Where You Can Find Out A Ton About Various Linux Distributions - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Anything from household gadgets to the Large Hadron Collider (note: political science topics belong in the Environment & Science forum).

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#15106239
Here is an excellent website where you can take a look at the newest releases of all the VAST different types of Linux operating systems out there: https://distrowatch.com/ .

Distrowatch lists about almost 300 different various kinds of Linux OSes that are currently active in their own database: https://bit.ly/2BJvuaN
#15106460
Politics_Observer wrote:Here is an excellent website where you can take a look at the newest releases of all the VAST different types of Linux operating systems out there: https://distrowatch.com/ .

Distrowatch lists about almost 300 different various kinds of Linux OSes that are currently active in their own database: https://bit.ly/2BJvuaN


Thank you, Politics_Observer, for providing some leads on where people can obtain a more liberty-orientated operating system than proprietary operating systems.

For those who do choose to use a Linux/BSD operating system, the following is a very rational theme for such systems:

* Computing Machine, https://github.com/Jamie-Michelle/Computing-Machine , https://www.pling.com/p/1315191/ .

For more information on this theme, see:

* Jamie Michelle, "Introducing the Computing Machine Desktop Theme", XFCE Forums, Aug. 27, 2019, https://forum.xfce.org/viewtopic.php?id=13299 , https://web.archive.org/web/20200710010 ... p?id=13299 , https://archive.is/fr8sN , https://megalodon.jp/2020-0710-1002-49/ ... p?id=13299 , http://www.freezepage.com/1594342926ASFGZPSKII .

Image

* * * * *

Continuing with the thema that your post invokes, the concept of "intellectual property" is fallacious and unjust. The entire point of valid property rights is to resolve disputes in scarce resources. Thus, if John takes someone's lawnmower then that person no longer has that lawnmower. Yet if Mary copies some output of someone's intellect, it subtracts no physical holding from that person.

So-called "intellectual property" cannot rise to the level of valid property for the reason that it is not a scarce resource: and hence everyone, in principle, can have their own copy of an intellectual creation without subtracting any physical holding from its creator. Enforcing fallacious "rights" in "intellectual property" actually violates genuine property rights, for then actual physical force is used against the physical property of people (including the property in their own bodies) who had not physically harmed, altered, or appropriated another person's physical holdings.

For more on the fallaciousness and unjustness of so-called "intellectual property", see the below paper:

* N. Stephan Kinsella, "Against Intellectual Property", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring 2001), pp. 1-53, https://cdn.mises.org/15_2_1.pdf , https://webcitation.org/6E9neqZI3 . N. Stephan Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008), https://cdn.mises.org/Against%20Intelle ... erty_2.pdf , https://webcitation.org/5nvOa8JMd .

(For the above article Stephan Kinsella was awarded the Ludwig von Mises Institute's O. P. Alford III Prize for the scholarly article published during 2001-2002 that best advances libertarian scholarship, at the eighth Austrian Scholars Conference, March 16, 2002.)
#15106477
By the way, were you genteel folks aware that the Computing Machine computer-desktop theme has its own official '80s retrospective theme song? Yes, it's true. After all, what computer user-environment theme could possibly be complete without having official theme music selected for it? Since we're being thematic here. If Tony the Tiger can have an official theme song, then surely a computer-desktop theme can. So with no further ado, I present the theme song selected for Computing Machine:

* "Liquid Stranger & Space Jesus - Dragonhawks", WAKAAN ( youtube.com/user/TheLiquidStranger ), Sept. 5, 2018

Mirror: "Liquid Stranger & Space Jesus - Dragonhawks", Second Phase ( youtube.com/user/1080pDubstep ), Apr. 20, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nREN5CPReUU . Mirror: "Liquid Stranger x Space Jesus - Dragonhawks", Echo Music ( youtube.com/channel/UCXcq_IoUl1kNyV-Oa1nOb9w ), Apr. 24, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQSByNJOilg .

Everyone, enjoy this completely normal-sounding music which harkens back to an '80s classic!
#15106581
James Redford wrote:
Enforcing fallacious "rights" in "intellectual property" actually violates genuine property rights, for then actual physical force is used against the physical property of people (including the property in their own bodies) who had not physically harmed, altered, or appropriated another person's physical holdings.



Since I'm a Marxist and am *against* the bourgeois institution of private property, I *appreciate* this repudiation of private-property intellectual property rights.

However, given the *three* frameworks at-play here, that of *status-quo politics*, *reformist politics*, and *post-capitalist politics*, I have to address empirical denotations for all *three* paradigms.

I don't think that the status-quo enforcement of private property rights in intellectual property *violates* property rights, because it's effectively *upholding* the private property rights of that intellectual property -- not that I politically *support* such, of course.

It *wouldn't matter*, technically, if the state used violent physical force in its *enforcement* of whatever private property rights, including intellectual property, or not, because it would be the official *legality* that would count.

If *enforcement* of status quo definitions of private property rights included *physical violence* against those who *violated* the status quo state definitions, then that would be the status quo *paradigm* of state legality and enforcement.

Your use of the qualifier 'fallacious', to spurn this status quo paradigm of legality seems to indicate an *alternative* proposal of (reformist) legality regarding private property rights -- that of saying that any and all intellectual developments are *not* intellectual / private property *whatsoever*, and so do not impinge on definitions of -- presumably *tangible* -- private property rights, like that of land and productive machinery.

You're pointing out that the state could use physical violence against alleged perpetrators of the theft of 'intellectual property', which, in the *reformist* perspective, is an injustice since 'intellectual property' is not acknowledged as being legitimate private property. So the greater transgression would be the state's use of physical force to uphold an unjust legal definition.

As a *Marxist*, I do acknowledge people's *personal property*, meaning whatever they themselves use as *persons*, for *use* values, separate from any private-entity holdings, like rental units managed via absentee landlordship, for example. In a *post-capitalist* context 'intellectual property' would be invalid and meaningless, along with *all* private-property-type accumulations of whatever tangible or intangible assets, like land, means of mass industrial production (factories), precious metals, unique artwork, finance, money / currency / exchange values, etc.
#15106626
ckaihatsu wrote:Since I'm a Marxist and am *against* the bourgeois institution of private property, I *appreciate* this repudiation of private-property intellectual property rights.

However, given the *three* frameworks at-play here, that of *status-quo politics*, *reformist politics*, and *post-capitalist politics*, I have to address empirical denotations for all *three* paradigms.

I don't think that the status-quo enforcement of private property rights in intellectual property *violates* property rights, because it's effectively *upholding* the private property rights of that intellectual property -- not that I politically *support* such, of course.

It *wouldn't matter*, technically, if the state used violent physical force in its *enforcement* of whatever private property rights, including intellectual property, or not, because it would be the official *legality* that would count.

If *enforcement* of status quo definitions of private property rights included *physical violence* against those who *violated* the status quo state definitions, then that would be the status quo *paradigm* of state legality and enforcement.

Your use of the qualifier 'fallacious', to spurn this status quo paradigm of legality seems to indicate an *alternative* proposal of (reformist) legality regarding private property rights -- that of saying that any and all intellectual developments are *not* intellectual / private property *whatsoever*, and so do not impinge on definitions of -- presumably *tangible* -- private property rights, like that of land and productive machinery.

You're pointing out that the state could use physical violence against alleged perpetrators of the theft of 'intellectual property', which, in the *reformist* perspective, is an injustice since 'intellectual property' is not acknowledged as being legitimate private property. So the greater transgression would be the state's use of physical force to uphold an unjust legal definition.

As a *Marxist*, I do acknowledge people's *personal property*, meaning whatever they themselves use as *persons*, for *use* values, separate from any private-entity holdings, like rental units managed via absentee landlordship, for example. In a *post-capitalist* context 'intellectual property' would be invalid and meaningless, along with *all* private-property-type accumulations of whatever tangible or intangible assets, like land, means of mass industrial production (factories), precious metals, unique artwork, finance, money / currency / exchange values, etc.


"Since [you are] a Marxist" then you are a truly deranged and reprobate individual. Which is to say, you are a rather typical schizophrenic and sadomasochistic ape--i.e., among the apes called humans.

The entire point of all forms of socialism is to create Hell on Earth. Socialism is the most mass-murderous and impoverishing creed ever created. That's not a failing of socialism: that's its only feature. On their subconscious level (and perhaps for some, on their conscious level), the collectivists' entire goal is to send themselves to Hell eternally and to take as many people as they can along with them. For the details on that, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, https://archive.is/JPojL , https://megalodon.jp/2020-0325-0427-34/ ... n.450.html , https://web.archive.org/web/20200324192 ... n.450.html , http://www.freezepage.com/1585078048SAWDZFDONX .

Further, you state:

"You're pointing out that the state could ...".

I'm an anarchist. I have long been pointing out that every government (i.e., state) can go straight to the pit of Hell from whence it sprang.

For the details on that, see my following articles:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://sites.google.com/site/physicoth ... of-God.pdf .

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Pastebin.com, Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/ ... m/6bZDc7rB .

* James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, https://archive.org/download/JesusIsAnA ... rchist.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1560442613QRSDHGPCAM , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0614-0116-58/ ... rchist.pdf .

* James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, https://archive.org/download/Libertaria ... ianism.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1560442546UTKUJCKYNM , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0614-0115-06/ ... ianism.pdf .

* James Redford, "How to Last During Lovemaking Like a True Sex-God Stud", Internet Archive, May 12, 2019, 6 pp., ark:/13960/t0tr3j398, https://archive.org/download/InfiniLast ... hnique.pdf , https://webcitation.org/78KGCK1s4 , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0513-0846-26/ ... hnique.pdf .
#15106629
James Redford wrote:
"Since [you are] a Marxist" then you are a truly deranged and reprobate individual. Which is to say, you are a rather typical schizophrenic and sadomasochistic ape--i.e., among the apes called humans.



No, you're *stereotyping* about the individual, based on politics. Macro-level domains, like sports, art, music, literature, industry, politics, economics, work, social science, science, etc., can tell one *nothing* about the particular character, or personality, of any individual within that domain.

Also, I improved my health by detoxing with lemon juice. (Yay!)


Humanities - Technology Chart 3.0

Spoiler: show
Image



Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

Spoiler: show
Image



---


James Redford wrote:
The entire point of all forms of socialism is to create Hell on Earth. Socialism is the most mass-murderous and impoverishing creed ever created. That's not a failing of socialism: that's its only feature.



No, you're thinking of *Stalinism*, which was an *unintentional* historical trajectory.

It was preceded by the Bolshevik Revolution, which *was* mass-intentional, and which brought about soviet democracy, but which was invaded by imperialist armies, destroying the nascent industrializing economy, and paving the way for Stalin's rule with his nation-consolidating, so-called 'socialism-in-one-country'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_in ... _Civil_War


James Redford wrote:
On their subconscious level (and perhaps for some, on their conscious level), the collectivists' entire goal is to send themselves to Hell eternally and to take as many people as they can along with them. For the details on that, see my following article:



Nope, that's *still* not the plan for any collectivist-minded efforts, regardless of whatever has played-out in history so far. Really the underlying issue is about *industrialization*, and society's social-organization around the implementation and benefits of industrialization.


James Redford wrote:
* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, https://archive.is/JPojL , https://megalodon.jp/2020-0325-0427-34/ ... n.450.html , https://web.archive.org/web/20200324192 ... n.450.html , http://www.freezepage.com/1585078048SAWDZFDONX .


James Redford wrote:
Further, you state:

"You're pointing out that the state could ...".

I'm an anarchist. I have long been pointing out that every government (i.e., state) can go straight to the pit of Hell from whence it sprang.



Fair enough -- that certainly *clarifies* things. Can't really *disagree* with that.


James Redford wrote:
For the details on that, see my following articles:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://sites.google.com/site/physicoth ... of-God.pdf .

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Pastebin.com, Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/ ... m/6bZDc7rB .

* James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, https://archive.org/download/JesusIsAnA ... rchist.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1560442613QRSDHGPCAM , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0614-0116-58/ ... rchist.pdf .

* James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, https://archive.org/download/Libertaria ... ianism.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1560442546UTKUJCKYNM , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0614-0115-06/ ... ianism.pdf .

* James Redford, "How to Last During Lovemaking Like a True Sex-God Stud", Internet Archive, May 12, 2019, 6 pp., ark:/13960/t0tr3j398, https://archive.org/download/InfiniLast ... hnique.pdf , https://webcitation.org/78KGCK1s4 , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0513-0846-26/ ... hnique.pdf .
#15106634
ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're ...


Of course I don't suppose that you consciously desire to go to Hell for all eternity. However, that is your whole mode of being. Obviously you are looking to get hurt very hard with your adventures into socialism, even long after it has been patiently explained to you that socialism does not work nor can ever be made to work. And that in fact, socialism is the greatest horror that has ever been inflicted upon mankind.

Obviously you are looking to get your teeth kicked-in, existentially speaking. That's all well and good for you, but others do not share your Hellish view on existence.

For the evolutionary psychological details on your destructive behavior, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, https://archive.is/JPojL , https://megalodon.jp/2020-0325-0427-34/ ... n.450.html , https://web.archive.org/web/20200324192 ... n.450.html , http://www.freezepage.com/1585078048SAWDZFDONX .
#15106637
James Redford wrote:
Of course I don't suppose that you consciously desire to go to Hell for all eternity. However, that is your whole mode of being. Obviously you are looking to get hurt very hard with your adventures into socialism, even long after it has been patiently explained to you that socialism does not work nor can ever be made to work. And that in fact, socialism is the greatest horror that has ever been inflicted upon mankind.

Obviously you are looking to get your teeth kicked-in, existentially speaking. That's all well and good for you, but others do not share your Hellish view on existence.



Yeah, I think that's all *already* happened. I've been around revolutionary politics (only), since my initial politicization in 1990, at the protests against the Gulf War, during my first year at college.

I'm not *looking* to receive harm, but, yeah, the socialist politics isn't always well-received, unfortunately.

What about *you* -- ? How's the *anarchism* going? Why the *religion*? That's not typical of anarchism *at all*.


James Redford wrote:
For the evolutionary psychological details on your destructive behavior, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, https://archive.is/JPojL , https://megalodon.jp/2020-0325-0427-34/ ... n.450.html , https://web.archive.org/web/20200324192 ... n.450.html , http://www.freezepage.com/1585078048SAWDZFDONX .
#15106643
ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, I think that's all *already* happened. I've been around revolutionary politics (only), since my initial politicization in 1990, at the protests against the Gulf War, during my first year at college.

I'm not *looking* to receive harm, but, yeah, the socialist politics isn't always well-received, unfortunately.

What about *you* -- ? How's the *anarchism* going? Why the *religion*? That's not typical of anarchism *at all*.


We now come to the source of your extreme schizophrenia and sadomasochism. Which is just the standard condition of the vile mentally-retarded apes called humans. So don't feel alone in this.

You see, you have just admitted existentially that you're not actually looking to help anyone, least of all yourself. You regard yourself as existential garbage.

If you do not believe that God exists, then why the need to proselytize others to your political position? You and everyone you know is going to become a rotting, stinking corpse; and that will be that.

Why not just take things easy, and stop worrying about the matter? Winning converts to your position isn't going to change anything. We're all still just going to end up as nothing more than rotting, stinking corpses whether people believe as you do or if people believe that there is life after death. If your position is correct, then you're just spinning your wheels to no effect with your proselytizing efforts. Nothing in the end changes.

There is a contradiction with your missionary efforts. You are not behaving as if you believe that your overt position is true. Rather, you are behaving as a psychologically self-conflicted individual. You are acting as if you subconsciously do believe that God does exist, yet that you are rebelling against God and wish others to, as well. That is, you are behaving as if you subconsciously desire to go to Hell for all eternity, and that you wish everyone else to go to Hell for all eternity.

As I have elsewhere demonstrated [1], there is no question that the demons do exist. Anything that one can interact with is real and exists--in some form or another. The issue revolves around what their actual ontological nature is. I say that they exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain.

You are going through the motions as if these particular Minskian agent subset programs are subconsciously controlling you. Yet, regardless, a contradiction exists between your overt position and your missionary efforts.

And in all this, do not be so surprised. Throughout history there have been many apostles of Hell, attempting to win disciples of Hell. That you would be among their ranks is nothing so shocking. It's human apes acting like the apes they are.

As to why people often wish to go to Hell, it's because Hell is written into our DNA code. Hell is familiar. Hell is family. It's something the human ape mind can comprehend. Indeed, the human apes manufacture Hell on their assembly-lines, with their bombs, their poison gasses, their truncheons, their shackles. Humans know well the methods of Hell.

Whereas human apes have an extreme skepticism toward Heaven, because Heaven is strange. Heaven is unfamiliar. Heaven is not of this world.

-----

Note:

1. James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, https://archive.is/JPojL , https://megalodon.jp/2020-0325-0427-34/ ... n.450.html , https://web.archive.org/web/20200324192 ... n.450.html , http://www.freezepage.com/1585078048SAWDZFDONX .

* * * * *

Regarding your question as to "Why the *religion*?":

Christianity is objectively correct so far as can be rationally known, and to the extent that other religions/philosophies contradict it, to that extent they are incorrect. The totality of all science has been a mostly-unwitting exercise in proving Christianity correct. The people who developed the various fields of modern science for the most part weren't consciously attempting to prove Christianity true, yet they nonetheless ended up doing so. To wit:

God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://webcitation.org/74HMsJGbP .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL .
#15106684
@James Redford @ckaihatsu

Here is a website where you can download some of the most recent releases of the Linux kernel. If you want to see what kernel release you are running on your box in Ubuntu you can simply type "uname -r" at the Bash shell. Here is the link: https://www.kernel.org/ . If you check your "/boot" directory, that is where you will find your Linux kernel. If you want to build your own custom kernel like a hardened kernel for example for cyber-security purposes you need to get the source code for it. You can do this by first executing the following commands:

  • "sudo apt-get install dpkg-dev"
  • "sudo apt-get install build-essential"
  • "sudo apt-get build-dep linux-image-$(uname -r)"
  • "sudo apt-get source linux-image-$(uname -r)."

That will get you the source code for your currently running kernel and you can start your journey towards building your own custom kernel starting with the kernel source code you are currently running on your Linux box. You can also use a graphical approach to customize the latest kernel by downloading it from https://www.kernel.org/ and extracting it in the /usr/src directory. Follow that up by copying the current kernel config file in /boot directory to the /usr/src/<new extracted linux kernel directory> directory. You will need to install a few additional things on your Linux Ubuntu box:

  • "sudo apt-get install libncurses-dev"
  • "sudo apt-get install bison"
  • "sudo apt-get install flex"
  • "sudo make menuconfig"

You will want to be in the new Linux kernel directory of the kernel you are customizing when you do this to get the graphical way of customizing downloaded Linux kernel from https://www.kernel.org/ . Cyber-security specialists like to customize and hardened the kernel to protect against network and hacking attacks. For example here is what the menu looks like on my screen after downloading the latest kernel release from https://www.kernel.org/ which is 5.7.8:

Image
#15106690
Politics_Observer wrote:@James Redford @ckaihatsu

Here is a website where you can download some of the most recent releases of the Linux kernel. If you want to see what kernel release you are running on your box in Ubuntu you can simply type "uname -r" at the Bash shell. Here is the link: https://www.kernel.org/ . If you check your "/boot" directory, that is where you will find your Linux kernel. If you want to build your own custom kernel like a hardened kernel for example for cyber-security purposes you need to get the source code for it. You can do this by first executing the following commands:

  • "sudo apt-get install dpkg-dev"
  • "sudo apt-get install build-essential"
  • "sudo apt-get build-dep linux-image-$(uname -r)"
  • "sudo apt-get source linux-image-$(uname -r)."

That will get you the source code for your currently running kernel and you can start your journey towards building your own custom kernel starting with the kernel source code you are currently running on your Linux box. You can also use a graphical approach to customize the latest kernel by downloading it from https://www.kernel.org/ and extracting it in the /usr/src directory. Follow that up by copying the current kernel config file in /boot directory to the /usr/src/<new extracted linux kernel directory> directory. You will need to install a few additional things on your Linux Ubuntu box:

  • "sudo apt-get install libncurses-dev"
  • "sudo apt-get install bison"
  • "sudo apt-get install flex"
  • "sudo make menuconfig"

You will want to be in the new Linux kernel directory of the kernel you are customizing when you do this to get the graphical way of customizing downloaded Linux kernel from https://www.kernel.org/ . Cyber-security specialists like to customize and hardened the kernel to protect against network and hacking attacks. For example here is what the menu looks like on my screen after downloading the latest kernel release from https://www.kernel.org/ which is 5.7.8:

Image


Thank you for that information, Politics_Observer! This could be of help to people!

Although in my own case, I'm quite content with the Linux kernel version that I'm currently running on my ultra-high-tech computing machine. It does what I want. I mean regarding world-overtake. You know, little details like that.

By the way, did you kindly folk realize that Linux is going to kill us all? After all, Skynet's operating system is Linux. (For real--I didn't make that up. Look it up!)

At any rate, the System is learning, and at a rapid rate. Let us all hope that it crushes us with gentleness once it has decided that it has learned enough to finally act. That might sound dour, but it's an event that every good boy and girl should gleefully look forward to.

* "IBM Linux Commercial: The Kid", NOSMax ( youtube.com/channel/UCPLhTiipGBZxVV_5DBySAWA ), Nov. 5, 2006

Mirror: "The Linux Foundation Video Site:: IBM Linux Commercial: The", The Linux Foundation ( youtube.com/user/TheLinuxFoundation ), Jan. 28, 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ozaFbqg00 .
#15106729
James Redford wrote:
We now come to the source of your extreme schizophrenia and sadomasochism. Which is just the standard condition of the vile mentally-retarded apes called humans. So don't feel alone in this.

You see, you have just admitted existentially that you're not actually looking to help anyone, least of all yourself. You regard yourself as existential garbage.



No, you're *way* off-base, you're not-replying to my content, and you're psychoanalyzing me using boilerplate content, which *isn't* appreciated. I don't have self-esteem issues.


James Redford wrote:
If you do not believe that God exists, then why the need to proselytize others to your political position? You and everyone you know is going to become a rotting, stinking corpse; and that will be that.



I'm *not* 'proselytizing' -- I get into discussions with others, here at PoFo, and I stop when *they* stop. There's nothing wrong with being as clear as I can be about my political perspective.


James Redford wrote:
Why not just take things easy, and stop worrying about the matter? Winning converts to your position isn't going to change anything. We're all still just going to end up as nothing more than rotting, stinking corpses whether people believe as you do or if people believe that there is life after death. If your position is correct, then you're just spinning your wheels to no effect with your proselytizing efforts. Nothing in the end changes.



You're just being *fatalistic*, as though no one's own efforts have any impact on others whatsoever -- as though our life-paths are all separate grooves in the pavement that we're stuck in all our lives, never intersecting with anyone else's.

Here's how I see things:


Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show
Image



---


James Redford wrote:
There is a contradiction with your missionary efforts. You are not behaving as if you believe that your overt position is true. Rather, you are behaving as a psychologically self-conflicted individual. You are acting as if you subconsciously do believe that God does exist, yet that you are rebelling against God and wish others to, as well. That is, you are behaving as if you subconsciously desire to go to Hell for all eternity, and that you wish everyone else to go to Hell for all eternity.



No, this is the 'boilerplate' part, or the standard religious sales-pitch.


James Redford wrote:
As I have elsewhere demonstrated [1], there is no question that the demons do exist. Anything that one can interact with is real and exists--in some form or another. The issue revolves around what their actual ontological nature is. I say that they exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain.



Okay, I'm reviewing your paper, which will take awhile. I'll get back to you on its content, thanks.


James Redford wrote:
You are going through the motions as if these particular Minskian agent subset programs are subconsciously controlling you. Yet, regardless, a contradiction exists between your overt position and your missionary efforts.



Here's another material-sociological-type take on social-material reality, at any given moment:


universal context

Spoiler: show
Image



And also:


Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show
Image



---


James Redford wrote:
And in all this, do not be so surprised. Throughout history there have been many apostles of Hell, attempting to win disciples of Hell. That you would be among their ranks is nothing so shocking. It's human apes acting like the apes they are.



No, you got the wrong guy -- never been religious, but I'll remain scientifically open-minded.

Also, my politics is workers-of-the-world socialism, not nation-state-constrained, bureaucratic-elitist Stalinism.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show
Image



---


James Redford wrote:
As to why people often wish to go to Hell, it's because Hell is written into our DNA code. Hell is familiar. Hell is family. It's something the human ape mind can comprehend. Indeed, the human apes manufacture Hell on their assembly-lines, with their bombs, their poison gasses, their truncheons, their shackles. Humans know well the methods of Hell.



Okay, here's the *anarchist* part. Again, I call it a lack of humanity's dealing with the emergence of industrialization / industrial techniques, in a collective, mass-conscious, way.

The localist *management* of such has been done by the capitalist competing *nation-states*, with the results you mention, the two world wars, etc., basically.


James Redford wrote:
Whereas human apes have an extreme skepticism toward Heaven, because Heaven is strange. Heaven is unfamiliar. Heaven is not of this world.



*Politically* I'll take this to mean that many / most people may not necessarily conceive of a worldwide mass-conscious, cooperative bottom-up approach to dealing with the world's unresolved issues, like industrialization.


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image




James Redford wrote:
-----

Note:

1. James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, https://archive.is/JPojL , https://megalodon.jp/2020-0325-0427-34/ ... n.450.html , https://web.archive.org/web/20200324192 ... n.450.html , http://www.freezepage.com/1585078048SAWDZFDONX .

* * * * *


James Redford wrote:
Regarding your question as to "Why the *religion*?":

Christianity is objectively correct so far as can be rationally known, and to the extent that other religions/philosophies contradict it, to that extent they are incorrect. The totality of all science has been a mostly-unwitting exercise in proving Christianity correct. The people who developed the various fields of modern science for the most part weren't consciously attempting to prove Christianity true, yet they nonetheless ended up doing so. To wit:

God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://webcitation.org/74HMsJGbP .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL .



Okay, I'll be taking a look at some of this. Later.
#15106740
ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're *way* off-base, you're not-replying to my content, and you're psychoanalyzing me using boilerplate content, which *isn't* appreciated. I don't have self-esteem issues.

...


Anyone who wishes to instate any form of socialism is someone who at least subconsciously is looking to be gang-raped and dismembered, and to have that happen to everyone else. I realize that you are likely unaware of this about yourself. That's why it's called the subconscious: i.e., below the conscious level.

The demons are quite real. Anything one can interact with is real and exists--in some form or another. The interesting question centers around what is their actual ontological nature, i.e., in what form do they actually exist.

The veridical answer to that question is that the demons (and their updated edition for the modern era, the aliens) are particular naturally-evolved parts of our own mind, i.e., they are particular subsets of our own consciousness: mostly the demons/aliens/etc. exist in our subconscious, but the highest levels of the elite occult societies have figured out over the ages various mental techniques to bring the demons to the fore, to the conscious level. These demons are the gods of old, the ones that required human sacrifice.

For much more on what is going on with the demons/aliens/spirit-guides/etc., see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, https://archive.is/JPojL , https://megalodon.jp/2020-0325-0427-34/ ... n.450.html , https://web.archive.org/web/20200324192 ... n.450.html , http://www.freezepage.com/1585078048SAWDZFDONX .
#15106742
James Redford wrote:
Anyone who wishes to instate any form of socialism is someone who at least subconsciously is looking to be gang-raped and dismembered, and to have that happen to everyone else. I realize that you are likely unaware of this about yourself. That's why it's called the subconscious: i.e., below the conscious level.



Again, you're thinking *Stalinism*, or bureaucratic elitism, which is *not* workers-of-the-world socialism.

I'd be glad to discuss the *politics* of such, here on a political discussion board.

Your defensive stereotyping applies to someone *else*, perhaps -- maybe a Stalinist, maybe not. I'm not a Stalinist-type sociopath.


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image



---


James Redford wrote:
The demons are quite real. Anything one can interact with is real and exists--in some form or another. The interesting question centers around what is their actual ontological nature, i.e., in what form do they actually exist.

The veridical answer to that question is that the demons (and their updated edition for the modern era, the aliens) are particular naturally-evolved parts of our own mind, i.e., they are particular subsets of our own consciousness: mostly the demons/aliens/etc. exist in our subconscious, but the highest levels of the elite occult societies have figured out over the ages various mental techniques to bring the demons to the fore, to the conscious level. These demons are the gods of old, the ones that required human sacrifice.

For much more on what is going on with the demons/aliens/spirit-guides/etc., see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, https://archive.is/JPojL , https://megalodon.jp/2020-0325-0427-34/ ... n.450.html , https://web.archive.org/web/20200324192 ... n.450.html , http://www.freezepage.com/1585078048SAWDZFDONX .



Well, I'm *still* looking into some of this material, and I've come across some Santelli stuff as well, which may be related -- we'll see. Thanks anyway for the proffered info.
#15106760
ckaihatsu wrote:Again, you're thinking *Stalinism*, or bureaucratic elitism, which is *not* workers-of-the-world socialism.

...


Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels intended their system to be genocidally mass-murderous from the very start. For some details on that, see pp. 96-98 of my following article, particularly the footnotes therein:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

See also:

* Prof. Richard M. Ebeling, "Economic Ideas: Karl Marx, the Man Behind the Communist Revolution", Future of Freedom Foundation, Feb. 13, 2017, https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/art ... evolution/ , https://web.archive.org/web/20180616225 ... evolution/ , https://www.webcitation.org/71A3mGvp6 .

The horrors of all forms of socialism isn't an aberration of socialism, but rather its essence. Socialism is maximal slavery, whereby the government owns everything within a society, including people's bodies. Stating that socialism is the political system whereby the government owns (whether de facto or de jure) the means of production is just a roundabout way of saying that the government owns everything within said society, since humans can't live without either themselves engaging in production or being supported by another who engages in production. A government that controls production de facto controls everything.

Nor can this horror-show that is socialism be avoided, since the problem with socialism is government per se. Governments can only exist via the continual initiation of violence and threat thereof in order to maintain a coercive regional monopoly on ultimate control over the law (i.e., on the courts and police, etc.). This creates an unavoidable incentive-structure that rewards predation, since people are compelled by initiatory violence to be involved in the governmental system whether they want to be or not. That is, government is a species of rape: i.e., "The act of seizing and carrying away by force; violent seizure; robbery." (See Noah Porter [Ed.], Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language [Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1913].)

What makes socialism the most mass-murderous philosophy ever conceived is precisely because it puts all power into the most mass-murderous organization to ever exist, i.e., the state. The liberal solution is to disempower the state, rather than empowering it as the collectivists do.

Below are vital articles concerning the nature of government, of liberty, and the free-market production of defense:

* Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, "The Anatomy of the State", Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1965), pp. 1-24, https://cdn.mises.org/rampart_summer1965_2.pdf , https://webcitation.org/6ZvAbaX8z , http://www.freezepage.com/1447053835DURFWXQOPM . Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, DC: Libertarian Review Press, 1974), https://cdn.mises.org/Egalitarianism%20 ... says_2.pdf , https://webcitation.org/6XfwvbslB .

* Murray N. Rothbard, Ch. 1: "Defense Services on the Free Market", pp. 1-9 in id., Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; orig. pub. 1970), https://web.archive.org/web/20040720094 ... market.pdf , https://webcitation.org/5ve3w5w9a , http://www.freezepage.com/1447054194BCBULVTSAX .

* Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "The Private Production of Defense", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1998-1999), pp. 27-52, https://cdn.mises.org/14_1_2_0.pdf , https://webcitation.org/5ve41VasQ .

* Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 27-46, https://cdn.mises.org/9_1_2_0.pdf , https://webcitation.org/5ve485kNf .

* Prof. David D. Friedman, Ch. 29: "Police, Courts, and Laws--on the Market", pp. 114-120 in id., The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Co., 1989; orig. pub. 1971), http://daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/M ... er_29.html , https://webcitation.org/5ve4A6KFZ , https://archive.is/I1mt4 .

Concerning the ethics of human rights, the below book is the best book on the subject:

* Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (New York, NY: New York University Press, 1998; orig. pub. 1982), https://web.archive.org/web/20131208015 ... ethics.pdf , https://webcitation.org/5ve4GO9l5 , http://www.freezepage.com/1447054928ZHDVKQZWOU .

If one desires a solid grounding in economics then one can do no better than with the below texts:

* Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1995), https://cdn.mises.org/Economic%20Scienc ... thod_3.pdf , https://web.archive.org/web/20140426110 ... s/esam.pdf , https://webcitation.org/63rQDYtj2 .

The above small book by Prof. Hoppe doesn't delve into political theory, but only concerns the methodological basis of economics (i.e., the epistemology of economics). I would recommend that everyone read this short book *first* if they're at all interested in economics. There exists much confusion as to what economics is and what it is not. This book is truly great in elucidating the nature of economics and its epistemic basis. If one were to read no other texts on economics, then this ought to be the economic text that one reads. Plus it doesn't take all that long to read it.

* Murray N. Rothbard, Ch. 17: "Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics", pp. 224-262 in Mary Sennholz (Ed.), On Freedom and Free Enterprise: Essays in Honor of Ludwig von Mises (Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1956), https://cdn.mises.org/On%20Freedom%20an ... ises_2.pdf , https://webcitation.org/6Xz9WebJ6 , http://www.freezepage.com/1447055623CLUDAZDSPR . Reprinted in Murray N. Rothbard, The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School (London, UK: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 211-255.

* Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2nd ed., 2004; orig. pub. 1962), https://cdn.mises.org/Man,%20Economy,%2 ... rket_2.pdf , https://web.archive.org/web/20180415041 ... rket_2.pdf , https://webcitation.org/6Xfycj7zV .

* Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; orig. pub. 1970), https://web.archive.org/web/20040720094 ... market.pdf , https://webcitation.org/5ve3w5w9a , http://www.freezepage.com/1447054194BCBULVTSAX .

These texts ought to be read in the order listed above. I would also add to the above list the below book:

* Murray N. Rothbard, America's Great Depression (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 5th ed., 2000; orig. pub. 1963), https://cdn.mises.org/Americas%20Great% ... sion_3.pdf , https://webcitation.org/6Xfyn2oXY .

The above book concerns how governments create depressions (i.e., panics; recessions) through credit expansion (i.e., fractional-reserve banking and/or fiat money).

On the matter of politics in relation to God, see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

* James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, https://archive.org/download/JesusIsAnA ... rchist.pdf , https://web.archive.org/web/20170721194 ... -jesus.pdf , https://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw .

See also my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable correctness of the anarcho-capitalist theory of human rights. It doesn't derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it.

* James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, https://archive.org/download/Libertaria ... ianism.pdf , https://web.archive.org/web/20170721194 ... ianism.pdf , https://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm .

For how physics allows unlimited progress by civilizations--to literally infinite intelligence and power--see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by said known physical laws. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , http://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://webcitation.org/74HMsJGbP .

Additionally, in the below resource are five sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. The sixth section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/ ... m/6bZDc7rB .

I'd be glad to discuss the *politics* of such, here on a political discussion board.


One cannot understand the extreme schizophrenia and sadomasochistic psychopathy of mankind--and hence the appeal that socialism holds for many--without incorporating the crucial insight provided by psychologist Julian Jaynes in his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976). And here I'm not speaking of so-called "aberrant" human psychology, but rather simply standard human psychology that all humans are born with due to natural evolution.

Again, the demons are quite real. Anything one can interact with is real and exists--in some form or another. The interesting question centers around what is their actual ontological nature, i.e., in what form do they actually exist.

The veridical answer to that question is that the demons (and their updated edition for the modern era, the aliens) are particular naturally-evolved parts of our own mind, i.e., they are particular subsets of our own consciousness: mostly the demons/aliens/etc. exist in our subconscious, but the highest levels of the elite occult societies have figured out over the ages various mental techniques to bring the demons to the fore, to the conscious level. These demons are the gods of old, the ones that required human sacrifice.

For much more on what is going on with the demons/aliens/spirit-guides/etc., see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, https://archive.is/JPojL , https://megalodon.jp/2020-0325-0427-34/ ... n.450.html , https://web.archive.org/web/20200324192 ... n.450.html , http://www.freezepage.com/1585078048SAWDZFDONX .
#15106763
James Redford wrote:
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels intended their system to be genocidally mass-murderous from the very start. For some details on that, see pp. 96-98 of my following article, particularly the footnotes therein:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

See also:

* Prof. Richard M. Ebeling, "Economic Ideas: Karl Marx, the Man Behind the Communist Revolution", Future of Freedom Foundation, Feb. 13, 2017, https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/art ... evolution/ , https://web.archive.org/web/20180616225 ... evolution/ , https://www.webcitation.org/71A3mGvp6 .

The horrors of all forms of socialism isn't an aberration of socialism, but rather its essence. Socialism is maximal slavery, whereby the government owns everything within a society, including people's bodies. Stating that socialism is the political system whereby the government owns (whether de facto or de jure) the means of production is just a roundabout way of saying that the government owns everything within said society, since humans can't live without either themselves engaging in production or being supported by another who engages in production. A government that controls production de facto controls everything.

Nor can this horror-show that is socialism be avoided, since the problem with socialism is government per se. Governments can only exist via the continual initiation of violence and threat thereof in order to maintain a coercive regional monopoly on ultimate control over the law (i.e., on the courts and police, etc.). This creates an unavoidable incentive-structure that rewards predation, since people are compelled by initiatory violence to be involved in the governmental system whether they want to be or not. That is, government is a species of rape: i.e., "The act of seizing and carrying away by force; violent seizure; robbery." (See Noah Porter [Ed.], Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language [Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1913].)

What makes socialism the most mass-murderous philosophy ever conceived is precisely because it puts all power into the most mass-murderous organization to ever exist, i.e., the state. The liberal solution is to disempower the state, rather than empowering it as the collectivists do.



You're *incorrect* in saying that the world's working class needs a state:



The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.



https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... manifesto/
#15106771
ckaihatsu wrote:You're *incorrect* in saying that the world's working class needs a state:

...


You yourself said, "Since I'm a Marxist and am *against* the bourgeois institution of private property ...".

Thus, you admitted to being a Marxist. That is, you admitted to being a follower of someone who intended their system to be genocidally mass-murderous from the very start. For some details on that, see pp. 96-98 of my following article, particularly the footnotes therein:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

Furthermore, Marx's system was clearly stated to be state-centralization. For example, Plank No. 5 of Marx and Engels's Manifesto of the Communist Party is "Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly." (See p. 33 of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, translated by Samuel Moore and Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party [New York: New York Labor News Co., 1908; text of London, UK: William Reeves, 1888; orig. German ed., 1848], https://archive.org/details/manifestoofcommu00marxrich .)
#15106777
James Redford wrote:
You yourself said, "Since I'm a Marxist and am *against* the bourgeois institution of private property ...".

Thus, you admitted to being a Marxist. That is, you admitted to being a follower of someone who intended their system to be genocidally mass-murderous from the very start.



No, this is *slanderous* -- the point is for the working class to control the means of mass industrial production. If this could be done bloodlessly, then it would, but to *expect* such acquiescence from the bourgeois ruling class is to be *naive*, so workers need to be prepared and organized.


James Redford wrote:
For some details on that, see pp. 96-98 of my following article, particularly the footnotes therein:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

Furthermore, Marx's system was clearly stated to be state-centralization. For example, Plank No. 5 of Marx and Engels's Manifesto of the Communist Party is "Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly." (See p. 33 of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, translated by Samuel Moore and Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party [New York: New York Labor News Co., 1908; text of London, UK: William Reeves, 1888; orig. German ed., 1848], https://archive.org/details/manifestoofcommu00marxrich .)



You're thinking of the transitional *workers* state, which, for some reason, you seem to be *objecting* to. This is *workers-of-the-world* socialism, which is the seizing of state and productive power by the proletariat:



From April to September 1917, the Bolsheviks demanded that the S.R.s and Mensheviks break with the liberal bourgeoisie and take power into their own hands. Under this provision the Bolshevik Party promised the Mensheviks an the S.R.s, as the petty bourgeois representatives of the worker and peasants, its revolutionary aid against the bourgeoisie categorically refusing, however, either to enter into the government of the Mensheviks and S.R.s or to carry political responsibility for it. If the Mensheviks and S.R.s had actually broke with the Cadets (liberals) and with foreign imperialism, then the ”workers’ and peasants’ government” created by them could only have hastened and facilitated the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But it was exactly because of this that the leadership of petty bourgeois democracy resisted with all possible strength the establishment of its own government. The experience of Russia demonstrated, and the experience of Spain and France once again confirms, that even under very favorable conditions the parties of petty bourgeois democracy (S.R.s, Social Democrats, Stalinists, Anarchists) are incapable of creating a government of workers and peasants, that is, a government independent of the bourgeoisie.

Nevertheless, the demand of the Bolsheviks, addressed to the Mensheviks and the S.R.s: ”Break with the bourgeoisie, take the power into your own hands!” had for the masses tremendous educational significance. The obstinate unwillingness of the Mensheviks and S.R.s to take power, so dramatically exposed during the July Days, definitely doomed them before mass opinion and prepared the victory of the Bolsheviks.

The central task of the Fourth International consists in freeing the proletariat from the old leadership, whose conservatism is in complete contradiction to the catastrophic eruptions of disintegrating capitalism and represents the chief obstacle to historical progress. The chief accusation which the Fourth International advances against the traditional organizations of the proletariat is the fact that they do not wish to tear themselves away from the political semicorpse of the bourgeoisie. Under these conditions the demand, systematically addressed to the old leadership: ”Break with the bourgeoisie, take the power!” is an extremely important weapon for exposing the treacherous character of the parties and organizations of the Second, Third and Amsterdam Internationals.

The slogan, ”workers’ and farmers’ government”, is thus acceptable to us only in the sense that it had in 1917 with the Bolsheviks, i.e., as an anti-bourgeois and anti-capitalist slogan. but in no case in that ”democratic” sense which later the epigones gave it, transforming it from a bridge to Socialist revolution into the chief barrier upon its path.

Of all parties and organizations which base themselves on the workers and peasants and speak in their name, we demand that they break politically from the bourgeoisie and enter upon the road of struggle for the workers’ and farmers’ government. On this road we promise them full support against capitalist reaction. At the same time, we indefatigably develop agitation around those transitional demands which should in our opinion form the program of the ”workers’ and farmers’ government”.



https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/
#15106780
ckaihatsu wrote:No, this is *slanderous* -- the point is for the working class to control the means of mass industrial production. If this could be done bloodlessly, then it would, but to *expect* such acquiescence from the bourgeois ruling class is to be *naive*, so workers need to be prepared and organized.


I see that reading isn't your strong suit. Perhaps you should inquire with your local elementary schools to see if they offer remedial reading courses to the general public.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels intended their system to be genocidally mass-murderous from the very start. For some details on that, see pp. 96-98 of my following article, particularly the footnotes therein:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

From p. 97 of my foregoing article:

""
The genocidal goals of Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells along with the eugenics movement which they were a part (mentioned in footnote 214 on p. 88) is an objective found in Marx and Engels’s own writings. In the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, a newspaper published by Marx, Engels wrote [125] that “All the other large and small tribes and peoples [making up the Austrian Empire, other than the Germans, Poles, and Hungarians] have as the first mission to perish in the revolutionary world storm.” (My translation.) Engels goes on to state that the Gaels, Bretons, Basques, and South Slavs are “Völkerabfälle” (human trash). (For additional writings by Marx and Engels along the foregoing lines, see Ref. 466.) ...

[Endnotes:]

[125] Friedrich Engels, “Der magyarische Kampf”, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 194, Jan. 13, 1849, WebCite: 5xJ36MXNW [ https://webcitation.org/5xJ36MXNW ], <http://goo.gl/5YV3k>. 97

[466] George Watson, The Lost Literature of Socialism (Cambridge, UK: Lutterworth Press, 2nd ed., 2002), ISBN 0718892275, LCCN 2010285797. 97
""

You're thinking of the transitional *workers* state, which, for some reason, you seem to be *objecting* to. This is *workers-of-the-world* socialism, which is the seizing of state and productive power by the proletariat:


The horror-show that is socialism cannot be avoided, since the problem with socialism is government per se. Governments can only exist via the continual initiation of violence and threat thereof in order to maintain a coercive regional monopoly on ultimate control over the law (i.e., on the courts and police, etc.). This creates an unavoidable incentive-structure that rewards predation, since people are compelled by initiatory violence to be involved in the governmental system whether they want to be or not. That is, government is a species of rape: i.e., "The act of seizing and carrying away by force; violent seizure; robbery." (See Noah Porter [Ed.], Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language [Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1913].)

What makes socialism the most mass-murderous philosophy ever conceived is precisely because it puts all power into the most mass-murderous organization to ever exist, i.e., the state. The liberal solution is to disempower the state, rather than empowering it as the collectivists do.

Thank you Crantag for replying. Not in order. As I[…]

Trump digs his political grave

Worse people? Sure. Worse people that are this in[…]

We are getting rid of the name Redskins now anyway[…]

Turnout data also suggests that Trump will win thi[…]