The "far-right" and the "far-left" both distrust the banksters.
The "far-left" and the "far-right" both distrust centralized government.
The "far-right" and the "far-left" both distrust the globalists.
The "far-left" and the "far-right" both distrust the CORPORATE MOBSTERS.
The globalist-banksters don't believe in "communism".
The globalist-banksters promise "communism" but never deliver.
IT'S THE FUCKING CENTRISTS WHO TRUST "BIG GOVERNMENT".
IT'S THE FUCKING CENTRISTS WHO TRUST "GLOBAL CORPORATIONS".
We are the members of "Do-it-or-DIE" (D-ie, D-ie, Die).
Do what we say - or we will kill you.
In 6 minutes and 30 seconds, YOU ARE A CULT MEMBER
Skip to 1072 seconds, YOU ARE A CULT MEMBER
Cults are everywhere.
There are little pieces of cults in all things.
We all have so many of those "mental traps" already.
We just can't see the traps from the inside.
Skip to 3325 seconds, YOU ARE A CULT MEMBER
Suppose, you, you're, out of work.
You don't have anything to eat.
You look for a job.
It's considered a wonderful thing to get a job.
It wasn't always that way.
You go back to the origins of the Industrial Revolution.
Mid 19th Century.
Take a look at the literature, the working-class literature.
The idea of "having a job" was considered a, a, totally, intolerable assault.
On elementary human dignity and human rights.
Everything you will ever need to know about politics was explained in 1945,
The "lesson" of ANIMAL-FARM is that FEUDAL HIERARCHY is "the enemy" (DEMAND HOLACRACY + RCV).
The "lesson" of ANIMAL-FARM is that government promises are MEANINGLESS.
The "lesson" of ANIMAL-FARM is that whoever controls "the dogs" (military-police-cult aged males) can scare everyone else into abject submission (SO THEY CAN LITERALLY GET AWAY WITH MURDER AND OR EPSTEIN).
IT'S THE FUCKING CENTRISTS WHO TRUST "BIG GOVERNMENT".
IT'S THE FUCKING CENTRISTS WHO TRUST "GLOBAL CORPORATIONS".
RADICAL ANTI-CENTRIST PROPAGANDA,
SEARCH ROKU TV FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH YOUTUBE FOR "LOGICZOMBIE" LINK
SEARCH LBRY.TV FOR "LOGICZOMBIE" LINK
Human "creativity" is (EITHER) caused by previous influences (OR) indistinguishable from random - - WILL cannot be random - - FREE action cannot be caused by previous influences - - FREE is incompatible with WILL.
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Happy Christmas!
Scathing critique - incoming! lol ...
Far left/right are the same shite - Statism, authoritarianism.(cultism).
Saying 'Free' an 'Will' are incompatible is incorrect.
eg....I want to go and make another cup of coffee.
I want to create something.(a coffee).
My free will, to freely create the cup of coffee, has to be recognized as the driving force to the creativity.
If you argue there is no free because I need to make the coffee so I don't die of thirst, is saying nothing is free will - we all have to eat, drink, sleep - so these drivers are a constant. (unless you voluntarily kill yourself).
Free will -outside of these fundamental drivers that we must all adhere to - is a prerequisite to creativity.
It's no coincidence that in totalitarian states - all creativity is subdued or banned. (state propaganda doesn't count! lol).
.....Pedantry over - good post matey!
I know a fair number of "right-wingers" and they're overwhelmingly libertarian (anarchist).
In fact, I don't know a single "right-winger" who thinks government is the solution.
I know a fair number of "left-wingers" and they're overwhelmingly libertarian (anarchist).
In fact, I don't know a single "left-winger" who thinks government is the solution.
THE ONLY PEOPLE I CAN FIND WHO TRUST THE MEDIA AND THINK GOVERNMENT SHOULD FIX EVERYTHING ARE THE GOD-DAMNED CENTRISTS.
Surely your sentence expression is artistic!😲
Surely your insight was excellent. I remember the proverb that women are less capable of history and politics than men.Late but Merry Christmas! Dear comrade @logiczombie,
Right now, left-wing and right-wing political parties around the world all blame the government. THE CENTRISTS are religiousists who want BIG GOVERNMENT.
All humans cry out that they are scientific rationalists, but in the end the war of religions will determine the final winner.😄
Merry Christmas to you too!
Yes, the "war of religions" (cults) also known as "the cult(ure) war" is the framework, the playing-field, the board upon which the "game" is played.
We've been brainwashed into thinking "the game" is about $$$, but everyone who thinks that is DOOMED.
When you decide to compile a cup of coffee, do you have a motive?
Is there something in your history that causes you to desire coffee?
Is your action part of a long, unbroken chain of cause-and-effect that stretches back to the moment of your birth?
Or, is your incidental ingestion of burnt bean water 100% random?
....thirst/caffeine addiction.
Rather than trying to find the answers to the meaning of life (exercise in futility, and a waste of time imo), I focus nowadays on what is real - in terms of time fractals (everything is the same, repeating, just a matter of scales).
MY scale , is the the time that I'm on the planet.
The rest (for me) is intellectual masturbation - and without any possibility of ever reaching orgasm.
Why do you think the left are so miserable? lolol- their entire world view is built around meta-narratives - that never satisfy 'the now'.
(I'd be miserable to, masturbating for a lifetime, and never cumming!)
I now try to stay focused on reality.
And cum, everyday!lol.
...It seems like a logical choice.
It is possible that this is a fallacy, because the same logic cannot be applied to the universe in general. If everything is part of an unbroken chain of causes and effects, everything necessarily goes back to the beginning of the universe, which is the cause of everything else, but if so, what caused the beginning of the universe? Has it no cause? So it's something that virtually happened "randomly". Does it have a cause? So what caused that other thing? And so ad infinitum. A point will be reached where there can be no other precedent cause, and therefore everything is equally random.
If the origin of the entire universe, and the cause of all causes, is random, why doubt that many other events, such as those of our will, are also of random origin?
The problem, I think, is in seeing the cause as something that precedes the effect, and not as something that is simultaneous to it. That leads us to many aporias. I talked about it from a presentist perspective a few months ago here.
I'm honored by your attention.
What you seem to be missing here is that "freewill" is not compatible with in-determinism (random causes and or uncaused events).
In order to "solve" the "freewill" question we don't need to know "the origin of the initial singularity" (which is beyond our epistemological limits).
In order to "solve" the "freewill" question, we only need to know that ALL events are either CAUSED or UNCAUSED or some combination of the two.
(IFF) all events are CAUSED (THEN) determinism makes your decisions (not "you")
(IFF) SOME events are CAUSED and some are UNCAUSED (THEN) UNCAUSED (indistinguishable from random) makes your decisions for you (not "you")
There is no escape.
There is no haven of ignorance in which "freewill" can hide itself.
All motives (goals) that drive your "decision making" are caused by previous events.
And the only "alternative" is that some of your motives (goals) are "uncaused" (making them indistinguishable from random).
A random action is not an action that you "choose".
A random action is not an act of WILL.
No, free will means that our decisions are in fact caused, but by us. We are causal agents, we are the cause of the things we do, and since our actions are caused by us, the only thing that determines our decisions is ourselves.
No, because in that case it cannot be traced back to antecedent causes to our will. Our will would be the cause of our decisions, and we cannot go back to past events to explain our will.
If we start from the premises you have given, namely, that there is an unbreakable chain of causes and effects, in a linear view of time, and in which causes always precede effects, then it is inevitable to ask ourselves about the original cause of everything, and in that case, it would not be beyond our epistemological limits because it would be a necessary consequence of what we already know.
It is only necessary to realize that the first cause of all could not be caused by another antecedent cause to understand that determinism itself is contradictory. And, again, this does not escape what we can know, because it is a necessary consequence of its own premises.
In my opinion, it is not that there are events that are uncaused and events that are caused, all events must necessarily be caused, but the causes of those events are not caused, because if they were caused, they would cease to be causes and would become effects. Causes should be, by definition, uncaused, and it is a great mistake, in my opinion, to speak of causes as if they were effects.
The motives are not caused by past events, but by present conditions, if I am thirsty and want water, I do so because in the present my body is dehydrated, not because I have not drunk water in hours. In any case, that I have motives to do something does not mean that I am going to do it, I may be thirsty and decide not to drink water, therefore, although my motives may be caused by external circumstances, not my decision, which is influenced but not determined.
When you make a choice, are you suggesting that your genetics and memories (physical and mental capacities and history) are NOT the cause of that choice?
Exactly. All those things affect us, and influence us, but lately we make the decision ourselves, whatever we are. Saying that your brain makes the decisions for you is often contradictory because the same people who affirm this usually believe that we are the brain, so it's just another way of saying that we make the decisions.
When you talk about genetics, are you talking about something that is you, or are you talking about something external to us?
And about memories, we decide whether to anchor ourselves to the past or to let go of it, but the past, which no longer exists, cannot influence us. The memories will continue to affect us as long as we hold onto them, but we can decide to release them whenever we want.
That's not actually what I'm proposing.
I'm arguing for a mix of both CAUSED and UNCAUSED events.
This is, in-determinism.
My mistake.
You eat be-CAUSE you are hungry.
The EFFECT of your hunger is eating.
Your eating (which is an EFFECT) is THEN ALSO the CAUSE of your elimination.
Every identifiable event is BOTH a CAUSE and an EFFECT.
The only real cause there, if it is an inevitable chain of events, would be hunger then. Because everything else is a direct consequence of hunger.
Anyway, I think the real cause would be the decision to eat and not hunger. But for the example it is the same.
Are "present conditions" the EFFECT of "previous conditions"?
I don't think so, present conditions are present causes or present effects that have no contact with the past, since the past does not exist.
The only thing from the past that affects the present are those things that started in the past, but still continue in the present, therefore, they are not past but present. An example of that would be precisely our memories. The past cannot affect us, but as long as we live remembering the past in the form of memories, then this memory (which is in the present) will continue to affect us, but not the past.
And your decision to NOT drink at that particular moment would presumably have some MOTIVE.
Maybe, but in any case, there are motives to do all kinds of things, but I decide what to do, and the reason for that decision is precisely that I want it that way, that is, my will (want = will).
I drink or I don't drink, I do this thing or I do that, because I decided to do so, because I want to, and that is my will. There may be motives to do one thing or another, but ultimately, I do them because I want to.
Well, "simultaneous causality" is also incompatible with "freewill".
Happy Christmas!
Thanks for the Scathing Critique!
It's always an honor to speak with you!
Dear comrade @logiczombie, Your poetic and symbolic metaphor is hard for me to understand.
I think the Industrial Revolution occurred when Britain colonized India. Because Britain dominated India's textile industry, it was able to dominate the European economy.
Britain initiated an industrial revolution to mass-produce textiles.
When Britain won the Napoleonic Wars and emerged as Europe's greatest power, European nations began to imitate Britain's Industrial Revolution.
European countries imitated British colonization of India, creating foreign colonies of European empires.
Eventually, the British Industrial Revolution was born out of the confrontation of European empires for supremacy. World War III is not erupting because the United States is now overpowering European empires.
Before the Industrial Revolution, most people worked on farms, or learned some practical SKILL, like cooking, or sewing, or carpentry, or somesuch.
Most people also developed artistic skills.
Before photography, MOST PEOPLE would sketch people and places they personally wanted to remember.
Before radio and recording, MOST PEOPLE would learn to play instruments and sing songs they liked (without fear of being sued out of existence).
The idea of "working in a factory" or "working in an office" was considered dehumanizing.
The idea of "working in a factory" or "working in an office" was only considered "tolerable" if it was TEMPORARY.
Now, it's common to see people work their entire adult lives with no realistic hope of any true OWNERSHIP and their reward is to DIE AT THEIR DESK.
When people talk about "the dignity of working for a living" THEY'RE MISSING THE ENTIRE POINT.
THE ONLY FREEDOM COMES FROM OWNING LAND THAT PRODUCES FOOD YOU CAN EAT.
IF YOU OWN LAND AND YOU DO NOT NEED TO FEAR STARVATION, YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO FREELY CHOOSE TO WORK FOR SOMEONE ELSE.
YOU WILL NOT ENDANGER YOUR LIFE OR HEALTH WORKING YOURSELF INTO AN EARLY GRAVE BECAUSE NOBODY CAN FORCE YOU TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST YOUR WILL IF YOU OWN LAND THAT PRODUCES FOOD YOU CAN EAT.
Countries that did not achieve the Industrial Revolution still exist as colonies of Western empires. If my country cannot achieve the industrial revolution, it cannot have my land and possessions.
Countries that have not achieved the 4th Industrial Revolution at present will also become colonies.
Your words are theoretically correct, but practically impossible.
I take my history lessons from the Caddo.
FERTILE land is life.
The global industrialist mobsters have seduced everyone into thinking (the$cult$of) "money" will "solve everything".
Now imagine what would happen if you air-dropped $100 bills on the first-nations 600 years ago.
Would that paper "fix them"?
Imagine you built schools in their villages 600 years ago (to teach them "english" and "maths").
Would this "fix them"?
the industrialist mobsters want you to feel POWERLESS.
the industrialist mobsters only win when they can tell YOU what you want.
the industrialist mobsters have won when you dream about $$$ and you forget that true WEALTH is FERTILE LAND + FAMILY.
I am not good at English, so it is difficult to understand the content of the video. I will try to listen though.
Thanks for the good video.
thank you very much for the post ,have a great weekend
Thank you very much for a great post, have a great weekend and good mood
Voters Trust Big Government.
Can you vote out big corrupt governments?
Nothing to do with Left/Right/Center imo.
You either have FAITH that your vote matters or you don't. You either have FAITH that the RULER you SELECT, will follow their OATH/PROMISE. In our current time if you still have that Faith, you are surely hallucinating. Only the hearts of men will change this. Not a 'left/right' paradigm. The left/right need to band together temporarily, and Bleed on the 'tree of liberty'.
"I'M GOING TO VOTE BIG GOVERNMENT OUT"
"I'M GOING TO CHOOSE A LESSER EVIL because Evil is good!
A DAY OF THE ROPE OR NOTHING!
I'm not suggesting a vote for change.
I'm just trying to point out that we shouldn't be in love with our corporate MOBSTERS.
Voters are in love with their masters. They can't wait to pick a new one and walk away. The left is celebrating killing "Fascism" and the right wants to kill 'Communism', and both are missing that we already have both. Corporatism.
Votes don't matter except for show. If they did matter that would be a different story. All 'Right/Left' needs to stop, and address the ELEPHANT before even THINKING about 'Voting'. Voters now, are ENSLAVING US ALL!
100% THIS.
In 16 minutes and 2 seconds,
Your balance is below 0.3 HIVE. Your account is running low and should be replenished. Check out the Dustsweeper FAQ here: https://hive.blog/dustsweeper/@dustsweeper/dustsweeper-s-faq
Thank you very much for the information
In 12 minutes and 40 seconds,
Thank you very much for the video
IS CHINA FILING COPYRIGHT CLAIMS ON MATERIAL IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?
THE HOLY MOUNTAIN
Every map you'll ever use in your life is flat.
For all practical intents and purposes, the ground you walk upon is flat.
What I want to know is, why does anyone care if NASA has orchestrated a world-wide deception campaign?
In practical, real-world terms, from the average working-class perspective, what difference does it make?
Why does any of this matter?
And why are people so quick to vilify and dehumanize people who hold this viewpoint?
Do people who rail against the "idiot" flat-earthers also believe all Muslims should be thrown into the nearest insane asylum?
Isn't any "sincerely held belief" afforded the same protections as the other "religions"?
At what point should we force everyone on this perfectly flat planet to think and believe exactly the same thing?
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
IT'S A FALSE CHOICE.
The word, "capitalism" is often conflated with "commerce".
Then people say, "you can't be against capitalism because you have money in your pocket" (this is a combination of the "strawman" and "red-herring" logical fallacies).
What capitalism actually distills to is FEUDAL HIERARCHY.
A capitalist believes a business OWNER should be treated like a GOD-KING.
A socialist on the other-hand, believes EMPLOYEES SHOULD GET A VOTE.
Socialism is basically DEMOCRACY FOR CORPORATIONS.
EMPLOYEE-OWNED BUSINESSES ARE SHOCKINGLY COMPATIBLE WITH INDIVIDUAL-OWNED BUSINESSES.
This means that SOCIALISM is compatible with CAPITALISM.