Public Site | Private Site | Home Page | Send Remarks
David L. Hunter
Copyright © 2001
Sinclair Lewis is one of the great novelists of the twentieth century. In his novel titled Arrowsmith, a lady named Joyce Lanyon said to Dr. Martin Arrowsmith, “You see, I’d never been trained in reality. You trained me.” Today, citizens of Earth are not trained in reality; they are trained in the opposite: mysticism. People are bombarded from every angle with mystical and dishonest notions about life ranging from political frauds to religious frauds to media frauds to educational frauds to environmental frauds. After decades of relentless training in non-reality, everyone is left confused about what is right and wrong, what is good and bad.
The Immortality Manifesto is a much-needed training in reality as it relates to human immortality—physical immortality—living forever in mind and body right here on planet Earth. Everyone has repeatedly heard the notion that to achieve everlasting life, each person needs to die to reach another world of eternal happiness. This Immortality Manifesto rejects that mystical notion. Instead, this manifesto asserts you never have to die; you can live forever. So sit back and forget popular notions about death. This manuscript will take you on a journey through reality to immortalize you.
Realize that no one can live forever if they are not trained in reality. That is because as a conscious being, each of us has no choice about living in reality. We have to live in reality or else die…and death is final. If we have to live in reality, we have to know how to understand reality and act in reality to achieve the values needed for eternal life as living, breathing human beings. Fortunately, after eons of human evolution, this manifesto provides training in reality so readers can capture immortality now.
A question comes up when discussing immortality. That question is, “does anyone really want to live forever?” This is a good question because it touches on an issue to which many people can relate. A lot of people would respond to this question by saying, “No! I don’t want to live forever! That would be horrible!” This kind of reply is understandable. Why? Because today exists an old world on Earth that is anathema to human immortality. No one can honestly want to live forever in Earth’s grotesque anti-life world. The key to immortality at this stage of humanity is not to dwell primarily on scientific methods for becoming immortal. Rather, the goal is to flip people into a harmonious, pro-life world: a cosmopolitan civilization.
Before that can be done, however, people need to be trained in reality. They need to be able to independently identify reality and act on their own understanding to capture permanent prosperity. As individuals do this, they will increasingly value their own life…eventually to the point where they want to live forever. When a critical mass of people reaches that point, i.e., a tiny fraction of humanity, the immortality market will be born. From there, entrepreneurs will deliver immortality products and services in a competitive battle for market share, profit, and glory.
The bottom line is that today few people harbor immortal desires. Most people do not want immortality and rightly so. Who wants to suffer forever? That would be insane. But people exposed to this manifesto will understand the contextual meaning of immortality. That meaning is living forever on planet Earth by producing commendable values for others while living prosperously, healthily, romantically, and happily. As people understand the full-context value of immortality, they will increasingly desire immortality over death.
People who have studied formal logic no doubt have encountered the following syllogism:
Premise one: All men are mortal
Premise two: Socrates is a man
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal
Both premises are true and the reasoning is valid. Therefore, the conclusion is true. The conclusion logically follows from the premises. This is a simple example of deductive logic proving Socrates is mortal.
People need to focus on premise one in the above syllogism: All men are mortal. This is a valid premise and has been valid since man first walked on Earth millions of years ago. However, as revealed in this document, the above premise will be overturned.
How could that be? How could man who has always been mortal suddenly become immortal? Would not that take an act of God? Is it really possible to make human life immortal? The answer is that prior to the Immortality Manifesto, man was mortal. But with the arrival of this manifesto, it is time for man to become immortal.
As man advanced throughout the ages, he overcame difficult situations to survive and flourish. He went from being a crude cave-dwelling animal to a civilized conscious person. His survival tools evolved from spears and fire to computers and commerce. When you observe human history, you can see the remarkable advancement from where we were to where we are. Obviously, human advancement does not stop today. We are advancing and will continue to advance until we become masters of the universe.
During the last 2000 years, human life span increased by 50 years. In the last century, human life span increased by 25 years. Today the life expectancy for human beings is 75 years. In much earlier times, man died young due to poor living conditions. Thus he never had a chance to die of “old age”. But from the perspective of human immortality, it is disappointing that after millennia of human development man has only increased his life expectancy from 25 years to 75 years. Living to age 75 is just a blip of time when juxtaposed with immortality and eternity.
There can be no doubt that today all men are mortal. The fact that everybody dies is proof; no deductive logic is needed. Additionally, until now, no one has a cure for aging and death. But the disease of human aging and death will be cured like other diseases have been cured.
Even if man develops the medical technology to cure aging and death within the next few months, that cure will be useless. Why? The answer is because no one can or even wants to live forever in our current anti-life civilization. For 3000 years man has lived in a mystical world dominated by irrational doctrines, mythical supreme beings, and gun-backed leaders who ruin everyone’s life. In short, citizens of Earth have lived not in reality, but in a web of illusions. But today, with this Immortality Manifesto, individuals will escape those lethal illusions. Everyone will eventually leave behind our 3000-year legacy of collective absurdity as each person learns reality. From that immovable base of reality we will advance into immortal beings.
Consider the paradox of living forever yet still having a theft-and-murder institution like the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS daily commits crimes against American citizens, their property, their businesses, and their families. The IRS has recently committed cruel acts against hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent Americans struggling to survive and enjoy life (reference: IRS Abuse Reports). Bad philosophy breeds bad ideas, which breed bad politicians, which breed bad government policies and agencies, which breed theft and violence against citizens. Do citizens really want IRS-type agencies breathing down their necks not for a few years but forever? How many people can tolerate IRS-type agents haunting them eternally?
The IRS has created a life expectancy table that calculates how long they expect you to live given your current age. This enables them to know how much money they will expropriate from you through coercive force. If for instance you are 35, the IRS expects you to live 47 more years. Or if you are 75, the IRS expects you to live another 13 years. From this table, the IRS can project how much money you will owe them. Because you earn money, the IRS considers that you owe them money. Now if immortality were available in Earth’s anti-life world, you would not owe the IRS for another 13 years or 47 years; you would owe the IRS forever! And if you do not pay what the IRS demands, gun-backed agents will guide you into court and possibly prison. These coercive conditions repel human immortality.
What is the prerequisite for human immortality? What is needed? We all need to move into a completely free world: a world that legally prohibits initiatory force and coercion by any person or group of persons. This implies a libertarian-type society where each person interacts with others on a voluntary basis. It also implies laissez-faire capitalism as the socio-economic paradigm in which citizens live. Without initiatory force and its corollaries of coercion and fraud, every human interaction becomes voluntary. No one can be forced to think, say, or do anything. Our civilization will shift from a force-based world to a competition-based world. We will all move away from mysticism-driven death and move toward business-driven life.
In a work titled the Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell (Little Brown & Company, 2000), the author describes how ideas become epidemic and spread throughout society. This book emphasizes the point at which an idea or product catches on in society and spreads wildly, whether it be a fashion trend, a television show, a new product, or anything else that can spread from a few people to many people.
The Tipping Point traces the path of an idea from a few people on the fringe of society who adopt something new to “connectors”, “mavens”, and “salespeople” who pick up the idea and spread it throughout society. Tipping points have occurred with Pet Rocks, Barbie Dolls, Hush Puppy Shoes, Sesame Street, and so on. As Gladwell explains, social epidemics typically start out with a few people on the fringe of society who adopt a new idea, product, or fashion. A connector, i.e., a person who knows many people, observes what is happening and tells many others about the new idea. A maven, i.e., a person who has much knowledge about the subject, provides critical information about the idea to others. And salespeople, i.e., people with great persuasive ability, sell the idea to the masses through various sales and advertising mediums.
The tipping point can occur for bad ideas. For instance, the tipping point occurred for youth smokers, drug use, and crime in New York City. The tipping point can also occur for good ideas, such as the children’s educational program Sesame Street and helpful books. However, there is no mention in the Tipping Point of the basic currency that runs through all social epidemics: a meme.
What is a meme? A meme is an idea that replicates itself throughout society. It is a unit of mental information like a gene is a unit of biological information. Both genes and memes strive to replicate themselves in a struggle for evolutionary success. The study of memes is called memetics, which is a relatively new field. Memetics studies how memes are created, spread, mutated, and adopted.
Memes are important to understand because they affect many aspects of conscious life. For example, there are individual memes that influence our behavior: “the love of money is the root of all evil” and “Winston tastes good like a cigarette should” and “Just do it” are examples of individual memes. Additionally, memes can be clustered together to form a memeplex. Christianity is a memeplex; Nazism is also a memeplex. Basically, any idea that is replicated from one person to many people is a meme. An idea that does not spread beyond its originator is not a meme.
The spreading of a meme is not dependent on its truth or validity. A meme that lacks a rational basis in reality can spread throughout society and be adopted by large numbers of people. Examples include the flat-earth meme, the geocentric meme, the Roman Catholicism meme, and the Bolshevik meme. These and similar memes have no rational basis in reality; they are conjured up by men despite factual evidence. That is why these memes require the use of force against dissenters: they contradict reality and cannot sustain opposition. When Columbus attempted to disprove the flat-earth meme, he was met with resistance. Copernicus waited until the day he died to publish his refutation of the geocentric meme because he knew he would be persecuted. Giordano Bruno was burned alive for contradicting the Roman Catholicism meme. And Lenin liquidated all opposition to the Bolshevik meme.
Some of the world’s biggest memes include religion and government. But the biggest meme in the history of conscious man is human death. The notion that human beings have to die is the most pervasive meme of all. Religion attempted to deal with the death meme by creating the “Heaven” meme, the “Hell” meme, and the “Eternal life after death” meme.
In the past, men have suffered and died from scourges including the plague, tuberculosis, yellow fever, polio, measles, and other diseases. However, those scourges have been eliminated by medical cures. Likewise, today, men suffer and die from cancer, heart disease, aids, and other diseases. Eventually, these scourges will also be eliminated by medical cures.
But still, at the beginning of the third millennium, the death meme has a powerful grip on planet Earth. Nearly everyone believes human death is inevitable and human immortality is impossible. The death meme is so saturated in Earth’s civilization that most people cannot think beyond it. A similar situation occurred in 1859 when Charles Darwin introduced the Natural Selection argument to explain the rise of man: many people could not think beyond the Creation argument and thus violently attacked Darwin’s work.
As explained by Richard Brodie in his book Virus of the Mind, there are four stages revolutionary ideas go through:
1. Complacency: The new theory is initially seen as an off-the-wall idea but not a threat to the dominant worldview.
2. Ridicule: Complacency fades as the new idea refuses to die, resulting in ridicule by people who laughingly see that it is inconsistent with something they hold to be true.
3. Criticism: As the new idea gains acceptance, people who have held conflicting worldviews for some time or who have their reputation invested in old paradigms take off their gloves.
4. Acceptance: Finally, enough people make the leap to the new paradigm that it gains psychological as well as intellectual acceptance. Those who understand the new ideas are no longer as alone and unloved as Columbus among the flat-earth believers. The new world agrees on the new paradigm. Peer pressure starts to work for it rather than against it.
The immortality revolution has gone through the first stage. It is now moving through the other stages. By realizing that Aristarchus of Samos was attacked, Nicholas Copernicus was attacked, Charles Darwin was attacked, and Frank R. Wallace was attacked, one can understand these attacks are inherent in giving birth to a new paradigm. Today, that new paradigm is a post-mortal world.
Review the following memes to see how prevalent memes can become:
* What you don’t know can’t hurt you
* There’s no such thing as a free lunch
* A penny saved is a penny earned
* What you see is what you get
* Nice guys finish last
* You can’t teach an old dog new tricks
* You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink
* A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush
* The early bird gets the worm
* Birds of a feather flock together
* There’s no use crying over spilled milk
* Children should be seen and not heard
* Rome wasn't built in a day
* When in Rome do as the Romans do
* A rolling stone gathers no moss
* Idle hands are the devil’s workshop
* The only thing certain is death and taxes
Trying to stop popular memes from circulating would be as futile as trying to stop people from talking. Many memes are embedded in the human vernacular and are used pervasively in communication. The key to ending the death meme is to replace it with the immortality meme.
What is the immortality meme? It is a unit of information revealing that man can live forever in mind and body right here on plant Earth. How can that happen? That can happen through scientific-and-medical cures as revealed throughout this manuscript.
Realize that bacteria can and do become immune to antibiotics administered to kill deadly microorganisms. When this happens, drugs are no longer effective in treating or preventing infectious diseases. An alternative cure might be phage.
What is phage? It is a specific kind of virus that attacks bacteria to kill pathogenic microorganisms. While working at the Pasteur Institute early in the twentieth century, Felix d'Herelle called entities that are capable of destroying bacteria “bacteriophages”. Specifically, bacteriophage or phage is a virus that multiplies in bacteria and kills fatal bacteria. Phage, given orally, by injection, or put on lesions, has been documented to cure dysentery, typhoid fever, cholera, urinary-tract infections, and other diseases.
Phage became popular in the first half of the twentieth century. But it was abandoned in the West upon the widespread availability of antibiotics, e.g., penicillin, in the 1940s. However, with bacteria now resistant to most or all antibiotics, phage might hold the key to curing infectious diseases. More research is needed on the effectiveness of phage in treating various diseases. Reference: Phage Therapy
The purpose of mentioning phage is to show an alternative treatment to what many people consider potentially devastating: bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics. With further scientific research, man can control all bacteria including drug-resistant bacteria. Likewise, with further scientific research, man can control all diseases to cure human death.
An anomaly emerges upon reviewing the following longevity chart:
|
Longevity of Living Organisms |
||
|
Age in Years |
Category |
Name |
|
29 |
Dog |
Australian Cattle-Dog |
|
30 |
Spider |
Female Tarantula |
|
34 |
Cat |
Female Tabby |
|
40 |
Snake |
Common Boa Constrictor |
|
59 |
Nonhuman Primate |
Chimpanzee |
|
62 |
Horse |
Common Horse |
|
66 |
Crocodile |
American Alligator |
|
78 |
Elephant |
Asiatic Elephant |
|
80 |
Bird |
Sulfur-Crested Cockatoo |
|
88 |
Fish |
European Eel |
|
122 |
Human Primate |
Jeanne Louise Calment |
|
188 |
Tortoise |
Madagascar Radiated Tortoise |
|
12,000 |
Tree |
Redwood |
|
40,000 |
Plant |
King’s Holly |
|
Reference: 1998 Guinness Book of World Records |
||
Here is the anomaly: the only living organism that possesses conceptual consciousness is not the longest living organism. Non-conceptual tortoises, trees, and plants live significantly longer than conceptual man—up to 100 times longer or more. Yet man is the only living organism that has the power to think and control nature to obviate death. Only conceptual man can deliberately extend his lifespan indefinitely to experience physical immortality.
Until the creation and release of the immortality meme, non-conscious organisms have outperformed conscious man in the area of longevity. However, when the immortality meme becomes part of the human vernacular, conscious man will eventually outlive all organisms on planet Earth. How will the immortality meme become part of the human vernacular? That will occur upon sweeping cyberspace.
Ideas per se will not change the world; nor will technology alone. However, merging potent ideas with advanced technology can have explosive results. By leveraging new technology, people can fertilize the world with valid ideas that will sprout trees of new knowledge, prosperity, and freedom. The following exhibits reveal how the Local Group unites powerful ideas with technology to replace anti-life views with pro-life views worldwide.
Exhibit #1: This exhibit reveals the numerous Internet forums the Local Group reaches with its universal knowledge.
Exhibit #2: This exhibit is an example of the Local Group leveraging ideas and technology to undermine mystical notions that are rampant in society. In January 2001 the Local Group entered a popular self-help Internet forum called 12-Step-Free where people seek alternatives to the 12 Step alcoholic’s program. The purpose of entering this forum was to show people an alternative for handling the disease of alcoholism. But upon entering that forum, it became clear that everyone was roiled in mysticism and thus overlooked the obvious dangers of alcohol and drug use. Note: this exhibit is edited slightly for clarity and anonymity.
On 1/20/01 in 12-step-free@egroups.com, <ita66@w...> wrote:
> May I ask you why you joined 12-Step-Free? Have
> you had a 12-step experience, and are you questioning 12-step doctrine?
I think 12-step is a hoax, along with God, Jesus, all religions, and all current and past governments. I like to know how people lean on God and mystical doctrines so I can learn how to undermine all of this nonsense.
Self-thinking is the key to a successful life, at least in my view. Argue with me if you want, but that's where I stand.
On 1/20/01 in 12-step-free@egroups.com, <arcoot@y...> wrote:
> What can you tell me about Boiling Heads,
> Silent Magic and Immortality?
These are extremely subversive documents that cannot be made publicly available at this time. They will offend some, outrage others, and liberate still more people.
> Kind of interesting all the people
> who review your site are all selling the same kind of feel good,
> "PERSONAL POWER", money scams you are. I thought this
> was about as ridiculous as I have ever seen.
You certainly are entitled to your opinions.
> http://www.new-utopia.com. I’d swear you all were somehow
> connected to Scientology.
You are not differentiating here. Scientology is a religion. New Utopia is a country. And Local Group is a network of knowledge designed to undermine our 3000-year-old anticivilization. Say goodbye to the Plato world...
On 1/23/01 in 12-step-free@egroups.com, <ita66@w...> wrote:
> You didn't answer my question, "why did you join
> 12-Step-Free"
The description of this discussion list includes, "information on alternative organizations and methods of resolving drinking problems are available for the asking."
I have an alternative to 12-Step programs. It is called learning how to use your own mind and exercising self-discipline. For more information see these two publications:
1. Mind of a Winner: http://www.localgroup.net/moaw/front.html
2. Perfect Mind/Perfect Body: http://www.localgroup.net/pmpb/front.html
> but apparently your reasons were
> to hawk asinine books
I do not sell books.
> and try to pick up broads
I asked what you looked like and if you are Jewish out of curiosity. This does not mean I want your sex.
On 1/24/01 in 12-step-free@egroups.com, <rh67@y...> wrote:
> Well, it's taken a bit of time but I have pretty
> much mastered moderate alcohol use.
That is good. Now the next step would be to eliminate alcohol use because it irreparably destroys brain cells. See http://www.neo-tech.com/advantages/advantage60.html for the harm alcohol is doing to you. For the full matrix see http://www.neo-tech.com/advantages
On 1/24/01 in 12-step-free@egroups.com, ete@h... wrote:
> The epidemiology is actually
> very clear that *moderate* use of alcohol is very good for one's
> health...
and
> Although moderate cannabis use probably isn’t harmful either except
> perhaps to the lungs...
Both alcohol and pot harm the human mind and body. In small amounts they produce small but cumulative damage. Long-term use could result in permanent damage. Neither is necessary for a healthy human life. The most rational approach would be to discard these and other body toxins.
But this does not mean that government should prevent the use of pot or any other mind-disorienting drug. The only proper role of government is to protect citizens from the use of initiatory force, coercive threats, and fraud.
On 1/26/01 in 12-step-free@egroups.com, <wagt@w...> wrote:
> Didn't Ayn Rand smoke cigarettes, though? I seem to recall some passage in
> The Fountainhead (not too clearly, since it was 35 years ago that I read the
> thing) where she goes on at some length about the wonderfulness of
> cigarettes...
As I stated in a previous post, Rand had her personal faults. She held that it was anti-life *not* to smoke. But that was her personal view -- not part of her Objectivist philosophy.
> And besides, virtually anything one does with the human body produces "small
> but cumulative" damage to one system or another.
Even if this was true, we still do not need cigarettes, caffeine, alcohol, pot, cocaine, acid, and heroin to live happily or successfully. These toxins hinder our survival mechanism: the conscious mind.
> Besides, "effect on the body" is not the single rational measure of value.
Alcohol & drugs have a negative effect on both the mind & body. If a person values his or her life, then alcohol & drugs are a disvalue.
On 1/26/01 in 12-step-free@egroups.com, ete@h... wrote:
> > But people who read books that attack Ayn Rand and
> > Objectivism should realize that without Ayn Rand, her attackers
> >would be unknown ciphers. Everyone who attacks Ayn Rand needs her
> >work to rise to fame if not fortune, albeit by attempting to smear
> >Rand and undermine her intellectual achievement.
>
> Well historians of Hitler and Nazism need him and it for their
> achievements too. Does that make him and it superior?
Hitler did not produce any rational achievements. He was a mass-murderer who killed 9,000,000 Jews and other people for personal glory.
> > And David L. Hunter would be an unknown
> > gardener in Europe or America.
>
> You are an unknown anyway, aren’t you?
Right. No one in the anti-civilization has ever met David L. Hunter.
> What this egomaniac had the
> chutzpah to call "Objectivism" involves kindergarten morality and
> economics...
Objectivist Ethics = Rational Self-Interest
Objectivist Politics = Laissez-Faire Capitalism
Do you think self-sacrifice & communism are 'more intellectual'?
> As it is, I think
> her naive and revolting political views would create a corporate
> fascist dystopia of baroque proportions.
You have your right to think what you want. I will add that if her views prevail, we will all be living in a world where unbridled business delivers escalating values at falling prices to everyone as is happening in the unregulated computer industry.
On 1/26/01 in 12-step-free@egroups.com, <malgeo@m...> wrote:
> > > So what's wrong with Ayn Rand?
> >
> >Libertarian let-them-eat-caker from hell!
>
> Hey, no, she wasn't a libertarian. She referred to libertarians as
> "anarchists" and was disgusted when libertarians quoted her
Melissa is right. Rand disliked libertarians because they used her political assertion of "prohibiting the initiation of physical force" without accepting her ethical and epistemological ideas.
On 1/27/01 in 12-step-free@y..., <jacobs@c...> wrote:
> Whatever it is you're selling, I'm not buying it.
> I will not read any of your posts until you provide an explanation for why you're here.
To show people the best approach to handle drug & alcohol use. That is to dump those mind/body toxins, develop one's mind & body, and use self-discipline to live a happy, healthy, and successful life.
> Ordinarily it would be out of line to request this, but you're not making much sense
> and that "become invisible" site of yours is the stuff Unabomber Manifestos are made of.
http://www.neo-tech.com is Frank R. Wallace's site, not mine.
Remember to differentiate when you think: the Unabomber Manifesto advocates the initiation of physical force against others. The Zonpower Manifesto prohibits the initiation of physical force against anyone for any reason.
On 1/27/01 in 12-step-free@y..., ete@h... wrote:
> > You have your right to think what you want. I will add that if her
> > views prevail, we will all be living in a world where unbridled
> > business delivers escalating values at falling prices to everyone as
> > is happening in the unregulated computer industry.
>
> You mean like IBM and Microsoft do with their bullyboy business
> practices?????
IBM, Microsoft, and similar companies provide you with the computer hardware, software, and connections you need to smear IBM, Microsoft, business, and capitalism.
On 1/27/01 in 12-step-free@y..., <enr1@c...> wrote:
> > Alcohol & drugs have a negative effect on both the mind & body. If a
> > person values his or her life, then alcohol & drugs are a disvalue.
>
> What ever happened to "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
> happiness"? I have no problem with anyone choosing not to smoke
> cigarettes, pot or opiates, drink coffee or beer, snort cocaine or take
> hallucinogens. As a matter of fact, most people when they decide to do
> so are obviously making the right decision for themselves.
>
> I never cease to be appalled by the arrogance of some people who know
> what is good for everybody else, what everyone else needs and everyone
> else doesn't need.
>
> P.S. What about red meat?
The human organism has objective needs. Some of these needs include oxygen, water, protein, carbohydrate, fat. These are not edicts from someone's moral code or personal opinions; they are facts of man based on his biological composition and can be determined scientifically.
If one or more of these needs are not met, the human organism will die. This is because life is conditional; certain conditions have to be met for survival.
Now, there are substances that can damage or kill the human organism. Those substances include reality-altering drugs and alcohol. If taken in excess or over a long time period, the human organism's survival capacity will be diminished, possibly to the point of death. This can be proven scientifically; it is not someone's arbitrary assertion or personal opinion.
Red meat is good because it is a source of protein, which is an objective need of the human body. We are carnivores. The only possible problem with red meat is its high level of fat, so perhaps low-fat sources of protein such as chicken or fish are healthier. See the Zone diet for more information at http://www.enterthezone.com
On 1/27/01 in 12-step-free@y..., <arcoot@y...> wrote:
> You mean she killed 2 people within 3 months of rejoining AA...
Here is another good reason to quit drinking alcohol: to avoid killing people in drunk-driving accidents. Perhaps the most effective way to stop drinking is to make a conscious decision to forgo alcohol and then stick to that decision. For most people, this will culminate in a much better life over the long run.
On 1/27/01 in 12-step-free@y..., ete@h... wrote:
> I smeared
> total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants like
> the aforementioned companies which it is widely considered exploit their
> monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT get the
> best value at the least cost.
So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain aspects of business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have today. Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, and causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher thus leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home and automobile.
Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was $30,000 and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 and car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it does not belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora of regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices for consumers.
Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a computer for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the super computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in price? Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out how to entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens of arbitrary regulations and subjective laws.
Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause prices to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for everyone. But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only cause prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard of living for everyone.
On 1/27/01 in 12-step-free@y..., <arcoot@y...> wrote:
> Maybe we should also stop driving cars, the theory would be no
> car accidents! Or make all buildings one story.
You are dropping context here. Cars are a value and serve a vital role in an industrial & information society. We can efficiently transport materials and people via cars. Skyscrapers are also a value, saving much needed ground space for other building purposes. But alcohol use does not serve any vital or rational purpose. Put another way, if cars were suddenly removed from civilization, our civilization would grind to a halt. But if alcohol were suddenly removed from civilization, our civilization would continue prospering -- possibly to even greater levels.
> Pleasure people feel while using drugs, while not required for
> life, cannot be dismissed as irrelevant either.
People do take drugs and drink alcohol to achieve pleasures. But there are always negative consequences: hangovers, disorientation, bodily destruction. If people learn how to attain pleasure through natural means -- e.g., aerobic highs and sexual pleasures -- then they will not need or desire pleasure that comes at the expense of personal damage.
On 1/29/01 in 12-step-free@y..., <arcoot@y...> wrote:
> Alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you
> can demonstrate there is significant reduction in quality of life for
> people, one which they aren’t willing to accept, your argument
> comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based
> on sincere concern for anyone’s well being.
Alcohol disorients man’s survival tool: the conscious mind. With a disoriented conscious mind, man is prone to make decisions and take actions that can cause long-range suffering to oneself and others around him. For instance, prolonged alcohol use can cost a person significant money spent on his drinking habit. It can also result in drunk driving accidents, damaging oneself and innocent drivers of other cars. It can lead to ruined love relationships due to neglecting and/or abusing one’s love partner. But the prime harm alcohol does is to one’s biological chemistry. Prolonged alcohol use destroys brain cells, damages the liver, and possibly damages other body organs.
However, if a person is aware of these harms and makes the decision to drink alcohol anyway, that is his or her own choice. If someone accepts these damages to his or her own mind, body, emotions, and finances, then he or she is completely free to continue using alcohol (or drugs).
A basic tenet of my philosophy is that each person must be free to do whatever he or she chooses to do. The only exception is that he or she cannot initiate physical force or fraud against anyone else. This implies that a person is free to improve himself through school, study, and hard work or a person is free to damage himself with alcohol, drugs, and suicide.
In reality, no government has the moral or legal right to control drug or alcohol use. Everyone must be free to drink beer, smoke pot, snort coke, take acid, inject heroin, slit one’s wrist, and put a bullet through one’s head. All laws “for one’s own good” are bogus and give external authorities illicit power to control other people through gun-backed agents of force.
Ironically, drug laws that forbid the sale and use of pot actually drive the market price of pot to inflated levels that create conditions for underground markets. With the inflated market price of pot, drug dealers seek to gain maximum profits by selling pot to ever-more people including elementary-age children who are too innocent and unknowledgeable to understand the long-range damage that pot causes. In that way, the anti-drug movement actually spreads the use of pot onto vulnerable people that would not otherwise have used pot.
> What do you think of anti-depressant drugs? Psychiatry? How
> does that fit into your views?
Anti-depressant drugs are valuable when prescribed by doctors to treat specific medical conditions. Psychiatry is still in a state of pre-science, like how science was at the time of the early Greek scientist Thales of Miletus (640 BC – 560 BC). Today there are precious few psychiatrists and psychotherapists who base their approach on reality and man’s nature. One such psychotherapist is Nathaniel Branden. See http://www.nathanielbranden.com
On 1/30/01 in 12-step-free@y..., <arcoot@y...> wrote:
> Aerobic highs, well that’s exercise, you
> can injure yourself exercising. Most people who exercise
> will, and do injure themselves many times in pursuit of their
> goals. I should know. Sex can spread disease. With all of
> these things, there are responsibilities which if taken for granted
> can cause harm.
A person can get injured during aerobic exercise. A person can acquire a sexually transmitted disease during sex. And a person can get hit by a car while walking. These are potential dangers that exist in the above activities. But you are omitting the fact that these are all non-volitional dangers. A person does not volitionally twist his ankle while running, nor does he volitionally step in front of a car while walking.
But drinking alcohol or taking drugs is a volitional process that directly impairs thought and harms the organism. Thus, one has direct control over hurting oneself through the use of alcohol or drugs. But one does not have direct control over accidents that might occur during daily life.
On 1/30/01 in 12-step-free@y..., <wagt@w...> wrote:
> You keep making the same unsubstantiated
> pronouncements...
Did I say alcohol use damages the human organism without providing specific evidence? Sorry, my mistake. Here is the evidence to back up my claim that alcohol is harmful to human beings:
1. About 100,000 deaths a year can be wholly or partially attributed to drinking alcohol
2. Alcoholism reduces life expectancy by 10 to 12 years
3. People who drink regularly have a higher rate of deaths from injury, violence, and some cancers than non-drinkers
4. Alcohol plays a major role in more than half of all automobile fatalities
5. Alcohol also increases the risk of accidental injuries from many other causes
6. Among emergency room patients who were admitted for injuries, 47% tested positive for alcohol and 35% were intoxicated
7. Alcoholism is the primary diagnosis in one quarter of all people who commit suicide
8. Alcohol is implicated in 67% of all murders
9. 41% of children of alcoholics have serious coping problems that may be life long
10. Alcohol can affect the body in so many ways that researchers are having a hard time determining exactly what the consequences are of drinking
11. The more alcohol someone drank, the greater the increase in blood pressure
12. Chronic alcohol abuse can also damage the heart muscle, which leads to heart failure
13. Moderate to heaving drinking was a greater risk factor for coronary artery disease than smoking
14. Other studies found light drinking was protective. More research is needed to confirm or refute this new study. In any case, moderate drinking does not appear to offer any heart benefits for people who are at low risk for heart disease to begin with.
15. Daily drinking increases the risk for lung, esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, colorectal, urinary tract, liver, and brain cancers, lymphoma and leukemia
16. About 75% of cancers of the esophagus and 50% of cancers of the mouth, throat, and larynx are attributed to alcoholism
17. Smoking combined with drinking enhances risks for most of these cancers dramatically
18. In the liver, alcohol converts to an even more toxic substance, acetaldehyde, which can cause substantial damage
19. Alcohol can also contribute to serious infections of the pancreas and to ulcers in people taking the painkillers known as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
20. Alcohol suppresses the immune system
21. One study on laboratory animals suggests that alcohol specifically damages the bacteria-fighting capability of lung cells
22. Alcohol has widespread effects on the brain
23. Habitual use of alcohol eventually produces depression and confusion
24. In chronic cases, gray matter is destroyed, possibly leading to psychosis and mental disturbances
25. Alcohol can also cause milder neurologic problems, including insomnia and headache
26. Alcohol may increase the risk for hemorrhagic stroke
27. Alcohol-dependent women seem to face an increased risk for damage to muscles, including muscles of the heart, from the toxic effects of alcohol
28. Alcoholism increases levels of the female hormone estrogen and reduces levels of the male hormone testosterone, factors that contribute to impotence in men
29. Alcohol can cause hypoglycemia, a drop in blood sugar, which is especially dangerous for people with diabetes who are taking insulin
30. In addition to replacing food, alcohol may also interfere with absorption of proteins, vitamins, and other nutrients
31. Even moderate amounts of alcohol may have damaging effects on the developing fetus, including low birth weight and an increased risk for miscarriage
32. As people age, it takes fewer drinks to become intoxicated, and organs can be damaged by smaller amounts of alcohol than in younger people
Reference: WebMD Corporation
http://webmd.lycos.com/content/dmk/dmk_article_5461917
====================
Note: the day after the above post was sent to the 12-Step-Free Internet forum, the Local Group was prohibited from posting to this forum. People who preached that alcohol use is “very good for one’s health” were left speechless. They could not counter the above 32 points that reveal how alcohol is harmful. The only thing they could do was ban the Local Group.
As for this forum’s political views, several people broke away from the socialist group leaders. Some people even turned 180 degrees against the leaders who espouse the “virtues” of socialism and collectivism for the good of society. There are still a couple people out of hundreds on that list who argue for a bigger bureaucracy, collective democracy, and increased taxation and regulations. But now, due to the work of the Local Group, most people on that list reject government interference in the economy, reject the ideals of socialism, and reject the group leaders who assert collectivism and socialism are superior to laissez-faire capitalism.
====================
Question: Why do cemeteries have fences?
Answer: Because people are dying to get in.
Throughout history certain intellectuals including Marcel Proust attempted to leverage human death to increase productivity. They posed the argument that when a man realizes he is going to die, he will be spurred into action to do what he really wants to do: have a love affair, visit a far-away city, play a game of golf, or read a novel. But a dilemma occurs upon curing death. What will motivate people if they are immortal and never die? What will be the impetus for action when time constraints of human death no longer exist?
The prime mover of a prosperous human life is self-motivation based on one’s values. Once an individual identifies his hierarchy of values, that person can act to achieve those values from self-motivation (e.g., to feel positive emotions, to acquire wealth, and to experience love). This is an example of an inner-directed person as compared to an outer-directed person who relies on timeframes or other people to spur him into action.
In his best-selling audiotape program titled Lead the Field, Earl Nightingale says, “Anything that comes to us in the future will almost certainly come to us as a result of the extent to which we use our minds! And yet, it is the last place on earth the average person will turn to for help! … Do you know why people don’t automatically turn on their own vast mental resources when they’re faced with a problem? It’s because they’ve never learned how to think. … When they are faced with a problem, they will go to any length to avoid thinking. They will ask advice from the most illogical people…”
Earl Nightingale concluded by saying that some people do think. He says to reflect on what the human mind has accomplished: consider that we have progressed farther in the past fifty years than we have progressed in the preceding ten thousand years.
Individuals need to think to achieve success in an immortal world. Self-thinking is a vital part of a free society. And thinking requires that one operate on the conceptual level of consciousness. Identifying one’s values requires conceptual thought. Planning one’s future also requires conceptual thought. Fortunately, one does not need a genius IQ to succeed in society.
The following chart reveals the IQ range for human beings:
|
Range of Intelligence Quotients |
||
|
Person |
IQ |
Comments |
|
Idiot |
75 |
Few people |
|
Average Person |
100 |
Most people |
|
Jim Morrison |
147 |
Musician |
|
Ted Kaczynski |
170 |
Unabomber |
|
John Stuart Mill |
192 |
Philosopher |
|
Marylin vos Savant |
212 |
Author |
A person might be able to increase his IQ by developing his mind. However, the general range of a person’s IQ probably will not change much. If, for example, a man has an IQ of 100, he probably will never approach an IQ of 150 no matter how much he develops his mind. But that is okay because success in a rational world is not dependent on raw intelligence or IQ scores. Rather, success is dependent on creativity, conceptual thinking, honesty, and acting on one’s thoughts. In such a mode, one can capture limitless success regardless of one’s level of intelligence.
The following exhibit is from the Neotalk Internet forum and it provides key knowledge for developing one’s thinking skills. Note: this exhibit is edited slightly for clarity and anonymity.
On January 29, 2001 in neotalk@y..., <d_world@y...> wrote:
> What do you mean by "objective concept formation".
> Do you mean that "words have meaning" in contrast to
> "people having meaning for words"?
Words, which denote concepts, have objective referents in reality. Concepts cannot be formed arbitrarily or based on an agreement of a tribe. There is a specific process to form concepts objectively. This excerpt from chapter three of Perfect Mind/Perfect Body explains the process:
Six Steps to Form Concepts
Abstract, conceptual thinking separates man from all other animals. Man is a rational, conceptually thinking animal. Man’s knowledge is in the form of concepts, thoughts, and principles. The foundation of his abstract knowledge is concepts; this is where conceptual thinking begins.
The key to limitless knowledge is to form concepts accurately and consistently. What is a concept? A concept is a mental unit that unites entities sharing the same fundamental attribute. For example, the concept "computer" unites all computers: handheld computers, laptop computers, desktop computers, and mainframe computers.
What is the value of concepts? They enable the mind to condense a vast amount of information (e.g., all computers on earth) into one concise unit (e.g., the concept "computer"). What does one do with concepts? One integrates individual concepts into complete thoughts and then integrates those thoughts into principles. What is the advantage of conceptual thinking? Conceptual thinking enables the mind to think in the widest ranges of knowledge while taking up minimal mind space. For example, a principle might consist of only a few concepts, yet contain valuable information about the actions of thousands of entities.
Before one can consistently form thoughts and principles (i.e., perform integrated thinking), one needs to know how to form concepts. What follows are the six steps to form concepts:
1. Differentiation: a person mentally isolates two or more entities from other entities and notices that these two or more entities are different from the other entities.
2. Similarity: one then sees how these two or more entities are similar to each other.
3. Measurement omission: by seeing that these entities are essentially similar but not exactly the same, one omits the particular differences in measurement (i.e., specific differences in weight, height, length, color, etc.).
4. Integration: omitting specific measurements enables one to unite these similar entities into one unit, which is a concept.
5. Labeling: one labels the concept with a visual/auditory symbol, which is a word.
6. Definition: one attaches a definition to the concept to distinguish it from all other concepts.
For instance, a person sees entities moving around in a room that has non-moving objects. He notes that these moving entities are different from the other things in the room because they move around and make noise. He then notices how these entities are similar: they are living entities that move around, think rationally, and talk. He omits the particular measurements of these entities, such as their varying height, weight, and color. Then he integrates these similar entities into one concept. He labels the concept with the word "man". Lastly, he gives the concept a definition: a rational, conceptually thinking animal.
On January 30, 2001 in neotalk@y..., <d_world@y...> wrote:
> What about "fuzzy logic"? In reference to
> concept formation, I am asking whether you think
> existents have fuzzy boundaries per se or do you think
> the "fuzzy boundaries" are the result of an
> individual not forming clear and concise
> definitions...
Let me clarify this by saying existents are metaphysical entities while concepts are epistemological entities.
Existents have no fuzzy boundaries. They are clear-cut entities in reality such as your computer, car, girlfriend, etc. Most concepts also have no fuzzy boundaries: they fall into one definite category of entities or another. For example, a Ferrari F-50 is a car; a Golden Delicious apple is a fruit, and so on. However, there are some (but relatively few) cases where conceptual delineation is fuzzy. One obvious case is with color: if you look at a color wheel that is divided into red, orange, yellow, green, blue, etc. and you pick a color on the border between red and orange, what is that color? That is an example of a fuzzy boundary. But the fuzziness is an epistemological issue, not a metaphysical one. The color “red-orange” is clear in reality. It is just our form of cognitive identification that has some difficulty dealing with borderline cases.
> I have found in instances of "fuzzy logic" also
> that fuzziness occurs when individuals fail to
> distinguish between an identification and an
> evaluation. The statement "She is ugly" is an
> evaluation that is set forth as an identification by
> use of the conceptual operator "is". My understanding
> is that only evaluations are "fuzzy" because they
> always exist in frames of reference...
Evaluations certainly can be fuzzy, but that is due to unclear thinking. If one has all the relevant facts, say, about a girl, and one knows one’s own personal value hierarchy, one can make a clear evaluation about the girl (e.g., she is right for me or wrong for me).
Evaluations differ from thought. Thinking consists of an objective process that is the same for everyone. We all look to the facts of reality, process those facts via reason, and can all agree, for example, that Madonna is a singer. However, an evaluation arises from our thoughts combined with our personal value hierarchy. And while reason will produce the same results for everyone (e.g., Madonna is a singer), evaluation is a highly personal or subjective process that will produce different results for everyone (e.g., I like Madonna’s songs but you might hate her songs while another person might love her songs).
> My other question deals with meaning. If concepts
> have a meaning, does that not contradict the
> proposition that meaning only exists in reference to a
> conscious entity ... or are you saying that the label
> is arbitrary ... and that individuals have individual
> meaning for concepts...?
Each rational concept has a meaning, and that meaning exists only in reference to conscious beings (e.g., us). Actual meanings do not exist ‘out there’ in reality; they are conventions for conscious beings, made by conscious beings, and exist in the minds of conscious beings.
The label for concepts (i.e., words) cannot be chosen arbitrarily if language and society is to endure and flourish. But again, the labels (words) exist only in reference to conscious beings: they are entities formed and used only by conscious beings to accommodate our unique method of dealing with reality (i.e., reason).
On February 5, 2001 in neotalk@y..., <eball@l...> wrote:
Observing the Hierarchical Nature of Concepts
On Monday February 5, 2001 Anne Rind posted the following on the Raising Geniuses NTN board:
“I have found that what is more important than raw intelligence is the ability to recognize a concept’s context and its position within the hierarchy of knowledge.”
This is an important idea that can clear up confusion when dealing with abstract concepts. Many people understand that knowledge is contextual, i.e., an item of knowledge is valid in one context but might not be valid in a different context. However, many people do not observe the hierarchical nature of knowledge, i.e., some items of knowledge subsume and condense other items of knowledge and thus cannot be treated as if they are on the same level.
An example of not observing the hierarchical nature of concepts can be seen in the following post:
--- In neotalk@y..., <cess@a...> wrote:
> Neothink, as described by its authors, is referred to as a
> new thinking. New thinking involves identifying facts, integrating
> those facts, forming concepts from these facts, integrating
> these concepts with other [valid] concepts, and so on, forming
> ever wider concepts. My research shows that this method of
> thinking is referred to as "contextual expansion" by students and
> professionals of Cognitive Linguistics, and isn't new at all.
and
> Marketing Neothink as some "new way" to think is fraud,
> because "contextual expansion" is done by everyone
> naturally over time -- as a consequence of Living.
This argument reduces to the following:
1) NTP says neothink = new form of thinking
2) Neothink = contextual expansion
3) Contextual expansion is not new and is done by everyone
4) Therefore NTP is fraudulent for marketing neothink as something new
The above reasoning commits the fallacy of treating two different-level concepts as if they are on the same level. Since knowledge is hierarchical, some items of knowledge are broader than others, thereby subsuming the narrower items. The term “contextual expansion” is broader than the term “neothink” and subsumes it. This means there are various forms of context expansion, e.g., neothink, principled thinking, association, memorization, etc. Neothink is one form of contextual expansion. It is a deductive process of breaking thoughts down into two or more groups and then building those separate groups to the maximum capacity of consciousness, which can then be integrated to form new concepts and thoughts.
People throughout history certainly have experienced contextual expansion. But the explicit process of dumping mysticism and applying this form of thinking -- Neo-Tech/Neothink -- has never been done before NTP identified the process, at least not on a consistent basis by people who knew what they were doing.
The Illuminati’s stated goals are universal freedom and spiritual perfection for everyone. However, the founder of the 1776 Illuminati knew the goal of universal freedom could not materialize in the presence of monarchical governments and organized religions. Thus, the hidden goal of the Illuminati was to undermine monarchical governments and organized religions. In this way, citizens could achieve universal freedom without oppression from authoritative institutions.
From the late eighteenth century to the late twentieth century, the Illuminati worked behind the scenes to carry out their hidden goal. But as they got close to achieving their goal, the Illuminati would have been destroyed because they operated within the anti-life civilization. They were doomed to destruction by the people they wanted to eliminate: corrupt rulers of planet Earth’s oppressive civilization.
Then in the late twentieth century came Neo-Tech with the discovery that everyone on planet Earth was trapped in an unnatural world: a bizarre, anti-life civilization led by parasitical elites who bring everyone to death. At that point, Neo-Tech Publishing began working outside the unnatural civilization to undermine that 3000-year-old world and usher in a universal business civilization. Thus, Neo-Tech quietly began replacing the Illuminati in their quest to liberate everyone.
Shortly thereafter, the Local Group arose. Operating outside planet Earth’s anti-life world, the Local Group enables earthlings to achieve spiritual perfection. Working beyond the jurisdiction of today’s bizarre world, the Local Group quietly injects key knowledge into the human vernacular that will yield spiritual perfection and human immortality for everyone. In fact, the rise of the Local Group means the demise of Earth’s mystical civilization and the birth of a cosmopolitan civilization: a business/success civilization where each individual is a sovereign entity.
The founder of the 1776 Illuminati was a law professor; he worked to free people everywhere. The founder of the 1986 Neo-Tech Publishing Company is an inorganic scientist; he works to deliver limitless riches to everyone. And the founder of the 1996 Local Group is a landscape architect; he works to establish a universal civilization epitomized by riches, romance, and happiness for everyone. While these organizations are conceptually related, each operates independently with unique methods. However, the final result will be the same: open-ended freedom and immortal riches for everybody.
The time has never been better to sweep the world with immortality for conscious beings. The freedom, prosperity, knowledge, and technology that are available today are unprecedented throughout history. We on planet Earth have the chance to switch from a mortal world (meaningless & unnecessary) to a post-mortal world (meaningful & profoundly necessary). In fact, it is supremely ethical to transpose human life into an immortal paradigm. But before science, medicine, and business can do that, key ideas need to be widespread. Ideas carrying the immortality meme need to permeate the minds of men and women everywhere. That is the goal of this manifesto.
As we move into a paradigm of immortal freedom, everyone will be free including the greats of mankind. Imagine how everyone’s life would have been uplifted if the greats throughout history had been free and immortal. Recall the great artists, architects, healers, scientists, philosophers, statesman, inventors, entrepreneurs, financiers, educators, and entertainers that humanity lost due to oppression and mortality. Imagine the products, services, jobs, knowledge, wealth, and happiness those great men and women would have continuously showered on humanity.
That is hard to imagine because such great men and women have flourished for only a few decades and then perished. Who could imagine what Archimedes would have been inventing since his birth in 287 BC? How about Kepler’s work in astronomy and Galileo’s work in physics? If these men were still alive they would have contributed greatly to the sciences, thus enriching everyone’s life. The same is true for other giants like Michelangelo, Bach, Edison, Ford, and others. As made clear by history, the greats perished like everyone else. All we can do now is establish a world of immortal freedom, enabling the giants of mankind to flourish indefinitely and flood planet Earth with fabulous treasures.
However, the purpose of human immortality is not merely to preserve the giants of mankind. The goal is to forever preserve each conscious person. Regardless of each person’s level of intellect or ability, the goal of physical immortality is to enable each person to live forever with open-ended prosperity, love, and happiness. When we on planet Earth realize this goal, we will have met our prime moral responsibility.
Public Site | Private Site | Home Page | Send Remarks