Is Competition Ethical?

No, its litterally gonna be a village in the forest called Computer Village, famous for its lumberyard and its microchip hut.

Uh-huh, I see…

I know how to make microchips.

And what do you do with them?

Bag and sell’m with recipes for home made micro-dip.
Smerica, Dude.

They are part of my stationary circus.

Anarcho Primitivism

Screw anarcho-primitivism, I’m making a circus right next to Computer Village. It’s going to have all sorts of amazing attractions, like the world’s fastest portable rollercoaster, magic odor portapotties that don’t stink, in fact the whole park is gonna smell like wonderful aromas of cedar pine and eucalpytus oil. Trixie’s Great and Powerful and Amazing Circus is gonna have seven wonders, including but not limited to giant Vandegraff generators, perpetual motion machines, freaks, hermaphrodites, trannies, you name it, we got it. The Home of the Fantastic Fabulous Ferrous wheel, its a play on words, an electromagnet powered ferrous wheel. It’s even gonna have all the beta testers of the DNA machine, I’m sure theyll have some sort of genetic deformities that people’ll pay to see. The main gig is a paytoplay nerf gun that is so innaccurate that noone will hit it even from 5 feet away. Costs 5 dollars to play, so I will make a lot of $$. Theres no animal cruelty in my circus, since there’s no animals. Humans are used as animals.

Here are some of the outfits going to be in my circus.
Joker, since you are a clown, I may hire you as a carnie, but only if you promise not to kill anybody unless I give you the night signal. That’s what the nightride is for, I get all the people I don’t like in one coaster, and something mysteriously goes wrong with the magnet, causing a mysterious power outage for the night, and the coaster to go off the rails. Damage is minimal and the ride should be ready to go by morning.

I still need an example of what you’re talking about. How do both socialism and capitalism lead to the same lethal outcome? Would the stock market crash of 1929 be an example?

Thanks for these other examples. The Civil War that resulted from the emancipation of the slaves is an example of many other uprisings in history that resulted from the loss of certain commodities and sources of income. Mobs will rise up when they lose their jobs. The mafia rose up when people lost their alcohol. The French rose up when they lost their food.

Now compare this to the stock market crash of 1929. Not quite the same thing. The crash wasn’t a result of the loss of a highly demanded commodity or loss of sources of incomes; it was the result of bank failures. People lost faith in the major banks of America. If money is the blood of the economy, then banks are the heart. In 1929, the US experienced the worst heart attack recorded in its history.

This is comparable to the post-apocalyptic scenarios in which it is more than just this or that form of life that goes extinct–like this or that commodity or job–for that is the normal course of evolution: one species dies and another takes its place, just as one commodity or job dies and others take their place (this is what we’re talking about in the case of robots taking over the jobs of humans). What happens in post-apocalyptic scenarios is that the very foundations of life, the basic necessities, become impossible: the air becomes toxic, a depleted o-zone allows the sun to burn the skin, the water is undrinkable, food sources are all too scarce, etc. This is more comparable to the stock market crash of 1929–the basic necessities for the whole economy became stulted, that on which any commodity, any job, depended. The blood flow stopped–money wasn’t being exchanged–there was no point to working, to selling. Why would you work, why would you attempt to sell, when you know you won’t get any money for it? But then why would anyone give their money in exchange for work or commodities when no one’s selling or working? A catch-22 indeed.

Human beings are different from other animals–they have their unique idiosyncrasies–but this doesn’t make them non-animals. Unless you’re saying humans beings emerged from a totally different kind of existence (metaphysical?) and that the current belief that we evolved from primates is wrong, you have to concede that we are animals. We may be unique, we may have evolved with certain traits or abilities that make us “special”, but we haven’t thereby transcended our animality. That would be like saying ostriches are not birds because of their uniquely long necks.

That is a possibility, I will admit.

Right. What we’re talking about here is a case of one species going extinct and another replacing it. This is not the elimination of life all together. While taxi and truck driving jobs are eliminated, AI and technology jobs are created. Of course, the taxi and truck drivers can’t simply merge into the AI and technology industry–they aren’t trained, not educated in that regard–just as the endangered species can’t just join up with the species emerging as their replacements.

What it would take to stop the economy all together is the scenario of a wholesale robot take-over–machines taking over all jobs that humans once performed. This would stult the economy because with robots doing everything for free, there would be no need to exchange money for their services or their products. But as I described above, this scenario is not quite the devastating picture of typical post-apocalyptic scenes–where the air is toxic, the water undrinkable, the sun scorching the skin and making life all but impossible–but more like a Utopian paradise where robots take care of everything for free and man is left to pursue nothing but his own passions.

hahaha… this is dualism… violence could work if there is a change of mindset that influences it… same for non violent actions. Both are thus rational. Being pro-life, I choose non-violence. Violence means that it would be extremely costly in term of human lives for the same result.

The Mind always decides. That the 1st of the Principles, I was talking of earlier. But the world dominant structure expects us to initiate irrational violence/non violence. And that is why nothing has changed for about 4000 years.

psychopathy (fear based system) is contagious, since sounds/emotions have an electric vibratory effect or resonance, which tears everything down. Empathy has the highest and most beneficial resonance.

GIB, I will get back to you after the weekend when I have a steadier internet connection.


Here’s some further thoughts:

Money is like the gear that keeps the economy churning. It is that which, by exchange, gives force to production and trade. By that, I mean that as money is exchanged from one hand to another, products and services are exchanged in the opposite direction. Thus, it is like a gear:


Money goes one way, that causes goods and services to go the other way.

Money also circulates. As it exchanges hands, it might go from one hand to another to another, and conceivably end up in the first person’s hands. It is therefore cyclical. Production is not. Production is the process by which natural resources are converted into artificial products, and eventually into waste. It is therefore more like a conveyor belt than a gear. Money continues to be the gear that moves the conveyor belt, but a conveyor belt has a starting point at which initial resources are placed, a through-put region in which the resource is processed, and an end point at which it is consumed (and thereafter becomes waste). Production, therefore, is not cyclical but linear.

Money, in other words, is the gear that converts this:


Into this:


Now the so-called “green” movement is the movement that strives to convert the conveyor belt into a gear, to alter the processing of natural resources from waste production to renewed resources, a process by which the motion of production cycles just like a gear rather than a linear conveyor belt. But the hope that all production can be cyclical is about as vein as the hope that an eternal motion machine can be invented (and for the same reason).

I will have more thoughts later.

The eternal motion machine has already been invented. It is called the Universe.

True dat. But talk to Amorphos. He has some interesting views on infinity.

I’d say that retaliatory violence is okay.

The idea that peace is an illusion is promoted by slaves who have become desensitized to violence. It’s an excuse people use to avoid fighting against the real enemy, instead preferring to fight against scapegoats.

Joker is a slave. By this I don’t only mean you, I also mean Batman’s Joker.

What is the difference between a prisoner and a slave?

Prisoner: an individual with a limited freedom to act.
Slave: an individual with a freedom to act, and who acts, in a way that he did not choose.

But the main difference lies in the fact that prisoners refuse to become desensitized (thus enduring suffering) whereas slaves choose to desensitize themselves (thus experiencing relief and pleasure.)

There is a difference between VIOLENCE and SUFFERING. Violence is objective, independent of perception; suffering is subjective, dependent on perception. In fact, we can say that suffering is the sensation of violence.

Peace is the absence of violence. Pleasure is the absence of suffering. The two are not one and the same because suffering and violence are not one and the same. The absence of suffering, for example, does not indicate the absence of violence.

Our perception is never complete and there is no sign that it will ever be complete. Rather, at any point in time, our perception is limited, allowing us to sense only a selection of what’s going on in reality. But though our perception is never complete, it is extensible, which means we can make it “more complete” by extending it. And just as we can extend it, so we can shrink it.

From this come two different types of peace: the utopian peace of liberal hedonists (e.g. James and his MIJOT) and the salvational peace of radical ascetics (e.g. me.)

The utopian peace is in fact no peace at all. It is not an absence of violence, but merely an absence of suffering. It is HEDONISM different from the hedonism of conquerors and other barbarians only in that it is PASSIVE. Make no mistake about it: these people who call themselves liberals are merely interested in their own, and at best their own group’s, survival and pleasure. Hence, they are more than happy to tweak their perception of violence – to desensitize themselves – as it suits them.

Think of a teacher who consents to BORE THE FUCK OUT of her students simply because THAT’S WHAT THE SCHOOL EXPECTS HER TO DO IF SHE’S TO EARN A LIVING. She willfully overrides her inner voice that notifies her that she’s commiting an act of violence because what is more important to her is not freedom and peace but survival and pleasure. This is the “passive” violence of liberals (I use scare quotes because there’s nothing passive about it, no harm can be done through passivity, and in fact, it is precisely passivity that hese people lack, but the reason it is called passive is because it is less active than the overt violence of traditionalists.) This is how people are made to become MORE ASOCIAL which means LESS FRIENDLY AND EMPATHETIC and more and more COMPETITIVE in a way which is NOT SENSIBLE.

And to consent to do violence unto others is to consent to others doing the same violence onto you, and this is quite simply because what’s occuring in the background is the ELIMINATION OF PERCEPTION OF VIOLENCE which allows one to experience as pleasure that which was initially experienced as suffering.

The utopian peace of liberals is infinite. Just like how the feudalism of traditionalists is infinite. They have no end.

And the only reason clowns such as HaHaHa are complaining is because the coming utopia is taking too long to come . . . which is why decide to take things in their own hands and desensitize themselves in a different way.

You cannot be anti-violence and pro-life at the same time. Being pro-life means being pro-violence. If you want to be anti-violence you must also be anti-life.

If you are pro-life that might suggest that you are actually anti-suffering and not necessarily anti-violence.

sorry it took so long… will we ever get out of monetary dualism? this is how I look at the core issue. If money has enslaved further one century at the time, most likely the concept was meant to enslave. Otherwise people would have see it come. But we ought to understand that if everybody follows the money within his own small paradigm, objectively, those who have more knowledge, a better grasp of the whole, will always gobble up people’s labor/income using the inherent inertia of such a system. In fact, anybody acting for the sake of his survival ends up servicing the forces against him/her. Free market theories ignore these forces, which could be countered if the system was fully transparent, though if so, collusion for profits wouldn’t be possible anymore.

sure, a fully transparent system looks like an utopia but right now, that’s the negative version of that same utopia that dictates the fate of man.

In fact, it is not money as a concept that I focuses on but “profit making and speculation” bringing about the same cycles of destruction. In my view, it is the paramount of sadomasochism. How can parents inflict such a hardship on their descendants? And if so, what is morality to start with?

direct self-defense is logical but where does it start? thats a marathon debate, and dont have enough time for this. But a direct physical threat demands an immediate response. What I am referring to is a major type of threat that can only be addressed with the mind, intellectually, and which is generally the result of giving away. one’s consent, and against which physical violence cannot do a thing. This is something that escapes peace activists and makes them look naive to the extreme. Peace movements only address the surface, hence their failure.

How sheltered minds ponder inane questions.

Is nature ethical?

Nature is balanced toward an implacable zero sum game, and we cause way more unnecessary misery that it should because the society teaches that it is ethical to take more than what we put in.

I really dont pay much attention to any denomination. In my view, there are only two systems, centralization and its opposite, decentralization.

Ending slavery is america was above all about economics, beside some big plantation owners it didnt make the masses happy, slaves were taking over jobs and created a trade imbalance between the north and south. war on slavery was inevitable but not only the free the slaves. Robotics is just another replay of a monetary faulty premise.

the Eden tale is highly telling in the sense that adam and eve most likely got expelled from paradise because they wanted to know why everything was free of charge, quit taking everything for granted. But also we should keep in mind that god created the serpent and the three of knowledge. Paradise was thus not perfect and drama free on purpose, also offered the choice to know the origins of good and evil. Same with the evolution of knowledge: the more knowledge progresses, the more we are being brought back, it is a loop, to the worse fear ever, which is that of paradise itself. It is interesting that many religions use such a dualism to the extreme. Nothing has changed over the last 2000 years, religion is still politics/cultural marxism and otherwise. People would rather die for their beliefs than accepting freedom and benevolence as a model.