A link farm is a web page that you go to, following a link, hoping to find X, when you get there, it contains nothing about X, just hundreds of links to other pages that might or might not contain info about X
If you followed and read in some depth the link at the end of the last post, the guy talks about PEOPLE, which is what it always comes down to, and no one who has seen the “troubles” in northern Ireland or the “communist emergency” in Malaysia or any other trouble spot, can fail to see the parallels between what he describes and what they saw, individuals who seem to move from blue team to red team, weeks when blue team is in favour and red team is not, and vice versa, people being heroes or terrorists, depending both on perspective and what week it is, and of course that old one about these types and their relationship to the ordinary guy on the street who just wants to fucking get on with life, not have some new local jackbooted oppressor telling him how said jackbooted one is a hero fighting for the guy in the street’s freedoms, of which the guy in the street sees none.
You see the parallels to link-farms, and in deed back in the day definitions of spammers, who attempt to re-define spam as that which they themselves do not do.
Meanwhile “scientists” are explaining everything to me, like the explanations of why the topology of the nearside of the moon differs so radically from the farside.
Me, having a rational and scientific brain, listen to these “answers” and explanations, and think, meh, OK, add another possible / plausible scenario to the pile or 999 others, but convinced, I think not.
These explanations, whether it be lunar topology or neanderthal genes in backwater chinese corpses or global warming, all share one thing in common.
They all proclaim to show just how such a thing could have happened, or how such a thing did happen.
None of them are scientific, in that none of them show how this is the only possible outcome.
For example, usury, the practice of charging interest on a loan, there can be only two states for a money supply, it is fixed and finite, or it can be inflated and finite (to be infinite, then the value of one unit becomes inescapably infinitely low) and since interest / percentages are indisputably nothing more than an exponential function, then there is only one possible outcome for each.
In the fixed finite money supply, the one charging the interest ends up amassing so much money that the supply fails to meet circulation needs, and the money fails in its primary function.
In the finite inflated money supply, then the value of each unit is devalued on an exponential curve, and as soon as that curve hits the steep slopes, the money fails in its primary function.
These are the only possible outcomes.
It would appear that human nature being what it is, as soon as you get more than a lone individual seeking power, it does not matter one iota what label that group has, whether it be the “legal” state or the “illegal” terrorist, the staple diet appears to be akin to the spammer, redefining what they do as not being the thing they are supposedly struggling against.
I have written before about A E Van Vogt’s book The Anarchistic Colossus, a society in which this human tendency was eradicated, there were military spaceships, but no military, any citizen could board one and command it.
What made all this work was a system of kirlian computers that read each human being’s aura, and stunned them when they were about to do something in spite.
There was a little anecdote about the arms race that ensued, the computers were programmed to stun anyone attempting to steal your mail, but some had discovered that if you merely opened and read the mail without stealing it, you would not be stunned, so the programming had to be altered.
All of which completely fails to address the 9 trillion ton elephant in the room, the human nature of which I speak.
The asshole who not merely genuinely believes that he knows better than me what is best for me, but that he also has an absolute right to try to convert me to his way of seeing things.
Let me be clear on this.
For values of “you” that include the rest of the human population, I do know better than you what is best for you, I just have no interest in enforcing my opinion upon you, I just want you to stop trying to enforce your opinion on me, a vain hope, so, sadly, you will all have to die…lol
I can sit here and make erudite statements about if I were made God, I would decree than every single individual is a soverign state, and while sovereign states were free to combine at will into collectives, no sovereign state or collective of same could in ANY WAY impose their will upon any other.
Who is going to enforce it, when going up against the biggest gang of sovereign states locally? In our case, the State itself.
The people of the United States and the people of the UK are essentially the same, and yet it is legal to fuck at 16 in the UK and illegal in the US, so we don’t even just have the basic “two wolves and a sheep democratically voting on what to have for lunch” scenario that makes the age of consent 16 here, there are no universal constants, even though by rights there should be, we are all the same peoples, and yet we cannot agree on even such basic things, which is a direct function of the FACT that different groupings of sovereign states come up with different answers to the same question, which is itself an indictment of the legitimacy of said sovereign states themselves.
Two big sovereign states and one small one = two wolves and one sheep…. it’s fractal baby.
Logically, scientifically, we come to some inescapable conclusions.
If I am 50 and this girl is 10, and we both agree to fuck each other regularly (and yes, I deliberately pick this most emotive of possible subjects) then in the pure sovereign individual world, there is no harm in this.
Ask anyone in the street if they would vote for this, and they react in horror, and say no.
Ask them who they think they are protecting, by saying no, do they think they themselves as sovereign individuals need protection, then the unwilling answer is always no, they ones they are trying to protect, allegedly, is always some one else, some other sovereign individual.
Which, inescapably, means removing sovereignty from said individual.
In a nation of sovereign individuals, there is no social security, and no taxes to fund it.
Instead we have the old fallbacks that we used to have, charity and compassion.
Amusingly, one of the arguments used against this was that charities could choose not to give help to those who did not behave as decent members of society, this was apparently “bad”.
From 1977, just after the economic harsh times of the mid seventies, of which youtube has not a single video of apparently.