Embedded Files
External influences aside, everything is downstream from the state, because the state is the one with the police and the military, and therefore with the ultimate power. So, if things are going wrong, that's the state's fault. If the state can't think of ways to fix things that don't involve a bigger state (more intrusion), then that's because the politicians are abusive and stupid people.
An intelligent and well-meaning politician can make things better with less intrusion.
For example, the state will raise less criminals, therefore less policing will be required.
Yes, the state does raise criminals. The people mirror the politicians.
I think there are metrics you can check to see if a society is objectively successful.
If a society is not objectively successful, then this is always the fault of the leadership and their systems.
It's never the fault of the people or of certain people outside of leadership. It's always that the leadership is misguided (or conning).
Metrics of a society’s success, and how they apply to the UK:
Are they happy?
No, because of all the mental health stuff, and the drug deaths and the suicides.
Are they expanding and exploring?
No, we are not providing security and law and order around the world, and we are not a population growing from within.
Are they healthy?
No. With all the obesity, lowering sperm counts and lowering testosterone, and with the increasing benefits spending, it seems we aren’t healthy.
So, this means that the leadership have failed. Why they failed is because of their systems that chose them in the first place. So, we need a new leadership system.
No matter how "authoritarian" or "libertarian" the state is, it is still the coercive authority with the monopoly on violence (the military/police), therefore it is the limiting factor and the enabling factor on flourishing.
Therefore, if there is not objective flourishing, that's the fault of the state for limiting people wrongly, or enabling people wrongly.
Concerns of the state should fall under the primary concerns of:
Security
Welfare
An action of the state would have to be justified as truly furthering Security or truly furthering Welfare. You have to consider that whatever the state does (backed by its monopoly on violence) is inherently "intrusion", and therefore, this intrusion has to be justified as producing greater security and greater welfare than would exist without said intrusion.
If there is a government program (or law or anything) going on, you have to consider "what would happen without it?" and simulate that, to check that the activity is actually doing more good than harm. You want to design programs that have maximum positive effect, relative to if they didn't exist, remembering that taxation is an automatic negative effect. A net positive, as positive as possible, is to be produced.
More particular concerns, such as concern for the environment, would fall under concern for welfare (and security), because a polluted environment can be bad for health and long-term and short-term security.
When I was 5, I thought of the government as something in the background that runs things.
I guess that's what I hoped or fantasized.
What we have instead is a big annoying stupid drooling beast with its eyes looking in different directions, suffocating the country by sitting on top of it and it doesn't even realise because inside the skull of the beast is not a brain, but a few ordinary people pulling levers which cause the beast to move its limbs and change its posture a bit.
These people are actually extraordinary but for the wrong reasons. Every once a while, they talk with someone slightly outside of the skull.
People are dying under the weight of the beast, and obviously that doesn't occur to the people in the skull, because they can't talk to dead people.
They do sometimes take notice that people are dying the saddest deaths, but it doesn't occur to them that it's because they have no idea what they are doing.
v12044gd0000c9ms96jc77u42kefo1k0.mov
ssstwitter.com_1699198663506.mp4Regarding the holocaust, certainly Jews were killed (mostly shot, not gassed), and a lot of evidence points to the six million figure being made up, and having been thrown around even before Nazi Germany, regarding other mass murders.
World map with red-highlighted countries denoting where, as of 2025, there is legislation in place criminalising Holocaust denial
'When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.'
The fact that Holocaust denial is illegal in so many countries suggests that what we're taught about the Holocaust should be questioned. It's only speech. It shouldn't be illegal to believe in a different version of world history. History is written by whoever wrote it.
Regarding the guy who said "Death to the IDF" at a concert:
The BBC reported on it as "anti-Semitism".
What does that mean really? It's not like the IDF is representative of Jews, just as the Russian military is not representative of Russians. It's not "Russophobia" to say "Death to the VDV" or "Death to the Russian military" after what they're doing in Ukraine. So it's not anti-Jewish to say "Death to the IDF" unless you think all Jews support the IDF.
(They don't. I've seen videos of pro-Palestine Jews. Are pro-Palestine Jews anti-Semitic?)
This shows that our institutions are captured by people who secretly serve the state of Israel, or even they've been brainwashed to serve the domineering state of Israel more than the country in which they live.
dreamskull_268.mp4
You_re_Arguing_With_An_Israeli_Bot.mp4
I'm not anti-vaccine, but I am anti the state forcing things upon people that it doesn't really know about:
I've worked two full-time manual labour jobs. In the first one, I heard of a place in Scotland that's really bad with drugs. In the second one, I heard that many of my driver's friends died of drug overdose, and that was many years ago, when he was young, I'm sure. The government's solution to these deaths of despair? Nothing. They have nothing. They aren't interested. It's none of their concern. Virtue-signalling is all they need to get in power. Across the world, all they need is to pretend.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse