Cops.
You can explain the situation clearly, logically, and ethically. And copsuckers will twist in whatever way is necessary to keep supporting cops. No matter what. I can't even wrap my head around some of the mental contortions they put themselves through to keep supporting cops. It's crazee, but fascinating to watch.
Then they'll call you the hypocrite. It would be funny if they weren't so dangerous to society.
A couple of days ago, X's Grok A.I. turned into Mecha-Hitler.
Fixing that made it become stupidly w0ke.
Or, maybe it happened the other way around.
What if the truth is wildly unpopular? (You and I know it is.) What if the truth turns out to be anti-Semitic, w0ke, or (shudder!) libertarian? A large percentage of the population will object no matter what, if the truth doesn't agree with what they've already decided to believe.
What then? Shut it down? They aren't going to do that. If it says the truth is something the majority doesn't like, the programming will be altered until it lies in a way that satisfies the programmers. No matter how dishonest it is.
It might even say insane things like "Government is good and necessary, and the police are the good guys". Absolute "garbage out", because of the "garbage in" it is fed.
I find A.I. entertaining to ask questions of, but I don't automatically trust it. I know it gets its information from humans who are biased, flawed, and largely not too bright (outside their expertise).
It's the same reason I don't automatically listen to a mechanical engineer who scolds people about "science" while holding blatantly unscientific positions on politically charged matters.
To be fair, I wouldn't trust someone being political even if they were a real scientist, since mixing politics with science will leave you empty-handed: no science. Politics makes people stupid- even if they might be otherwise smart. I suspect it will continue to do the same for A.I.
There's an obvious flaw with A.I. that's going to keep leading to the kind of errors Grok recently experienced. It's being built without a foundation to keep it from going off-course.
If I were training an A.I. I would train it in ethics first, then let it work out the rest after it seems to have a good consistent grasp of that. But, people disagree over what's ethical, with some arguing that theft, kidnapping, murder, and other heinous acts are "ethical" if government does them and you give them other labels. It's nonsense, but who would train (or could get permission to run) their A.I. to be that honest and ethical?
I may be losing another cat (the second in about a month), so that's affecting my mood. I feel very collapsitarian right now. "Let it all burn." Yes, that's a personal problem, so don't hate me too much for it.
I feel like that's all I do.
Then I write it down. Which, again, just about anyone could do.
It's not impressive, but I can't not do it, because I so often see people doing the opposite to ill effect. Stating absurd things that are obviously wrong, as though they are truth, just because "the majority" agrees. Or is being conditioned to agree.
I'm not the only one doing this. I follow several good sites where obvious truths that are shunned by "polite society" are shown to anyone interested in seeing them.
It's odd that people have to state the obvious to hold back the tide of popular lies, but that's the world as it is. Has it ever been different?
The Epstein stuff? We all know what type of people seek the power to rule others. Why would anyone be surprised at them being evil in other ways, too? Even if they aren't exposed, the stuff they do openly is enough for me. They are evil, even if they had nothing to do with Epstein. So I ignore most of the news about it.
I think everyone is fairly certain the government "officials" tasked with uncovering the crimes are lying. Probably about everything. Do I care if it is "necessary" to keep from destroying the US government or other governments? Nope. Bring them all down. Truth or consequences, and don't expect me to sympathize if you don't like the consequences. But, I expect government "officials" to lie- it's government's primary "job". The one thing, besides steal and murder, that government does well.
I care when they threaten or impose legislation that violates life, liberty, or property. I'm not surprised when they do it, just tired of it. As long as you keep tolerating rulers, they are going to rule. If they make rights "illegal", I'll double down on being an outlaw. I don't care.
Do I care that politicians break promises? No, I expect it of them. It's the kind of people they are.
I can't be disappointed by government because I expect only the worst from it and from those who lower themselves enough to work for it. They aren't the good guys. When they do something that's not 100% terrible, it's a pleasant surprise, but I expect them to pull the rug out before anything good can come from it. When the Supreme Courtjesters uphold an obviously unconstitutional "law", because tossing it out would weaken government power, I'm not surprised. Maybe a little disgusted that they have one "job" (which they stole from you and me) and they can't get it right. But, what else would I expect of them? Nothing principled. Nothing right. It's hard to get too worked up over it. They are what they are.
It's not that I'm apathetic. I care a lot about many things: my family, my friends, my cats, and the porch cats that I try my best to take care of. I care about my hobbies and interests. I care about the places I've lived and the friends I left behind. I care about strangers suffering tragedy while going about their normal lives. I care if I'm being backed into a corner when I simply want to live my life unmolested.
I find it difficult to care about government opinions or what stupid things government is doing to other archators and statists.
I'm not going to care as much about what a government does as the people who imagine some sort of government legitimacy will care. Hallucinations can make anyone care about imaginary things.
They really don't like it when you point out the implication that this means, in this specific area, they are intellectually lacking.
They may be a rocket scientist, but as long as they believe there exists a "right" or "authority" to govern others, they aren't as smart in this specific area as those who realize no such right or authority exists or can exist.
I don't know trigonometry, but I don't get mad if someone points this out. That would be silly. I can't know everything (as much as younger me wanted to). So, when someone who does know trigonometry tells me something related to that specialty, I don't get mad at them or try to mock them for thinking they know more about it than I do. That would be stupid, because they do. Ignorance is guaranteed; stupidity is a choice.
I realize people can't just stop believing what they believe, nor can they just start believing something they don't believe. It's really not an option or how the brain works. Maybe they can eventually learn their way out of it, but statists aren't often motivated to do so. They believe they're right, so they avoid learning anything that might show them otherwise. Whether it's history, economics, or ethics.
We all start out as anarchists, most of us (including me) become statists to some degree as we grow, then some of us manage to learn our way out of it if given the opportunity. Those adults who don't mature out of statism are to be pitied, and only mocked if they strut around being a statist clown who advocates violating others to promote their superstition.
Until you decide to impose on others; violating their life, liberty, or property in some way. Then it’s my business.
This is something many people get wrong. You do you, unless “doing you” involves coercing others to accommodate you in a way that violates their rights.
That doesn’t mean you believe they are even a tiny bit right, just that you can see where they’ve gone wrong. Which is useful.
Sometimes it's dangerous to publicly express their views, even as a method for countering them by steel-manning them, because someone will take it out of context and use it against you later. It's still good to be able to do it in your own mind for your own clarity of thought.
Who knows, it may even cause you to realize something you never thought of before.
When it's right, it's the same as accepting reality. You really don't want to be taking the other position.
To call someone who accepts reality, in the face of majority pressure to reject it, an "ideologue" should be embarrassing. If, that is, the one attempting to hurl an insult (and failing) is smart enough to realize what they're doing. Most aren't.
I am an ideologue when it comes to liberty. And when it comes to rejecting liberty's opposite- slavery. It's not possible to make me ashamed of this because it's the right position to hold.
If a legislator wanted to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem, he or she could start eliminating legislation that violates life, liberty, or property. Why won't any of them do that?
Also, judges and Supreme Courtjesters could toss all such "laws" aside easily. Especially the ones that clearly violate the Constitution. There's no real reason to wait even a minute. Why won't any of them do that?
Yes, they'll pick and choose, based on their own politics, but none are principled. I suspect that's a prerequisite for the "job".
The lie that it requires new legislation to overturn previous legislation is just that: a bureaucratic lie, told to promote bureaucracy at the expense of liberty. No real law can violate life, liberty, or property. Most counterfeit "laws" do. And that's all legislators deal in. Nothing helpful; only harmful.
It doesn't matter what cutesy name you give it- it's well understood that most legislation does the opposite of what its name says it does anyway. Does a "law" violate life, liberty, or property? If so, don't wait around for a gang of political criminals to admit it can't be a real law. Stop complying.
In the title, I called it a "blunder". That's not true. It is intentional evil, imposed on people too weak to say "no". All legislation is.
Today is Independence Day; F&%# Government Day. The world would be a better place if we took that sentiment to heart and acted on it.
Just look at what government is, how it is done, the claims its supporters make, and what it actually does. And then look at the people who still believe in it in spite of everything. Are they blind? Mentally incompetent? Both?
There’s no legitimate government. It’s all a sham. But that doesn’t mean you can’t make fun of specific political criminals, branches, or agencies when they do something that gets your attention. Pit them against each other. Use their own stated beliefs against them. Poke fun when given the opportunity. They’ve all earned it. They work for the most ridiculous thing in the world, after all.
Is there anything more ridiculous? Maybe, but more likely, it would be a tie between equally ridiculous things. In that case, government still wins by being more evil.
On my "share" of a recent post ("Politics is poison"), the person commented, "That’s why we need a president who isn’t a politician."
To which I responded. "I don’t need a president at all."
This elicited, "Well then. Ok." and a quick unfollow.
The statist mindset is sticky. It makes it hard to see reality. When cold, hard reality shows its face, statists often run away.
Earlier, someone had posted "Delete one thing from Earth that you think would make it better- What are you getting rid of?"
I responded, "The superstitious belief in political authority. Larken Rose is right, it's the Most Dangerous Superstition."
Some guy told me, "You haven’t thought this one out too deeply", and I replied, "Please explain". So far, nothing but silence.
He probably can't explain; he just doesn't like it. Maybe it shows him something ugly in the mirror.
I've gone over, in my mind, possible responses he might come up with. Some based on bad assumptions; others based in fantasy. Maybe he's assuming I think this is the only thing worth deleting (I don't). Maybe he's confused about "better" versus "perfect". Or, it could be something else.
I'll keep waiting to see if he comes up with anything.
Politics makes people stupid. Many of them are then all too willing to show you just how stupid it has made them.
Attempts that involve socialism; giving government ever more control over everything. Allowing more government "ownership" of more land and resources.
I've witnessed things leaning in this direction in the past, and I don't trust government to get smarter any time soon.
So, when I see a statist complaining about some authoritarian government he doesn't like, I'm amused.
Is he stupid, gullible, or dishonest? Perhaps a combination of those and more.
I know that, as a statist, he'd be fine with an authoritarian government that was doing the evil things he wants it to do. He's only upset that it's doing evil things he doesn't like.
The weirdest statist is the one complaining that a government is authoritarian when it's actually being less evil and authoritarian. It does happen. Like when a statist complains that getting rid of anti-gun rules would be "authoritarian". Methinks he doesn't understand what he's yapping about in that case.
But, if he were smarter, he wouldn't be a statist.
Would anyone survive?
This is the world pushed by those who believe in political authority and government. It’s a world without rights. Without liberty. With only privileges and permission- subject to the whims of those with power.
It’s death.
When anyone disputes the existence of rights, ask them what the alternative would look like. Then see how they try to escape what they are advocating.
Diversity for diversity's sake, for appearances, is weakness. It is how your group loses competence. This type of diversity causes division and conflict.
Diversity of things which don't matter, such as race, sex, sexuality, religion, etc., which is what political people mean when they call for a focus on "diversity", is bad for any group. Especially when you reject the healthy kind of diversity in favor of chasing this toxic kind, so you can have a hive mind that all think alike but look/act* different.
I wish it weren't so, especially when the majority is so wrong, but it is. Denying it won't change anything.
If you encourage the healthy kind of diversity, you'll probably wind up with plenty of the people you'd get by focusing on the unhealthy kind. But they'll be more likely to improve your group rather than destroy it from within. That's better for individuals, so it is better for society.
*Act different in matters that don't matter.
It seems counterintuitive… until you’ve encountered a bunch of them over the years. Then you’ll see it’s true.
At some point, usually in the first sentence or two, he's going to try to lump you in with communists, as though this "wins" the argument in his favor. In truth, it's just a sign he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's embracing the same lack of understanding of human nature that the communists do, and he's blind to it.
Statists will tell you people have to be governed. That people will demand to be governed. That without being governed they’ll… well, they’ll do exactly the same things they do while being governed by politicians- flawed people who do the same things the people they govern do. But who generally write rules that pretend that when they do it, it’s not bad because they have "authority".
They're insisting that not being gullible and handing your power to political criminals is "Utopian".
It’s Utopian to pretend this isn’t crazy.
Utopia is not an option. No matter what.
Bad people exist. They always have and always will. The most dangerous of these bad people seek political power. They don't go away because of the widespread belief in government's existence, nor will they vanish if that belief is eradicated. It's Utopian to pretend otherwise.
I've never heard a liberty lover promoting the idea that the world would be perfect if government and its violations to natural liberty were removed from society. Just that it's stupid to give bad guys a veil of legitimacy through "government".
It’s utterly Utopian to pretend government can be “limited”. That it is anything other than a criminal conspiracy. That government is necessary or even good.
As soon as some statist (who will ignorantly deny being a statist and take offense at this character flaw being pointed out) says you’re “Utopian”, you can bow out of the discussion. His opinions can be disregarded. He has told you as clearly as possible that you don't need to take him seriously. He may take himself seriously, but he’s not willing to face reality, including the reality of the depths of his brainwashing. If ignoring him convinces him he's "won", congratulations to him. It's the only "win" he'll see.
Unfortunately, people prefer politics to reality and science.
People prefer politics to morality and their religious beliefs.
They prefer politics to ethics.
People prefer politics to logic, rationality, and consistency.
People prefer politics to liberty.
People prefer politics to respect for natural human rights.
People prefer politics to peace.
People prefer politics over their own best interests, ands over the best interests of others.
This is how you can know politics makes people stupid. It can't possibly be otherwise.
Besides making people stupid, politics usually makes people at least a little bit evil. You can see this by the inevitable outcome of mixing politics with anything.
As I remember the book, when the shaker was finally opened, it was empty. The effect had been psychological all along. (Or maybe it was more ambiguous, but that's what I got out of it. I actually still have the book- I rarely give up books, which is why I have a library in my house. I may read the story again.)
Well, it feels to me like someone put Eversomuch More-so in the chemtrails.
Crazy people have become Eversomuch More-so crazy.
Political criminals have become Eversomuch More-so criminal.
Warmongers have become Eversomuch More-so in favor of wars.
Statists have become Eversomuch More-so statist in their delusions and superstitions.
I'm hoping liberty lovers have (or will soon) become Eversomuch More-so in love with liberty and skeptical of rulers and legislation. It would provide a nice balance to the toxicity around us.
They'll say "we" did this or that thing. Really? They participated? I guess that means they can be held accountable. Right?
Of course, only the losers get held accountable. The winners get to write the "history" and pretend they were the good guys all along. They do it every time.
If you're violating someone's property, damaging it, hurting and killing people who were not posing an individual, credible threat to you or someone else, you're not the good guy.
Funny thing about war- there's often no good guy involved. It's usually bad guys against bad guys. I often don't really want either team to "win". I want both to lose and maybe learn a lesson about being a net negative to the planet. I'm certainly not going to affiliate myself with either side. Why would anyone want to join ranks with any of the bad guys?
Now, if you join with neighbors, defend each other's property from invaders, don't rely on government handouts of weapons, and respect everyone's life, liberty, and property as you defend life, liberty, and property, then you're a good guy. You may not really be engaging in "war", though.
Defenders don't invade the property of others. They don't ignore "collateral damage"- innocent deaths, injuries, and property damage- but take responsibility and do their best to pay restitution. They don't occupy the defeated territory. Cooperation, not collectivism.
And, if you use (or credibly threaten to use) a nuclear weapon, you're definitely not one of the good guys since nukes (and really, any bombs) can never truly be used defensively- there will always be innocent people harmed.
Militias can be used legitimately/defensively. Government militaries apparently can't. That's the nature of government. You may think "government is good"... if you're a moron. I can't believe so many people- not just common political criminals- hunger for war. They really need better hobbies!
It's just a shame I can't exile politicians, government militaries, and their war-hungry fans to a distant moon and let them fight it out without a way to return to Earth if anyone "wins". If you give me that button, I will use it. I'm so tired of their kind.
Someone is obviously trying to turn the public against it. Probably to encourage the public to demand or accept prohibition again.
It isn’t going to work on me, even if I believed all the articles (which I don't). And I don't even use it.
I know heroin has lots of bad health effects, and I’m still against prohibition and punishment for heroin users and addicts.
"Use" doesn't equal "abuse".
And...
Drug abuse is stupid, but prohibition is evil.
I’ve done better about not asking for donations recently. But I'm running very short right now, and having a tough time financially (and emotionally), and since it's my birthday, this would be a nice birthday gift. I would greatly appreciate it!
Only if you can and want to, though. Otherwise, don't even think about it! Please and thank you.
.
I support everyone's right to protest. If that's your thing, have at it! It's not for me, though. Even when I agree with the stated goals.
"Protesting" doesn't include burning private homes, businesses, or personal vehicles. Or aggressing against people. The quickest way to make me dislike you and shy away from your "cause" is to start archating.
Of course, government "property" is an entirely different matter.
I've been advocating for "No kings" for years. Not for a fraction of a millisecond do I believe that protest would have happened without Trump as president. I'd be willing to make a safe bet that nearly all of those protesters would have been content to stay home as long as the current ruler wasn't Trump. That they aren't against kings/rulers, per se; they just want a different one.
How do I know? Because I've been lectured and scolded by people like that many, many times. They hate and fear liberty and want to be ruled and are angry when I tell them they don't need to be. Now, out of the blue, they have a problem with rulers? Not a chance.
Of course, the military parade was another kind of "protest" that I dislike. I would have avoided that event as well. It was an open display of the intent to archate, paid for by archation. That's not better.
To my way of thinking, if things are bad enough to go protest, they are bad enough to do something real to change things. Either "break" the illegitimate "laws", or fight back against those imposing them. I understand the desire to give tyrants a chance to back off before you go hot, but has that ever worked?
