Robert Bonomo on how 9-11 Truthers defeated Hillary |336|

#21
On the topic of anarcho-capitalism / individual sovereignty / hierarchy / God / Demiurge ...

I envision a 2x2 matrix (not sure how to draw it real quickly on my iphone, but I'll try)

God (benevolent) ---- Demiurge (controlling sociopath)
l
l
l
Trickster Jesus (benevolent individual) ---- Trickster devil ( sociopath individual )

So there is a + and - expression of the top of the hierarchy and a +/- expression of the bottom of the hierarchy (individual).

Anarcho capitalists / libertarians generally express the benevolent bottom side of the hierarchy. The anarchists who smash windows demonstrate the neg side of the bottom of the hierarchy.

Trump (if he does what he said he would do) would be acting as benevolent top of hierarchy. Kim Jong Il or the Rothschilds for example demonstrates neg top of hierarchy.

For the longest time it was a mystery to me why the devil could show up as an overly controlling big brother and puritanical religious leader or conversely show up as a criminal joker. I was only thinking one dimensionally: either the top is + or the bottom is + ...either the individual is supreme and all hierarchy is evil, or hierarchy and the benevolent god at top is good and rebellion is evil. But thinking 2 dimensionally about hierarchy and good/evil makes a lot more sense.

Because we've seen so many examples of bad hierarchy (because hierarchy tends to get corrupt over time) I used to think (like I believe Corbett and other anarcho capitalists think) that governments (hierarchy) should be done away with altogether if possible and that with the internet we can do peer to peer networking and crowdsource everything making hierarchical government entirely obsolete.

But I've changed my mind and think we still need hierarchy but it must be benevolent and must be balanced by strong network / crowd sourced structure. All hierarchies should be viewed with suspicion and cut down to size if they grow too powerful due to their tendency towards corruption.
 
#22
I'm no great fan of Trump, but frankly, as I've said before, if you live in California or some other coastal states, you knew that under the electoral college system, your vote for Trump wouldn't count, because of the majority Democrat vote there. Hence you quite likely wouldn't have turned out to vote.

On the other hand, if election of the president by popular vote were to be the system in operation, Trump voters could have voted for him secure in the knowledge that their vote would count. Who knows? There could have been millions extra who would have turned out to vote for him and maybe he'd have won anyway. You're trying to compare apples to oranges, and a move by Democrats to alter the electoral system could end up biting them in the backside.
Pure speculation. I could just as easily say the same thing about Democratic voters. Maybe if we had a popular vote system, Democrats in Texas and other red states who would otherwise stay home on election day would go out and vote instead, because they would know their votes would actually count.


You're trying to compare apples to oranges, and a move by Democrats to alter the electoral system could end up biting them in the backside.
Again, speculation, based on nothing substantial. I don't know why you believe there are so many phantom Republicans who would suddenly materialize under a popular vote system and overwhelm any Democratic opposition, but you apparently seem to think every single Democrat votes all the time and there are no phantom Democratic voters to counteract the phantom Republicans.


You just watch: the Democrats won't seek to change the electoral system because they know they tend to predominate in the Coastal states. They won't want to throw that away.
Actually, many Democrats do want to change the system. In fact, pretty much all of the opposition to the Electoral College is coming from Democrats. Once again, you seem to believe that the Democrats' dominance in blue states is some kind of an illusion that will evaporate once the Electoral College is gone, because apparently all the blue states are full of phantom Republicans. And you base that on what, exactly?

It's the Republicans who don't want to change the system, because they know the Electoral College only serves to inflate red state votes and devalue blue state votes.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#23
Heh, everyone seems to think their side would win the popular vote - including Trump:

“The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock of our nation. The loser won!”


I await the people who praise/bemoan the EC before the election, not after it. Since it seems incredibly unlikely the EC will be done away with in 2020 let's see what happens.
 

Alex

Administrator
#24
On the topic of anarcho-capitalism / individual sovereignty / hierarchy / God / Demiurge ...

I envision a 2x2 matrix (not sure how to draw it real quickly on my iphone, but I'll try)

God (benevolent) ---- Demiurge (controlling sociopath)
l
l
l
Trickster Jesus (benevolent individual) ---- Trickster devil ( sociopath individual )

So there is a + and - expression of the top of the hierarchy and a +/- expression of the bottom of the hierarchy (individual).

Anarcho capitalists / libertarians generally express the benevolent bottom side of the hierarchy. The anarchists who smash windows demonstrate the neg side of the bottom of the hierarchy.

Trump (if he does what he said he would do) would be acting as benevolent top of hierarchy. Kim Jong Il or the Rothschilds for example demonstrates neg top of hierarchy.

For the longest time it was a mystery to me why the devil could show up as an overly controlling big brother and puritanical religious leader or conversely show up as a criminal joker. I was only thinking one dimensionally: either the top is + or the bottom is + ...either the individual is supreme and all hierarchy is evil, or hierarchy and the benevolent god at top is good and rebellion is evil. But thinking 2 dimensionally about hierarchy and good/evil makes a lot more sense.

Because we've seen so many examples of bad hierarchy (because hierarchy tends to get corrupt over time) I used to think (like I believe Corbett and other anarcho capitalists think) that governments (hierarchy) should be done away with altogether if possible and that with the internet we can do peer to peer networking and crowdsource everything making hierarchical government entirely obsolete.

But I've changed my mind and think we still need hierarchy but it must be benevolent and must be balanced by strong network / crowd sourced structure. All hierarchies should be viewed with suspicion and cut down to size if they grow too powerful due to their tendency towards corruption.
it's all very strange and interesting. Pizzagate seems like a very important data point. I don't take everything Pieczenik says seriously, but I do think there was some kind of coup within the intel agencies. I can see how the Pizzagate evidence could be a tipping point for a lot of go-along-to-get-along-ers.

Then again, imagine how hard some of these pedos in high places will fight to protect full disclosure of these horrors.

 
#26
I suspect that even if the hardware or other components are damaged, the leftovers would be useful for making one hell of a dirty bomb.
As I understand it, a 'dirty bomb' would have a psychological impact because of its association with a real atomic bomb, but would be absolutely nothing like as damaging.

David
 
#27
As I understand it, a 'dirty bomb' would have a psychological impact because of its association with a real atomic bomb, but would be absolutely nothing like as damaging.

David
Well, the 'boom' would certainly not be as spectacular, but weapons grade ore/or its byproducts is more than enough to cause an enormous amount of death by radioactive contamination alone. In particular plutonium-239.

Edit: Also, remember that you don't have to be within the explosion's radius to be affected. Inhaling/consuming these substances in any way is enough, the soil and water sources would be fouled instantly.
 
Last edited:
#28
Pure speculation. I could just as easily say the same thing about Democratic voters. Maybe if we had a popular vote system, Democrats in Texas and other red states who would otherwise stay home on election day would go out and vote instead, because they would know their votes would actually count.
It is worth pointing out that the popular vote can be on the losing side in a British general election. We vote for MP's, and the side with the most MP's get's to form the government (roughly speaking) and that determines who is Prime Minister (Of course, the Queen continues to reign regardless!).

However changing the rules after the election would not be fair, for the very same reason. Parties allocate resources in a general election to target the 'marginal seats', and people don't always bother to vote is 'safe' seats.

David
 
#29
Pure speculation.
Of course. Look, I don't know what the heck would be the result of a true popular vote. Could go either way. The point is that, given the electoral college system, you can't say that the popular vote was for the Democrats. Which you did:
I also don't understand how Alex and Robert could talk about this election being some kind of statement from the people, when the fact is that the people voted for Clinton. Clinton got nearly three million more votes.
I'm not an American and don't have any direct skin in the game. I'm just an observer. In Britain, our general elections are quite similar to the electoral college system. Each constituency elects an MP by a straight majority vote.

It can happen that an overall minority vote leads nonetheless to a majority government run by a PM who has been elected by the winning party's members rather than the general electorate. It can and has happened that a party gaining 4 million votes (UKIP) has only ended up with 1 seat in parliament, because in only one constituency did that party get a straightforward majority vote.

It can be argued that first-past-the-post systems are inherently unfair and can leave many people effectively disenfranchised. Whether or not one has the electoral college system or a true popular vote system, all the people who voted for the candidate who lost would feel disgruntled. But in the case of electing a single president, it's hard to see how else it could be, unless maybe the majority vote elected the president, and the minority vote the vice-president or something like that.

I still maintain that the Democrats won't push to change the system to a straightforward majority vote, because they fear the possibility of losing the overall popular vote. It'd be too big a risk.
 
Last edited:
#31
She has been since before I was born, its hard to imagine a world without her, as it was curious to see one without Castro. Hell, at this rate, she will outlast Charles.
I was two when she was crowned, and can still remember, when I was three, being taken to the town hall square by my parents to see her pay a visit. There, with her parade of beaver-hatted soldiers, there was great rejoicing and much pomp and ceremony. Ah, those were the days...:)
 
#32
I was two when she was crowned, and can still remember, when I was three, being taken to the town hall square by my parents to see her pay a visit. There, with her parade of beaver-hatted soldiers, there was great rejoicing and much pomp and ceremony. Ah, those were the days...:)
My earliest memory was when JFK travelled to London for some sort of military memorial, the local newspaper published images of both families side by side in clothing that reminded me of something out of a fairy tale (Disney's Cinderella was still popular and shown in the local theater during holidays).

My other experiences with royalty were not a pleasant, as I studied a semester in Spain during the height of the Cold War and remember that prince Juan Carlos was used as some sort of poster boy for the Franco regime. He was featured quite heavily in all of the media, but there was this general perception that he was merely a puppet and an ominous feeling that a coup could breakout at any moment in the highly-republican sections of Madrid (where most students, including me, lived). Franco ended up dying shortly after my return home.

Also, we are getting really old.
 
#33
Gut feel:
  • The election was a victory and also not a victory. A large number of our fellows are either so cynical, vengeful, or ignorant that they proved to be immune to some extremely intense propaganda. This alone is reason for a happy dance but we might also now expect flagrant torture and "a lot and worse"; it is folly to project some kind of "enlightenment" onto such a large and diverse group of people.
  • The establishment will not roll over, on the contrary: accusations of Russian influence and "fake news" are already being used to turn the screws on what remains of our liberties.
  • Trump can not and will not be our savior. Clinging to the idea that a politician will save us from the politicians is delusional. Greater unity is needed if we are to save ourselves but the stupid election has left us more angry with eachother than ever.
 
Last edited:
#34
Very interesting listening to Alex and Robert discussing virtual reality and Robert saying it was a metaphor. I'm not sure how far from reality a metaphor is allowed to be, because I have a hunch that this one isn't far at all. Interesting for me too, was that at around the same time Myths were mentioned, which brought to mind Bernardo Kastrup's latest offering. A couple of reviews I've read on Facebook recently were of the kind that would, had I been the author, thinking that I may have written something truly worthwhile, a type of literary 'American Pie' sort of book.

Tom Campbell has recently released a few videos where he discusses his latest 'cunning plan' where he has devised a plan to try to lure someone to run some experiments that he's concocted (double slit type). At a time when billionaire Elon Musk is in the mainstream headlines you just never know? It used to be when you used that phrase it didn't mean that much, but now......The same could be said of the phrase 'living in interesting times'.

See Around 1:38 Neil deGrasse Tyson shooting himself in the foot (heart?) without even realising it.


Tom Campbell discusses what might happen if he is right and someone takes the bait and runs the experiments.(around 36mins)

 
#35
She has been since before I was born, its hard to imagine a world without her, as it was curious to see one without Castro. Hell, at this rate, she will outlast Charles.
I vaguely remember the coronation - I was about 2 at the time, and the exciting thing was that we got invited to a house that had a television!

David
 
#36
Very interesting listening to Alex and Robert discussing virtual reality and Robert saying it was a metaphor. I'm not sure how far from reality a metaphor is allowed to be, because I have a hunch that this one isn't far at all. Interesting for me too, was that at around the same time Myths were mentioned, which brought to mind Bernardo Kastrup's latest offering. A couple of reviews I've read on Facebook recently were of the kind that would, had I been the author, thinking that I may have written something truly worthwhile, a type of literary 'American Pie' sort of book.
I liked that part of the podcast as well. I agreed with the idea that it a simulation is a metaphor, because it proposes another set of hardware outside of our universe that runs the show. This is rather preposterous as it stands, but it is a metaphor for a world that is created by consciousness - i.e. Idealism - perhaps the most extreme version of non-physical reality.

David
 
#38
Gut feel:
  • The election was a victory and also not a victory. A large number of our fellows are either so cynical, vengeful, or ignorant that they proved to be immune to some extremely intense propaganda. This alone is reason for a happy dance but we might also now expect flagrant torture and "a lot and worse"; it is folly to project some kind of "enlightenment" onto such a large and diverse group of people.
  • The establishment will not roll over, on the contrary: accusations of Russian influence and "fake news" are already being used to turn the screws on what remains of our liberties.
  • Trump can not and will not be our savior. Clinging to the idea that a politician will save us from the politicians is delusional. Greater unity is needed if we are to save ourselves but the stupid election has left us more angry with eachother than ever.
I think that is a bit negative. Politicians got us into this mess, and politicians can get us out again - just as they did in the old Soviet Union.

I think Trump risked a lot by making an issue of his plan to return to good relations with Russia, and I would be surprised (and horrified!) if he renaged on that.

President-elect Trump has also had the support of Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader. Nigel is very definitely of the same opinion:

http://www.ukip.org/nigel_farage_steps_up_his_criticism_of_reckless_eu_foreign_policy

I don't think Nigel would have supported Trump unless he felt that he is serious about this policy.

David
 
#40
I think that is a bit negative. Politicians got us into this mess, and politicians can get us out again - just as they did in the old Soviet Union.

I think Trump risked a lot by making an issue of his plan to return to good relations with Russia, and I would be surprised (and horrified!) if he renaged on that.

President-elect Trump has also had the support of Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader. Nigel is very definitely of the same opinion:

http://www.ukip.org/nigel_farage_steps_up_his_criticism_of_reckless_eu_foreign_policy

I don't think Nigel would have supported Trump unless he felt that he is serious about this policy.

David
 
Top