Stefan Molyneux on RationalWiki

Oh wow. They gasted me flabber. The founders of a website such as this have the actual nerve to call this rational wiki. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux Stefan “Not an Argument” Molyneux (/ˈstiːvən ‘mɒlɪnʌks/, born 1966) is an Irish-Canadian whisupremacist[3][4][5][6][7][8] political commentator, “philosopher”, cult leader, and Internet-media personality who has hosted Freedomain Radio – a podcast where he discusses philosophy, politics, religion, science, and relationships – since 2005. I have I never heard him put a ‘ks’- sound at the end of his last name. It sounds more like moly-niew. Wow, what a centrallized guide for promoting and controlling hatred.

Verhoudingen

Volgens https://www.rivm.nl/coronavirus-covid-19/actueel (dd. 7 juni 2020) is de kans om iemand met corona-besmetting tegen te komen 47.335/18.000.000 = 0,263%, net iets meer dan een kwart procent! Daarvoor moet de hele bevolking naar de ×÷__**# Fijn te weten hoe jullie je prioriteiten hebben liggen, Den Haag. Maar ja: jullie willen ook eens per eeuw je bestaan rechtvaardigen en dat denken jullie te doen door de bevolking te veroordelen tot de hongerdood, danwel zelfmoord uit wanhoop. Weet je: dat werkt juist tegen je. Is nl. buitenproportioneel.

Proof of ancap

As described in ‘Historia’ (a Dutch magazine about – yes; history), issue 01/2020. The Indus-civillization existed between 7000BC and 1800BC, on the west coast of India, in an area 2* the size of France. Many of their cities and villages have been excavated, since approximately the year 1900. Even though they are said to have known a rich culture, their writing is undecipherable: most texts span no more than 4 or 5 symbols and none have been found longer than 26 (to me, this suggests bookkeeping instead of writing down myths, stories). They were rich and traded widely: artefacts have been found as far away as Iraq. They had advanced knowledge of mathematics. (For bookkeeping?) Their settlements were planned with straight streets. But no building resembling a palace or castle has been found; so there was probably no king or other kind of ruler. Graves suggest that some were richer than others, so no communism here. It is not known whether these individuals had more political power or not. In spite of the 3 above, some investigators now think that it was a theocracy led by priests. Yet: Priesthood is a job with strong political aspects. So: no king; without a ruler (an archos) and wealthy from trade: capitalism.

Ancoms are fake anarchists

At least the ones in the FB-group at the time. When one of them would flare up again about ancapism being fake and ancomism being the only real anarchism, I offerred the argument that in ancapism, you could at least buy some land with houses on it, and allow people to live there, when thet agreed to live according ylto communal property-rules. Since the owner of a place could set any rules he wanted, and the inverse could not happen under ancommunism, ancapism was superior. The counter argument was: “No, coz that’s private property.” So really, ancoms don’t want for people to be left alone and not live under a ruler (an archos), they want yo be able to impose their will upon others. Soviet communism was as much a vanguard state as is my hiney, tirranny was the plan all along.

The Rules for Rulers

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs In fact, it would be benevolent to the ruler, if we the people would remove rule at all, because rule is so hard, and scary. There are always those that wish to replace you as ruler. And you’re balancing on a knife edge (under a knife edge?) In a full democracy, taxes are zero. You only pay for stuff you want done, like in a shop: you only pay for food you buy, not food that will get destroyed in order to keep the price high enough for farmers to make a lovely profit. And in a very round about way this vid supports the leftist’s creed “It’s al about money” But still, ultimately, it comes down to power, power can be bought/shielded with money.

Private property is natural

Private property is natural
Because nature is a place to die from starvation/thirst/exposure. So if, by investing energy, a being manages to find food (energy), it will protect that energy from beings tyhat did not. Example:
The cheetah: runs incrediblyfast – spending lots of energy – to catch a prey, then drags that catch into a tree out of reach of hungry hyenas.
The squirrel: hides nuts for eating during hard cold times
Parental love: parents are protective of their own genes
Love: partners are protective of THEIR partner (maybe, because the partner may help reproduce the genes)
Bees sacrfice their lives to protect the nest (sometimes callled hive), not out of generosity, but out of parental love. The queen is the only fertile one in the nest, all the other bees are related (share the same genes). Dawkins wrote about this, from the perspective of biology – genes, inheritance
Of course, ancoms (in the FB group Pure Anarchist Philosophies) discredit anarcho-communism by spectacularly, deliberately, even violently not understanding this.

Definite proof against government

There’s the issue of the jurisprudence from the treaty of Versailles; the German people were punished for not having stopped the emperor ftom starting WW1 – a bad thing ™. This means that, for their own protection, the people have the right, nay: the duty to stop the government whenever it does anything bad. Now, given the incurable split among the population, this means that government is impossible, because one side will oust the government for not doing enough to e.g. reduce CO2. The other side will keep government from reducing this vital ingredient of life. The third side will rise up when the government launches another (unprovoked) war. And number four will be restless when there’s not enough beligerence against “our enemies” This means that stable government is impossible, but that’s politics’ own fault becausd without politucs, the world would not have been cleaved in two equal halves as is the case now.

Sallett joins 2 Stans: More proof politics is bad

The 2 Stans (Stanley Milgram’s obedience to authority and Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment) are now joined by Jerome Sallet (Oxford U), who posited in 2011 that social interactions have grown the cerebral cortexes in groups of animals. This was confirmed by Danish and British researchers, who examined humans. (Touching on the effect of social media).
Since politics is the systematic isolation of all the inhabitants of a country, by way of divide and conquer, at first by splitting them up into different groups, later drilling down to the individual level (imprisoning them for doing nothing objectively wrong, like selling not-stolen drugs).
Add to that the effect of social atrophy (atrophy of the social instinct), and one finds that Politicians are busy denying people the chance to grow bigger brains, which may lead to stimying intelligence.