Why is it that primitive tribes have taboos? Is it perhaps because not being able to deal with reality makes the primitives fear and hate reality, and naturally forbid talk about difficult aspects of reality? Do they refuse to face truth because they are aware at some level that they are to weak to face reality? Is that the ancestral psychological core of Idealism: making things taboo?
Making things taboo just happens to be the perfect way to shield a criminal conspiracy from discovery, criticism, identification and erradication. So it should be highly suspicious when forces within a society actively maintain or instill taboos for select subjects, while not working at all to instill taboos for countless other comparable subjects.
So that is perhaps why a criminal system might nurture Idealists: these pose less danger to it, as they seem to not be able to speak the truth, and auto-stop their thoughts when crimethink is detected.
Idealists have a lower level of consciousness. They cannot differentiate between:
1 opinion and fact: to Idealists, an OPINION is instantly UNIVERSAL FACT, to which everyone must bow or be destroyed
2 criticism and attack: to Idealists, arguments against their Ideal are equal to physical attack. To no be able to discriminate between the real (physical, mathematical falsifiable model of reality) and the NOT real (non-provable ideals) defines the mentality of the Idealist.
Play around in you head with the links between taboo, Idealism and parasitism. The moment you start seeing the parasite-by-idealism, its mindhijacking starts to fissure.
To conclude, consider some correlations:
integrity = being integer = being whole = not being corrupt / open to manipulation
Idealists = wide-open to manipulation through abstract concepts that invert, corrupt and destroy reality
Idealism = unrealistic "modern art" + abstract (non-real) impossible concepts + anti-nature laws + reality warping propaganda = destruction of what IS at the altar of WHAT IS NOT
egalitarianism = entropy = death worship = anti-existence
2011-03-23
The Zero Argument Stance
Presenting more than one or two arguments in support of something gives the impression that there is something wrong with the reason behind the whole stance.
So less is more in this case.
Also, we have the law of power that advices never to argue in the first place, because even when winning a logical argument one creates enemies by hurting their feelings.
What if we altogether remove argumentation? For instance, like so:
1. never argue
2. always make the other side try and prove their points
3. always demand physical, eg. real proof in stead of appeals to abstract concepts and ideals
Realists ofcourse are the only ones that can really do this, because reality ARGUES EVERYTHING FOR US. We don't have to make a point, the anti-reality idealists have to. And it is impossible for them to maintain any "victory", because reality is like gravity; it always wins in the end.
When idealists argue that "all people are equal", demand that they move to a primitive, savage place full of "equals". If they refuse, whatever their arguments, they lose. If they aquiesce, either they survive and become more realist, or they don't survive (realists win another round). Capiche?
Zero arguments. All reality.
Don't tell me your opinion. There are a gazillion people, with a gazillion opinions, thoughts, ideals and misconceptions.
There is 1 (one) reality.
Therefor, we don't argue, we demand proof.
This is obviously an extreme stance, but even if not used all the time, it serves to expose the cheating around argumentation that ALL idealists do ALL the time:
1. try to hijack the TERMS of debate, therefore pre-determening (emotionally) the result of any so-called debate "everyone who doesn't accept my premise is an extremist!"
2. demand that their EMOTIONS are paramount and must be worshipped at all costs, while totally ignoring the preferences of the opposing party "you are disrespectful of X!"
3. using MAGIC DEFINITIONS to get as far away from reality as is possible without seeming crazy "if you cross this magic line and say these magic words, you magically become part of nation X!"
4. being extremely hypocritical and unfair about group rights and group responsibilities "all of YOU are responsible for all acts your group ever did, but NO ONE of our group is ever responsible for the acts of our group!", "your group never has rights, in fact doesn't even exists, while our group has infinite rights with no expiration date"
5. the attack ad hominem instead of arguing over facts and figures
6. the "I know someone who is X, therefore no one is ever allowed to in any way criticize group X!!!" (idealists actually believe this is an argument of some sorts)
There are way more idealists argumentation delicacies to be found, but you get the point.
So less is more in this case.
Also, we have the law of power that advices never to argue in the first place, because even when winning a logical argument one creates enemies by hurting their feelings.
What if we altogether remove argumentation? For instance, like so:
1. never argue
2. always make the other side try and prove their points
3. always demand physical, eg. real proof in stead of appeals to abstract concepts and ideals
Realists ofcourse are the only ones that can really do this, because reality ARGUES EVERYTHING FOR US. We don't have to make a point, the anti-reality idealists have to. And it is impossible for them to maintain any "victory", because reality is like gravity; it always wins in the end.
When idealists argue that "all people are equal", demand that they move to a primitive, savage place full of "equals". If they refuse, whatever their arguments, they lose. If they aquiesce, either they survive and become more realist, or they don't survive (realists win another round). Capiche?
Zero arguments. All reality.
Don't tell me your opinion. There are a gazillion people, with a gazillion opinions, thoughts, ideals and misconceptions.
There is 1 (one) reality.
Therefor, we don't argue, we demand proof.
This is obviously an extreme stance, but even if not used all the time, it serves to expose the cheating around argumentation that ALL idealists do ALL the time:
1. try to hijack the TERMS of debate, therefore pre-determening (emotionally) the result of any so-called debate "everyone who doesn't accept my premise is an extremist!"
2. demand that their EMOTIONS are paramount and must be worshipped at all costs, while totally ignoring the preferences of the opposing party "you are disrespectful of X!"
3. using MAGIC DEFINITIONS to get as far away from reality as is possible without seeming crazy "if you cross this magic line and say these magic words, you magically become part of nation X!"
4. being extremely hypocritical and unfair about group rights and group responsibilities "all of YOU are responsible for all acts your group ever did, but NO ONE of our group is ever responsible for the acts of our group!", "your group never has rights, in fact doesn't even exists, while our group has infinite rights with no expiration date"
5. the attack ad hominem instead of arguing over facts and figures
6. the "I know someone who is X, therefore no one is ever allowed to in any way criticize group X!!!" (idealists actually believe this is an argument of some sorts)
There are way more idealists argumentation delicacies to be found, but you get the point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
