Karl

People will voice their opinion, however gross, but that doesn't mean the rise of mass popularity for a new Nazi party in Germany. Thats just hyperbole. Most of these people are likely voicing the feeling of powerless frustration with a liberal government that has ignored the possibility of conflict between immigrants and citizens. Merkel has said there is a moral and legal responsibility to take refugees, but there is no moral responsibility on anyone in Germany and I doubt there is any law that cannot be ignored on grounds of security risks. It's Merkel and her Government that is the problem and it seems she is dictating to the entire Union and compromising its security as well as that of the German people. The cause of all this mayhem is haphazard Western governments foreign policy, but that's 'government policy' and in no way implies the public have to shoulder the responsibility. These Governments should never have been involved in regime change-but the Government are not the people. If there was a clear threat to our own nations then we had the right to go to war, but not to then take on the refugees and immigrants flowing out of failed states. We should have turned them back on the Southern coast and destroyed the boats they were using. Now we have created something far worse, a people trafficking business run by terrorists, thugs and cut throats who are happy to let these immigrants drown once they get the cash. The little body washed up on the Mediterranean shoreline was the son of a people trafficker who had panicked and overturned his boat driving it too fast. Merkel is ignoring her own people, shutting down discussion, censoring the Internet and media. That's the actions of a dictatorship never mind the minority of Natzi fools who have little power or support. Merkel is in power.

Relatively I am bound to agree. Yet it is not real freedom, it has been a gradual and voluntary acceptance of chains in exchange for certain privileges and protections we have been conned into believing are a necessity. The Middle East does not have such a sophisticated propaganda bullhorn and Pavlovian reward system, instead they rely on brute force to subdue their population and our own governments tacitly support them in doing that in exchange for corporate contracts. It's no wonder they have begun to look enviously at our relative wealth and tranquility. However, brought up in a place where reality is the butt of a rifle, a bullet or a beheading they do not exactly share our sheep like nature. They are like foxes in a hen house.

You can't go attacking the Government officers, they are the guardians of the government narrative, they also have killing weapons as opposed to the innocent public gunned down in nightclubs, restaurants, offices and beach holidays.

The truth is whatever they decide it is and we already have chaos. The answer will be to control the narrative and attempt to twist reality into a form which is more palatable. Eventually this pragmatism will run into a brick wall as it meets a contradictory twisted narrative hurtling towards it from the other direction. Once these social manipulators are seen to be ignoring reality then it is never long before those with poor morals will begin to see it as a free for all. If reality isn't a boundary then there isn't really any boundaries so let's all just do whatever we want. If jihadhism isn't a product of religion, then let's carry on supporting that religion and calling it peaceful. The West has become so convinced of its omnipotentence by narrative control that it is blind to external aggression. The West pretends flag waving, political consensus and tough talk is effective action. It's deluded and weak. Reality will run us down before we wake up from this self imposed dream state.

Good post. If you're alive you want something. Even if it's just to move your leg to remove a bit of pressure, or scratch an itch. You have to have a breath, a drink, eat, stay at a comfortable temperature, avoid danger. Almost everybody has some point of comfort with possessions. It's not about what you have, or what you want, but how you fairly you earned it, or are prepared to earn it. Seems like we learned an obvious lesson-or at least we should have learned it-that stealing, beating, cheating, hurting and lying to get what you want is ultimately not satisfying and leads to ever more attacks against ones virtue bringing more misery in its wake. By attacking ones own virtues the pain piles up. Ever more complex lies, self deception, fear and guilt, self hatred grow like a cancer eating up the person.

That it didn't stand up as a metaphor wasn't really the point. It's what it reveals that is interesting and the question it poses.

You haven't denied the logic of my refutation, you have denied the very existence of logic, if you accept the premesis and conclusion in the paragraph you posted. However, my purpose was to pose the question 'how can men attain happiness' rather than what things are not the direct cause of happiness.

That's an invalid argument. Fame and fortune are effects and not causes. Unhealthy eating is causal. They cannot be compared. It's an example of backwards thinking or more technically post hoc ergo propter hoc. Putting effect prior to cause. It is not true that a man cannot be happy, rich and famous. It is true that sugary, high fat donuts are generally less healthy than fresh fruit and vegetables. I wanted to pick that out because it's an important difference, because you are not stating what makes for happiness, only that which may not always accompany happiness. We can be spiritual practitioners and miserable as well as wealthy, famous and miserable. This doesn't answer the important question 'how is one to be happy'.

12 days of Christmas is the usual, so not over yet.

That's really just goal setting. It's normal to set goals around that which you believe you are capable of attaining. Thus you won't discover a man who wishes to fly, successfully diving off a tower without wings, or a blind man flying solo in a Typhoon fighter. I used to be into this stuff big time. I ran goal setting seminars. Once in a while I would come across somebody setting very difficult goals-to become a billionaire by doing nothing differently to that which they were already doing. The rule was always to 'act as if' you already had the goal. It was clear that they weren't going to go out and buy a yacht, or a mansion with their new found faux wealth-they would and could not act 'as if'. Goal setting is fine, but only as a way to focus efforts. It manifests nothing. People get taken in by this stuff and lose track of causality. I spent a considerable amount of time beliving I would get what I needed and finding out that I did, indeed get what I needed-but then, if you set your sights so low within in your own particular circumstances, then it is precisely the same as goal setting, but at a lower level. I have never wanted for much because that's the way I am, but I have never actually put myself in a position where attaining little was impossible. Neither have I expected to gain something that I knew was truly unobtainable.

There is a time for hate and for war. What should be investigated is the reason for the hate. Is that reason just ? Man must weigh the twin responsibilities of justice and mercy. He has a choice and can reason using his own morality as a measure. If his moral virtue is false, then there will be no justice. In place of justice will be envy, or greed; in place of mercy there will be appeasement, or cowardice. A moral man will gain no value from hatred, or any war that follows from it. He will only retain the values he already has. An immoral man will try and gain what he has not earned, or worse, he will attempt to destroy the good for being the good. He will destroy value through his hatred of it.

Capitalism is merely the mechanism here, the drug trade that Saviano exposes is created by the governments who make it illegal. This creates high demand and poor supply. exactly the same situation occurred during prohibition. It creates artificially high prices and criminalises the growers, suppliers, dealers and users. It pushes the business underground and into the hands of those who are already criminals. This isn't Laissez Faire, or pro-capitalism, it is pro-state intervention and criminality. Saviano is right, in that this is big business and that supposedly upstanding institutions are happy to launder the money. This can only happen as long as criminalisation and drug prohibition keeps the price and margins high, but that would collapse almost overnight if cocaine use was fully legalised. It would probably kill off the CIA/MI6 black ops units.

:-) Get used to it. It is your ego that keeps you alive. Disappointment and failure are twin lessons. What keeps you from succeeding is a determined will not to. Move towards doing goals that accord with your values. If something doesn't feel right about the kind of job or career that you have embarked upon then, it probably does not accord with your values and thus reality. Be independent-not dependent on other men for your values. Be honest in your dealings, have integrity and let your actions prove it. Take pride in whatever you do.

If I was you I would get to that manifesting practically. Get a job that pays well, start a business, invest etc. Earn some money doing something that you are good at and enjoy.

I don't demand that others pay tax, or that any public services should be provided. I'm not screaming for the state to do something about everything. I just live within the system the best I can and recognise it as being one of coercive force-not to prevent crime, but to initiate it. I don't intend, neither could I afford to move anywhere else. However, this isn't about me, or my views on the state. I know what it is, I'm saying that taxation is not simply a form of benefit, but the result of those that wish to take what they haven't earned by using the force of the state to back up their demands. It's those people who demand that 'the rich shoulder the greatest burden'. That anyone who Is succesful needs to be robbed until they squeak to create a 'fairer' society. That somebody must pay if we cannot. Hidden in those thoughts is hatred, jealousy, envy of those who are succesful. We often see this reflected in films in which the 'jock' who gets all the women and owns a beautiful sports car is seen to beat up the poor nerd-not that this is a reality, but films like to portray the succesful as violent psychopaths. It's this hidden hatred, concealed by a faux justice that is the root cause of our societal ills. It is not the 'tax' that is the ill, but those who demand values they did not earn from those that did. The tax is only a symptom of what's wrong, not the wrong itself-just as a gun is not the killer, but the man who pulled the trigger. I said before that I wasn't a libertarian, nor an anarchist- these ideologies are more of the same subjectivism. Paying tax, or not paying tax, is immaterial to me. It is what hides behind it. I have no wish to live in a utopian community, neither to run away (unless my life is threatened), or to create some backwoods fantasy. My only intention is to live to my values and hopefully inspire a few others to reason likewise in order that they find happiness instead of hatred. That those who lobby governments in order to gain profits they did not earn, or goods/services they cannot pay for should realise what they are doing in the full light of their consciousness.

Where did I say "..robbing several times a day" ? I said that the Sicilian mafia routinely extract protection money from businesses in the areas of Sicily and mainland Italy. These businesses have not signed any form of contract, or agreed to pay by setting up business in those areas-just as I didn't sign any contract, or agreed to one by being born on a piece of land that just happens to be the province of another kind of criminal gang referred to as 'the British government'. Of course I live by my values. What made you think I didn't ?

No benefits come from taxation, it is the productive that provide the money to pay for those things. I no more compromise than the the victim who is forced to give his wallet to a thief in order to prevent physical harm. I do not demand streets, or public education. Clean air has nothing to do with the Government, indeed the opposite is true. There is no social contract anymore than a Sicilian businessman will accept a contract with the mafia by living in Sicily . It is hatred for those who have more than others. It is a justification to use force to take values that are unearned. It is not for me to move to a third world country anymore than it was for the Jews to be thrown out of Germany, or to be murdered if they were unable to do so. You appear to talk of 'high ideals' with a degree of contempt.

One has to recognise evil first. People compromise without realising they are actually compromising their principles. It is this compromising of their principles that is evil. People know that stealing is wrong, they know that taking a value by force is morally wrong, and yet they see taxation and distribution as a good. Nothing will convince them that theft is theft, that if it's morally wrong to steal, then redistribution must represent an immoral action.

Black strap molasses

We should not tolerate evil and it isn't subjective. If we have a working moral compass with reason as its base, then we can know, man is capable of this because of his knowledge of reality. It is only subjective if one is told conflicting things and refuses to apply reason 'love they enemy as they self' and 'turn the other cheek' are not reasoned beliefs, but then we must also have knowledge that our own virtues are pure and untainted by philosophical junk. It is possible to hate that which is pure, if your own moral compass is spinning wildly and has dispensed with reason and logic. This isn't subjective, it's a conscious decision to ignore reason and reality by cultivating virtues/principles that are clearly in conflict, but from which one does not attempt to emerge. The worst thing man can do is not to fail to act against evil, it is to fail to recognise it.

Merry Christmas everyone. The original Santa we know and love is rumoured to have been the equivalent of a Lapland Shaman. During the winter solstice he went from home to home delivering presents. These presents were the dried red and white mushrooms that grew underneath the pine trees. In order to dry them but keep them off the ground, the Shaman would place them in the branches of tree. During winter the snow would cover the lower summer entrances to each home, so the Shamen would climb through a roof opening. He used a sleigh pulled by reindeer-it is said that the red glowing nose represented the fresh mushroom cap. Every person in the community received a present of these mushrooms including the children. The mushrooms were best consumed fully dried and so they would put them in their socks which were always left to dry above the fire. The effects of the mushrooms may have been improved by the mood of those that consumed them. This may have resulted in the idea that one had to be good if they wished to consume the present.

Makes me happy.

LOL To say you were 'trapped there' is a clear indication to me that you haven't the faintest idea what I'm talking about. That far from being a 'narrow' agenda it revealed to me just how trapped I had once been as a subjectivist and part time intrincisist. These things are clear now. Where they originated and how I was sucked into their orbit is now obvious. Reality is my only reality. Existence exists and I must grasp it consciousnessly, A is A, a thing is a thing. I do not have an answers, except things are as they are, I was born and I will die. Whilst I am here my purpose is to extract the greatest happiness I can, this is predicated on survival and on survival for happiness. As I am alive, as I have volition, so I must have a code of value by which I live. That code is self generated by reason. It is my mind which is my only means of survival and my mind must know reality first or I shall perish. My ethical code of values must accord with reality as must all my actions related to them if I am to survive and win the greatest happiness.

My view isn't libertarian. It's objectivist. I cannot expect you to understand. Everything for you is partitioned and in a silo. You deny causality and think pragmatically. You cannot see, nor imagine the effects of the things you support, or the ramifications. You don't see the damage, but I do. If you could see what I see you would stop at once. You would be horrified by your actions. If I could hold up a mirror and let you see, but alas it is not possible, the mirror must come from inside you and you must be brave enough to hold it and look upon it. To some extent, ignorance is excusable. If you don't know that you are doing wrong that's one thing, but if you are evading and justifying the wrong that's quite another.

Respect/Love is a value you earn, not take by force. If you haven't taken that onboard yet I'm afraid you are in for a particularly miserable kind of life. You will have to live by the sword, to take what you cannot fairly earn. That will apply to everything equally. You will become dissatisfied, frightened of loss, your attachments to unearned values will grow making you fear that someone else will take them, as you did. Love is Liberty. Letting go of the necessity to initiate force. To know that you earned love fairly is to never fear it's loss. Losing respect for yourself is the very worst. Don't pull that trigger.