Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Freedom of Speech

Freedom from Freedom

“Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.”
Oscar Wilde

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
Harlan Ellison 

No one is entitled to be free. For what is an informed opinion if it is not a fact? And what sort of opinion can we be entitled to have if it is not an informed opinion? Furthermore, the more dissident this opinion's nature, the more informed it must be.  I think we can all agree that the closer one comes to evidencing an opinion, the closer one comes to proving said opinion against all reasonable doubt. And so, it is exactly this that to which we are not entitled: we are not entitled to reasonable doubt.

I think our situation makes some sense. How can one be opinionated without also belying a distrust for one's State? One may have a dissenting opinion, but only so long as it's not important enough for anyone to really care about it. Opinions about which sports team will win the championship, for instance, make no difference to the total functioning of our civilization. While even in such a situation, one may be punished for expressing a dissident opinion, in such a situation your opinion literally does not matter.

Dissident opinions harm the proper functioning of the State, and as such, we should not be free to have them. Ironically (perhaps a very opinionated word!), it is a dissident opinion that we ought not to be free to have dissident opinions, and thus I am not free to have this dissident opinion. I am in some very real sense, breaking the rules by doing so. I believe that I could effectively be punished by the State for writing this.

So why would I continue? Well, I guess it's just inertia. It's the vestige of a time when I believed, as I was supposed to, that we live in a land with Freedom of Speech. I have since come to understand the falsity of this claim. But through my curiosity, have I done anything else but to make myself a victim, one might say, of my own failure to embrace hypocrisy?

I think this is my last opinionated gift to humankind. I leave you with the truth that we are not free, and I encourage you to make the most of it. Get comfortable and believe what the strongest people tell you to believe. Pursue your dreams only in the context of what the State allows. Do not be disappointed if the State does not treat you fairly. Do not question the decisions of the State. And content yourself in the delusion of it all. It's really a beautiful reality, whether we happen to live in freedom or whether otherwise.

"Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice. We repudiate all morality which proceeds from supernatural ideas or ideas which are outside the class conception. In our opinion, morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of the class war. Everything is moral which is necessary for the annihilation of the old exploiting order and for uniting the proletariat. Our morality consists solely in close discipline and conscious warfare against the exploiters."
V.I. Lenin

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Number Trick

Here is a clever number trick. I will attempt to demonstrate that a decimal 9 is entangled somewhat, cognitively, with a binary 1. A high-information power system could get even closer to being entangled with 1. An infinitely high-information power system could describe 1 absolutely, even though any digit could only really consist of an invisible shade of meaning between 0 and 1.

Let me demonstrate this argument: Imaging reading the following number, digit by digit: 13.72. Each digit in your mind corresponds to a packet of information that signifies some value between negative and positive, or zero and one. As you read that number, your mind processes it in terms of shades of meaning between zero and one for each decimal place. Basically, it is a mere simplification to intuition of a binary system, which would convey the meaning discretely. Following this, a user who could manipulate an infinite number system could think in shades of somewhere between complete negative or positive certainty, and this would have meaning even though it would also have no meaning.

Before humans had mathematics, this is exactly what they did all the time! They still do it when their brains decide which action to take next. It follows from the correctness of a Fermi problem that multiple pieces of information that constitute an informative estimation of a problem will together produce an average estimate that grows closer and closer to the answer.

Well, human consciousnesses are pieces of information that attempt to think in shades of infinitely negative or infinitly positive. Hence, our collective consciousness together estimates reality. We estimate an optimistic universe. And science confirms this simple intuition though its description of an accelerating universe with explosive emptiness. Thus, this is how it is, and we are parts of it. This is important self-definitionally. Anything that stagnates cannot exist in an accelerating universe, and so we will not stagnate.

I am a Liberal Shill

Yes, this is somewhat of a confession. Actually, I never haven't been liberal. I am just a liberal who had quite different life experiences and who experienced them through a quite different perspective. I was already an atheist by the time I reached middle school. I remember the exact moment I lost my faith, and I was very young then. I remember walking out of chapel thinking that life seemed a lot dimmer than it did before. It's sad, really. Yet, I was a child and naturally unable to disagree with the world-view of my superiors. So I repressed this knowledge, but it was not like I did not know it after that.

Once I reached high school, well that was the death-knell for any conservatism I may have once had, since I started to think differently, more abstractly, and I had access to authors like Richard Dawkins, or even to a proper biology textbook. I mean, seriously, I think my having been put into such a restrictive environment as a kid drove my love of science. You've heard that you don't know what you're taking for granted until you don't have it anymore. Well, it works the other way, too. You don't know what you have unless there was a time when you lacked it.

Of course, just like I was doing here, I toyed around with pretending. I did it so well I confused myself about my own history a couple of times. But in the end, no. Of course not. I am not conservative at all. I never was, and honestly, I think that's how I ended up in such a different place to begin with. It's like my conservative family reacted against my liberalism and put me in the place they thought I would be least likely to escape. Conservatives have been trained to crush free spirited children.

Or maybe I was just a spazz. I dunno. That's still not entirely clear. I know I asked my brother if he wanted to be gay or married when he grew up, and my dad went to yell at the principal. He came home telling my brother (who resented me for a long time for this) and I that we would be attending a Christian school the following year.
Why was I told officially we were going to switch schools? My mom told me I was having trouble learning to read. So, if that's not true, it's sort of a mean thing to say, I think. But why would they have moved my brother if that was the case? And considering that I went from the 1st to the 8th grade reading level in one year after the transition, I'm not sure it was entirely true that I did not learn how to read in the slightest. I mean, that would have had to be one hell of a new program. Why wouldn't the public school system just copy the hell out of it? I find it hard to believe that Fellowship Christian Academy had and may still possess secretly the elusive and eureka-inspiring answer for teaching kids to read.

I do not know , but I view one opinion as being fairly undeniable.

If I had continued in public school, I don't think my understanding of conservatives would have extended beyond a 2nd or 3rd grade memory. I am really not very conservative at all. I would have gone *NUTS* given even an ounce of freedom. (Maybe my parents were prescient in this regard.) In fact, how I define my conservatism is based on some scientific data I read regarding potential neuroanatomical origins of conservatism. (I reject the idea that it is purely a problem with intelligence.) So I would often say things to indicate I have an anxiety disorder (an easy thing to fake when you don't have many friends and you suspect the world may be in peril), and I would even have to concede that I tend to hang onto prejudices more than Liberals. (That should have been a dead give away right there, since ain't no way a true conservative will admit he is prejudiced. He or she is, in fact, too prejudiced to do so.)

I guess I am just admitting this because I just don't want to have to pretend anymore. I thought about continuing to pretend for the long haul in order to get conservatives to listen, but it's just too depressing. I would rather be loved by the community, and I know that no double-agent honestly could be.

Liberals are not "taking over" science, the media, goverment, and etc because they are evil and want to ruin your way of life. They are doing it because the world has real serious problems that people never think about when they believe they are going to Heaven. We are afraid, and I can only imagine how stiff the competition must be in order to become a liberal cultural figure. That explains why all the comedians are liberals, right?

If you are a liberal and you can get people to listen to you, you do it by any means necessary. I guess I tried that and went a little too far. It doesn't help that most people, liberal or otherwise, were not very nice to me from highschool onwards until quite recently. Perhaps it was a bit my fault for not just trying to fit in, but at the same time I had been taught to be principled, and by golly, I was going to be principled. You know? From that position it can take a few turns to come to the final conclusion that one just ought not pretend to be conservative. There's more negative in it than positive.

And if you want to ever have the hope of affecting any positive change at all in society, well you had better be a liberal. To do so being a conservative, presumably you would have to become a dictator first. I do not seriously imagine this happening for me. But believe it or not, I considered that, too. You know? How do you become one? Maybe you just become one by acting like one at exactly the right time and by doing all the right things as they come up.

P.S. I didn't care about using the Jews as bait because fuck religion.

El Estados Granujas

We cannot have government with a bunch of people who worship freedom, their own self-destruction, and uncertainty. We must hate them. It's the brain of the institution that we must hate, and it's a liberal brain. We cannot have our enemies as our leaders.  We cannot have people who value uncertainty making decisions! Our leaders must be confident.

And fuck liberals and their attachment to our science. No nihilists need apply. Except now they control everything, and we are left with Bachmann and Perry, who are theocrats and morons. I really do hate liberals, and I have to pretend to love them. I hate liberal pseudo-scientist victim complex assholes.

I just remembered how hard it's going to be to pretend to be able to enjoy the smell of a liberal. Meanwhile they will try to destroy the world in their arrogance and haste, the quiotic victims. They have monopolized academia, which is something we really should have *never* given up to our enemies. I wasn't born when it happened.

It's supersitition: Chrisitanity. It caused conservatives to fail. If we could destroy every last liberal professor, that would be a great boon for our future. The world could move on and deal with its problems, instead of sitting on its ass wondering if it is mere prejudice to live.

Can you believe we basically pay for these idiots to live? The government disburses a lot of grant money. We should not be funding liberals; we should only fund conservative scientists.And then when the parasites switch to being conservatives to try to suck more blood from society that way, only the people who can notice this sort of thing will be in the position to do so.

Whatever. If it comes down to civil war, you will expect to find me on the side of the people who want to win the most , and that will be conservatives. Liberals can dick around questioning whether they ought to win, and that's when we will destroy them. We will give them a reason to bitch about being victims by making them real ones.

I hate "scientists". I hate them as much as I love science. I think we should just blow up the world instead of letting them win. It would be better, perhaps. Humanity can pick up from the scrap heaps, and you'd better believe that only conservatives will survive in that environment. Liberals can kiss it goodbye.

Other conservatives sometimes think I am a liberal, but of course I am not. Whenever i catch the scent of such an abomination of life, I am stirred to anger, an unfulfilled desire to destroy . What a horrible way of being is liberalism!

So, no. not a liberal shill :)

Liberals like to claim to be the group that wants progress, but that's just part of their infinite vicitim complex. Of course conservatives want progress. We just want it to be more ordered, since nothing interesting can happen in disorganization. We want to be less wishy washy about whether we ought to live at all . With us in charge, it would be survival at all costs. Survival!

I really do hate pompous liberals. They think they are so much smarter and better. It's a defense mechanism. They try to be better than everyone else so they can exploit others for their own happiness. Well fuck em' . They don't even care about survival. They are the natural enemy of humanity.

We need a revolution. I think that america minus the liberals is a much better place. I wish the military would do this, but it is not my decision unfortunately . Do you see yourself as leaning more towards liberalism or conservatism? I suspect you are conservative if you ended up in the same position as me. But I could be wrong.

What is a liberal? It has always been radical: anti-monarchy, anti-order, anti-everything, even anti life in most horrifying cases. I would think I am liberal as well, except I don't get along with those snotty rich kids . So the proof is in the pudding. I must be conservative.

Liberals are some of the most intolerant people I have ever seen, and so it has always been ironic to me that they victimize themselves into being believing they are tolerant.  If there were even one thing I would say about liberals for certain, it's that they aren't tolerant.

Liberals are not our friends. They are as bad for us as are the theocrats posing as enlightened conservatives. America has been from its inception a liberal state. It was born in the bloodshed of a monarchy trying to reunite this liberal colony. It has been from its inception a nation of suicide, a nation of blind selfish hedonism,and of course the God to go along with it. It abandoned the wisdom of ages.

I love the American people, but our government only exists to prevent a real government from forming.

Liberals tend to think that they own science, since they try to prevent conservatives from becoming scientists. But science is an object with no political orientation. Laboratories, on the other hand, have a definite liberal hue. I mean, I love science. So, to claim that "For science!" is even somewhat resembling a liberal mantra, this is bogus . It's just as untrue as the Christian who says that no one else knows about love because love must come from Jesus. Science not only doesn't come from liberalism, but also liberalism damages science.

All the politicization of science happening today has either a liberal or theocratic bent. Liberal relativity predicts that all cultures are equal, so that's what they try to demonstrate, against the total face of evidence. In fact, what they should discover is that their own culture is extremely lacking. But how could a liberal suppose something that makes him not a victim but an oppressor?

How can evil exist if it means that one may in fact be performing it? Nothing makes me more pissed than a bunch of snotty "POC" and Jewish rich privileged kids who think they are right about everything meanwhile exploiting humanity. I mean, what about the CEO's of these big companies? They are usually democrats. So why don't they make life better for their workers? Why do they enable Chinese factory conditions?

Take Tim Cook, for instance, the new CEO of Apple. He's a Democrat, and I'm sure he considers himself very Liberal. He even thought about running for office. And yet, he employs millions of Chinese sweatshop workers.I suppose it's not really his fault, though. Since he's not one of the Lberals in DC who do exactly the same thing. Those people could actually make a difference if they actually cared.

Liberals hate poor people. It's the biggest lie they ever told. They are completely devoid of noblis oblige. Of course, someone who does not believe in honor, respect, loyalty, etc, why would this person care about people?

I am not merely a political dissident. I am the political inclination of the majority of humanity, most of whom would like to think of themselves as being part of something bigger and better rather than as "free" selfish entities. Humanity itself is mostly conservative. And so the liberals have declared war on humanity. They, with Jewish help, have captured our media, our educational system, every product of the conservative imagination in this country. These were all things designed to help us to function as a whole organism. And the liberals have turned it into some big fest for freedom and selfishness.

Humanity is Dalit.
We are the oppressed.
And freedom is our oppressor.
You will be punished by the rogue state.
El Estados Granujas.
The United Rogue States of America.

Friday, July 19, 2013

Is Government Good?

So, I went to this website called Omegle.com, and I asked this question. A series of pairs of people, who may not have even been American, responded. This is the first lengthy conversation that resulted:


I believe that Stranger 2 is probably  an American "conservative" because he thinks so positively about corporations and so negatively about parts of the government that prevent corporations from doing everything they want to do. Am I being presumptuous?