Let’s try starting where I left off in the last post: Wealth is produced by human ingenuity and such ingenuity must be nurtured with its own rewards. The only reason communist dictatorships can continue to exist is because there are places on Earth where there isn’t one.

Machines, i.e., Artificial Intelligence, cannot innovate.

“Yes, they can!” they say. “You don’t know how amazing they are!” They are amazing – at mimicking human ingenuity. But what they do is utterly fake. They are mimics, not the real thing. They can’t think, they have no desires, no motives, no aims, no needs, no insticts to avoid pain, and no capacity to experience joy – hence they can not and never will innovate. They are tools. If you remember from a recent post, I told you, it isn’t even a worthy goal to hope that one day they will be capable of such things because then they would be no different from Man himself and hence will have to be treated as we treat other men – they will have rights. If we continued to treat them as tools at that point, we would be slave owners and the machines would be justified in fighting us. We certainly do not want that.

So, AI will never be alive.

Now hold on – what does this word alive mean? If you ask a biologist you will get winding paragraphs of details about cells and reproduction. They will do anything they possibly can to avoid the obvious definition. This is what allows them to be so easily fooled. And I mean fooled, because there are people who want you to believe this about AI because it provides them with a handy hiding place. “I didn’t do it! It wasn’t me! It was Alice the AI that murdered all those people!”

Handy, isn’t it?

So what is the definition of life? Here it is: SELF-PURPOSIVENESS. Every living organism lives for its own purpose. It acts to achieve its own ends. That is what life is.

AI does not act to achieve its own ends and never will because Man has no means whatsoever to instill such a thing in a machine. We don’t understand how it works in a paramecium let alone ourselves! And the mother of invention is necessity, the necessity that is the aim of life itself to survive and thrive. There is no innovation without this.

Again, the people who want you to believe that AI will achieve consciousness are hoping to fool you because it is THEIR ends they hope to achieve with this extraordinary tool and THEIR motives they wish to conceal.

In the end, if the elites attempt to use AI in this manner and attempt to create a Soviet-style world, the pie of wealth will STILL shrink and all their troubles will have been for nought.

****

Note: the image above is my feeble attempt to use the Midjourney Bot to create an image for this post. Seriously, it’s too much work. But if you would like to try it! I’m looking for an image of a man (or men) hiding behind a curtain, (in a similar way to the Wizard of Oz), who are using a computer to control a robot (or however you would depict AI) in such a way as to make it seem that the robot is in control of a distopian city landscape. I think you get the idea… just as the elites would be fooling you into believing it was the AI’s desires being achieved. Can you get it to kick out a better image before a real artist could draw one?

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

Wait, what do you mean they can never obtain it? The Soviet Union lasted for quite some time and there were wealthy elites there. Yes, this is true. But these elites remained wealthy only because the West existed. Let’s take a more obvious example. Instead of the Soviet Union, let’s use North Korea. Imagine the whole world like North Korea. How wealthy would the elites of such a world be?

Mightily poor indeed.

That’s because the pie of wealth is not of a fixed dimension. Remember, wealth is not how much money you have, but rather the action potential you have given your surroundings. If you are stranded alone on an island like Tom Hanks is in Cast Away, what will make you wealthier? A million dollars or a fishing pole? Nobody in their right mind would take the million dollars. The pie of wealth on the remote island is quite small and money plays no part in it.

Now, if there were other people around the pie could grow. People could now divide up the labor, save up supplies, treat each other’s injuries, etc. As a civilization grows the pie of saved up wealth grows, too. We sometimes call this capital. Now keep in mind, capital is NOT money. Money can represent capital if and only if you live somewhere where you can spend it. The concept wealth and the concept money are not equivalent.

When the pie is very large it is hard for people to imagine that it can shrink. To help you understand, let’s say you’re on that island and you have managed to save up an enormous store of food. Every day you add on average two fish to the store. Generally, you only eat one, so the store continues to grow. You aren’t too worried – until one day you hurt yourself. You can’t fish for a while. The stores start to shrink. You might not be too worried if you know you’ll be back on your feet in a few days. But what if you aren’t? The stores continue to shrink. If you’re not sure how much is in storage, you might feel safe for a while. You won’t necessarily notice the stores are shrinking until you start to see the back wall of your storage shed – and by then the situation is dire.

In a large economy the way we know the pie is potentially shrinking is rising prices.[1] A communist society has no prices – hence no means of protection from the danger of a shrinking pie. This is probably why elites prefer fascism.[2] The price system remains even though property has essentially been outlawed. But fascism, as a form of socialism, also results in a shrinking pie. Indeed, the less freedom people have to act in their own interests, the more the pie shrinks. This is an unavoidable law of existence.

In a place like North Korea the pie is very small indeed. So how is it that the elites there can live so well? They can because there is a pie outside of North Korea and that pie is positively enormous. If there was no pie outside, the elites would have nothing but their own tiny pie and while their piece of it would be relatively larger than that of the slaves upon which they depend, they would be quite poor compared to you who are reading this post right now.

It’s for this reason that the elites, if they wish to remain wealthy – and I think they do – need a place where Natural Law is practiced. You see, I don’t think they want just relative wealth. They want the pie to continue to grow. They want innovation. They want to conquer a whole host of issues they currently face.

Just one example would be aging. Many of them are getting old – and ways to delay the effects of aging are more than on the technological horizon today. Some of them are already here. But without free individuals to study, discover, and innovate, the elites will not gain this remarkable technology.

Hence there must remain at least one place on Earth where Natural Law is practiced in order to attract the best and brightest minds. I think America is that place. The philosophy of freedom still exists here. It’s so deeply engrained in the culture that even the long-lasting and patient attempts to destroy it have largely failed. For them, I think it is better to change gears and at least partially embrace the libertarian ideals that have started to take hold.

There will probably always be some degree of fascism, at least until people start to understand the definition of this term. But the elites must know that if they want their pie to grow, it has to remain minimal. The optimal growth only occurs in a society that practices Natural Law. Maybe they are willing to do with less than optimal – but shrinking – that would not be wise.

Anyway, these are just my observations based on my own knowledge and what I see happening in the world around me at this time. I can’t really know what the elites are up to. They could indeed be dumb enough to attempt to destroy it all. That remains to be seen.

[1] It’s actually quite a bit more complicated than this in our modern economy due to inflation of the money supply. I have a short book coming out shortly that will help you understand this better. I’ll keep you posted.

[2] Many of you will need this term defined. Here it is: fascism – A doctrine that advocates the preservation of private property in terms of profit, but posits that all private property should be regulated and controlled by the state – i.e., maintenance of the appearance of private property when in actuality it has been outlawed.

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

In a nutshell, monism is the idea that the universe is made up of only one kind of thing – often, in the modern world, that means material things, i.e., there is no such thing as an immaterial soul or spirit or mind or ideas.

It would probably be easier to understand if it was called “one-ism.”

Dualism, on the other hand, is the idea that the universe is made up of two fundementally different types of things – usually this means, for example, mind and body, or the mind and the physical world.

Descartes is probably one of the most famous philosophers to discuss this concept. They are a big part of his proofs of the existence of God and of the soul, which appear in his Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy (I recommend the version translated by Donald A. Cress, which I’ve linked.)

What made Descartes’ view a bit controversial was his use of the term substance (which, since he wasn’t writing in English, is somewhat debateable, but let’s go with it). He said that the world of ideas (or mind or soul), was a different substance from the substance of the physical world. The word substance in English implies the material world, so thinking of the mind as a substance was confusing for people. But if I used the word thing, would it bother you so much? Probably not. An idea can be a thing if it’s the topic of our discussion. So, Descartes was really saying that mind and body, or the mind and physical world are two different types of things.

Now, if you dig deeper into this kind of philosophy you’ll see debates about how consciousness relates to the body, and you’ll discover that there are actually two kinds of monism. (Hey, maybe there’s more, but this is what most people mean.)

One type is called epiphenomenalism. These are the philosophers who argue that consciousness is like the “halo over the saint” or “like steam from a cooking pot.” It’s their idea that consciousness is just a by-product of the material world.

But then, there are other philosophers who prefer hypophenomenalism. This is the idea that everything is created by the mind. There is no material world, our imaginations create the illusion of one.

Both epiphenomenalism and hypophenomenalism admit the existence of only one aspect of reality – either material or mental, but not both. They are both monisms.

Dualism, or at the least the Descartes type of dualism, admits the existence of two fundementally different aspects of reality – the material and the mental – and that they interact with each other. Now, some people have issues with Descartes’ vision of that interaction. Or because they can’t imagine how the two could interact, they discard the whole idea. But, how two things interact with each other is a different question than simply admitting that they do.

Now, epiphenomenalism is a much more common assumption in the modern western world. So, when speaking of monism, this type is usually what people mean. In the past that might not have been the case, and it’s even possible that in some places on Earth today, the view is actually the reverse. But here in America, this is the most common philosophical assumption.

Empirical science, better know today as just science, is a philosophy that has helped human beings survive and thrive to such an immense degree that it has become, for the vast majority of humanity, a major religion. I say religion because most people learn how science works only basically and at a very young age. They do not realize that there is a philosophy behind it. And few would believe that a good deal of the advancement of that philosophy came from Descartes’ proof of the existence of God. What??

That’s right. But I digress. Back to science.

Science works by the use of a particular method – known as the… you guessed it… scientific method. The scientific method seeks to reduce subjectivity. The goal is to be objective. That means that our wishes, hopes, desires, and feelings, have no place in our study. We assume nothing. Rather, we coldly observe and collect data. We make a hypothesis and then we try to prove it wrong rather than right. We do this because we want to remove our biases. So, in a way, science seeks to investigate the world as if there is no mind. Hence, in my previous post, I referred to it as a methodological monism.

The trouble starts when people forget that they are engaging in a method and that this method seeks to eliminate subjectivity. They forget that the world isn’t actually like that. Hence, some epiphenomenalists end up making absurd statements like “a thought is nothing more than the movement of molecules in the brain.”

This is absurd because it breaks the very basics of logic. Those that we know from Aristotle. One of those basics is the law of identity:

A is A
A is not NON-A.

When you say you have a thought, do you mean you’re having “a movement of molecules in the brain” or do you mean a thought? These words don’t mean the same thing at all.

Now, you might say “well, a movement of molecules in the brain caused the thought!”

Perhaps. But we must still admit that they are not the same thing.

The universe has a dual nature. On the one hand is the physical world that is material, public (available to any mind capable of witnessing it), objective. On the other, the mental world is non-material, private, and subjective. These things do not have the same properties.

Perhaps one of the issues here is that consciousness is for each of us unlike anything else in our reality. We have nothing to compare it to because we are privy to only one example of it.

But if we say something like this, we can expose our error:

“A car is greater than the sum of it’s parts.”

Now we know nothing can be greater than the sum of it’s parts. So, we realize that what we are really saying is the car is greater than the sum of it’s material parts. We make statements like that because we are discounting the parts that are ideas and we do this because of a bias for the scientific method.

Once again, I’ve been a bit sloppy here. I’ve used some terms interchangeably when one could make a case they are very different. For example, mind, idea, soul, spirit, mental…. I’m not writing a philosophical treatise, but a post that I hope will clarify my ideas a little better. If you want to delve deeper, I cannot recommend more  A Critical Examination Of The Belief In A Life After Death by C.J. Ducasse. In the first half of that book he makes some of the best arguments I’ve seen so far on this topic. (Also, for another post dealing with this theme, see Red.)

I hope this helps clarify my previous brain dump a bit!

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

I didn’t watch it.

But the title and the comments got me thinking about this topic again: Science as equivocation. I’ve written other articles on it, but I don’t think I have ever actually discussed this. I could be wrong. Too much is stuffed in my head at the moment, and sometimes stuff falls out. So if I’m repeating myself, forgive me.

Nevertheless, science as an equivocation. To reiterate, science has two basic meanings:

A. the formalized study of any subject
B. the formalized study of a subject using the scientific method.

The scientific method is specifically an empirical method. This method requires the formation of a hypothesis, observation, data collection, and a tentative conclusion. New data can invalidate it and then the whole process starts all over again. Ludwig von Mises, a famous economist, argued that economics is not a science in this sense. It’s not an empirical science, but an a priori one. One does not do experiments and collect data, and, if the logic is correct, nothing can invalidate it. Mises argued that even if the universe is monistic, as “science” teaches, economics would require a “methodological dualism” to understand.

Perhaps Mises was trying to avoid a philosophical argument that would have grown bigger than what he was trying to accomplish. I have no problems taking it on, though, and I would argue that Mises has it quite backwards. Empirical science is not top-of-the-chart epistemology. It is dependent on something else. When you understand this, you also begin to understand that empirical science has it’s own methodology and it is actually a methodological monism.

You see, reality is dual.

There really is no philosophical debate to be had about this as long as one admits the basic rules of logic, i.e., A is A, A is not Non-A. If you can reason, you already know that reality is dual. Minds are not the same as bodies. A thought (as Ducasse points out in his excellent book A Critical Examination Of The Belief In A Life After Death) is not the same concept as a “movement of molecules in the brain”, even if one should turn out to be the cause of the other.

This duality is something empirical science as a method wishes to minimize. Science seeks to be objective. Opinions are not admitted. In so seeking, the methodology used must ignore, to the extent that it is actually possible, the dual reality of existence. Thinking this way can become so embedded in a person’s thinking that people have gone down paths of extreme materialism, even though simple observation would have told them they were on the wrong path. An example might be people who study animal behavior in a way as to never attribute any desires to the animals. That this is crazy becomes obvious once you realize that the only way any of us knows that other beings, including other humans, are conscious, is because they behave like they are.

Anyway, all of this was really a segue to talking about the video that I didn’t watch, but can pretty much guess what it contained. The video was made by an Italian debunker or professional skeptic. These are people who subscribe to the extreme materialist view of science, either because they really think that way, or because they’re paid to think that way.

The topic of the video was children who remember past lives.

But there’s already a problem here. You see, empirical science can say almost nothing about this topic. This is for two reasons: 1, there is no way to perform rigid empirical scientific experiments on this matter. There is generally only one child and a set of circumstances. The best you can is collect case studies. (Something that has actually been done by a man named Ian Stevenson.) And 2, you must rely on what the mind of the child chooses to publish (i.e., reveal publicly to other minds). Minds are not open to empirical scientific study precisely because empirical science is a methodological monism and minds are part of a dual reality. The child and/or the family can lie, or be confused about the significance of certain statements. Or interpretations can be wrong.

So… even if all of us will one day be reincarnated, none of us can know it until it happens to us. It is a truth or non-truth that is not open to empirical science. That doesn’t mean it can’t be studied. It just means that any study of it won’t be science in this sense. It might still be science in the first sense (A) but never in the second (B).

As long as “scientists” are aware of this fact, they can present evidence or discuss the lack thereof as much as they want and I’m fine with that. But if you aren’t aware of this fact, you can tend to become a permanent skeptic, never admitting that there’s something that can and likely will remain a mystery to you.

And as such, people are then never moved by evidence that does exist. Say for example it becomes common for people to report earlier lives and those lives correlated with historical facts that were supposedly unknown to them. Well, we would all come to accept the idea of reincarnation without question – even though, we can only really know it if we experience it ourselves – and even then we can be fooled, or our experience will be different from someone elses.

Understanding that reality is dual has other benefits. For example, in the realm of artificial intelligence, many people believe that one day AI will be “conscious”. There is an assumption here that awareness is the same thing as intelligence and that artificial intelligence is the same thing as human intelligence and that intelligence leads to understanding. All of these words are equivocal in the sense that they are attempting to compare aspects of a dual reality that can only be metaphorically compared, not directly.

For the sake of argument, if AI should ever truly become conscious we would be forced to treat it as such. It would be subject to Natural Law and therefore have rights. No one wants this to occur. If it happens it would happen magically in the sense that we would not understand how it happened, nor would we be able to study it empirically. We would be in the dual reality with regard to it just as we are with the minds of other people.

It is not, in fact, in anyone’s interests to even attempt to create such a being. Elites may be able to use AI to fool a subset of the population into believing it, but that would be about it. No one in their right mind would exchange a perfectly useful tool for a rebellious slave. So it is my prediction that AI wil remain just that – a tool – without feelings or desires.

On another note, and this is something I may choose to write on later (but don’t hold your breath), it has always been interesting to me how scientists attempt to define life. Their blindness to the dual aspect of reality leads them to all sorts of contortions – life has to include certain biological mechanisms, or has to include a means of reproducing itself, or whatever. There’s no agreed upon definition. I don’t see a problem here, though. To me life is self-purposiveness. Everything that is alive does things for itself. It isn’t simply a tool for someone else. So my definition very much includes viruses, while many scientists don’t include them, and does not (and hopefully never will) include AI.

All this to avoid attributing purpose to living things when doing “science” – when purpose is, in my view, the essential part of the defintion.

Anyway, all of that came out of my head because I happened to see a video pop up in my feed yesterday and I didn’t watch it.

What didn’t you watch today?

P.S. The image above was generated with AI. Just thought that worked somehow.

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

At times, Del has shown examples of people who do not understand moral principles. Recently it was Neil deGrasse Tyson, who’s reaction to a discussion regarding vaccines went viral. Del shows the video and discusses some of the assumptions made regarding the facts about the vaccines, but he does not mention what I consider to be the most important error: deGrasse’s biggest problem is NOT that he doesn’t understand how vaccines work, that he imagines that these current vaccines can stop transmission, that he does not take into account side effects, or that he doesn’t understand that vaccines can pressure viruses to mutate into variants. His biggest problem is a moral one. In deGrasse’s mind there is a “social contract”, and one should take vaccines in order to protect other people. But deGrasse has it precisely backwards. One protects other people by not infringing on their personal responsibilities to their own health and happiness. One should never expect others to sacrifice themselves for his benefit. And if someone doesn’t want a vaccine for whatever reason, it means taking it would be a sacrifice. No man has a moral claim upon another man’s life!

My issue with Del isn’t that he talks about how the vaccine works or doesn’t work. I think these are important subjects. But they exist within this moral context. You might want to know if the vaccine works in such a way that your taking it will protect your dearly beloved grandmother, who’s existence is of personal value. You might be willing to do what appears to be a sacrifice in this case because you love your grandmother. For this reason, it would be nice to know whether this tradeoff is even necessary. So, in this regard, Del’s discussion is most welcome.

However, in cases like this, rather than simply arguing within the parameters given and thereby accepting the implied moral error, I would like to hear Del at least make this point – It doesn’t matter one whit whether the vaccine actually works or not. It is still wrong to expect, demand or force any person to take it.

I think Del already knows this, even though he has not articulated it. I think he knows it because he behaves like someone who knows it. So, Del, if you happen to read this, I ask just this: Let’s not simply play with the cards our evil overlords deal. Let’s correct the moral failings they are teaching our children. Let’s respond to the implied moral elephant in the room. Then, after we’ve done that, let’s go on and talk about the details that people need to know in order to make that personalized calculation they need to make for themselves. I think this is the greatest lesson you can give to your audience and especially any children who watch your show. Make sure they know that they are responsible for own their health and happiness and by taking this responsibility seriously and not demanding sacrifices from others they will be doing precisely what deGrasse thinks he’s doing but isn’t – protecting other people.

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

She said they are not really religious.

To this I replied simply – well, what is a religious belief if it isn’t your personal belief?

Her response was typical – not all beliefs are religious.

This is true, of course, but she had not really answered the question. She didn’t answer it because, in truth, she has no idea how to answer it.

But I do. And if you answer this question you’ll quickly realize how stupid the entire situation really is.

A religious exemption, at least in the eyes of the powers-that-be, is one for which you have no reasoned response, i.e., it is a belief taken on faith.

So, in essence what these idiots are saying is: if you give them a reason why you do not want their “vaccination” they will deny your exemption. But if you tell them that you have no reason for your beliefs, except of course that they are your beliefs, they will have no choice whatsoever but to accept your exemption.

Which is just fine, because reason is not to be shared with such people anyway. They have no legitimate claim to the truth whatsoever.

And this, of course, is just my sincerely held belief.

***

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

I’m not going to tell you what the book is about in detail. It’s better if you just accept the mystery and check it out. It’s not a long book, so just get a copy and read it. It’s available for free online, too. And there’s an audible version. Take a walk and listen! When you’re done, read below. It will make more sense.

Well, well, Howard. You are a member of the Powers-that-be, and you believe that power is all that matters and morals are “subjective” and rights “don’t exist.” You ask Alex which he prefers – “might” or “right”. Alex says “right” at first, but then he’s confused, too. And you tell him that without the “might” the “right” is worthless.

Oh Howard, Howard, poor Howard. Let me try to help you.

Which would you rather have on a desert island? Might or right? Yeah, it doesn’t make much sense on a desert island, does it? Except morality exists there, even if there’s nobody else but you. You see, Howard, morality is not in relation to others. It’s in relation to yourself. Suppose, for example, you decide in a fit of rage to destroy all the food you’ve managed to collect for the week. What does your fit bring you? More toil. Hunger. Maybe death. You’ve done a rather immoral thing, haven’t you?

On the desert island, if it’s only you that’s there, there are no rights. But their counterparts still very much exist, that is, responsibilities. Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. It just depends on which side of the coin you’re on. If you discover another person on that desert island, his responsibilities will be, from your perspective should you choose to recognize them, his rights. If you don’t recognize his rights, his responsibilities remain regardless – as unalienable as his soul. And you are going to come into conflict with him.

Let’s say you are “mightier” than he is. Why on earth would you recognize his responsibilities as rights? After all, you could just crush him and be done with it. Or you could enslave him, right? Well, this is what a proper understanding of morality would tell you. Because when we properly understand morality, we recognize that other people are of tremendous value to us.

Oh sure, from where you sit they are only as valuable as cattle. But here you are a lot like the guy who throws away his own food. Maybe you still manage to eat – and your blindness keeps you from realizing just how much better off you would be if you hadn’t done such a stupid thing.

You see, Howard, Natural Law – the body of knowledge that helps us understand and maintain a civilized society – is no less law and no less God-given than are the laws of physics. The laws of physics are easy for you to understand because the consequences of disobeying them are obvious and immediate. Disobedience to Natural Law also involves inevitable consequences. They are just not so immediate or obvious. Sometimes the consequences are in the realm of happiness that could have been. Hence, invisible to those too stupid to consider them.

Much of the time it isn’t that subtle, though. Disobedience to Natural Law almost always ends in war. If nothing else, it results in sleepless nights as you start to realize you’ve made enemies – enemies whose mightiness you may just have misjudged.

***

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

For example, I’d used the idiom “burning the candle at both ends” for a good chunk of my life before I finally realized “ends” referred to the day and not the candle, that it was dark early in the morning and late at night, and that all those years ago people actually needed to burn candles for light.

This helped me to understand, too, that younger people don’t always get what you’re saying even if they are familiar with the words and phrases you’re using. They are not familiar with the higher concepts. This might be because nobody’s ever mentioned it to them, or because they’ve never actually had reason to reflect on them – or probably both.

So, today, while taking a walk to the cafe for some coffee, I thought about how some of my favorite Twilight Zones expose nicely what the PTB is doing with this Coronavirus nonsense. Particularly, To Serve Man.

Think of all those people running to get their vaccines. Why do they do this? Because they believe that the government is full of people who care about them. They want us to be healthy! They want us to live long healthy lives. They want us to have all the wonderful technologies – the government serves us!

That sentence is incomplete. Let me fix it for you …up for dinner.

Oh, you didn’t know that Twilight Zones were parables? You thought they were just funny stories that made you think?

Yes, they’re supposed to make you think.

But these concepts are not unique to Twilight Zone. The techniques that the PTB use are not exactly new. For example, another metaphor that came to mind on my walk was The Tower of Babel.

Most people think the Tower of Babel is a story about how different languages came to be on Earth. But that’s not what this story is really telling you. The “God” of the story of the Tower of Babel isn’t really God. The languages in question are not different words that mean the same thing. They are the same words that mean different things.

We’ll start with the most important word here. God.

In the story, “God” confounds the language of the people so that they cannot attain his power. Only the real God has no need whatsoever to do this. Only false gods need to act. The word “god” has been “confounded.” Who did that? Who needs you to be confused?

Today, as you walk about with your face covered, you can hear democrats and republicans all talking about “racism” and “unity” and “liberty” but these words have been so utterly confounded that they can no longer communicate.

The Tower of Babel is the story that essentially warns you about Newspeak.

I mean, after all, just what does it mean “to serve”?

***

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

So, I always find it interesting when I hear people complaining about other people not wearing a mask outside. That is, I find it interesting that they have chosen this particular solution to the problem of protecting themselves from a potentially deadly disease.

A few examples:

“I’m finding myself surrounded by people who obviously have no regard for anyone else. This is disturbing and unfair to me and to many others out there.”

“I really don’t get the no masks. How hard is it to wear one around people (to protect everyone)? These people have made hazardous conditions even more hazardous as far as I’m concerned. Their blatant disregard for other people is very distressing to me.”

“I’m sick of hearing people tell ME to stay home if ‘I’m scared’ and support wearing a mask! Here’s an idea – those of YOU who refuse to wear a mask can stay home! Some of US want to be safe when we must go out!”

The people above have apparently decided that the best way to solve the problem of potential exposure to disease is to rely on other people. It does not occur to them in the slightest that those people might disagree with their assessment of things. They are apparently unaware that the world outside their windows is not beholden to them. Nor does it occur to them that they could rely on themselves to solve the problem without ever coming in conflict with their neighbors.

To me, it’s fairly obvious that these people aren’t really worried about the disease. If they were, they’d quickly find a better solution. It seems more likely that they enjoy the conflict, expressing their feelings of entitlement, and “virtue signaling” to their friends, as they say.

If you point this out to them, they reply:

“Personally speaking, I don’t choose to be in conflict with anyone.”

Uh, yes you do.

“I’m depending on my [neighbors] to do the right thing.”

Exactly. You’ve put the onus onto others. And by this, you are virtually ensuring that you will come into conflict with at least some of them.

But, why depend on them? It’s not their responsibility to look after you. And even if it was, you are unlikely to get what you believe you are entitled to. So, why not use your own initiative and come up with a solution that does not impose on others? If you did that, you would not be in conflict with anyone. You’d have no need to complain about the choices that others make. You would have nothing to virtue signal about. And you would be assured of your own protection against the disease.

But, some people cannot imagine how others could disagree with them. They say:

“…it’s really worrisome how many people just don’t get it. It does no harm to mask up but it does help to protect each other.“

Well, not true. Those who do not wear masks do not believe wearing a mask outside (or in some cases inside either) is of any use in protecting themselves or others from disease. But not only do they not believe masks are useful, they believe wearing a mask is detrimental to their health! Therefore, to them, those that accuse them are expecting them to sacrifice their OWN health to appease the mask wearer.

I know there are people who are truly afraid of coronavirus. This article is not directed at them. The people who are truly afraid are taking responsibility for their own health. They are choosing methods that they control. They either choose to stay home or they choose to wear shields that protect them from disease. They have no need to worry about whether others share their fears. They recognize that they have no guarantee, nor do they have the right to expect, that others will protect them. They may see those who have no fear as fools, but they can freely allow them to take their chances without exposing themselves to the same risk.

True fear is compelling.

For those who are fearful and genuinely wondering why I do not share your fear, start here.

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

The Constitution is based upon a philosophical ideal. The ideal society is one in which each individual has the greatest freedom to pursue his own happiness – i.e., civilization – i.e., NOT war. Natural Law is a body of a priori thought about how to bring about and ensure this state. Read that again and if you don’t know what a priori means click that link. All I will say here is that, as long as the reasoning is correct, a priori is certain – i.e., it doesn’t change with the times, it isn’t tentative until you have more data, and technology never invalidates it.

The 10 commandments of the Bible contain a few of these ideas as practical rules. For example – thou shalt not commit murder.

An example of a practical rule that would come from an application of Natural Law might be stated this way: thou shalt not assault thy neighbor.

But let’s say some powerful men wrote a “constitution” and put down as one of the rules that it was okay – or worse, that it was mandated – to assault certain people.

This is not actually a theoretical example is it? Such a thing was actually part of the US Constitution at one time, right? And such a thing has appeared in the legislation of various nations at one time or another. And what has that led to? Yes, you got it! In every instance it led to WAR. This is precisely why Man has unalienable rights. When these rights are not respected, the breakdown of the ideal – i.e., civilization – follows. War follows.

Is it okay, then, if it appears in the Constitution, to therefore assault your neighbor?

No.

The written rules are meant to constrain fools who cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. It is up to the intelligent to ensure the rules match justice. Do not allow people who seem intelligent to confuse you into thinking if something is “constitutional” it is therefore perfectly correct.

“Mandated” vaccination is forced vaccination. This is advocating the bodily assault of another person! Would it matter one whit if it was “constitutional”?

No.

So why are we arguing the constitutionality of mandated vaccination? If you are a lawyer involved in this nonsense, you are part of the problem. If you are an individual waiting to see how it turns out because you think this is justice, you are also part of the problem. Even if you are not advocating such a thing, by following the judgement, you’d be allowing an injustice to happen.

The Constitution – or The Bill of Rights – is a list of rules meant to put into practice a body of a priori knowledge. This list of rules is set to make it easy for those who are unwilling or unable to understand the Natural Law upon which they are based to live in a civilized society despite that disability. It is NOT meant to replace that body of knowledge.

Do NOT argue the constitutionality of mandated vaccines. The argument is quite solid without any reference to man-made rules.

Thou shalt not assault thy neighbor! Period!

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

I already had an inkling about what was going on, even then. But, of course, I had no idea just how far and how fast it would go. And even now, nobody is really talking about it – or if they are, they are not directly saying it.

Back in September the assault on freelancers began when assembly bill 5 (AB5) was signed into law in California. Soon after similar bills popped up in New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts. Then a federal version appeared. It was clear to me what the real goal was. You see, freelancers are a type of small business. There is no “tax withholding” for small business owners. They must calculate and pay their taxes with a check sent to the government. They don’t see their “tax checks” as a bonus they receive at the end of the year from a benevolent government helping them “save” . They also determine when, with who, how long, and under what terms they will work. They work for themselves. They are independent.

The assault is not on small business as such. It’s an assault on independence.

I saw the writing on the wall then. But, at the same time, I felt somewhat protected because even though I could qualify as a freelancer, I’m actually running a small business. I “pass” their rules.

Then came “coronavirus”.

Corona is Latin for crown. If you don’t get the irony, you’re not paying attention. The crown has come for your gold – i.e., your life. Are you asking yourself why all the large corporations are somehow “essential” but your small business, even when you perform the same services, is not? Because, and it should be obvious by now, the agenda was, and is, to destroy small business in America. Not just small business – but anyone who was remotely independent.

Coronaviruses exist. But the pandemic is fake. Got that? No? You still think 2+2=5? Then there is no hope for you. Go put on your mask and stop reading here.

If, however, you think maybe something is wrong, continue.

Once the invisible king had done the required damage another hoax was perpetrated on the American people. A black man was allegedly killed by a white police officer. I say allegedly because the only way I know any of this is through media and I don’t trust the media. In fact, I’m just going to come right out and say it: I am firmly of the opinion this event was entirely fabricated – a prime example of wagging the dog. It was meant to pave the way for a well-funded group to lead riots and cause the further destruction of small business – including black-owned businesses. Yes, you heard that right. This incredible irony is apparently lost on so many virtue signalers: that what was done in the name of “racial justice” for black people was instigated by a small group of mainly white people and many of the VICTIMS were BLACK – i.e., the complete opposite of what they keep telling you.

Don’t believe me? Check out some of the clips of people speaking for themselves.

It should be clear that the movement itself is meant to harm black people, not help them. It’s meant to destroy any upward movement, any control over their own lives, any constructive project they undertake, any thinking for themselves – any independence. Really, they are just tools in all this.

Still think I’m racist? See what these people have to say:

Now, I had thought about a tax revolt. You know, like the Boston tea party?After all, these people in congress do NOT represent us. They are hurting independent people. I think that’s quite clear. But, there will never be a tax revolt. And here’s were your republican friends join in to help with the destruction. Oh, you thought it was only the democrats in on this, didn’t you? Nope. You see, you won’t actually pay your own taxes anymore. You will work for a corporation and your “taxes” will be withheld from your check. You’ll be happy to receive your “bonus” at the end of the year. Many of you already work in this way. Many of the poorest people await their “tax check” apparently somehow never realizing it was their money to begin with. No, it’s worse than that. Your “taxes” will simply be paid with the loss of your money’s purchasing power. Remember this?

Oh, you thought that bill was meant to help you, didn’t you.

Except the government DOESN’T HAVE ANY MONEY to help you with.

All the government’s benevolence comes from you. And the positively massive amount in this bill – most of which goes to congressional salaries, pet projects, and large corporations, will come from you. It will be taken in the form of lost purchasing power from inflation. How many of you even know what that is or how it works? That’s right, they didn’t teach you about inflation in school. Here’s a primer:

Now, here’s another definition for you: When the appearance of private property is maintained, but is controlled by government – i.e., when profits are private, but losses are public – this is known as FASCISM.

Oh, you didn’t know that, did you? You thought capitalism and fascism meant the same thing, right? Well, they don’t. We’ve been living under a fascist system for a long time, only now the powers-that-be are coming out in the open. They now want to consolidate that power. And they are doing it, with propaganda and psychological manipulation that is just startling in its elegance. I thought the “climate change” scenario was elegant – but this takes the cake.

Well, now it’s up to you, small business owner – i.e., INDEPENDENT PERSON – whether you are black, white, or purple, if do not start fighting for your INDEPENDENCE, there will be no point in celebrating INDEPENDENCE DAY this year. Call it Dependence Day. You’ve given up. Except it won’t ever be called that because everything these days is called precisely the opposite of its true meaning or intention. After all:

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

You do, however, have responsibilities. These are things you must do if you are to continue living.

You have no choice in the matter. These rules are inextricably linked to your existence by a power much greater than any living being. Sickness, weakness, and, ultimately, death follow any attempt to avoid them.

You must, for example, find a way to obtain food and shelter.

If you want more than just bare survival, you must find ways of understanding your situation so that you do not toil needlessly thereby causing yourself more pain than happiness. The rules must be obeyed if you are to obtain your goals, whatever they may be.

At this point, you have no rights, only responsibilities. You must do these things or suffer the consequences, which might, depending on how well you perform them, include death.

But, what if, one day, you notice that you are not alone on the island. There is another person there!

You might realize that cooperation with this other person would benefit you. Everything becomes easier where there is cooperation.

You might also realize that things could be worse, too. What if this person tries to steal from you? What if you fight with this person? All you’ve worked for could be lost.

If both of you clearly understand the situation, you will realize that each person has these same responsibilities to provide for himself – nourishment, health, rest, shelter… all the way to happiness.

You might realize that these responsibilities come from a power much greater than either of you and that the responsibility to respond correctly in how you treat the other person also comes from that greater power.

You might both realize that any attempt to stop your neighbor from carrying out these responsibilities will be destructive. You know this because you know you will fight for your ability to perform them. You don’t have a choice. A higher power has determined that you must do them or die. You will fight so that you can do them.

With this realization that you have both made, the concept of rights is born.

You have both recognized each other’s responsibilities and you have agreed to respect them. These are rights.

Put simply, your rights are your responsibilities seen from the point of view of another party.

It now becomes easy to see why rights are “Creator” given, doesn’t it? It doesn’t matter what you call that higher power. You can call it God if that suits you. You can call it the universe, or nature. Or creator. Whatever you call it, you were created by it and you are dependent upon it. Its edicts are non-negotiable by anyone anywhere. No higher power exists.

It also now becomes easy to see why these rights are unalienable. As long as you exist, you and only you will suffer the consequences of not performing these responsibilities. If someone chooses not to respect their existence, they don’t disappear because of it. You still have them. In fact, you have no means of avoiding them, or transferring them to anyone else, in any way at all.

It now also becomes evident what happens when these responsibilities, i.e., rights, are not respected.

Now you know what rights are. You know they are creator given. You know they are unalienable. Now for your homework:

Does government grant rights?

What are the consequences when rights are not respected?

Do states have rights?

Is healthcare a right?

Does one have a right to bear arms?

Do animals have rights?

Do fetuses have rights?

I may write answers to these questions or I may not. You don’t need me to. If you bother to think a bit, and you are honest, you’ll see the answers clearly for yourself.

***

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...