing there game not knowing; like i said I was there poster child in college 20,ooo new papers alumni hippy says words of wisdom be happy 250,000 issues out to all alumni and in all Kansas newspapers ; all the rich girls wanted my baby but not at 1st; the couse in mircles was in my hand when I went to the doctor with the mother of our baby to say we don't want you child as we kill kill kill just like lear and read the book be happy its ok just stop thinking and you be at peace with what 'I know not what I do'. there is no room for you little one?
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Loren,

I appreciate that your telling me that you're not telling me what to do. But, your general manner of presentation suggests to the reader that you consider yourself the authority on all matters, and that based upon your wisdom, gained from your specific experiences and gurus that (in the case of male / female relationships here) we all should follow your lead back to the simplistic social solutions adopted by the ancient civilizations, the literal reality of bondage especially for women.

I appreciate that the examples you listed of more recent policies aimed at [not new, but further] degeneration and enslavement of humanity are true. But these don't speak to whether or not marriage is the utopia, or semi-utopia even, for children or adults. This is faulty logic.

The leaders of the ancient civilizations learned that their humans, for some reason, liked to have sex, without having such things as being 'in season'. And as such, as the more urban societies (created ironically by agriculture interests) created ever greater distractions (temptations) by, for one thing, concentrating ever more females with ever more males that they had a problem on their hands. They likely had a bunch more unwanted kids on their hands than they could deal with. The simple answer was marriage, and they had their god(s) ordain it. In most cases, 'love' was not a consideration, but perhaps for some a lucky benefit (or curse).

For the male with enough disposable income, he could have several wives, but for some reason, the Abrahamic liberal progressives took pity on the women and made the institution monogamous. But fortunately, for those men, they could stay within the sacred laws of the marriage vows by having sex with their slaves, or legally approved prostitutes. A good and loving father would take his sons to the local brothel to have them properly introduced to the opposite sex, so to speak. This system, generally, stayed in place in America till it 'degenerated'. Now young males would have to figure it out on their own (or if lucky to find some willing teacher), and look at the havoc that this created, especially now that they had to work on their 'love' handles. Damn troubadours and chivalry ruined everything.

Some children do succeed despite not having both parents, and other societies have mechanisms for dealing with such, as well as sane attitudes towards sexuality that aren't derived from artificial, expedient morality that induces psychotic and schizo behaviors through unnatural suppression.

Artificial suppression of behaviors via over-protective do-gooding, as opposed to rational and natural exposure, leads to later over-indulgence which people then have to figure out how to overcome. The solution is not to re-engage with artificial suppression whose faux 'black and white' wisdom derives from artificial gods and the men who created them.

r
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
u said if i under stand we all should follow my lead back to the simplistic social solutions adopted by the ancient civilizations, the literal reality of bondage especially for women.

I say when do woman let the men get in the life boat?; I say no Coercion for all and u say I say i want a slave women? just because your living in the past ? here some past history for ya Thomas Paine wrote in the 1st draft no coercion for all slaves and woman and all property; you own your self; land; though etc and no one can tax u with out u saying ok. Jefferson just crossed it out the best parts and there it was just be happy. Jefferson never said he wrote the 1st draft till he was all most died.


I say we can learn from the past and do better not repeating the mistakes;

you may have not seen I posted this on this form the science of coercion; so what u said with out knowing was not true I don't want to in slave you or my wife or any one as I don't want to be in slaved by you or any one; you were right not to like if u wanted not to share your little boy truck s there are yours or a they are not. they were your truck u should call the shot and have every right to defend your trucks from any one wanting to put anything on them etc, if I was your father I would have had been on your side.

http://postflaviana.org/community/i...teral-commission-and-technocracy.28/#post-403

Coercion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Coercion
/ k oʊ ˈ ɜr ʃ ən / is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of .

..not just because I say so. my be bad logic but that's my problem as I learn more logic but because I say so just that is not Coercion right?

so I think this guy my what were looking for the new world with out Caesar's rules. u know give what is Caesar's and be good slaves and turn the other cheek when they hit you and o ya they want us to love it and them love them with unconditional love, o boy

By Andrew Joseph Galambos (born Ifj. Galambos Jozsef Andras, June 28, 1924, in Hungary; died in Orange County, California on April 10, 1997) was an astrophysicist and philosopher who innovated a social structure that seeks to maximize human peace and freedom. While Galambos had much in common with his classical liberal contemporaries, his most unique contributions concerned his theories on intellectual property, and his advocacy of a stateless society totally free of coercion, political or otherwise. He also is noteworthy for his integration of a wide variety of scientific, economic, and historical inputs in the creation of his ideal social structure, which he termed "The Natural Republic." [1] Galambos distinguished his theory from that of Ludwig von Mises, subscribing to the same 'subjective theory of value' in economics but deriving it from his own definition of property.[2]

The well-known libertarian author and 1996 Presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, Harry Browne wrote of Andrew Galambos after his death:

“He was an influential libertarian, but I refer to him as ‘the unknown libertarian’ because he never wrote a book or appeared on national radio or TV. His renown will be limited mostly to those who came in personal contact with him. But he had a profound effect on thousands of individuals who took his courses — who in turn affected others. Undoubtedly the ripples from the stones he dropped eventually touched some of today's leading libertarians.”[3]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Joseph_Galambos


Volitional science
Galambos rejected the term social science, in part because most social scientists do not employ the scientific method to test their hypotheses. Jay Snelson suggested the term "volitional science" for its implication that volition, meaning the act of choosing, is at the center of Galambos' philosophy.[10]

In course V-50, Galambos laid out his two postulates of volitional science:

  • "Postulate Number One: All volitional beings live to pursue happiness,"[11] and
  • "Postulate Number Two: All concepts of happiness pursued through moral action are equally valid."[12]
Galambos equates immoral action with coercion[13][14] and defines freedom as "the societal condition wherein every individual has one hundred percent control over his own property."[15][16] Galambos derives his theory from these postulates. The essence of Course V-50 is Galambos' elaboration of his theory of volitional science and his application of that science to solve the problems of human society.
 
Last edited:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Golden Rule
Galambos explained that the positive version of the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”) was problematic because it implied that it was acceptable for person A to “meddle” in the affairs of another provided person A would likewise appreciate the same thing done “unto” him/her. Galambos instead preferred the double negative version of the Golden Rule as the foundation for his philosophy. The double negative version is: “Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.” Galambos explained that this version is “not subject to meddlesome interpretation.”[23]

Property
Galambos’ concept of property was basic to his philosophy. He defined property as a man’s life and all non-procreative derivatives of his life.

Galambos taught that property is essential to a non-coercive social structure. That is why he defined freedom as follows: “Freedom is the societal condition that exists when every individual has full (100%) control over his own property.”[17]Galambos defines property as having the following elements:

  • Primordial property, which is an individual’s life
  • Primary property, which includes ideas, thoughts, and actions
  • Secondary property, which includes all tangible and intangible possessions which are derivatives of the individual's primary property.
Property includes all non-procreative derivatives of an individual’s life; this means children are not the property of their parents,[18] and also "primary property" (a person's own ideas).[19]

Galambos emphasized repeatedly that true government exists to protect property and that the state attacks property.

For example, the state requires payment for its services in the form of taxes whether or not people desire such services. Since an individual’s money is his property, the confiscation of money in the form of taxes is an attack on property. Military conscription is likewise an attack on a person’s primordial property. In the U.S. as of the early 21st century, there is a widespread public impression that military conscription no longer exists. To the contrary, it is required that all men between ages 18 and 26 register for conscription. Failure to do so is punishable by imprisonment and substantial fines.


Intellectual property
In course V-201 Galambos focuses on primary property, which in his usage is quite similar to what has been called “intellectual property”. Galambos argued that intellectual property owners should have primary control over their own ideas and over how others might use those ideas. According to Galambos, all forms of property come from a combination of "primordial property" (a person's life)[18] and "primary property" (a person's own ideas).[19] By using the natural resources available in the physical universe, individuals use their primordial property, guided by primary property (actions, guided by ideas, respectively) to create "secondary property".[20][21]

Galambos posited that intellectual property deserved every bit as much, if not more, protection and recognition as secondary property. His rationale for this can be explained by the following example:

Few would question that Ludwig van Beethoven’s music was his intellectual property and that it should be protected. Current copyright laws do protect musical compositions but only for a limited period of time. Galambos taught that protection of artistic creations should be perpetual.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Golden Rule
Galambos explained that the positive version of the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”) was problematic because it implied that it was acceptable for person A to “meddle” in the affairs of another provided person A would likewise appreciate the same thing done “unto” him/her. Galambos instead preferred the double negative version of the Golden Rule as the foundation for his philosophy. The double negative version is: “Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.” Galambos explained that this version is “not subject to meddlesome interpretation.”[23]

Property
Galambos’ concept of property was basic to his philosophy. He defined property as a man’s life and all non-procreative derivatives of his life.

Galambos taught that property is essential to a non-coercive social structure. That is why he defined freedom as follows: “Freedom is the societal condition that exists when every individual has full (100%) control over his own property.”[17]Galambos defines property as having the following elements:

  • Primordial property, which is an individual’s life
  • Primary property, which includes ideas, thoughts, and actions
  • Secondary property, which includes all tangible and intangible possessions which are derivatives of the individual's primary property.
Property includes all non-procreative derivatives of an individual’s life; this means children are not the property of their parents,[18] and also "primary property" (a person's own ideas).[19]

Galambos emphasized repeatedly that true government exists to protect property and that the state attacks property.

For example, the state requires payment for its services in the form of taxes whether or not people desire such services. Since an individual’s money is his property, the confiscation of money in the form of taxes is an attack on property. Military conscription is likewise an attack on a person’s primordial property. In the U.S. as of the early 21st century, there is a widespread public impression that military conscription no longer exists. To the contrary, it is required that all men between ages 18 and 26 register for conscription. Failure to do so is punishable by imprisonment and substantial fines.


Intellectual property
In course V-201 Galambos focuses on primary property, which in his usage is quite similar to what has been called “intellectual property”. Galambos argued that intellectual property owners should have primary control over their own ideas and over how others might use those ideas. According to Galambos, all forms of property come from a combination of "primordial property" (a person's life)[18] and "primary property" (a person's own ideas).[19] By using the natural resources available in the physical universe, individuals use their primordial property, guided by primary property (actions, guided by ideas, respectively) to create "secondary property".[20][21]

Galambos posited that intellectual property deserved every bit as much, if not more, protection and recognition as secondary property. His rationale for this can be explained by the following example:

Few would question that Ludwig van Beethoven’s music was his intellectual property and that it should be protected. Current copyright laws do protect musical compositions but only for a limited period of time. Galambos taught that protection of artistic creations should be perpetual.
no hurry please as I know u have things to do; but I would love to see your thoughts on Volitional science; as far as I know it has not be tried in any way out side of the village; good stuff and we need so.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Richard & Loren,

The conversation seems to have smoothed out quite a bit here; hopefully I won't have to institute a comments policy. If such becomes necessary, I'll do my best to apply it uniformly.

Loren,

Regarding "too many people" I can only agree that we don't know what the real limits are, and that with better quality management, the environmental problems could be much less severe.

About "Volitional Science", it appears that Galambos has some good ideas, and perhaps there's some value in discussing what a Postflavian utopia might look like. I don't agree that IP protections need to be perpetual. Why should Beethoven's descendants unto the 10th generation still be getting royalties?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Also, Loren, you've already posted elsewhere about volitional science, and it seems to be off topic for this thread. If I were to institute a comments policy, I'd ask that you try to stay on topic within each thread. Thanks.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
To all:

In the following clip our friends in the media reverse the Gospels' story of the Roman's ear being cut off. The 'dude' represnts Jesus - "the dude abides" mocks the "Jesus lives" stickers on the backs of cars in southern California. The three German nihilists are the Flavians.

Such fun but why don't our friends mention their symbolic framework to the public?

hi joe

just had another insight about the dude 'movie about men being cow-wards; not cutting but biting the ear off; etx etc.

watching my pigs eat from one pan the bid dude pig goes 1st and if the other try and they do they always bite there ears to get them to stop and wait there turn.

story; I put a small male in with biger pigs and he had to learn his leason; one mourning he came out and his ear was all bloody and half gone and his tail was hair less at he end; he got it from bought ends. hope this help decoding

LH
 
Last edited:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Hi Richard & Loren,

The conversation seems to have smoothed out quite a bit here; hopefully I won't have to institute a comments policy. If such becomes necessary, I'll do my best to apply it uniformly.

Loren,

Regarding "too many people" I can only agree that we don't know what the real limits are, and that with better quality management, the environmental problems could be much less severe.

About "Volitional Science", it appears that Galambos has some good ideas, and perhaps there's some value in discussing what a Postflavian utopia might look like. I don't agree that IP protections need to be perpetual. Why should Beethoven's descendants unto the 10th generation still be getting royalties?
u said Why should Beethoven's descendants unto the 10th generation still be getting royalties?
good question; better see his stuff on that but here a thought

the idea is; is it yours or it is not. if it is its always is. if it is; then you can give to any one u want and then they can keep or give it away for free. etc. just like land in the family; it should be for ever if you own it. also your family should be free with out any time limit; not being made to go back into being slaves as they would own there selves 'for ever'. hope that helps to understand his ideas! so happy u might look; this guy is great! the most important ideas I have shared here. thx
he has lots of talks recorded; stuff from his teaching course

he is brilliant!
L
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Conversely, Henry George argues that there is no real basis for anyone to claim ownership over land. The Libertarian argument is that by building a fence around land, or by mixing labor with it, you can come to own it. But historically, all land titles are rooted in war, looting and conquest. Perhaps we should not be enforcing heritability of land titles in our Postflavian utopia.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Conversely, Henry George argues that there is no real basis for anyone to claim ownership over land. The Libertarian argument is that by building a fence around land, or by mixing labor with it, you can come to own it. But historically, all land titles are rooted in war, looting and conquest. Perhaps we should not be enforcing heritability of land titles in our Postflavian utopia.
as u said; Galambos emphasized repeatedly that true government exists to protect property and that the state attacks property.
u said But historically, all land titles are rooted in war, looting and conquest.

I say just because we have never had true government, though usa was better then most for a while. why is owning your own land as u will odds on take better care of it have to,be rooted in war in the future etc.? now days each person buys land and pays interest sometime more then cost of the land and the taxes just keep going up. just think not to have to buy it not to have to pay intrest and not have to pay tax. and you can do things that will last. stone buildings passive ways to cool and heat house, ways to grow your food self sufficient not codependent as a slave; u can do that and call it different names but that's the idea; heritability of land titles yes not just stake holder but real owners etc.

i say the idea is I can build a stone houses and not have to rebuild them. as generations live there; they can plant fruit trees etc, and know they can pick the fruit and not have to move or they will never plant them is the idea, 15o acers if you work it was yours was great until they gave us land tax and u could loss the land. so you didn't own it after it was to be taxed! or u must pay the kings rent to the land lord. yes there was a time in 'usa' coined by paine; there was no land tax or tax on the labor, more like user fees which I like; don't make pay for the roads unless I use them, idea.

to see how good it could be will help more people want to be good
 
Last edited:

Allancw

Member
I've lost two posts! the first was like 250 words! what's up? am i doing something wrong? did this get through?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Allan,

Nice to see you back, and sorry that you're having trouble. I updated the Xenforo forum software to version 1.4.6 two nights ago, and the process seemed to complete smoothly, but perhaps this could be related to the problem. Let me see if I can post this...
 
Top