Saturday, July 1, 2017

Richard Dawkins Believes He Knows Best

They got a name for that when you're poor and not famous - it's called PSYCHOSIS

So apparently (nobody is more surprised than I am) it would appear according to standardised testing that I passed more brain cells in my last bowel movement than Richard Dawkins has in his entire head.

I am not one of these guys. I'm not going to lie to you and pretend I was ever impressed by Plato's THE REPUBLIC. I read it when I was ten years old and I thought it was pretentious crap as soon as I closed the back cover. I could see Plato was a high strung narcissist pretending to be bright, just like Richard Dawkins. Nobody told me Plato was an idiot. I knew it instinctively. I was never Plato. I never thought the fact I could run intellectual circles around nearly everyone meant that I should be the god-king. I was smart enough to know just how many people die at the hands of those kinds of fools. In fact, by the age of 12 you could not have made me the god-king of Plato's books. I would flee if you attempted to force it on me. It's a bad business all this central management and collectivization of resources and labor. Anybody who pretends they can do that job is a liar.

My conclusion after a half a century on this vale of tears is that nobody should ever be compelled to do anything except respect the right of others to never be compelled. It's a bad idea in terms of governance. I know enough about the way the world works to know that nobody is better equipped to decide what is best for a person than the person themselves. It's a sick queer dream of intellectuals worldwide to ascend the throne and implement their creepy central engineering policies, ignoring centuries of evidence to the contrary. Richard Dawkins isn't smart enough to shine my shoes, he is a media myth. You want to read somebody who needed no promotion to get his books to sell or for his ideas to acquire relevance? Read Bastiat's THE LAW.

By the same token, I don't believe people should be compelled to live with strangers or forced to accept anybody in their community anywhere until they have vetted that person. The European Union is all about turning people into livestock and pushing them up chutes into a slaughterhouse. It is the opposite of all that is good and the destruction of untold years of progress in the West in determining what constitutes good governance. Where men are free they will thrive, particularly when they are subject to the consequences of their own folly. Where men are compelled they wither and die.


Dave Narby said...

I think you meant Frédéric Bastiat?

((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) said...

well, to be fair, the Founding Fathers didn't "believe in" Democracy either.

Suffrage requirements were left to the Sovereign States to determine, but no women and typically some 70% of White men were not permitted to vote.

this recent mania for Universal Suffrage being a requirement for a "Just Society" is explicitly anti-Constitutional and actually comes from the Marxists.

Luke said...

Thanks for the book recommendation Tex! Bought it and finished it yesterday. Reading it felt like listening to a sane man after spending 10 years in a mental asylum. It's amazing how the same fallacies and immorality we see on TV today were thoroughly refuted generations ago. Truly there is nothing new under the sun.


If you read the book, Bastiat makes a good point on this subject. If the government is restricted to its proper role; collective self-defense, defending against injustice (not promoting justice), then it's not such a big deal who votes. Voting only becomes such an important issue when the government starts to plunder, and everyone wants to join in.

Phlebas the Phoenician said...

"Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one ‘idea’ of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups. “I can see the cup on the table,” interrupted Diogenes, “but I can’t see the ‘cupness’.” "That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend ‘cupness’.” Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?" Plato nodded. “Where is the ‘emptiness’ which precedes this empty cup?” asked Diogenes. Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said “I think you will find here is the ‘emptiness’.”"

Edward said...

Well, it seems to work fairly well in programming languages. We have abstract types for which there is no implementation and we can still reason about them and typecheck them, and then provide a suitable implementation at runtime.
There iterableness, which proceeds a list, and yet many things are Iterable. The 'forms' don't you know.