Greg Johnson Systematically Refutes Libertarianism

Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents systematically refutes libertarianism at the London Forum. A very enlightening presentation.

Subscribe to The Realist Report today, and support pro-White independent media!



  • Highlight @ 18:25, with the analogy re the 2 types of bus station robbers: the straightforward “give me your wallet, or else!” robber, vs the sob story swindler/con who exploits & undermines the target’s virtue/trust/empathy.

    Provided the target/victim of that latter type of robbery somehow learns of the truth that they were deceived & robbed by a lying con artist; if they’re of my mindset/hard-wiring, they’re infuriated, enraged at the thought of the psychopathic con’s glee over having gotten one over on them, as they count their stolen shekels.

    I’d entertain visions of hunting down said con-robber and violently putting them out of business, painfully & permanently. But because these vengeful impulses aren’t normally practical esp after accounting for the criminal consequences of actually carrying out said impulses; the best the con’s victim can usually do in response, is to ensure 100% that they don’t get con-robbed & subsequently infuriated like that ever again. And the only way to GUARANTEE that, is to end ALL future lines of “trust-credit,” of “altruism” toward unknown strangers. Become a “Recovering Stranger-Truster,” the only reliable cure for which is total abstinence. Honest people in real need, tough luck; there’s a highly-toxic minority who operate among you, fraudulently masquerading as people in your same (honest) situation; and given that it’s impossible to me to distinguish who’s honest & who’s a con, my response to your plea must be “Sorry, but good luck.”

    ^ So you can quickly see how that tiny minority of highly toxic, lying-con-flavored robbers can & do act as a cancer in a (once/former) honor/altruism/trust-based society, “single-handedly” transforming that society into a cold & callous, “cash-and-carry-ONLY” shell of its formerly friendly, altruistic & desirable self. To preserve itself, that society is forced to adapt by “starving out the con-robbers” who have infested it, even though there’s some consequent unpleasant “collateral damage” in the form of many honest people in real need being tossed by the wayside. :(

    It can be rightly argued however, that by the majority of honest members of a (once) trust-valuing society being forced to respond/adapt to a con-robber-cancer infestation in this way, they are actually protecting and preserving the longer-term future of their inevitable “honest people in honest need” sub-population, indeed of their (former, but cancer-striken) society itself, by suffering through this painful “treatment of starving out the soon-to-be-terminal cancer.” At some point, the societal-tolerance-scale tips against the con-robbers’ viability of coexisting within it (IE the ‘treatment’ becomes effective), and the con-robber-cancer is forced to either starve to death or flee. At this point that society gradually picks itself up again; trust towards their honest/needy members develops and those members are helped back onto their feet again; and that society can live & prosper again “with their former cancer in remission.” :)

    I know of what I speak, because “I’m Zeetip, And I’m A Recovering Stranger-Truster.” I’ve been conned, my trust betrayed by strangers, and the above is the only response, or adaptation, which my hard-wiring (dna?) will allow. Yes, as a non-socio/psycho-path, I AM “burdened with empathy” any time I must say “Sorry, but good luck…” to a stranger in need (but potential con!); with my suffering afterthoughts of “what if they’re honest; what if their need is real and through no major fault of their own? They, ‘but for the grace of God’ might be I one future day!” :(

    Yes, “burdened with empathy” is damn right in those cases; but you know what? Going back to my dna/hard-wiring again, that “empathy/inner-conflict problem” is actually a LOWER price tag for me to “pay”, vs the HIGHER priced cost of the rage I’d suffer through resulting from (my later learning) that stranger-in-need was actually a con who stole from me in the most trust-based-society wrecking way!! :(

    Whew, what began as an intended “few quick lines” ended up being a tome! ^ LOL.

    Oh yeah, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, everyone! :) 😛

  • This is a very questionable “refutation” of Libertarianism. He seems to be ignorant of the core idea of the Libertarianism, the Non Aggression Principle. A “refutation” of Libertarianism that never even touches on this idea is as valid as a refutation of Christianity that never even touches on anything attributed to/said by Christ, or a refutation of Democracy that never even mentions the concept of voting.

    Libertarianism has serious issues well worth addressing, but he never says anything that is really related to Libertarianism. Is there a second or third part of of this, maybe? As it stands, the guy looks clueless.

  • Before you publish, study the case of Edgar Steele, who wrote “Defensive Racism,” a book very similar to what you plan. He’s gone, and he’s not coming back. He died in prison. Choose a more effective strategy, please. You seem a decent fellow, and quite smart.

  • Libertarianism defines it’s own demise with the upstream property owner that shuts down a river to downstream property owners.

  • First off, putting the picture of 4 Jews there with the Juden star on them (von Mises, Rothbard, Rand, Friedman), only one of whom was actually consistently Libertarian/Anarchist, already tells you this article is dishonest propaganda and spin. What happened to Bakunin, Spooner, Jackson and Jefferson and the myriad of other nineteenth century non-Jew Libertarian/Anarchists? Did these people never exist? Didn’t these people stand for liberty? People like Johnson need to ignore them because “liberty” is not what they’re interested in but their own liberty to push their own way of life and preferences down the throat of entire communities, towns, nations and even continents if they could. All this talk about respecting individual rights is just a con. To collective mentalities, the tribe or the race is always what the individual should be sacrificed to, not harmonize itself synergetically to creatively to make wholes greater and stronger than the sum of the parts. They make a pretense to WN’s that when they get their “all-white” community, then they will respect individual rights. But what do they mean by “all-white”? The last guy who tried to make an “all-white” community in the USA, Craig Cobb, turned out to be 12% sub-Saharan African on National TV. lol

    So, does a 95% white guy qualify or only 100%? And who’ll be checking Greg Johnson’s 23-&-me to make sure he’s “100% white”? Will there be a DNA test required every time someone wants to move into their community?

    See how ridiculous all this is?

    Why can’t you just restore free-choice and free-association, defend your rights of private property, which you have earned and all those in your group have earned, and make an “All White” community that way?

    I’ll tell you why.

    Because it’s far easier to force someone to do something like a child getting smacked in the head rather than being able to convince them with solid, logical and far-sighted, non-contradictory arguments.

    • (continued . . . )

      Real strength isn’t created by the majority but by creative minorities left free enough to be creative. The 300 million or whatever guns that are in the hands of Americans are only there because very few creative individuals invented them. The only problem is, these creative minorities then give their weapons to their enemies, having been convinced through con-artistry that they are their friends. Therefore the most important task is for creative minorities to lose their gullibility and become Jew-wise.

      Ideological weapons go through a similar process of “limited hangout” and then corruption.

      Real Libertarianism or Anarchism starts with the repeal of civil rights and all “group rights” that don’t derive from the free choices, decisions and assumed responsibilities of the individuals within the group.

      They (WN’s like Greg Johnson) can’t be using the individual as the basic unit of social science whenever it pleases them and serves their agenda, say the individual and his tribe should have a symbiotic relationship that benefits both and then at a certain point, when the number of social groups get large enough, throw these principles out and switch to the democracy scam again (dictatorship of the majority lowest-common-denominator presided over by an elite class who manipulates their opinions through media monopoly and saturation of narratives in its favor, i.e., a different route to arrive at the collective ideals of Marxism by violating individual sovereignty, or inalienable ‘rites,’ those deemed moral by the society. Anyone who doesn’t realize and understand that Vices are Not Crimes

      • (continued . . . )

        really has no business talking about issues of Liberty and who should determine the dividing line between good and bad behavior. The problem with group-think people is that they want to impose their own morality on others as a “universal morality” and that is the absolute opposite of liberty. A morality that has to be forced down people’s throats is no morality at all. Beating your son unconscious with a stick every day will prevent him from potentially over-doing his vices and becoming a cancer-victim, a drug-addict or a “pervert,” but what have you accomplished? What good is a society of no-vices who cannot even find any vvise (wise) people to give them add-vice?

        What is the root of Nationalism? It is collectivism or tribalism, which in-&-of-itself is natural, but which when it becomes a means of oppressing the individual can become extremely harmful. Its opposite, extreme individualism is also harmful, because it also oppresses the individual and puts him in disharmony with the social group. It is not a matter of either/or but more or less. The more harmony, the better for the individual and the more freedom for the individual, without losing group connections and support, the better will the group benefit out of creative thinking.

        • (continued . . . )

          There was a time when some women were burned at the stake for being witches and this was deemed “moral” by the society at large, i.e., the mob and the church leading the mob. The many individuals who did not agree with the mob and thought this a cruel and inhumane punishment know better than to open their mouths in dissent, lest they themselves and their families be thrown in dungeons. Just a century ago, the famous Russian Anarchist Mikhail Bakhunin did 18 years in a Russian dungeon simply because the Czar disagreed with his anarchist, anti-mob beliefs.

          There was a time just 96 years ago, prior to 1920, that the age-of-consent in the entire USA, as in every state was either 10, 12 or 7. That’s right, in Delaware, the age of consent for sexual relations or marriage was 7 years old!

          Majority “democratic” opinion had deemed this a “moral” thing to do at the time and all individuals who disagreed, and I’m sure there were millions of them, could not do anything about it except in their own homes. If one of their 10 year old daughters ran away from home and some 40 year old too advantage of her. All she had to do was say: “I gave my consent” and there was no “rape” or misdeed or exploitation of any kind as far as the law was concerned. It took until 1920 for the age-of-consent to be raised to 16 in order to reduce the huge amount of exploitation probabilities the previous laws allowed.

          • “Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming “dangerous,” ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it.” ~ Henry Louis Mencken – “Liberty and Democracy” in the Baltimore Evening Sun (13 April 1925), also in A Second Mencken Chrestomathy : New Selections from the Writings of America’s Legendary Editor, Critic, and Wit (1994) edited by Terry Teachout, p. 35

          • (continued . . . )

            “It is a notorious fact that the morality of society as a whole is in inverse ratio to its size; for the greater the aggregation of individuals, the more the individual factors are blotted out, and with them morality, which rests entirely on the moral sense of the individual and the freedom necessary for this. Hence, every man is, in a certain sense, unconsciously a worse man when he is in society than when acting alone; for he is carried by society and to that extent relieved of his individual responsibility. . . . Any large company composed of wholly admirable persons has the morality and intelligence of an unwieldy, stupid, and violent animal. The bigger the organization, the more unavoidable is its immorality and blind stupidity. Society, by automatically stressing all the collective qualities in its individual representatives, puts a premium on mediocrity, on everything that settles down to vegetate in an easy, irresponsible way. Individuality will inevitably be driven to the wall. This process begins in school, continues at the university, and rules all departments in which the State has a hand. In a small social body, the individuality of its members is better safeguarded; and the greater is their relative freedom and the possibility of conscious responsibility. Without freedom there can be no morality.” ~ Carl Jung (from The Relations Between the Ego and the Unconscious, p.169)

          • (continued . . . )

            Anarchism means a system of no rulers, not no leadership, which is an impossible thing. The prevailing culture is the parent of all parents and those who can create the culture through owning the media where ideas are exchanged really raise (indoctrinate) all human children. The Moon Landing Hoax & the 9/11 PsyOp are believed by 99.9% of the the people on earth. This would not be happening if their textbooks had chapters written by Dave McGowan and Simon Shack. That’s why before all else, before even trying to get free from the shackles of usury & legalized counterfeiting, there should be a firm resolve never to have a monopolized media. In recent years only the internet has provided us an escape from this sad predicament of a monoplized media, in 6 hands, serving Judeo-Masonic interests.

            Almost every person you meet can do at least one thing far better than you and in that activity, should you choose to pursue it, he becomes leader and you follower and vice versa. A division of labor economy works because of the inequality of all individuals, even identical twins, in everything except their basic humanity. That’s why you see some many WN’s calling non-White people sub-human, because to consider them human, they would have to give them the same basic, individual human rights that they seek for themselves and they don’t want to do that. They don’t want even the possibility of a meritocracy. Underneath all the rhetoric, all they really want is who they personally prefer to live amonst: people of the caucasian and European race. The only “democracy” that is valid, an so-called “limited democracy” within a republic should, by principle, be agreed to or contracted to by all individuals in the group. If I agree to abide by majority vote, then you can hold me to that contract, verbal or written. But the majority by itself has no moral authority whatsoever.

          • (continued . . . )

            The majority is just the mob that can use brute force against individuals to get what it wants at the expense of individuals and in violation of the win-win dialectic of civilization. It is an imposed win-lose with a moralizing (rather than really moral or giving more-of-all and more-from-all without sacrificing anyone in the process & only requiring the bearing of responsibilities for free choices) excuse. That’s what all of politics in all countries is doing. Imposing group force against individuals. That’s all it is behind all the facade. No wonder who gets in office, some individuals will win because they’re in the majority and others will lose because they happen to be in the minority and the biggest loser of all is the smallest minorities: the individual dissidents and free-thinkers or “outcasts” who don’t belong to any groups except those that respect the individual, i.e., the social groups of other dissidents like themselves.

            A ruler uses a carrot or a stick to take you where he, or those he is fronting for, want you to go, but where you do not really want to go. A leader makes you want to go where he’s going by showing you exactly why it’s to your “enlightened” benefit to do so. Once one mission is accomplished and the load is lightened from the bodies and spirits of the individuals in the social group being led, others join in and the reputation of the leader spreads. There are philosophical leaders who understand how the dynamics of leadership work in all areas and there are the leaders who excel in this or that field or task.

            By the way, is Greg Johnson the guy who lives in San Francisco and is a homosexual or is that just the people he interviews and promotes on his site?


            When the rights of the smallest minority of human, the individual, are protected, everybody is covered, including homos. But not a single one of these homos gets to impose his “group rights” on the rest of us and have any “parades” in our neighborhoods, the streets of which we would all privately own, all the people who own houses and business in that area, as in a closed off housing complex or gated community today, in an Anarchist or Libertarian society.

            Bottom line:

            There are 3 ways of organizing a social group:

            Through Tribalism or Collectivism: sacrifice all individuals to the tribe and the decisions, however unjustified, of he who becomes the voice of the tribe;

            Individualistic: sacrifice the cohesiveness of the tribe to neurotic and extreme individualism in blind pursuit of “creativity” and “originality”

            Synergistically or Synergetically (mean the same thing basically but Buckminster Fuller uses Synergetic): balancing of the individual and the tribe to the benefit of both – a win-win interaction but nothing to do with friggin Amway or selling MLM detergent to your cousins. lol

            The last is what Hitler was aiming at and would have probably eventually tried to do in his own way but wasn’t able to, due to 57 countries attacking him for defending Germans getting massacred in Poland.

            “We want to re-establish the value of personality as an eternal priority; that is, the creative genius of the individual. In this way, we want to sever ties with any appearance of a listless democracy. We want to replace it with the timeless awareness that everything great can only spring from the force of the individual personality, and that everything destined to last must again be entrusted to the abilities of the individual personality.” — Adolf Hitler, Berlin Speech, February 1933 Max Domarus, Hitler Reden und Proklamationen, p. 206; Translation quoted from Richard Tedor’s book “Hitler’s Revolution.”

            Remember that Hitler’s favorite philosophers were Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, so it’s not all that surprising that he thought this way:

            “Although men possess unequal powers, they nonetheless possess equal rights. Rights are not based on powers : because of the moral nature of justice, they are based on the fact that in each man the same will to live appears at the same stage of its objectivization. Yet this is valid only in respect of original and abstract rights, which man possesses as man. The property, likewise the honour which each man has acquired by means of his powers are in accordance with the measure and the nature of these powers and then extend to the sphere of his rights: it is here that equality therefore ceases. He who is better endowed or more active in this respect extends through his greater acquisitions, not his rights, but only the number of things to which they extend.” ~ Arthur Schopenhauer

            “He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

            “Small deeds done are better than great deeds planned.”
            Peter Marshall

            “Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Bullets, Bombs and Ballots. They’re the white-shoe boys! I sucked-up, bowed-down, was born on third-base and thought I hit a triple – my name’s Mitt Romney!” — Gerald Celente

            “If you can’t do great things, do small things in a great way.” ― Napoleon Hill

            “If you think you are too small to be effective, you have never been in bed with a mosquito.” —Betty Reese, American officer and pilot

            “What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.” — Pericles, Ancient Greek General and politician, approx. 430-431 B.C.

            “A hero is born among a hundred, a wise man is found among a thousand, but an accomplished one might not be found even among a hundred thousand men.” — Plato

      • (continued . . . )

        What people like Ezra Pound saw in Fascism (the surgical knife of Fascism was what Pound called it) and the more refined Fascist-inspired National Socialism of Hitler, was an immediate ideological organization which the defenders of a culture could switch to, at the drop of a serious threat to the culture, in order to quickly and effectively defend it. Self-Defense often requires violence and brutality and that’s why all militaries are purely hierarchical organizations where you follow orders. Everything depends on the quality of the leader. Conversely, an Anarchist organization is oriented to peacetime and creativity when the threats are removed. The two methods of organization should ideally be always available. The warrior classes of the society or those whose expertise is in fighting and winning physical battles should not be hamstrung, ever, by the organization which took these same humans out of the fight-or-flight law-of-the-jungle, kill-or-be-killed world.

        Of course, here also you have a symbiotic relationship between the creativity of the culture and the quality of the weaponry and strategy available to the warrior class. Either one without the other can only go so far. When they find the happy middle, i.e., a temperance without compromise, then they synergize with each other and made each other exponentially stronger than they would have been on their own.

        • Correction to last sentence: should be “make” not “made”

          • … and breathe in …

            Yiddy Yoda?

          • Negentropic says … “That’s why you see some many WN’s calling non-White people sub-human, because to consider them human, they would have to give them the same basic, individual human rights that they seek for themselves and they don’t want to do that. They don’t want even the possibility of a meritocracy. Underneath all the rhetoric, all they really want is who they personally prefer to live amonst: people of the caucasian and European race.”

            It is a trivial matter to observe that White nationalists generally press universal, humanist, anti-racist claims in their pursuit of mere survival. No surprise there, Whites are the only universalist, humanist, anti-racist tending-people around. So what you say against the proponents of White survival is not true. But even if it were, why not just leave us alone to live? Why create spurious reasons to advance the genocide of Whites unless you know you’re wrong to do so?

          • Don’t be shy! Negentropic

  • What?

    White Nationalists are anti-racist? Since when?

    What are you even talking about?

    I think you only meant “White People” in general and not WN’s.

    I’m not creating “spurious reasons.”

    You are just not interested in reasoning and reasonable behavior or anything else logical when it comes to non-Whites.

    You are certainly not interested in any “merit,” if it happens to be displayed by someone outside your own “race” and which might fairly out-compete by a mile persons of your own ethnicity. You are only interested in your own whims and preferences and the whims and preferences of those you deem “part of my race,” according to your own standards, which may or may not match that of another more or less “hardcore” WN, another way of saying “part of my ancient country club.”

    That’s fine.

    The Anarchist more-all-ity that protects “free choice” applies to ANY reason, rational or irrational, you might have to freely associate with ANYONE you want.

    But the problem is this: you are not interested in re-establishing “free choice” either.

    You want democracy or mob-rule by Whites, meaning, lowest-common-denominator majority dictatorship by Whites, manipulated and led by an elite of non-freemasonic Whites and not Jews and freemasonic whites. You are hoping that this elite will be comprised of righteous people who will not exploit you and your kind but seek to advance your nation through “righteous” means, as the leadership abilities of someone like Hitler, Mussolini or Oswald Moseley might have done.

    Except that you don’t apply “righteous means” to anyone but Whites, just like Jews and CI people.

    You think race alone will protect you automatically and through some magic genetic chemistry that transcends all.

    I don’t believe in magic and mumbo-jumbo, only hidden or occult know-ledge which is wrongly labeled “magic.” Valid knowledge that has been hidden, often deliberately, because in the wrong hands it can be extremely dangerous or destructive to tyranny, among other things.

    I only believe in the power of correct and t-root-ful ideas and the many forms these truths are capable of being expressed in, both conscious and subconsciously, communicated through all the senses and their applied metaphorical symbols, signs and higher level abstractions (symbols of sound in music, mathematical symbols for science, perfumes to convey romance or attraction, higher abstracted tastes that are nutrients for the spirit and mind, etc.) and not just the verbal form of communication. Ideas which do not poison the leafs of be-leaf but sustain them through almost any travail by laying down the principles of getting to the root cause of each problem and correcting it there, where it matters most.

    But then again, according to the people on Stormfront, I’m only a “mud” and an Armenian “dune coon,” so why listen to me? lol

    What possible relevance could what I say have on you in England?

    My own country is already 97% Armenian and will stay that way because they have extremely fierce and tough natives over there who don’t screw around for one minute. They go to war at the drop of a hat, especially if Turks are on the other side. That’s what kept them their language and culture for 2000 years of having no country.

    No relevance. None whatsoever.

    I’m not even White and don’t aspire to be either.

    As a matter of fact, even if you accepted me as “White,” I wouldn’t want any part of it.

    So stop reading my comments. lol

  • “No surprise there, Whites are the only universalist, humanist, anti-racist tending-people around. ” Actually not true. The fact is whites just do what Jews tell them to do and then complain

    Negentropic said, “You want democracy or mob-rule by Whites, meaning, lowest-common-denominator majority dictatorship by Whites, manipulated and led by an elite of non-freemasonic Whites and not Jews and freemasonic whites. ”

    Not true or let’s put it another way. White nationalism is run by Jews and therfore highly masonic. The pretend to resist it but it’s there to control dissent or white folks that might cause trouble if associating with the right sort of aware goy. This Negentropic is why you are still duped on Zander Fuerza AKA Brandon Martinez. Watch what they do , not what they say, right John?

  • @the next Acid-Trip (lol), hopefully a good one

    I’ve known Martinez for 6 years now or since he was 19 and posting under aliases before the ZCF site and moniker, not personally, but through online posts on each others’ threads. We both started out at Info underground, Ognir’s site after he quit running Concen (conspiracy central, their old forum is now closed down but still online; their torrents are still there and I think they have a new forum now too). BM is not always the nicest person, but he’s an amazingly intelligent guy and super-hard-working and dedicated. He’s a 24 hour a day journalist just like John and I wish he and John had never had internet drama years ago because they would make an incredible team, whether or not BM is still WN. I’m not WN and wouldn’t be even if I was “White,” because I haven’t been able to justify a purely collectivist attitude logically as being too good for anybody. I’ve been posting on John’s sites for almost 5 years. Why? Because he values free expression and debate very highly and has not censored me even once.

    You don’t have to be a collectivist to have value to impart. We can all learn from each other and push each other further and synergize if we find common ground and principles. But making group-think and “tribalism over all else and at any cost” the common principle short-circuits the finding of any other principles (the t-root disciplines of the Princedom that make healthy branches and leaves everywhere else as long as the principles are kept in mind) before the pursuit even begins.

    That’s why tribe and individual should have a symbiotic relationship, not an adversarial one. A balanced win-win interaction not the win-lose of parasites. Collectives should always be analyzed through the individual members and THOSE particular members only and how various combinations of members synergize in unique ways and make wholes greater than the sum of the parts.

    Most important of all, BM does not “find” the truth, he always “seeks” the truth. There is no “finding” that is ever final. He knows that the most he can do is to tap a tiny amount of the infinite and practically unknowable reservoir of t-root-ful know-ledge hidden on this mysterious planet. There is no “final” finding of truth anywhere, only mapping the territory with metaphors (every sense you have has its own metaphors or aggregation of symbols used to identify extremely complex phenomena) in more and more detail. The map is NEVER the territory in full, it helps you navigate the territory. Allegorical maps such as religions and fairy tales help people map the thick jungle of their spiritual landscape. Symbols can never fully become the reality they’re representing. That was either Aristotle’s mistake or Aristotle’s deliberate deception; either way be very careful of relying only on Aristotelian verbal logic. It is the reason people are often so easy to control because it fools people into thinking. It is explained in this famous essay by my favorite writer Nietzsche (a non-nationalist cultural elitist while he was alive, regardless of what his sister, who was responsible for making him the most widely read philosopher of the 20th century after his death, claimed):

    and also in this revolutionary book by Marshall McLuhan’s close colleague:

    just ignore the seemingly obligatory holohoax references that were probably why the book was published to a wide audience; they figure it like this: who’s going to even read and understand this “goy’s” book? Not many. But hey! It looks like he’s infected with our leftist clap-trap; let’s see if we can get him to put a few holohoax references in there to turd-up his punch bowl and if he agrees, or better yet, does it of his own accord, then and only then will we put up our precious fiat shekels and distribution channels on his behalf (lol).

    • Correction: this fragment “because it fools people into thinking” should be deleted for that particular sentence “It is the reason people are often so easy to control because it fools people into thinking” to make sense as just “It is the reason people are often so easy to control.

  • You see this guy over here? Not there (lol), here:

    He’s one of the top 10 or 20 Mixed-Martial-Arts instructors in the world, a Black-Belt Magazine hall-off-famer, and the top protege of the legendary Gene LeBell:

    • (continued . . . )

      Now imagine an entire country of millions of old-school macho males, all of them streetwise hustlers and proles, and 7 out of 10 of whom have, as their highest aspiration, to be as tough as that guy in the video. Well, there is a country like that right now. They don’t have much material wealth because they were under the Soviet boot for 70 years and before that under the thumb of various other regimes for close to 1600 years, but they kept their dignity and culture and pride, and no one could ever take that away from them, they even kept their ancient language and 99.9% of them speak it as their mother tongue, regardless of what other country they live in and what other languages they might speak to assimilate to the host culture. No material wealth was ever worth their identity and no amount of bloodshed and massacres either.

      And left me give you a lifetime money-back-guarantee right now, if you ever see ANY of these guys back down to anyone who tries to invade their space and dump on it without a death-match. But after the smoke settles, just look outside that country and you’ll see some of them making billions or raising half-Syrian revolutionary geniuses to make billions.

      • (continued . . . )


        Clara had an ectopic pregnancy and couldn’t have children. “In 1955, 9 years after their marriage, they decided to adopt a kid.”

        “Since early childhood Steve Jobs knew that he was adopted. “My parents never hid this from me,” Steve remembers. He remembers a scene: he is 6 years old, sitting on a lawn near his house and tells a neighbor girl about his adoption, “This means that your parents never wanted you? – the girl asked then. “It was like an electric shock, – Steve remembered. – I run away, tears flowed in streams from my eyes. When my parents found out about it, they looked into my eyes and said cutting each word: Not at all! You are special, this is why we have adopted you.”

        Jobs didn’t like when somebody called Paul and Clara “adoptive.”  He himself always said they were his real parents. “Paul and Clara are 100% my parents. And Joanna and Abdulfatah – are only a sperm and an egg bank. It’s not rude, it is the truth,” biographer Walter Isaacson quotes Steve Jobs as saying. – See more at: