Messages

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

General / Re: The NAP is A Social Contract

« on: October 06, 2014, 12:13:54 AM »

The NAP is not a Social Contract.  If it were people would be forced to follow it.  Such force would in fact be against the NAP and anyone forcing it on others would not be a follower.

In a society where the NAP is valued and followed, it would be enforced by some mechanism, would it not? Like the example above, if someone starts building a structure on your land, they are violating the NAP. Everyone in this geographical area values the NAP and wants to defend it. They see this person as a thief and he would likely be tried in some form of court and told that he must remove his structure, return the land to its original condition, and pay court costs (maybe some extra restitution). If he refuses he would be stopped forcibly and forced to pay. Since he did not abide by the social contract, he would be forced to follow it.

2

General / Re: The NAP is A Social Contract

« on: October 06, 2014, 12:04:56 AM »

Treating it like it's a law of nature is a fairly religious perspective. We should be arguing why the NAP is key to having successful societies that we all benefit from from a self-interest POV. It's not a law of nature. It's something we invented that's useful.

A person who advocates for a coercive state might say the same thing. It's just something they believe works best. A lot of them would also argue that they are willing to put up with some degree of force used on them if they believe that it's the reason for their society being so successful, as they see it.

 Many who are libertarians or voluntarists believe that coercion is immoral. It may not be some law of nature but the fact that it violates their moral code says they value it for some reason. I don't know if they necessarily believe that it's immoral because of some utilitarian reason. If everyone were a little "worse off," say economically, but lived in a completely voluntary society, some folks (like me) would argue that this is still better. I don't know if there is some profound reason that I believe that coercion is wrong other than I sure as hell don't like to be coerced.

Anyway, what I think I'm getting at is that some people use the social contract concept to insist that you owe something to a mostly unaccountable monopoly state, and that is how the whole concept originated, but that doesn't mean that this is the only use of the concept.

3

General / The NAP is A Social Contract

« on: October 03, 2014, 01:18:07 PM »

There was a topic on a recent show about "The Social Contract" and I wanted to see if anyone was willing to discuss the concept here.

I think that during the discussion, the hosts kept getting very close to a certain conclusion but never quite landed on it so I want to see what people think.

It seems that everyone as in their mind a certain thing when they hear the term "The Social Contract" and it seems to involve a state that enforces it and citizens/serfs that must obey it under threat of penalty. Usually there is some sort of obligation put onto the individual that involves some sort of sacrifice on behalf of others. But I want to step back from that and look at the concept a bit more generically. Let's not think about THE Social Contract, but let's think about A social contract, which may take different forms within different societies.

Mark got the closest to the conclusion that I want to address here when he said, "That's called manners." What the discussion seemed to almost hit on but didn't was the notion that the Non-aggression Principle and respect for individual "rights" constitute a social contract, which could be defined as the generally understood way that people should treat each other (manners).

Is there some truly objective property of an individual's person or possessions that require that another person treat them a certain way, ie with respect and non-aggression? I don't see it. The only thing that seems to enforce that kind of mutual understanding between two people is the fact that practically no one likes having what they consider their property be taken or destroyed by someone else. Same goes for their own body, mind, etc. "You don't like it. I don't like it. So let's not do it."

But, that doesn't mean that there could be someone that doesn't believe this way, someone who doesn't draw those same lines that you do around "their" possessions or "their" person. What requires that this person follow your social contract, the NAP?

Their version of the social contract is much less demanding than yours. They don't have so many rules as to who does what and which boundaries they will ultimately be forced to respect. "Hey, you can't build your house on my land! I own it legitimately and you have no right to it." "Oh yeah? Well, I didn't sign any contract agreeing to recognize your property rights! I didn't sign your social contract!"

Now, most if not all liberty minded people who adhere to the NAP believe in a social contract of negative rights. You have the right to "your" stuff and I have a right to "mine" and if we all respect those property assignments then we'll all get along. But, others may start veering into positive rights territory. Maybe a liberty minded person believes that a child has a positive right to be kept clothed and fed by his parents and not abandoned in the middle of the woods. By their version of the social contract, the parent has a duty to protect and raise the child. You can see where I'm going here.

Some others, who libertarians would not consider to be liberty minded, might believe that "society" has a duty to its "members" like a parent has with its child, and that this duty is part of the social contract. In other words, I don't see any fundamental difference between one social contract or another. It appears to be a difference in degrees. You might say that the dividing line is negative rights versus positive rights, but that really doesn't mean that both forms of social contract aren't social contracts or that there isn't some sort of implicit expectation of compliance.

In summary:

The NAP is a social contract. People can claim that they never signed any contract agreeing to follow the NAP so why should they.
It's the same logic used when claiming that if you didn't sign some other social contract that you don't owe taxes.


disclaimer: I support the NAP and generally do not support the concept of positive rights.

4

General / The secret history of guns

« on: January 02, 2013, 09:48:25 PM »

This is an interesting article that I thought I'd share, especially because of the (IMO) heroic actions of the Black Panthers.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/?single_page=true

The Panthers, however, took it to an extreme, carrying their guns in public, displaying them for everyone—especially the police—to see. Newton had discovered, during classes at San Francisco Law School, that California law allowed people to carry guns in public so long as they were visible, and not pointed at anyone in a threatening way.

In February of 1967, Oakland police officers stopped a car carrying Newton, Seale, and several other Panthers with rifles and handguns. When one officer asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he had learned in law school.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.

Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.

“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.

“What are you going to do with your gun?,” Newton replied.

By this time, the scene had drawn a crowd of onlookers. An officer told the bystanders to move on, but Newton shouted at them to stay. California law, he yelled, gave civilians a right to observe a police officer making an arrest, so long as they didn’t interfere. Newton played it up for the crowd. In a loud voice, he told the police officers, “If you try to shoot at me or if you try to take this gun, I’m going to shoot back at you, swine.” Although normally a black man with Newton’s attitude would quickly find himself handcuffed in the back of a police car, enough people had gathered on the street to discourage the officers from doing anything rash. Because they hadn’t committed any crime, the Panthers were allowed to go on their way.

The people who’d witnessed the scene were dumbstruck. Not even Bobby Seale could believe it. Right then, he said, he knew that Newton was the “baddest motherfucker in the world.” Newton’s message was clear: “The gun is where it’s at and about and in.” After the February incident, the Panthers began a regular practice of policing the police. Thanks to an army of new recruits inspired to join up when they heard about Newton’s bravado, groups of armed Panthers would drive around following police cars. When the police stopped a black person, the Panthers would stand off to the side and shout out legal advice.

I just thought it was awesome, but of course, this led to the government cracking down on them. Well, cracking down on guns in general, but it was because of them.

5

General / Re: How would the free market handle forest fires?

« on: July 12, 2012, 10:24:23 AM »

Government forest fire fighting is another example of the government "helping" you by giving you crutches after breaking your legs.

http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/07/10/wildfires-government-praised-for-solving-problem-it-started/

http://www.perc.org/articles/article1410.php

http://www.perc.org/pdf/Forest%20Policy%20Up%20in%20Smoke.pdf

Your second link gives an example of poor forest management by the US government by comparing it to the way the Apache manage their adjacent forest.

Like so many other examples of centralized versus diffuse planning at work (East and West Germany, North and South Korea, etc.), we have been blessed with a side-by-side experiment on the ground. The Wallow fire burned deeply into Forest Service-managed lands, but practically stopped at the borders of the San Carlos Apache reservation. Comparable forest ecology and identical terrain, yet the flames simply did not do to Indian lands what they did to public lands. Why not?

In 2002, after a devastating fire that ravaged public and Indian-lands alike, the Apache reservation began a concerted campaign of timber harvest, forest-thinning, and prescribed burning. A preventive blaze was set one year ago just west of where the Wallow Fire ignited and tribal workers completed major fuel-reduction campaigns along the reservation border. Because of that, even flames that crossed into Apache lands burned mostly along the ground, with minimal damage to the environment.

Prevailing winds (blowing away from the reservation) certainly played a critical role, but would anyone really care to accept a counterfactual bet on the outcome of the fire had the winds been blowing onto the reservation?

This is weak sauce.

Presumably the US government was not managing the forests on Apache lands, but a 2002 fire took hold in both forests just the same. After that, the two governments took two different approaches to their adjacent forests. A new forest fire came through and burned mostly US land and not so much Apache land, because:

a. different land management techniques
b. prevailing winds
c. central planning vs. decentralized human action

You could pick between a and b, I guess, but there's no way to prove which one is correct. But, you certainly can't pick c because both were examples of central planning.

The argument continues:

Central planners with access to the finest scientific tools and incalculably large budgets were bested by relatively poor natives who knew and understood their lands, and had no fear of vigorously using their resources. Sounds a bit familiar, come to think of it…

Oddly enough, wildlife apparently picks winners too. Elk, spotted owl, mule deer, and any number of less charismatic species vote with their feet (and wings), consistently spoiling the expectations of conservationists who think they ought to live in the more “hands-off, pristine” environments. The San Carlos Apache reservation is known for harboring the world’s finest trophy elk, an indicator of both ecological and economic health (they routinely charge outsiders $25,000 for the privilege of taking the fruits of their hard-earned management success).

The land resources owned and managed by the Apache tribe is of course communally managed as well, but to a far lesser extent than that of national public lands managed by a central bureaucracy. The number of competing demands is smaller, the boundaries to access clearer and more defined. The tragedy of the commons simply isn’t as tragic.

Why is the land management by the Apache tribe not considered central planning? They may be better at forest management than the US government. Ok. But are they not managing the forest?

What kind of argument are they making here? It's not one against land management and it's not one against government. It's only saying that Apaches are better at forest management than the US.

The land resources owned and managed by the Apache tribe is of course communally managed...

Instead, we have collectively decided that west of the 100th meridian, forest resources are to be held in common, managed by central directorship.

Ok.

Private Forests?

This is a bridge far too far for many, but I cannot help but recommend significant privatization of western forestlands. By allowing management to diffuse to individual actors, it is clear that land management will more neatly align with today’s set of values.

How big a plot of land would one actor own? What if he/she/they owned millions of acres? What if it were an organization that owned millions of acres? Even if it's an individual, guess what? Management of that huge forest would be centrally planned.

If one landowner decides that thick timber is important to him, then that judgment is confined to a small area.

Says who? Who defines the size of this owner's property? Why can it not be millions of acres? What if prevailing winds take the fire onto other land? I guess those owners managed their property poorly too.

6

General / Re: How would the free market handle forest fires?

« on: July 12, 2012, 09:54:21 AM »

The assumption of the initial question is that the government does a crack job of handling forest fires.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression, but I was not assuming that while asking the question. It just seems they are the only people that mobilize a large amount of resources to fight forest fires, but they still mostly suck at it. No one else seems to step up to show them how it's done.

If you're really concerned about forest fires, then I am sure you will be one of the many people willing to volunteer to help fight them.

I don't live anywhere near the trouble spots. If I did volunteer, what would I do? Rent a pressure washer?

People do volunteer. In fact, I'm a member of the Amateur Radio Emergency Services, and one of the functions of that organization is to help out with such disasters. Just about every year, the local group gets called out to help provide communications for fire fighting services.

That's great. Does the government give you any trouble in exchange for helping them out since that's their usual SOP?

7

General / Re: How would the free market handle forest fires?

« on: July 12, 2012, 09:45:39 AM »

One of them benefits of living in an urban area (and not next to streams, rivers, lakes or swamps) is it keeps mosquitoes away.  I also don't live in an area known for horrible earthquakes, lots of tornadoes or tons of hurricanes.  Gee, I love how the market works.

I live in Washington DC and the mosquitoes here are terrible. I've lived in Louisiana before and they are worse in DC.

8

General / Re: How would the free market handle forest fires?

« on: July 12, 2012, 09:39:56 AM »

Sorry all. I started this thread and then forgot all about it.

We send people to outer space and have cell phones that can perform more tasks than a whole room IBM computer could do just 40 years ago for fucksake, surely someone has the ingenuity to develop an in home system to perform the simple task of putting out a fire.

Well, "we" send people to outer space (actually low earth orbit) using the force of government. Cell phones are economical because they're manufactured using cheap labor in foreign countries.

A home fire suppression system would be quite expensive on a home-by-home basis. It would be worth it to people living in high risk areas to install one. But if the system doubled the price of the house, then there's no point, especially if the system required vast amounts of water or some sort of fire retarding foam or something. Anyway, it would very likely be prohibitively expensive.

9

General / How would the free market handle forest fires?

« on: July 03, 2012, 10:34:14 AM »

Unlike hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes, forest fires are a type of natural disaster that humans can have at least some effect upon and sometimes they can stop them from advancing and eventually put them out. I've never heard of anyone doing this except for some government agency.

Instead of forcing people to pay into an organization that would attempt to put out forest fires that threaten people and their homes, what kind of private, consensual organization could take its place?

How would that organization make a profit? What if it failed to put out the fires? What if some people's homes were saved while others were not as is currently the case?

Would enough people be interested in paying into the company/organization to make it work? What if there aren't?

10

General / Bitcoins are now "worthless"

« on: June 21, 2011, 07:12:16 PM »

http://nerdr.com/bitcoin-exchange-scam-bitcoins-are-worthless/

Bitcoin Exchange Scam – Bitcoins Are Now Worthless

http://nerdr.com/shutting-down-bitcoin-really-taking-down-the-bitcoin-network/

Shutting Down Bitcoin – Taking Down The Bitcoin Network

But it's not as bad as it sounds:

http://www.infosecurity-us.com/view/18796/online-currency-bitcoin-loses-most-of-its-value-due-to-exchange-hack/

The exchange said that once it is back online, trading on Bitcoins will revert to the level before the breach, that is, $17.50 per Bitcoin. The value of the currency had plunged to pennies as a result of the hack. Users will be required to enter a new password once trading resumes.

11

General / Re: Herman Cain for President

« on: May 24, 2011, 06:39:28 PM »

Herman Cain is a former deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the civilian board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

12

General / Re: Bitcoin

« on: May 19, 2011, 09:44:55 PM »

Yeah, I tried it just for giggles. Left it running for almost 2 days just to see how much it generated. Not a single cent yet.

It comes in chunks after a long period of time.  Based on the mathematics and an average processor, you should get about 50 after a year and that number will go down over time in order to be a control on inflation.  I've heard there is a cap of about 24 million that can never be exceeded.  I don't think this is a hard cap on them because that's likely impossible with a distributed node system.  I think it's more of an asymptotic limit.

My understanding is that there will only ever be 21,000,000 Bitcoins available.  10.5 million of them made in the first 4 years.  5.25 more in the next 4.  2.625 made in the next 4, and so on, until all 21 million are in distribution.  It will become possible to transact in as small as .00000001 Bitcoin (if I remember correctly) as needed.

Since the code is open source, would it be possible for someone to modify the program to where it would create lots of bitcoins quickly? If this version of the program becomes popular it seems that bitcoins would become worthless relatively quickly.

13

General / Re: 1712 Speech on how to control slaves (could apply today)

« on: July 27, 2010, 08:13:23 PM »

Ok, so this letter is a fake, but it should get you thinking.

14

General / 1712 Speech on how to control slaves (could apply today)

« on: July 27, 2010, 08:07:46 PM »

This is the text of the Willie Lynch Letter.

In 1712, Virginia planters were having trouble controlling their slaves so they brought in a consultant of sorts from the West Indies to give them a speech on the subject. Since we're all here on this big plantation called the USA, maybe some of this applies to us.

Here is the text.

Greetings,

Gentlemen. I greet you here on the bank of the James River in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and twelve. First, I shall thank you, the gentlemen of the Colony of Virginia, for bringing me here. I am here to help you solve some of your problems with slaves. Your invitation reached me on my modest plantation in the West Indies, where I have experimented with some of the newest, and still the oldest, methods for control of slaves. Ancient Rome would envy us if my program is implemented. As our boat sailed south on the James River, named for our illustrious King, whose version of the Bible we cherish, I saw enough to know that your problem is not unique. While Rome used cords of wood as crosses for standing human bodies along its highways in great numbers, you are here using the tree and the rope on occasions. I caught the whiff of a dead slave hanging from a tree, a couple miles back. You are not only losing valuable stock by hangings, you are having uprisings, slaves are running away, your crops are sometimes left in the fields too long for maximum profit, you suffer occasional fires, your animals are killed. Gentlemen, you know what your problems are; I do not need to elaborate. I am not here to enumerate your problems, I am here to introduce you to a method of solving them. In my bag here, I HAVE A FULL PROOF METHOD FOR CONTROLLING YOUR BLACK SLAVES. I guarantee every one of you that, if installed correctly, IT WILL CONTROL THE SLAVES FOR AT LEAST 300 HUNDREDS YEARS. My method is simple. Any member of your family or your overseer can use it. I HAVE OUTLINED A NUMBER OF DIFFERENCES AMONG THE SLAVES; AND I TAKE THESE DIFFERENCES AND MAKE THEM BIGGER. I USE FEAR, DISTRUST AND ENVY FOR CONTROL PURPOSES. These methods have worked on my modest plantation in the West Indies and it will work throughout the South. Take this simple little list of differences and think about them. On top of my list is “AGE,” but it’s there only because it starts with an “a.” The second is “COLOR” or shade. There is INTELLIGENCE, SIZE, SEX, SIZES OF PLANTATIONS, STATUS on plantations, ATTITUDE of owners, whether the slaves live in the valley, on a hill, East, West, North, South, have fine hair, course hair, or is tall or short. Now that you have a list of differences, I shall give you an outline of action, but before that, I shall assure you that DISTRUST IS STRONGER THAN TRUST AND ENVY STRONGER THAN ADULATION, RESPECT OR ADMIRATION. The Black slaves after receiving this indoctrination shall carry on and will become self-refueling and self-generating for HUNDREDS of years, maybe THOUSANDS. Don’t forget, you must pitch the OLD black male vs. the YOUNG black male, and the YOUNG black male against the OLD black male. You must use the DARK skin slaves vs. the LIGHT skin slaves, and the LIGHT skin slaves vs. the DARK skin slaves. You must use the FEMALE vs. the MALE, and the MALE vs. the FEMALE. You must also have white servants and overseers [who] distrust all Blacks. But it is NECESSARY THAT YOUR SLAVES TRUST AND DEPEND ON US. THEY MUST LOVE, RESPECT AND TRUST ONLY US. Gentlemen, these kits are your keys to control. Use them. Have your wives and children use them, never miss an opportunity. IF USED INTENSELY FOR ONE YEAR, THE SLAVES THEMSELVES WILL REMAIN PERPETUALLY DISTRUSTFUL. Thank you gentlemen.”

LET’S MAKE A SLAVE

It was the interest and business of slave holders to study human nature, and the slave nature in particular, with a view to practical results. I and many of them attained astonishing proficiency in this direction. They had to deal not with earth, wood and stone, but with men and, by every regard, they had for their own safety and prosperity they needed to know the material on which they were to work, conscious of the injustice and wrong they were every hour perpetuating and knowing what they themselves would do. Were they the victims of such wrongs? They were constantly looking for the first signs of the dreaded retribution. They watched therefore with skilled and practiced eyes, and learned to read with great accuracy, the state of mind and heart of the slave, through his sable face. Unusual sobriety, apparent abstractions, sullenness and indifference indeed, any mood out of the common was afforded ground for suspicion and inquiry. Frederick Douglas LET’S MAKE A SLAVE is a study of the scientific process of man-breaking and slave-making. It describes the rationale and results of the Anglo Saxons’ ideas and methods of insuring the master/slave relationship. LET’S MAKE A SLAVE “The Original and Development of a Social Being Called ‘The Negro.’” Let us make a slave. What do we need? First of all, we need a black nigger man, a pregnant nigger woman and her baby nigger boy. Second, we will use the same basic principle that we use in breaking a horse, combined with some more sustaining factors. What we do with horses is that we break them from one form of life to another; that is, we reduce them from their natural state in nature. Whereas nature provides them with the natural capacity to take care of their offspring, we break that natural string of independence from them and thereby create a dependency status, so that we may be able to get from them useful production for our business and pleasure.

CARDINAL PRINCIPLES FOR MAKING A NEGRO

For fear that our future generations may not understand the principles of breaking both of the beast together, the nigger and the horse. We understand that short range planning economics results in periodic economic chaos; so that to avoid turmoil in the economy, it requires us to have breadth and depth in long range comprehensive planning, articulating both skill sharp perceptions. We lay down the following principles for long range comprehensive economic planning. Both horse and niggers [are] no good to the economy in the wild or natural state. Both must be BROKEN and TIED together for orderly production. For orderly future, special and particular attention must be paid to the FEMALE and the YOUNGEST offspring. Both must be CROSSBRED to produce a variety and division of labor. Both must be taught to respond to a peculiar new LANGUAGE. Psychological and physical instruction of CONTAINMENT must be created for both. We hold the six cardinal principles as truth to be self-evident, based upon following the discourse concerning the economics of breaking and tying the horse and the nigger together, all inclusive of the six principles laid down above. NOTE: Neither principle alone will suffice for good economics. All principles must be employed for orderly good of the nation. Accordingly, both a wild horse and a wild or natur[al] nigger is dangerous even if captured, for they will have the tendency to seek their customary freedom and, in doing so, might kill you in your sleep. You cannot rest. They sleep while you are awake, and are awake while you are asleep. They are DANGEROUS near the family house and it requires too much labor to watch them away from the house. Above all, you cannot get them to work in this natural state. Hence, both the horse and the nigger must be broken; that is breaking them from one form of mental life to another. KEEP THE BODY, TAKE THE MIND! In other words, break the will to resist. Now the breaking process is the same for both the horse and the nigger, only slightly varying in degrees. But, as we said before, there is an art in long range economic planning. YOU MUST KEEP YOUR EYE AND THOUGHTS ON THE FEMALE and the OFFSPRING of the horse and the nigger. A brief discourse in offspring development will shed light on the key to sound economic principles. Pay little attention to the generation of original breaking, but CONCENTRATE ON FUTURE GENERATION. Therefore, if you break the FEMALE mother, she will BREAK the offspring in its early years of development; and when the offspring is old enough to work, she will deliver it up to you, for her normal female protective tendencies will have been lost in the original breaking process. For example, take the case of the wild stud horse, a female horse and an already infant horse and compare the breaking process with two captured nigger males in their natural state, a pregnant nigger woman with her infant offspring. Take the stud horse, break him for limited containment. Completely break the female horse until she becomes very gentle, whereas you or anybody can ride her in her comfort. Breed the mare and the stud until you have the desired offspring. Then, you can turn the stud to freedom until you need him again. Train the female horse whereby she will eat out of your hand, and she will in turn train the infant horse to eat out of your hand, also. When it comes to breaking the uncivilized nigger, use the same process, but vary the degree and step up the pressure, so as to do a complete reversal of the mind. Take the meanest and most restless nigger, strip him of his clothes in front of the remaining male niggers, the female, and the nigger infant, tar and feather him, tie each leg to a different horse faced in opposite directions, set him afire and beat both horses to pull him apart in front of the remaining niggers. The next step is to take a bullwhip and beat the remaining nigger males to the point of death, in front of the female and the infant. Don’t kill him, but PUT THE FEAR OF GOD IN HIM, for he can be useful for future breeding.

THE BREAKING PROCESS OF THE AFRICAN WOMAN

Take the female and run a series of tests on her to see if she will submit to your desires willingly. Test her in every way, because she is the most important factor for good economics. If she shows any sign of resistance in submitting completely to your will, do not hesitate to use the bullwhip on her to extract that last bit of [b----] out of her. Take care not to kill her, for in doing so, you spoil good economics. When in complete submission, she will train her offsprings in the early years to submit to labor when they become of age. Understanding is the best thing. Therefore, we shall go deeper into this area of the subject matter concerning what we have produced here in this breaking process of the female nigger. We have reversed the relationship; in her natural uncivilized state, she would have a strong dependency on the uncivilized nigger male, and she would have a limited protective tendency toward her independent male offspring and would raise male offsprings to be dependent like her. Nature had provided for this type of balance. We reversed nature by burning and pulling a civilized nigger apart and bullwhipping the other to the point of death, all in her presence. By her being left alone, unprotected, with the MALE IMAGE DESTROYED, the ordeal caused her to move from her psychologically dependent state to a frozen, independent state. In this frozen, psychological state of independence, she will raise her MALE and female offspring in reversed roles. For FEAR of the young male’s life, she will psychologically train him to be MENTALLY WEAK and DEPENDENT, but PHYSICALLY STRONG. Because she has become psychologically independent, she will train her FEMALE offsprings to be psychologically independent. What have you got? You’ve got the nigger WOMAN OUT FRONT AND THE nigger MAN BEHIND AND SCARED. This is a perfect situation of sound sleep and economics. Before the breaking process, we had to be alertly on guard at all times. Now, we can sleep soundly, for out of frozen fear his woman stands guard for us. He cannot get past her early slave-molding process. He is a good tool, now ready to be tied to the horse at a tender age. By the time a nigger boy reaches the age of sixteen, he is soundly broken in and ready for a long life of sound and efficient work and the reproduction of a unit of good labor force. Continually through the breaking of uncivilized savage niggers, by throwing the nigger female savage into a frozen psychological state of independence, by killing the protective male image, and by creating a submissive dependent mind of the nigger male slave, we have created an orbiting cycle that turns on its own axis forever, unless a phenomenon occurs and re-shifts the position of the male and female slaves. We show what we mean by example. Take the case of the two economic slave units and examine them close.

THE NEGRO MARRIAGE

We breed two nigger males with two nigger females. Then, we take the nigger male away from them and keep them moving and working. Say one nigger female bears a nigger female and the other bears a nigger male; both nigger females—being without influence of the nigger male image, frozen with a independent psychology—will raise their offspring into reverse positions. The one with the female offspring will teach her to be like herself, independent and negotiable (we negotiate with her, through her, by her, negotiates her at will). The one with the nigger male offspring, she being frozen subconscious fear for his life, will raise him to be mentally dependent and weak, but physically strong; in other words, body over mind. Now, in a few years when these two offsprings become fertile for early reproduction, we will mate and breed them and continue the cycle. That is good, sound and long range comprehensive planning.

WARNING: POSSIBLE INTERLOPING NEGATIVES

Earlier, we talked about the non-economic good of the horse and the nigger in their wild or natural state; we talked out the principle of breaking and tying them together for orderly production. Furthermore, we talked about paying particular attention to the female savage and her offspring for orderly future planning, then more recently we stated that, by reversing the positions of the male and female savages, we created an orbiting cycle that turns on its own axis forever unless a phenomenon occurred and reshifts positions of the male and female savages. Our experts warned us about the possibility of this phenomenon occurring, for they say that the mind has a strong drive to correct and re-correct itself over a period of time if it can touch some substantial original historical base; and they advised us that the best way to deal with the phenomenon is to shave off the brute’s mental history and create a multiplicity of phenomena of illusions, so that each illusion will twirl in its own orbit, something similar to floating balls in a vacuum. This creation of multiplicity of phenomena of illusions entails the principle of crossbreeding the nigger and the horse as we stated above, the purpose of which is to create a diversified division of labor; thereby creating different levels of labor and different values of illusion at each connecting level of labor. The results of which is the severance of the points of original beginnings for each sphere illusion. Since we feel that the subject matter may get more complicated as we proceed in laying down our economic plan concerning the purpose, reason and effect of crossbreeding horses and niggers, we shall lay down the following definition terms for future generations. Orbiting cycle means a thing turning in a given path. Axis means upon which or around which a body turns. Phenomenon means something beyond ordinary conception and inspires awe and wonder. Multiplicity means a great number. Means a globe. Crossbreeding a horse means taking a horse and breeding it with an ass and you get a dumb, backward, ass long-headed mule that is not reproductive nor productive by itself. Crossbreeding niggers mean taking so many drops of good white blood and putting them into as many nigger women as possible, varying the drops by the various tone that you want, and then letting them breed with each other until another circle of color appears as you desire. What this means is this: Put the niggers and the horse in a breeding pot, mix some asses and some good white blood and what do you get? You got a multiplicity of colors of ass backward, unusual niggers, running, tied to backward ass long-headed mules, the one productive of itself, the other sterile. (The one constant, the other dying, we keep the nigger constant for we may replace the mules for another tool) both mule and nigger tied to each other, neither knowing where the other came from and neither productive for itself, nor without each other.

CONTROLLED LANGUAGE

Crossbreeding completed, for further severance from their original beginning, WE MUST COMPLETELY ANNIHILATE THE MOTHER TONGUE of both the new nigger and the new mule, and institute a new language that involves the new life’s work of both. You know language is a peculiar institution. It leads to the heart of a people. The more a foreigner knows about the language of another country the more he is able to move through all levels of that society. Therefore, if the foreigner is an enemy of the country, to the extent that he knows the body of the language, to that extent is the country vulnerable to attack or invasion of a foreign culture. For example, if you take a slave, if you teach him all about your language, he will know all your secrets, and he is then no more a slave, for you can’t fool him any longer, and BEING A FOOL IS ONE OF THE BASIC INGREDIENTS OF ANY INCIDENTS TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE SLAVERY SYSTEM. For example, if you told a slave that he must perform in getting out “our crops” and he knows the language well, he would know that “our crops” didn’t mean “our crops” and the slavery system would break down, for he would relate on the basis of what “our crops” really meant. So you have to be careful in setting up the new language; for the slaves would soon be in your house, talking to you as “man to man” and that is death to our economic system. In addition, the definitions of words or terms are only a minute part of the process. Values are created and transported by communication through the body of the language. A total society has many interconnected value systems. All the values in the society have bridges of language to connect them for orderly working in the society. But for these language bridges, these many value systems would sharply clash and cause internal strife or civil war, the degree of the conflict being determined by the magnitude of the issues or relative opposing strength in whatever form. For example, if you put a slave in a hog pen and train him to live there and incorporate in him to value it as a way of life completely, the biggest problem you would have out of him is that he would worry you about provisions to keep the hog pen clean, or the same hog pen and make a slip and incorporate something in his language whereby he comes to value a house more than he does his hog pen, you got a problem. He will soon be in your house.

15

General / Re: Free PDF book on Authoritarianism

« on: July 22, 2010, 05:36:42 PM »

Here an excerpt to give a taste.

Many factors would undoubtedly shape someone’s decision in this matter, even
if s/he were just filling out a booklet of surveys and was suddenly asked to imagine
being a judge. But such role-playing does create a situation in which someone can
imagine punishing someone else in the name of established authority. I’d give Smith
about four or five years of further experience with the penitentiary system, and
overall, subjects answering my survey would impose an average sentence of  about
3.5 years. But right-wing authoritarians would send Robert Smith to the slammer for
a significantly longer time than most people would.

In fact they’d send just about anyone to jail for a longer time than most people
would, from those who spit on the sidewalk to rapists. However, as noted earlier,
authoritarian followers usually would go easy on authorities who commit crimes, and
they similarly make allowances for someone who attacks a victim the authoritarian is
prejudiced against. (If you were a district attorney prosecuting a lynching case, you
would NOT rejoice at a jury filled with high RWAs.) But in general they would
sentence most criminals to longer terms than the average Joe would. They also tend
to strongly endorse capital punishment.

Why are high RWAs extra-punitive against law-breakers? For one thing, they
think the crimes involved are more serious than most people do, and they believe more
in the beneficial effects of punishment. But they also find “common criminals” highly
repulsive and disgusting, and they admit it feels personally good, it makes them glad,
to be able to punish a perpetrator. They get off smiting the sinner; they relish being
“the arm of the Lord.” Similarly, high RWA university students say that classmates
in high school who misbehaved and got into trouble, experienced “bad trips” on drugs,
became pregnant, and so on “got exactly what they deserved” and that they felt a
secret pleasure when they found out about the others’ misfortune.
 
Which suggests authoritarian followers have a little volcano of hostility
bubbling away inside them looking for a (safe, approved) way to erupt.