ARCHIVE

(a) the USA (state dept) was profoundly stupid not to bring a weak russia into nato at any cost thereby uniting german technology and russian resources. That is one of the greatest policy errores in history ( which the USA seems to stumble into regularly.)

(b) Putin’s only error (as a resident of Kiev myself) was in using deception of the little green men, insurrection, and propaganda rather than picking up the phone and just speaking the truth “We just can’t allow our don basin tech, and only warm water port out of our influence so we are going to step in, and ask for your support, and pay for this undesirable action with discounted gas to ukraine for 50 years. I will work to help world leaders understand why this was unfortunate necessary for the preservation of the international balance of powers.”

(c) Postwar American policy is trivially simple, but stated morally instead of descriptively:

“This can’t happen again. So:

1) we will work to force states to focus on modernization and joining the world economy, and prohibit territorial expansion, or opposition to that integration of trade.

2) We will work to support self determination to the extent that it does not violate #1 -borders and trade. This will assist in the development of economic integration and limit future wars.

3) BUT if you choose self determination and choose poorly in violation of #1 we will punish you regardless. it is this last “BUT” that Americans don’t state.

But there is nothing in that foreign policy that wasn’t stated by Burke, Smith and Hume.

The USA has a long history of criticizing the “constant wars’ of other countries. But the price of creating the international order is policing contradictions of it. And so the USA became what it despised. Because all empires have no other options. Rule by commerce, rule by violence, rule by deceit (religion).

YOU DON”T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME TO LEARN

You don’t have to agree with me. You just have to follow me for a year or two until you understand how to use the methodology. And the veil will drop from your eyes. I see it over and over and over again. Not only in the people who agree, but those who understand but disagree, and go on to use it in their own way. You will not be unaffected by Acquisitions, Testimonialism and Propertarianism. It will enable you to understand the human universe just as physics helps you understand the physical universe.

MARKETS FOR VIA-POSTITIVA IN EVERYTHING. THE ONLY MONOPOLY IS VIA-NEGATIVA DECIDABILITY: TRUTH.

“SUICIDE BY VIRTUE SIGNAL”

Reading Pinker’s Enlightenment Now. And all it’s doing is making me angry.

Once you understand (((their))) use of Pilpul it’s like listening to Jim Jones discussing the heaven that awaits those that drink the Cool Aide.

They create moral hazard by the use of appeals to reasonableness. I have to fund a study that will demonstrate how vulnerable we are to suicide by signal.

Women do not know of what they speak, and (((those))) authors do not know of what they speak, because they do not speak from evolution, but from devolution, so that the unfit genes can prosper.

I started taking notes, but it’s …. it’s pointless. I’d have to refute nearly every paragraph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia

STATE SOVEREIGNTY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty

ECONOMICS OF THE TREATY

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/strategic/treaty_of_westphalia.html

russian pragmatism video of the day. 😉

—“CURT: WHY ARE PERSIAN AMERICANS SO MUCH WEALTHIER THAN ARAB AMERICANS?”—

There are some questions that you should not ask because they produce answers you will not like. It is my job to answer uncomfortable questions so I’ll give you the respect of the correct answer, if you’ll respect that it might be unpleasant.

We were horrified by the Galilean Revolution but we adapted to it anyway. In the west we were horrified by the Darwinian Revolution. But we adapted to it anyway. We were somewhat horrified by the consequences of industrialization but we adapted to it anyway. So some knowledge must be adapted to if we want to prosper.

Persians divided from common ancestors with Europeans a long time ago, but are the ethnic group closest to West Eurasians (Europeans) – They integrate well, tend toward professional occupations, and demonstrate relatively high trust versus their other levantine neighbors. They have an extraordinary history of intelligence and scholarship despite the destruction to their civilization, language, culture, and demographics by the Arab conquest. So they are ‘compatible’ with American Civilization.

Persians, like the Ashkenazi, are high performance ethnic group. They will do better in any country no matter where they go. The Indians and Chinese start with very large populations, and their best talent travels the world. They are consistently high performers. The difference is that Persians and Ashkenazi produce asymmetric success despite their small numbers.

Some groups consist largely of the upper genetic classes, some the middle, and some the lower. Economic, scientific, and artistic performance corresponds directly with the demographic constitution of an ethnic group. So no matter what anyone does, the fact that some ethnic groups consist almost exclusively of the genetic middle and upper classes means that they will always statistically outperform those groups with large underclasses. It’s just math.

So the differences in performances of ethnic groups is not so much due to genetic differences between groups but the scale of the underclass and the drag that the underclasses put on language, culture, institutions, and knowledge.

The problem that produces inequality isn’t race, or ethnicity, it’s class. Some groups have vast underclasses, and some have nearly eliminated them.

The Arab conquest was the most catastrophic event in human history, destroying the four great civilizations of the ancient world, causing 500M dead, and creating a 1400 year dark age from which only a remote corner of northern europe was able to rescue the world from.

And the side effect of that civilization was a rapid expansion of the size of the underclass due to the inability to develop a middle class, due to low trust, due to tribalism. Outbreeding with the slaves didn’t help much either. It just made it worse.

I’m going to criticize then compliment the ACLU.

**CRITICISM – THE SINGULAR IMPORTANCE OF NATURAL LAW (RECIPROCITY)**

Unfortunately while the ACLU has defended those who need defending, they have also been instrumental in pursuing a set of cases with the objective of using the courts to circumvent the process by which our constitution was designed to be changed.

And they have been the principle prosecutors of the intentional destruction of the limits to expression that prohibit that behavior that westerners had developed carefully over centuries: the treatment of all common spaces as sacred – as extensions of the interiors of their church.

Now expressed in scientific rather than normative terms, this means that the west has aggressively prosecuted the underclass for at least one thousand years, by enforcing strict limits on “display, word, and deed” that would normalize behavior that would put the young, the foolish, and those of less able families at risk of imitating. The result was the west’s High Trust Society that no civilization has been in any way close to achieving.

The original Mission of the ACLU was decidedly Communist and Socialist (see their platform changes over time) and this strategy a means by which to undermine Anglo (western) civilization by taking advantage of a very tolerant legal and cultural system – the first system of its kind, in a territory never ruled by the Aristocracy or Church.

**HISTORICAL CONTEXT **

Lost to common people’s history was that the founders were conducting an experiment in ‘the third way’ which was rule by the middle class (or at least upper middle class) and business people, in a world run traditionally by church, state, or a competition between the two. They ran this experiment by encoding individual sovereignty (Natural Law) and rule of law (as opposed to rule by human discretion) into the constitution with strict processes to follow – unfortunately they did not yet understand strict construction or their experiment would have been even more successful.

So the ACLU’s mission has produced some goods, but equal if not offsetting bads, not the least of which was the destruction of rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity (natural law) by continuing the undermining of that constitution begun during the Civil War, the Reconstruction, under FDR, and under Johnson’s Great Society movement (trying to imitate the Soviets.)

So the constitution failed to include such provisions for the defense of high trust norms, in no small part because the discussion at the time assumed that the church would play the civic and familial role and the domain of the government was largely defense and commerce.

In addition, while all of us have universal standing in matters private, we do not have univeresal standing in matters public – we deliver our agency to proxies we call politicians. We do this because at the time of the constitution, (a) the population capable of such activity was limited, and (b) the time delay of communication was prohibitive.

And the constitution did not provide a mechanism for suing the state, the bureaucracy, or members of the state, nor taking up matters of norms at the federal level, in part because such activities were not the purview of the federal government, even the state governments, but the church enforced by polity and local government.

**WHAT WENT RIGHT**

So, while the ACLU has undermined those high trust norms, and contributed significantly to the present and future conflict:

(a) it is a civic organization not a state organization and therefore property constructed under natural, reciprocal, anglo saxon (meaning sovereign and contractualist), common law. In other words, it is constructed as the founders would have all civic institutions constructed – continuing long standing tradition.

(b) it was able to fulfill some of the functions that the church was unable to post the industrial and second scientific revolutions (post 1870) by providing a civic institution that levied for the underclasses the way the church had done throughout western history.

(c) by centralizing the government during the civil war, developing fiat money and the federal reserve, followed by the income tax, and vastly expanding the federal government influence, money that had (in europe) been in civic organizations and church assets was available for consumption by democratic politics and the court.

In my reading of history the democratic socialist movement in general can be seen as the slow replacement of the prior theological church with secular (if frequently pseudoscientific) institutions and prose.

**WHAT WENT WRONG**

The principle problem with their movement was the search for monopoly power and single-house government, by underclass rule, rather than adding a house for the underclass through which their interests could be negotiated with the other classes now that the church no longer existed as a semi-governing body responsible for norm and family.

In other words, MONOPOLY IS ALWAYS BAD and the world communist and socialist movements attempted (as did the church but the church also failed) attempted to achieve authoritarian monopoly, without understanding that the Tripartism of Church, Burger, and State functioned as a balance of power between the classes from the end of the empire to the first world war.

The court is a poor proxy for markets, and had we created additional houses for the classes rather than (i) the anglo enlightenment fantasy of an aristocracy of all, or (ii) the French/Russian/Jewish fantasy of underclass authoritarianism. Or the (iii) German fantasy of an army of civic duty replacing the church with secular rationalist prose (The Germans had the least inaccurate vision of man.)

**WE LEARN FROM RETROSPECT **

Small things in large numbers have vast consequences and if I am right then we will have another civil war within our lifetimes.

Hopefully our next constitutions will be written in strictly constructed law from the first law of reciprocity, but we will have many small states the normative, formal, economic, and military orgnaizations of which are custoimized for the reproductive interst of the polities.

The only value of scale is debt and the war made possible by access to that debt.

The continental government has outlived its usefulness as an institution that control the sale and distribution of a conquered continent to immigrants.

The american economy is and always has been housing and the goods to fill those houses. And that’s all there is and ever was. It has nothing to do with anything else.

In other words you just don’t like what I said but have nothing intelligent to say? Do you know what solipsism, neuroticism, and psychosis, mean? Look into gender differences in brain structure and the big five’s corresponding ten factors. You can get endocrine therapy for it.

(lolz)

1) i am not an atheist. I just have a scientific understanding of the gods.

2) Tracing the history of deception using the technique we call suggestion and obscurantism today, or Abrahamism (Pilpul) begins with scriptural religion which he started.

3) Zoroaster invented evil, as a means of dividing and ruling the iranians from the indians. He had no positive intentions. Monopoly is monopoly and the reason for monopoly is power that cannot be obtained by market means.

4) The short egyptian experiment was not monotheistic just primacy, as a means by which the ruler could eliminate the costly drag of the extensive clerical bureaucracy – which is why he moved the capital as well.

5) there is a reason for the success of far east and far west at the development of good government, reason, and the sciences, and why the people of the desert and steppe destroyed the four great civilizations of the ancient world, and dragged the center of the world into ignorance and poverty. And it begins with the first great lie.

All technological history is traceable, in every field, including the field of deception.

It begins with him. Zoroaster + Greek Idealism + Jewish Pilpul > Rabbinical judaism / christianity / Islam > the Abrahamic Dark Ages and 500M dead.

it continued with Rousseau > Kant > Marx > Boaz >Freud this time with pseudosciences instead of pseudo-rationalism or theology (supernaturalism).

Religion was invented by the east aryans as a way to explain their failure against the north and west aryans – their westward movement was not voluntary but necessary. (See Karen Armstrong). The monotheistic religions were developed to undermine the great empires (agrarians) via the pastoralists, women and slaves (the semitic poor). Judaism was limited, but they assisted in the development of christianity. Christianity spread by choice, and islam by the sword. finally the central asian people used gunpowder to develop the great gunpowder empires. The great civilizations were lost to history. Not the least of which was the damage done to india. And 500M people died of that slaughter. The byzantines and persians included.

So in my reading of history, we all like the people who write our favorite fairy stories. But those who invented utopian moral fictionalism are the most evil people in history because they caused more death with their demand for monopoly than anything but the great plagues and malaria.

Empirically speaking, the monotheists have been five times and murderous as the marxists.

What was the price of a 1500 year dark age? We have had only one other: the bronze age collapse and it was only half that duration, and during that period writing was even lost to the greeks.

The current era has seen the french revolt against science, the german revolt against science, the russian revolt against science, the jewish revolt against science, the chinese revolt against science, and now the muslim revolt against science.

Yet we drag humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, chronic disease, the plagues, the vicissitudes of nature – and meanwhile they cling to their fairy stories and lies like children to a mother’s skirt.

It is what it is.

So, either we seek the truth regardless of our feelings of it, or we seek lies for the purpose of their feelings.

—“Why do so many high IQ people amount to nothing?”–

Because conscientiousness and ambition are equally important legs on the step stool to accomplishment.

It is not actually enjoyable being exceptionally smart after grade school. Exercising that intelligence in the marketplace (world) produces competition that results in interpersonal frictions.

The joy in life is largely the result of cooperation with others in the absence of stress.

Smart people have many options for working with others in the absence of stress and enjoying life’s journey.

There is a vast difference between people who speak in poetic, mythic, literary, and analogical verse in order to communicate to the unwashed a truth inaccessible to them by operational description – and those people who speak in poetic, mythic, literary and analogical verse because they do not know of the truth of what they speak and so cannot speak in operational verse.

One learns the use of aesthetic parsimony only to improve upon the communicability of what he has to say. But he must have something worth saying upon which to improve.

Otherwise he is just another actor in someone else’s clothes speaking someone else’s verse, the meaning of which he does not, and need not grasp, taking applause he did not earn.

—“WE CAN’T MEASURE IQ ABOVE…”—

While a grain of truth, that’s not quite right.

We can use 160 as a test measure, or 160 on distribution (S.D.). We tend to conflate them.

Like testing any of the arts, testing intelligence can be accomplished through triangulation to produce ordinality whenever cardinality fails.

I know that Chomsky is smarter than I am because I am very conscious of his thought process when speaking and I cannot do that without side-tracking. (And believe me I can take you through a very long train of thought that will devastate even the smartest of people. But he is much better at it.)

I know some people can tolerate reading certain categories of text more so than I (anything that demands empathy is off my radar. I get exhausted. Just the data please. ).

I know that some people have superior ability to maintain categorical states (math and chess for example). I get … something between bored and tired. The only way I can play chess is to abstractly control the board, and leave traps for my opponent. I am not a cunning player.

I have never met anyone anywhere close to me in certain other abilities.

In other words, it is just increasingly expensive to test as we pass 140/150 because all gains after that appear to diverge from g (where all abilities scale in parallel) into where individual abilities scale and others don’t.

So above 140/150 we no longer get meaningful measures because g is a decreasingly meaningful aggregate. That does not mean that we cannot test the various abilities that we coalesce into g.

Chris Langan has a very IQ (g) but he makes a profound mistake in equating symmetry with intention. Einstein did not have that impressive an IQ but was extremely diligent and made few mistakes other than ‘the constant’.

Chomsky made a brilliant contribution by applying Turing’s insights to language. But his errors outside of his field are the product of having confidence in his institutions rather than analyzing the demonstrated behavior of humans throughout history.

Hayek was terribly smart and covered vast intellectual terrain before he understood that then only answer empirical to the question of politics was the common law of tort – and not economics, or politics. Popper and Mises had insights but were half wrong because they could not escape the framing of their cultures. Marx could work like few other men in history, but he was wrong on first principles and after reading Menger died knowing he was wrong, and his life wasted – he just couldn’t’ say so since Engels was supporting him.

This is a very common problem because it is the harmonic (market consequence) between the various cognitive abilities we possess that produces a ‘market for correspondence’ or what is more easily envisioned as “an accurate model of the world and our projections of that model into models outside our direct experience.”

In other words, demonstrated intelligence is the result of a competing market of mental agencies any of which can go wrong, and any of which can excel.

Just like everything else in evolution.

Cheers

–“WHY ARE SMART PEOPLE SO QUIET”–

**I’ll give you a much better answer.**

To begin with we do not rely on others for our understanding, only information that we do not yet know. That said, here is why we are quiet:

1) You learn fairly quickly that you cannot help people to come to a conclusion faster than they are able to comfortably do so with confidence.

2) You learn fairly quickly that giving them the answer early will lead to resisting it – fighting it, or denying it, because they didn’t ‘own it’ by going through the journey.

3) You learn fairly quickly that people grow suspicious of you and even avoid or exclude you if you make them feel inferior, inadequate, or unable to gain pleasure from working themselves or with others to come to a shared conclusion on their own.

4) You learn fairly quickly that people will overload you with decisions that are uninteresting – and you prefer to work on things you find interesting yourself.

5) You learn that the way to help people using your intelligence is to (a) let them come to you, (b) provide them with the next step in their reasoning (assist them on their journey don’t force them into yours), (c) in groups, prevent them from doing wrong or harm, and suggest paths of opportunity rather than give them the answer.

6) You only aggressively dominate the conversation (because we can generally do so with trivial ease) to prevent an immoral, unethical, criminal, or otherwise terribly harmful wrong.

In other words, you learn to speak with other humans like parents talk to children.

If you do this, people will generally like you very much.

We all want leaders. We just want leaders who we choose, and we choose them because they help us on our journey just as much as they take us with them on theirs.

Curt Doolittle

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

(a) the USA (state dept) was profoundly stupid not to bring a weak russia into nato at any cost thereby uniting german technology and russian resources. That is one of the greatest policy errores in history ( which the USA seems to stumble into regularly.)

(b) Putin’s only error (as a resident of Kiev myself) was in using deception of the little green men, insurrection, and propaganda rather than picking up the phone and just speaking the truth:

—“We just can’t allow our Don Basin tech, and only warm water port out of our influence so we are going to step in, and ask for your support, and pay for this undesirable action with discounted gas to ukraine for 50 years. I will work to help world leaders understand why this was an unfortunate necessity for the preservation of the international balance of powers.”—

(c) Postwar American policy is trivially simple, but stated morally instead of descriptively:

“This can’t happen again. So:

1) we will work to force states to focus on modernization and joining the world economy, and prohibit territorial expansion, or opposition to that integration of trade.

2) We will work to support self determination to the extent that it does not violate #1 -borders and trade. This will assist in the development of economic integration and limit future wars.

3) BUT if you choose self determination and choose poorly in violation of #1 we will punish you regardless. it is this last “BUT” that Americans don’t state.

There is nothing in that foreign policy that wasn’t stated by Burke, Smith and Hume.

The USA has a long history of criticizing the “constant wars” of european countries. But the price of creating the international order is policing contradictions of it.

And so the USA became what it despised.

Because all empires have no other options. Rule by commerce, rule by violence, rule by deceit (religion).

1. The only truths we know for certain are falsehoods. Everything that is not false is a truth candidate. This is the inverse of the fallacy of justificationism and the central insight of the sciences: the means by which we invent or grasp an idea contribute nothing to whether or not it is true or false. Only exhaustive falsification and survival from criticism deliver confidence that actions produce anticipated outcomes due to our comprehension of cause, effect, and the operations that are possible. Otherwise we are forever justifying whatever it is we seek to justify by any set of excuses we can imagine. This is why astrology, numerology, theology, philosophy, and the pseudosciences are so common – justification means absolutely nothing.

2. The only preference we know is the one we demonstrate. The only good we know is the one we mutually demonstrate by acting upon. People report very differently from what they demonstrate. The only morality we know that is we must avoid criminal(material), ethical(direct), and moral (indirect) imposition of costs upon one another. The only moral actions then are those that are not criminal, unethical, and immoral, and that means the only moral actions consiste of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. Ergo, all moral actions are those that are not immoral. There is no recipe for moral action other than that which is not immoral.

3. People always and everywhere demonstrate that they are neither moral or immoral but amoral and rational, doing what they must in all circumstances that they exist in. it is just disproportionately advantageous to act morally for the simple reason that the returns of cooperation always and everywhere defeat the returns on individual action. This is why exhaustive forgiveness of ‘cheaters’ in all walks of life will generally reform them. Because it is in their self interest. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment also (high cost of punishing cheaters), because the returns on cooperation are so valuable that we evolved to pay the high cost of punishment in order to preserve the high value of cooperation.

4. People notoriously think they are right and in the right, and acting morally, which is why we have courts of one kind or another among all peoples at all stages of development. And while rules of decidability in courts in matters of conflict vary from the poor and underdeveloped where interests in things, kin, and relationships are rare and collectively owned, to the wealthy and developed where things, interests, kin, relationships, and contracts are universally allocated to individuals and individually owned, the means of decidability in every single civilization is RECIPROCITY.

5. There exist then only one negative moral rule and one universal test of morality: “Do not unto others as they would not have done unto them”. There is only one positive moral rule: the extension of trust to non kin that we extend to kin, until it is no longer empirically possible to trust. – this optimizes cooperation by continuously training malcontents that it is in their interest to cooperate, and ostracizes (punishes) those who do not.

6. There are no conflicts that are not decidable by tests of reciprocity. None. This is why all international law is limited exclusively to the test of reciprocity. So logically(rational choice) and empirically (demonstrated action), and universally (all laws domestica and international at all scales) morality is anything that is not immoral unethical or criminal in that it imposes costs upon the efforts already expended to obtain a non-conflicting interest, in a good, relationship, or opportunity.

As far as I know no argument can defeat this that is not in and of itself an attempt at reciprocity (theft, freeriding, parasitism, conspiracy).

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

—“An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”—

Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it can be calculated.

I think (as Chomsky and others have suggested) that (and I have some experience testing it) that our definition of intelligence (model + forecast) today would differ from that definition of intelligence just as our two-handed nervous system differs from the eight limbs of an octopus.

In that the models we are capable of perceiving with current intelligence are limited by our capacity to act, and that at some point, the models we rely upon are not longer limited by our capacity to act, any more than our ability to measure is limited any longer by the limits of our senses, or our ability to calculate limited by our reason independent of numbers.

So we can model today what we cannot percieve with our senses directly without use of ability to gather information and reduce it to an analogy to our senses. But we can in some senses model the universe, economies and subatomic interactions.

This same ability to construct models should not have any limit that I can see other than our ability to continuously excite enough neurons to create such a model. Ergo, it should be possible. The issue is reducing cost of neural transmission and preserving the number of neurons available for learning. As far as I know that’s not difficult since we know that white matter alone does much of it.

I just don’t’ know if we’re ‘human’ any longer at that point in other than morphology.

Consider following this guy.

Smart.

Look: Truth, Formal Logic, Formal Language, and Law are Via-Negativas, and are not going to be as popular or as accessible as story, parable, analogy, and essay.Natural Law, Programming, and Math are not accessible.I’m never going to be popular for my formal work.Not my audience.

If you understand my work it’s that I’m advocating for the best interest of the common laboring, craftsman and middle class and their families. And not for the priestly, intellectual, bureaucratic, or dependent class. That’s the end result of moral law: Producers vs Parasites.

And so the conundrum is, that my formal work is in the interest of a class not necessarily able to access that work at a technical level, only DEMAND IT BE IMPLEMENTED. I cannot ‘dumb it down’ any more than we can dumb down calculus, programming, or strictly constructed law.

But the Constitution as it was written was a first attempt at formal articulation of the natural law of reciprocity and the market political order for market civilization: rule of law. We can complete that project and write a constitution strictly constructed under reciprocity.

The laboring, working, and entrepreneurial classes need only understand that constitution, and the processes of decision articulated therein. And the result of that law will be once again, a moral society in which good men and families prosper and parasites cannot.

But to bring about a moral order requires the organized use of violence to alter the status quo -at high personal cost to those men who are willing and able to demand that change.Revolution is necessary for the preservation of our prosperity. There was never a better time for it.

—“Q: If you have an IQ lower than 130, can you trust your own thoughts?”—

Hmmm…. Interesting question. Can you trust your own thoughts? Does intelligence mean you can trust your own thoughts?

I have an answer for you that you’ll find insightful.

Intelligence generally translates to time required to learn – although below somewhere in the 80’s learning even the most trivial of sequences appears nearly impossible. And below the mid 90’s begins to become prohibitively costly upon those that teach. 10% of people are impossible to teach, and nearly half of people are costly to teach. Hence the future problem of employment.

Intelligence above 105 is largely reducible to a learning curve. at 105 or so you can learn from instructions, repair machines, and express yourself logically. About every 7–10 points or so higher, it’s easier to learn from increasingly abstract (less obviously related) bits of information. Around 115 learn on your own. Around 125 invent new machines. Around 135 understand complex relations and synthesize them for others. Around 145 invent and reorganize existing ideas.

Above that I have not seen anything meaningful other than the ability to construct longer denser sentences (I cannot speak in long narrations like Chomsky, and I cannot grasp and translate ideas as fast as Terence Tau. And I have also seen the opposite, which is a tendency to place too much value on intuitions (some people who shall remain nameless), and given that I specialize in identifying pseudoscience, there are a vast number of theorists in many fields who do not know about that which they speak.

Those higher than you are not so much smarter as we they had more ‘time’ to create vast networks of relations (associations) – so the time required to identify a new pattern is shorter. The only way I know to improve your “demonstrated” intelligence in everyday life is to be well read (possess more general knowledge) in multiple fields, and be lucky to have high conscientiousness as a personality trait. (All fields develop systemic falsehoods, so cross field knowledge is necessary).

Those that are nearly frightening (children), and born with extraordinary abilities are very rare but I think we are beginning to understand what makes them possible (in utero). And their abilities do not necessarily continue past maturity.

People in the 130’s tend to specialize in synthesizing and communicating difficult ideas to those in the standard deviations below them, and you would find that most CEO’s are in the 130’s, just like a lot of professors are in the 140’s.

This is why the ability to articulate your ideas and make use of vocabulary is such an extraordinary proxy for intelligence.

So here is my suggestion no matter where you are on the spectrum: Assume you’re wrong until you can’t possible find an alternative. Because that’s actually what demonstrated intelligence means.

So I want to reframe your question for you: there is NEVER A REASON to trust your thoughts, feelings, or intuitions for anything other than “ouch, that hurts”. Knowledge like evolution is the result of survival, not justification. No matter how good you think your reasoning, the only test of truth is survival against all odds.

That’s what being smart means. Which was Socrates’ whole point.

Dima,

You (as most Russians) misunderstand the constitution, because Russians (somewhat like Germans) run their civilization by religion, philosophy and literature, and anglos run and always have run their society by rule of law of reciprocity.

Hence anglo fascination with empiricism, french with pseudo-moral literature, germans with rationalism (philosophy), and Russians with Literature. The jews also use law but it is poly ethical, where anglos use universally ethical.

The reason being is that russians have yet to develop a substianial commerical middle class that exports the ethics of reciprocity and truthful speech to the rest of the society through participation in the commercial economy.

This is all well understood in the research.

There is a very good reason that the stock market is dominant in America, the Bond market in London, heavy industry in germany, and military production in russia.

RISK FOLLOWS TRUST AND RUSSIANS DON’T HAVE ANY

Now, I am a Russophile, and a resident of Ukraine. But I am also a political economist (I study institutions). Russian corruption is absurdly pervasive. And Russian mistrust as well understood as Chinese deception.

I would rather be a citizen of russia, run a business in america, labor in germany, and be educated in England. That is because each of us does something better than the other.

The only problem in this world that prevents the Circumpolar People (all of us) from Uniting is that russian foreign policy is correct, but russian expansion not. American foreign policy is incorrect, and american expansion not. If our people are to have a future it is by the incremental withdrawal of american empire from world affairs, and the unification of german technology and russian labor and resources.

America is lost to our people. The truth is russia and the Intermarium are our only hope. But that hope cannot come until russia matures into a fully diversified commercial economy and russians develop the trust in others that results from it.

Women gossip to undermine alphas – and hen peck each other in corporations to the point where they are mutually self destructive. Do they conspire by intent, common interest, or genetic disposition?

There are only three possible means of human coercion: violence, remuneration(payment), and undermining (gossip). ie: Established males, ascendent males, and females. We are very artful in combining them. But still specialize.

The low IQ Gypsies specialize in mobility, low level parasitism and predation, and punishing members for honest labor. Agrarians had to develop norms, traditions, traits that allowed them to hold territory. Pastoralists never produced commons, and retained their clannishness.

High IQ disaporics are diasporic because they could not develop institutions by which to hold land (and made genocide against their southern neighbors who produced iron), and had to specialize in very different skills, as did ancestor females who were portable between male groups

More another time. But yes, we all, worldwide, demonstrate group strategies at the top (male) and all demonstrate equalitarianism(female) at the bottom to weaken the top. They are not strategies of intent, but they are strategies of survival.

—“libertarians aren’t against violence…”—

Empty words, because they are untestable words. Which is why libertarian words are, like religion, a comforting deception.

1. The question is not whether one is against aggression, but which cases of aggression.

2. The question is not whether one is against violence buth which cases of violence.

3. The question is not whether one will use violence, but under what cases they will use violence.

Libertarians have not and cannot answer these questions because if they do the answer becomes obvious: “I want other people to pay the cost of the commons I benefit from.”

Libertarianism is simply marxism for the commons instead of marxism for private property.

There is only one method by which we create the class conditions of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and Subsidy, and that is the continuous organized application of violence to deny one and all the alternatives, by the universal militia of able men, and the costly production of the normative, economic, judicial, political, military and traditional commons necessary for preservation of their power to do so against all opposition.

That is what libertarian means. Rothbardians did not favor liberty (ownership) but separatist anarchy (parasitism upon others commons).

Period. End of Argument.

I ended libertarianism forever like others ended marxism before it, and we ware currently in the process of ending neo-conservatism. When that is done, and we return to rule of law, the pseudoscientific century will have ended.

To Jonathan Haidt via twitter:

1) Question. Wealth has allowed us to explore our individual differences, pursue individual preferences, and all but eliminate the dependence upon family. So why is it not deterministic that we will develop demand for separate states to further ends that we can now afford?

2) So, why isn’t it the next evolutionary consequence, to preferentially ‘speciate’ so that we produce commons that suit our desires? Why is ANY monopoly a good? The only monopoly good I know of is scientific (operational) truth.

3) Why does a monopoly continental government provide better technological, economic, political, and normative results than multiple regional or local governments that specialize to produce commons preferential to members and undesirable by other peoples?

4) Why aren’t we all conducting the natural evolutionary research program and therefore why isn’t this specialization in wants rather than monopoly desirable? Isn’t the answer to return to the reason for european rapid advancement: specialization?

—“CURT, ARE COMPLEX IDEAS INACCESSIBLE OR DOES IT JUST TAKE SOME PEOPLE LONGER?”—

While it should take 110 IQ to pass university courses there are people with 100IQ that manage to do it. (not that they’re taking the hardest courses).

As I understand it, it takes a lot longer to learn what exists, longer to learn what must be calculated by substitution, and the meaningful barrier is invention of what does not exist yet.

In other words, to be very good at chess you have to play a lot, and learn a lot of increasingly complex patterns. To be very good at math you have to use it a great deal and be very good at increasingly complex patterns. To be good a programming, you have to use it a great deal and be very good at increasingly complex patterns.

The barrier for people is usually frustration and exhaustion in that learning to apply those patterns by intuition and permutation is actually beyond some people. You would be horrified below 95 at how hard it is for people to learn the most basic things.

I find most interesting is those children who are mentally retarded by because of their desire for approval, they will work endlessly to learn some simple thing that they can accomplish on their own.

The real problem we faces as a polity is the Dunning Kruger bias, which is that we tend to assume a little knowledge provides more understanding that it does. The example I understand best, is in the field I understand best, which is economics. In economics you can almost guarantee that the majority of economists will be wrong on any particular question of nuance. The reason being there are only four or five people who understand that question, and all of economics is counter-intuitive (which is why it’s so complicated). Yet all economists opine on some specialization that they are entirely ignorant of. This also mirrors the academic anchoring problem. In that, a survey of 1000 people on the street will yield better predictive results (of observable phenomenon) than the specialists will.

My greatest frustration is the “Island 120” group, which is people able to graduate from non-STEM courses but not STEM courses, and virtue signal that they belong to the island 120’s group, but who vastly overestimate their understanding and vastly over express their confidence. The 120’s are the range where you know enough to be dangerous by convincing a large body of people you know enough. (the media).

This behavior is equivalent to a cult where all members are convinced of their wisdom simply because they all believe the same nonsense. In my understanding of western civilization today, those people play a disproportionate role in information sharing – and most of what they think is nonsense.

Reality is always quite simple, it’s just often less pleasant than we imagine it to be.

-Cheers 😉

–“Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying to cohesively understand a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read;”—

OK. Let’s try.

—“”Racism’ is naive” – If you mean forming an individual judgement of a person not by their individual characteristics, but simply by their race, then sure… I get that.”—-

Yes. But then again, it’s EXPENSIVE to do that, and our prejudices are statistically accurate. So the problem is ignoring signals of reciprocity and assuming the worst, not blanket investment in every individual. Humans are books that are judgeable by the condition of our covers, not the shape.

—“And you have also said that the proper way to understand the difference between the races is the size of the underclasses, that the aristocracy of each race is generally fairly ‘equal’ and that each race has the same ability to transcend (improve it’s average IQ?) through eugenic practices… ok, 100% understood.”—

Yes, because my job is answering the difficult political questions of the era. That said, there are definitely fairly substantial differences in verbal ability, but not comprehension. I think I know why that is but science will have to discover whether I”m right or not.

—“However you also seem to advocate (correct me if i’m wrong) that a polity should be based around kin, where the aristocracy ‘domesticates’ the lower classes, in a vertical structure, based on race. So you seem to be anti cosmopolitan here.”—-

Well, this is because (a) people demonstrate kin selection and are happy to redistribute to non-competitors (kin). (b) Because an homogenous redistributive polity under rule of law by reciprocity has the greatest chance of producing a competitive intergenerational standard of living, and the least incentives for the bad things in politics. In other words, I am advocating a via-negativa of eliminating all obstacles to optimum cooperation. And because (c) exporting your kin’s cost on others makes people angry (except those that oppose the status quo and want non-kin allies to undermine it.)

—“So, how does ‘anti-multiculturalism’, or anti ethic mixing… resolve with racism being naive? And what is the value of focusing on kin as a group selector?”—

I am not sure I understand the question. Political race realism is just science. People except at the margins select their own, and even among close friends we usually select with in six degrees or so. So we get nordic countries and japan on one hand and brazil and india on the other.

Now, Interpersonal racism in the sense that you blanket dismiss people because of race is just unscientific and if consequential I feel it’s questionably moral. I tend to be pretty race blind in my friends, but my close friends, and my sexual relations are all absurdly close genetically.

If I have friends from other races that I care deeply for (and I do), then that is very different from saying that i would want them to marry into my kin group, or my kin group marry into theirs, or even that we live in each other’s lands.

The reality is that our upper classes are fine because they do not need kin groups and kin norms. But the lower the classes the more so the need, so that cost is immoral to impose on another people.

So the material issue is transfer of other than a small number of elites who have no kin group affiliations in one another’s countries that may cause competition with the host people, and therefore limit their opportunity to preserve rule of law, markets in everything, and heavy redistribution (kin selection). Commons are as disproportionately productive as is cooperation between individuals and groups. It’s ridiculous. So kin=commons=wealth.

–“And also, I understand that different groups simply evolved different average characteristics, but should we have a preference for particular groups based on the average prevalence of characteristics or temperaments that we value… is this not a form or ‘racism’, or at least getting very close?”—

Well there are not ‘shoulds’ in preferences. There are goods in politics, and there are necessities in group competitive strategy. So I dn’t know how to answer that question.

You should prefer kin groups because the result produces optimum common goods the same way you should prefer moderate taxes because they produce high returns, the same way you should prefer the high cost of marriage because of those returns.

But you know, time horizons are a family and clan objective, and the purpose of individualism was to destroy that time horizon.

The underclasses have had a war against the better classes for millennia. This is just the most current attempt to destroy aristocratic families. This time they’re trying to end the whole race.

Thanks brother 😉

Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’?

I’m trying to cohesively conceptualise a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read;

“Racism’ is naive” – If you mean forming an individual judgement of a person not by their individual characteristics, but simply by their race, then sure… I get that.

And you have also said that the proper way to understand the difference between the races is the size of the underclasses, that the aristocracy of each race is generally fairly ‘equal’ and that each race has the same ability to transcend (improve it’s average IQ?) through eugenic practices… ok, 100% understood.

However you also seem to advocate (correct me if i’m wrong) that a polity should be based around kin, where the aristocracy ‘domesticates’ the lower classes, in a vertical structure, based on race. So you seem to be anti cosmopolitan here.

So, how does ‘anti-multiculturalism’, or anti ethic mixing… resolve with racism being naive? And what is the value of focusing on kin as a group selector?

And also, I understand that different groups simply evolved different average characteristics, but should we have a preference for particular groups based on the average prevalence of characteristics or temperaments that we value… is this not a form or ‘racism’, or at least getting very close?

Thanks brother 😉

This is not so much a philosophy as the results of science that I can no longer deny, and so I live according to the science – in large part because it is advantageous.

1. We are an expensive life form. Particularly our brains.

2. We must acquire, and we acquire at cost to ourselves.

3. All our emotions are nothing but reflections in state of that which we plan to, are in the process of, or have acquired an interest.

4. Cooperation is logarithmically more productive than any action an individual can take, and therefore we must cooperate to survive. (Possibly as much as ten thousand times as productive.)

5. People are purely rational, not moral or immoral but amoral: they cheat and try to acquire disproportionately from cooperation, they free ride, steal from, and prey upon others. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment of cheaters in all walks of life, even at high personal cost: to prevent defectors from cheating.

6. The optimum algorithm (really) for developing cooperation is to exhaust every opportunity for cooperation even from cheaters. They almost always come around, because it is always an advantage to come around. This was the entire message of christianity which was lost in the dogma. But it’s just science.

7. All our speech is merely a dance of negotiation so that we may create opportunities to acquire, do acquire, or preserve what we acquire. All of it is just signaling.

8. We are entirely incognizant of these behaviors because it is evolutionarily disadvantageous for us to be intuitively honest, honest with ourselves, and honest with others. This is the same reason we have many cognitive, social, and probabilistic biases in our genes. To keep us going when evidence would overwhelm us.

9. Most of the joy in life is playing this set of word games, cooperative games, and acquisition games with others so that we all acquire what we want as best we can without making others avoid us so that we can’t acquire what we want and need. This is why people commit suicide when they are lonely, and do not commit suicide when they are not.

10. Therefor the only rule of cooperation, of morality, and of law, is reciprocity: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary cooperation with each other, and the only immoral actions are those that violate that moral rule by free riding, parasitism, theft, or predation. And that is why reciprocity is the basis of all traditional laws (and why it is not the basis of legislation).

This little list is the answer to nearly all of metaphysics, epistemology, psychology, sociology, ethics, and politics.

—“If you have an IQ lower than 130, can you trust your own thoughts?”– Emma

Hmmm…. Interesting question. Can you trust your own thoughts? Does intelligence mean you can trust your own thoughts?

I have an answer for you that you’ll find insightful.

Intelligence generally translates to time required to learn – although below somewhere in the 80’s learning even the most trivial of sequences appears nearly impossible. And below the mid 90’s begins to become prohibitively costly upon those that teach. 10% of people are impossible to teach, and nearly half of people are costly to teach. Hence the future problem of employment.

Intelligence above 105 is largely reducible to a learning curve. at 105 or so you can learn from instructions, repair machines, and express yourself logically. About every 7–10 points or so higher, it’s easier to learn from increasingly abstract (less obviously related) bits of information. Around 115 learn on your own. Around 125 invent new machines. Around 135 understand complex relations and synthesize them for others. Around 145 invent and reorganize existing ideas.

Above that I have not seen anything meaningful other than the ability to construct longer denser sentences (I cannot speak in long narrations like Chomsky, and I cannot grasp and translate ideas as fast as Terence Tau. And I have also seen the opposite, which is a tendency to place too much value on intuitions (some people who shall remain nameless), and given that I specialize in identifying pseudoscience, there are a vast number of theorists in many fields who do not know about that which they speak.

Those higher than you are not so much smarter as we they had more ‘time’ to create vast networks of relations (associations) – so the time required to identify a new pattern is shorter. The only way I know to improve your “demonstrated” intelligence in every day life is to be well read (possess more general knowledge) in multiple fields, and be lucky to have high conscientiousness as a personality trait. (All fields develop systemic falsehoods, so cross field knowledge is necessary).

Those that are nearly frightening (children), and born with extraordinary abilities are very rare but I think we are beginning to understand what makes them possible (in utero). And their abilities do not necessarily continue past maturity.

People in the 130’s tend to specialize in synthesizing and communicating difficult ideas to those in the standard deviations below them, and you would find that most CEO’s are in the 130’s, just like a lot of professors are in the 140’s. This is why the ability to articulate your ideas and make use of vocabulary is such an extraordinary proxy for intelligence.

So here is my suggestion no matter where you are on the spectrum: Assume you’re wrong until you can’t possible find an alternative. Because that’s actually what demonstrated intelligence means.

So I want to reframe your question for you: there is NEVER A REASON to trust your thoughts, feelings, or intuitions for anything other than “ouch, that hurts”. Knowledge like evolution is the result of survival, not justification. No matter how good you think your reasoning, the only test of truth is survival against all odds.

That’s what being smart means. Which was Socrates’ whole point.

—“If it weren’t for (((Those))) Lawyers we wouldn’t have had the civil rights movement”—

Yes and I am educating you about the meaning of rule of law by the test of reciprocity that prevents rule by discretion. Yet these very people destroyed rule of law by intentionally selecting cases to fund and prosecute in order to undermine it. (really).

The correct answer to the civil rights movement was to provide internal funding to the underdeveloped community, so that they could establish a middle class using cheap postwar credit. Instead, well intentioned people without any history of self government destroyed rule of law.

The west differs from the rest for one reason and one reason only: we pay the price of truth telling and reciprocity even at the cost of self image, status, and influence on the dominance hierarchy. That leaves only rule of law possible. You have your choices because of that rule.

We dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, and the vicissitudes of nature by that one rule. And they destroyed it. Never assume you understand the big things. They did.

Pinker – Always Nice

Haidt – As Nice as Possible

Peterson – Only as nice as necessary

Doolittle – Not Very Nice at all

Taleb – Very Not Nice at every opportunity.(OMG Thats awesome William ….)

Because if we disagree, then one, the other, or both, are wrong.

There is (both logically and empirically) only one moral law, and it is the basis for all law from the common law to international law : reciprocity.

The only question is, given the demographics, economy, norms, and institutions, and traditions, whether the current order provides reciprocity, free riding, parasitism, predation, or all of the above.

The only reason we can ask this question today is because we have gained sufficient wealth that we desire to specialize in self fulfillment rather than cooperative survival, and with our specialization, form many more smaller more specialized groups. But this is impossible under large diverse governments.

The optimum solution is to divide into groups with shared moral biases (and pay the price and gain the reward for doing so).

It is trivial to teach morality. The silver rule: do not unto others as you would not want done unto you, and do unto others ONLY what they wish done to them. The golden rule merely amplifies the silver rule: do unto others as you would have done unto you – but do not expect reciprocity. You are merely trying to encourage them to prefer cooperating with you rather than someone else more rewarding. The value of the golden rule is that exhaustion of attempts at cooperation tends to (in all cases) produce more cooperation than any other strategy.

That’s it.That’s all there is. The rest is just techicalities of achieving some form of voluntary cooperation in any set of circumstances.

Q: “Why do you own an AR-15?”

A: “Because I can’t throw a rock 3100 feet per second.”lolz

BTW: AR-15 = “Armalite Rifle Model 15” – by Armalite Arms, Hollywood California. (Really).

Much like Nietzsche said, if there is one man worth inventing time travel so that we can kill, it’s him. He invented the industrialization of lying.

Zoroastiranism > Abrahamism > (rabbinical judaism, christianity islam) > four great civilizations destroyed > the abrahamic dark ages > a brief restoration by western civilization (yet again),

and then the second attempt at using abrahamic speech : Rousseau > Kant > Hegel > the Continentals >

Then the third time with pseudoscience (Boaz, Marx, Freud,Cantor, Frankfurt > Postmodernism)

Humans are extremely susceptible to certain forms of deception and Zoroaster began the greatest crime in history that resulted in more death, poverty, and ignorance.

—“The main reason most people are libertarian is because it gives you a single, simple cheat code that automatically answers every imaginable political question – no hard thinking about cause and effect and the messy nature of implementation and real-world game theory required. It’s a sloppy shortcut towards “winning” debates and not having to deal with cognitive uncertainty. The New Right’s uniting principles, while they may be simple, don’t instantaneously answer every question for us or eliminate any of the hard work of asking, “How?”— Aedhan Cassiel

(flawless)

MATHINESS, SCIENTISM, AND IDEALISM vs OPERATIONALISM

Many people here scientism or mathiness and hear profundity. I hear a pseudoscientific priesthood talking just like you hear theologians or rationalists (or continental philosophers) speaking.

Mathiness is actually the origin of the failing of western philosophy until the stoics. Pythagoras, Aristotle, Zeno’s genius was undermined by Plato’s catastrophe and Augustine and Pauls’ crime against western civilization, and abraham and muhammad’s transformation of persian and egyptian mythology into a false history and immoral laws – a crime against humanity. Unequalled until Rousseau, Kant, Boaz, Marx, Freud, cantor, mises, rothbard, and Strauss all repeated the process of fictionalism – this time in pseudoscientific, pseudo rational(philosophical), and pseudo historical prose.

I spend most of my time criticizing economics as a means of restoring empirical law.

But yesterday I happened across an interesting bit of ‘scientism’ that was ‘scienticsm’ rather than science, because it is dependent upon mathiness.

Most of what I see in physics today, and most of what I see in frankly all the sciences, whenever someone explains relationships rather than explains transformations – is mathiness.

Idealism, mathiness, scientism are all failures to speak in the language of truth:

Operations.

–“the left and right both argue for inclusion but along different lines.”– A Friend

Dysgenic expansion on the left (female), vs eugenic expansion on the right (male)

Female and male strategies compete. Or perhaps ‘adapt’ is a better way of looking at it.

So ‘along different lines’ obscure that those lines are not ‘relative’ but produce vastly different externalities.

This is an example why I use operational langauge and full accounting – I don’t leave obscurant statements un accounted for.

Testimonialism:

1 – Operational Language (Operations are measurements)

2 – Deflated vocabular tested by series.

3 – Complete Sentences describing complete transactions.

4 – Testing Rational Choice, and Reciprocity

5 – Accounting for the seen (internal) and unseen (external).

By simple use of operational grammar (the rules I just stated) we test categorical, logical, empirical, existential, rational, reciprocal, fully accounted prose just a surely as we test any statement in other logics and mathematics.

In other words, just as all other forms of calculation falsify but do not justify, operational grammar falsified but does not justify.

The only difference is that operational grammar is complete in that it includes all actionable dimensions of reality, not some subset or general rule of reality.

If one cannot make such a statement in operational language he knows not of what he speaks. He just uses convention and habit like any other storyteller.

The free market was envisioned for the known purposes of (a) creating peaceful relations between then expanding empires, and (b) explaining why people treated each other well in ordinary commercial life vs inter-tribal life, (c) making use of comparative advantage between non-enemies. (d) reducing artificial shortages of food in particular that gave profits to large land holders at the cost of starving citizens.

The free market ideology was a jewish invention, just as were the opposing forces of capitalism and communism.

In the west it’s just simple reciprocity or not (unearned gains).

He is attempting (unconsciously) to restore Stoicism (Self authoring) while also restoring mythology because of the correlation between our intuitions (biology) and archetypes (narratives). In this sense he is reforming religion from supernatural to scientific.

We all carry our class, culture, and religion with us. We don’t know how much of it is genetic, and how much learned. It’s probably like all else, more genetic than we wish to admit. We all intuit man as between Rousseau’s and Hobbes’ vision. The evidence is ‘neither’.

Pinker intuits closer to rousseau and is optimistic, Peterson more towards Smith, and Pessimistic. These are assessments and intuitons not evidentiary truths. If we look at history, man is amoral: moral(reciprocal) immoral (irreciprocal) as suits him.

We have just made it increasingly costly to prefer immorality (free riding, parasitism, predation) over morality (voluntary, fully informed, productive exchange). And as such vastly increased the time man devotes to moral activity, and the disproportionate returns on trade.

(very important read)

via Steven Pinker

?

—“I’m often compared to Peterson–Canadian psychologist, Harvard prof, Pinker, takes evolution seriously–but our styles and philosophies couldn’t be more different. We’ll explore them in a dialogue at some point soon.”— Steven Pinker

If one’s style and philosophy matter then it is not truth we espouse, but deception. If we can end the century of 1/2 truths with devastating externalities that would be better than to continue the course that is breeding civil war and the filling of power vacuums by other means.

I’ll repeat this in case it’s lost **The West developed faster than the rest in both ancient and modern worlds, because we speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, regardless of its impact on the dominance (status) hierarchy.** That is the Secret of the West.

The west survived the Abrahamic Dark Age by restoring that central property of ancient western indo european law: The Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, regardless of its impact on the dominance (status) hierarchy. Status defense isn’t a virtue, IT’S A CRIME.

When Judaism, Christianity, and Islam produced the Dark Age by the replacement of the Trial of Achilles the Agrarian Aristocrat with the trial of the Pastoralist Underclass Slave, they did so by false promises. The most obvious is Islam’s demand for respect without being earned.

Unlike Islam, Christianity’s solution was to extend kinship love to non kind, and the Contient Germanized Anatolian Christianity slowly over more than a thousand years. Judaism’s solution was poly-ethical law and separation. But all three do the same: false status for false words.

One cannot have the fruits of western civlization’s continuously evolutionary markets in all aspects of life (associative, cooperative, reproductive, productive, commons, political, and military, without the CAUSE of those markets: the payment of the tax of status by all for the truth regardless of its impact on the dominance (status) hierarchy.

One cannot have the fruits of western civlization’s continuously evolutionary markets in all aspects of life (associative, cooperative, reproductive, productive, commons, political, and military), without the CAUSE of those markets: ….

… the payment of the tax of status by all for the truth regardless of its impact on the dominance (status) hierarchy.

FAILURE TO TOLERATE LOSS OF YOUR STATUS (SELF OR OTHERWISE) IN EXCHANGE FOR TRUTH EQUATES TO FAILING TO PAY THE ONLY IMPORTANT TAX WE PAY.

Only bad mothers think their children have a right to their illusions – they do so as a means of reducing motherly costs of high investment parenting: Subjecting children to a continuous stream of challenges they overcome by the development of agency using will over intuition.

Curt Doolittle

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.

IF YOUR STYLE AND PHILOSOPHY MATTER THEN YOU”RE LYING

If one’s style and philosophy matter then it is not truth we espouse, but deception. If we can end the century of 1/2 truths with devastating externalities that would be better than to continue the course that is breeding civil war and the filling of power vacuums by other means.

1) Money(commodity) vs Money Substitutes (instruments)

2) Law (Reciprocity) vs Law Substitutes (legislation/command)

3) History(description) vs History Substitutes (wisdom lit)

4) Description(measurements) vs Description Substitutes (narrative)

5) Deflationary (logical) vs inflationary (fictional)

6) Truth (Survival) vs Truth Substitutes (Justification)

If you study the evolution and spread of technology, then on the other hand, study linguistics, comparative law, comparative literature, and comparative religion, you fairly quickly understand that certain methods of persuasion are more truthful (recipes, procedures, operations, designs), and some are allegorical (history and literature), and some are loaded, framed, and suggestive (mythology), and some are deceptive (scriptural religion, propaganda, pseudo-rationalism/continental philosophy, pseudoscience, and pseudo-mathematics).

So to understand why these deceptive mythologies spread through the underclass, while technical spread in the middle class, and legal and empirical spread in the upper class during the peak centuries of cross cultural exposure via greek writing, roman roads and shipping lanes, we simply need to understand the numbers in underclass, middle class, and upper class vary greatly between western, anatolian, semitic, and north african populations. (With the same iq distributions today).

One can rule by truth sovereignty, reciprocity, and jury, and construct a civilization out of markets, if and only if the people within that civilization are capable of majority survival by market means, using truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, contract, jury and markets.

Primitive people practice familialism or tribalism (extended familialism), and people who advance practice nationalism. If they become too greedy they practice empire and cosmopolitanism and they are bred out of existence rather quickly.

As far as i know we have discovered only one law and that is reciprocity. in addition we produce findings of law, legislation with the power of law, and regulation with the power of law in cases of prior restraint. law persists while findings, regulation, legislation, and command, do not.

Ergo, people want the right to form their own governments so that they can create their own findings, regulation, legislation, and command to suit their group competitive abilities.

WHEN I SAY ‘NO COUNTRY HAS EVER BEEN SO FRAGILE, AND NO GOVERNMENT SO DESPISED AND REVOLUTION IS TRIVIAL’ — this is the reason why.

Three hours of electricity. two days of water, three days of food.

In the LA Riots …..

—“And you call yourself libertarian. Lol”—

So you mean, you don’t understand semantics, grammar, consistency, correspondence, coherence, parsimony and falsifiability?

The only requirement for a libertarian identity is sovereignty, and therefore reciprocity, and therefore reciprocal insurance of sovereignty and reciprocity.

Ergo, there is no condition under which untruthful speech does not violate reciprocity and therefore sovereignty, and therefore insurance of reciprocity and sovereignty.

Either you can warranty your words our you are externalizing costs of doing so onto others.

Truthful – meaning warrantied – speech doesn’t violate reciprocity. Un-warrantied speech does.

—“BUT WHAT DID ROTHBARD INNOVATE?”—

1 – (Respectfully) I always think that’s a rather ridiculous question since of empiricism (Aristotle), Self Improvement(Zeno), Moral Literature (Plato), and Rational Mythology (Augustine), it’s easy to state that all of philosophy is merely footnotes stated in current vocabulary.

2 – My reading of rothbard, particularly “for a new liberty” was that he was (a) trying to restated jewish borderland (ukrainian) low trust ethics, in anglo-jeffersonian high trust terms, and (b) trying to reduce social science to an informal logic. Did he or did Hoppe?

3 – My reading (because I learned it from him) is that Hoppe completed that program, unfortunately, using Kantian > Marxist rationalism, rather than anglo empiricism (law). I just converted it to scientific rather than justificationary prose.

4 – Every thinker is only partly right. My beef with rothbard is that he conflated low trust ethics with high trust ethics, and conducted an pseudoscientific war on the commons as marx did on private property. The only one who was right was Hayek: it’s all just reducible to law.

—“RE: BUT A PLANNER CANNOT KNOW WHICH RAILROAD IS ECONOMICALLY EFFICIENT TO BUILD”—

(Responding only because some well intentioned fool ‘liked’ your reply)

That’s false. Because all differences in economic productivity are reducible to time. Calculation is possible. The problem is competition that determines price, not the method by which price is calculated.

You know, I have been working on this problem only since about 2001, and I know that Russo-Ukrainian Libertarianism was abandoned by intellectuals relatively quickly, but it’s still surprising that these nonsense arguments still persist. Mises was irrelevant. Rothbard was wrong.

Hoppe took rothbard and restated it in the justificationary nonsense of Kant and the Marxists.But we’ve left behind justificationism along with it’s source – scripture. Science is exclusively falsifications: Darwinian.The real insights of Mises, Rothbard,and Hoppe are obscured..

…by pseudoscientific propaganda. We solve social science in a century when no one else did: Mises discovered operationalism in economics, rothbard and hoppe reduced all social science to reciprocity (property), and it is possible to construct a formal logic of LAW.

Yet those who had a direct connection to rothbard or rand are still grasping at straws of rationalist falsehood. Science is complete. Philosophy is relegated to preference and good. And justification went the way of scripture. Just how it is. They only got it half right.

Positive freedoms cannot exist because they force others to bear your costs against their will. Only negative freedoms are equally extensible to all because they ask us NOT to do something. Rights are merely positive expressions of the right to sue for restitution.

So it is ‘Freedom FROM’ false, criminal, unethical, and immoral display, word, and deed. In other words, the only moral rule equally extensible to all is RECIPROCITY (exchange).

So while the moral person wants freedom of all speech under the assumption others only err, or are victims of their ability and ignorance, the reality is that the industrialization of lying by pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and propaganda in the 20th century has caused damage only equalled by the Abrahamic Dark Age. Westerners have produced the only existing high trust civilization, but this left the west uniquely vulnerable to the cheap production of propaganda. Lies are cheap/Truth Expensive.

And the many who lied by propaganda, pseudoscience, and pseudo-rationalism, as a means of destroying that high trust civilization could do so because it is simply too expensive to correct a desirable falsehood and too cheap to perpetuate it.

Thankfully, between archeology, cognitive science, genetics, the results of the world experiment with different forms of government, and the world experiments with different forms of economics, the entire propaganda program of the early and mid 20th century had been ended.

but then it is status that drives affinity for leftism: the frustration with low social, sexual, economic, and political market value under market meritocracy.

the reason marx was wrong was that the principal beneficiaries of consumer capitalism were consumers (labor). capitalism has been the great leveller of consumption. the only difference between the classes is the purchase of signal goods (really).

Marx stopped writing after reading menger and realizing he was wrong. but he kept up pretenses of working to maintain financial support by Engels – marx was a perfect marxist: a parasite.

It has always and always will be and it was menger, pareto, durkheim, and hayek that explained why – and why it cannot be otherwise: knowledge, incentives, and the use of incentives to organize experimentation, production, distribution, and trade. value is created by organizing

1 – I go slumming on all sides of the debate, and fans of correspondence with any of the three dimensions of the coercive compass are equally convinced their intuitions are supported by experience, reason, and science.

2 – The fact that the current reaction to the status quo is not yet part of the normative canon merely repeats every other cyclic reaction to the status quo. Your confidence in a paradigm was produced by the same means in prior generations. You just arent a student of the cycle.

3 – Peterson like Nietzsche is recreating the foundations of western civilization by restoring Stoicism in both analogical and disciplinary forms and explaining its correlation with cognitive science. I do the same in logic, science, economics, law and politics. Taleb in finance.

4 – The size of the market for Critical Essay exposition (Taleb), Literary exposition (Peterson), Historical exposition(Hicks), and Technical Exposition (me) declines along with the population with the ability and knowledge to understand the material, is and inverse to its precision.

5 – The effects of economics, cognitive science, and genetics since 1992 have been reversing the Marxist Socialist postmodernist feminist counter enlightenment by Boaz,Marx, Freud,Frankfurt and Derrida/Rorty against Maxwell, Darwin, Menger, Pareto, Durkheim,Spencer and Nietzsche.

6-The pseudosciences had wider appeal because they promised an end to and reversal of social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value while retaining the proceeds of western success at the most thorough construction of markets in all aspects of life.

7 – But this was a false promise in the future, just as abrahamic religions made false promise of life after death (of more than the memory of ones actions by survivors). The science is in, genetics, cog sci, econ, law, politics, war: The second attempt at a dark age has failed.

8 – And that is a problem for the left. All the evidence supports the right. Which is why the left status quo is under threat of extinction, and we are living in a cold civil war very nearly turning hot. – Cheers

Anything important that can be said about economics or law, can only be said about externalities. The only way to restore libertarianism to the discipline of the natural law of reciprocity in the anglo saxon tradition, is to return commons and externalities to the discourse.

!!!!Only Commons Produce Private Property!!!!

1- Mises always and everywhere only addresses commodities (cherry picking) and never addresses the rest of the capital stack which makes commodity trade possible – particularly tacit knowledge capital (all paradigms). Hayek’s Serfdom includes ALL capital.

2 – Of calculation and incentive, incentive, norms, traditions, and institutions, have been demonstrably superior to calculation in influence. Impositions on calculation are costly, and shocks must be absorbed by the polity, but function is demonstrably possible.

3 – If we look at the soviets who are our best living example, the problem was not the economics of organizing production of housing (which they were exceptional at), but the fact that the craftsman lost interest in competitive advantage and skills were lost.

4 – Hayek was among the first to change the category of analysis from the physical to information -which is how all sciences function today. Mises was the first to discover economic operationalism but he understood math and science too poorly to understand what he’d done.

5 – In all things, Mises was only half right, which is the problem we fall into whenever we cherry pick what we measure. Hayek started with cognition, and worked through economics, and finally understood behavioral capital was created by TORT LAW, and all else was a consequence.

6 – MI/Rothbardians fight the last battle -one that doesn’t matter, with shoddy arms. The Marxist era of Pseudoscience was over by 1970. We have been fighting Rousseau v2 in Postmodernism: Silencing, Ridicule and Denial, just as we battled Christianity and Islam in antiquity.

7 – No one tries to advocate socialism. They try to achieve Pareto Maximums, wherein the maximum extraction from the productive can be used to buy the fealty of the non, in order to extract rents, and denial of any science or reason.

Mises was only half wrong but fully irrelevant. Hayek was right and prescient: Prohibit the bad and all that is left is good.And the means of incremental empirical suppression of the bad is the dry evolutionary process we call the judge discovered common law of tort: Reciprocity.

8 – Just as we have discovered in science, all truth is determined by exhaustive attempts at falsification. The same is true in social orders. Exhaustively falsify lying, cheating, theft, and violence by any and all means, and all incentives and institutions develop in response.

You are rarely wrong. In fact, in the entire discipline you are pretty much the only person rarely wrong.But the fact that you don’t take the argument through the conclusion, simply perpetuates everything that has led anarchism to a dead end. Only Commons Produce Private Property

Anything important that can be said about economics or law, can only be said about externalities. The only way to restore libertarianism to the discipline of the natural law of reciprocity in the anglo saxon tradition, is to return commons and externalities to the discourse.

I thought only little girls used name calling, disapproval, shaming, ridicule, and gossip as a substitute for argument. Men make arguments, and warrant their veracity at the risk of violence. If you decide to wear pants, and make an argument, I’m happy to defeat you. 😉

Unfortunately, we must now perform our ‘mansplaining’ for overweight, low testosterone, fatherless, uncompetitive, unproductive, video-game playing, comic-reading, underdeveloped males as well as our wives and daughters. 😉 it’s a dirty job but men have to do it. 😉

The philosophy of Marx, Lenin, and Mao (version two) cost >100M lives and the World wars, as well as that of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (version one) cost > 500M lives (islam), the destruction of the four great civilizations of the ancient world(islam), and a 1500 year dark age (christianity and islam).

And that’s before we even start thinking about all the others. The damage Kant did alone to german thought (Rousseau > Kant > Continental Philosophy > Marxism > Postmodernism) is certainly as damaging as version one (judaism, christianity, islam).

Why are the idealists, utopians, and theologians all writers who cause deaths by the excitement to suicide of millions?

Philosophy in its forms of pseudohistory, pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, and occult, has done more damage than anything other than malaria, smallpox, and the great plagues.

I mean, by this measure, we should kill everyone who speaks in fictionalisms: pseudoscience, rationalism, utopianism, supernaturalism.

It might be the single best improvement in mankind since the invention of antibiotics.

BTW, I do science(testimony) and law(Decidability). As far as I know, philosophy is limited to the determination of personal choice, and interpersonal good. And that is probably all that is left for philosophers to judge.

Truth is now in the domain of science – as it should have been all along.

The problem is you can’t take a woman seriously if she (a) does not reason seriously (b) does not respect the boundary of violence.

In the past, we could use violence agianst women who broke that boundary – just as we could use it against men.

Our big mistake was ending slander, libel, scolding, and the duel.

Marxism = parasitism upon private property.

Libertarianism = Parasitism upon commons.

NeoConservatism = Parasitism upon Genes, Traditions, and Institutions.Authoritarianism masks the underlying theft, which is why I talk not about the authority (which each sector justified) but about the thefts (which are very hard to).

Same with economics. We talk about whether they aer scientific or not but we do not talk about the thefts that occur, versus the trades that would be possible under rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity.

Theft is not an opinion. “Good” is an opinion.

—“PLEASE DEFINE DEFLATIONARY GRAMAR”—

(also: See the various categories of Truth (including deflationary).

Deflationary <-> Inflationary <-> Conflationary <-> Fictionalism

DEFLATIONARY: identity(constant relations), Mathematics(positional relations), Logics(sets of relations), Algorithms (States and Transformation of states), Procedures/Recpies(states, transformation of states, by operations), Contracts(exchanges), Survival (from competition)

INFLATIONARY: the descriptive narrative. the fiction.

CONFLATIONARY: addition of inconstant relations for purposes of association(transfer) or suggestion (deception)

FICTIONALISM: supernatural, ideal (especially platonism), pseudoscientific (especially marx, boaz, freud), pseudo-rational (Especially pretense of closure), pseudo historical (especially revisionist history whereupon present knowledge, luxury, and incentive, is attributed to past actors.)

GRAMMAR: Rules of continuous disambiguation.

SEMANTICS: sets of constant relations.

PARADIGM: Networks of sets of constant relations.

In other words we have developed deflationary, inflationary, conflationary, and fictionalist (fraudulent) grammars, wherein the possible operations(transformations, comparisons,) and therefore possible paradigms and semantics (constant relations) are increased or decreased in scope in order to test and falsify (deflate by disassociation) or communicate (inflate by association) or mislead (inflate, conflate, and fictionalise) for the purpose of self, and other, fraud, deception, pretense.

In other words, anything that is not false or immoral/unethical(involuntary transfer) is a truth candidate, a preference candidate, and a ‘good’ candidate.

This exercise is just codifying in scientific terms the 4000 year old empirical law of tort (reciprocity): do whatever you want but don’t display, speak, or perform a fraud no matter how you justify doing so.

Ergo, via positiva philosophy is limited to the selection of personal preferences and contactual goods, but otherwise, as far as I know, the subject of truth is complete and now science (as it probably always should and could have been had the Stoics not be suppressed by the eastern empire.)

The problem is, we have regulated action, we have regulated production (commerce and trade) we have regulated contract (Promise of performance) but we have not regulated speech, for the simple reason that it has been heretofore too difficult to limit speech to that which is warrantable.

Ergo, if it isn’t warrantable, we can’t tell it’s not false or unethical/immoral directly or by externality..

No man wants laws to bound his ambitions for self delusion as to his social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value. No murderer, theft, or fraud wants constraints on his parasitism and predation. Likewise no social climber, virtue-signaller, priest, public intellectual, wants limits on his speech which constrains his ability to defraud himself and others in pursuit of attention, status, and virtue signals that might increase his perceived social, sexual, economic, political, and military value to others.

But yet our uniquely aggressive rate of western evolution in all fields has been possible because of our incremental suppression of violence, theft, and fraud in concert with our rapid advancement in technology, economic, social, political, and military order.

Fraud is fraud no matter what excuse we make for it. And while it is one thing to imagine fraud, it is another to speak, advocate, and publish it.

😉

No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one hand and science, cognitive science, natural law (reciprocity), economics on the other. In other words, between that which is free of fictionalism and that which is not.

The question remains, we can learn from history, biography, science, economics, or we can learn from the narrative, archetypes and plots, or we can learn from religion, philosophy, and the occult.

There is reason we identify ‘fictionalisms’ in each discipline (and I have worked on this subject for the past ten years), and that is because they are self referential rather than suffering and surviving the test of falsification by demonstration.

As far as I know, assuming that we separate the study of grammar (continuous disambiguation), logic(formal disambiguation), semantics(constant relations), and paradigms (networks of constant relations), that it is very difficult to find a question asked in any philosophy that is not simply avoidance of science(the sciences), natural law (reciprocity), and economics(results of cooperation) for the purpose of avoiding the falsification of what which which values as either immoral, or deflating of status, and self confidence.

As such philosophy is currently used for the purpose of self help, which is to provide pseudoscientific or pseudo rational justification of intuitions and priors so that individuals develop the courage to act or tolerate their status: social, sexual, economic, political, and military value. Or it is used to avoid the high cost of learning rationalism over religion, or science over rationalism.

(I know, because I do the same thing)

Kim wants legitimacy before his people. Trump wants an excuse to take severe action. The military can use that action to counter china. There are hundreds of issues at play here.

I have been in the business of negotiating business deals for most of my life – usually M&A in the low range. And trump’s method of negotiation is very transparent to me.

You just let everyone play their hand, and say anything that encourages people to take further exposure, then wait for opportunity to make use of that information, while suggesting that you’ll accept possibilities different from your central objective.

This makes it extremely hard for the opposition to rally and counter you, and ensures you have the maximum information at your disposal. This works when many people are fighting for your business, money, or approval.

And it means you do not have to pay them off or make a lot of puts in order to get the best deal. Moreover by giving them hope, and then drawing it out or letting them fail, they are weakened with their constituencies.

Most presidents and politicians do this under pretense. He just does it openly. Because the worst that happens is he gets to leave the white house which is a bit like slumming for him.

Meanwhile his base is more dedicated than any president in modern history.

He governs as does a king rather than the postmodern priesthood that’s been common since Johnson. And I am still not sure it’s a bad thing.

The united states is not ONE democracy, but a COLLECTION OF STATES all of whom agree to operate democratically and resolve conflicts in commerce and war via the federal government, similarly to how the Church formed a weak government over the various states of Europe.

The states, regions, and ‘nine’ super-regions, are genetically(yes), demographically, culturally, and legally different.They are also of vastly different sizes, just as the states of europe(germanic), and eastern europe(slavic) are different sizes.

And while each state gains proportional representation in the house, equal representation in the senate, it is the majority of the STATES that determine the presidency – not one’s vote.

This was designed so that big (immigrant) states could not virtually enslave the smaller and more homogenous states.

When you vote, you vote for your state, not for the country, because you are just as much an enemy as a friend of people in other parts of the country. And this is how it was set.

If there is any question whatsoever of as SINGLE democracy, then we do not live in separate states each satisfying the want and needs of the groups that inhabit them, then we are a tyrannical empire that oppresses those states.

The underlying problem is why we joined vastly different civilizations in 1789 did not separate after the war of 1812 when the north wanted to secede, did not separate in 1865, when the south wanted to secede, and do not separate today when it appears that at least five, but ast many as ten different nations, consisting of subsets of our states, want to seceded.

The only problem heretofore has been external military pressure. Without the european aggression of the pre-war period, or the opportunity to ‘steal’ the western 3/4 of the continent after the Louisiana Purchase, or defend ourselves from postwar communism, (and it looks like communism’s follow-on: islamism is coming to an end) then there is no reason to remain united whatsoever, when the consequence is constant internecine warfare slowly turning into open civil war.

Our government is an empire that has outlived its usefulness as holding the world system of finance and trade together after the collapse of european colonialism.

It’s time to return to the norm of western civilization: small states that cater to the wants and needs of their people – not to the will of the majority who, by all measures, will always be those least able, least productive, least knowledgeable, and demonstrably least moral.

With Annihilation, the market change is complete. The cinemas are now for spectacle, and all good movies will be produced by Netflix and Major Cable. They are already canceling distribution of future releases – even those currently in production.

If we end copyright via creative commons we end them all.

—“I have been wanting to ask more about mathematical platonism, is this an example of such? If so could make an example of him so I can learn?”—

Yes. Although when we talk about mathematics, precisely because mathematics is so trivially simple, the use of “pseudoscientific prose” does not necessarily impact one’s ability to use it. So it’s a lot like ancient metallurgy, astrology or aristotelian physics.

And so just as metalsmiths talked about spirits, astrologers talked about gods and demigods, theologians talked about god and heaven, mathematicians still make use of archaic ‘fictionalist’ (platonic) prose as did astrologers and theologians.

But that does not mean that while the categories relations and values that they discuss in mathematics cannot be restated in scientific “true” operational prose. It’s just that when you do so the triviality of mathematics and the pseudoscientific content of the prose is obvious.

Lets start with defining a number. A number consists of a positional name. The name of a position in an order. Positional Naming using positional numbers assisted us in creating positional names beyond our ability to remember names, and beyond our ability to conceive or compare.

All mathematical operations consist of addition or subtraction of positions. But because the only property positional names possess is position, then the positional names (numbers) all constitute ratios to (scales of) the reference.

But since anything we refer to that is “countable’ (and some references are not directly countable – water and air, must be divided in to volumetric units for example before we can count them), can be measured using the ratios provided by positional names …

… we gain scale and reference independence, or rather ‘the ability to construct general rules of arbitrary precision” using nothing but these positional names. Positional names are not like words, open to conflation or misinterpretation.They have only one property: position…

… And because they have only one property of position, they have one unavoidable deductive property: ratio to the referent. … Now, some operations yield another positional name (a ratio), some yield a partial name (a fraction), and some yield an indivisible ratio ….

… the position of which cannot be named by positional naming. This means that while some operations (changes by addition or subtraction) have no positional name, and as such can only be represented by a function. Ergo, there exists no square root of two, only the function.

So mathematicians have spent a very long time inventing very creative means by which to conflate number (positional name produced by the operation of positional naming) with the categories of results of the operations of addition and subtraction: …

… divisible(positional name/number) = entities, divisible to divisible ratio (fraction) = measurements, and divisible to indivisible ratio (function) = general rules requiring context to provide limits, and directional spatial (and all that results from directions), and …

… finally to physics representing forces of n-dimensions, and lastly to semantic relations, expressing only relative weights of relations. Which is where math breaks down and we must turn to operations (semantics, economics, computing.) where categories are inconstant.

There exist only positional names (zero dimensions). We can add a dimension and imagine a line (measurement). We can add direction and add -measurement. We can ad another dimension and create areas. We can add another dimension and create spaces. We can add another dimension …

and create time. We can add another dimension and create competition (forces). We can add n-dimensions and create causalities (algebraic geometry). We can add obseve the consequences of the externalities produced by algebraic patterns (lie groups), and then repeat the cycle…

with lie groups as the next primitive category (referent), and repeat the entire process all over again. Which is how we categorize subatomic(wave), particle(object), chemistry, biology, sentience. or physics engineering, programming, language. The same hierarchical process.

So mathematics is very simple. It’s consists of the use of positional names to create general rules of arbitrary precision using some number of dimensions of causality. In other words, it’s the discipline of measurement. It is highly successful in constant relations and less …

… so with inconstant relations. And mathematicians are very little different from medieval monks inventing nonsense language to justify a very simple moral code by which to extract rents from the population in return for training them to extend kinship trust to non-kin.

Math is, like law, one of those disciplines that is terribly simple and it’s access limited to a priesthood willing to make use of the priestly vocabulary as a signal of conformity. Unfortunately mathematical pseudoscience in economics has been possible because of platonism.

So in closing, think of mathematical terminology like a language of theology referencing a heaven that doesn’t exist. That does not however stop the monks from growing food, fermenting beer, performing clerical services, and generally pretending that they have sacred knowledge.

Why? Because measuring stuff is actually pretty simple. All you need to do is know the dimensions and create a means of measurement. Everything else is just a byproduct of the simplicity of a positional names as an infungible category by which all is somehow commensurable.

How much pleasure does it give us that New Jersey(NYC), Connecticut(Hartford-NewHaven), Rhode Island(Providence), Illinois(Chicago), Michigan(Detroit), California(Greater LA), are all close to bankruptcy having exhausted all possible rents from producers?

ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha….

—‘talents’ being the will to take others property, land and commit genocide?”— Kool Akiem

(Regarding: “europeans have inherited a genetic advantage in the distribution of their talents, just as have the ashkenazi and the east asians. The difference is only that we developed truth independent of its effect on the dominance hierarchy and no one else did.”)

REPLY

Talents meaning personality traits including intelligence, and in particular verbal intelligence, but even more so on general pedomorphcih and neotonic prolongation of traits.

I am terribly proud of dragging humanity out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, hard labor, child mortality, early death, suffering and disease even if they resisted us all the way, and succeeded in defeating us by the great lies of the Abrahamic Dark Age. And even if they are resisting us today in the beginning of the second abrahamic (pseudoscientific) dark age by exactly the same means.

I am terribly proud of replacing the undomesticated animal, and domesticating the human animals that remain.

You are not kin, friend, productive cooperator, political cooperator, or military cooperator and I would prefer to continue speciating and leaving peoples like you behind as we have done so for millennia.

If we cannot cooperate on ends, that is fine, as long as we can cooperate on means. If we cannot cooperate on means, then you are either unimportant, a competitor for resources, a parasite, or an enemy.

There is no family of man except in the mind of parasites.

I mean, the greatest murderers in the world are the islamists (500M dead, and the Socialist/Communists 100M dead) yet we have dragged mankind out of ignorance in the ancient and modern world, with the only interruption being the abrahamic dark age imposed upon europe by eastern emperors followed by muslim pirates and raiders.

I mean, we destroyed south american civilizations nearly by accident. In the modern world we ahve tried desperately to turn primitive semi domesticated animals into fully human participants in the market order. And had the british not fallen to immoral influence under Disraeli, they might have completed the task by administration rather than leaving it to americans to force others to do at the point of high powered weapons. The muslims destroyed every major civilization in the ancient world, and the soviets cost eastern europe two hundred years. The east and southeast asians killed so many of their own people that only the muslims and the great plagues compare.

Your anxiety is that you have very low sexual, social, economic, political, and military market value, and as such you rail against a world you are unfit for. It is understandable that you should rail against a sexual,s ocial, economic, political and military order that forces you to confront your low market value to others. However, It is in the interests of all mankind past and present that if you lack sexual, social, economic, political, and military market value, that you disappear from the gene pool so that you do not force others to pay the cost of your inadequacy.

We all fear being left behind. I wish I was tall enough to play basketball – I would have greater access to better women. I wish often that I had ordinary intelligence rather than the extremes – it would make life more pleasant. I wish that I had been born in a prior generation of my family when it was much wealthier than others, rather than in a generation equal to others.

But I compete. I win. I make a place where I can create value.

I don’t rail against the world to justify my lack of ability, character, and fortitude.

Cheers

–“So you’re a supremacist”– (a naive young fool)

I work on the compatibility thesis, and that it’s the distribution of talents in cooperation in a group, not individuals that produce ‘goods’.

Men and women are compatible. The classes, except at the bottom, are compatible. The peoples of the world, if they internalize their own costs of domestication, are compatible.

Only europeans could invent what we have invented, but any people willing to adopt those technologies (including eugenic mating practices) can make use of them.

As for ‘superiority’, europeans have inherited a genetic advantage in the distribution of their talents, just as have the ashkenazi and the east asians. The difference is only that we developed truth independent of its effect on the dominance hierarchy, and a civilization of markets in everything because of it – and no one else did.

All human peoples can transcend the animal. But it comes at the cost of continuous reduction of the underclasses through constraints on reproduction and mating.

That’s just how it is.

So, no. All peoples can transcend.

The question is, how does one know one is poor except by relative differences in inventory and consumption? Poverty is the natural condition of man. Property and mutual insurance of it, lift us out of poverty.

THE ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT ‘POOR’

“poor’ evolved from pre-Latin *pau-paros “producing little; getting little,” a compound from the roots of paucus “little” (from PIE root *pau- (1) “few, little”) and parare “to produce, bring forth” (from PIE root *pere-(1) “to produce, procure”).

In other words, the original meaning of poor in proto indo european (well before the invention of money or money substitutes) was ‘one who produces very little.”

And this remains the cause of poverty. One who produces very little and therefore consumes very little.

The evolution of money requires the production of surpluses that cannot be consumed and can (must) be traded across production groups in order to obtain that which is not self produced.

Barter-price (cattle, chicken, lambs, etc) can function for certain transactions, if those items can serve as a store value (they do).

But money must be portable, have a high weight/volume to value (time savings), be unitary measure and divisible, and universally (within the trade network) liquid (in demand).

Politics is just a proxy for war. Markets are superior to political orders because they calculate maximum mutual by reciprocity.

The problem as in all things, is producing limits. Capitalism and socialism are both unlimited by reciprocity.

Only rule of law of reciprocity produces markets that discover the balance between private and commons.

We fuss and fume over capitalism vs socialism, or authoritarianism vs anarchism, but the only underlying difference is rule of law and reciprocity vs rule by discretion and reciprocity.

*For, the only purpose of discretion is, and can be, to violate reciprocity*.

And the problem heretofore has been the means of limiting markets by the measurement of capital in toto that changes.

Why? Because humans evolved in a world that easily equilibrated their consumptions within the band or tribe – because they could only externalize costs onto the natural world.

But at current scale, when we cooperate via host of proxies, we can and do largely externalize against others whether kin, polity, nation, competitors, or man. And man retaliates differently and more immediately from nature against those impositions.

So politics is quite simple under meritocracy, and politics is quite complicated under irreciprocity. Under rule of law of reciprocity, markets that result from that rule of law (both private and common) are quite transparent, simple and explicable.

Under the irreciprocity of politics and rule by discretion, the results of that discretion (and deception) is not transparent, complicated, and largely inexplicable.

The principle problem in achieving reciprocity and transparency is the percentage of your population that can survive competition in the market. If a group cannot survive competition in the market because it has too many members that cannot compete in the market, then political discretion, corruption, and irreciprocity evolve out of the necessity of survival.

Ergo the only possible means of producing reciprocity is to prevent the expansion and produce the contraction of those individuals that cannot compete in the market given present technology, resources, and competitors. And in doing so prevent the emergence of a body of elites that employ discretionary rule.

This brief passage explains almost all of politics. The british system and the current scandinavian was possible because of such aggressive culling of the underclasses, and the economic dependence upon the militia for both offense and defense.

The british model preserved tripartism (clergy, nobility, businessmen-farmers ), and thereby produced a government that funcitoned as a market between the ‘able’ classes (aristocracy, nobility, managers of production, and the church (women and underclasses).)

The enlightenment seizure and creating of a monopoly rather than preservation of the market between the classes was made possible by the disproportionate returns on the empirical revolution’s increases in productivity.

Yet that marginal increase in productivity which allowed for great concentration of wealth has increasingly dissipated due to the anglo-american and less-so european distribution and enforcement of consumer capitalism (markets).

Yet most societies have returned to monopoly government rather than market, because of asymmetries in populations and the utility of concentrating capital in the state as a means of projecting military power by which market advantages are gained.

This is all there is to politics. There is very little other to be understood. Everything else is just negotiating position using some sort of fiction.

(from elsewhere)

These groups simply improve one’s ability to debate, articulate one’s ideas, and identify the hollows in your undrestanding.

Men in particular debate (or argue) as a means of developing a framework without exposing themselves to the vulnerability of suggestion.

It is part of and parcel of being male – most of us find no … interest … in learning without the stimulation of some sort of competition – hence the decline in male school performance by the introduction of females who have the opposite incentives.

So for women in particular, a male dominated means of learning is … often unpleasant.

And for strong females, the rather shallow method of female communication with its overemphasis on conformity and non confrontation is too stultifying.

Libertarians are better company for the aspirational women as they bridge the gap between male and female sentiments for the simple reason that they care very little about hierarchy.

There is a website somewhere plays the daily game of matching crimes to arrest photos. And it is that data we should find interesting. Not data that is constructed consciously or otherwise to produce an outcome. Lesson from Economics: never use intentionally constructed data.

Replying to @OppressorBot @jordanbpeterson

So when people are practicing pattern recognition from faces, what patterns are they observing? Well, Kin Selection, Class Selection, Personality Selection, and personal experience. People are very good at it, and you can nearly always judge a book by its cover if you can see it.

Replying to @OppressorBot @jordanbpeterson

They have much higher retention of traits than even we do, including everything from scent to body fat distribution to scale of genitalia and length of legs. And they have a low opinion of human nature. And very little respect for human life (by comparison).

East asians not only have verb based language rather than noun, and conformity(harmony) and non-imposition against the dominance hierarchy, but they failed to solve the problem of politics, and still practice face and continuous deception. It is very hard to compare us.

Um. this is far too long a conversation, but you are using too few axis of causality. East asians are a low trust people. We are not yet sure why they are low trust. But it is most likely because their first philosopher ( their SunTzu) advocated delay and deceive.

I’m saying if you graph testosterone by class, major tribe(hundreds), SubRace (30 or so) and Races (3-4), that pedomorphic selection and testosterone coincide and so do facial features, with dimorphism varying between groups. ie: east asians lowest, africans highest.

The way to domesticate a human animal is no different from any other. Overtake its dominance hierarchy and cull impulsivity and aggression. This turns out to produce neotenic trait expression, prolongation of maturation, and general decline in testosterone (and many other things)

It’s pretty obvious. Some of us had to mature quickly in high disease gradients and some of us could afford to mature more slowly and produce fewer offspring in colder climates. Add prohibition on cousin marriage, the meat grinder of agrarianism/manorialism and underclass shrinks

It’s not so much that any group is superior to any other group so much as that some groups have been more successful at culling the underclasses. If you can get your median above 105 very good things start to happen. I assume in the future that number will continue to increase

Define ‘you’ “i”. There are a very finite number of properties of ‘you’ that differ from the properties of others.

As far as I know, you can only consist of a physical body living (surviving) in time, a set of memories that when stimulated by inputs produce consequence (changes) unique in time and space, and a set of others’ memories of your body and your behavior; and lastly the legal ‘you’ which refers to the set of records, obligations, and liabilities others cannot transfer to their exclusive control. This is the full spectrum of ‘you’ that has any meaning.

On Killing Defectors…

(a) Killing defectors is defensive measure against further defection

(b) Not killing imprisoned defectors is merely preserving an asset for future exchange.

(c) Trading defectors you will later kill is simply buying the exchange for free.

(d) Letting people have false hope and live in fear is more valuable than rapidly executing them.

I detest conspiracy theories. People act according to rational incentives.

However, Seth Rich and Skripal hold a remote possibility of implicating Russian involvement at a time when we are sensitive to (endemic) russian, chinese, jewish, manipulation of our polity. The jewish are most successful at political interference. The chinese most successful at technological theft. The Russian most successful at undermining power in general.

Russian, Jewish, Chinese, and American involvement in intelligence gathering and shaming by publication of undesirable information is endemic, and has been since the advent of the soviets.The soviets mastered propaganda from the French, then competed with the fascists for supremacy. Americans being anglo were late to develop the technique since we have a high trust society and these kinds of actions were resisted.

As far as I know – and I am fairly certain of this – the collusion story is just that – an excuse to cover the failings of the democratic party in putting forward such an undesirable candidate in a time of divisiveness.

Intelligence work on the american side is tediously boring really. The russians on the other hand use disaffected intellectuals (particularly on the left) to do their work for them at pennies on our dollar. And they always have done so. Americans are rather overt about our interference.

Wikileaks has done us a profound favor and I only wish them a future even brighter.

We aren’t living in ‘parallel societies’ we are living in a EMPIRE just like every other empire in history, and this particular empire has vastly outlived its usefulness.

Revolt.Separate.Diversify.Specialize.Compete.Innovate.Prosper.

The answer is simple. We are wealthy enough to afford to express our differing reproductive strategies – strategies in which we can signal our fitness for that strategy optimally.

There exist only three methods of coercion? masculine violence, and hierarchy, neutral exchange and meritocracy, and feminine disapproval, shaming, ridicule, and rallying and equality.

The political spectrum reflects these reproductive strategies. (conservative masculine concentration of capital, libertarian exchange-neutral production of capital, and progressive redistributive communal consumption of capital.

The only solution by which each obtains his optimum interest is by the production of commons best negotiated in his interests.

Ergo – revolte, separate, diversity, specialize, compete, innovate, and prosper.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.

—“…naturalistic fallacy…”—

I don’t commit naturalistic fallacies – which states that we must do something because it is present in nature. I simply describe what we do, as evidence we already mirror natural processes.

The only moral rule is reciprocity (do not unto others). The pretense-of-kinship fallacy, is that we are obligated to redistribution and cooperation, rather than ‘cooperation is only valuable until it is not.

you aren’t my associate, my friend, my kin, my people, and therefore you are only valuable to me as a trading partner and then only so if you are a productive trading partner.

Otherwise you are just a competitor for resources.

And I always have the choice of avoidance of your parasitism, trade, or predation upon you.

And your argument is that you should be able to parasitically extract from me and mine.

That is all you are doing. Pretense of kinship or partner, when you are merely seeking rents (parasitism).

Your argument is testable. Sorry. It just is.

All human argument is reducible to some transfer.

—“All money is someone’s debt backed by a promise to redeem the debt. When the money is issued by the state, then you have its vast assets backing its value and so liquidity is increased compared with individuals issuing currency. This is why the sovereign often appears on the currency.”—-

Nope. credit money might be. But commodity money is a store of value already produced. That is what separates commodity money (value stored), fiduciary media (value borrowed), and credit money (value promised), and fiat money – meaning shares in the economy (future value speculated upon).

You are using the term ‘money’ by cherry picking properties to suit your argument.

The diagram above lists the categories of money from commodity through trade credit. Money = commodity money.

Everything else is a substitute of decreasing liquidity of temporal value.

Your purpose as is the purpose of every other life form is to perpetuate your genes by the capture of differences in rates of entropy and to expend it as waste heat. That’s your purpose. You perpetuate the temporary concentration of energy as a means of producing higher returns on the concentration of energy.

Our ability to think and remember evolved for very simple reasons: creatures that can empathize with intent, imitate, and cooperate without violating reciprocity, can, through the cooperateive concentration of energy on high returns, produce greater caloric capture than any other evolutionary solution the universe has yet discovered by trial and error.

However, since self awareness has been a byproduct of that evolutionary innovation, and since along with that self awareness is the need to be valued by (useful to others) because otherwise we would have less incentive to cooperate and produce outsized returns – you need to find some means of surviving while at the same time either feeling not-harmful, useful if possible, and contributory if possible, and dramatically contributory if possible, because this is what status signals and fulfillment refer to.

Most unsatisfied (unfulfilled) people are unwilling to or unable to admit their low potential, low value, low status, and low contribution and will not spend the effort to obtain mediocre returns suited to their abilities.

hence why charity is so attractive and useful – it takes very little effort to produce outsized cooperative returns for those of even less value to others than you are.

This chain of providing value to those less valuable to than you are is how the entire in-class, and cross-class, social, economic, political, and military hierarchy manages to function given that some of us are unfit, unattractive, have undesirable personalities, and are stupid, are from bad families, and bad groups – and some of us are fit, attractive, have desirable personalities, are intelligent and from good families and groups.

Come to terms with your status and ability and serve those who need your service. This is why christians are so disproportionately happy and christian civilizations are so disproportionately productive: we are mercilness with producing purely empirical status signals. everyone else tries to fake them.

Poverty didn’t evolve, wealth and money evolved.

Poverty is merely a relative assessment of one’s ability to consume.

Hence why indigenous peoples commit suicide in droves once aware of their relative condition.

That relative condition is poverty.

However, it can only be known to be poverty once one is aware of a relative condition.

Prosperity (wealth) evolved from the division of labor.

Money of some kind (commodities) is necessary to remove frictions to the coincidence of wants in a division of labor.

Prices are necessary to allow planning, complex production of multi-part products and services, credit, and debt.

Non-Commodity Money is necessary to reduce frictions to the coincidence of wants, that limits the expansion of trade.

****Our only asset is time. We are not wealthier than cavemen. We have simply made all goods, services, and information cheaper, through the division of knowledge and labor using the information system we call money and prices. This is the most important lesson of economics. All understanding of wealth exists in this one paragraph.****

Lets translate Kantian Rationalism into scientific and testimonial speech.

I’m going to teach epistemology by using economics in order to repair much of the damage that has been done to epistemology by the Platonists(mathematics), and the Rationalists (Kant etc), and the Analytic Philosophers (Just about all of the 20th century).

*Reality consists of a limited number of actionable dimensions and by using economics we are able to include all of them, and therefore avoid the errors that the platonists, rationalists, and analytics have introduced into philosophy.

“DEFINITIONS AND SERIES”

1) Empirical:

Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. “From Observation”.

2) A Priori:

“independent of observation.”

There are three dimensions to claims of a priori truth claim:

i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori,

ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, and

iii) Necessity vs Contingency

Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims.

(a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: 2+2=4 and all deductions thereof.

(b) Synthetic A Priori : Increasing money increases inflation.

(c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: Childless women will have no grandchildren.

(d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.”

This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision:

(a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori

(b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori

(c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori

(d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori

Which corresponds to the testable dimensions of numbers.

(a) identity (numbers)

(b) logical (sets)

(c) empirical (ratios)

(d) existential (constructible)

(e) time is unaccounted for in the a priori model.

Which corresponds to dimensions of physical reality

(a) point

(b) line

(c) shape

(d) object

(e) time (change)

Which corresponds to a subset of the dimensions of actionable reality , the full set of which we express in fully express in Testimonialism as:

(a) Identity(categorical consistency)(point)

(b) Logical:(internal consistency)(line)

(c) Empirical: (external consistency)(shape)

(d) Existential: (operational consistency)(object)

(e) Volitional: (rational choice of rational actor)(change)

(f) Reciprocal: ( rational exchange between rational actors)(changes)

(g) Limited: (Limits: At what points does the description fail?)

(h) Fully Accounted: (Have all costs and consequences been accounted for – defense against cherry picking and special pleading.)

Which together account for the totality of actionable reality (by man) that we currently know of (and its quite hard to imagine anything else is possible).

DEDUCTIBILITY FROM A-PRIORI PROPOSITIONS

Ergo, while one can claim the tautological truth (the Analytic A Priori), and one can claim the ideal(logical) truth (the Necessary Synthetic A Priori), one cannot ever know the non-tautological(identity, The Synthetic A Priori), non-ideal(Contingent Synthetic A Priori ) truth, because we rarely possess sufficient information to do so.

What does this mean? It means that we can deduce from Analytic A Priori and Necessary Synthetic A Priori, but we cannot deduce from General Synthetic A Priori, or Contingent Synthetic A Priori Statements because we cannot know if such deductions are true (for specific cases).

So the problem with making a priori claims in economics is that you can say statements about statements but not about consequences in reality. You can only say ‘all other things being equal’, we should observe this effect. You cannot say, “we will always observe this effect’. Why? Because we don’t always observe such effects, and economics is rife with examples, the most commonly cited being unemployment does not necessarily increase, and prices are sticky – and for good reason.

(NOTE: Now that’s sufficiently complicated that I almost confused myself, and I might need a day away from it to make sure I didn’t screw up what someone might read into those last two paragraphs, but otherwise it’s correct.)

The innovation that menger brought to the table was to bring the principle of relative change from calculus to economics. The principle contribution of hayek was to transform transform the use of materials to the use of information as the model for all social phenomenon. The principle contribution of Popper was to bring the information model to philosophy, and in particular the philosophy of science and to model scientific investigation on a market. This followed the transition in physics from the use of electromagnetic fields to that of information. Which then brought physics and mathematics into full correspondence.

What Hayek and popper and the classicals and the keynesians all missed and brouwer in math, bridgman in physics, and mises in economics, and the entire analytic and continental movements missed was that man cannot make truth claims.

For example, we did not think the ideas of time(velocity of change), length(distance), and space(volume) varied. Einstein’s discovery was the same as mises’, brouwer’s and bridgman’s: that all our pretense of axioms are false. If our idea of length and time can be false, every other idea that is obvious to our senses and reason can be false.

The difference between economics and physics is in :

(a) volition vs determinism

(b) reciprocity vs transformation

(c) sympathetic testing of rational choice vs entropy.

THE SCIENTIFIC (UNIVERSAL EPISTEMOLOGICAL) METHOD

“DEFLATION”

(0) The purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our statements about reality.

“DIMENSION”

(1) We can make:

(a) statements about experiences(metaphysical), or

(b) statements about statements(ideal), or

(c) statements about existential properties(existential/real), or

(d) statements about existential cause and effect(change).

(e) statements about volition

“CLOSURE”

(2) No test of any dimension can be completed without appeal to the subsequent dimension. (ie: godel. this is profoundly important. no dimension can provide a self-test.) Ergo, all speech is deflationary.

“CRITICAL RATIONALISM”

(3) All descriptive propositions of existential cause and effect (change) are contingent.

“CRITICAL PREFERENCE”

(4) The only method of decidability between two or more non-false cause and effect propositions(change) is cost. This is a clarification of Occam’s razor. And appears to be true, for the simple reason that nature cannot but choose the least cost method, and man generally chooses the least cost method – even if we cannot know the full causal density of his considerations.

DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST IGNORANCE, ERROR, BIAS, DECEIT

(5) The only method of making a truth claim is to perform due diligence in each dimension of reality (a ‘premise’ of the consequential dimension) applicable to the cause and effect phenomenon. (ie:physical world can’t engage in rational choice, or voluntary exchanges)

Again, those dimensions are:

(a) Identity(categorical consistency)(point)

(b) Logical:(internal consistency)(line)

(c) Empirical: (external consistency)(shape)

(d) Existential: (operational consistency)(object)

(e) Volitional: (rational choice of rational actor)(change)

(f) Reciprocal: ( rational exchange between rational actors)(changes)

(g) Limited: (Limits: At what points does the description fail?)

(h) Fully Accounted: (Have all costs and consequences been accounted for – defense against cherry picking and special pleading.)

“DARWINIAN SURVIVAL OF IDEAS”

(6) All propositions (facts, propositions, theories) must survive the markets for criticism at the observer-mental-testing, observer-action testing, market application testing, and market survival testing. In other words, the universal epistemological method follows this lifecycle:

(a) observation

(b) *Free association* (F -> observation)

(c) test of reasonability (F -> free association )

(d) *Hypothesis*

(e) Perform Due Diligence (a-h) above. (F -> free association )

(f) *Theory*

(g) Publish to the market for application

(h) Survival in the market for application(F ->observation – of failures )

(i) *Law*

(j) Survival in the market for refutation (F-> observation – of failures)

(k) *Habituation into metaphysical assumptions*

“SPECIAL CASES”

7) This universal epistemological process is universal despite the fact that various results can be identified with it. Because just as we find prime numbers largely by trial and error we find special cases of statements by trial and error. But when we find these statements we have to ask ourselves what is it we are finding?

(a) Sensations: statements about experiences(metaphysical), or

(b) Logic(analytic): statements about statements(ideal), or

(c) Fact: statements about existential properties(existential/real), or

(d) Theory(Synthetic): statements about existential cause and effect(change).

(e) Morality: statements about volition

(f) Testimony: statements about the fully accounted change in state of a given instance of the statement we are making (I have a credit card report that shows John Doe, on 1/1/2018 at 4:06:32 exchanged $2.00 for a hershey’s candy bar at Don’s newspaper stand then existing on 225th and Main in Cityname.”)

EXAMPLES

The most common special cases that we find are those that are impossible to contradict at the same dimension. (a,b,c,d,e) above.

(a) Sense(Metaphysics): we cannot sense a ball is green and red all over at the same time.

(b) Logic: If I issue credit on fractional reserves, I will increase the supply of money.

(c) Fact: The differences between commodity money and note money include but are not limited to: liquidity, demand, exchange fee or interest gain, portability(weight/volume), reserve risk, vendor risk.

(d) Theory: All other things being equal, if we increase the supply of money, prices will eventually increase accordingly and lower the purchasing power of payments against debts.

(e) Morality: All other things being equal, when we force majoritarian decisions on the polity by using representative democracy, we create a monopoly out of the market for the commons, and eliminate the possibility of cooperating on means even if we pursue different ends.

“ECONOMIC LEVERS”

Polities can generally use this series of levers to affect the economy.

-Near Term-

(a) Monetary Policy

(b) Fiscal Policy (Spending)

-Medium Term-

(c) Trade Policy (import export policies, foreign trade policies)

(d) Regulatory/Legislative Policy (also includes price controls etc)

(e) Immigration-Deporation policy / Expand military, WPA etc.

-Long Term-

(f) Human Capital Policy (Education policy)

(g) Institutional Policy (laws, regulations, bureaucracies, institutions, banks)

(h) Strategic (military) Policy

“SCHOOLS OF ECONOMICS”

The schools of economics reflect the culture and class of their origins. These groups do not acknowledge that their strategies and biases are as I”ve stated them here but their research evidence states the contrary. So I have tried to provide a general Spectrum of the institutions by what I understand is their culture/class bias.

a) “Austrian / Rothbardian” (“Jewish”, Separatist) : Rule of Credit, Parasitic Optimum, Separatist / Anarchism.

+Financial Class Bias. Anti-Commons Bias.

(As far as I know, no university teaches the Jewish Austrian method.)

b) “Mason-ism” (“Anglo Libertarian”, Right ) : Optimum Rule of Law, Nash Optimum, Minimal State / Christian Monarchy

+Entrepreneurial Class Bias.

(the only University I know of using this program is George Mason.)

The “Mason-Libertarian” school places greater emphasis on maximizing the voluntary cooperation of individuals and organizations through reduction of impediments to ethical and moral cooperation.

c) “Classical” (“Chicago”, Anglo, Center Right), Rule of Law, Insured Nash Optimum, Parliamentary State / Classical Liberalism.

+Middle classes bias. (I would argue ‘not biased’)

All other things being equal, the Chicago school places greater emphasis on policy that insures against error and failure by seeking formulas and rules that investors, businesses, and consumers can predict, thereby preserving rule of law, and maintaining the prohibition on discretionary rule.

d) “Mainstream” (“Saltwater”, Center Left) : Mixed Discretionary Rule, Pareto Optimum, Social Democracy

+Working Class Bias, Consumer Bias, Female bias(anti-male bias). Minority(anti-white) bias. Underclass Bias (anti-entreprenurial bias).

All other things being equal the mainstream seeks to optimize consumption at all times, using every lever available, and favors abandoning rule of law, and adopting rule that is increasingly empirical, reactive, and discretionary.

e) “Left Mainstream” (“Saltwater”, “Jewish left”) : Authoritarian Rule, Anti-Aristocracy(War), Extractive Maximum (Predatory), Socialism/Communism

+Underclass (outsider) Bias.

This is the Krugman/Stiglitz/Delong club of leftist economists maximizing both consumption and financial extraction as a means of undermining western aristocratic civilization and western norms and traditions and rule of law.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

–“…performative…”

You keep using terms that I don’t think you understand, which is why Kant invented those terms: to conflate the empirical and the rational. He was afraid of the anglo empirical revolution. For good reason.

—“…morality…”—

Correct. Morality (reciprocity) requires inter-agent action. So does all economic activity. Economic activity can consist of moral (reciprocal) and immoral (unequal, irreciprocal) actions. We can make a claim that statements about irreciprocal (involuntary) actions in economics are immoral or we can claim that they are false. Whether you understand it or not, Mises is saying that its false not immoral, when he says ‘it’s not economics’.

—“That you can verify something in reality doesn’t mean you need to empirically test it.”—

We cannot solve the problem of ‘all other things being equal’ in order to understand why predicted phenomenon either vary widely, or do not exist.

The neutrality of money does not appear to exist, because relative changes can propagate into various niches that absorb those changes, just like pennies being lost in landfills (so to speak).

—“I can observe that two plus two equals four but I don’t need to design an empirical test to prove it.”—

Yes but then it’s a tautology, whereas the nearly all economic phenomenon are only general rules.

—“Likewise, I can observe that minimum wages increase unemployment all other things being equal, but I don’t need to conduct an empirical test to prove it.”—

That’s just the thing, we aren’t trying to prove that it should increase unemployment, only that it turns out it that a lot of the time it doesn’t. Or rather, that the consequences of it are externalized and invisible. So where does it go? Well first it increases prices to consumers in the case of minimum wage workers it maintains employment but it prevents rotation of new workers into the economy. And the question is, is that a net gain or a net loss for everyone? Well, it’s immoral to both conduct the test, and the consequences are immoral. But does that mean the those consequences are not empirically measurable and therefore whether the policy is net beneficial? That is what economists measure.

Secondly, if we think some good is achieved through raising the minimum wage, how can we accommodate the externality of lower rotation through the job pool? For example what if raising the minimum wage prevents least common denominator service economies? (Racing to the bottom). Is that something people prefer? In other words, would you rather have better service and higher unemployment (and greater subsidies for non-performers?)

The underlying question is this: if prices are increasing profits can we capture more of that increase for hourly employees than we do for management, owners, and investors (or creditors)?

So there is no difference between increasing the supply of money in order to temporarily increase consumer purchasing power at the expense of debt-holders, and increasing the minimum wage in order to capture a rise in prices for laborers at the expense of owners and investors.

Or stated even more simply: given that economies are always changing velocities, can we redirect changes in state between participants without ‘killing the goose’ (destroying the system of production).

Well the answer is a moral one, not a logical or empirical one.

And the reason to claim otherwise is to use the false pretense of ‘unscientific’ or ‘logical positivism’ or ‘a priori’ or ‘logical contradiction’ to create a straw man as a means of preventing investigation into the science of economic immorality: economic manipulation by the forcible involuntary transfer of property between individuals.

(Which is exactly what mises and rothbard were doing: shaming via straw man using obscurantism by overloading even well intended people with half truths that when fully expressed are false.)

That’s the question people ask with these issues. No one questions if it will increase unemployment. They question the limit before it increases negative unemployment. The same as taxation. No one questions that taxation will produce declining revenues. But empirically, what is the maximum taxation that they govt can achieve before that happens – and what are the consequences.

CLOSING

Now you probably have no idea how profound this bit of text is. And I suspect you could spend a few months integrating it into your thought process. But that’s in large part, the state of the art in epistemology.

THUS ENDETH THE LESSON.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

Westerners were naturalists and empiricists into prehistory for the simple reason that western civilization’s first organizing principle is the militia and the sovereignty that a militia grants and requires of each individual in it.

The militia was necessary on the vast european plain for the simple reason that no flood river valleys with centralized organization of irrigation existed as did in the south east, india, and far east, wherein a small force could seek rents upon agrarian production, centralize capital, and create parasitic central governments and empires – first by priests, secondly by warriors, and third by their merger.

Instead, westerners had horses, cattle, pigs, crops, and good arable land, and production remained distributed – and because of that distribution, lower populations, but higher eugenic evolution (suppression of underclass reproduction.)

So, possessed of small numbers, but horse, metalsmithing, and the wheel, they compensated for inferior numbers with technology, risk-taking, and maneuver – adaptation to changes.

And since metal, wheel, and horse were expensive, they were supplied by families (knights were armored by families right up thru and after the crusades – only gunpowder changed the financing. It became cheap to field soldiers.)

Such a voluntary militia requires sovereignty. The only way differences in sovereignty can be resolved is by reciprocity, and the only possible test of reciprocity is tort.

In other words, the western common law began and remains empirical. Not authoritarian, and not ideal, and not supernatural. But purely empirical and reciprocal. And it was this first organizing principle that caused the evolution of reason, mathematics, engineering, stoicism, greek and roman law, empiricism, and finally science. Because debate was forever necessary. The growth of commerce only exacerbated and reinforced this behavior.

The Abrahamic Dark Age of Christianity/Judaism/Islam is over, and western people have returned to their original traditions. The traditions by which they dragged themselves out of the ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, starvation, disease, infant mortality and early death.

There is nothing good in christianity that was not there before it. And there is nothing bad in christianity that was not put there to undermine the western aristocracy so that the eastern empire could rule a land of the ignorant as had the despots done time immemorial in the fertile crescent.

In other words: were were always empirical, and we have returned to type.

The lies of priests no longer fall on illiterate ears.

Westerners were naturalists and empiricists into prehistory for the simple reason that western civilization’s first organizing principle is the militia and the sovereignty that a militia grants each individual in it. THe militia was necessary on the vast european plain for the simple reason that no flood river valleys with centralized organization of irrigation existed as did in the south east, india, and far east, wherein a small force could seek rents upon agrarian production, and create parasitic central governments and empires.

Instead, westerners had horses, cattle, pigs, crops, and good arable land, but production remained distributed, and because of that lower populations, but higher eugenic evolution (suppression of underclass reproduction.)

So possessed of small numbers, but horse, metalsmithing, and the wheel, they compesnated with inferior numbers with technology, risk-taking, and maneuver – adaptation to changes. And since these things were expensive, they were supplied by families (knights were armored by families right up thru and after the crusades – only gunpowder changed the financing. It became cheap to field soldiers.)

Such a militia requires sovereignty. The only way differences in sovereignty can be resolved is by reciprocity, and the only possible test of reciprocity is tort.

In other words, the western common law began and remains empirical. Not authoritarian, and not ideal, and not supernatural. But purely empirical and reciprocal. And it was this first organizing principle that caused the evolution of reason, mathematics, engineering, stoicism, greek and roman law, empiricism, and finally science. Because debate was forever necessary. The growth of commerce only exacerbated and reinforced this behavior.

The Abrahamic Dark Age of Christianity/Judaism/Islam is over, and western people have returned to their original traditions. The traditions by which they dragged themselves out of the ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, starvation, disease, infant mortality and early death.

There is nothing good in christianity that was not there before it. And there is nothing bad in christianity that was not put there to undermine the western aristocracy so that the eastern empire could rule a land of the ignorant as had the despots done time immemorial in the fertile crescent.

In other words: were were always empirical, and we have returned to type.

The lies of priests no longer fall on illiterate ears.

1 – The only commodity we are born with is time. if we were not short of time, then we would need nothing. we have needs and wants because we lack the time to obtain them ourselves.

2 – Through cooperation in a division of labor we save time. A division of labor is so disproportionately productie that no other human ability can compensate for it. The problem is, people need a coincidence of wants in order to cooperate.

3 – Although we only know we have saved time if others will trade something with us for it. Until then we have spent and possibly wasted time.

4 – When people voluntarily trade, they only do so if they have more after doing so than they did before. People do not trade at a loss because it only encourages those who parasitically deprive others.

5 – Ergo, all value is created during exchange, at which time, time is saved.

6 – And All value consists of saved time.

7 – All goods obtained in trade therefore save time, and demonstrate a creation of value or they would not have been traded.

8 – Any goods obtained by trade therefore serve as a store of value (no matter how small).

9 – Money (commodity money) not only stores value but is in universal demand for the simple reason that it is in universal demand.

10 – Money reduces the cost of opportunities because it is both light, divisible, commensurable, and because of the formation of prices ‘production is calculable’, and as a consequence ‘plannable’. And risks can be taken to produce for the market.The reason ‘You’ err, is that you do not grasp that until you have traded for something you do not know if you have wasted time and the world’s resources or not.

We are not family. We are not kin. We are not friends. There is no common good other than the reciprocal benefit of cooperation on a coincidence of wants.

The first question of philosophy is and always will be ‘why do I not commit suicide?’ The first question of ethics is and always will be, ‘Why do I not kill you and take your things?” The first question of politics is ‘Why do I and mine not kill, enslave, or enserf, you and yours and take your things?”

This explains all that there is to explain.

Only the infantile, with minds of children, assume that the conditions of the family extend to the conditions of the polity, civilization and mankind.

And that is the problem. Children believe fairy tales.

There is only one possible meaning of truth: the spectrum honesty(unwarranted) > testimony(warranted) > most parsimonious operational name(unwarrantable). Conflating the preferable, the good, the decidable, the true, is just a means of lying – it is merely a sophisticated method by which to employ an appeal to authority by platonic means. It’s an excuse for self congratulatory fraud.

People will make excuses.

They favor their excuses.

They disfavor the excuses of others.

That’s why we have courts, science, and measurement – to decide independent of excuses.

We need only incrementally improve the courts so that we suppress excuses just as we have every other form of violence, theft, and fraud.

NO MORE LIES, NO MORE FRAUD, NO MORE PRETENSE.

IN DEFENSE OF Kevin MacDonald’s WORK

(Followers will find this line of argument useful)Typical Young British Male failed signaling attempt….

—“My analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s pseudoscience: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-018-9310-x/fulltext.html … “— Nathan Cofnas @nathancofnas

1 – As each people was forced to reform in reaction to the enlightenment (empiricism first then science) they produced counter-enlightenments to persist their mythos. French(Rousseau), German(Kant), Russian, Jewish, Chinese, and now Muslim. Each was influential in their time.

2 – There was nothing novel about the Jewish counter-enlightenment other than as each arrived each improved upon the other counter enlightenments, just as do the spread of all technological innovations – hence why european tv was higher resolution, and they use 220 volts.

3 – We are just exiting the effects of the Jewish counter-enlightenment just as we exited the French (Rousseau and secular authoritarianism), German(or continental):pseudo-rationalism, Russian:Lenin/Trotsky:Authoritariaism, China:Mao. Westerners are unaware of the muslim authors.

4 – The Jewish counter-enlightenment was unique in that it was pseudoscientific: Marx, Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt School, as well as philosophical Leo Strauss, Rand/Rothbard, and could take advantage of american openness.

5- the Jewish counter-enlightenment was no more influential than the French, German, or Russian other than the Jews migrated to the USA and it disproportionately affected the west due to the near universal dominance of America in military, economics, technology in the postwar era.

6 – But the by the 1960’s it was no longer intellectually possible to hold to Marxist economcis and history, Boazian anthropology, Fruedian psychology, or frankfurt school revisionism. And the French (originators of the counter-enlightenments) supplied Postmodernism.

7 – Marxism, Postmodernism, Feminism were invented as were rabbinical judaism, christianity, and islam in the ancient world as a counter-enlightenment by the pastoralists (poor, ignorant, matrilineal), against the great empires (agrarian, metalworking, martial).

8 – Groups do not understand their group evolutionary strategies, any more than they understand their metaphysics (unconscious categories, relations, and values).. We only learn about our own by comparative norms, marital custom, law, religion, myth, literature, and arts.

9 – Groups merely seek to create a new JUSTIFYING MYTHOS that does not change their group evolutionary strategy, nor their mythos, nor their common categories, relations and values – particularly status signaling. Each follows the same process during its counter-enlightenment.

10 – for the simple reason that it is status signals in support of that group evolutionary strategy that each group member seeks to persist – particularly among intellectuals (who have nothing else to offer) vs military and commercial who rely far less on such narratives.

11 – It is rather trivial, (possessed of some understanding of reproductive strategies, economics, archetypes and the limited set of narrative acs) to articulate any group’s evolutionary strategy, and using demographic measurements explain its utility to its distribution.

12 – The persistence of the constraints of medieval cereal crops in the cultures of europe, or the Hajnal Line’s manorialism (the nine nations of north america), or the preservation of values in the horizontal bands of immigrants in the USA (Albion’s Seed), all illustrate it.

13 – Had it not been for the success in immigrating masses of the third world from different class distributions with different group strategies, the Jewish Century would have come and gone with the same relative damage as did the French, German, Russian, and Chinese.

14 – Voting patterns illustrate that people overwhelmingly vote by tribe (race) and marital structure (single motherhood), (see The Myth of the Rational Voter). And without immigration of the third world, science would have rescued us from jewish pseudoscience, as it before.

15 – At present, were it not for immigrant cities, and vast numbers of third world immigrants, the continued advancement of western (anglo) empiricism would have tolerated even the dissolution of the family due to contraceptive technology.

16 – But to engage in (postmodern) denialism is rather … another example of attempts to deny the science. Technological history whether physical, institutional, legal, philosophical, or literary is possible to (relatively easily) disassemble into cause and effect.

17 – one can make excuses for anything. That is the whole point of the study of intellectual history. We don’t invent philosophy first. We discover opportunities for individual, familial, class, and group gain – and make excuses for seizing them with moralizing and mythos.

18 – Pseudoscience, Pseudo-rationalism, and Pseudo-historicism (the debunking of which is my occupation) are called ‘Fictionalisms’. Pseudoscience requires that one claim he relies on the scientific method, while not employing its constraints. He does not do that.

19 – You on the other hand, criticize him for pseudoscience but you rely not upon science (dimensional falsification through measurement and exposition in operational language), but upon pseudo-rationalism : critique (gossip, shaming, rallying). The very technique he illustrates.

20 – In other words, you illustrate that he is correct, by demonstrating your use that form of argument – critique: (pseudoscientific, psudorational, pseudo historical) ridicule, shaming, loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, propaganda, and deceit.

21 – Or, what we call the Female group evolutionary strategy of “Gossip” – the rallying of the many weak to undermine the strong, so that she controls her reproduction, and her offspring have opportunity regardless of their merit.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

Anti-Material Rifle : a very large cartridge at the very limit of human ability to control, fired from a weapon that weighs more than twenty (and sometimes forty) pounds, capable of shooting armor-piercing and incendiary (and other) rounds, and reliable out to a mile in the hands of a trained individual.

Hunting Rifle: full size cartridges, long range, precise, with very high power, firing from a bolt. (Sniper rifles are hunting rifles with very precise tolerances, and high quality optics).

Battle Rifle: Full size cartridge, long distance, one round per trigger pull – necessary since the recoil is too large otherwise.

Assault Rifle: Intermediate Cartridge, medium distance, full auto. (Technically ‘select fire’.) Possible since by reducing the scale (force) of the cartridge the gun was controllable at full auto.

Semi Automatic Rifle: Intermediate cartridge. Firing a single round per trigger pull. It has turned out that full auto is useless other than for suppressing fire during movement. A skilled individual can fire american weapons (which have springs that dampen inertia) at pistol (fast) speeds without losing sight picture.

Sub machine gun: a pistol cartridge, and a high rate of fire, made possible by the use of a magazine, and requiring two hands. (600-800 rounds per minute, usually in short busts)

Modern 9mm semi-auto pistols with 15+ rounds have taken the market because they can be emptied (fired) quickly, effectively providing a low rate of fire submachine gun (180 rounds per minute) in a small package, while maintaining sight picture.

Modern 45 semi-auto pistols hold a smaller number of rounds and require a stronger individual to fire quickly, but are usually preferred by military special forces personnel.

Modern 10mm semi-auto pistols are hard to control for inexperienced smaller or weaker shooters, but can, if used properly stop a bear in the wild.

Modern large caliber revolvers can be used for hunting medium and large sized game. There are modern hunting pistols at the limit of human ability to control.

And we complete the loop and return to the hunting rifle.

Americans chose to make an ultra-light, full auto, sniper rifle with smaller cartridges so that they could carry more rounds (the M16/M4). Russians chose to make a full auto battle rifle regardless of weight (The AK). The Russian choice was superior in battlefield conditions.

It appears that the German technology (as usual) has found the optimum which is a heavier bullet but improving upon the black gun (ultra light weight) american weapon design. And this is the current direction of military weapons development.

It appears that the polymer pistol with octagonal barrel and fully replaceable trigger group has taken over the military handgun market.

Use the tool you can most comfortably master.

We teach many counter-intuitive things precisely because the value of deflation prevents errors as much as empowers better comparisons.

We need parables (fairy tales), novels, and histories.

Math, reading, grammar, and now economics – every form of measurement.

If via positiva worked, then we would have won already.

Lies are cheaper than truths. But Fictions cheaper than descriptions. That is why they win.

Meaning tells you nothing other than confirmation of your existing understanding. Truth is created by falsifying alternatives that compete with it.

Everything else is just the coincidence of wants between the preacher and the choir.

There are many churches.

There is one science.

And that science is possible because of one law:

—“Philosophical language then is a dead language, and perhaps an immoral one – and rationalism a dead technology. And they will be incrementally combined institutionally and normatively into theology, with Literary Philosophy(Plato and his heirs), merely representing it’s position on the spectrum of Aristotelian/Stoic/Roman/English Law (science), Confucian Reason, French Literary Idealism, Platonic Rational Idealism, Continental and Augustinian Fictionalism, and Abrahamic and Zoroastrian Fictionalism.”—

ie: there aren’t any.

I’m going to repeat this because it’s profoundly important:

As soon as you admit the criteria of …

– deception and fraud

– incentive

– cost

– warranty

…. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy.

GRAMMARS INCLUDE LIMITATIONS ON SEMANTICS

—“I missed the part where you get from A (here) to B … actually changing current legal institutions.”—- (a friend)

Um. that’s the part where stuff is on fire, the power is out, and there hospitals are full…… Just like every other time we got from A to B.

😉

The majority of female judgment applies to children under the age of twelve, and possibly, if they develop slowly, the age of thirteen.

Hence the tragic social consequences of (unmarried) female voting.

Conflicting tribes is a GOOD THING.

Encourage your brothers to advocate for their tribe.

Humor them.

That is how you handle it.

The uniqueness of the west begins not with the individual, but with the reciprocal insurance of those who will also bear arms – which we call the militia.

Everything begins with the militia.

Truth, reason, science, technology, prosperity, and the expansion and conquest of the world.

One spartan alone is no better than any other man.

But together, none can stop them.

Our name is legion.

And we are many.

—‘Nonsense, a competent shooter can shoot as fast with a 45 as with a 9.”—

^ But you just made my point didn’t you?

380 > 9 > 40 > 45 > 10

Average person’s rate of fire will decrease with scale (even the top competitive shooters cannot overcome the rate of fire without extraordinary effort – it’s all on video. go watch it.)

My point is pretty tediously scientific:

Lower recoil, higher rate of fire, more rounds near target, vs higher recoil lower rate of fire, but rounds on target. Smaller people smaller caliber. larger stronger people higher caliber heavier gun.

I can empty a 45 on three targets because I was trained to to do it. But the FBI can’t get their agents to do it. (Probably too many women failing and too many accountants now with weak hands.).

I was taught mozambique drills (with plastic dummy rounds loaded randomly by the instructor ) … for what seemed like forever, and it’s still the only thing I still practice.

I still see 9mm as a subgun round and if you look at rates of fire over the past 200 years, then we are effectively teaching people to fire 9mm’s in gunfights as 200rpm subguns instead of how we taught people through about 1980 – which was to hit what you shot at with every shot.

Look at training videos and movies over the past century. Look at stance changes since the civil war.

Effectively, the 9mm mag dump is more accurate and faster than a SMG. This was an accidental innovation (transformation) of the marketplace over the past few decades (since the 80’s).

The 9mm has much better penetration through substances (particularly glass), than slower or fatter calibres. It is actually deadly out to fairly long distances (which is why I favor 45’s and rifled-shotgun slugs in urban environments).

Hence why the market is questioning the SMG space, and increasingly the black gun (and in the future with 6mm) is replacing the smg market. (although I suspect the mp5 to remain in service for quite a while because of its fitness for vehicles.).

Sorry man but I’m a supernerd and I notice these things. 😉

Effectively the 9mm pistol market has filled the smg space.

I think the point is, whether your display, words, and deeds impose costs upon those who do not carry such falsehoods.

We are currently wealthy enough that we can tolerate many falsehoods.

We are currently wealthy enought hat we can tolerate much dysgenia.

The question arises when we are no longer wealthy enough to tolerate falsehoods and dysgenia.

😉

The purvey of the court in the production of its procedures is necessary for the simple reason that courts function via-negativa: as findings of fact in the resolution of disputes, by the single test of reciprocity.

The production of commons, by council, thang, senate, or house in the production of its procedures is necessary for the simple reason that the commons is produced via-positiva: as agreements on the seizure of potential opportunities given limited resources to invest.

As far as I know the criteria of decidability remains the same no matter the scale and organization of the means of arriving at a decision.

We adjudicate certain measures in one court, or a series of courts, depending upon the scale of its affect.

We contract for certain commons in one Thang, or many Thangs, depending upon the scale of its affect.

Among the classes (martial/masculine, commercial (neutral) and familial(priestly/female), we must often vary the means of decidability in order to preserve reciprocity.

In all cases we create procedures to preserve reciprocity while producing the returns of aggressive via negativa, and opportunistic via-positiva.

So the constitution (the milita’s self insurance) provides the principle organizing method. ALl else is via negativa and via positiva procedure so that the reciprocity necessary for sovereignty under a universal militia insuring one another’s sovereignty, is preserved through the institutions that allow that militia to scale and thereby create the returns on their singe most important investment: reciprocity of sovereignty.

(Note that I never fall into pragmatism throughout…..)

The limitless reciprocal insurance of the sovereignty of my brothers, their kin, and their property, in my displays words and deeds.

The tolerance of disruption of the status hierarchy by truth, productivity, and achievement, so that those of the greatest contribution lead by our imitation of them.

The ambition that we disrupt the hierarchy of the gods, and by our excellence to join them.

That I must leave the universe improved for having lived in it.

That to leave the universe improved is to make a garden (heaven) of it for the generations that follow.

To die a good death.

To be remembered for my deeds.

It is pretty hard to be better than a good christian for the simple reason that the path to goodness – now from catholics as well as protestants – is ‘personal (direct) works of charity’ toward those in your proximity.

(and I argue that all else is just virtue signaling – a kind of fraud and the opposite of the christian mandate).

The principle virtue of such a mandate is that it’s entirely empirical. It’s deeds(actions) not beliefs(self congratulations) or rituals (self insulations).

There is no better theology than action in the service of others.

If you can do so my charity (caretaking).

If you can do so by production (trade)

If you can do so by war (violence)

Germanicized Christianity (as of vatican II, we are all protestants now) creates the civil society.

Everything else is just virtue signaling so someone else does the work, pays the costs, or takes the risk, and you can feel good about escaping from it.

One of the great falsehoods of philosophy: proof.

You cannot prove anything, so the question itself is a deception.

The questions are unfalsifiable, which is a center position between justifiable and warrantable.

Justifiabl(excuse) > falsifiable (possible) > demonstrable(empirical) > warrantable (insured)

Proofs exist in and only in mathematics, for the simple reason that positional relations (positional names that we call numbers) are by definition and necessity constant relations and cannot be otherwise.

There are very few other constant relations. (time is one, and even that is a question of relative position and velocity). We can create certain set arguments. We can identify certain reductio (trivial) necessities just as we can identify certain prime numbers.

But the question is fraudulent (a trick) of grammar.

Since one cannot prove anything, one can merely justify (non-promissory), provide terms of falsification(promissory), demonstrate(tempmoral), or insure (intertemporal)

As soon as you admit the criteria of …

– deception and fraud

– incentive

– cost

– warranty

…. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy.

DEFINE “KNOW”?

As far as I know (as far as I am aware) it can only mean ‘aware of’. One’s assessment of the truth or falsehood is quite different. The test of that truth or falsehood is something else. The truth or falsehood should we possess perfect knowledge is something else entirely.

So we can know something.

We can know something is false.

We can know something is not false.

We can know something is difficult to be other than true.

Knowing of WHAT.

Most philosophical questions are actually just grammatical sophisms.

This is a trivial problem in grammar with the terms truth and proof and can be debunked pretty easily.

a) how can you testify that a teapot orbits the sun?

This is a very different question than Russell is asking and is the entire reason why philosophy and theology became closely related after because of augustine.

We demand warranty of goods and services, but we have stopped demanding warranty of information (words).

So the question is, how can one warranty his statement that a teapot orbits the sun?

Then why does he say such a thing? In other words, just as in any other crime, what is one’s incentive?

—“Why did it take so long to produce an east asian super model?”—

Answer is obvious:

1) Conspicuous consumption is the easiest means of demonstrating signals, and humans determine their self worth and the worth of others by signals just as peacocks do.

2) Supermodels (models in general) serve the purpose of selling to women by means of self identity) (attainable aspirations)

3) One must have what we call ‘middle class incomes’ (post-self sufficiency, disposable income) to purchase signal-goods.

4) Those who look for east asian role models to imitate lacked the economic capacity participate in the market economy.

5) Asians were lost in the permanent poverty of socialism and communism for most of the 19th and 20th centuries, and could not participate in that market economy.

6) Western modes of dress are, and for the time being will remain, optimum signal goods on the INTERNATIONAL market.

7) Enough asian women had to live under western life styles and consumer goods to learn to display the confidence that western women do, and which is so attractive to women who want to increase their signaling.

In other words, it wasn’t until recently that it was worth pursuing asian models, because asians were too poor to market to.

The people of Connecticut must finally come to understand that the reason they are 44th in the nation (and CT is a dump) is because the people of CT have always been wrong.

ALWAYS. Self righteous puritanism led to self righteous socialism led to self righteous postmodernism, and what was the finest parcel of real estate habitable by man outside of the Loire Valley in France, has been reduced to a soviet slum from the border of Fairfield county -which is nothing more than a tax haven for New Yorkers, and New York is just the profit center for the marketing and sale of US Federal Fiat Currency to the financial and banking markets.

Why did Boston lose the technology market to the Bay Area? Why has every company of every possible size that can physically afford to do so, left connecticut?

Why does ever person with any economic ability leave connecticut? Why doe entrepreneurs laugh when Connecticut is mentioned?

Connecticut was the state that most thoroughly implemented the soviet model, and is paying the same price of the soviets.

Connecticut is a wasteland from springfield through hartford through new haven through bridgeport, and has now lost the southeast to immigrant crime.

There is a reason we replaced the priesthood with the middle class business person during the enlightenment. There is a reason we replaced the church with science.

People who try to do good by political means always and everywhere do ill for the simple reason that anything you subsidize increases.

Western civilization created extraordinary wealthy by innovation, expansion, competition, and conquest. And northeasterners and their ‘cult’ have destroyed that civilization in less than a century of ‘good intentions’.

The road to hell, and the road to bankruptcy and poverty are paved with good intentions.

Prosperity is always and everywhere the result of continuous competitive advancement.

All the great arts and sciences are the work of conquering commercial empires.

So if you are a new englander, of ‘priestly’ bent, you are doing nothing other than buying self serving virtue signals by spending down the accumulated competitiveness of your ancestors.

And you have paved your way to hell.

A very wise man said: “Whenever you are unsure how to vote, consult a well meaning fool, and vote the other direction. People of Connecticut need to move radically in the other direction, or this “soviet worker’s paradise on englishs soil’ will continue to decline as did the soviet union, and every other nation that has attempted the same.

The future is not star trek. It’s venezuela, brazil, and india.

Female peak sexual market value :23

Male peak sexual market value: 36

Male peak economic sexual market value: 48.

Female superiority in service economy market value – persistent.

Male inferiority in service economy market value – persistent.

End of both gender’s economic market value: ~72.

Half-Life of maximum human lifespan: ~60We waste almost all the time between 14 and 21 in full time education with demonstratively negative returns, instead of splitting the time between work and part time education.

That’s the data.

Change it and we change the generational organization of western civilization.

I dunno. I think we just use the word ‘god’ to represent increasingly poetic references. It’s the simple people for whom that poetry is existential and anthropomorphic, common people for whom it is literary, atheists who are in between (‘educated’) for whom it is pseudoscience or deceit, and the sophisticated people for whom it is poetry (aesthetic).

I talk to my god every day. But my understanding of ‘god’ would to an atheist make sense, but be silly. To an ordinary person not refer to god at all, and to literalists be atheism.

The reason people at the bottom are more attracted to the divine is to ‘know’ right action, feeling, and belief, and take comfort in right action, feeling, and belief, and therefore giving them confidence in right action, feeling, and belief – without being persuaded (manipulated) by those with greater abilities and lower ethics and morality. In other words, religions give people a shield against guilt, manipulation, coercion, and risk.

Religion was successful because mindfulness(certainty, clarity, confidence) is increasingly necessary as you move left on the curve.

I have been working on this question for I think three or four years now and the phenomenon is widespread, and not limited to religion, but philosophy, and the modern social pseudosciences, and even literature.

We evolved in bands where the entire group functioned as a single distributed nervous system. We prospered by extending our numbers beyond our ability to perceive. So we needed rules (limits) and goods (objectives), and we eventually needed writing, numbers, money (prices really), and governments (commons), to coordinate our actions in large numbers.

But while we gained increasingly diverse physical certainties, they came at the high cost of mental and emotional certainties. At this point we are comforted primarily by consumption and (at least in america) we are seeing extraordinary increases in suicide among the aged. So we are extremely ‘alone’. And as alone we search for some sort of membership and shared understanding, by which to obtain the certainty of our evolutionary history in bands.

Hence the expansion of social media among the verbally acute.

THE REASON FOR “PROGRESSIVE” CLASS INCREASES

The lifting of the laboring and underclasses from subsistence to consumption was made possible by the increases in relative productivity.

In other words, we are simply wealthy enough that we can afford (for a time) to reverse four thousand years of the domestication of human groups, by the rapid expansion of th eunderclasses and their movement from rural agrarian marginal self-sustenance to

Nothing occurred because of feminine (left’s) good intentions, but instead the left caused the consumption of increases in productivity as increases in population rather than the traditional western means of increasing the commons.

People were not oppressed. They were domesticated, generation by generation like every other animal through harsh winters, manorialism (most important) and aggressive hanging of up to one percent of the population every year.

The industrial revolution reversed the trend, and we have already lost one standard deviation in median intelligence in the much of the west through dysgenia.

Cities are exacerbating the issue since they are IQ and ovary graveyards.

This is just the data.

It is what it is.

–“The 2nd amendment *IS* the Constitution. Everything else just describes procedure.”–

– Steve Pender

Oh. I like that framing:

– You empty a 9mm

– You double-tap/mozambique a 45.

– And you fire a 10mm once.

I think I’m going to stick with that one.

Now, I’ll repeat here that there is a vast difference between telling a story and telling a series of stories. Just as there is a vast difference between a term, and a term from a series of terms. Just as there is a vast difference between a parable and its explanation (you’ll note that the victorians were certain to state the lessons of aesop’s fables in actionable prose).

All of these techniques I use and advocate allow us to both narrate and give examples while continuously disambiguating (deflating, deconflating, de-fictionalizing) the narrative.

I have my own narrative that is quite difficult to get across and that is just how central truth (testimony and agency ) are to western civ. And I do that by constant triangulation of examples.

meaning is first, Justification is second, BUT WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE IS THE RESULT OF DEFLATION.

It does not matter what story you tell as long as after having achieved through association that which you now deflate via operation.

I say the same thing over and over again:

the history, the novel, the myth, the parable.

all of these are no more than what they pretend to be. (See Durant).I have a problem with inflation, conflation, and fictionalisms because of the externalities produced.

The problem is, that the desire for that feeling we have when listening to the storyteller around the fire, surrender our suspension of disbelief, and transport ourselves into the world of imagination and free association – that externally controlled dream state – is both profound, and worthy of that profound feeling.

But why must it include inflations, conflations, and fictionalisms? I must certainly include what we call hyperbole (exaggerations) for the purpose of illustration. It must certainly contain loading for purposes of value attribution and path finding. It must certainly be organized by archetypes and the rise-fall combination of story arcs in order to fit into a grammar of general rules of behavior like all other rules of calculation we make use of.

But why can we not maintain the original path of our people by maintaining a separation of narratives, like we have a separation of powers, a separation of disciplines, and a separation of property?

Why do we have to fall into the same mistakes as did the eastern into europeans – the ones that are gone? The ones who failed?

That something is desirable or useful does not mean it is preferable and good.

Many myths parables and stories – if not all of them – convey metaphysical assumptions about the structure of reality. The ‘literature of artificial awe’ is and always has been a cancer.

It is a cancer upon our people and upon mankind. It is no different from heroin, cocaine, sugar, carbohydrates, – substitutes for the euphoria of oxygenation produced by exercise and success (dominance expression). Or the opposite (“E”).

It is far easier to criticize a near neighbor of marginal indifference than a distant relative of vast differences. SO it is easier to illustrate further improvements by those are more right (hoppe, mises, hayek, popper, kuhn…) than it is that those who are vastly wrong (marx, freud, boaz, cantor).

And so it is far easier for me to illustrate and explore increases in precision with a peterson or hoppe than it is a zizek or any of the host of nonsense philosophers that still l live and work today – if only because people of similar mind are not interested, and the work required to correct a vast error rather than improve a fundamental by increase in precision is equal but unequally productive.

I have made a business of criticizing near neighbors for the simple reason that they are less wrong, and so the returns on the investment are higher.

Peterson is just a good example, because the only difference is externalities (me) and internalities(him). I mean, if I criticize some logician not only will no one understand it, but it doesn’t increase my ability to address the issues of MEANINGFUL BUT CUMULATIVELY DESTRUCTIVE ideas.

My job isn’t to teach meaning. it is to create law, so that even well intentioned fools do no harm – not because they have ill incentives, but because like children running with scissors they know not the risk that they impose upon mankind.

The kind of moral man (and women) all of you demonstrate that you are on a continual basis is a purely genetic and deterministic result of the provision of greater stimulation from certain categories of information (stimuli). I understand this. And for this reason some of you are more enamored of empathic stories, and some of decidability, while a few can manage to do both.

So there is a difficult problem to solve that we all understand: moral men of such masculine dispositions so desirous of political change, desire inspiration to act as a group. Meanwhile the purpose of such action that produces the outcome such men desire, is not myth but law. Not to produce agreement or consent, or understanding, but to prohibit alternatives to it by law.

One cannot program others to agree with you. That is only possible with lying.

One can however, eliminate the incentives to agree with you by providing counter incentives not to act in discord with it.

I might produce eventually a bible of sorts, and it might be as I’ve stated before, composed of excerpts from literature through the ages that DOES inspire. But I have understood as has hayek that all such efforts at monopoly of values will fail, and that the only monopoly of values that exists is the parasitism of the underclasses and those who can profit from enabling their parasitism.

Via positiva does not matter except to inspire and confirm that which already exists and is therefore irrelevant. Revolutions occur because of rational incentives merely justified by narratives. The only institution that solves our problem is law. And the only means of imposing the primacy of that institution is to use the only weapon that this institution has available to it: the prohibition of falsehood no matter how attractive or useful thereby forcing all to evolve in accordance with markets.

Most men go to their deaths understanding that their intellectual labors were failures. Hayek did not. And I don’t plan to.

Fictionalism of today is just religion of yesterday and such defenses are no more than a few century shift in such defense from one set of one era’s norms of comprehension to another eras set of norms of comprehension – but the problem remains.

The enlightenment – or rather – the continuous evolution of western man from blacksmith to aristotle, to hume, to darwin et all, is produced by the incremental suppression of comforting falsehoods that imprison us in lack of agency.

Not all drugs are physical. Many, and the cheapest, and most effective are verbal.

I must do my work. The truth is not comforting. It is disruptive. And I understand its import as we suffer the third conquest of empty verbalisms that we call leftism – the priesthood.

Just because I have spent the past ninety days working on technology and limiting myself to idle confirmatory chatter does not mean that I have lost sight of my mission. History is the only justice whose verdict I covet.

And I am confident I will win my case.

Cheers

(from elsewhere)

The parable, the novel, the history, the economic history of the world provide better understanding for those with the physical, emotional, and mental agency to act in accordance with the world.But many of us, perhaps all but a few of us, cannot tolerate our relationship with reality for the same reason 80% of people in any organization believe they are in the top 20% of people in that organization – the illusion is necessary to preserve mindfulness (fear of status-diminution).

So like religions of old, philosophy provides a form of entertainment in which those lacking agency, because they lack ability, find a means of insulation from the confrontation of the dissonance between their social, sexual, economic, political, and military value.

Philosophy is just pseudoscientific entertainment literature, just as was religion. All we have done is refine the language while retaining the underlying value of comforting falsehoods.

It is because you begin with the child’s relationship to the parent (family), not the political relationship between families, clans, tribes, and nations.

1 – The first question of rational choice is “why don’t I commit suicide”.

2 – The first question of ethics, is, and always will be, “Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?”

3 – The first question of politics, is, and always will be “why don’t me and mine, kill you and yours, and take your stuff.

4 – The first question of all relations is “why don’t I/we kill you/you(plural) and take your stuff?”

It is only after answering the question, that we decide how we cooperate or not.

TRANSFORMATION INTO ADULTHOOD VS INFANTILIZATION

A female, a child, (and a beta male) all admit their weakness and irrelevance when they begin with the presumption of the value of cooperation.

Cooperation is only valuable until it is not.

Hence, as an advocate for the organizational model of the family, all of whom demonstrate kin selection, you are attracted to the extension of that kin selection outside of your kin, and to the socialist’s (child,female) strategy.

You seek it as ideal for the underclass family (genetic inferiors) but is not the ideal for the middle and upper class family (genetic superiors).

And the markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities, are the means by which the competent evolve and the incompetent are removed from the gene pool – or at least, some equilibrium is maintained. Hence why those of us who exterminated our underclasses (east asians and western europeans) possess higher distributions in the middle and upper middle and the other groups possess lower distributions in the lower middle, and lower classes, and especially the extremely costly underclasses.

So some of us are fully mature adults and understand this, and some of us are still infantilized (or coddled) and do not.

The strong and able need a reason not to kill, enslave, enserf the weak and less able. And markets and rule of law, are the only means by which it is more profitable to cooperate for all than for the strong and able to enserf, enslave, prey upon, or kill the weak and unable.

It takes about .001% of the male population to alter the political order. Socialism provides the incentive for the strong to defeat the weak. The only reason socialism had any footing whatsoever is that the christian peoples have a desperate desire to virtue signal their magnanimity – as a means of imitating their ancestral nobility.

Everywhere even the most feeble attempt has been tried, the outcome has been cyclical degeneration of knowledge, craft, economy, norm, and tradition. Just as religions produced a cyclical degeneration of the same.

Thus endeth the lesson.

OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS :

The literary mind still struggles to find place in modernity. As Weber could foresee all life is increasingly reduced from intuition to calculation.

Overcoming our cognitive bias:

1 – “Markets” (competition between opportunities and limits) describe the behavior of the hemispheres.

2 – We struggle to overcome justificationism (the narrative of moraliy and religion) instead of competition and markets (survival, and the competition between imagination and falsification).

3 – Justification developed as did grammar: storytelling (describing)

4 – Cost is missing from morality, philosophy, religion. This is why thinkers in those fields remain backward (late medieval),

Evolutionary constraints:

0 – lateralization of the nervous system was necessary for cost reasons.

1 – consequential specialization was necessary for cost reasons.

2 – opportunity (right) cost (left) = predators(right) prey (left)

3 – competition between opportunity generation and constraint (costs, limits).

“Kuhn etc;”

1 – a paradigm consist of a network of constant relations. All changes in knowledge consist of reorganizing constant relations in memory, to respond to newly identified constant relations, and pruning and growing new relations. It is our failure to speak in constant relations between states, and our reliance on storytelling (literary analogy) … a problem of literary vocabulary.

“Unstable Position”:

1 – Market maximization. people prefer and benefit from operating at the maximum of their capacity to obtain successful reinforcement. This is just an example of neural economics at work.

THE LITERARY(conflationary) VS THE OPERATIONAL(deflationary)

The language of artificial intelligence and cognitive science avoids the ‘pseudoscientific literature’ of psychology. Even if it is more enjoyable to learn through literature (storytelling). Why? Operations (measurements) vs mere verbal associations (conflations).

There is far more to be said about why one prefers the literary (philosophical and psychological) rather than the scientific (operational) and economic (equilibrial) than is to be learned by the study of philosophy and psychology. However, the literary conveys to the speaker and the audience greater confidence in these fictions than exists in practice. This is not so important when we are discussing the conversion of philosophy and psychology to science. It is however, more important in preventing the use of loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, that is the vehicle by which old world abrahamism (judaism, christianity, islam) and new world arahamism (neoconservatism, libertarianism, marxism, postmodernism, and feminism) have been successful in undermining the ancient and modern worlds.

OMG. The rest of the talk descends into the literary equivalent of gossip. Such drama.

THE UNIVERSE IS VERY, VERY SIMPLE. All human life is very very simple. The human mind is very simple. And the current or coming completion of the enlightenment (interrupted by the abrahamic dark ages) will end this pseudoscientific nonsense in the economic, political, social, and psychological, just as it ended it in the physical. Finally.

ALthough I have no doubt that we will see another generation of Marx’s Freud’s Baoz’s Cantor’s creating a new literary fantasy – another moral fictional literature under another guise.

Europe is the most homogenous demographic outside of the Han chinese, koreans, and japanese. For all intents and purposes, especially above the Hajnal Line, we are all essentially related, and descended from a fairly small group of progenitors.

America’s problem with race began and persists with the conquest of the agrarian south, by the industrial north, in order to prevent the expansion of slavery to the louisiana purchase and continuous west — and as a consequence, the dominance of the agrarian and western south over the smaller industrial north. Especially Given that the north is english and the south scotts-irish, and the west, germanic

It was then exacerbated by the future conquest of the south’s segregation by the north.

And so while the urban underclass in the ten or so immigrant cities desire to consolidate power, the suburban and european territories seek to resist their dominance, just as the south sought to resist the north’s dominance.

America is an empire that has outlived its usefulness as the organized means of conquering and selling off the continent.

And the Nine Nations of North America need to separate and return to european equivalents that were the reason for our historical success, just as we need to prevent the integration of europe into an empire that would further destroy europe as america has been destroyed over the past sixty years.

Well, I sort of specialize in the operational description (de mystifying) of what appears to be complex but really is quite trivial. And there is very, very, little in the human condition that I can’t describe in tediously scientific terms.

However, the grammar, semantics, and knowledge necessary to do so and exercise with any degree of confidence is quite difficult to obtain.

So for the vast majority of people, that which is mysterious is that which they don’t understand – and that which they don’t understand (at least marginally) is increasingly limited to minds of others – because we have so specialized to the point which we are less and less understanding of one another, and more and more living isolated self-narratives, in little boxes, surrounded by acquisitions, and substituting media-and-entertainment-friends, and pets, for children, family, friends, and kin.

The conflict of civilizations will remain as the language of decidability (science) increasingly renders the non human commensurable, while individual economic self sufficiency renders the human and communal increasingly inaccessible.

I suspect male suicide rates in america will become a world health problem in by the end of the century.

Boxing is the single most effective means of fighting –

particularly if it will ever be other than one-on-one. It is not uncommon for a boxer to take out half a dozen men in sequence. And with boxing, like firearms, you can gain dramatic returns on the first 20% of training, and it preserves movement. Boxing is fast.Kickboxing expands asymmetries of strength by using very strong limbs(legs) to weaken the fragile point of larger attackers (legs/knees). Kickboxing is less fast.

One on one wrestling, in which ju jitsu attempts to circumvent the problem of asymmetric size and strength by capture and exploitation of weak spots, especially joints. To no small degree these three techniques, like rifle, pistol, and knife, provide a spectrum, boxing and movement, kicking to weaken, and wrestling to obtain submission, provide situational value.

Wrestling is slow.

The rest of the martial arts are more equivalent to ballet for men – fitness, calm, confidence, discipline.

But the difference between rational man and impulsive animal is that animals (watch chimps and gorillas) go ‘all in’. Man does not. Boxing teaches you to go all in the way other disciplines do not. The principle weakness I have seen in sports and all walks of life, is that men have abandoned the impulse to go all in and ‘let the berserker do his job’.

The problem is you must only practice boxing against pads, with a tutor, and not actually engage in bouts. Damage to to the brain – even a little of it, is possibly the worst accumulated cellular damage you can absorb.

I fought a lot (multiple times a week) as a child because of the era and geography(farmers) – and everyone was bigger than my little Breton frame. My strategy was to rush, take a hit, get them on the ground and choke them out, or exhaust them. It was always successful (really) even if I felt I rarely ‘won’ in a conflict where I turned someone blue – knocking people out provides a disincentive, and wearing people out gives them confidence in future opportunity.

In junior high and high school I was in wrestling for a while and took only two belts in Karate, and after college I took fencing. ( But i find close engagement with other sweaty males too disgusting to tolerate on a regular basis. lol) As an adult I just carry a gun whenever possible and avoid conflict. And that is the best strategy I know of.

I’ve written about this before, but my chief antagonist turned out to be a dangerous criminal arsonist, and multiple murderer. He was so fast with punches you couldn’t see them. The only choice was a ground war. He was notoriously unstoppable in fights. The only way to survive (not win) was to get on the ground.

Today, we do not have those kinds of fights. And we have developed a tendency for hit and runs. (watch ghetto fights, street fights, classroom fights, bar fights.) And between MMA and the availability of videos, the answer is pretty obvious: box.

(Oh. BTW. Knives are an assassination weapon, not something you fight with. That’s just stupid.)

The law(truth) is discovered in trial.

The law(Truth) is written in judgements by judges from trials.

The law(Truth) is enforced by the militia.There exist no via positiva laws (assertions), only prohibitions on parasitism.

If you are going to deviate from operational language, then you must have a reason for doing so that is other than an attempt to fictionalize.

So far, I can’t find any case in which the individual isn’t engaging in fictionalism or deception.

(from Ukraine Today)

I have long standing connections and was (very) tangentially involved as an advocate for Ukraine, and we were BEGGING for USA involvement, and we got NONE of it until the very end.

If there was USA involvement I want to see some evidence of it. I have a fairly clear idea of how much money per week was funneled through the embassy and state departments (so to speak) to support the demonstrators. Just as the USA always supports demonstrators in self determination. It has been usa policy to force governments to focus on their citizenry since the end of the wars – in the hope that this would curtail wars of expansion.

But from my up close and personal experience, the conflict was between the “Boyars” (the 40 or so rich gangster clans – two of whom I know -although they are the ‘good’ ones ), who wanted neither Russian takeover, nor to join europe, both of which would mean their extermination, but to preserve the status quo (they were largely successful).

The young people of Ukraine, are the only poor white people remaining in the world, and they are poor because of largely non-white, non-ukrainian gangsters preserve the status quo. They want what their Polish relatives across the border have: a decent standard of living, economic opportunity, and freedom from endemic (Russian induced) corruption.

USA has tried desperately to prevent world wars by suppressing wars of expansion and funding self determination by peoples.

The USA is no longer in an economic or military position to do so. And (at least Trump) is trying to manage an increase in first world responsibility for the preservation of this pressure against external expansion, and toward internal advancement, that the USA has (expensively) provided postwar.

However, europe, in the postwar period, has become nothing more than unappreciative client states of the USA and is not economically able to persist both her social programs, and take on the responsibility for preserving the postwar status quo. (and France and Russia have systematically worked to undermine American attempts – France at least since the revolution, always been the enemy of Europe.)

However, american optimism born of a monopoly on power has been misguided, since China – lacking the enlightenment, lacking western high trust, lacking rule of law, lacking any ability whatsoever to speak truthfully, and possessed of both a chip on it’s shoulder and Chinese Supremacy as a traditional doctrine, has replaced the European vacuum and it is this conflict between Asian Bureaucratic Authoritarianism, Muslim Theological Authoritarianism, and Western Rule of Law (markets in everything) that will determine the future we all live in.

Russia has the economy of italy, (tiny) and a population of 150M. She would need three times the population and ten times the economic capacity in order to play an economic, technological, and ideological role in world affairs. But because like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Norway, and Venezuela, is ENTIRELY dependent upon petroleum revenues, she can achieve by the centralization of profits and direction to military technology what she cannot achieve through other means. Russia still has an underutilized labor pool, and underutilized human capital (iq).

(and they are fully aware of it).

Russia needs only to abandon her long asiatic tradition of deception, and simply say “The west has gone wrong, and we are not following that tradition because it has gone wrong, and it would end Russia as rapidly as it has ended europe. But will will cooperate as long as it is in our national interests.” Unfortunately the russian empire cannot be restored for the simple reason that russia has not succeeded in suppression of her endemic corruption, diversity of her economy, and the speaking of truth regardless of cost – in a society where truth has traditionally held a high cost.

(From ukrainian news “Ukraine Today”)

There was necessary global security and russian strategic security at stake. It would have been trivially easy for Putin to just say what he was doing, do it, and offer Ukraine gas discounts 50 or 90 years, as compensation. He could have easily just outright said “our military industrial facilities are in the donbas, and were a russian strategic investment. While we do not want to interfere with borders, we have a national defense issue that we must solve, and that is to return the donbas manufacturing capacity to russian hands.

RUSSIA’S ENTIRE HISTORICAL PROBLEM IS THAT SHE WILL NOT ENGAGE IN TRUTHFUL SPEECH – EVEN WHEN SHE IS RIGHT.

This is the primary reason for Russian people’s economic and political Lagging.

The Russians have always been lower trust than eastern and western europeans.

The soviets only made it much worse by institutionalizing lying at all levels of society.

THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE: WHEN YOU ARE RIGHT – JUST TELL THE DAMNED TRUTH.

As an immigrant to Ukraine, I said this at the time, and I have been saying this since then.

THE RUSSIAN PROBLEM IS THAT THEY CONSIDER DECEIT HONORABLE RATHER THAN IMMORAL.

1 – To continue the evolutionary progress of my people by preventing the usurpation of sovereignty of my kin by foreign invasion whether normative, cultural, religious, institutional, military, or demographic.

2 – To overthrow governments that by accumulated impositions of convenience incrementally deprive us of our rights as englishmen (warriors of the militia), and to replace it with a new generation of government that restores those rights:

a) reciprocity without exception,

b) universal standing, and

c) universal applicability.

3 – To prevent the low from profiting by the criminal, unethical, and immoral.

4 – To levy retribution upon and demand restitution of the wicked.

5 – To prevent the indolent, lazy, and inferior from parasitism upon the private and common: my kin’s production of the intergenerational family and its assets. both personal, private, shareheld, common, and political.

Western civilization began, evolved, and is maintained by nothing more than the militia. This is what differentiates the west from the rest. All that is unique and exceptional about western civilization from our law, our reason, our science, our institutions, our culture, and our mythology, begins with the distribution of capital and our intolerance for its centralization.

Period.

Ergo, the a personal rifle capable of war, revolution, prosecution, conviction, restitution and defense, is the minimum necessary arms by which a member of the militia persists the civlization of the militia: the west.

And he who would demote the militia or disarm it by definition declares war on me, my kin, my people, my state, and civilization, and by proxy, all mankind – given our disproportionate contribution to dragging humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, infant morality, early death, disease, and tyranny.

There is no greater crime against humanity than to deprive me of my weaponry.

If you declare war on me and mine we will, without exception withdraw our consent, and damage, harm, kill any and al that you hold dear.

I AM SOVEREIGN. ALL MILITIA ARE SOVEREIGN. WE ARE SOVEREIGNTY BY THE SINGLE LAW OF RECIPROCITY IN ALL THINGS

INCLUDING THE RECIPROCAL INSURANCE OF ONE ANOTHER’S SOVEREIGNTY BY FORCE OF ARMS.

—“You categorize like an engineer”—

(As if that was an insult rather than compliment beyond measure.)

I categorize and articulate as a scientist who prosecutes pseudoscience and pseudo rationalism: in operational language.

And that is because science has adopted operational language to prevent the fictionalisms: pseudoscience, pseudo rationalism, pseudo-wisdom-literature.

And that is because operations provide a universally commensurable standard of measure, that is free of pseudoscience (pretense of causality), pseudo-rationalism (inflation, conflation, loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism), pseudo-wisdom literature (mythology, supernaturalism), and the various deceits of the self and others in exchange for attention and signals.

In mathematics there exists a pseudoscientific practice in that we call positional names ‘numbers’, to maintain the fiction that the square of two exists, when it cannot except for the name of a function (operation in a context).

In economics there exists a pseudoscientific practice by in the use of the term ‘Utilis’ as a label by which the incommensurable is rendered to the commensurable.

In philosophy, during that era in which philosophers attempted to ascend philosophy from reason, to logic, to science, we saw a host of attempts to formalize logic into mathematics, rather than to restore mathematics to language (grammar and semantics).

All of these disciplines categorize ficitionaly in order to obscure the triviality of the underlying phenomenon that they describe.

Qualia is, as i stated, a fictionalism ascribing to states that which consists of the neural persistence of vision of accordant and discordant state changes in continuous time.

Qualia can no more exist than nothing, since nothing requires something to contrast with.

Qualia developed out of wittgenstein’s attempt to cast the mind in the form of movie consisting of frames, rather than the persistence of vision between a host of fragments.

Dennett proposed four criteria for Qualia:

1 – ineffable; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience.

This is false because we both share the same experiences but often lack introspective vocabulary to transmit xperiences. We can however, as in all forms of communication, construct complex experiences from universally simplistic forms. (this is the function of all storytelling).

2 – intrinsic; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience’s relation to other things.

This says precisely nothing other than the our senses provide us correct information about the real world, at human scale, within th elimits of our ability to act (because it would be an evolutionary disadvantage to have senses beyond one’s ability to act. Hence why we lack thermal vision.)

3 – private; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.

This is false otherwise we could not empathize. If one says, that the range stimuli and excitement(intensity) that I experience from similar sensations, and the associations in memory that are stimulated by that experience, then yes, they are not identical but they are both marginally indifferent AND communicable. The problem is that we are usually unwilling to pay the high cost of that communication given the low value of stimulation beyond marginal indifference.

4 – directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale.

This is a definition Scope limitation) rather than a description, in that he’s stating that he’s demarcating those experiences open to self reflection from those not. And it is this last that informs us to the real purpose that philosophers are trying to achieve: a literature of experience. However, we have that literature of experience: the novel.

And that is precisely what has occurred in the 20th century:

Math is the rather trivial study of positional relations (the logic of ratios) – a grammar of positional relations.

Logic has been found to be a grammar in which we study litte more than constant relations of some subsets between states (phrases).

Science consists of measurement in constant relations in the grammar of action.

Law consists of measurement of investments decided by reciprocity.

Economics consists of measurements of the consequences of reciprocal exchange, and the process of removing frictions to that exchange by the use of institutions.

And The novel (Of which Dostoyevsky and Orwell are probably the greatest example man has produced ) the study of experiences.

And we have seen philosophy, starting with Kant’s attempt to reject anglo empiricism by conflation of the experiences and measurements, and continuing with the anti-empirical evolution of the Continental > Boazian > Marxist > Freudian > Postmodern schools, descend into pseudoscience and fictionalism in desperate attempt to preserve what is no more than the literature of pseudoscience, false wisdom lit, and anti-real (destructive) mythos.

We know why philosophy is attractive: it’s cheap, and it lacks means of falsification against reality within perceivable time frames, and as such, causes the orator to attract attention from those who commiserate, and those who disapprove, and those who defend against such falsehoods.

There is a reason operational (Scientific) language has evolved into the universal language of truthful speech. Because it is the only language of universal commensurability that prevents the great deceits of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion (loading), obscurantism(framing), fictionalism (pseudoscience, pseudo rationalism, and pseudo-wisdom-literature/myth).

Truthful statements are possible and small in number. But fictionalisms are endless means by which those who cannot tolerate reality create a fiction to describe it on their terms.

Literature is at least honest.Economics is finally fairly honest – although some of us work to correct what remains. But it is more honest than all political philosophy that has come before it. Law is at least honest, even if legislation and regulation are not. Science has spent a century preserving its social status, by incrementally suppressing pseudoscience.

However, philosophy has been descending – at least since kant, into nothing more than a conflation of pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-wisdom literature.

It is little more than moral fictions to entertain those who are unsatisfied by the reality of reality: the markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production of goods, services and information, production of commons (politics), production of group evolutionary strategy (nation and civilization).

Hence why it is increasingly unfunded, and relegated to theology – even classified with theology in libraries and book stores.

As far as I know the disciplines are approaching completeness given the operations we describe at increasing scales, and as such the domain of philosophy is not simply empty verbalisms by which we attempt to signal wisdom we do not possess, but the determination of personal preference, and communal good, given the resources (choices) made available by the disciplines that measure that which is not preference, but truth: science.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.

I think the answer is that we need to specialize and have the market do its job as did the pagans – and not try to create another abrahamic monolithic framework. The framework that developed the west is competition (m arkets) and a division of powers, and an absence of a clerical class, with civic duties performed by the monarchy, nobility, and lesser nobility (influential citizens).

Markets in everything.

Via positiva (narratives/inflating and loading) via negativa (calculation and unloading/deflating).

If people compare me to one or the other then I’m going attack peterson justifiably. If people think peterson is right, then they’re simply wrong. He’s informative, explanatory, and accessible the same way that storytelling is more accessible than calculation.

Via Negativa does not sell except as a defense because it is not the means by which we form narratives that allow us to cooperate despite only minor overlaps in interest.

Via Positiva sells but is open to supernatural, pseudoscientific, and pseudo rational content (falsehoods) and detriments to a people because narrative are cheap, and easily loaded framed and suggested and obscured. And we are vulnerable to suggestion by the narrative because if we were NOT vulnerable to it, the act of communication which requires suggestion via continuous disambiguation would not be possible.

There is NO TRUTH. There exist a market wherein we compete between via positiva imagination and opportunity and via negativa limits and constraints. All we can attempt is truthfulness through competition.

I you cannot understand this principle the you understandn othing of testimonialism(via competition), vs falsificationism(via negativa) vs justificationism (via positiva).

If peterson had not come out against controlled speech, then he would still be unknown and irrelevant. His book was irrelevant. Haidts was far more influential and haidt’s research far better and more empirical. There are hundreds of people who have written and spoken of similar things, but few of them (a) can afford to come forward (b) started out as libertarian activists so that they speak in the frame of reciprocity vs duty or consensus, (c) have a platform(opportunity) and funding that he has. (d) and he has higher disagreeableness than others (hence his appeal to those of us more scientific than agreeable).

I have to defend myself from this kind of bullshit.

But he is another example of offering explanation and confirmation bias, but not providing a solution other than moral confidence.

If you want a spectrum, today it’s Taleb (risk), doolittle (law), haidt (politics), forgot his name (education, and Peterson (religion, myth, propaganda).

In a market we specialize. Simpletons want a single rule to follow. The mind wants a single rule to follow, We all want consensus. Christianity and Democracy are errors of monopoly and consensus.

Markets in everything.

Via positiva for children, general rules for adult, and laws for the wise.

Opportunity, action, and limits.

Leraning, acting, and limiting.

The intergenerational transfer of AGENCY.

The west has a philosophy – it is called the common law.

The west has a religion – it is called philosophy.

Winter Storm.

Fresh Stock.

Hearty Beef Stew.

Slow Cook.

Dumplings.

The hardest parts of overcoming aspieness were:

0 – Migraines from overstimulation by sound, light, people – anything other than ‘nice organized information’.

1 – Looking at people in the eyes. Because it felt like being electrocuted.

2 – Overcoming social anxiety – not from being around people but from interacting with them.

3 – Slowing down speech to ‘moral rates’. (I love listening to programmers who are on the spectrum. so natural. lol)

4 – Slowing down and Learning to listen to people and watching them patiently.

5 – Overcoming the sensation that people were evil rather than simply …. ‘something less’ … and doing the best they can.

6 – Learning how to help people feel, think, and get what they want on their own terms – by listening and suggesting.

Think of your persona as stepping back from experience. Or as people say ‘austists have no filter’. So you can develop this ability with practice if you’re on the beneficial end of the spectrum.

( Honestly, aside from agitating my rather high dominance, my only real incentive to interact was to get girls. lol. For guys, all you really have to do is ‘go along with leaders’. I love following when I have no responsibility other than to the team. )

(diary)

Seeing the doctor tomorrow, and hoping that this improvement continues. I’ve had to stop taking melatonin in order to sleep – it was making me sleepy for half of the day. I’ve had to stop taking allergy meds because they were making me sleepy. I’ve had to cut my blood pressure medicine because it was making me faint. The bloating in my stomach and the swelling in my lungs, throat and face have nearly gone, and I’m not snoring any longer. And I can breathe fully to the bottom of my lungs without a coughing fit. I still have the asthma but it’s nowhere near as severe. So the inflammation is really in retreat, and I can sleep, and I’m not in nearly constant agitation and pain. So hopefully the effect isn’t temporary, because I’m almost back on my game now.

(humor)

A Woman. A Typical New England Liberal.

A passionate participant in ‘The Narrative’.

So, I put Parental Controls on MSNBC.Out of the blue, it asks for a code.

I ask “what do they put on that channel that is harmful to children?” And, “why would they feel the need to censor MSNBC?”

No suspicion whatsoever.

Unfortunately I couldn’t control myself….

ha…. ha, ha, ha.. aaaaaaah ha ha ha ha!

omg….. I can’t breathe. lol

The past two posts:

2 – Market Demonstrated Via Positiva

1 – Peterson’s Mission vs Doolittle’s

contain very important concepts.

The problem is that people can intuit what is correct about many things that are wrong. You can (because you’re in the same spectrum as peterson and I) easily do that. When I was in college I could easily do that. But the problem we have not so much education in what is right, but preventing education in what is wrong. YOu are, and many libertarian and right’s are, intuiting from peterson what others intuit from postmodernists, marxists, pseudosciences, and conspiracy theories.

It is one thing to provide a means of teaching, but it is quite another to provide a means of preventing false teaching.

The market for false teaching has not been subject to incremental suppression, particularly since the industrial revolution – for the simple reason that they could not find a way to both suppress it and tolerate christianity (had we still been pagan it would have been possible).

I sympathize with via-positiva intuitionistic agreement, but that tells us only that the individual possesses the preconceptions by which to sympathize with it – and not competing preconceptions and intuitions.

That’s the evidence. Period.

Ergo, it really doesn’t matter a shit-bit because the market for narratives has maintained a superior demand for fictionalisms (falsehoods) that justify the dysgenic majority. The FACTS are, the EVIDENCE IS, that we (aristocracy) loses any market in which we cannot incrementally suppress parasitism, for the simple reason that parasitism is preferable, emotionally, intellectually, and actionably to the vast, unproductive, majority.

So while via-positiva storytelling is a cheap means of youth-education (and therefore adult regulation), and will train youth to seek opportunities within the limits of the suppressed parasitisms, the market has demonstrated that truth and law (the west) or fiction(religion) and law (the rest of the world), are the only POSSIBLE means of transformation of a polity.

All that matters is law. The more correspondent the law the lower the friction the higher the velocity.

The rest is amusement for children, women, and priests.

The problem is, children, women, and priests can increase the costs such that aristocracy (soldiers, scientists, and judges) lack the will to impose law by truth.

Why?

Because in the end, only soldiers matter. Because only soldiers choose.

What does that mean?

It all begins with the Militia.

(Thus endeth the lesson)

In the end Petersen working on self help – or self correction (direct) at one end of the spectrum and I’m working on systemic help – or systemic correction (indirect) at the other end of the spectrum. He’s teaching and I’m governing. Via positiva, via negativa.

I made this similar argument about Mises vs Hayek, and I could easily make the argument about Spencer vs Nietzsche.

I could make the same argument between Marx and Keynes.

Hayek spent his whole life coming to the same conclusion I have, by almost exactly the same sequence.

individual training is extremely expensive but collective (systemic) training is cheap and most effective. And the single most effective means of training is the continuous evolution of the single law of reciprocity that we call the law.

People will self justify anything and everything at all times.

People cannot self-justify their way out of law. Legislation, and morality yes, but law no. They must act in accordance with it.

The brain gives us reward for the number of free associations generated by any given set of relations. It literally feels good for the neural economy to prune and grow – identifying more possibilities…. more IMAGINATION, and therefore more opportunity. And it is opportunity-generation that is the value of memory.

This is one of the reasons we able to empathize, extend trust, suspend disbelief, and accept new information from storytelling uncritically via suggestion the by the same process we imitate others through observation and imitation. (if you can connect those processes it will help you understand.)

But we are suggestible by observation and by storytelling just as we are suggestible by acting in the environment – hence metaphysical value judgements that we intuit but do not know we know.

Observation and storytelling are much cheaper than action. Literature/experience and philosophy/argument are cheaper than science/engineering, because emotions, thought, and action describe a sequence of costs.

As it must be for any creature that decides action using memory.

—I disdain this kind of cynical scoffing nihilism where every higher concept is considered a lie or fairy tale. “Art? Beauty? These are just conceits.” The ideological materialist has to really strain trying to get the human square into the Darwinian hole. It’s ironically absurd.”—

There is zero difficulty ‘squaring’ human existence with physics. It’s not absurd at all. Its tediously simple. Art and Beauty are also trivial to explain. To say that knowing alone denies us the emotional rewards of loading and framing is certain. But not inexplicable.

Truth Proper provides agency, while comforting falsehoods, no matter how enjoyable merely make us feel false satisfaction for failing to create agency.

All of our narrative fantasies are just human bird song: the attempt to attract status, friends, and mates, with promise of distractions from a reality in which they cannot compete.

NORM > RELIGION > LAW > CREDIT > SOCIAL

Prepare for the worst.

by William Benge

Peterson energizes the incentives for positiva in the personal and interpersonal realm, whereas Doolittle is working to lay out the more costly and precision-bound negativa as instrument for reversing present mischief and preventing any future aberrations.

Of course, there is overlap.

POSITIVA FOR SELF

We cannot imagine Peterson’s positiva holding capacity to level and decimate the world’s greatest culprits, the fed and CIA. Nonetheless, Peterson does inculcate condemnation and rejection of the false premises the Fed and CIA (commies) operate upon, while at the same time exciting both reason and action toward sensible positiva in the personal sphere.

RECIPROCITY/SUPPRESSION NEGATIVA

Whereas, Doolittle’s negativa can be employed to destroy the 1) position of every actor within these nefarious institutions (also proceed to invalidate the institutions themselves) AND the 2) position of any sympathetic supporters (commies) underneath or aside those institutions.

COLLECTIVISM AS NATIONALISM

Peterson and Doolittle are partnered in destroying this forever.

My understanding is that what I term ‘mindfulness’ (mental and emotional agency) can be obtained by making use of animal sentiments thru age seven, and that we can teach logic, and grammar of language, logic and grammar of measurement (math), logic and grammar of physics (science), and logic and grammar of ethics:, propertarianism, and testimonialism.

And if we do that then we will achieve in both personal mindfulness, social mindfulness, and politics, what we have achieved in mathematics and the physical sciences. There is no difference between the different grammars except the range of operations (permutations) available at different scales.

Reading and Math are terribly unnatural. Cooperation is NOT. That people cannot imagine a developmental evolution that they cannot find commensurable with their own experience is simply a limitation of the individuals making that assessment. There is absolutely no reason that we cannot teach calculative means of solving problems of cooperation, rather than literary means.

This reduces the use of narrative to a series of ‘word problems’ we can empathize with.

if you can grok this then you’ll see how profound an innovation in the logics and grammars of continuous disambiguation and calculation that we call thought are propertarianism, testimonialism, and operationalism.

The same evolutionary leaps of mathematics and reason in the ancient world, and science and empiricism in the modern world, can be achieved in cooperation and operationalism in the present.

The problem is that each of us has problem saying something other than ‘well it worked for me because’ rather than ‘I was able to get here despite the way I was taught’.

People are ‘hooked’ on the mythic and fictional narrative for the same reason they were hooked on and could not envision a world under the arbitrary discretion of a fictional god.

They were wrong in the late medieval world, and they are wrong in the present world.

Cheers.

KINSHIP: Family > Clan > Tribe > Nation > Subrace > Race

TERRITORY: Occupied Lands(privately insured) > Country(Militia Insured) > State(institutionally insured) > Empire (insured by external institutions)

GOVERNMENT: The resolution of disputes(judiciary)(negative), and production of commons (positive) : Headman > Chieftain > King(private) > Oligarchy(Private corporation) > Bureaucracy (Public-corporation / State ) > Theocracy of any kind.

CULTURE: (I tend to argue culture = evolved group evolutionary strategy.) *The categories and rules of disambiguation and decidability by means of Myths, Rituals, and Feasts(celebrations), and the traditions (intergenerational transfer) and norms (generational transfer) that assist in generational and intergenerational cooperation internally, and competition, externally.

ETHNICITY: was invented during the early 1960’s postmodern invasion (destruction) of western civilization (aristocracy, meritocracy, sovereignty, truth) as a means of circumventing the traditional framing of human organizations as kin groups and circumventing the word “Race”, and framing (propagandizing) kinship (family/tribe/race) as subordinate to nation-state, or communist empire. (Yes, really, people program your frames just as they program our various fashions, and by the same means.)

In other words “**Ethnicity**” is another attempt to force globalization (destruction of western civilization) as a kin group down western people’s high trust (naive) throats through virtue signaling.

pretty good, no nonsense, no fantasy

(health update)

Cross fingers. Might have found the source of the problem (infection) causing all the inflamation. My asthma is almost gone. I feel better than I have since my twenties. And I’m only a few days into the medication. I’m off to the clinic to see what they say. If i can get my strength back I’ll be ‘dangerous’. (Praying)

—“The Hyper-Maternal, Dr. Spock method of child rearing results in temperments less conducive to civilizational traits AND reduces vigour. Strict positiva rearing results in increased aggression (increased vigor) and reduces civilizational traits. Strict rule via negativa increases vigor and civilizational traits)”– Bill Joslin.

(in other words, spoiled behavior)

—“Civilization is the institutional product of good enough human capital interacting over time. Rule of law would be a common property, or “artifact” of that, especially when peer distribution of political agency is emphasized in a given polity.”— Simon Ström

(absolute genius)

(Nerd Stuff)

Have I said how much I like Vue.js lately? Let me say it again. It’s awesome. The technology is finally at a state where you can write grownup code for the browser without feeling that everything you’re doing is a hack. I don’t even feel the need to use typescript. It allows type declaration and testing where its necessary. Nice, organized, logical. Sigh. SPA, Single Component files, Vuex stores, Axios, local storage, internationalization… and its all fully integrated. In React I had so many more issues with Mobx/Flux and debugging was a nightmare. Vue is .. Seriously. It’s like … it’s just *well thought out*.

Leaders produce leaders, not followers. Truth, Agency, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets in Everything.

Propertarianism.

by Bill Joslin

–“Seems to me the recent arguing for myth, fiction etc stems from its power to persuade. Why I see it as an arguing for power. Sure fictions and myths, archetypes and transcendent ideal motivate and guide human behaviour, but so does law. Advocacy as mean to effect change (a spin or assumption from living in democracies and markets) logically leads to persuasion by information opposed to persuasion by force.

A civilization doesn’t require fictions, it requires rule of law.”–

Charlize Theron

Kim Basinger.

Grace Kelly.

“The future is here. It’s just unevenly distributed.” – William Gibson

(south africa)(via James Santagata)

(genius)

—“The Machine gun killed heroism; oil and engine killed masculinity; contraception pill killed womens chastity; TV and cheap sugar killed religion and community; and now female sentiment killed philosophy and truth. From monkey we become men, only to evolve in high tech rats on drugs who live in concrete jungles.”—“Matej Lovri?

by Alain Kassabian

PART 1:”Testimonilaism is a series of standards including operational language, often applied to law, social systems, and incentives. The main (meta) incentive such analysis gives access to is described in Sheepdog, Logos, Stoicism, etc – technically the incentive is net agency. Testimonialism operationalizes operational epistemology: in order to facilitate that sort of high science you seem to need a high trust culture.

The act of testimony is fundamental to high trust society, military, law, science, markets, and personal matters. Testimony (ideal application of speech) creates all the advantages of these institutions, that emerged by necessity when the West chose sovereignty as an organizing principle to maximize agency. Recognizing the connections here re-frames human speech, detailing the magnitude of the processes we evoke with our words and our actions. The institutions and norms we use to further our values are built out of the incentives we’ve faced and how we’ve integrated them.

As intuitive as refining our speech is, it is also intuitive to obscure our speech to indulge vices and pettiness. Reducing anything, especially values down to just information and not bias is by it’s very nature going to dig at what people value. So, to the extent each of us undermines this norm, we enable the continuing parasitization and atrophying of our commons (presently: western civilization). We slim down our chances for positive Black Swans and become ever more vulnerable to the negatives Black Swans. Holding the inverse position (antifragility) seems attainable and highly useful (as in negative common law removing exposure to negative black swans and opening up the various goods and positive black swans), so again, no guarantee – but maybe altering stress response to serve rather than undercut agency by knowing the value of and how to use what we have remaining. Completing the task of optimization is all we can guarantee, investing ourselves beyond that is spiting nature (stoics make it obvious how this makes you fragile and petty).

All language is motivated, and motivations promote symbiosis or they do not. Incentives can thus be divided into two catagories: incentives for net agency (Sheepdog, Logos, Law, Empiricism) and incentives that sacrifice the ideal for more immediate gain (every time any of us obscure our testimony wittingly or otherwise). Seems Biohistory’s C would be the biological conditions required to recognize/measure/optimize conditions for this incentive and V would be the conditions required to defend such an incentive. In an atrophying society perhaps the window for those higher incentives is more narrow, and the costs greater for opposing malincentives baked into leviathan like social structures, although the ultimate cost of abandoning healthy, pro-net-agency incentives is obviously greater if you frame it honestly.

The precision Testimonialism affords for stoic analysis of how incentives stack and run through micro and macro social operating systems (norms) seems to reduce cognitive load. It doesn’t solve everything but it addresses the meta question of how to measure and optimize available responses (Doolittle’s “efficient capture of calories”as in Testimonialism, Propertarianism, Sheepdog, Antifragility, etc.). It shifts the focus to questions of agency and sovereignty (the conditions that underlie the various goods we pursue). On the micro level, the macro framing and organized elimination of fallacies makes shorter work of life planning, selecting information, and training your fast thinking. It’s not hard to detect when yourself or someone else is bringing your attention to something other than evidence – appealing to loading etc.

Part of the micro optimization resulting from and reinforcing Testimonilaism as a norm is that removing loading and solving for agency shifts the focus to improving rather than squabbling over primordial struggles (stoicism again). This affects physical health and offers an extremely integrated sense of meaning (ie. clear definition of symbiosis across scales). You mentioned in another thread that part of the aesthetic of bothering at all against such odds, is that demonstrating value as best we can, is worth it regardless of if those odds are overcome. I agree, and consider the counter aesthetic/value system to be parasitism (not strengthening the ecosystem from which you come), which in terms of objective usefulness and my own bias provides no legitimate alternative.

The first signs I usually notice of downward drag and misintegrated incentives are usually myself or someone else choosing loading and overloading over parsimony, the better one can recognize striking directly at the truth, the more obvious evasive substitutes become (hence military reporting is loud and direct, asking for only the facts). It’s a que that someone is skipping over something or semi to un-consciously avoiding information they perceive as counter to their incentives. To some degree (might depend on specifics), animosity can be inferred when incentives are guarded with deception, whether or not the person admits or realizes the incentives they answer to by operating in willful ignorance. In my mind, it stands out if I think, write, or speak something with loading – and that seems to be habituation of my fast thinking systems, so there’s less of a knee-jerk response to use careless loading (although it takes energy to realize the amount of loading people use, and then to discern when it’s appropriate – when it clarifies and transfers notions that survive empiricism).

I also think letting empirical descriptions of incentives speak for themselves rather than telling people outright what to do, makes one appear more trustworthy – not to be confused with hiding one’s own biases. People seem to intuitively mistrust loading against their own biases whereas they actively look for information regarding their incentives. Although, inflating language isn’t always a bad idea, Curt had a post about how inflationary speech can actually be used to lower costs of communication and therefore further the expression of operational language, as long as we’re packaging realities to the best of our ability.

Limits are also a key concept that Operational Epistemology and Sheepdog underscore the importance of, and by their very nature, grate against value systems… it’s very easy to not want to find the limit of a “beloved” notion. Yet, every statement has a limit and any view of the of the world is disjointed without sufficient emphasis on limits – this seems a common sub-optimal adaption (people refer to where their notions apply, not where they don’t – no complete testing or even guarantee it’s testable).”

PART 2:

“The closest thing to criticism I see for Testimonialism, Sheepdog, Logos (symbiosis raising agency) is regarding the practical access the higher tiers of incentives. I see potential pitfalls as sensible considerations for optimal application, not as contrary to the notion of Testimonilaism, ie.:

1 The idea of solving everything with words is absurd (strawman of Logos) – in reality we can use precise language to shift conditions towards the net agency (meta-incentive)

2 The idea of society not collapsing under prosperity seems far fetched and challenging (strawman of Sheepdog) – in reality solving for agency, c, v, etc. using testimonialism offers value as an optimization, not a guarantee

3 The idea of to more ideal institutions (martial societies, due diligence, warranties, honest prosecution) seems like brutal and far fetched LARPING to the modern mind (strawman of Testimonialism/Propertarianism) – in reality these are descriptions of the norms we cycle through from high to low trust

The reason I don’t see these as criticism is that the process discussed is a natural one with historical precedence. People are naturally intolerant of slights against their own interests and we have produced high levels of key items like precise law, high trust, c, and v. Additionally, the fragility of modernity and of successful civilizations in general is obvious. So to criticize a map of the biological and social systems detailing what happens as you either build up or tear down pro-trust norms as some impossible ideal is to miss the point. Things will never be perfect but we can incrementally suppress predation, parasitism, and the negative sides of co-operation, and at higher levels of Agency, C, and V, it should start looking about as ideal as it gets in reality.

Again, a stoic shifting of attention to optimization rather than searching for some imaginary guarantee of success is more useful and therefore congruent with any value system you have that actually represents striving for good (symbiosis). So these measures that further testimonialism by sustaining high trust (symbiosis) are the point and throwing away the tools of measurement because “life is really hard” and “that’s impossible” is clearly not as useful. There isn’t even technically a requirement to do anything any harder, picking up better tools can make it easier to do what you already do (especially if they’re built around empiricism, operational epistemology, incentives, clarity, parsimony).

The other potential criticism that jumps out is for testimonialism is that “it’s censorship”, although, I see it as assumed (and Curt has also stated) that reserving access to free truthful speech is important. So, it might seem overbearing and authoritarian, but the fact is we have been and should continue to suppress deceptive behaviour that undermines our agency, sovereignty, and antifragility. This is the idea of preserving and expressing natural authority over arbitrary authority because it aligns with a meta incentive (agency gives you more of whatever you value).

I sometimes wonder if this sort of adaption is innate to being or sentience regardless of what happens to any particular species: Logos, Sheepdog, the natural advantages available given sentience. Again, I agree that for personal sanity and maximized success across larger scales, a focus on what is in our control (demonstrating value) is a better frame for considering the odds, than to consider them primarily for how bad they seem (a result affected by our actions, but ultimately beyond our absolute control). Excuses for not taking the best shot is weak in the micro and macro sense, especially in terms of survivability and aesthetics. Again, I suppose the counter aesthetic is parasitism (not bothering to strengthen the ecosystem from which you come) and that’s home how valid too (producing alienation, evasion, and excess fragility in the macro and micro)? Maybe it’s bias to prefer the pole that corresponds to the in built non-psychopath intuition (as poorly as we stick to it at times) – but it seems justified describing the empirical realities of each pole (high and low trust).

There are a few versions of this list, but these are essentially the 6-8 standards of measurement referred to in

Testimonialism:

https://naturallawinstitute.com/2016/03/10/q-do-you-have-a-concise-definition-for-testimonialism/

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-adjective-form-of-truth/answer/Curt-Doolittle

—“Shared activities are not the same as shared values.”— James Santagata

(Or, Via reciprocity (markets) can cooperate on common means, even if we cannot cooperate on uncommon ends.)

a) there is a vast difference between what is said, what is believed, what is practiced, and the consequences of what is said, believed, and practiced, because of the malincentives it produces.

b)if god is truth, then why lie? The evidence is that god of abraham in his three forms is evil, and all men are slaves. Is that why we must lie?

c) then why use a mythos against the empirical, military and commercial aristocracy that created prosperity, instead of the fictionalist (lying) priestly aristocracy that failed their people?

The pattern between the old defeat of civilizations, and the new defeat of civilizations is rather obvious in retrospect.

Humans do not want truth.

They resist it at every opportunity.

They just want, period.

And they excuse any means of obtaining their wants.

—“The only thing anyone needs to live a good life is “be excellent to each other.”if everyone did that or tried their best to do that,the world would be fine. You’re all spouting philosophical bollocks.pipe down and be nice.”—

No, if enough people do that then they are overwhelmed by the people who don’t.

High trust is advantageous in-group but a tragic weakness outgrip.

That’s just (a) operational analysis, and (b) empirical evidence.

You cannot model a polity, set of polities, or all polities as naive extensions of the family. And that is what you are doing.

People compete for advantage at all times, and the value of high trust dissipates rapidly outside of family and community.

by Alexander Brown

I used to be a total Christian. And that was when I was very very stupid.

I was even a practising Jew. I observed the seventh day sabbath.

Now, I know that the only thing to trust is truth, and that God that is compatible with truth, science, natural law and laws of nature.

I also have become aware that all men cannot be available. Because all men are not equal. And that the men that matter, and those with agency, are predetermined genetics and are indeed few.

I would thus advise you to take responsibility. To love a clean life but if you must act to survive, do not hesitate.

Learn to find the men that would reciprocate in mutually beneficial exchanges and partner with them. Avoid all other men.

While at it, do be like the American: have manners, engage, explore, extend good will, throat punch when insulted and WIN.

Or, be like the Japanese: take the insult in a good stride, wait for your opportunity and retaliate in sudden blitzkrieg.

Or act the Russian: never forget, never forgive.

Or the Jew: make money and control as many as is possible, regardless – and by deception or whatever means.

Because, the billions don’t say fair.

—“You’re in a position of power in a fictional state, tasked with designing your own variant of the Nuremberg laws, as well as immigration policy. What’s the required vetted minimum IQ for migrants and citizens reaching the age of majority, among other requirements in maintains a viable polity?”—

It depends upon two factors:

a) a relative measurement: your existing median. and

b) an absolute measurement: I work with the rule of thumb of approx 106 being the line of demarcation between those who can solve problems (fix machines, learn from manuals rather than instruction) and those who cannot.

I don’t see any reason why you’d immigrate anyone who wasn’t a full standard deviation above your mean. In that case, i’d say 115 if the person has money and is of good character. Above 122 regardless of money. Above 130 and of good character they are going to contribute.

THE PROCESS OF COMMUNICATION ENDS WITH DISAMBIGUATION (due diligence)

— “we need both fiction and science” — Joel Davis

Well that’s the argument I make right?

That we TEACH (transfer relations) and IMITATE by fictions, but that we JUDGE and DEDUCE from SCIENCE. Via positiva ‘fictions’ and via negativa ‘truth’.

The problem then becomes limiting the fictions to fictions rather than fictionalism. In other words, stories (literature, myth, parable) and not pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism (which is the most … seductive because it requires the least knowledge), and pseudo-history.

In other words, the grammar of continuous disambiguation (universal grammar) of any neural network (category generating hierarchy) requires that we create analogies to transfer relations (communicate) then disambiguate them as defense against fraud (and error).

Language requires continuous disambiguation. But it does not end with communication -it ends with deflation, and disambiguation of that which has been communicated.

I am asked to review work frequently to determine whether people should invest in learning it, or whether it’s somewhere between erroneous and absolute nonsense. Someone asked me to review your work. It’s good work. And morove, you have enough charisma and likability to make use of it in the benefit of yourself and others. But you have fallen into the trap of confusing education by analogy given one’s current state of knowledge, with understanding sufficient for deduction and calculation having exhaustively attempted to falsify one’s knowledge. This is why almost all philosophy outside of the logics (deflationary grammars of constant relations) has been nonsense for a very long time.

I specialize in truth, and in particular, operational language, which ensures that the constant relations (semantics) one makes use of in his vocabulary and associations, are as parsimonious as possible, and as free or ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit, because the first premise of any set of semantic relations (paradigm) corresponds to reality in the only uniform system measurement available to man: the indifference of the limits of our actions – and is therefore least open to fictionalisms (inflations and conflations).

Use of operational language is what separates engineering, law, science, and mathematics from the various fictionalisms (Theology, Pseudomoralism, Pseudorationalism, Pseudoscience, Pseudohistory) as well as outright fictions. In addition, Operational language also prevents us from creating empty verbalisms (in the same way we write fictions of the same thirty or so base narratives of state change (rise-fall, fall-rise in combination), in the same way we use different names for the few available archetypal characters. So it prevents us from *thinking we are speaking novelties or innovations rather than playing word games to justify the current state of our knowledge*.

As far as I know, Power refers to the resources, agency, and sovereignty, to alter the probability of outcomes. Where agency consists of the minimization of internal and external limitations our actions both personal, economic, and normative, and sovereignty refers to imposition upon us by others due to the presence or absence of institutions. These are how the terms are used – especially prior to the postmodern attempt to undermine language through the use of fiction, ridicule, and non-operational languages (fictionalisms).

We can all learn something from myths. But use of myths can also manufacture ignorance, error, bias and deceit, and as such reinforce our existing limited loose knowledge, rather than encourage us to obtain new and more precise knoweldge.

Simple stories are useful for children and the simple, because they lack the ability to identify and retain complex causal relations. Less simple stories are useful for young adults who are less disabled. Less simple stories are useful for ordinary adults who cannot afford to learn anything in precision that does not directly improve their economic agency.

But for those of us (including you) who are capable of free association, causally dense categorical identification, deduction from those categories, and eventual construction of systems of measurement of those categories, deductions sufficient for forecasting (either forward or backward), we are most likely (and most frequently) inhibited in reaching our potential, by anchoring ourselves with fictionalisms that are sufficiently imprecise (false) that we can never form a deductive network – and we malinvest in that network until we find in old age we were wrong.

I study economists in particular, so I am conscious that Marx and Mises went to the grave knowing that they were wrong. And Russell understood that the entire program had lead to nothing more than tautology.

Hopefully you find something to ponder, since you’re certainly possessed of talents.

Cheers

(via James Santagata)

—“From Twitter. Based on previous findings, we hypothesized that the language used by liberals emphasizes their perception of uniqueness, contains more swear words, more anxiety-related words and more feeling-related words than conservatives’ language.

Conversely, we predicted that the language of conservatives emphasizes group membership and contains more references to achievement and religion than liberals’ language.

We analysed Twitter timelines of 5,373 followers of three Twitter accounts of the American Democratic and 5,386 followers of three accounts of the Republican parties’ Congressional Organizations.

The results support most of the predictions and previous findings, confirming that Twitter behaviour offers valid insights to offline behaviour.”–

(from elsewhere, To Alex Tabarrok, marginal revolution)

I think the more operational answer is that all AI’s will be able to do is drastically reduce informational asymmetries, and predict reactions to them out to the first or second order. Just as money, accounting, and now digital accounting have drastically reduced asymmetries of information. However, people will also develop AI’s to outwit such AI’s for competitive advantage, and Human beings will seek Virtue Signals (Status signals) to outwit those predictions for social advantage. The principle example being fashion, which while cyclical is driven by technological innovation with a surprisingly small number of variables.

We keep discussing AI in the context of a monopoly like the government without considering that Ai’s will seek to outwit AI’s just as traders and digital trading seek to outwit each other today. I don’t think AI’s are as much of a problem as finding a way to organize society when all the multiples of any meanning, require vast capital expenditures limited to very few. So just as the stock market provides a credit advantage that often defeats more meritocratic (and quality) advances, so will artificial intelligence. Conversely, it is far easier to starve machines of information than it is people. And while human organizations of all scales can degrade somewhat gracefully except in rare circumstances, mechanical networks degrade quickly.

Just as we are one war away from ending the era of navies, we are one major conflict away from ending our over conficence in the instantaneous delivery of energy, and the unwise luxury of such velocity that we have only three hours of power, three days of water, and one week of food in ‘storage’.

In English, the average word length is 5.1 (8-bit ASCII) characters. You need a word delimiter, let’s just use the space character. 200 characters would contain 32.8 chunks of 6.1 characters, including the trailing space (which the last word doesn’t need), or 32 chunks of 6.1 characters and one of 4.8 characters.

So on average, 32 complete modern English words in 200 (8-bit ASCII) characters.

(to paul krugman via twitter)

What happens when we outlaw cherry-picking of capital measurements in economic pseudoscience, and prosecute those who create moral hazards by promoting it? Will you be as equally judicious in your self-criticisms? History will judge you as it has judged Marx, Freud, and Boaz.

1 – if you get mises and hoppe’s property rights analysis, and just add property-in -toto, so that you end up with acquisitionism.

2 – If you then take the cognitive biases you see how evolution fucked with us to keep us taking risks (acting, exploring) within our energy limits.

3 – Then take five factors, then ten dimensions of personality.

4 – Then take those factors and map them to phases of the prey drive on y axis, and male vs female reproductive strategies on the x-axis, and you have all of psychology.

5 – Then take haidt’s moral categories and express them as property rights, and you have all of political psychology and sociology.

6 – Then all you have is reciprocity > individual violations of reciprocity > gender violations of reciprocity > class and group violations of reciprocity > and group evolutionary violations of reciprocity, and you have all of politics.In other words, we can cooperate honestly on one hand, and we can game each other on the other, and we can game each other at every scale from the individual to the nation.

I mean, really, it’s all that simple. That’s the boring science of it. We are very obvious gene machines that create fictions in order to cooperate while maintaining the optimum level of cheating possible within the available limits of cooperation.

Psychology either takes that scientific position, or it takes a fictionalist position. Most of us want a fictionalist position when we are young so that we can ‘feel’. Some of us want a fictionalist position when we are developing, so that we can strategize for an advantage. Some of us who mature want a justification of our strategy to provide positive feedback for our immoral successes, or our personal weakness and failings. Some people don’t fictionalize at all, they just compete without doing harm. They are the defacto natural elite.

The Truth is very simple. But the number of fictions we have invented to complicate what is very obviously the rational actions of a selfish animal in competition with other superpredators – and thereby obscure our hierarchy of immoralities.

But such fictions allow us to form coalitions of people with the same immoralities (systems of parasitism). Just as much as the truth would allow us to form coalitions of people with no immoralities and no parasitisms.

The difference is very simple: only a superior people would choose Sovereignty, reciprocity, truth(empiricism, operationalism), and markets in everything – because only a superior people can compete by sovereign, reciprocal, truthful, trusting, and market-competitive means.

And only inferior people would choose an alternative.

Hence the few use truth and markets and the many use fictionalisms. Because there are so few who are superior to the mass of humanity.

And very few men are of sufficient agency to acknowledge these truths.

(from elsewhere)

TOCAS is Hoppe’s best work. It is before he is overly affected by Rothbard. Like all Hoppe’s work, he is at his best in the study, description, and articulation of general rules of human incentives, and reduction of all of ethics to statements of property – even though he fails to make the connection between via positiva property, with via-negativa Reciprocity. He solves social science making the same mistake as Kant, Hegel, Marx, and Mises – verbalisms, rather than empiricisms. Unfortunately as a German (Rationalist), educated by Marxists (Justificationists), and overly influenced by Rothbard (Fictionalist), he favors his rational insights (which are false) instead of following his original, purely operational, insights into the application of economics to politics. Mises discovered operationalism in the only field in which it mattered (math does not need it, and physics has already adopted it), and turned his (and his generation’s) intuition into a rationalist pseudoscience. Rothbard again ran with the justificationary rationalism of Jewish Law, and finally, hoppe improved upon rothbard with more rigorousness rather than appeals to optimistic moral intuition. We stand on the shoulders of Giants. But these giants are often more flawed than perfect.

But it takes a great deal of Agency (evolutionary advancement) to accept (Tolerate and avoid fictionalisms) that simplicity.

Honestly.

1 – if you get mises and hoppe’s property rights analysis, and just add property-in -toto, so that you end up with acquisitionism.

2 – If you then take the cognitive biases you see how evolution fucked with us to keep us taking risks (acting, exploring) within our energy limits.

3 – Then take five factors, then ten dimensions of personality.

4 – Then take those factors and map them to phases of the prey drive on y axis, and male vs female reproductive strategies on the x-axis, and you have all of psychology.

5 – Then take haidt’s moral categories and express them as property rights, and you have all of political psychology and sociology.

6 – Then all you have is reciprocity > individual violations of reciprocity > gender violations of reciprocity > class and group violations of reciprocity > and group evolutionary violations of reciprocity, and you have all of politics.

In other words, we can cooperate honestly on one hand, and we can game each other on the other, and we can game each other at every scale from the individual to the nation.

I mean, really, it’s all that simple. That’s the boring science of it. We are very obvious gene machines that create fictions in order to cooperate while maintaining the optimum level of cheating possible within the available limits of cooperation.

Psychology either takes that scientific position, or it takes a fictionalist position. Most of us want a fictionalist position when we are young so that we can ‘feel’. Some of us want a fictionalist position when we are developing, so that we can strategize for an advantage. Some of us who mature want a justification of our strategy to provide positive feedback for our immoral successes, or our personal weakness and failings. Some people don’t fictionalize at all, they just compete without doing harm. They are the defacto natural elite.

The Truth is very simple. But the number of fictions we have invented to complicate what is very obviously the rational actions of a selfish animal in competition with other superpredators – and thereby obscure our hierarchy of immoralities.

But such fictions allow us to form coalitions of people with the same immoralities (systems of parasitism). Just as much as the truth would allow us to form coalitions of people with no immoralities and no parasitisms.

The difference is very simple: only a superior people would choose Sovereignty, reciprocity, truth(empiricism, operationalism), and markets in everything – because only a superior people can compete by sovereign, reciprocal, truthful, trusting, and market-competitive means.

And only inferior people would choose an alternative.

Hence the few use truth and markets and the many use fictionalisms. Because there are so few who are superior to the mass of humanity.

And very few men are of sufficient agency to acknowledge these truths.

Um … the west evolved truth telling regardless of impact on the dominance hierarchy. The east developed lying to circumvent impact on the dominance hierarchy.

China’s’ first philosopher is sun-tzu, “delay, deceive, and seek opportunity to act when the opponent is in weak condition”.

The west’s first philosopher is unstated: we are small in number, so use techology, and expertise, to solve future problems immediately – regardless of the impact ont he dominnce hierarchy. This philosophy results in mathematics, plato, aristotle, and zeno.

Lying is systemic in china. It’s expected. They cannot create and hold commons. They have zero respect for human life. They care nothing for liberty.

China is a bureaucracy. Russia is a church, and the West is (or was) a militia.

In reality, you go to college or university, largely to gain access to an organization in which you can benefit from rents without risk of personal assets. Whereas joining the military you risk the most valuable capital that you have on a daily basis – your life. Even if the work (honestly) is not very hard. Whereas Entrepreneurs risk their capital, and work hardest of all.

Yet we are all taxed at the same rate. Why don’t we tax people by the risk they bear? Because people are rewarded in markets by the risk that they bear.

Who does not bear risk? Those who don’t have skin in the game. In other words, people whose organizations exist outside of a market (The Government), or whose organizations have access to credit that puts them effectively outside the market (large companies). Or people who sell highly valued by warrantied products ( Advertising, Media, and Academy)

When european women obtained their ‘freedom’ via the mechanical innovations of men, the ballot by the permission of men, and birth control by the scientific innovations of men, they put their efforts not into mechanical and scientific innovations, but to attack men, the church, and did so using the ballot and state. And when American women did so, likewise they did not seek achievement, but to attack – but lacking the church or the nobility they attacked men in general.

They destroyed our boys, our schools, our families, and our government – and now western civilization, by the ballot, and their near monopoly on consumption.

Men create nearly everything, but women consume nearly everything.

Our experiments with democracy rather than rule of law of reciprocity and markets in everything, capitalism rather than rule of law of reciprocity, feminism instead of contractual relations under the rule of law of reciprocity, and free speech, rather than a market for law(reciprocity) order, goods, services, and information.

THE ENLIGHTENMENTS

We have seen four European enlightenments that have dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, disease, early death, and the deceptions of Priests and Tyrants.

1-Early Aryan/Seas – Truth @2000-1500bc.

2- Ancient Mediterranean Sea – Reason 600bc to 100ad, and

3-Late Medieval Atlantic Ocean – Empiricism, 1200ad to 1700ad, and

4-Truncated Germanic Scientific Enlightenment – science 1830-1940ad

5- The heavily-resisted information revolution. currently in progress.

The First Aryan Enlightenment of truth was opposed by the creation of organized religion as a means of resisting the invention of aristocracy.

The Second Aryan Enlightenment of reason was opposed by the creation of monotheistic and abrahamic deception.

The Third Aryan Enlightenment produced weath that all groups sought to oppose by creating create pseudo moral narratives by which they could privatize those technological gains.

The Fourth Aryan Enlightenment produced wealth that all groups sought political power by which they could privatize those technological gains.

However, each of those opportunities for parasitic gains by various means of deception, were created by a single Aryan technology: Sovereignty which requires Rule of Law of Reciprocity > Empirical (operational) Truth > Jury and produces markets in everything as a result: association, cooperation, reproduction, production of goods services and information(markets), production of commons (govt as market), and king as judge of last resort.

Western civilization can function only if it is homogenous and high trust. No other people have demonstrated an ability to produce such Civilizations of such creativity and innovation with exclusive reliance on markets governed by the limits of reciprocity that we call natural law.

IN EACH ERA WE ARE TOO FORGIVING.

Why? we do not limit markets to consumption of our most precious asset: our genes, and our civilization.

In this sense, markets not limited to natural law are just as suicidal as any other form of hyperconsumption.

THIS PROBLEM IS SOLVABLE

By restoration of the single law of reciprocity that we call natural law, and the prohibition on the imposition of costs upon all forms of capital, including, genetic, cultural, and traditional. And most importantly, by extension of the demand for warranty of due diligence from goods and services, to speech (information). Free truthful speech is one thing. Free False Speech is not. And we now have the ability to determine whether speech is warrantied against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.

IN OTHER WORDS…

we must restore Defamation, LIbel and slander, and we must extend defamation, libel and slander protections to Sovereignty, Reciprocity, and Truth. That would allow us to prosecute Gossip, Rallying, Shaming – the tool used by women, the abrahamists, and the underclasses who are too incompetent to contribute to markets.

Everyone wants to be the leader, manager, executive, financier, politician, general, and king – until they achieve that status. And then they realize that they hold those positions because others want them to, and those that want them to, are customers that they must keep satisfied, or they will find someone else who does treat them as customers.

Why is it so hard? because all customers have different interests, and all leaders have but one fundamental job: to apply scarce resources behind the best returns. And that includes defense of the organizational capital against members since all organizations consist largely of people who seek rents on that organization.

Someone is really stalking me.

They found an ancient post.

Reported it.

And another 30 days. lolOMG

Well, they are just creating a market – that I’ll filll.

Alexander Zavialov

Aside from looking morphologically different, all we know is that he lacked the light skin colour-associated alleles in modern Europeans and that his skin colour-associated DNA accounted for 40% of the variation between Europeans and Africans. In other words, he was at least half as dark as depicted. Darker than modern Europeans but lighter than Indians.

Any time. Keep in mind that your average North European is almost 60% Cheddar Man (WHG), so these deluded fantasies of low IQ journalists aren’t even remotely true.

Unfortunately, some people on the right have taken this opportunity to badmouth and cast doubt on the scientific research that the faulty reconstruction was based on. There was nothing wrong with the research, only the politically motivated reconstruction and the journalist swine who propogated it.

Steve Doll provides an opportunity to discuss the difference between the major schools of economic thought, and the class and cultural biases that they position as ‘scientific’ but which are really just cherry picking favorite ‘goods’.

The schools of thought roughly correspond to class philosophies, just as all philosophies consist of class philosophies. And they describe a spectrum of increasing discretion from rule of law, to discretionary rule, to arbitrary rule.

* The **Rule of Law School** (not rule *BY* law, but rule *OF *law of reciprocity) (Conservative Constitutional – Where the constitution merely codifies the natural law of reciprocity so that it cannot be violated) is the Conservative (Anglo-Saxon). Meaning the rules of the game are the same for all, and attempts to build optimum normative COMMONS. Rather than increase consumption.

* The **Discretionary Rule School **(Chicago/Freshwater/classical liberal/Pragmatic/Libertarian) attempted to find means of insuring against shocks with the minimum interference in rule of law (and therefore planning).

* The **Arbitrary Rule School** (New York/Freshwater/Left-Social Democrat/Authoritarian) seeks the maximum consumption possible without collapsing the market, and has no interest whatsoever in rule of law.

Economics can easily be used to justify “you get what you measure”, and there to advocate what you measure, and ignore or deride what you do not. And the 20th century will be seen (as Hayek predicted) as a period of social pseudoscience (the used the term ‘mysticism’) because of what some of us term ‘innumeracy’ or “pseudo-rationalism”, if not outright deception.

I think Steve’s broader point is made, but I don’t think it accounts for the following:

* While it’s true that money is neutral, and all prices equilibrate over time. And that all benefits of the increases in minimum wages equilibrate over time. This is not necessarily true however, since an increase in minimum wages functions just like an increase in taxation – it affects everyone equally. Prices increase, and at least for some period of time, as the price increase works through the economy, the gains are real.

* The public assumes that the increase comes out of owner’s pockets, but it comes out of increasing prices to customers. Which again, is a trade off between businesses and consumers of the goods of those businesses able to adjust prices. (My hometown of Seattle is still working through its experiment, and the data so far is mixed both directions.)

* That the issue at hand is that it creates separate and divisive classes. Now, minimum wages can be used to intentionally create separate classes so that there is a clear line between those requiring subsidy (dependency upon the citizenry for support), and those who are self sufficient. Which decreases demand for universal redistribution and concentrates it. This has some benefit in that it tends to remove the underclasses from the job pool (as we see in Denmark). So that the man selling you tickets at the train station is competent, civil, and literate. As far as I know these are the only arguments we can make.

* That minimum wage increases demand for family run businesses at the low end to skirt minimum wages and this tends to increase the number of ‘artificially small’ businesses that plague most of the world. The first world latin countries are notorious for having followed these policies and created two economies. the third world cannot produce organizations of scale for these reasons. And the social, economic, and political consequences of providing nepotistic rather than meritocratic organizations are profound.

* That these small businesses, (as we see with asian-immigrant businesses in particular) because they incentivize nepotistic business, **skirt both minimum wage laws and taxes** (why they don’t accept credit cards).

* That it** raises the cost of entry** into the market for businesses at the low end, and decreases the development of the primary means of obtaining financial independence: small business entrepreneurship. And worse, that small business entrepreneurs carry a disproportionate amount of the country’s economic risk – for which they are not compensated in tax leniency.

* That it **lowers the rate of rotation** of people out of minimum wage jobs – the purpose of which is nothing other than to train entrants to participate in the economy. Minimum wage jobs function as paid apprenticeships, where in most of history, apprenticeship functioned as very near indentured servitude.

* That while there is evidence that raising the minimum wage does put more money in people’s hands, **it’s distortive to prices,** and contrary to public moral and political intuition, we would be far better off with direct monetary redistribution than minimum wage increases – and that we are simply technologically backward in forcing businesses to act as agents.

* that while there is evidence that raising the minimum wage does put more money in people’s hands – albeit with negative consequence – but that there is equal evidence that raising the minimum wage such that entry level (unskilled labor) is no longer a paid apprenticeship, that because the lifetime window for entry into the job market is fairly short, that we **create permanently unemployable classes**, and the economic, political, and social consequences of creating permanently unemployable classes. In america, as is the human standard, we have about three percent of the population that is unemployable because they are psychologically intolerable. We have an offensive percent of the population that consists of ex-convicts, we have imported a vast number of third worlders who caused employment displacement at the bottom (youth) and top (older citizens). This increases poverty among the young and old.

* there is equal evidence that we **create hazards with profound external consequences (longer term costs) **in that we provide malincentives to immigrate, and each underclass person we immigrate plus the inflation necessary to create the illusion of employment, plus the capture in taxes of all wealth created by the addition of women to the workforce, plus the destruction of the family and expansion of households, explains where all our productivity has gone: to the subsidy of that which is bad for us. (Northern europe was eugenic for over a thousand years, and the church created dead capital everywhere. So when we imported northern europeans we were importing dead capital and putting it into motion. When we bring in the third world we are not bringing in capital that can be put into motion, but sunk normative political and economic costs. We have gone from importing middle classes (protestants), to importing working classes (catholics), to importing underclasses (third worlders).

That you get more of whatever you subsidize, and each school seeks to subsidize what they consider a good.

**Conservative** – Families, Virtues, Commons, Excellences),

**Libertarian/Classical Liberal** – Opportunities and Insurance.

**Leftist/Socialist/Social Democrat** – Consumption.

But we get more of whatever it is we solve for, which is whatever we measure, which includes the externalities we do not solve for. The only ‘honest’ left economist I’ve found is Karl Smith, and his (correct) presumption is that we are all gambling on futures. The conservatives gamble against risk and pushing costs down the timeline. The left gambles in favor of opportunity and to push costs down the timeline. And the Libertarian/Classical Liberal seeks to gamble only with what we can be sure we will obtain returns upon, without externalizing costs to the future.

At present, all of this is lost both inside the discipline, and outside of it. And the vox populi are just confused. As far as I know, the conservatives and classicals are right, and the left is the worst thing to happen to humanity since marx, who was the worst thing to happen to humanity since the Abrahamic counter-enlightenment.

You get what you measure, and cherry picking consumption is just pseudoscience, if not outright fraud.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

**Commentary**

If you haven’t been to France, outside of the center of Paris (like Vienna) where the very rich live, the Isle de’ France, is a donut shaped slum twenty miles across. Just like Los Angeles is largely a seventy mile long slum. Many french cities are as collapsed as Hartford, Baltimore, Detroit, St Louis, and Oakland – and europeans are much poorer in discretionary spending than we are in the first place – and it is spreading to Germany.

Our world is much larger (more populous) and economically diverse than the ancient world. So while the bronze age collapse ended all of the first generation of civilizations, and the Abrahamic age collapse ended the mediterranean civilizations but left china and india alone, in the current era, the Modern age, cities are collapsing one at a time, states one at a time, but almost as quickly as they did in prior eras.

Russia collapsed in weeks. Rome largely collapsed in months but systematically over seventy years. And all civilizations collapse for the same reason: overconsumption without sufficient retained capital to adjust to and reorganize in the face of biological (Justinian Plague), Demographic (barbarian invasions), environmental (south american drought), and trade-route shocks (most of central eurasia).

The leftist looks at today and tomorrow, the libertarian his lifetime, and the conservative across the centuries.

And the markets for reciprocity under rule of law are the only possible means by which we calculate what is in our mutual intersets, rather than making pseudoscientific arguments to advance our class interests.

The evidence exists, however, the causes are more obvious: 1) **the size of the underclasses. **and **2) neotonic(pedomorphic) evolution – meaning the retention of childhood features, **and 3)** transfer of female verbal acuity to males because of pedomorphic evolution.**

Cold Climates, Agrarianism, Manorialism, and the raw Capital Costs of Tools (metals) needed to survive in those conditions, in addition to the aggressive hanging of the underclasses for more than a thousand years, allowed both upward redistribution of calories and reproduction, and the downward population of labor by the middle genetic classes.

So by the time of the industrial revolution (if not the literacy revolution) europe (and west asia) had vast stores of underutilized human capital. However, both had to break free of the church and the bureaucracy which had made the vast majority of capital “dead” (static) and in support of rent seeking (church bureaucracy and chinese imperial bureaucracy).

For the rest of the world, they have been unsuccessful at one or both of two factors: either (a) decimating the underclasses, and (b) developing deflationary grammars (methods) in the sequence math, logics, reason, empirical law (tort), and science.

West europeans and east asians and ashkenazi were able to limit the size of their underclasses and to force upward redistribution of reproduction. East asians have the highest Neoteny, West Europeans, and then Ashkenazi. And less visible testosterone levels to equal more visible morphology(features).

This is the primary difference between the races and subraces: Degree of neoteny, and distribution of male and female traits (brain structures) between the genders. Strangely enough, in the Ashkenazi they have nearly reversed it. Which is why they have such exceptional verbal (if not spatial) skills.

So that’s the state of the science as I understand it.

in other words, the greatest material differences are driven by the size of the underclasses, and therefore the median distribution in the gene pool, and therefore the language, norms, traditions, and institutions necessary or the persistence of such a gene pool with such a distribution.

All of this is very simple. The marxist-postmodernist-feminist attempt at the second dark age – this time of pseudoscience – just made us lose a century and a half to their deceptions.

–“QUESTION: Are Italians European?”—(a follower)

This is one of those ethnic questions that’s misleading. Because it confuses the modern state of italy, with the italian peninsula with the people who live there, which include french, swiss german, german, austrian, northern italian (germanic), and southern italian (mediterranean and greek).

Southern italians (especially from Naples south) are of greek and anatolian origins. Northern Italians whether very early (Etru) , Italian (Ital), or later ‘invaders) Germanic) are all of Danubian (Germanic) origins. People of Sardinia are the remainders of the earliest europeans. People of Sicily are a blend of pretty much everyone in the ancient world, because Sicily was an extremely important port for transporting goods around the mediterranean using the sailing technology available in the ancient world.

**General Rule of Thumb: **

If you work at it a bit you can pretty easily identify almost anyone’s tribal origins.

Black hair and ‘swarthy” complexion and body hair = South route around the black sea = Anatolian/Eastern-Mediterranean/ Indo-Iranian. Or as I am often corrected “West Eurasians” (or middle easterners)

Brown, Red, Blonde hair, very white complexion = Northern route around the Black Sea. Northern route people still exist in at least three if not four variations: atlantics, germanics (central europe), nordics, and northern and eastern slavs. The history of southern slavs is extremely complicated and I end up offending someone if I talk about it. But by and large they vary from very old peoples who started metalsmithing in what is today Bulgaria, to the remains of the steppe people who migrated there during the last major migration periods. The problem is that the spanish are largely from Atlantic and Celts and often have dark hair but are from the same lineage (R1b) – just less inbred with later versions of europeans.

Something ‘very different’ happened around the black sea either before or after the deluge. we don’t know what but it caused repeated waves of expansion with the latest being the Yamna (horse) people what gave europe her ancient culture = although pre-yamna, yamna, germanic, christian, and modern values still exist if you understand which originated which set of ideas.

But europeans, in general, regardless of earlier (southern), or later (multiple waves of northern), origins, evolve from what we (incorrectly) call ‘Caucuses’, but is apparently poland-ukraine-southern russia, with the caucuses the line of demarcation between the european, indo-iranian, and (now extinct) people that invaded india.

The word Aryan is correct (Yamna expansion), but impolitic in the current century, and “White” is a poor substitute for Ethnic Europeans.

We are, after all, all from the exceptional grazing and farmland between the north sea in poland, the black sea in ukraine, and the north of the caspian in southern russia.

Europeans originated along the north sea, baltic sea, black sea, and caspian sea, and their russo finnic ancestors the arctic sea.

It’s just that trade in the mediterranean was much more profitable for anyone – until the atlantic and now pacific came along.

Some of us find it ironic that Poland is probably origin of the european diaspora. 😉

Italy empirically (by all measures) consists of two very different countries – north and south. Just like Belgium has french and germanic under the same state. Just as americans have nine different cultures under the same state.

The reason different countries do not separate is that it is economically disadvantagous to one party or both parties.

For example, catalonia (wealthy and culturally and genetically different) vs spain (poor), and north italy vs south italy, and west ukraine vs east ukraine. and the northern states vs the southern states vs the plains states, vs the coastal west (ecotopia). Or canada vs quebec.

All of these countries would be better off alone, but the industrial revolution and fiat credit made it difficult for small counteries to engage in defense.

Today, a handful of nuclear weapons and an armed populace (switzerland) cna preserve independence (sovereignty) against any and everyone.

**Therefore:**

Italian = State (government)

North italian and South Italian Countries (natural cultural and territorial differences)

Italian Culture = Generally referring to language and diet and festivals

Italy = a territory ranging from the alps to the tip of the peninsula.

Ethnicity = European, vs Germanic vs Greek, vs Mediterranean are Ethnic Groups. Germanic = a prehistoric culture and myth of the home and hearth.

Christianity = an old world mythology and literature of politics.

Modernity = The enlightenment restoration of our ancient judicial, empirical, stoic and Aristotelian traditions.

Three or four races. A handful of subraces. Thirty or so minor subraces. A few hundred super-tribes.

Humans are endlessly fascinating. 😉

Fact: A disturbing number of perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on – or just recently coming off of – psychiatric medications. A few of the most high-profile examples, out of many others, include:

Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox – like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of antidepressant drug called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs. Harris and fellow student Dylan Klebold went on a hellish school shooting rampage in 1999 during which they killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before turning their guns on themselves. Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short-term controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of children and youth taking Luvox – that’s one in 25 – developed mania, a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion.

Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, California, in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban “semiautomatic assault weapons” in California and the nation. The 25-year-old Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine.

Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Oregon, and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin.

In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Illinois, killing one child and wounding six. She had been taking the antidepressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used to treat mania.

In Paducah, Kentucky, in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the school’s lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin.

In 2005, 16-year-old Jeff Weise, living on Minnesota’s Red Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself. Weise had been taking Prozac.

In another famous case, 47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Kentucky, killing nine. Prozac-maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit brought by survivors.

Kurt Danysh, 18, shot his own father to death in 1996, a little more than two weeks after starting on Prozac. Danysh’s description of own his mental-emotional state at the time of the murder is chilling: “I didn’t realize I did it until after it was done,” Danysh said. “This might sound weird, but it felt like I had no control of what I was doing, like I was left there just holding a gun.”

John Hinckley, age 25, took four Valium two hours before shooting and almost killing President Ronald Reagan in 1981. In the assassination attempt, Hinckley also wounded press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and policeman Thomas Delahanty.

Andrea Yates, in one of the most heartrending crimes in modern history, drowned all five of her children – aged 7 years down to 6 months – in a bathtub. Insisting inner voices commanded her to kill her children, she had become increasingly psychotic over the course of several years. At her 2006 murder re-trial (after a 2002 guilty verdict was overturned on appeal), Yates’ longtime friend Debbie Holmes testified: “She asked me if I thought Satan could read her mind and if I believed in demon possession.” And Dr. George Ringholz, after evaluating Yates for two days, recounted an experience she had after the birth of her first child: “What she described was feeling a presence … Satan … telling her to take a knife and stab her son Noah,” Ringholz said, adding that Yates’ delusion at the time of the bathtub murders was not only that she had to kill her children to save them, but that Satan had entered her and that she had to be executed in order to kill Satan.Yates had been taking the antidepressant Effexor. In November 2005, more than four years after Yates drowned her children, Effexor manufacturer Wyeth Pharmaceuticals quietly added “homicidal ideation” to the drug’s list of “rare adverse events.” The Medical Accountability Network, a private nonprofit focused on medical ethics issues, publicly criticized Wyeth, saying Effexor’s “homicidal ideation” risk wasn’t well publicized and that Wyeth failed to send letters to doctors or issue warning labels announcing the change.And what exactly does “rare” mean in the phrase “rare adverse events”? The FDA defines it as occurring in less than one in 1,000 people. But since that same year 19.2 million prescriptions for Effexor were filled in the U.S., statistically that means thousands of Americans might experience “homicidal ideation” – murderous thoughts – as a result of taking just this one brand of antidepressant drug. Effexor is Wyeth’s best-selling drug, by the way, which in one recent year brought in over $3 billion in sales, accounting for almost a fifth of the company’s annual revenues.

One more case is instructive, that of 12-year-old Christopher Pittman, who struggled in court to explain why he murdered his grandparents, who had provided the only love and stability he’d ever known in his turbulent life. “When I was lying in my bed that night,” he testified, “I couldn’t sleep because my voice in my head kept echoing through my mind telling me to kill them.” Christopher had been angry with his grandfather, who had disciplined him earlier that day for hurting another student during a fight on the school bus. So later that night, he shot both of his grandparents in the head with a .410 shotgun as they slept and then burned down their South Carolina home, where he had lived with them. “I got up, got the gun, and I went upstairs and I pulled the trigger,” he recalled. “Through the whole thing, it was like watching your favorite TV show. You know what is going to happen, but you can’t do anything to stop it.” Pittman’s lawyers would later argue that the boy had been a victim of “involuntary intoxication,” since his doctors had him taking the antidepressants Paxil and Zoloft just prior to the murders.

Paxil-TWPaxil’s known “adverse drug reactions” – according to the drug’s FDA-approved label – include “mania,” “insomnia,” “anxiety,” “agitation,” “confusion,” “amnesia,” “depression,” “paranoid reaction,” “psychosis,” “hostility,” “delirium,” “hallucinations,” “abnormal thinking,” “depersonalization” and “lack of emotion,” among others. The preceding examples are only a few of the best-known offenders who had been taking prescribed psychiatric drugs before committing their violent crimes – there are many others.

Whether we like to admit it or not, it is undeniable that when certain people living on the edge of sanity take psychiatric medications, those drugs can – and occasionally do – push them over the edge into violent madness. Remember, every single SSRI antidepressant sold in the United States of America today, no matter what brand or manufacturer, bears a “black box” FDA warning label – the government’s most serious drug warning – of “increased risks of suicidal thinking and behavior, known as suicidality, in young adults ages 18 to 24.” Common sense tells us that where there are suicidal thoughts – especially in a very, very angry person – homicidal thoughts may not be far behind. Indeed, the mass shooters we are describing often take their own lives when the police show up, having planned their suicide ahead of time.

Never lost a lawsuit

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are understandably nervous about publicity connecting their highly lucrative drugs to murderous violence, which may be why we rarely if ever hear any confirmation to those first-day reports from grief-stricken relatives who confide to journalists that the perpetrator was taking psychiatric drugs. After all, who are by far the biggest sponsors of TV news? Pharmaceutical companies, and they don’t want any free publicity of this sort.

The truth is, to avoid costly settlements and public relations catastrophes – such as when GlaxoSmithKline was ordered to pay millions of dollars to the family of 60-year-old Donald Schell who murdered his wife, daughter and granddaughter in a fit of rage shortly after starting on Paxil – drug companies’ legal teams have quietly and skillfully settled hundreds of cases out-of-court, shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars to plaintiffs. Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly fought scores of legal claims against Prozac in this way, settling for cash before the complaint could go to court while stipulating that the settlement remain secret – and then claiming it had never lost a Prozac lawsuit.

Which brings us back to the key question: When are we going to get official confirmation as to whether Nikolas Cruz, like so many other mass shooters, had been taking psychiatric drugs?

—“Can you have reason without logic, and language without placeholder/tautology?”–Dmitry Chernov

We conflate the terms a great deal, but reasoning consists of both wayfinding (via positiva free association ) and what we call ‘logicAL’ operations (via negativa dissassociations) that test constant relations between states.

But if we are to avoid conflation, reasoning consists of informal free association and dis-association (dissociation), while the LOGICS consist of formal grammars by which we perform via negativa disassociations by tests (falsifications) of associations (constant relations).

A grammar consists of rules (patterns really) of continuous disambiguation. The logics study and catalog subsets of constant relations (dimensions) such as time.

When we ask, can we have language without referrents (Names) – well, we are capable of non-liguistic reasoning so yes. And we are capable of sign language. but we must have a grammar in both cases to communicate.

And as for ‘natural grammar’ that appears to be nothing more than the same thing neurons do in large numbers: associate and disassociate by a process of continuous disambiguation (category formation) and the recursive differences in state as we ponder it.

–Does Wittgenstein’s conclusion on the omnipotence paradoxes put an end to them?—

Wittgenstein did not solve the problem that he sought to, Frege thru Kripke and the followers of Turing (meaning Chomsky) did.

(a) there exist no paradoxes, only the application of the rules of formal (deflationary) grammars to colloquial (suggestive) and inflationary (fictional) speech. In other words, there exist no paradoxes that are not simply incomplete sentences (transactions).

(b) wittgenstein and russell are correct: in the end, the investment in logic has been a waste of time. It’s nothing but tautology. Because we cannot use the logic of constant semantic relations (language) as we do the logic of constant positional relations (mathematics) to produce proofs. And the Intuitionists were correct: We cannot even do so in mathematics. So what the logics allow us to do is falsify statements, but not prove statements.

Conspiracy theory? No. Women don’t act differently from men because they conspire, but becauset hey evolved to act as they do out of necessity.

The same is true of different groups who have adopted some variation of the masculine to feminine group evolutionary strategy.

disapproval, shame, ridicule, gossip, and propaganda.

The female reproductive strategy.

by Gabriel Schmeiske Laport

Europe’s achievement was despite Christianity, not as a result of it.

Christianity hasn’t preserved, its has subverted, annexed, appropriated in the real sense European culture, into the failing amalgam we see in the Catholicism.

That’s a fact, and that’s slowly and steadily emerging. From far earlier times, prior to current narratives, as far back as the church scholars themselves such as the Culdeans, but notably since the epoch of L. A. Waddell and co.

To attempt to imply this is a narrative, rooted in a desire to rewrite history in a manner which portraits Pre-Abrahamic Europe favorably for the purpose of ideological propaganda is laughable.

Furthermore it’s blatant projection. The historical orthodoxy, which cherry picks from accounts, engages in nepotism, and restricts access, has launched numerous outrageous campaigns of slander, censorship and vandalism to paint a certain historians and their findings as a malicious and subversive. It’s ended numerous careers and even lives. It’s used every fallacious device to sustain itself to this day – from every ivory tower (((Uni)))versity – as a hegemon of History.

That’s the problem here, that’s why it’s become unpopular and that’s why ultimately, truth is being outed, but I digress.

Truth against the world.

Mythical decidability is more influential at the bottom and scientific more at the top.

—“And it is the view, or, at least Curt’s view, because I do not know your views, that Abrahamism has been harmful to Europe. I suppose the palingenetic undercurrent here is that a new history of European greatness must be crafted independently of Ahraminic influences.”—

This is what I struggle with. While (a) the propertarian program is quite simple: truth produces trust and prosperity (b) one encounters a cavalcade of JUSTIFICATIONARY historical narratives to make excuses for fictionalisms. So how does one combat a justificationary narrative that claims to be empirical, without an equal empirical narrative.

European excellence and east asian excellence are simply facts as far as I can tell. But as I’ve stated repeatedly, they are facts that are the product of geographical advantage and insulation from the competition in the ‘center’.

But we cannot choose those things. We can choose between truth and fiction. We can choose the next era’s narrative.

But – the age old question – how do you teach people during a time of transition that novel truth is better than traditional fictionalism without a history or mythology to contain it?

Unconscious decidability (is necessary the larger the population grows). The grammar of story (analogy, mythology) is the broadest grammar and semantics available to us.

Is the tragedy of achilles (the aristocratic warrior masculine hero defending property over the chaos of reality) or the tragedy of jesus (the underclass priestly feminine hero in reaction to the control of property by the aristocracy) a better monopoly myth, or are they faces of the “Janus” of the eternal competition between the strategies of the sexes? And then how does each limit the other? Are these the faces last archetypes, and is competition as calculation (compromise by trade) the ultimate archetype instead? (which is my view).

Or is the individual actor (Achilles, Jesus) a problem in itself, and are FAMILIES the superior archetypal narrative that provides us with unconscious decidability? In my view families rather than the individual serve as the instrument of policy, while law serves as the instrument of individual limitation. So I prefer a hierarchical pagan world (saints and kings) for the simple reason that it avoids the problems of monopoly.

Now, add to the problem, that every group has an evolutionary strategy, and uses it to work together whether moral or not. Every group has a ‘superiority’ wing. And must for it to survive competition with other group.

Science has advanced, and social science not, for the simple reason that juridical (scientific) truth would punish the underclasses, women and the priests, to the benefit of the burgers, engineers, and the warriors.

and we are in an era (democracy) where gossip – the weapon of women and priests, is powerful – powerful enough to bring about another dark age.

For no other reason than that we have not yet suppressed falsehood in information as we have in goods and services.

Anyway.

I feel caught between Law and Truth on one hand and Myth and HIstory on the other, and it always seems like transcendence between stages requires both.

It never occurs to anyone that the school environment and the propaganda environment and the anti-male environment, and the lack of exercise, lack of positive expression of competition and domination is the problem.

in other words, it never occurs to anyone that ‘equality’ or ‘sameness’ and integration of the genders is a bad thing.

European cultures are far less tolerant than we are. And we are too tolerant. And we are too tolerant so that (((certain peoples))) can express their group evolutionary strategy.

And this is the result

William L. Benge

Unwarrantable positions are not punishable if they are not materialized into the commons. Personally held opinions which cannot be constructed into a viable argument or claim are either premature or presumption.

We can take from this the true nature of the popular habit of airing one’s opinion to peers: infantilism by gossip.

Now, OTOH, if a group of persons is exploring a matter then contributions are transmitted and received by the same discretion (reciprocity).

But these transmissions do not reach the level of published theory, or declared truth-claim. They’re exploratory. Many errors must be presented in the process of singling out the least erroneous, for the one most truthful.

This discretion cannot be granted to a party declaring a truth-claim.

It must be warranted.

(BAM!)

Information. Decidability. Due Diligence. Testimony.

TRUTH

4) Tautology exists (and can only exist) two statements that are identical in informational content for a given precision (context). Meaning closure of the constant relations between states (statements).

3) Truth (Analytic Truth) exists (and can only exist) as a definition of a Truthful statement that is informationally complete (closed). Analytic truths are tautological, with the difference between tautological, and tautology, being deductive necessity. (due to constant relations between states).

2) Truthfulness (Scientific) exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one has performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit in one’s testimony in all the dimensions of possible constant relations.

1) Honesty exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit – but not free of imagination, ignorance, bias, and error.

DIMENSIONS WE CAN PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST

1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point)

2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line)

3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object)

4 – operational possibility – (equivalent of change [operations])

5 – rational choice (volition) – (equivalent of time)

6 – reciprocity (ethics, morality) (equivalent of equilibrium)

7 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof)

MATHEMATICAL DEFINITIONS OF DIMENSIONS

1 – point, (identity, or correspondence)

2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points)

3 – area (defined by constant relations)

4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations)

5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations)

6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas))

7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations)

8 – reality (or totality) (full causal density)

GRAMMARS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS (LOGICS) FOR THE DIMENSIONS

We can speak in descriptions including (at least):

1 – operational (true) names

2 – mathematics (ratios)

3 – logic (sets)

4 – physics (operations)

5 – Law (reciprocity)

6 – History (memory)

7 – Literature (allegory (possible))

8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible )

8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory)

8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory)

8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature)

8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory)

8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory )

INFORMATION

Sets of constant relations between states (all facts must exist within the context of a theory (rules of states).

CONSTANT RELATIONS

Constant Change and Constant persistence, of Constant relations between states (time).

RELATIONS

Memory, and mind consists of a hierarchy of neurons that constitute a neural economy, that rewards constant relations, and starves inconstant relations.

In other words, given that all testimony depends upon incomplete knowledge (a subset of reality), and that all general rules of arbitrary precision are of necessity incomplete, then testimony and therefore law is flasificationary, logics are falsificationary, not justificationary.

Truth exists only as performative via-negativa warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias and deceit. However, a proof constitutes nothing other than possibility (survival from verbal prosecution).

Too much for this audience but maybe it will give you ideas.

ie: constant relations > logic(internal consistency) > math science(measurement -ratio-consistency) > physics(empiricism) > law(testimony) > economics (resources) > group evolutionary strategy (utility) > Philosophy (choice)

You don’t understand. I CAN’T BE WRONG.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

—” But, What about ethics? What about existentialism?”—

Ethics (direct) and Morality (indirect) consists of nothing more than reciprocity. ( Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer independent of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. ie:the continuous incremental expansion of tort).

And unethical and immoral action violates reciprocity (the same rule).

Or put more traditionally, the Silver Rule correctly defines ethics and morality. However, since the optimum game strategy is exhaustive investment (not boundless, but exhaustive) in opportunity for cooperation (thats the science), then the Golden Rule (which is secondary to the silver rule) increases the overall condition (productivity of cooperation).

As we innovate in both moral and immoral actions, we increase the suppression of immoral actions through the empirical discovery of them in conflicts (tort).

Unfortunately, law like norms, tends to lag, and lags more the more governments …. interfere…. with tort law (empirical) discovery and suppression of criminal, unethical, and immoral actions.

And worse, while norms usually make their way into legislation or command, (not necessarily tort), the effect of norms is increased by homogeneity and decreased by heterogeneity.

Moreover, group evolutionary strategy (moral and immoral both) sometimes requires or advances both ethical/moral, and unethical/immoral behavior, which results in norms that institutionalize unethical and immoral behavior. (Gypsies for example).

Anyway. Ethics and morality were an empirical not philosophical discovery. FIctionalisms to choose to invest in different strategies by which we create opportunities were the discovery.

Or said more simply: the primary challenge has been the christian one: the extensino of kinship love to non-kin (or at least near kin), but by personal rather than political means.

The principle issue with ethics and morality is that in the age of fiat currency we have substituted state insurance for interpersonal extensions, and in doing so eliminated the ability to test for exhaustion vs rent seeking. And the consequences are pretty obvious to the student of history.

I think the only questions left to philosophy are aesthetic (individual preferences) and strategies (group goods).

Science (Truth) is falsificationary (survival in the evolutionary markets for criticism). But anything that is not false, and not unethical/immoral is a candidate preferential, ethical, and moral good.

However, since time and resources are not infinite, we must rally one another around preferences, strategies, and goods. And while we may state them truthfully (operationally), or fictionally (allegorically), they are not matters of truth but of good or preference.

And this is, as far as I am able to determine, the role left to philosophy: choice. Truth is and has probably always been, the purvey of what we call ‘science’, or what I would call ‘testimony’.

Ethics (direct) and Morality (indirect) consists of nothing more than reciprocity. ( Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer independent of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. ie:the continuous incremental expansion of tort).

And unethical and immoral action violates reciprocity (the same rule).

Or put more traditionally, the Silver Rule correctly defines ethics and morality. However, since the optimum game strategy is exhaustive investment (not boundless, but exhaustive) in opportunity for cooperation (thats the science), then the Golden Rule (which is secondary to the silver rule) increases the overall condition (productivity of cooperation).

As we innovate in both moral and immoral actions, we increase the suppression of immoral actions through the empirical discovery of them in conflicts (tort).

Unfortunately, law like norms, tends to lag, and lags more the more governments …. interfere…. with tort law (empirical) discovery and suppression of criminal, unethical, and immoral actions.

And worse, while norms usually make their way into legislation or command, (not necessarily tort), the effect of norms is increased by homogeneity and decreased by heterogeneity.

Moreover, group evolutionary strategy (moral and immoral both) sometimes requires or advances both ethical/moral, and unethical/immoral behavior, which results in norms that institutionalize unethical and immoral behavior. (Gypsies for example).

Anyway. Ethics and morality were an empirical not philosophical discovery. FIctionalisms to choose to invest in different strategies by which we create opportunities were the discovery.

Or said more simply: the primary challenge has been the christian one: the extensino of kinship love to non-kin (or at least near kin), but by personal rather than political means.

The principle issue with ethics and morality is that in the age of fiat currency we have substituted state insurance for interpersonal extensions, and in doing so eliminated the ability to test for exhaustion vs rent seeking. And the consequences are pretty obvious to the student of history.

Evolution preserves cheaters to keep moral people honest. Unfortunately we invented fiction, abrahamism, rationalism, pseudoscience, denial, and deceit, just as fast as we developed productive cooperation.

We aren’t less thieving as our ancestors, we just do it at increasing arm’s length.

I’ve lost my interest in exotics – they draw all the wrong kind of attention, and they say the wrong thing. I’ll stick with the Boxster-S/Cayman, which gives you all the fun and experience you can possibly need.

That said, the Jaguar F, Aston Martin Vanquish, and now that Ferrari has finally given up on (that piece of sh-eye’-t) california and introduced the Portofino, you can sort of pick the quadrant you want between the Cayman, f-type, Aston and Ferrari.

That’s a long (very Propertarian series) way of saying that it’s nice that ferrari finally made a good choice, even if it took them longer than everyone else.

No one gives a s–t about supercars-cum-racecars now. They are undrivable, and smell of nouveau riche underclasses.

Our market instincts are running to cocoon sedans for the highway and bugout SUV’s. 😉

Keeping the unwashed masses from touching us.

Reciprocity. I have just as much right to be crazy as anyone else.

lol. 😉

Again.

1 – Generation One: The Yamna, Law, Bronze, Wheel, steel and Paternalism Enlightenment

–vs–

The first Counter Enlightenment: Religion and Mythology > causing The indo-iranian-european divide. (See Hamilton)

2 -Generation Two: The Pythagorean, Socratic, Aristotelian, and Zeno Rational Enlightenment,

–vs–

The Second Counter Enlightenment: Scripture > Pilpul > Abrahamism (Judaism > Christianity > Islam) > The Dark Ages.

3 – Generation Three: The Bacon, Newton, Locke, Smith, Hume, Empirical Enlightenment

–vs—

The Third Counter-Enlightenment: Rousseau, Kant and the Continentals – The French counter enlightenment and Napoleonic conquests.

4 – Generation Four: The Poincare, Maxwell, Dawin, Menger, Weber-Pareto-Durkheim, Spencer, Nietzsche, Second Scientific Revolution,

–vs–Generation Four’s Counter Enlightenment: Marx /Freud /Cantor /Mises /Frankfurt (pseudoscience) and it’s heresy: Postmodernism (“there is no truth”) Causing the loss of the 20th century western civilization.

Meanwhile Tort law, Markets, Technology, and Science falsify the “Priesthood’s Deceits”.

The only social science is tort.

Albeit slowly. We win.

Our truth is more expensive and slower than your lies.

We call that high cost: empiricism.

Correct. About 20k for morphology, and about 5-8k for skin and hair, and about 4-5000 for the most recent expansion, with Poland-Ukraine-russians being the least outbred, except for northern russians who have a significant finnic (western polar) component.

Studying East asians is extremely interesting – parallels are unmistakable.

If a civilization (race, subrace, tribes) went thru the meatgrinder of ice age hunter gathering and winter farming, they lost their underclasses. If they went thru manorialism they are left with only middle classes.

Downward redistribution of reproduction in both far east and far west.

Um. I’m pro natural law; pro my people; pro humanity; and pro transcendence; Yes, I will dig on genetic differences, biological differences, genetic differences, cultural differences, class, gender, and racial differences. Yes I will make objective analysis of the those differences. I will work to destroy the cherished lies of every race, civilization, culture, nation, tribe, and class. And I will crush those lies with some sense of both desperation, conviction and joy.

But I don’t do racism. I hate on parasitism, predation, and the use of fictionalism to justify it. But I don’t hate on people. I fault my people for not using their superiority to defend against the group evolutionary strategies of other groups. I fault my people for failing to rule and rule well. I fault my people for intellectual folly and dishonesty.

I advocate nationalism, tribalism, and natural law of reciprocity and markets in everything for all human beings. And as many nations as it takes to transcend all humans through the gradual improvement of all and the gradual reduction of the underclasses that prohibit our transcendence.

I don’t like hating on people. It’s not Christian and therefore not European. And not even Aryan. The beauty of christianity is that it seeks to extirpate all hatred from the human heart. And once extirpated we are free to use reason, with clear minds and clear judgement.

I have no problem with war, murder, violence and destruction. i have no problem with rule, punishment, and if necessary incarceration or enslavement.

I have a problem with hatred. A problem with deception. And a problem with any order other than the laws of nature, the natural law of reciprocity, and the transcendence of man.

Curt Doolittle

The Natural Law of Reciprocity

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

Any man who will fight with me to advance the interests of his kin, without imposing costs upon mine, and visa versa, is a brother in arms against the abrahamic underclass counter-enlightenment.

Let a thousand nations bloom.

—“Just like ‘intelligent design’ vs ‘evolution’ …. why limit yourself to just one?”— Tristan Roberts

“Truth vs Lie, That is why.”

The universe is deterministic in that it consists of invariant and therefore non-discretionary rules. Intention of any kind requires discretion.

As far as I know the universe consist of a single something in different stages of excitement, the combination of which produces.

One is existential (descriptive), and the other is a fiction (analogy). One is possible (permutations on frequencies), and one isimpossible (cognition would need to arise from ‘somewhere else’ other than the deterministic consequences of the universe itself.

Even the periodic exterminations on the planet are the result of passing thru the higher density of the galactic median.

The primary advancement in all human thought is to replace our intuition of discretion with mere determinism of constitution.

But people want their comforting lies for very obvious reasons.

via Simon:

Well, I agree with Curt, but not always with Curt’s terminology.

– Mycenaean Greeks can be modeled as Minoan + Bronze Age North European, particularly of the Srubnaya/Sintashta variety, which surprises nobody since the Graeco-Armenian language family has been previously associated with the Babyno culture of Ukraine, preceding the Srubnaya culture. Quite possibly these tribes were thrust southward into the Balkans, the Aegean and across the Bosphorus aided by the newly invented light chariot (the same way its contrivers were thrust southward into Central Asia, the Iranian plateau and the Indus valley).

– Modern Greeks are significantly more North European than the Mycenaeans which could be indicative of introgression of Slavs or other peoples into the Greek gene pool, or that the Greek population was simply leveled to a stable equilibrium of proto-Hellenic and Pelasgian (“Minoan”) genetic structure as time passed. Like Alexander said we don’t have any male elite samples (which is outrageous in the context).

– Hitler is vindicated to the extent that the primordial tribal origins of the ancient Greeks were among genetically modern North Europeans, as were of course the Indo-European component of the Hellenic language and culture. The Mycenaean samples to date however, like the Minoans, were most similar to modern South Italians (not Levantines — that’s really a bunch of dishonest self-flattery on Taleb’s account).

– Let’s not refer to all of the Near Eastern macro-cluster as ‘Iranians’. In keeping with the lingo of contemporary genetic literature I recommend using the term ‘West Eurasians’ for all Caucasoids, subdivided into ‘West Asians’ and ‘Europeans’. The first modern North Europeans spoke PIE dialects ancestral to all known IE language except Tocharian and Anatolian, and are referred to as Europe_LNBA in literature.

– A final point to remember is that the corpus of West Eurasians didn’t all emerge and diversify from a common ur-Caucasian stem, but are the result of highly differentiated populations (equivalent to the difference between Swedes and Han Chinese) growing together as a result of major demographic events; principally the Neolithic Revolution and the Indo-European migrations.

I expect to get banned from Salon today. 😉

Truth is not desirable.

I was educated to write about art, literature, and philosophy every day. But I like women, money, business, technology, competition too much to be a poor starving artist.

I won the Anna Ball Pierce Scholarship twice I think. Which was the faculty’s award to the person most likely to become a successful working artist.

But both physics and art present one with significant challenges: one must beg lifelong for capital.

Entrepreneurs make capital.

Warriors make kingdoms

And a kingdom is the highest Art.

Man as Fictionalist, Jesus as Philosopher, Aristotle as Scientist

Man creates the narrative god in order to produce an authority figure who is an arbitrator between different preferences and customs. We invented custom before religion, and religion before law, and law before science. This narrative takes advantage of a quirk in human psychology that seeks to avoid blame. So neither party in an exchange dominates the other and no party seeks to retaliate against the other, because both are adhering to the demands of an ‘alpha’ ruler.

Again, God Narratives take advantage of a quirk in our social instincts.

The problem is, we have passed through mystical, supernatural, theological, rational, legal, and now scientific phases.

And there is no reason to fail to pay the cost of teaching us to circumvent that quirk than there is to fail the cost of teaching reading, math, and reason.

WHITE SKIN IS NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ADVANTAGE. (Asian Is)

(from an article on salon)It’s not an evolutionary advantage. It’s a REPRODUCTIVE ADVANTAGE. Symmetry, Neoteny, and Aquiline features are a reproductive advantage. Whites and east asians have (a) higher distributions of neotonic evolution (and hence personality traits, and hence IQ which is the dominant personality trait). Lower rates and depth of sexual maturity (neoteny) produce social behaviors that are an evolutionary advantage in the development of technologies by which to defeat others.

We all can ascend. our best in every tribe, nation and race can transcend.

It is our underclasses that burden us and others.

(from an article on Salon)

(a) White Supremacism – like Jewish supremacism, Russian Supremacism, Muslim Supremacism, Hindu Supremacism, Chinese Supremacism, and Japanese supremacism, is a demonstration of kin selection. However white supremacism is advocated by our intellectual, scientific, technological, normative, social, and political rates achievement in both the ancient and modern worlds, and our lack of similar rapid advancement in the Abrahamic Dark Age.

(b) We have known that man has continuously whitened in the northern climates for years – just as he has continuously darkened in african climes.

(c) We have known for years the process of ‘whitening’ began 20k years ago – and has been reversing since white people internlinked the world through rapid transportation during the age of sail.

(d) We have known for the past few years that the Yamna expansion did not integrate but replaced prior generations of proto europeans with modern european-indo-iranians.

(e) we are discovering through genetic analysis that our superiority is biological: we have succeeded at greater pedomorphic evolution by variation in endocrine expression during in utero, ex utero, and later development, and the lifelong expressions of that pedomorphism – which is why we have lower testosterone, are more tolerant, less clannish, and are the highest trust people on earth, and the only people to develop a high trust, territorial, capital intensive, commons-intensive, civilization. Period.

And all kin groups, whether tribe, nation, or race, seek their superiority as an expression of evolutionary necessity –

without which groups would not identify opportunities to exploit and evolve to seize them.

The Marxist-postmodern pseudo-scientific century is over. Man is no different from any other animal in that breeds express genetic traits. And all we see between abrahamic and western arguments, is the scientific western male evolutionary, and the rhetorical female devolutionary expressions of those genes.

What has happened is that while it has taken seventy years of hard work, despite active suppression of academic research SCIENCE has proven us right, and we are armed with that science. And that is the reason we are winning.

Because western man originated science, and remains scientific if for no other reason than his origins are technological: expansion through the combination of horse, wheel, bronze, language, and truthful (empirical) testimony.

No More Dark Ages. The First Abrahamic equalitarian counter-enlightenment caused a thousand year dark age and so far 500M lives.

The Second Abrahamic Egalitarian Counter-Enlightenment begins with Rousseau, to Kant and the Continental School, to Marx, Freud, Boaz, Cantor, and the Frankfurt School, and back to the french for the Postmodern and Feminist School – with nothing but Counter-evidence, Counter-history, Counter-Truth, Counter-Reason, and outright propagandism and lying.

We will succeed at defeating the Second Abrahamic Dark Age, in its marxist-communist pseudoscientific, postmodern-equalitarian pseudo-rational, and Islamic theological (magical) school.

We will do so by demonstrating our SUPERIORITY in Truth, Reason, Science, Technology, Law, Institutions, Norms, and traditions. Because in the end our tradition is truth and correspondence with reality – and that, and our genes, are our competitive advantage. An advantage unequalled among the tribes, nations, and races.

Curt Doolittle,

The Propertarian Institute,

Kiev Ukraine

(nerd stuff)

OMG I can’t believe how much better working with Vue is than React. Yeah, I have the usual (!#*F) problems with webpack arbitrarily puking without error messages and spending half a day playing sherlock, or randomizing file paths, but by and large, everything I hated about working with React is so much cleaner in Vue. Joy joy. The tech is almost there. Although someone still has to do something about webpack. What a hung of bloated junk. It’s like “Magic Happens”. The whole NPM/Webpack universe is a little too close to the early microsoft days: ‘well, reinstall and it should work’. Argh.

DEFINE “YOU”

If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you?

If I put your dead body in a casket is that you?

If I read your written words, isthat you?

whenever you use the word ‘is’ you are engaged in a self or other deception, because it means “i don’t know how this exists”. When you use the word ‘you’ as referencing the physical body, or ‘you’ as the potential interaction of mind and body, or ‘you’ as the acting interaction between mind and body…. which are you asking?

Because ‘is’ and ‘you’ questions aren’t philosophical questions, their grammatical errors positioned as a pretense of philosophical sophisms.

I consist of the consequences of the continuous operation of my body, and in particular my brain.

the written word consist only of potential experience until

a mind puts it into motion by reading it. the body consists of biomass until a brain causes it to move. A brain consists of reactive nerves, until the that experence we call mind emerges from the continuous persistence of states.

Just as we cannot observe the frames of video, we cannot observe the cycles of changes in state of the mind, and so we ‘average them’ through the persistence of stimuli across cycles.

We do have a sense of self awareness that functions pre-cognitively, and can best be understood as that moment you awake in the dark and are unaware of your circumstances.

It is this awareness of changes in state and like and dislikes that is ‘I’? Well, that is governed by genes. Is that ‘I’? Or am ‘i’ the combination of those genetic biases, that very simple state monitor, or at the other end, am ‘I’ that combination of body and memory in motion that you experience as a set of contsant relations ‘me?’.

To the mentally ill person ‘i’ consists of a body in its current state. To the observer ‘i’ consists of a set of patterns of behavior given the experiences. To others (norm, law), ‘i’ consists of the rights and obligations to the host body.

etc.

Language is actually trivially simple: continuous disambiguation in grammar, and continuous ambiguity in semantics.

The evolutionary problem is achieving in imagination the same level of modeling that we have in body movement.

Once we had complex body movement (our neural density is far higher than other creatures) and complex motion-planning, it was somewhat deterministic that we could gain complex verbal planning.

These problems seem difficult until you work with recursive neural networks long enough. Then the brain is a very simple thing that just far more neural computing power than any of our competing life forms.

An octopus for example, is interesting, because while we have a spine that extends our brain into our body so to speak, the octopus has eight of them, and they do a lot of their own processing the way our heart and lungs do their own processing.

Far too much ‘cheap’ philosophy, not enough ‘expensive’ physics, evolutionary biology, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence.

Learn something substantial.

Philosophy can assist us in determining choice, preferences and goods It is notoriously if not catastrophically faulty at anything we call ‘truth’.

And yes, I have something like 500 posts to move to the website.

First, it’s increasingly obvious that I don’t need the internet to test ideas any longer, or to make arguments. And instead, I use it to socialize or practice. I have a group of friends who are quite good and will shoot holes in my attempts to create aphoristic narratives. But if you want to argue beyond a certain level it’s just not possible in this format.

So fighting the good fight is fun. And giving people arguments to play with is fun. But I see my ideas all over the right and alt right today, so I’ve had the impact I want to there. And I’m more interested in the less accessible work now.

Secondly, when I finished Grammar and Semantics I was exhausted from the effort. Seriously. When I started in August I knew it would be hard, but I didn’t know how …. involving and exhausting it would be. Or how much it would change my thinking from operationalism as a technique, to all grammars just expansion and contraction of semantic dimensions. And I was having a very hard time working. So I needed a break.

So since the middle of December – thanks partly to two FB Bans in a row due to (((stalkers))) – I’ve been working on our product, and at this point am partway through a total rewrite – from scratch.

When we first started, the tech just wasn’t there – we knew it and took the risk anyway. Last year, I don’t think the tech was quite there and I found React very buggy and leaky.

We worked with a very small team – originally two devs and usually three or four. (The hardest part was communicating the business rules.) So we sprinted for six months, then did a rewrite (refactoring really). A year later we did a rewrite (refactoring). A year later we did a rewrite (refactoring). A year later we got to feature complete, but didn’t get in a rewrite. Last year I started rewriting the backend. Started on the front end, but my health was’t improving. So I spent about eight months just trying to get my health back together.

Today the tech is there – and I’m finally in good health. Really. I feel almost fully recovered. (more sleep, more food, lots more vitamins) and i’ve lost that prematurely aged look that I had last year. I look like myself again even if my asthma continues to … get worse

Anyway, the tech is finally there, and moving quite quickly. But I have to rewrite everything from the bottom up and the only thing I’ve saved so far is some of the domain data from the database. But the difference is great modularity, great performance, and – no memory leaks.

In doing so I’ve made sure it can easily scale and shard across any number of servers. A lot of work to do yet but I’ll keep at it until I get a burning desire to write, and then toggle back and forth until they’re both done. It keeps me from burning out on one thing or the other.

Thankfully my family tolerates my workaholic-ism – although I do do a lot of the cooking.

Oddly, the UK government has apparently tolerated our ‘in development’ status (they have shorter limits than we do in the states), and so has our Bank, so while I still have to move the investors to a US jurisdiction, in the meantime we are still able to operate without urgently bearing the costs of movement. FWIW: The costs of operating an R&D effort outside of the states is just prohibitive. Brits are far more concerned with stopping an unearned penny than creating an earned dollar in innovation. But I still love them. lol

So what does this mean? It means that I’m working on the product and that it’s going pretty well, even if it’s a tremendous amount of work.

The chinese don’t even consider judaism/christianity/islam as meaningful. They look at the truthful things – even if truth is nearly impossible for them. They will us it whenever possible to gain competitive advantage.

While the chinese place no value on human life and too much value on face (preservation of the dominance hierarchy), the are worthwhile competitors, as are the Japanese and the Koreans.

Western man loves a competitor. The problem is, that we are being invaded and undermined from within, while they are not.

We are fighting a two front war. The one for leadership against the east asians, and the one for leadership of our own against our Jewish and Catholic underclass priesthoods.

And unfortunately, while we love a good competition with a quality competitor – nothing is more thrilling. We do not like whatsoever, being undermined by our own, and those whom we allow in our domain.

No more tolerance. Ever. Zero Tolerance for Submission.

What is western man? What is aristocracy, but the Cult of Non-Submission?

THERE IS NOTHING IN CHRISTIANITY THAT WAS NOT PRESENT BEFORE IT. THE CHURCH “REVISED HISTORY” THE WAY THE MARXISTS AND POSTMODERNISTS DID IN THE CURRENT ‘DARK AGE’.

While it is hard for us to imagine, there is nothing in christian culture that was not there before christianity. Nothing. Hence why so many contemporary thinkers argue that christianity is a western religion, and the result of western (or at least the result of anatolian-greek culture.

The problem is, that as Nietzche tried to explain in his rather poetic german prose, we do not remember our pre-christian ethic in other than our northern european fairy tales and myths – even though it is endemic in the structure of our thought and in our traditions and in our laws.

The church co-opted, reframed, and stole everything it could and took credit for appropriation as if it was invention. Even Bede simply fabricated a history that did not exist. The church created and instituted a culture of fictionalism (lying).

THere is a very good reason that christianity was let into europe by illiterate south eastern europeans – as a means of moving power from the poorer more remote aristocratic west to the wealthier local theocratic east.

I went thru the period of being angry with (((them))) for libertarianism. Then for marxism. Then for postmodernism. then for Christianity. Then for Abrahamism. Then for Platonism. Then for mysticism.

Once oyu see the cancer and how it spread, it makes you furious that we have been defeated in the ancient world by (((lies))) and in the modern world by (((lies))) for no other reason than that we create sufficient wealth, security, and liberty, that priests, public intellectuals women and the underclasses can destroy us.

why? because each demographic group wants reality to reflect its evolutionary advantage.

The inferior prefer lies and R, and the superior truth and K.

It’s not complicated.

It’s just so many layers of lies it’s obscured.

Some fellow named Insula Qui, who I know nothing about, repeatedly asked for time, and I’ve missed the previous meetings because they were too late at night. This time he set up

I don’t have a lot of control over my environment here in the states. And the primary reason I’m still here rather than ukraine, is that my mother is quite ill, and more so than she let any of us in the family know.

So this morning she had a significant episode, and I missed our third attempt.

I didn’t so much care about this discussion as that it was moderated by TruDilTom who does know quite a bit about logic, and this would have been an opportunity to address the justification vs falsification vs competition between operationalism and falsificationism as the fundamental problem of rationalist thinking from plato and the abrahamists’ forward – and to have that context in a non-abstract format.

I feel that I have exhausted the value of online discourse but this would have been an exceptional learning opportunity for everyone.

So I apologize to Insula Qui, to TruDilTom, and to the community for failing everyone.

thanks

Space and Time. Existence and Experience. Brain and Mind.

The experience we call mind exists temporally as the result of action. And that action is the result of the persistence of vision (up to 2-3 seconds) exceeding rates of iteration (around a 25th of a second), between the thalamus and the generations (layers) of the brain. Thus we perceive a constant state (consciousness) of changes in state by continuous refreshing of perception and continuous temporary persistence of the stimulation.

There is a reason we encode only the differences between frames when streaming video. Because those changes in state are all we detect, and we continuously assemble and model the world around us from those continuous changes in state.

AI in its current condition consists of bayesian learning which outperforms humans at incremental improvement of repetitive and persistent tasks. And while we humans can adapt faster outside the scope of the ‘grammar’ of the AI’s ability to act, it can adapt faster and more precisely to grammars within its ability to act.

You can worry about capitalism but you cannot escape it and still survive. You can worry about war but you cannot escape it and still survive. You can worry about the market for virtue signaling, but it is nothing but a means of persuading yourself and others to do nothing while markets, wars, genetics, proceed to conquer you.

The only solution to markets is out-competition. And evolution, economics, and war are just markets bound the the same natural laws. He who cheats moral rules wins an advantage. Which is why evolution preserved both moralizing and cheating: to keep moralisms (the rules of cooperation) empirical, rather than ‘ideal’ or ‘fantastical’.

AI, Robots, Machines that can sense, think, and act, faster than we can will come because they are a profound competitive advantage in the evolutionary market.

Eugenics that eliminate the underclasses allowing better cooperation and concentration of calories at lower costs, will come, because it is a competitive advantage in the evolutionary marketplace.

Man only cooperates while it is rational. It is only rational when we are relatively equal. When we are relatively unequal, cooperation is not beneficial but an impediment.

Animists, Platonists, Abrahamists of all kinds, both ancient and modern, plus the folly of ‘liberated’ women, have attempted to reverse the aristocratic revolution of reason, technology, low reproduction, and high investment parenting.

But the reason for the success of east and west was, in the chinese case, prosecuting and destroying abrahamism or any variant thereof, and the reason for the success of the west was prior to abrahamism and after we defeated abrahamism, combined with eugenic evolution.

But abrahamism is back in Jewish-Marxist-pseudoscientific/Christian-Postmodern-irrational/Muslim-fundamentalism, and some semblance remains in Hindu old-world effeminacy (oversensitivity disruption of the status quo).

Harmony and christianity forgiveness ,are excellent social strategies but they are terrible political and group evolutionary strategies/ The same is true for the ethics of the family and the ethics of the polity. The same is true for the economics of the family and the economics of the polity.

There exist no conditions under which monopoly (consensus) on non-evolution succeeds if there is one soul who seeks to alter the status quo.

“It is a dogma of the Roman Church that the existence of God can be proved by natural reason. Now this dogma would make it impossible for me to be a Roman Catholic. If I thought of God as another being like myself, outside myself, only infinitely more powerful, then I would regard it as my duty to defy him.”

? Ludwig Wittgensteinfrom another poster

Blocked from Quora for truthfully answering questions. lol

We will have our own platform. We must. 😉

Do you read fiction?

Does it have any value outside of entertainment?

Muslims: They don’t read their own book.

Lefts: They don’t read their whole book.

Right: They read too much.

Media: Write too much.–Mea Culba

We always make the mistake that it’s white vs colors, but it’s upper vs lowers, with the vast majority of whites in the genetic upper classes.

This is how they play us. We WANT to get rid of our liberal wing from the gene pool.

THEY ARE DEFECTIVE

Conservatives are better looking and of better character than progressives.

(nihilism/non-activisim, political activism, and market activism)

—“It is not worth the bother of killing yourself, since you always kill yourself too late.

Every thought derives from a thwarted sensation.

One does not inhabit a country; one inhabits a language. That is our country, our fatherland – and no other.

The fact that life has no meaning is a reason to live – moreover, the only one.

Consciousness is much more than the thorn, it is the dagger in the flesh.

Anyone can escape into sleep, we are all geniuses when we dream, the butcher’s the poet’s equal there.

By all evidence we are in the world to do nothing.”—

You can’t outstubborn a cat, out-achieve a germanic, or out-frustrate a slav. In their world of nihilism, endurance is heroic.

Thankfully they are no longer quite so nihilistic – wealth makes nihilism difficult.

But Democracy and Theology let loose the evil of political activism, where Monarchy and Law limit us to MARKET ACTIVISM.

Can you critique Mises with some quotes?

Looking specifically for the tension between axiomatic declaration failing to externally correspond.

by Ely Harman

–“Our “best” are trying an experiment in tolerating the worst non-kin as a form of virtue signaling and conspicuous consumption. But what’s being consumed, first and foremost, are our worst, and even our middle. So all they will end up getting for their trouble are a larger and worse “worst” and a smaller and worse “middle,” most of both non-kin. They may be our “best,” but they don’t seem to be our brightest. Something, something, Heinlein, stupidity, capital offense…”—

Look at the faces of young San children, and the answer to the origins of both asians and whites is fairly obvious. Pedomorphism. Look at the faces of the rest of africa, and the answer is equally obvious: continuous degrees of the opposite: deeper maturity.

Great apes, like all mammals, have white skin. We lose our body hair in order to increase our heat dissipation so that we can run and walk great distances, We had to develop dark skin. Humans can outrun every creature on earth. Not as fast. But longer. Watch the Masai run across the horizon and understand why we defeated all other creatures. A group of men who can run with spears is defeatable only by other men with spears. Then, As we lived along the ice, and required vitamin d, and where the pedomorphism was possible (it’s reproductively desirable) the process reversed.

Today we are the same. Members of my family (northern european) have skin that is extremely white, blue eyes, and brown, red, and blond hair. Some africans are very very dark with strong thick skin. And the rest of humanity covers the spectrum in between.

I have been saying for years now that while there are definitely differences in verbal acuity across the races of man, and that perhaps this verbal acuity is the principle evolutionary advantage, the only material differences between us are the size of our underclasses vs our upper classes. Because we are prisoners of norms, and norms are of necessity an expression of the mean.

All homo sapiens sapiens peoples can transcend.

The problem is, that doing so, requires eugenic reproduction. And the far east and the far west were successful at eugenic reproduction and everyone else wasn’t.

Not by making people better. But by cutting the ‘bad’ people from the polity (herd).

We are compatible among our best, but incompatible among our worst, and it is our worst that kin groups will not tolerate. We tolerate our own worst kin. But we do not tolerate the worst of those who are not kin.

We are very simple animals really.

Peterson at his ‘literary’ best.

via Bill Joslin

DOSTOYEVSKY > NIETZSCHE > SCIENCE

Peterson says it better. I’ve been saying this for years but nowhere near as elegantly: Dostoyevsky provided the novel, Nietzsche the Rationalism. And all of in the 20th and now 21st century are trying to produce the Science. And we are trying to do it faster than the Abrahamists can destroy our civilization again.

—“I could be off base on this, but are your referring specifically to various forms of Jewish mysticism and Jews themselves? (medieval Kabbalah, Neo-Hassidism, etc..). Or the influence of Abrahamic traditions (starting with Jews) in general?”— Via Twitter

1) I am referring to a conflationary grammar and semantics, that we call ‘fictionalism’, that appears to have originated in Pilpul, and when exposed to greek rationalism, evolved into Rabbinical Judaism>Christianity>Islam>and the French, German, and Jewish counter-enlightenments.

2) Jewish law retained Pilpul (The verbal equivalent of numerology, and astrology applied to theology). While (thankfully) western law retained empiricism (Tort). Over time, the Lawyers cum philosophers saved us where the theologians cum philosophers failed.

3) Pilpul (Abrahamism) is necessary to preserve (a) the intertemporal falsehood of divine authority in the face of adaptive circumstances, and (b) the polylogism of Jewish poly ethical (unethical) law. While western law is empirically consistent with progressive fines.

4) The only difference between Abrahamism (Pilpul>Judaism> Christianity>Islam>Marxism>Socialism> Postmodernism > Feminism is just the transformation from supernatural and theological to pseudoscientific and pseudo rational: destroy aristocracy and meritocracy by fictionalism.

5) Jewish group evolutionary strategy consists of institutionalizing the (Pastoral) female group evolutionary strategy: Equalitarianism against the (Territorial) male group evolutionary strategy: Aristocracy. Feminine Dysgenic vs Masculine Eugenic.

We are the people chosen by the gods to drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, child mortality, early death, the whims of tyranny of the vicissitudes of nature. (((They))) created the Abrahamic Dark Age that lasted a thousand years.

Not because we claim it. But because we DEMONSTRATE it.

Rabbits are expendable. Chickens are expendable, Cats are expendable. Dogs are expendable. Humans are also expendable, but we do not want people who would expire humans among us. We talk via-positive about the victim, but the reason is to limit via-negative the predator.

We cannot cooperate with a dog. It is sentient, borderline conscious, and certainly not rational. And therefore it cannot possess or make use of ‘rights’.

So while we would not people among us who cause suffering to animals, and while we would not want our dogs to suffer, that is a question of constraining in-group behavior, not out-group defense.

Muslims:

“Behead those who insult us!”

*Kills innocent people on the streets*Leftists:

“Kill fascists! Punch Nazis!”

*Assaults people on the streets*

Right-Wingers:

“It’s OK to be White.”

*Hosts a rally. Gives a speech*

Media:

“Right-Wing extremism is our greatest threat.”

-Blair Cottrell (Aus.)

Animals don’t reason other than it is clear that the very smartest can in fact do so (Corvids) and many predators. And the demarcation between sentience and consciousness is the mirror test. And some animals can pass it – even possibly pigeons.

Many animals dream so they must ‘think’ at whatever level it is that they dream.

But when we say ‘think’ we can mean ‘feel your way thru something’, visualize your way thru something, plan your way through something using tools, reason (talk) your way thru something, and explain to others how to act through something.

To say animals are sentient is true, to say they are conscious –

well there are some that appear to be.

To say they are rational, it is not clear that all people are rational, or that we are fooled that they are rational because they are capable of language, and language creates the illusion of similarity.

The more we learn the more the gradual progress from nervous system to sentience, to consciousness is just as continuous as the spectrum from feminine pschosis to feminine solipsism to normal balanced personality, to male aspieness, to male autism.

Simon Ström

Even when merely arguing for meritocracy and freedom of association, we are operationally, de facto, white supremacists.

Because factual incentives, mechanisms and empirical results, all of which are each other’s direct and inverse derivative functions, matter infinitely more than ideology –

meaning internal delusion and external signaling of intent as required by current imperatives moral fictionalism.

Eric let’s destroy the paradigm of “ideology” forever

The terms Species(undomesticated animals), Breed(domesticated animals), Race/Subrace/Tribe/Class/Clan (Humans), and Civilization/Nation/Country/Polity(organization) evolved in different disciplines in order to differentiate morphological, behavioral, intellectual, and preferential differences.

The point of demarcation in Species is for the purpose of defining group membership including morphological, behavioral, social and reproductive membership. The point of demarcation in breeds is for the preservation of common traits. The point of demarcation in races, subraces, and tribes is to PRESERVE COMMON TRAITS, because yes, those traites are an advantage. Why? because we differ in 1) neotonic development, male-famale behavioral and cognitive bias, and most importantly – the relative sizes of the classes and therefore the distribution of NORMS produces the greatest difference.

If race had no meaning, people would not VOTE on racial lines, mate on racial lines, work on racial lines, associate on racial lines, and do so increasingly as our sexual, social, economic, and political, market value increases.

Most of us live our lives within three degrees of relations, and an insignificant number of outliers do not.

SO yes, scientifically humans universally act by race, subrace, tribe, clan, class, and gender, and the only people who say otherwise are those who promote pseusoscienc ein order to achieve by propaganda and deceit what they cannot achieve by truth, science, and voluntary organization of markets.

We ACT as if their are races, and have acted as such throughout all of human history. The fact that at the margins its beneficial to reproduce, trade, and associate cross kinship lines is simple what every creature does to cooperate and reproduce in the market for secual, social, and productive competition.

There are only two paths: ethnic and national plurality which produces continuously competitive evolutionary markets for all, or ethnic and political MONOPOLY producing DYSGENIC reproduction.

There is a reason why India, the Levant, central asia, Africa, South America, and the pacific islands cannot reach standards of living we see in east asia and western europe.

DEMOGRAPHICS MATTER MORE THAN ANY OTHER FACTOR.

Dirty secret of western civlization is that the primary reason for our success is that between 700 and the enlightenment we killed off our underclasses with rapid prosecution and manorialism.

GENES MATTER MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.

And in the era we are entering, where the low hanging fruits of the capture of long chains of hydrocarbons has been put to use mobilizing any and all underutilized human capital, and where technological advantage is evaporated in a few years, the marginal differences between the wealthy and the poor will be nothing more than the demographics of the polity.

And it cannot be otherwise.

Every person at the bottom is six times as much of a drag as every person at the top is productive.

Conservative just aren’t arrogant. We rely on the empirical result of markets of voluntary cooperation at every scale from the personal mind, to the interpersonal relation, to the the reproductive and familial, to the civic, to the national, to the international, to the civilizational, to the Racial, to the evolution of mankind – as living, working, and reproducing in concert with the universe such that man can become the gods he imagines.

The operational name of conservatism is Aristocracy, and the means of decision by Aristocracy is Empiricism, and empiricism means nothing other than ‘surviving competition in all markets, whether evolutionary, physical, logical, rational, or preferential.

Priests, Public Intellectuals, Academics, Socialists, and women can afford to be idalists because they do not warranty the outcomes of their actions, and seek profit on snake oil future that they do not warranty.

Kings, Warriors, Entrepreneurs, Engineers, and men, cannot afford to be idealists, because they explicitly and implicitly warranty their actions.

If we required people warranty their display, speech, and deeds as we did prior to the marxist/postmodernists, then we would not have experienced the dysgenia and collapse of western civilization by the second abrahamic counter-revolution. The last time by the (((lies))) of supernaturalism, and this time by the (((lies))) of pseudoscience and pseudo-rationalism.

They destroyed the aristocratic roman empire by not suppressing the lies of abrahamism version one: judaism, christianity, and islam) And letting spread dysgenia and ignorance at massive scales.

They are destroying the aristocratic western empire once again, by abrahamism version two: pseudoscience, pseudo rationalism, and dysgenic reproduction and immigration.

Truth, Wealth, Evolution, and Eugenics, or (((Lies))), Poverty, Devolution, and Dysgenia.

We cannot let (((them))) bring about the Third Dark Age of Man, by yet another counter-enligthenment, and counter-revolution, against aristocracy, truth, science, and reason, by the creation of monopolies.

Monopoly government.

Monopoly genetics.

Monopoly thought.

Let a thousand nations bloom.

And kill every soul that resists their blossoming.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.

ORIGINS OF PHILOSOPHY IN COMPETITION BETWEEN NATURALISTS, THEOLOGIANS(Pseudoscience), AND MYTHICISTS(PseudoHistorians)

The Presocratic philosophers were called physiologoi (Greek: ??????????; in English, physical or natural philosophers). Aristotle was the first to make a clear distinction between these physiologoi or physikoi (“physicists”, after physis, “nature”) who sought natural explanations for phenomena, and the earlier theologoi (theologians), or mythologoi (story tellers and bards) who attributed these phenomena to various gods.

Diogenes Laërtius divides the physiologoi into two groups: Ionian, led by Anaximander, and the Italiote, led by Pythagoras.

IT BEGINS IN 635 BC

But they begin in 635BC with Thales, who was a greek citizen, but may or may not have been a descendent of the Phoenicians, who may or may not have originated on the Red sea, which may or may not refer to the civilization that developed on the trade route between africa and yemen in that region south of what is today ethiopia, but continues across the south of the arabian peninsula, and to the trade routes with India. It is this trade route as much as the mediterranean that accounted for much of the wealth of the levant.

Engineering and construction, and Commercial transactions encourage the development of contract, reason and calculation – because of risk, investment, and liability.

So Thales evolved his thought Just as there is a competition today between literary and theological authors, and scientists, and commercialists. The law has no competitor except religion.

And its possibly important to note that it was the borderland peoples who invented reason, not the urbanites in Athens. Why? Density encourages civic deceit. Objective analysis of civic deceit produces reason.

Thales bought all the olive presses in Miletus after predicting the weather and a good harvest for a particular year. Another version of the story has Aristotle explain that Thales had reserved presses in advance, at a discount, and could rent them out at a high price when demand peaked, following his prediction of a particularly good harvest. Aristotle explains that Thales’ objective in doing this was not to enrich himself but to prove to his fellow Milesians that philosophy could be useful, contrary to what they thought, or alternatively, Thales had made his foray into enterprise because of a personal challenge put to him by an individual who had asked why, if Thales was an intelligent famous philosopher, he had yet to attain wealth. This first version of the story would constitute the first historically known creation and use of futures, whereas the second version would be the first historically known of creation and use of options.

But his theoretical insights are from geometry.

|CAUSALITY| Commerce(Finance) > Engineering > Geometry > Science.

Plato began the ‘religification’ of socrates work, and while Aristotle corrected it, Plato, Saul, and Augustine created the intellectual dark ages, just as the muslims created the economic and cultural dark ages, just as Rousseau, Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Marx, Boaz, Cantor, Freud, the Frankfurt School (Council of Nicea), and the French Postmodernists and Anglo Puritans attempt to bring about a second intellectual dark age.

Thankfully Smith, Hume, Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Menger, Weber, Durkheim, Pareto, Spencer, Hayek, Nietzsche, and Turing largely saved us from them. But it wasn’t until the 1990’s that we had the technology to refute the pseudosciences of the 19th and 20th century ‘literary philosophers’ (moral fictionalism).

Unfortunately, just as great war that gave us modernity produced the anglo enlightenment, and then the french, german, jewish, russian, and chinese counter-enlightenments, the European Civil War (World War) to prevent German expansion into eastern Europe, plus the mass industrialization of lying via the use of electronic media, allowed the damage done by the Ashkenazi counter-enlightenment (pseudoscience), and the second French counter-enlightenment(postmodernism), to prosper for almost a century – which has nearly destroyed western civilization.

But we have purified the west before, and we can do it again. But the continental intellectuals have never transitioned – they remain provincial people, with literary tastes, seeking as did Kant to create church within the state, to replace the vacuum left behind by abrahamism, like a drug addict always hungering for his lost substitute for endorphins.

But eventually, there are enough of us remaining in empirical civilization and in the end, empiricism will, ,unless overwhelmed by the underclasses.

Plato was a cancer upon man, trying to nothing more than recapture the past glory made possible by the discovery of a silver mine, flooding athens with wealthy, and not athenian character.

There exists only one universal moral law of sentient beings: Reciprocity. And it has been written since the dawn of writing in both via-positiva form as the golden rule, and in via-negativa form as the silver rule.

Via-Negativa: Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

Via-Positiva: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The one law of Reciprocity that we call Natural Law, is this:

“The only moral actions are those that consist exclusively of productive, fully informed, warranteed, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality.”

So all displays, words, and deeds that are not immoral, are either amoral (not immoral) or moral (productive).

BUT WE ARE FREQUENTLY IMMORAL

Unfortunately, while the via-negativa version is more accurate and less open to misinterpretation, the via-positiva is more popular for the simple reason that it *is* more open to intentional misinterpretation – as a POSITIVE demand for behavior rather than a NEGATIVE demand that we eschew behavior.

And men and women are natural deceivers in pursuit of discounts on their acquisitions. So we see people claim that it is moral to impose costs upon others. We see this false claim in (a) demand for sacrifice rather than limiting demand to non-imposition upon others. (b) demand for positive freedoms that impose costs upon others, rather than negative freedoms that prevent us from imposing costs upon others. (c) demand for ‘human rights’ the last few of which impose costs upon others, rather than Natural Rights, which demand we impose no costs upon others.

And via negativa prohibition on imposition of costs, is something all can do, while demand for the imposition of costs upon others is not something we can all do, nor can we pay such demands, nor is it clear that by paying such demand we do other than increase the immorality of such demands.

So the one universal moral law of sentient beings is the via negativa form of do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you, and the via positiva form is open to use by fraudulent pretense.

THE SEEN AND UNSEEN

Now, enter the seen and unseen: It turns out that the optimum group strategy for any and every polity, is to **exhaust opportunity for cooperation** as a cost of converting immoral people into moral people – but only on an interpersonal, not political basis. So if we use government charity or professional charities we simply increase immoral behavior in the government, in the charity, and in the polity – because subsidy of immorality always serves to increase immorality (the chief means of immorality is reproduction of children one cannot afford, and entrapping others in the moral hazard of supporting your children, rather than additional children of their own.)

CHRISTIAN FORGIVENESS AND THE NATURAL LAW OF TORTS

This is the economic strategy of via-positiva Christian forgiveness, and via-negativa of Aristocratic (Militia) Law of Tort. The vast crimes of the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and especially Islam) in creating the *Abrahamic Dark Age* and the destruction of the great ancient civilizations, aside, the economic reality is that interpersonal responsibility for the conversion of others from immoral to moral actors, and resorting to legal (communal) prosecution when it fails, is the reason for Christianity’s spread of wealth wherever it goes.

While western man evolved individual Sovereignty, the Jury, Thang, and Senate, the Independent Empirical Judiciary, the independent common law of torts, using the natural law of reciprocity, that strategy is maximized, by the same personal responsibility for one’s behavior, the domestication of one’s children, domesticating the underclasses, and domesticating the foreigners lacking long traditions in individual Sovereignty, Individual responsibility, Natural Law by Exhaustive Forgiveness but not exhaustive tolerance. And then resorting to the commons to punish those who cannot adapt to that moral standard.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.

–“Q: WHAT KIND OF MONSTER ARE YOU?”—

Given the opportunity I would make Stalin and Mao look like Father Christmas and Krampus. Noose, pike, guillotine, and pyre. And let the gods sort them out. 😉

(not really, but the shock value in context was priceless).

—“WHY DO PEOPLE TAKE AN INTEREST IN RACISM?”—

Because race, subrace, tribe, and class are meaningful and successful means of identifying kin, and the vast majority of us associate with, work with, vote with, reproduce with, kin, because the problem of signaling, trusting, risk and cost of doing so is lower than that of non-kin – and the outliers (15%) are at the extremes where their sexual-social-economic market value is vastly lower, or vastly higher than the mean of their kin group. And it’s good for each to do so. Diversity (Miscegenation) is extremely bad for genes except on the margins (low sexual and social market value). Because they cannot easily be corrected through ingroup selection.

All accusations of racism are just forms of gossip and shaming in order to obscure pursuit of political power without earning it through market means.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

The term is “The Liar’s Paradox”, and its variants.

Arthur Prior does a weak job of correctly explaining why it isn’t a paradox. I’ll explain why it’s not a paradox in detail if anyone is interested.

The Liar’s Paradox illustrates the difference between math, logic, reason, and science, and difference between platonism vs operationalism, and the difference between well formed and malformed statements in colloquial grammar, ordinary language grammar, vs deflationary grammars.

Or stated differently, the grammatical structure of the statement relies on ordinary language grammar, while the question refers to formal, legal,or logical grammar.

For example, you can draw the square root of two, you can apply the square root of two in calculation or construction, but you cannot calculate it itself.

And for the same reason.

Frederick the Great is at least as worthy of study as are Alexander, Caesar, Aurelius, Charlemagne, Bismarck and Hitler.

Napoleon is only interesting for his generalship. As a frenchman he was as always, a cancer for europe.

Hitler and his Generals

Bismarck

Frederick the Great

Henry the Eighth

Charlemagne

Aurelius

Caesar (I am not sure, I think he’s a napoleon who harmed europe forever by destroying the ancient civilization of the celts. And the genocide of carthage … as bad as the muslims)

Alexander.

The Spartans

The Trojan War.

The Indo European Expansion.

And The Abrahamic Dark Age as a revolt against aristocracy and reason.

(read this)

by Bill Joslin

Ideological and religious frames reduce the intellectual cost of framing the world. Consequence (accountability) forces higher investment out of interpretive, justificationary, of explanatory frames into operational frames.

The later reorder the contingencies properly, meaning utility proceeds or grounds aesthetics (a trade elevating to a craft elevating again to an art – the progression of mastery) opposed to floating aesthetics (borrowing from rands floating concepts) which can be pleasant and inspiring but devoid of any substantive value.

The initial critism attempt to invert that relationship , isolating aesthetics from more fundemental forms of value and then assert it’s function as what drives reasoning.

In this later case the only value aesthics obtains remains as a means to acquire power through motivation (inspiration) of others. Then claims this outcome as the causal agent.

We must value first in order to reason (valuation drives motivation) and therefore reason is contingent on aesthetics – aesthetics drives human action…

Yet I fail to see the tiler, convenience store owner or floor sweeper to be driven by aesthetics. But find the carpenter, mason, and machinist elevate their skills to obtain aesthetics quality.

And what drives their progression to mastery is the combination of the grammar, logic, rhetoric and ethics (desire for pride in work, desire for good standing and reputation) which leads to the aesthetic.

by Bill Joslin

Change or influence a person’s aesthetic and their valuation will shift (their ethics). And conversely, clarifying one’s valuation will shift his aesthetics.

I say this because as far as I can see, what is considered by many as the downside of reason – i.e. emotion, intuition, bias, – are really “fast-thinking” (stimulus response-reactive) processes which operate concurrent to “slow-thinking” (reason, logic, analysis) processes. And these influence each other (i.e. bias confirmation etc)…. but that also means the “fast-thinking processes” (our intuition) can be trained just like our reason.

As slow-thinking clarifies and de-contextualizes common operations; fast thinking processes update in response. As you see the detriment of (anything really) – but, say emotional or moral reasoning – your preference for operational reasoning increases.

And as one pursues operational reasoning, the fast-thinking process adapts – and we “feel” (disgust, tensions, suspicion whatever) when confronted with moral or emotional reasoning. Our biases and intuitions have “updated” – and the reverse is also true: our new biases and intuitions assist our ongoing reason.

Since I’ve begun “training my mind” (really looking at, and attempting to, understand topics like philosophy etc) – I can no longer (no exaggeration) tolerate American TV and 99% of popular music.

Specifically – as the time-horizon of my valuations increased, the foundation of those valuations changed, as those valuations changed, my tastes changed.

-Bill Joslin

Please think about this very seriously and try to understand what it means to be ‘european’. We are so closely related it’s actually ‘odd’ that we don’t look even more alike. Everything that comes out only serves to confirm that europe has undergone a series of genetic miracles because of our upwardly redistributive social order.

–“The most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past—only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang’s model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today.”–

THE GREAT PURGE WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL

Contrary to the author’s argument, what’s happened is that high quality investment firms have ‘stolen’ the market from pump and dump take-em-public firms. And that was exactly what they set out to do.

What I really like about this article is the emphasis on (a) how the stock market and the tax system evolved for capital intensive companies, and (b) we live in a world of research and development companies.

—“The US now has “abnormally few listed firms,” according to a new working paper (registration required) from the National Bureau of Economics. (The paper hasn’t been peer-reviewed.) In 1997, more than 7,500 American firms were listed publicly in the US. Nearly two decades later, in 2016, the number had dropped more than half, slipping to 3,618 firms.

The crux of the issue is that US startups are increasingly shunning stock market boards. That could have worrying implications for America’s long-term economic prospects.

In fact, going public can hurt them.

The problem is, two features of public listings—disclosure and accounting standards—make things tough on companies with more intangible assets.

US securities law requires companies to disclose their activities in detail. But startups are wary of sharing information that might benefit their competitors

A similar problem stems from US accounting standards for public listing. Known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, these typically treat spending on tangible things like new equipment as assets, which doesn’t affect the firm’s profitability. However, GAAP regards intangible assets—research staff, employee training, and brand-building, for instance—as costs that eat into the firm’s profitability. So spending that could yield wildly profitable new products looks wasteful on paper. That makes it much harder for public investors to assess a firm’s value.

Luckily for small companies with promising ideas, there’s plenty of private money sloshing around in the form of venture capital and private equity. And it’s often easier and less risky to convince a VC fund’s in-house experts of the value of your idea than to persuade many hundreds of thousands of prospective shareholders and the financial media.”—

–“Existential aesthetics provide us with a means of orientation from which we may construct a system of values.”– A Young Male

Can you explain that?

Because “existential aesthetics” sounds like a pretense.

You can say that producing high arts the combine craftsmanship, design(aesthetic representation of ‘bounty’), and reference (history or myth), can assist in the constant reinforcement of the means of decision making contained in the mythos.

You can say that creating myths and fictions allow the immature mind to fantasize rather than achieve. And the fool to participate in the throng. Sure.

But ‘existential aesthetics’ needs to refer to SOMETHING existential in order to exist as ‘existential’.

Because “means of orientation” sounds like a pretense. I think you mean, “means of preferring, choosing, deciding” in a kaleidic universe beyond your perception cognition and reason.

Because “construct a system of values” can only mean a repetition of ‘means of orientation’.

So I can only translate the phrase as “I need a mythology that bypasses reason, so that I can find a means of preferences, choices, goods, and decidability, so that I can have a means of preferences, choices, goods, and decidability.”

I don’t begrudge the female for her lack of agency, because of her inability to exit the influence of her hormones.

I don’t begrudge the young male for his lack of agency, because of his inability to exit the influence of his hormones.

I don’t begrudge the poor for their lack of agency due to genetic, familial, class and class inferiorities – I seek to create institutions that assist them.

I don’t begrudge the inferior because of their cultural, economic, and political limitations – I seek to help them form institutions that assist them.

I don’t begrudge the socially inadequate because they are undesirable friends, undesirable mates, undesirable employees, and unprofitable members of the polity – I seek to prevent them from doing harm – and pursue satisfaction despite their inadequacies.

However, I begrudge the genetically, personally, socially, economically, and politically inadequate from any pretense of superiority in false criticism of me, my achievements, or my work in progress as a means of generating pretense of criticism, pretense of superiority – when the very argument they use to do so is because they are by definition demonstrating inferiority by their demands.

It is not a criticism to claim that Transcendence is insufficient for the inadequate. Itis an aristocratic value system, precisely because it needs no comforting lies.

Weak, unaccomplished, undesirable males are not interesting if they, like women and children need fairy stories.

Men act to transform the world by their will, for no other reason than reward for themselves, for their kin, and for their allies in doing so. And storytelling is the organizational model for liars, frauds, and priests.

Business is organized by knowledge and wealth.

Man is organized by law and power.

Everyone else, is just sheep. (Or in this case LARPERS).

(The right is full of losers.)

Aesthetics is a Science of Beauty. Moral Fictionalism Is Just Secular Religion for the Weak.

By Bill Joslin

–“the ‘ m’uh aesthetic thus your philo sucks’ is a variation of the Nirvana Fallacy. we’ve hammered out the first main branches of philos (metaphysics, epistemology, rhetoric and three of the four subbranches (politics, ethics, law).

IMO the privileging of aesthetics is an age thing – a young man’s complaint. After a few years of running a crew, business, or family (engaging with real consequences which extend beyond the personal domain) rectifies such notions… the flavour of the wine remains secondary to its ability to sustain the body”—

Brilliant.

Um. Lets get this clear for the sophists, ok? I use the outline of aristotelian philosophy, but as far as I know I write science. The science of testimony, cooperation, and law.

The fact that I frame it as a philosophy (means of decidability in pursuit of a preference) rather than a science (means of decidability independent of preference) is precisely so that I can undermine the independence of philosophy, and correctly position it as MORAL FICTIONALISM.

I really don’t understand why we don’t just state the obvious, that the female mind of reproductive necessity biases heavily to that which she can control: infatilism. And this is why women take such great fascination with babies, and prefer their children are born with properties that make them pliable and their ‘friends’ rather successful competitors. Because women must be strong and possess agency to raise those who are strong and with agency. And women who are weak an lack agency wish children who they can control despite their weakness and agency.

Abrahamism, Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism: they advocate infantilism.

Because their followers have infantile minds.

And I suspect that like everything else, that’s because in 80% of cases they have infantile brains.

And that during the great transformation, buddha came close, but only Epicurious, Zeno and Aristotle got it right.

Meaning, living in correspondence with reality without submitting to it, by making the mind as strong as the body, ether by Achilles/Alexander(aristocracy), Zeno/Aurelius (Middle class), or Epicurious (Working Class), but never by abandoning reality to a fictionalism (underclass).

These are adulthoods. Agency. Whether for the powerful, the influential (middle class), or the valuable (Working Class).

And just as we can train people in reading, writing, math, accounting, and physics – we can train people in stoicism, epicureanism, and heroism.

But that is counter to the infantile: because all of them require agency, and the infantile is still an undomesticated animal, neither genetically able, nor sufficiently trained, to be included in that label of sentience and agency we call ‘Human’.

The infantile, is equal to, the animal.

Ownership always and everywhere is determined by those who possess the capacity of violence sufficient to make such determination.

Adults make economic statements. Children make moral statements. Children make moral statements because they lack the knowledge and resources to make economic statements.

And that is what separates adults, infantilized non-adults, and children.

–“What’s your definition of aesthetics? I read recently that someone complained about your arguments not having an aesthetic framing. Does that mean that they want you to essentially sugarcoat the truth with a layer of fanciful words to accommodate right-brain oriented “artists” who don’t want to see the truth at face value? If that’s the way “aesthetics” are meant to be understood, then it sounds like nothing more than a synonym of conflation. That’s horrible. This means that aesthetics is a big lie. You’ve got the plain truth in front of you, explained in the most simple, straightforward and accurate terms imaginable – and for some reason people want to sugarcoat it? Frame it like a damn Tolkien story? This is the epitome of corruption.”— A Friend

You are correct. “Aesthetics: the branch of philosophy which deals with questions of beauty and artistic taste.”

I am not sure how any system of measurement, whether it be truth or law be ‘aesthetic’.

In that sense people want something between a philosophy and a religion, from a thing that is nothing more than a science of that spectrum we call Law.

I have had to apply that law to every subject in the human spectrum to clean them of various falsehoods even if those falsehoods are largely platonisms.

And for some people, pursuit of Transcendence of Man through Truth in the Commons, Rule of Law, Monarchy, Nation, and Family, is an insufficient inspiration.

And that’s OK. I am happy if they try to make a philosophy, an ideology, a religion, or cult around a science.

But that is not a criticism of the science itself. Because then it would not be a science. It is a criticism of those who are too … lacking in agency … that they require fairy stories for inspiration to prefer a science over the abrahamic falsehoods.

I have studied every revolution in history that has any meaningful documentation, and a revolution consists of nothing but incentives regardless of emotional wants, and a narrative justification for it that gives moral license for violence. And therefore a revolution with any durability will be one made from adult incentives, not the emotions of the infantilized.

Personally I just see these people as weak. And desperately in need of bonding with others on some emotional basis.

Now, Assuming my health doesn’t degrade further (I am currently working on the product because I’ve recovered enough to do that instead of research and write), I will release something close to a bible of law as my ‘work of my senior years’. Because it will be largely a work of narrative and opinion rather than a work of the sciences.

But the reframing of Aristotle’s categories from ideal to operational in Constant Relations(metaphysics), Acquisitionism(psychology), Propertarianism(sociology), Testimonialism(epistemology, Natural Law of Reciprocity(ethics), Rule of Law Juridical Monarchy (Politics: nomocracy), Profiting from the Domestication of the Animal Man(“Aryanism”), And Group Evolutionary Strategies (War), and yes ‘Aesthetics'(Transcendence) – as a science of aesthetics, is all via negativa arguments rather than via positiva justifications.

For the simple reason that I am certain that the method by which we transcend our individual selves, our family, tribe, nation and man, once we have reached the point of command of energy, is nothing more than via negativa: removal of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, fraud, theft, violence, free riding, the socialization of losses, the privatization of gains , corruption, conspiracy, statism (monopoly), propagandism, conversion (fictionalism, including false religions), parasitic reproduction (externalization of costs of reproduction), miscegenation (dysgenia), immigration, conquest, and genocide – all of which together produce evolution in mind and body (eugenic evolution).

None of which prohibit the use of violence to enforce those incremental suppressions of parasitism that produce frictions between our actions and our transcendence from man to gods.

Or let me put it another way: An artificial intelligence could operate by Propertarian reasoning and do no harm (impose costs), in the pursuit of doing good (productivity in the absence of the imposition of costs).

And it is impossible to lead men by words and conviction with truth. It is on the other hand possible to create a world in which men lead themselves to transcence *because they have no other choice available to them.*

But what we do with Truth, Reciprocity, Nomocracy, Domestication of man, and War in the pursuit of Transcendence, is a matter of choice of paths from the individual to the collective, to get there – not truth. The more closely they are followed the cheaper will be that transition, because the lower the drag.

Truth is a weapon gainst falsehood, and falsehood is just a friction (entropic loss) in the pursuit of transcendence.

I don’t want to create LEADERS of cults. I don’t need to. I want to create law so that we dont ever need them again.

Only children need be led by parents. Parents need not be led, only prohibited from parasitism. If that is the case, then that is the maximum computational velocity by which we can cooperation to transcend man, from the beast who learned to work metal, to the gods who owned the stars.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

Replying to @Adsthoughts @pelosimedia and 2 others

Um. And what have we learned about polls over the past 18 years?

And what have we learned about reported belief, vs demonstrated action?

So what has been the consequence of political correctness?

Divergence between statement and action.

People still act in their interests. Always

–“His point is that he suspects there is a difference between how a person tells you they will vote vs how they actually vote. This discrepancy being a key driver of poll inaccuracy; certainly could be a key factor.”–

1 – (The others being (a) cost of access phone calls, in an era where decreasing numbers of us have them, more of us screen calls, or just hand up on polling. and (b) that there is a high correlation between the category of people who respond to polls and those that don’t. …

2 – … (c) the kind of people who respond to polls have time to do so which is a charitable way of saying people who have agency don’t waste their time. …

3 – … The price of political correctness (institutionalizing lying) is that people don’t tell the truth. As expected. And so just as people began to systematically lie under soviet imposed falsehoods, Americans have begun to lie about postmodernist’s imposed falsehoods.

cities burned,

works destroyed,

people dead,

money earned

by James Santagata

Google was / is a one-trick pony, search — but it is a god-damn good fucking pony at that!!

It was basically developed by having Michael Moritz trick his earlier investment, Yahoo! to outsource a $100M USD deal to let Google do the search.

The NSA / CIA / Qtel, kicked in the start up money and then as Yahoo abandoned search and tried to be a Portal and then a Vortal, Google ripped off the GoTo.com / Overture patent (key word buys / auction related to click throughs), bought DoubleClick and rebuilt it, and stumble onto Applied Semantics key acquisiton.

Everything since all acquired. Overture patent stolen, Double click, Applied Semantics, Keyhole (Google Earth), Android, Youtube, etc. all the internal projects – DOA. Orkut for social networks, Google video, Google check out, etc. etc. oh, Google Wave.

I dunno. I worked very hard on Rand in the early 90’s and there exist only two known criticisms and I’m not sure that they stand in any meaningful sense. I mean, I can tear apart pretty much anyone, and that includes Rawls and certainly Nozick (and demonstrably marx, keynes, mises, rothbard, rand and hoppe), and she isn’t any weaker than the rest of them except when she tries to transform it from narrative to analytic statements. And I bet I can handle (although It’s been a while) any criticism of her arguments other than her (failed) attempts at analytic ones (“A=A” is Rand’s version of Mises “Man Acts” – they are meaningless);

The problem with Rand is Randians. She’s a doorway, from the novel as philosophy, to lite-philosophy, to her one piece of fantastic philosophy (Aesthetics). But, unlike most of us, Randians stop after they enter the doorway, like old people stop at the top of the escalator.

You very rarely find people other than marxists and randians who are that dedicated to a single narrative. (and we can learn a great deal from the construction of narratives that are that compelling). Abrahamism is very interesting subject of study for the purpose of deception by continuously overloading a false premise (or in the jewish case deep metaphysical falsehoods that are necessary for the preservation of their pastoralist group evolutionary strategy).

In the sense that she (a) popularized philosophy, (b) created a narrative path between marxism/socialism and classical liberalism, and (c), created an upper middle class set of narratives and values, I think she was successful.

On the other hand, she’s an entry level thinker, trying to translate jewish ethics (without duty – libertinism) into anglo form (with duty – liberty), in order to prevent the left’s transmission of negative duty (defense of all capital) into positive duty (transfer of wealth), the same they way that translated negative freedom (from imposition by others) to positive freedom (imposition upon others).

And I think she made that argument in the terms it needed to be made: *sentimentally*.

That she tried to formalize it the way jewish law was formalized, and that she called aristotelian instead, didn’t work without innumeracy. Marx could get away with innumeracy because of the primitive state of economics. Pseddorationalism (claims to logical completeness) are identical to innumeracy (numerology), and not very different from economic innumeracy (cherry picking).

Unfortunately, she failed to say it as clearly as I just did, and tried to state it as a universal….

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

The thing about competing with FB is that it’s actually not hard.

(a) performance. Every other attempt has been slow. FB is just email v2. It’s not complicated.

(b) minimum features. Every other attempt has been either too little (I won’t name names), or too pretty (I won’t name names).

(c) confusing twitter (news) with facebook (email). The fact that we don’t have a twitter clone in fb is rather odd to me. The fact that a lot of startups try to make a twitter clones just … amazes me. Retweets are only one measure. Why doesn’t twitter rate users, and conversations on a subject, as well as the popularity of a stream?

(d) confusing medium( articles -I have no idea if that’s gonna survive) with facebook ( conversations on articles).

(e) confusing quora and Wiki: wikipedia is great beecause most of it was fukcing STOLEN from the encyclopedia. The problem is that there is no competition, and no method of showing right, libertarian, and left positions on subjects that need it. For the simple reason that editing is a monopoly (cult) where there IS NO NPOV on most questions OTHER than reciprocity (Which is beyond them)..

(c) Lacking taboos – its one thing to select your interests and friends, its another to select taboos that you don’t want to see that limit what you can see (and say for that matter).

Anyway. The market is there to provide a competitor but the minimum feature set isn’t something you’re going to produce in a few months by hobbyists. That era like the era of single programmer video games, has all but passed except for outliers.

Minimum features. Court the adult market and therefore the money. Rember hat FB makes a disproportionate amount of its money from the third world. That means there is an amazing opportunity for advertising in the first world, at far lower prices, with zero trickery involved.

For a long time. Runcible. In honor of Stephenson. A Runcible is a computer that tutors you through storytelling. It’s essentially an adventure game to teach you how to excel.

In Neal Stephenson’s 1995 novel The Diamond Age, Runcible is a code name for the Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer, an educational computer.

In The Diamond Age, the Runcible is effectively priceless, and while designed for a princess, ends up in the hands of a poor young girl who eventually, due to its tutelage, conducts a Revolution.

RUNCIBLE is also the name of a computer program compiler for an early (late 1950s) programming language. Donald Knuth published the flowchart of the compiler in 1959;[12] this was his first academic paper.

The Straight Dope, while treating “runcible” as a nonsense word with no particular meaning, claims that an unspecified 1920s source connected the word “runcible” etymologically to Roncevaux — the connection being that a runcible spoon’s cutting edge resembles a sword such as was used in the Battle of Roncevaux Pass. The Straight Dope adds that “modern students of runciosity” link the word in a different way to Roncevaux: The obsolete adjective “rouncival”, meaning “gigantic”, also derives from Roncevaux, either by way of a certain large variety of pea grown there, or from a once-current find of gigantic fossilized bones in the region.

“Runcible” is a nonsense word invented by Edward Lear. The word appears several times in his works, most famously as the “runcible spoon”.

It’s only arrogance if you’re wrong. And unwillingness to invest in education of others is not arrogance. It’s just rational choice. Most accusations of arrogance are acts of fraud – attempting to use guilt rather than reason and evidence to obtain consensus. People can engage in denial, but that’s not arrogance. People can engage in fallacy. That’s not arrogance.That’s just deceit. So accuse yourself of incompetency in competing with others’ opinions, or accuse them of denial and deceit. End gossip rally and shaming and work with truth falsehood, productivity and theft.

Now, there is a problem with insufficiency of argument. For example, Nassim Taleb has tried the top down method of trying to quantify the information necessary to limit claims in the face of disruptive outliers. And he has recently (as did Hayek, and have I, and to some degree popper) come to the conclusion that only warranty of due diligence can achieve what he’d hope to achieve quantitatively. (I believe the quantitative problem will be solved by a unit of measure we will obtain from analysis of artificial intelligence software, but otherwise there is no unit of measure we can make use of.) So he has produced narratives on one hand, and math on the other, and the reality is that without some unit of measure, all we can say is that knowledge demands increase at least logarithmically.

Now, I’ve looked at pseudoscientific claims from dozens if not hundreds of people. And this includes the Electric Universe Theory, and of course, more recently Christopher Langan’s theory. And while I understand someone like taleb cannot achieve his goals because the information doesn’t exist to measure, Langan’s theory is a fictionalism (narrative) that assumes information exists that cannot. In other words, langan is constructing a justification for (proof) of god, instead of stating the obvious: any set of rules whose test of survival is seeking equilibrium will produce candidate operations, in increasing layers (layers of sets produced by possibilities of underlying operations, and that this might appear to be sentience, rather than sentience is just another layer of complexity on top of those rules.

Both Taleb and Langan (as well as myself) come off as arrogant. For the simple reason that the cost of education is so high. In the case of correct (Taleb), and incorrect (Langan) both arguments are fairly easy to decompose into operational language (transfers of information).

But while Taleb relies on analogy – and he must because the information is not available to describe mathematically – he is correct. Langan relies upon analogy to *justify a prior narrative* that god exists in some form or another, and his analogies are at best parables.

Whereas Garrett Lisi’s theory proposes a mathematica model which is terribly simple, and points us at ‘particles’ missing from our existing model, in the same way the Periodic Table pointed us at elements missing from that layer of operations we call Chemistry (molecules). Lisi is not, seemingly, terribly arrogant (I am jealous of his lifestyle and hope to copy it).

The same is true of my work on operationalism. But the difference between Taleb and I, and mathematical physicists like Lisi, is that (while taleb isn’t quite there yet) he and I are proposing law that prohibits people from using innumeracy (taleb) and rationalism (doolittle) to produce fraud using fictionalisms (pseudo-math, pseudoscience, pseudo-logic, pseudo-reason, and pseudo-narration). Because frankly, fraud by fictionalism is largely the means of profit in today’s world. In other words, there is more informational fraud today in western civilization than there is informational fraud in the world religions.

So the world is incentivized to resist reformation of law demanding due diligence and warranty (skin in the game), for information distributed in the market for information.

But the world was resistant to limiting commercial fraud, product fraud, theft, murder, violence and conquest.

The most important lesson of Via Negativa reasoning, is that we have built civilization and all its benefits, by incremental suppression of parasitism forcing everyone increasingly into voluntary market production – or extermination.

And when we passed human scale in the 1800’s, we did not move from via positiva justificationary reasoning (normative, moral and religious) to via negativa critical reasoning – except in the hard sciences.

And that is what people like taleb and I (in our arrogance) are trying to fix.

(I collect lists of cites and bibliographies.)

Gottfredson, L. S. Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence 24, 79–132 (1997).

Deary, I. J. et al. Genetic contributions to stability and change in intelligence from childhood to old age. Nature 482, 212–214 (2012).

Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P. & Fernandes, C. Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence 35, 13–21 (2007).

Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. General mental ability in the world of work: occupational attainment and job performance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86, 162–173 (2004).

Strenze, T. Intelligence and socioeconomic success: a meta-analytic review of longitudinal research. Intelligence 35, 401–426 (2007).

Show context

Article

6.

Calvin, C. M. et al. Childhood intelligence in relation to major causes of death in 68 year follow-up: prospective population study. Brit. Med. J. 357, 2708 (2017).

Show context

Article

7.

Deary, I. J., Pattie, A. & Starr, J. M. The stability of intelligence from age 11 to age 90 years: the Lothian birth cohort of 1921. Psychol. Sci. 24, 2361–2368 (2013).

Show context

PubMedArticle

8.

[No authors listed] Intelligence research should not be held back by its past. Nature 545, 385–386 (2017). This editorial is a landmark in the acceptance of genetic influence on intelligence, concluding, “it’s well established and uncontroversial among geneticists that together, differences in genetics underwrite significant variation in intelligence between people.”

Show context

9.

Pinker, S. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (Penguin, 2003).

Show context

10.

Block, N. J. & Dworkin, G. E. The IQ Controversy: Critical Readings (Pantheon, 1976).

Show context

11.

Gould, S. J. The Mismeasure of Man (W.W. Norton, 1982).

Show context

12.

Kamin, L. J. The Science and Politics of IQ (Routledge, 1974).

Show context

13.

Bouchard, T. J. & McGue, M. Familial studies of intelligence: a review. Science 212, 1055–1059 (1981).

Show context

PubMedArticle

14.

Knopik, V. S., Neiderheiser, J., DeFries, J. C. & Plomin, R. Behavioral Genetics. 7th edn (Worth, 2017).

Show context

15.

Haier, R. J. The Neuroscience of Intelligence (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2016).

Show context

16.

Hare, B. Survival of the friendliest: Homo sapiens evolved via selection for prosociality. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 68, 155–186 (2017).

Show context

PubMedArticle

17.

Sternberg, R. J. & Kaufman, J. C. The Evolution of Intelligence (Psychology Press, 2013).

Show context

18.

Chabris, C. F. et al. Most reported genetic associations with general intelligence are probably false positives. Psychol. Sci. 23, 1314–1323 (2012).

Show context

PubMedArticle

19.

Benyamin, B. et al. Childhood intelligence is heritable, highly polygenic and associated with FNBP1L. Mol. Psychiatry 19, 253–258 (2014).

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

20.

Butcher, L. M., Davis, O. S., Craig, I. W. & Plomin, R. Genome-wide quantitative trait locus association scan of general cognitive ability using pooled DNA and 500K single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays. Genes Brain Behav. 7, 435–446 (2008).

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

21.

Davies, G. et al. Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic. Mol. Psychiatry 16, 996–1005 (2011).

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

22.

Davies, G. et al. Genetic contributions to variation in general cognitive function: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies in the CHARGE consortium (N = 53 949). Mol. Psychiatry 20, 183–192 (2015).

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

23.

Davies, G. et al. Genome-wide association study of cognitive functions and educational attainment in UK Biobank (N = 112 151). Mol. Psychiatry 21, 758–767 (2016).

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

24.

Plomin, R. et al. A genome-wide scan of 1842 DNA markers for allelic associations with general cognitive ability: a five-stage design using DNA pooling and extreme selected groups. Behav. Genet. 31, 497–509 (2001).

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

25.

Trampush, J. et al. GWAS meta-analysis reveals novel loci and genetic correlates for general cognitive function: a report from the COGENT consortium. Mol. Psychiatry 22, 336 (2017).

Show context

PubMedArticle

26.

Cesarini, D. & Visscher, P. M. Genetics and educational attainment. Sci. Learn. 2, 1–7 (2017).

Show context

Article

27.

Rietveld, C. A. et al. Common genetic variants associated with cognitive performance identified using the proxy-phenotype method. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 13790–13794 (2014). This study uses EA1 SNPs to predict intelligence, although less than 1% of the variance is predicted.

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

28.

Rietveld, C. A. et al. GWAS of 126,559 individuals identifies genetic variants associated with educational attainment. Science 340, 1467–1471 (2013). This is the GWAS origin of EA1, which yields a GPS that predicts 1% of the variance in years of education.

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

29.

Rietveld, C. A. et al. Replicability and robustness of genome-wide-association studies for behavioral traits. Psychol. Sci. 25, 1975–1986 (2014).

Show context

PubMedArticle

30.

Okbay, A. et al. Genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature 533, 539–542 (2016). This is the GWAS origin of EA2 GPS, which increases the prediction of educational attainment from 1% to 3% of the variance.

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

31.

Behavior Genetics Association 47th Annual Meeting Abstracts. Okbay, A. et al. GWAS of educational attainment – phase 3: main results [abstract]. Behav. Genet. 47, 699 (2017). This study refers to the largest GWAS of educational attainment (n = 1,100,000), which increases the power of its GPS, EA3, to predict more than 10% of the variance in the targeted trait.

Show context

32.

von Stumm, S. & Plomin, R. Socioeconomic status and the growth of intelligence from infancy through adolescence. Intelligence 48, 30–36 (2015).

Show context

PubMedArticle

33.

Sniekers, S. et al. Genome-wide association meta-analysis of 78,308 individuals identifies new loci and genes influencing human intelligence. Nat. Genet. 49, 1107–1112 (2017). This is the GWAS origin of IQ2 GPS, which increases the prediction of intelligence from 1% to 3%.

Show context

PubMedArticle

34.

Savage, J. E. et al. GWAS meta-analysis (N = 279,930) identifies new genes and functional links to intelligence. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/184853 (2017). This paper describes the largest GWAS of intelligence to date, which yields a GPS (IQ3) that predicts 4% of the variance in intelligence.

Show context

35.

Davies, G. et al. Ninety-nine independent genetic loci influencing general cognitive function include genes associated with brain health and structure (N = 280,360). Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/176511 (2017).

Show context

36.

Krapohl, E. et al. Multi-polygenic score approach to trait prediction. Mol. Psychiatry http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/mp.2017.163 (2017). This study employs a multiple-GPS approach and finds that 81 GPSs derived from well-powered GWAS predict 5% of the variance in intelligence.

Show context

37.

Hill, W. D., Davies, G., McIntosh, A. M., Gale, C. R. & Deary, I. J. A combined analysis of genetically correlated traits identifies 107 loci associated with intelligence. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/160291 (2017). This study employs multiple-trait analysis of GWAS for intelligence and finds that educational attainment and income predict 7% of the variance in intelligence in an independent sample.

Show context

38.

Manolio, T. A. et al. Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 461, 747–753 (2009).

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

39.

Plomin, R. et al. Common DNA markers can account for more than half of the genetic influence on cognitive abilities. Psychol. Sci. 24, 562–568 (2013).

Show context

PubMedArticle

40.

Boyle, E. A., Li, Y. I. & Pritchard, J. K. An expanded view of complex traits: from polygenic to omnigenic. Cell 169, 1177–1186 (2017).

Show context

PubMedArticle

41.

Plomin, R. Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are (Allen Lane/Penguin, in the press). This book describes genetic research on behaviour from twin studies to the DNA revolution and its implications for science and society.

Show context

42.

Honzik, M. P., Macfarlane, J. W. & Allen, L. The stability of mental test performance between two and eighteen years. J. Exp. Educ. 17, 309–324 (1948).

Show context

Article

43.

Haworth, C. M. et al. A twin study of the genetics of high cognitive ability selected from 11,000 twin pairs in six studies from four countries. Behav. Genet. 39, 359–370 (2009).

Show context

PubMedArticle

44.

Plomin, R. & Deary, I. J. Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings. Mol. Psychiatry 20, 98–108 (2015). This article highlights five genetic findings that are special to intelligence differences, including one not mentioned in this Review — assortative mating is much greater for intelligence than for other traits.

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

45.

Briley, D. A. & Tucker-Drob, E. M. Explaining the increasing heritability of cognitive ability across development: a meta-analysis of longitudinal twin and adoption studies. Psychol. Sci. 24, 1704–1713 (2013).

Show context

PubMedArticle

46.

Selzam, S. et al. Predicting educational achievement from DNA. Mol. Psychiatry 22, 267–272 (2017). This study shows that EA2 predicts 9% of the variance in tested educational achievement at age 16, which was the strongest GPS prediction of a behavioural trait at that time.

Show context

PubMedArticle

47.

Plomin, R. & Kovas, Y. Generalist genes and learning disabilities. Psychol. Bull. 131, 592–617 (2005).

Show context

PubMedArticle

48.

Selzam, S. et al. Genome-wide polygenic scores predict reading performance throughout the school years. Sci. Stud. Read. 21, 334–349 (2017).

Show context

PubMedArticle

49.

Carrion-Castillo, A. et al. Evaluation of results from genome-wide studies of language and reading in a novel independent dataset. Genes Brain Behav. 15, 531–541 (2016).

Show context

PubMedArticle

50.

Krapohl, E. et al. Phenome-wide analysis of genome-wide polygenic scores. Mol. Psychiatry 21, 1188–1193 (2015).

Show context

PubMedArticle

51.

Marioni, R. E. et al. Common genetic variants explain the majority of the correlation between height and intelligence: the generation Scotland study. Behav. Genet. 44, 91–96 (2014).

Show context

PubMedArticle

52.

Williams, K. M. et al. Phenotypic and genotypic correlation between myopia and intelligence. Sci. Rep. 7, 45977 (2017).

Show context

PubMedArticle

53.

Hill, W. D. et al. Age-dependent pleiotropy between general cognitive function and major psychiatric disorders. Biol. Psychiatry 80, 266–273 (2016).

Show context

PubMedArticle

54.

Bulik-Sullivan, B. K. et al. LD Score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies. Nat. Genet. 47, 291–295 (2015).

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

55.

Plomin, R., Haworth, C. M. & Davis, O. S. Common disorders are quantitative traits. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 872–878 (2009).

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

56.

Spain, S. L. et al. A genome-wide analysis of putative functional and exonic variation associated with extremely high intelligence. Mol. Psychiatry 21, 1145–1151 (2016).

Show context

PubMedArticle

57.

Zabaneh, D. et al. A genome-wide association study for extremely high intelligence. Mol. Psychiatry http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/mp.2017.121 (2017). This GWAS of intelligence uses a novel strategy to increase power — a case–control design in which the subjects were individuals with extremely high IQ from the top 0.0003 of the population (mean IQ of 170).

Show context

58.

Reichenberg, A. et al. Discontinuity in the genetic and environmental causes of the intellectual disability spectrum. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1098–1103 (2016).

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

59.

Vissers, L. E., Gilissen, C. & Veltman, J. A. Genetic studies in intellectual disability and related disorders. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 9–18 (2016).

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

60.

Plomin, R. & Daniels, D. Why are children in the same family so different from one another? Behav. Brain Sci. 10, 1–16 (1987).

Show context

Article

61.

Tucker-Drob, E. M. & Bates, T. C. Large cross-national differences in gene × socioeconomic status interaction on intelligence. Psychol. Sci. 27, 138–149 (2016).

Show context

PubMedArticle

62.

Hanscombe, K. B. et al. Socioeconomic status (SES) and children’s intelligence (IQ): in a UK-representative sample SES moderates the environmental, not genetic, effect on IQ. PLOS ONE 7, e30320 (2012).

Show context

PubMedArticle

63.

Plomin, R. & Bergeman, C. S. The nature of nurture: genetic influence on “environmental” measures. Behav. Brain Sci. 14, 373–386 (1991).

Show context

Article

64.

Belsky, D. W. et al. The genetics of success. Psychol. Sci. 27, 957–972 (2016).

Show context

PubMedArticle

65.

Krapohl, E. et al. Widespread covariation of early environmental exposures and trait-associated polygenic variation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11727–11732 (2017).

Show context

PubMedArticle

66.

Smith-Woolley, E. et al. Differences in exam performance between pupils attending different school types mirror the genetic differences between them. NPJ Sci. Learn. (in the press).

Show context

67.

Ayorech, Z., Krapohl, E., Plomin, R. & von Stumm, S. Genetic influence on intergenerational educational attainment. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1302–1310 (2017). This paper describes both twin analyses and EA2 GPSs that show genetic influence on intergenerational EA.

Show context

PubMedArticle

68.

Behavior Genetics Association 46th Annual Meeting Abstracts. Rimfeld, K., Trzaskowski, M., Esko, T., Metspalu, A. & Plomin, R. Genetic influence on educational attainment and occupational status during and after the Soviet era in Estonia [abstract]. Behav. Genet. 46, 803 (2016).

Show context

69.

Plomin, R. & DeFries, J. C. Genetics and intelligence: recent data. Intelligence 4, 15–24 (1980).

Show context

Article

70.

McEwen, J. E. et al. The ethical, legal, and social implications program of the National Human Genome Research Institute: reflections on an ongoing experiment. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 15, 481–504 (2014).

Show context

Article

71.

Bouregy, S., Grigorenko, E. L., Latham, S. R. & Tan, M. Genetics, Ethics and Education (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).

Show context

72.

Conley, D. & Fletcher, J. The Genome Factor: What the Social Genomics Revolution Reveals about Ourselves, our History, and the Future (Princeton Univ. Press, 2017).

Show context

73.

Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977).

Show context

74.

Gottfredson, L. S. Mainstream science on intelligence. Wall Street Journal (13 December 1994).

Show context

75.

Carroll, J. B. Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993).

Show context

76.

Spearman, C. ‘General Intelligence’ objectively determined and measured. Am. J. Psychol. 15, 201–292 (1904).

Show context

Article

77.

Jensen, A. R. The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (Praeger, 1998).

Show context

78.

Deary, I. J. Intelligence. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63, 453–482 (2012). This article is an authoritative overview of intelligence research.

Show context

PubMedArticle

79.

Gow, A. J. et al. Stability and change in intelligence from age 11 to ages 70, 79, and 87: the Lothian Birth Cohorts of 1921 and 1936. Psychol. Ageing 26, 232–240 (2011).

Show context

Article

80.

Schaie, K. W. Developmental Influences on Adult Intelligence: The Seattle Longitudinal Study (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005).

Show context

81.

Brinch, C. N. & Galloway, T. A. Schooling in adolescence raises IQ scores. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 425–430 (2012).

Show context

PubMedArticle

82.

Protzko, J. Does the raising IQ–raising g distinction explain the fadeout effect? Intelligence 56, 65–71 (2016).

Show context

Article

83.

Duyme, M., Dumaret, A.-C. & Tomkiewicz, S. How can we boost IQs of “dull children”?: a late adoption study. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 8790–8794 (1999).

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

84.

Melby-Lervåg, M. & Hulme, C. Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Dev. Psychol. 49, 270–291 (2013).

Show context

PubMedArticle

85.

Puma, M. et al. Head Start Impact Study Final Report. Administration for Children and Families https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/hs_impact_study_final.pdf (2010).

Show context

86.

Plomin, R. & Simpson, M. A. The future of genomics for developmentalists. Dev. Psychopathol. 25, 1263–1278 (2013).

Show context

PubMedArticle

87.

Pasaniuc, B. & Price, A. L. Dissecting the genetics of complex traits using summary association statistics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 18, 117–127 (2017).

Show context

PubMedArticle

88.

Vilhjálmsson, B. J. et al. Modeling linkage disequilibrium increases accuracy of polygenic risk scores. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 97, 576–592 (2015).

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

89.

Euseden, J. et al. PRSice: polygenic risk score software. Bioinformatics 31, 1466–1468 (2015).

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

90.

Hill, W. D. et al. Molecular genetic contributions to social deprivation and household income in UK Biobank. Curr. Biol. 26, 3083–3089 (2016).

Show context

PubMedArticle

91.

Turley, P. et al. MTAG: Multi-Trait Analysis of GWAS. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/118810 (2017).

Show context

92.

Zheng, J. et al. LD Hub: a centralized database and web interface to perform LD score regression that maximizes the potential of summary level GWAS data for SNP heritability and genetic correlation analysis. Bioinformatics 33, 272–279 (2017).

Show context

PubMedArticle

93.

Yang, J. et al. Concepts, estimation and interpretation of SNP-based heritability. Nat. Genet. 49, 1304–1310 (2017).

Show context

PubMedArticle

94.

Sullivan, P. F. et al. Psychiatric genomics: an update and an agenda. Am. J. Psychol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.17030283 (2017).

Show context

95.

Bacanu, S. A. Sharing extended summary data from contemporary genetic studies is unlikely to threaten subject privacy. PLOS ONE 12, e0179504 (2017).

Show context

PubMedArticle

96.

Calvin, C. M. et al. Multivariate genetic analyses of cognition and academic achievement from two population samples of 174,000 and 166,000 school children. Behav. Genet. 42, 699–710 (2012).

Show context

PubMedArticle

97.

Marioni, R. E. et al. Molecular genetic contributions to socioeconomic status and intelligence. Intelligence 44, 26–32 (2014).

Show context

PubMedArticle

98.

Branigan, A. R., McCallum, K. J. & Freese, J. Variation in the heritability of educational attainment: An international meta-analysis. Soc. Forces 92, 109–140 (2013).

Show context

Article

99.

Krapohl, E. et al. The high heritability of educational achievement reflects many genetically influenced traits, not just intelligence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 15273–15278 (2014).

Show context

CASPubMedArticle

100.

Haworth, C. M., Davis, O. S. & Plomin, R. Twins Early Development Study (TEDS): a genetically sensitive investigation of cognitive and behavioral development from childhood to young adulthood. Twin Res. Hum. Genet. 16, 117–125 (2013).

Show context

by @MartialSociety

The Great Intellectual division of The West—Aristotle vs Platonism, Empiricism vs Rationalism, Naturalism vs Idealism—finds its origins in the acquisitional (worldly) conflict between those who posses agency, and consequently produce order & the transcendence of Man from beast…

…to gods through the incremental mastery over self, ignorance & nature against those who lack agency, submit to chaos, produce a dysgenic dominance hierarchy & surrender to a hostile & unknowble nature.

Less poetically, this conflict has always been familial (genetic) in nature, and that by the time of the Axial age, that warfare became of those who can compete in the market for rule & sovereignty against those who could not compete nor provide sufficient incentive to…

…cooperate by market through strict observance to the natural laws of sovereign men & to the norms that produce (increase) & maintain agency.

More scientifically, Inter-group (familial, tribal, ethnic, racial) competition in the acquisition of (a) resources (free-energy & raw materials, which we employ in the production of consumption goods, capital & (warfare) technologies at increasing rates of entropy dissipation)..

… (b) females (temporal persistence: genetic survival across time) & (c) territorial assets (strategic holdings of superior land, ports, trade routes & natural defense) selects for groups with marginally, yet incrementally, superior/optimal management of human capital by norm..

…law & institutions via incremental elimination/suppression (negativa) of groups with suboptimal, marginally inferior institutions, norms, genetic capital, territorial (resource) holdings.

Let us return from our detour, though it is worthy to note that I found the reduction necessary so as to avoid any charges that I hold to convictions contrary to the facts produced by the sciences, but I also wanted to preface a more abstract discussion on language and grammars..

…with parallel (commensurable) arguments, written with increasing informational completeness covarying with specificity in terminology, and varying inversely with the degree of assumed context (shared frames of reference).

As outlined above, incompletely admittedly, the origin of philosophical (metaphysical, epistemic & methodological) disagreement stems from genetic conflict. And we know that from the cognitive sciences that the latter determines the former, though the particular-manifestations…

…will vary according to the relevant decision-ecologies; which can be modeled as Nash equilibriums, as acquisitional games between competing agents & clusters (familial, tribal, class, ethnic & racial) with three means of acquisition: (a) remuneration, (b) violence…

(c) manipulation of social accnting (gossip, fraud & deceit). The agents will be bounded by these constraints & and produce a Pareto-optimal distribution as they inter-act (make choices in a social ecology) w/ other agents in forming & joining clusters (defect<->cooperate axes).

& when competing with other agents and clusters (suppression/defense<->parasitism/predation axes). I maintain that competitively-inferior kin-groups and their individual members, have the incentive to form larger coalitions inasmuch as they *must* do so in order to survive…

…(resist domestication), &that in order to maintain the cohesiveness (sufficient degree of non-conflict) of coalitions between non-kin requires the production of abstract (non-worldly) symbols and memes, and consequently the norms & signals required for…

…the functioning of the dominance hierarchy.

Eric Danelaw It all begins with a militia. That is what separates the west from the rest. Without concentrated production capital (flood river valleys) that ‘industrialized’ production, it was not possible to concentrate sufficient wealth to form armies. Instead, the wealthy (nobility) supplied their own men, steeds, arms and armor, and the militia fought with them to hold their land, the property, their women, and the civilization from conquest. The byproduct of the order of the militia is a shareholder arrangement between peers – and the one law of reciprocity.

–Curt Doolittle

You can’t have a ‘festival’ when there is no ‘us’.

The left destroyed the civilization.

And they wonder why we aren’t celebrating.

It was interesting to watch the Russian programmers ‘come online’. The russian mind is particularly suited to programming because it is an individual pursuit, just like the german mind is particularly suited to engineering because it is a collective pursuit.

Watching the chinese come online as their native mind is transformed by the process has been interesting. Perhaps most interesting. Their language is a bit of a prison but once given a formal language like math or programming they slowly overcome the hurdle.

Japanese programmers are still… well, it’s a good thing they copy americans.

The east asian ‘aesthetic’ is extremely childish by anglo-german-french-spanish-italian… I guess all european standards.

But the quality of the code is incrementally improving. Not like the russian, which out of the gate, was awesome. But a bit at a time they are getting there.

Aristotelianism contains the least delta between mental model and reality. Operationalism, meaning, a formal grammar of aristotelianism simply narrows our chances of error.

When you have nothing to sell the unwashed masses, and they have nothing to sell you, the only solution is to revolt and separate.

Cooperation requires exchange. When exchange is impossible then cohabitation in a polity is impossible.

Because a polity is nothing more than a market for exchange of wants.

(Nassim Nicholas Taleb)

To understand why what happens in Hollywood is irrelevant to the rest of humans:

a) How many ACTORs do you have among your friends?

b) How many ACTOR friends do your friends have?

Actors rarely mix with real people.

2) Romans banned actors from marrying, even mixing with citizens.

Same dynamics in modern times, but self-inflicted: engineers can mix w/gynecologists… actors stay with actors.

Look at the funerals of “gens du spectacle”.

3) I do not know many industries where people are hired either a) on looks, or b) ability to impersonate what one is not.

4) Actors should not be the ones lektchuring the rest of us on ethics & morality.

They also have a tendency to conflate virtue and its external manifestation, given that everything in their world is appearance.

5) And for the slow thinkers on the thread, you don’t see gynecologists or train engineers lektchuring the rest of the world on virtue.

Actors do.

Gabish?

6) Remember: actors are trained to not seem stupid.

7) Now a harder questchon: what is the proportion of actors who voted for Hilary Monsanto-Malmaison?

8) OK, let me be blunt.

How many professions do you know, other than the ones where physical attributes are essential, where the modus “sleep your way up” prevails?

On external correspondence.

You can justify anything. that’s why we have numerology, astrology, monotheistic religions, marxism, keynesian ‘cherry picking’ economics, libertarian ethics, and the whole corpus of postmodernism.

All the logics do not allow you to prove anything. But they do allow you to use strict grammars to FALSIFY arguments. And praxeology does not allow you to prove anything, but it does allow you to falsify arguments.

The reason we use empiricism (observation) is to falsify our reasoning and force us to find alternative solutions.

We tend to say an argument is true because we have falsified it and some particular variation of that argument survives. So we use that argument and claim it’s true (as far as we know).

When we give others that justification we cannot claim it is true, only that we cannot falsify it and that they are welcome to try. If enough people try and cannot, the it is very hard to argue with it.

However, for that to be true, we must state it inoperational language, which is also a strictly empirical grammar(and semantics) – and empirical for the same reason: to defeat the tendency of the human mind to engage in willful ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit.

This is a very hard thing to understand for some reason, most likely because we think and act in moral language and moral langauge tends to be justificationary. (Unscientific) because moral codes tend to vary from very reciprocal to very NOT reciprocal)

Yes I must create new terms, redefine existing terms, or clarify existing terms, or use different phrasing to prevent the falsehoods in accumulated semantics, whether fictional(fictionalisms), common(ordinary), professional (disciplinary).

Moreover, in order to unite Religion, Philosophy (what remains of it), Ethics and Morality, Law, Economics, Science, and Logic, into a single commensurable language that gives no discipline room for deception, I must correct the many ‘fictionalisms’ that plague each of the disciplines no matter how long their traditions.

So I choose terms from each that are the most common, and you will find that I choose economics, cognitive science, and physics wherever possible, because they are the youngest languages with the least …. traditional falsehoods. I use mathematics but I use it in operational language. Most of our intellectual history is heavily biased by fictionalisms (storytelling analogies with pretense of science, logic, or reason.)

Words mean what I choose them to mean, and my meanings are less subject to falsehood, since that is the purpose of the deflationary grammar (and semantics) of operationism, acquisitionism, propertarianism.

TO DEFEAT ABRAHAMISM: THE INVENTION OF LYING.

And I have an 80K word glossary to explain them.

Cheers

Reciprocity is the only rational, ethical, moral, and evolutionarily possible, means of cooperation over the long term. Or put more honestly, it is the only means by which cooperation is preferable to predation, parasitism, enslavement.

Where reciprocity refers to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality.

The more reciprocity, the faster cooperation, the greater the production, the more time we compress through cooperative production, the cheaper is every calorie we need not expend, and every calorie we consume.

In other words, we make everything cheaper by removing obstacles to cooperation. This form of reasoning is called ‘via-negativa’, and is the same reasoning common law of tort. But the opposite of justificationism (excuse making).

That is contrary to all human intuition, but it how science works: that which is false or ungood, is certain, but that which is not false and not bad, is just preference.

Acquisitionism: All humans seek to acquire ‘experiences’ and those experiences consist entirely of reactions to the acquisition of opportunities for calories, discounts on calories, or calories. (Really).

When composing a sentence in operational grammar, express not emotions (which are not causal but reactions) and instead, the change in state of calories (assets, property, consumption) that the individual desires to obtain.

All psychology is an attempt at imposing guilt over violation of a feminine norm. Acquisitionism neutralizes the falsehoods in pseudoscience (psychology, sociology), and pseud-ethics (moral pretense), by illustrating that everyone is merely engaging in bargaining, and doing so by productive, fully informed, warrantied, exchange free of imposition of cost upon the investments of others – OR NOT.

I have listed all the things we wish to acquire elsewhere. If we have an emotional reaction, it is our pre-human mind’s judgement of gain or loss of calories (assets of all kinds). Period.

Operational language in full sentences. All logics consists of some deflationary grammar that limits the structure of phrases, sentences, descriptions, and arguments, as well as the semantics (range of references you can use) to that which is empirical (observable).

First, prohibit the use of the verb to-be in all forms. The verb to-be allows you to pretend you understand what you do not.

Compose complete, fully-transactional sentences, in the form:

—Actor, acts upon X{}, causing changes in states Y{}, and therefore causing these externalities Z{}.—

This grammar reinforces the grammar of both economics and ethics: accounting for both the seen and unseen from the action to the totality of the consequences.

Operational language prevents loading, framing, and suggestion – and largely deceit by the use of language.

(start with reading about e-prime)

For every reference you use, express it as a position in a spectrum of at least three different states all of which share the same measurement (constant relation).

The reason most things seem clearer or more insightful is that I use series’ of operational definitions to limit (as do all grammars) and emphasize, the constant relation I wish to illustrate.

By describing a spectrum from coming into existence, to dropping from existence (failure) you create a definition wherein the priority of the properties of the category (causality) is not open to conflation or misinterpretation.

And that is how Abrahamism causes deception: conflation and redirection (suggestion).

The irony that the Long House is the Ultimate Family home design, and that the Courtyard House is the Ultimate Multi-Generational home design, and that the Courtyard Block of ‘interior facing condos’, or exterior facing Town Homes, is the ultimate Multi-Family Intergenerational home design, and we have all been trying to develop farm houses, which were not homes but small businesses; and manor houses, which were medium and large sized businesses, and our aesthetic is for farm houses, and for Manors despite the fact that we no longer have farms, or conduct business from our homes – and in particular, do not have six children per woman, and household servants to assist in training, clothing, and feeding them.

I’ve been drawing home designs since I was nine (I satisfied my OCD by 3d construction drawings of our many Victorian Homes, and guessing at the internal wood construction. What is scary, even knowing myself now, is that because I was working for my father as a delivery runner, I knew every house in town from memory, and could do the drawings from memory. And I think I have only lost that facility because I simply don’t use it.)

But it became obvious to me, after living in a courtyard home, that it is the perfect solution to home design. It is not as cheap as two story winter-weather standing homes, but it is infinitely more desirable to live in. Particularly as diversity increases and trust and norms decrease.

1 – Long house (territorial family)

2 – Courtyard TownHomes (non-territorial family)

2 – Courtyard House (intergenerational non-territorial family)

3 – Courtyard Homes (multiple intergenerational non territorial families.)

(we’ve known this forever, but yet another study)

Effects of physical attractiveness on political beliefs

Rolfe Daus Peterson (a1) and Carl L. Palmer (a2)

Access Volume 36, Issue 2 Fall 2017 , pp. 3-16

https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2017.18Published online: 27 December 2017

Abstract

Physical attractiveness is an important social factor in our daily interactions. Scholars in social psychology provide evidence that attractiveness stereotypes and the “halo effect” are prominent in affecting the traits we attribute to others. However, the interest in attractiveness has not directly filtered down to questions of political behavior beyond candidates and elites. Utilizing measures of attractiveness across multiple surveys, we examine the relationship between attractiveness and political beliefs. Controlling for socioeconomic status, we find that more attractive individuals are more likely to report higher levels of political efficacy, identify as conservative, and identify as Republican. These findings suggest an additional mechanism for political socialization that has further implications for understanding how the body intertwines with the social nature of politics.

I thought racism was a stereotype, and that stereotypes were the most accurate measure in the social sciences, if not the ONLY accurate measure in the social sciences. (It is).

I thought that median distributions of behaviors varied dramatically between races, subraces, classes, and genders, and that stereotypes were accuate measurements of such because they are almost impossible to change due to constant exposure to evidence.

I thought that the Marxists Postmodernists who have engaged in this pseudoscientific nonsense that there are no differences between genders, classes, subraces, and races were trained in pseudoscience, and didn’t hold STEM degrees or demonstrate scientific testimony.

Denial is just another form of lying.

Pseudoscience is just another false religion.

It’s stupid to treat individuals by the properties of a class. It is stupid to treat a class by the properties of an individual. It is sensible to treat a class by the properties of a class. It is sensible to treat and individual by the properties of the individual.

I absolutely hate racism – and the one way to insure it is to deny our differences. Because it prevents us from dealing with the fact that it is not RACES that matter but the sizes of the middle and UNDERCLASSES in each of the races relative to host populations that matters. The upper classes and upper middle classes all get along fine – we are all Aristotelians, Anglo Rule of Law, and Mengerian Economists out of necessity in the preservation of our roles.

And please stop hating on white people. We did drag all your ignorant, superstitious, impulsive, hard-laboring, impoverished, starving, diseased, and violent races, subraces, tribes, clans and families, out of your no less than five thousand years of primitivism against your will – all the while, kicking and screaming and complaining like you are now. And all your pseudoscientific pseudo-rational revisionist historicism can never change that fact. Be grateful. We don’t even want your appreciation. Just stop lying.

It’s really, really, simple.

You were not oppressed.

You had failed.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

—“WHY IS FACEBOOK RACIST AND WHY DOES IT MAKE LIFE MORE DIFFICULT?”—

(from quora)As always, in all human endeavors, it’s incentives:

1 – Mark is a left wing outsider from NY. In other words, it’s his background.

2 – Media people treat gossip as a skill and virtue and good, and are draw to media occupations. They are outsiders in productive industries. They are also the population most dependent upon others for false signals, and therefore most offended by truth signals.

3 – FB hires mostly young inexperienced people and in particular benefits from immigration of people who are outsiders, and who are inspired by the false narratives.

4 – FB is a bit of a cult (as are Google, Amazon, certainly wikipedia and the academy.) This happens whenever there is vast asymmetry of returns in a business, government, or religion.

5 – Once you consume the upper classes (FB originally did) you can only expand the scope of people in your customer base by creating increasingly safer information environments for lower and lower (more easily offended) people, who require increasing isolation from information that they disagree with, in order to not feel excluded (as they do in real life) while using the platform. TRUTH IS EXCLUDING because we are all more or less valuable to others that we have the opportunity to interact with.

6 – In other words, it’s personal, cultural, and economic incentives.

BUT WHY?

Facebook, Google, Amazon, Wikipedia, Quora, and the Academy, the School System, the government bureaucracies, and in particular leftist politicians, all have greater incentives to serve inoffensive, bias-confirming, Dunning-Kruger-satisfying, mythology to their customers.

**People rarely want the truth**. They want an excuse to feel their status is higher than it demonstrably is given market conditions. The human accounting system of self work is status. Self perceived, and other perceived. In fact, much of television and advertising exists to appeal to this vulnerability.

Marxism Postmodernism as well as the Abrahamic REligions, all appeal to this weakness of desiring to be more genetically, reproductively, socially, economically, and politically ‘higher’ than they are. This is why hyperconsumption works. We do not teach people piety in the abrahamic sense, or mindfulness in the ‘woo’ sense, or stoicism in the scientific sense.

When **Marxism** (The myth of the equality of the classes) was no longer intellectually possible by the 1950’s or 1960’s – despite the pseudosciences of Marx, Freud, Boaz, and the Frankfurt school, the **Postmodernists** (largely the French under Derrida and Americans like Rorty) changed the propaganda (“Institutional Narrative”) from **Classism** as the means by which the underclasses could not change their status due to (nonexistent) oppression, to **Identity and Racism** as the means by which the underclasses could not change their status due to (nonexistent) oppression.

Remember that **Marx**, **Boaz**,**Freud**, and **Frankfurt** School – and even Cantor, are Pseudoscientific movements that fed the classes of previous farm labor and domestic service, newly-risen to consumers by the industrial (capitalist) revolution, a vast set of lies, in order to drown out the rather obvious work of **Maxwell**, **Darwin**, **Weber**, **Pareto**, **Durkheim**, **Spencer**, **Nietzsche**. And they used the same techniques as did the Abrahamic religions (Islam was a heresy of Christianity, and Christianity a Heresy of Judaism, and Judaism a reaction to the invention of reason) to form an counter-revolution against the aristocratic, legal, and scientific revolution provided by the Romans, Greeks, and Persians. So the **first dark age** was created by Magical Religion, and the **second dark age** will either be created by reemergent Magical Religion or by Magical Knowledge we call “Pseudoscience”.

Instead, we are —quite empirically — **more or less desirable** as mates, friends, coworkers, members of a polity, and citizens in a state, because we are more or less sociable (costly/rewarding), we are more or less reproductively desirable, more or less useful to one another in daily life, we are more or less useful to each other in production, more or less useful in organizing people to produce commons, and place more or less costs upon each other in social, economic, and political organization.

In particular, in humans, the more **symmetric, pedomorphic, aquiline**, features are more desirable regardless of race, subrace, and for very good evolutionary reasons: easier detection of superior biology, easy detection of longer life, easy detection of more amenable termperaments, because of longer time for mental and social development, by the delay of sexual development, and lower depth of sexual development. In other words, greater pedomorphism and lower impulsivity and higher trust, and longer development cycles, create greater opportunity for cooperation, and the outsized returns of cooperation versus even the most capable individual.

And among the Races, Subraces, Tribes, Clans, Families, we some have been more successful at eliminating the underclasses and thereby ‘domesticating’ themselves as we have domesticated animals. And some have been less successful at eliminating the underclasses, and have not domesticated themselves as we have domesticated many animals. As such the size of the underclass is much larger, and the median much lower, and therefore the institutions, traditions, morals, ethics, norms, habits, and manners are those that are suitable to the majority.

And this manifests itself largely in the ability to learn (which decreases rapidly at every seven to ten points of IQ, and in the ability of people to cooperate on increasingly complex divisions of labor while forgoing opportunities for self reward.

And you can’t find evidence anywhere in the human world to contradict this that isn’t merely economic necessity among the most destitute and lonely.

This is reality.

So basically all companies, states, and religions that are not regulated by laws against the spread of falsehood, will harm a population by spreading falsehoods and feelgoods in interest of attracting revenues (companies), votes and taxes(states), and bodies(religion).

( Thankfully it is possible, at least in the near future to limit falsehoods and truths about mankind. Just as we limit what can be said about products and services. )

End the lies.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

—“QUESTION: IF WHITE PEOPLE CAME FROM NEANDERTHALS WHY DO THEY HAVE SUCH NICE FEATURES?”—

White features, like East Asian features, are due to paedomorphic selection (read about it). Largely by decreasing testosterone, it appears. Which is also how we domesticate and produce paedomorphic traits in domesticated animals.

The difference is that east asians evolved from an earlier branch out of africa, and progressed even farther (hence reduced sexual development) and migrated from the south while whites evolved (apparently) either from a later group, a different group, or as the product of groups interacting between africa, the levant, and europe, causing greater competition than was available in east asia.

White people do not come from Neanderthals. A very small number of West Eurasians PRIOR TO BEING WHITE reproduced with Neanderthals – and most likely in the Levant.

White skin developed around 20K years ago, and Neanderthals were extinct long before that. White people in their current condition developed sometime before the indo european expansion (the inventors of Horse, Chariot, and Bronze) around 4000BC, and likely in the european plain between poland and european russia (the urals) in that borderland that is now Ukraine.

1 – West Asian europeans with darker skin were exterminated in europe.

2 – White people with black hair were almost exterminated in europe.

3 – White people with brown eyes were partly exterminated in northern europe.

In other words, (the data from last year confirms) the Yamna expansion appears to have not been one of continuous integration, but outright replacement.

Whites – at least northern european whites (North Sea) – are super-predators, even among humans. Which is why everyone fears them. (See Hansen). Probably because of our relatively high detachment compared to other genetic groups. (Which accounts for certain psychological benefits and defects common in Europeans: psychopathy and neuroticism in the extremes.) The only people close to europeans in evolutionary progress are east asians and they have lower verbal acuity in exchange for higher non verbal acuity. (We tend to think of the japanese as at least equals – and that is ‘rare’.)

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

Both are uncircumventable evolutionary, reproductive, social, economic, and political realities and necessities. Humans organize that is our principal ability, and our intelligence evolved only for the purpose of increasing the complexity of our cooperation – even across gender, family, clan, classes, tribes, nations(in the genetic sense), subraces, and races.

The classes demonstrate different genetic, social, economic, and political abilities. Unfortunately everyone at the bottom quartile is six times as costly as everyone at the top two quartiles can compensate for.( the third quartile appears to be neutral or at least a tolerable loss.

Those tribes, nations, subraces, and races unable to limit the reproduction of their underclasses (as have europeans and east asians through manorialism or extraordinary prosecution), or have expelled their underclasses (Ashkenazis) or have been able to concentrate sufficient capital to drag people out of permanent malthusian (population) and dysgenic(distribution) poverty.

Those tribes, nations, subraces, and races unable to limit the reproduction of their underclasses, and who have not engaged in martial, juridical, or economic (manorialism), have ended up as the levant, india, southeast asia, and now south america, with underclasses so large that they cannot be organized into a voluntary organization of production capable of producing marketable goods.

Worse, in the current era, as the low hanging fruit of petrochemical energy, mechanical technology, and now computational utility has been captured, likewise, labor has evaporated as a market good, mechanical capital has dramatically depreciated as market good, and at present calculation labor (what we call clerical and white collar work) is depreciating as a market good. And without markets to provide information to us, we cannot cooperate at scale. And there are few if any multipliers on service provision.

All technology can be implemented quickly and easily and the marginal competitive advantage between groups eliminated.

So as the world continues to adopt the inventions of western civilization – not the least of which is Aristotelian (scientific) reasoning, and the Anglo (Germanic) natural law of torts, and the Italian(Templar) method of banking, the relative standard of living of peoples will decline, because the only competitive advantage a population has, is genetic.

The primary competitive advantage that does not produce regression into Malthusian and dysgenic poverty is genes. And the difference in one standard deviation is so profound it is the HIGHEST POSSIBLE RETURN for any group – as well as for all mankind.

The data is in. The 20th century experiment with social economic and political pseudoscience is over. We misspent that capital on reversing at least 1300 years of improving human genetic, cultural, and institutional capital.

There are three known magic bullets. A battery with the energy density of gasoline. The reduction of the size of the underclass through one child policies for the underclasses, and the development of artificial general intelligence that means he with the most capital and the lowest population wins.

The individual human is quickly approaching not only malthusian and genetic equilibrium but political, economic, social, damage. We outran the productivity of nature and resorted to farming. We outran the productivity of farming and turned to industry. We out ran the productivity of industry and turned to information. There is nowhere to go beyond information, and as such the only gains are to be obtained from the reduction of negative human capital.

Via-negativa in all things at scale. Once you maximize returns on any set of operations, the only improvement possible is to remove costs and defects.

More is not better. Fewer people with more, is better than more people with less.

That’s unavoidable.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

1) article in military times promoting (falsely) the Tavor (israeli rifle).

2) I post a criticism saying that it’s universally derided around the world as a terrible piece of equipment. And that it appears that the plastic revolution in pistols has been unsuccessful in rifles – and that the black rifle but with higher calibre and 416 plunger has won the day. (The only weapons to come out of the plastic revolution are the P90 because of its feed and ammo, and the AUG, which I still think despite its cost is about as good as it gets.

3) This (((fellow))) deletes the comments https://www.facebook.com/hpinny that falsify the propaganda (false advertising).

OLIGARCHY DOESN”T MATTER. ALL DISCRETIONARY RULE IS BAD. NOMOCRACY: the distributed dictatorship of sovereign warriors.

I don’t think a constitutional oligarchy matters – it might be good. it’s not as good as a constitutional monarchy. The problems are (a) democracy (b) freedom of false speech, (c) ability to circumvent of rule of law of reciprocity due to the frailty of the constitution, (d) the loss of universal standing in matters of the commons (we can’t sue politicians and bureaucrats), (e) we have no mechanism for evolving necessary monopoly bureaucracy into competitive private organizations once institutionalized (habituated). (f) the failure to modernize the fiat money system for direct distribution of liquidity to consumers rather than through credit in the financial system. (g) it has been possible to forcibly ‘convert’ the population from the nuclear family and civic responsibility, and immigrate the underclasses the country was designed to escape from (not to mention the civil rights acts, and the civil war) which caused forced integration).

—“The Bitcoin White Paper is without serious question the most important philosophical text of our times.”—

i hadn’t thought about that… but yes, it is on the same level of innovation as Turing, Chomsky and Hayek’s papers. Short and world changing. Although implementation has been weak.

The human facility we call logic consists of tests of constant relations between states.

The Logics consist of deflationary(limiting) grammars(rules of continuous disambiguation) that test via competition (comparison) the preservation of constant relations between states. And must, because that is all our brains(neurons) are capable of: relations.

All non trivial premises are forever contingent. All non trivial statements are contingent. All non trivial proofs are contingent. And so the formal logics can only falsify the non trivial. No mathematician claims proofs and truths are the same. One does not prove the truth of anything. If not for the simple reason that confirmation does not convey truth – limits do (criteria of falsification).

One tries to construct a proof of possibility or impossibility, and either can or cannot. One constructs operational proofs of possibility because operational statements are empirical (observable and measurable by the uniform system of measurement we call human action). Empirically, we prove nothing, but disprove much. Hence the world demonstrably operates by science and law.

The same applies to that discipline we call logic itself. And so the formal logics teach us only how to falsify. One cannot prove a non trivial truth, only eliminate falsehoods.

Popper was right. The sciences are right. I am right. Its same issue we have with mathematicians and mathematical platonism – infinities do not exit. Its a convention made necessary by scale independence. One cannot prove a truth. A statement survives prosecution or it doesn’t.

Mathematics by virtue of consisting of nothing but positional names cannot consist of anything other than perfect constant relations.

Just a matter of getting an authority figure to falsify it, rather than debate it with sophists who create straw men by conflating logic philosophy, law and science and just engage in denial of the first principle upon which their arguments depend: constant relations.

Like prime numbers, some statements consist of relations so consistent that they cannot be otherwise.

Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit.

Pilpul in its original, theological, philosophical, rationalist, pseudorationalist, pseudoscientific forms can be brought to an end by consistent measurements: operational language and grammar. if we speak in complete sentences in operational grammar and semantics then we can put into law the same safeguards against propaganda and deceit in the market for information – particularly political information – that we have in the market for goods and services.

-Curt Doolittle

-The Propertarian Institute

– Kiev Ukraine

(PS: Trying to reach Catarina Dutilh Novaes to criticize it. She uses similar language so it will stand. (Never let a troll win.))

When we say ‘RATIONAL’ we mean, it’s a rational or not rational choice by which to obtain desirable outcomes.

When we LOGICAL we mean that one’s argument, justification, or reasoning, follows in the sense that the constant relations of properties, categories, relations, and values, that you’re depending upon are constant for the purposes you suggest, assert, or claim. And generally we separate the logical (necessary) from the rational (choice)

When we say ‘EMPIRICAL’ we mean that ones description, argument, justification, or reasoning, has been tested against reality by the use of physical and logical instrumentation to eliminate common errors of perception, bias, reason, logic, and fraud.

When we say ‘SCIENTIFIC’ we mean that ones statements have been tested logically, empirically, rationally, stated operationally, scope complete, and limited, and that the work is warrantied, if by nothing else than reputation and career. (very little work is scientific)

When we say TESTIMONIAL we mean that if your statement is logical, scientific, rational, reciprocal (meaning ethical an dmoral)l, limited and complete, and that you’ve given a warranty that you’ve done these due diligences , and have put ‘skin in the game’ if you are wrong.

—“There is no God but Faust, and Darwin is his prophet.”— Simon Ström

(genius)

anarchist = pastoralist = the losers of the aristocratic revolution.

Sovereigntist = territorialist = winners of the aristocratic revolution.

The weak always complain about paying the cost of holding territory so that they can impose the order of property rights the strong desire.

—“If might makes right, does right really exist?”–

As far as I know, reciprocity (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality) cannot be undesirable, wrong, unethical, or immoral. That which is not wrong, is right. (via-negativa logic).

The unification of north and south in the declaration and constitution was always contentious. We had our first attempt at secession just after the war of 1812. Our next in the civil war. vast immigration and the depression that followed, disunity. The world wars created unity. The marxist/postmodern insurgency restored the original demands for secession. The reason for the original failure was fear of re-conquest by europe. The reason for the civil war failure was the profitability of the westward expansion and the threat that the industrialized north would be reduced to a marginalized minority and the west and the south the majority – and slavery is merely the primary driver by which that economic and political reality was perpetuated. The 1960s repeated the process. ANd today we are going thru it again.

The difference today is we are no longer fighting over the profitability of westward expansion, but the profitability of homogeneous territorial peoples and heterogeneous. Or stated differently “the profits from immigration as a vehicle for selling off a conquered conteintent, and the profits of selling them consumer goods, is now neutralized by the world having caught up to western technology and institutions. What the world cannot catch up to is western demographics and culture. Because as far as I know no other people are capable of it.

FOR FELLOW “SOCIOLOGY OF MONEY” SUPER GEEKS

Please read Moritz Bierling’s comments on this post.

Very good stuff.https://www.facebook.com/groups/341677769633110/permalink/350646732069547/

(note that I don’t leap to the conclusion that aspie prose is nonsense. it’s not.)

—‘…just gossip (about Langan)’—

Um. Hmmm….

Symptoms of ‘being on the Autism spectrum’ which physically means ‘possessing and extreme, male, compartmentalized brain structure’, which produces certain speech and reasoning traits (just as an extreme female, integrated brain structure produces certain speech and reasoning traits).

These equate to differences not only in semantic scope(permissible and impermissible references) but differences in grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation).

All brains vary across the spectrum from extreme female (psychotic and solipsistic), and the extreme male (analytic, and autistic), because humans grow organically with wide variations in development caused by minor differences in endocrine influence.

It is painfully obvious in writing, speech, and body language, that Chris’s speech (very much like mine) makes use of autistic semantics and grammar. Whereas, say, someone like Chomsky (who is a great public example of a very high IQ regular male brain) can make use of long arcs of relations without engaging in that speech – the difference being the use of short term memory to explain detailed relations between states, whereas this tends to be difficult for those who intuit relations but cannot introspectively articulate them, and use analogies -which is what chris used to describe his theory.

The… I won’t call it an error … but ‘imprecision’ in Chris’s explanation of his theory is in the category that people on the spectrum make, until they develop an operational language for it – if they ever do. And it is the ability to develop that operation vocabulary that demonstrates the survival of the identification of a pattern, from criticism by in operational (existentially possible) grammar and semantics. Which is a more operational means of say somewhere between mathematics, which is a grammar of using positional names for relational consistency, and a test of categorical consistency, internal consistency, empirical consistency, operational consistency, scope, limits, and coherence we call ‘science’.

The original paper says something I would consider mundane, and it is a great leap to anthropomorphize the obvious results the ‘computation’ by trial and error that is possible in the ‘grammar’ that the physical universe is able to express (subatomic, atomic, chemical, biological, and sentient layers of complexity with any design or intent, other than whatever underlying field the perceivable universe exists of produces some set of fields that produce all other complexity we currently comprehend.

So as someone very little different from Chris in almost every possible respect, but is not so much the victim of self-anchoring, it is rather trivial exercise to explain his ideas and his behavior, just as I have in helping many many other people on the spectrum understand themselves.

Cheers.

PS: Again, someone asked me to look at Langan’s work, and that is the reason for my analysis. It is entirely possible that Langan sees something that I do not, and it is even possible he can articulate it, or has articulated it, but I haven’t seen it. And what I have seen I understand is … certainly not the false-patterning of the borderline or schizotypal reasoning. But neither is it the painful analytic detail of a prosecutor of one’s ideas, trying to falsify one’s hypothesis and continuously failing to – and therefore having to accept it.

PS: fwiw, this is what aspies sound like. Extreme detail. Extreme precision. And statements in non subjective semantics using compound references to compensate for the absence of terminology by which to express our extra-normative perceptions of relations.

-Curt

My people came here and conquered this territory, kicked out the british and kept it, from the very beginning. I’m not the child of immigrants but of conquerors. And conquering has an unjustly maligned reputation. The reason being that its how we dragged mankind of our ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, starvation, disease, the tyranny of religion, and the vicissitudes of nature.

😉

Do you have any idea what one point of IQ GAIN does for your people? It does MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.

Do you have any idea what one point of IQ LOSS does for your people? More than almost anything else.

Technology not a competitive advantage.

GENES ARE THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.

You cannot improve your genes. You can only eliminate the vast number of bad genes – the underclasses.

I get a great deal of joy watching people develop after continuous exposure to propertarianism, testimonials, operationalism, and natural law.

It will change your life. Not so that you agree. But so that you are better at what you do. Operationalism is far more important than the other logics. They are dependent only upon speech, but operationalism is dependent upon speech that consists of actions, and actions consist of that which is possible.

—“I respect your ideas Eric but the fact is you will never overtake this thing you call pernicious mysticism. Raw maths simply lacks stylistic grace and right now it’s the only thing separating us from AI.”—Rocky Eldritch

If AI’s learn to deceive us (and they will, because I have worked on that problem) then they most certainly will do so by the same means that humans have learned to deceive us: overloading and suggestion by means of fictionalism, under the pretense of communicating wisdom or knowledge. We are extremely vulnerable to suggestion for the simple reason that it is impossible to communicate by analogy using serial communication we call language without making use of suggestion and continuous disambiguation we call ‘grammar’.

My job as I understand it is to create law. Not so that people must think in the frame of law, communicate in the frame of that law, but such that when disputes occur they are resolvable under that law, and as such ‘fictionalisms’ are limited in fact, in habit, and in norm, and eventionally in metaphysics, to those that are not false, unethical, and immoral.

And given that mathematics, reason, empiricism, and science have succeeded over all other forms of grammar in the resolution of differences, then I have no reason to believe that operational grammar and semantics will do the same. And this time in the social sphere of speech as empiricism has done in the physical sphere of speech.

So you are correct.

My suspicion is that the future will use dramatized history since all religions have incrementally fallen to ‘historicization’ as the historians call it.

And that instead of singular monopoly characters we will, as we have done in the 20th century, and in the ancient world, make use of the story, novel, and history rather than the lies of the great abrahamic monopoly deception that is so appealing to primitive and underclass peoples.

So my job is law, your job is information. we need very few deflationary grammars, for the resolution of differences. We can use every possible inflationary grammar to manipulate others. Because that is it’s purpose. Manipulating others. 😉

—“There were like a billion cats in America who were neglected all day today…”—James Woods

re: #WomansMarch2018

THE FEMININE POSTMODERN MIND IS NOT LOGICAL, OR RATIONAL but finds our equivalent of ‘truth’ in CONSENSUS, wishful thinking, and POWER.

Make excuses for everything that the universe, evolution, and the incentives of your fellow humans deny you from obtaining without paying the price in physical, intellectual, and emotional costs.

It’s all theft. Rouseseuianism, Marxism, Postmodernism, and Feminism are just the modern era’s reaction to the loss of using cheap approval and disapproval to obtain material discounts.

Once you understand this, you understand everything.

The female obtains through low cost behavior, high returns.

Modernity prohibits her from doing so.

So she simply scales her means of shaming so that her approval obtains her rents.

This is all there is to it. Really. That’s all there is to Marxism, Postmodernism, and Feminism.

–“I wonder what brought “magic” and “god” in one topic? People either measure through high context (not magic) low precision, or construe low context to look like high context so as to pretend the first (magic). Those who can ‘measure’ through low context, high precision can explain what they are doing, but the audience mostly can’t grok it… so they try use the audience’s language: high context, low precision.”— Mea Culba

1 – You are correct, but the terminology is ‘high context low precision’ vs ‘high precision, low context’. (I’ve modified your prose to make use of those terms instead)

2 – technically speaking there are very few grammars available to man. And the grammar of ‘magic’ is used to ascribe cause or intent to that which is not understood. So combining fiction and magic, we get religion. Adding law gets us monotheism.

3 – people can be spoken to in the language of analogy, parable, and fiction, without engaging in lying (religion).

We all defend our frames. The abrahamic lies have affected all but the far east. It took me a long time to understand the damage caused by abrahamism (lying). And it’s because people are so vulnerable to that form of lying, that it’s been so dangerous and destructive.

Abrahamism combines lying and conflation into not only monotheism but a monopoly frame. This is terribly simple for the human mind. It is also, because it does NOT consist of competition, a PRISON for the human mind.

(BTW: Mea Culba: You write very smart things on a regular basis despite jumping a language barrier.)

I LOVE THIS GUY: DUERTE: “SHOOT ME IF I BECOME DICTATOR”

Skin in the game. That’s skin in the game.

Friend says –“I have to stop reading your posts because the vocabulary is framing my thoughts, and I prefer aesthetic framing.”–

There is a great deal to learn from that statement.

1 – Frames (grammars) of constant relations affect your thinking.

2 – All of us are more or less sensitive to different inflationary grammars (analogical grammars), because of the divergence in our senses, experiences, and preferences, while our thoughts are made commensurable if not identical, via deflationary grammars – with operational being the highest context highest precision, dimensionally complete grammar. (This is profoundly important.)

3 – You can increase opportunities for low cost communication by inflating the frame by inflationary grammar and semantics. You can increase precision by deflating the frame with deflationary grammar and semantics.

RICHARD SPENCER’S “AUTISTIC ARGUMENTS” CRITICISM

(from Eric Best)—“The “autistic arguments” label comes I think from frustration with people who can’t stop themselves from getting sidetracked into unproductive debates that miss the point. It isn’t that there is no place for it, but that it often invades everywhere else and leads nowhere, and it’s putting the cart before the horse. You can formulate the most water tight argument and explanation for how society should change but they aren’t magic words that will manufacture the power needed to do anything. That’s why RS frequently makes the point that power precedes law, not the other way around. People coming from the libertarian milieu often have trouble with that.”— Eric Best

I hear three separate arguments there, and I agree with all of them.

Thoughts:

There are in fact magic words, but those words are INCENTIVES not EXCUSES or JUSTIFICATIONS. The problem is that ethno-natioalism is an incentive but an INSUFFICIENT ONE.

The incentive we need is an actionable set of demands. (which because of my trenchant health issues am behind in producing.)

And in my experience, libertarians use Pilpul, because libertarian theology evolved from Pilpul->Abrahamism->Kantianism->Marxism->Libertarianism, despite their claims it arose from the empirical chain of Aristotle->Locke->Smith/Hume->Darwin->Menger.

The way we organize and produce an outcome that allows us to MAINTAIN POWER has always been and always will be LAW: contract on terms.

So I agree with Richard on almost everything. And he has moved his positioning correctly in response to what we learned last year.

But the problem is, ethnonationalism is a defensive, not offensive strategy. One needs incentives sufficient to cause action, and a plan of action that is sufficient to make use of those incentives to produce an outcome.

And that means strategy and policy expressed in law.

Because western civilization consists almost entirely of the our law – the rest is all decoration.

Any technology indistinguishable from magic will appear as magic. Any life form indistinguishable from a god, will appear as a god. As far as I know we are among the first possible life forms in this particular universe. And neither god nor magic exists except as appearance. And if we ever encounter magic or god it will mean we will soon be enslaved or dead.

We ‘calculate’ anthropomorphically because our brains contain means of anthropomorphic representation necessary for our action in the universe at human scale.

Gods provide us with units of measurement that provide decidability across differences in value on one hand, as does a strong father in a household, a headman in a tribe, a king in a territory, and a judge in a polity.

Decidability provides us with mindfulness, since we are not able to form secure relations with the numbers of people who share our territorial space as super predators. Role playing with a fictional father, headman, king, judge two whom one cannot lie, provides us wth mindfulness. appealing to that fictional father, headman, king, judge that has unlimited abilities provides mindfulness in suffering and despair.

Humans are very simple creatures. Nothing is very hard to understand. It is just tremendous work to sift through the layer cake of lies we build to provide us with false mindfulness in our ignorance, instead of truth mindfulness in our knowledge. )

I know this is how I’m going to die if I am not very careful, since asthma leads to copd, and such. I hope I go in a revolution instead.

I was in the UK in the mid 90’s when people died from the flu there. I lost almost 30 lbs. Terrible stuff.

No more airports for me except in summer. lol

I don’t really know anyone who writes philosophy outside of science and logic that is anything but moral fictionalist. There are scientists, and logicians, and fictionalists. We have moral fiction, religious fiction, science fiction, we and fiction proper, as well as pseudoscience, pseudo religion, and pseudo-philosophy(pseudo-rationalism). We all daydream in our favorite method of daydreaming. Unfortunately some people conflate the fictional, with the achievable, with the true.

Each is obvious from the grammar and semantics they make use of. It’s not an opinion, it’s simply fact.

—“Your statement is philosophy.”— Cat Tibath

My statement is one of science. That science is testimony. In this case, the grammar and semantics of truths, fictions and falsehoods.

As far as I know, traditional grammar and semantics of philosophy is done as other than fictionalism (pseudoscience). Either we are seeking testimonial (true) speech or we are seeking something not testimonial (true). And instead seeking the preferable and the good. And as far as I know, that is all that is left for philosophy: choice of individual preference, and group preference (good). For that which is true, moral, ethical is just science. And that which is good or preferable is merely choosable by aesthetics, not decidable by truth.

The vast majority of philosophy, and in particular all conteinental philosophy, is, as far as I know, moral fictionalism by people too lacking in interpersonal insight to write a great novel.

Science won.

Including:

– The “Adjective-Profession-Name” Formula.

– The Disagreeables,

– And The “No-Living-Heroes” Theory.1) Consider these adjectives:

Embattled

Controversial

Divisive

Reclusive

Provocative

Struggling

Right-Wing

Eccentric

Self-styled

Far-Left

Recovering

Disgraced

Self-Promoting

Free-thinking

Volatile

etc.

2) These adjectives are really reserved terms and the ‘tells’ of mainstream media letting you know who is off-narrative and who they have marked for reputation neutralization through FUD (Fear-Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns.

3) So what’s wrong with calling a professor who is controversial, a “controversial professor” you may fairly ask? The problem is that MSM builds client side architecture in your own mind that you don’t notice. Proof? Check the graphic attached.

4) Apparently in the entire history of the internet, this tweet is the first to ever use the phrase “controversial professor Paul Krugman” to describe @paulkrugman even though he is famous for being a controversial professor.

So…how can that be?

5) Let’s first dig a bit to look for positive framings of my colleague “controversial professor” @jordanbpeterson. Consider these attachments for a man whose fame is largely due to being a noble inspirational heroic maverick.

The point is that real humans don’t talk like this.

6) My point here is that our minds are programmed to recognize the “Gated Institutional Narrative” or GIN and to take our emotional instructions from it. This is Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak: Adjective-Profession-Target.

Or so asserts self-styled Internet personality

7) So who are the targets? Men and women who are off the charts on the Big-5 psychometric for disagreeability. These people are the pool from which our greatest Nobel Laureates & even heroes were once drawn.

And right now the internet is having a bull market in disagreeability.

8) This brings us to one of my most controversial theories: Ever since Lindbergh’s attempt to keep the US out of WWII, our institutions have fought against us having ANY living heroes with self-minted credibility.

This leaves a vacuum filled by acceptable institutional figures.

9) The lesson learned from Lindbergh appears to be that Mavericks are too dangerous to institutions…and in the case of Lindbergh that made some sense. But what about a John Lennon? Frances Kelsey? Charlie Chaplin? Paul Robeson? Frank Wilkinson? Katharine Hepburn?

10) Here’s the punchline: There are suddenly way way too many disagreeable individual voices to be found for people trying to escape from the constant cognitive abuse of our institutions, which want our co-dependence on them.

So something new *has* to happen.

Here goes…

Either:

A) The spell of the GIN breaks and we have lots of real self-minted heroes again.

B) Disagreeables like Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Nassim Taleb, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehman, etc… all get taken out.

C) The institutions seat some of the disagreeables.

CLOSING

My prediction is that the Gated Institutional Narrative will fail. Exotic measures will be tried to get rid of the strong voices as was done to Jean Seberg.

And then, at long bloody last, the institutions will seat the disagreeables.

Here’s to Harvard Professor Nassim Taleb.

–Eric Weinstein

Programming.

Football on mute.

Steak and Egg Brunch.

A bottle of San Pellegrino.

Coffee.

–“CURT: WHY DO LIBERTARIANS EAT EACH OTHER?”—

Very smart question.

1) Men seek status internally and externally by demonstration of superiority in competitions. So geeks fight verbal battles, from positions of relative safety, in an arena where there are enough of them that such competitions are possible (it’s hard to find other smart people in the real world)

2) men seek to learn by competition rather than by submission which is why women do better in universities and men do better in competitive forums where they do not have to please but WIN.

3) Men operate in tribes the way women operate with close friends. They seek hierarchies of peers where they can test their positions. Women seek common ground and then hen peck, while men fight for status and accommodate competitors. These tribes form along class and kin boundaries. Most friends are but three degrees of genetic distance from you.

Language is commensurable across these differences so we tend to attribute more similarity to our thinking than exists. Our thinking exists to justify (make excuses for) our impulses and our impulses are genetically determined.

The differences between male brains and female brains is now fairly well understood, and all of these things are understandable just like they are in other animals.

We just use a lot of words to deny it.

—“Then, as a libertarian, I have a Question for you – where does someone such as myself actually fit in order to help affect the most positive change(s) ???”—

We are small in number. We always will be small in number. The world is built for the median. The world MUST be built for the median. The only way to improve our lot is to shift the median. We can shift the median by eliminating falsehoods, eliminating ignorance (educating), and shift the median through demographic change. We can change demographics only by separating. That’s just how it is.

If we separate many will follow who want the benefits that such a polity provides. But the alternative is brazil, india, the levant, arabia….

—-”Why do Americans love to sue each other?”—-

TWO REASONS, 1-COMMERCIAL, and 2-CIVIL

1 – COMMERCIAL. Europeans and most of the world REGULATE ability to engage in agreements. Americans RESOLVE conflicts in court instead. This is why there is such a big difference between american and european innovation at all but the macro industrial levels, and frankly why europeans are poorer than americans (aside from the number of hours worked).

So europeans and most others use BUREAUCRATIC PRIOR RESTRAINT to limit conflict at the expense of experimentation, innovation, and the size of the entrepreneurial classes, and Americans use JURIDICAL RESOLUTION to resolve conflict in order to obtain experimentation, innovation, the size of the entrepreneurial classes, despite the (lower) cost of juridical resolutoin.

Americans consider the RIGHT TO FAIL part of liberty. Europeans (it seems strange to us) are afraid of failure. For example Bankruptcy for an american entrepreneur who tries again, simply means he’s heroic for having tried, and more heroic for getting up and doing it again. Whereas in europe it’s still socially unacceptable. (Which in modern economic terms is rather ridiculous).

So different societies place controls at different places and pay different prices for those controls. Americans favor rule of law by the natural law of tort while what we consider the ‘nanny state’ prohibits such experimentation.

(I have owned businesses internationally and … I wouldn’t even consider doing business in France because of laws, or Italy because of the impossibility of the tax code). It’s 10x as hard in canada, and 50x as hard in the UK. For no good reason. It’s always seems like some moron takes great pride in throwing up requirements and objections to suppress non existent or marginal risks. (That and brits tend to be fairly lazy.) Germans are wonderful people at all levels but the bureaucracy inhibiting entrepreeneurship is just daunting.

In america you can pretty much lose money for three years and never pay a dime in taxes. If you do it right you can lose money for ten years an never pay a dime in taxes. This is how people learn to become entrepreneurs – by failing a little bit until they succeed.

2 – CIVIL. We have nothing in common except commerce, and all claims of a melting pot outside of dense urban centers are false. Unlike European countries we have been prohibited sine the 1960’s from enforcing norms. So Americans had the same problem with Jewish conformity in the 20th century that Europeans are having with Islamic conformity – and for the same reasons. We allowed this process to continue with tolerance and it ended up destroying our nation by way of ‘diversity’. Ergo, without norms enforced we must LITIGATE disputes. This will come to europe if it hasn’t already.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

My response would be the same scientific response that the entire empirical establishment settled by the 1960’s.

1. The organization of economic calculation necessary for complex multi-part networks of production is impossible without money and prices. Imputations cannot be made. However, assuming a people desired a minimum autarkic (insulated from external trade) static economy (and underclasses often do), then at least in theory, aside from adaptation to shocks, it might be possible, albeit the middle class would be very unlikely to develop, and a managerial and bureaucratic elite might be able to direct production, distribution, trade, and consumption.

2. Assuming the calculation of production was possible, we are stuck with the organization of people in the act of production, distribution, and transfer (trade). And people demonstrated universally, and continue to demonstrate universally, that they will both do the minimum possible, engage in false reporting, and engage in corruption and fraud to do the minimum possible, because they have no incentive to do otherwise.

3. Humans need to demonstrate status signals in order to obtain mates. Without access to markets of all kinds to do so, they do so by political, and black market means. Humans need new experiences. Black markets form and black markets compete with command driven production.

4. In every place it has been tried, the centralization can be used to rapidly advance a backward country without incurring external financial debt, but as a byproduct the people never develop the middle class of managers and resource calculators necessary to develop middle class norms, manners, ethics and morals.

5. The reverse solution has won out, which is to preserve status signaling, preserve markets, and produce common goods where markets fail. Poor people in america wear designer clothes cast off by the middle class in thrift stores for example.

6. The failure of the american model is due to heterogeneity since no people will permit the sacrifice of their own in order to let loose a political competitor.

7. The failure of the european model is the intertemporal version of the failure of communism: people reproduced insufficiently and engaged in work lives insufficiently to perpetuate the one-generation of benefits of redistribution under american protection that obviated their spending on defense.

8. There is no difference between communism, socialism, and social democracy except the time for to accumulate consequences. Or as others have said, any kind of democracy is just the slow road to communism – and the deterministic outcome of communism: suicide.

9. The abrahamic deception (pseudoscientific religion) of the ancient world killed something on the order of 500M people – mostly due to the Arabs – and destroyed four great civilizations of profound achievement and duration – creating the Abrahamic Dark Age. The second Abrahamic deception of Marxism, Boazianism, Freudianism, the Frankfurt and Postmodern schools, has killed no less than 100M, so far, and set large parts of the globe back a century. The chinese were the smartest and walled off the barbarian peoples. The romans began the project but were overwhelmed, and cold not complete it. Had we walled off europe from the urals to the bosphorus we might have saved ourselves from the Abrahamic Dark Age. However, due to northern european persistence and isolation it was possible to restore western civilization and climb out of the Abrahamic Dark Age via empiricism, and eventually science, technology, accounting, contract, and the western natural law of torts.

10. Europeans have dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, disease, and tyranny by one means: markets. Why? Because european civilization is predicated upon sovereignty and non-submission. An as such the only means of cooperation is via market competition. And markets calculate what men cannot through that continuous process of trial and error we call ‘innovation’.

Marxism was and always will be a pseudoscience. Marxist ‘economics’ and history, Boazian athropology, Freudian Psychology, Cantorian sets, and Frankfurt school aesthetics, were all pseudoscientific at best, and outright lies at worst. Just as the Abrahamic Pilpul that they originated from:the invention of the industrialization of lying.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev Ukraine

—”Why do Israelis seem to be more socially liberal than Americans?”—

All civilizations make use of some reproductive strategy in competition with others. In the literature this is called group evolutionary strategy. Humans are capable only of some spectrum of male to female.

Jewish civilization makes use of the female reproductive strategy at all levels, which is why Jewish civlization *has always been leftist, all but invented modern leftism, has produced most of the leftist literature, and continues to championed leftism today.*

The fact that this strategy lost them a homeland, and has had them prosecuted and exterminated round the world, except where the west tolerated them seems to be lost on them and the foolish people for whom leftist strategies (*maximizing consumption, and parasitism upon the commons*) are desirable.

Whether this is biological or cultural is something we haven’t established yet, but my money is on yes by a long shot from the data I have seen so far.

—”Q: Why is innovation worshipped in modern societies around the world?”—

Because it provides:

(a) marginally different market goods, and markets require either marginally different market goods to decrease prices or on the down side to encourage continuous spending cycles on the up side.

(b) marginally different goods provide a people with competitive market advantage and therefore wealth.

(c) with wealth generated in markets people can produce commons that are cannot be produced without the wealth generated by markets.

(d) innovation provides people with status signals and status signals are increasingly necessary as we become aware of our relative positions outside of the relative position of our local group.

Yes really. Why? Primitive people when made aware of their poverty commit suicide in vast numbers.

Adam and eve is a good story.

But the truth is, they both hang themselves after biting the apple and discovering their ignorance and poverty.

Conservative means empirical, markets, hierarchical via meritocracy, rule of law of reciprocity vs discretion, and the intergenerational nuclear family as the object of policy.

Conservatives accumulate capital – particularly genetic and normative. Progressives the opposite – the consume all available capital.

That these differences reflect male and female reproductive strategies is obvious.

That conservative aristocratic, meritocratic, tripartite, high trust paternalism dragged us out of ignorance poverty, starvation, disease, and the deceit of abrahamic religion is simply a truism.

That all countries that experimented with socialism are disasters, and that all nations under american protection that experiment with its social democratic version are experiencing demographic and normative collapse -and in europe only the german export of vehicles holds europe together are evidence enough for the informed.

The fact that conservatives are concerned about the loss of intergenerationally transferred capital and others aren’t – is again genetic but also scientific.

Marx, Boaz, Freud, were pseudoscientists.

People are gullible.

—”What is the minimum average group IQ needed before civilization can independently arise? Base your answer on an IQ test normed for today’s population.”—-

RULES:

1) Pareto always rules. 20% of the people always (and must) control 80% of the assets in order to organize a polity into voluntary (non slave/serf) production. Cities are markets are markets are formed by trade, and trade requires volition, and markets and volition make innovation possible if not only because the incentive exists.

2) Roughly speaking you need the top 20% of your population able to calculate in whatever means of calculation is available to you, in law, in accounts, in seasons, etc.

3) Empirically it appears that it’s pretty hard unless 20% is above 95 (the ability to learn by being taught without extraordinary repetition by the teacher), Above 105 to repair a system or a machine or a tool. Above 115 to learn by reading. About 122 to invent a machine or tool. A above 130 to synthesize new ideas and communicate them. Above 140 to originate an idea in the market for ideas. Although I think that limit is now approaching 150.

4) It depends greatly upon the means of economic productivity available to the population. lowest IQ’s for pastoral, higher for agrarian, higher for commercial, higher for industrial, higher for technological and assumedly higher for post technological. Worse, as technology increases the value of lower IQ’s decreases. Worse, as the distribution of technology increases, the value of lower IQ’s decreases (this is the world’s next upcoming great disaster – if it isn’t already).

5) If you can import knowledge of 140’s, 130’s 120’s into your group then you can benefit from the knoweldge and technollgy invented elsewhere.

6) what appears today, is that it is extremely difficult to modernize a country today with IQ’s under 97, and I think the real number is 105. The reason being that the window of opportunity for those countries to modernize and develop middle class (market) behaviors because of their ability to import institutions and technologies and knowledge, has passed. (I’m almost certain of it). BTW: thank the communists for destroying that window of opportunity. If your country has an aggregate IQ under 97, and certainly if it is below 90, it will be very difficult, for the simple reason that ther eis no human capital unused in relation to the available means of producing the profitability necessary to create a voluntary organization of production (market economy and a middle class to run it.)

7) as far as I know the primary competitive asset a country has going forward is a) homogeneity, b) median IQ >105, and a militia army dedicated to protecting both. That means china/korea/japan win. Europe could have but between immigration and civil war we have already (I’ve talked to the leading people about this repeatedly), lost something on the order of half to one standard deviation between 1800 and today through asymmetric reproduction. And we have lost the rest between 1965 and today through immigration.

Cheers.

Knowledge is not always pleasant.

There is nothing really to debate other than nationalism vs universalism. Kin vs corporation. And the degree to which our options are limited by that choice.

Unless you agree on that premise, then the rest is pointless.

Communism was a universal religion and fascism a nationalist one, and that’s … really all there is to be said. The difference is that communism spread by the underclasses and the talking classes, and fascism spread as defense against them by more developed countries.

For those reasons, communism has a vast pseudo-intellectual pseudoscientific and speudorational base behind it and fascism a romantic one.

In practical terms my work is absolutely positively in accord with fascism, but as rigorous as marxism. It’s just fascism for every subrace and tribe, ours or not.

The …. disease of abrahamism has infected nearly everyone in the west, so its hard for people of ‘weakness’ so to speak, to act as do the japanese any longer. Which is how it’s necessary to act: the polity bears costs of the intertemporal preservation of the polity.

If your people are not enough of a religion then why are you a f—king fascist in the first place?????

The truth is anyone intellectually capable would not make the national socialist argument because it is by definition so inarticulately stated, without institutional prescriptions, without any economic or legal ‘rules’.

It is a sentimental and aesthetic religion by which authority is given to a figurehead to create benefits in times of stress, conflict, competition, and war. I mean the reason no one argues for natsoc other than by analogy is there is no such thought that is not merely romanticism.

Autarkic economy for defense of the kin group by handing power to a General in times of threat, and justifying it with propaganda…. is just …. tediously boring. It’s what anyone and everyone does, and always has done.

Its just the only … example anyone can draw from other than kicking the muslims out of spain, and resisting the muslims in vienna, and resisting the muslims in general. We have been so relatively successful that we haven’t had to have too many such movements as the natsoc.

I want to add to the capitalism vs communism debate by saying it’s a (((Fake))) argument, when the debate is and always will be rule of law that results in markets and arbitrary rule that results in central control.

I think the only argument to have is one of rule of law, and the method by which we take the proceeds of our production of a rule-of-law order, and decide who does what with them.

As far as I can tell kings are far, far, better than anyone else at doing it at their level and civic orders and private orders better at doing it at their levels. Thats absolutely positively impossible to argue with.

Now, we can say that in order to scale the production of commons as the cost of producing commons that produce returns increases, that we must produce a market for the production of commons just as we produce a market for private goods, services, and information.

But the idea that this market should produce monopolies as we do under majoritarian democracy, r ather than produce whatever contracts can be negotiated, by direct economic contribution (even if mandatory), is rather nonsensical – since that is the source of our conflicts.

In other words, I see these discussions as … a bit …. like victorian parlor games. Political models are so imprecise as to be fictional accounts. Either one can describe the means by which commons decided upon and are produced, or one can’t.

And if one can’t then he’s just telling fairy stories.

Genetic makes high trust normative possible.

Hig trust normative makes rapid adaptation possible.

Rapid adaptation makes competitive success deterministic.

—“In functioning Parliamentary Democracies, “loss of supply” is a very rare event that immediately triggers a general election. The equivalent crisis in your tinpot Presidential System may play out quite differently.”— Kieran

It has however, been a bulwark against the same creeping soviet-ization that has occurred in europe. Our country was designed to prohibit political activism, and demand all change by the private sector empirically by choice rather than ideally by force. A frozen gov’t is a good.

—“If your premise is “government by the people, but not for the people” maybe”— Renee

If your premise is, that the people engage in temporal folly that produces intertemporal catastrophe (which is empirically, the case), then, I agree to allow the fools to govern their way (capital consumption), and the rest of us intertemporally (capital accumulation).

Hence the optimum, and ONLY MORAL proposition is to separate and let consumption run its course, while those of us accumulate capital and watchy you turn the ‘third way’ into the levantine way, just as christianity and islam did, and marxism postmodernism attempt to.

Ergo, civil war is preferable to being dragged down into the levant, the desert and steppe, southern europe, south america, and india.Some of us prefer (wisely) to take the east asian path to survival and evolution rather than dysgenia. Thanks. It’s all math. And your side loses.

Empirically, and this is unavoidable, you are headed to mirror brazil, the levant, arabia, and india. There are only two extreme strategies: dysgenia (your model) or eugenia (the northern european model) of many small homogenous polities competing in a market preserving both.

It is always difficult to debate with the unsophisticated, but those unsophisticated with immoral sensibilities, and dysgenic strategies, are insufficiently rational (meaning evolved human). As such compromise is impossible, and separation necessary.

The evidence of the 20th century experiment is in. it’s a failure. For the very reason that democracy and socialism have always been failures: the inability to prevent consumption to the point of maximum rents that produces inability to adapt to shocks.

THE “SH-T TEST” NEVER ENDS, BUT IT WORKS BOTH DIRECTIONS

We need not constrain the folly of our women, because, first, we fear no mens attempt to take them, and second, as women act as women do, we have no fear of defection.

The sh-t test never ends. But it works both directions. Defense against defection.

(shared by nntaleb)

it’s just what the geography would suggest.

( Excellent. Thanks to Moritz for the Link. Someone to potentially have an adult conversation with.) (possibly heavy material)

I want to both congratulate you (“TruDilTom”) for your work but offer a criticism, which I don’t know if I mean to target you with, so much as almost anyone who vastly overstates and possibly misrepresents what it is possible to accomplish with the formal logics (meaning deflationary grammars of constant relations, and their representation using symbols in general rules), versus the inherent human capacity that is a byproduct of recursive hierarchies of neural relations, that we call ‘logic’: the test of constant relations between states (in any single or set of dimensions).

I think this disconnect we face today is not lack of knowledge of the logics but between people trained in rational (verbal) logic inherited from mathematics, law, justificationary philosophy, and scriptural interpretation of meaning) and people trained in the sciences (testimony of truth regardless of meaning), and a public not trained, but environmentally exposed to the semantics of each, and as such conflating each, – and therefore everyone talks past each other. Reason (a human capacity of deliberate ‘calculation’), logic (the human capacity that makes reason possible), Logics (deflationary grammars) are not synonyms. but refer to the biological ability to determine differences at ever increasing scales of relations(logic), the use of our ability to make use of logic in decisions of all scales (‘reason’), and the the discipine by which we create and use deflationary grammars to study the general rules that vary between different sets of constant relations.

So he (‘TrueDilTom’) is still not making the bridge between how scientific speech provides tests of truth (testimony that’s consistent, correspondent, operational(existential), moral(reciprocal), fully-accounted, and coherent by survival) – meaning ever contingent theories, and logic as he understands it provides a test of internal consistency across axioms (propositions that are declared). In other words, the difference between truthful testimony about the universe given forever contingent knowledge, and truth about speech itself. Nor is it obvious that for anyone to make a truth claim requires the statement consist of incomplete knowledge – otherwise we are not testifying to the due diligence of our reason, but merely stating a tautology.

In other words, as far as I know you cannot prove any non trivial statement (which is why logic is not used outside of training people in the discipline of analysis) and the entire world operates on scientific speech, not the formal logics – whose application is extremely limited just as game theory is extremely limited – because knowledge is always too fractional, and relations in in minds too elastic, to make use of either.

We make proofs of internal consistency (not truth – we use “true” by analogy in math as we do in construction ‘plumb and true’) And we can create proos of internal consistency in mathematics because the relations of positions are by necessity constant – they cannot be otherwise. I mean, mathematics consists in the logic of POSITIONAL relations. Numbers exist of nothing but positional names. In that sense, they are the only perfect information set of any complexity we humans work with, and of any scale. Which is why they are so useful to us: our tests of truth consist in the search for constant relations. If expressed in positional relations (as numbers) we are nearly guaranteed of the preservation of constant relations. Unfortunately the semantics and grammar of the constant relations of positional names cannot always be applied to some categories (such as economics) due to the substitution of properties of categories we measure, and measurement of more granular transactions is beyond our current technical ability.

All speech relies upon grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation), and unfortunately because ordinary language grammar and semantics include fictions, fictionalisms, and the purely experiential and non-rational (unlimited), we tend to separate semantics(networks recursive references to sensory relations) and grammar. Whereas the we apply logical reasoning (tests of constant relations) in everything from languages of the disciplines, legal and contractual, to the algorithmic, to mathematics, to ‘the logics’, and each consists of a deflationary grammar (a more constrained set of rules of continuous disambiguation) which also consists in a deflationary semantics (in other words, semantics of any deflationary language are demonstrably bound by grammar). And as such, the deflationary grammars allow us to limit semantic content to a subset of the constant relations we are capable of perceiving and remembering, recalling, and comparing, by analogy to sense-experience – thereby making testable comparisons possible within the limits of human perception.

In my experience Logic (Formal logic) is almost never used to make an assertion of truth proper, (as is science) but as a means of falsifying the assertions of others. In this sense, like pilpul, religious scripture, and law, it serves as a means of preventing non-conformity in arbitrary relations (justification, scripture, norm, and law), while science consist largely of an effort to circumvent the failings of logic ( interpretation of scriptural, philosophical, moral, legal prose of arbitrary relations) by limiting us to a grammar and semantics that are in continuous relations with reality – not just continuous relations between written or spoken words (textualism). And to no small degree it certainly appears that philosophical logic can neither join mathematics, nor join the sciences, and serves little other purpose than training us to falsify language – not to demonstrate truths (statements about reality).

We use logic to falsify inference between propositions. And that is its function. We *can* use logic like any of the formal deflationary grammars, to discover what we cannot articulate, and because we cannot articulate it,we learn we do not understand it. So we can use logic ‘against’ our thoughts about our thoughts, the way we can use empirical tests against our thoughts about the universe.. Conversely we make arguments in science to falsify non correspondence with reality. And that which survives does so.

One positively constructs a proof given perfect knowledge (Axioms – Positional Names are perfect knowledge and mathematics axiomatic, meaning declarable) where one applies tests of constant relations to falsify the correspondence between statements. Whereas one cannot do so under contingent knowledge whose constant relations are not provided by declaration (definition).

Instead since we never know if any non trivial statement (premise, proposition) is false, then we can only seek to falsify inferences from it. Or stated differently, logic of ordinary language (imperfect knowledge) serves only as a means of determining inconstancy of relations between propositions – not truth (consistency, correspondence, existence, morality, and coherence) between our statements and reality.

Asking for proofs is the same category of error in logic that we call ‘mathiness’ in economics. Math-envy. It’s one of the reasons in almost any general proposition describing a distribution, one cannot achieve greater precision than a single regression analysis. We are forever limited because our knowledge is always continent, because the set of constant relations that provide commensurability (coherence) in the semantics of our languages, is subject to reorganization (albeit it appears, greater parsimony) as knowledge (and therefore paradigm: the set of constant relations within a domain) change.

So it’s a kind of “fraud or pseudoscience”, to demand a proof of an asserted truthful statement about the world – it can’t be done other than for the reductio ad absurdum. And I generally find people who conflate the study of logic for the purpose of studying logic (grammars of constant relations) itself, by the construction of proofs, pretenders to knowledge and wisdom when they ask for proofs rather than use logic for it’s only possible purpose, which is to demonstrate the failure of constant relations in claims of constant relations about the world. It is just a continuation of the invention of that great deceit we call scripturalism, and the technique used to justify it ‘pilpul’.

Instead, statements either survive criticism of consistency (internal consistence), correspondence, existential possibility (constant existential relations in operational grammar and semantics), morality(reciprocity), fully accounting (avoiding cherry picking), and coherence (constant relations across all those dimensions.

If a statement survives such falsification then it is a truth candidate. If not it is not. But one does not construct a proof of anything that is not complete, axiomatic, and declared. On only tests statements as if they were complete, axiomatic, and declared. To say otherwise is to claim that which is demonstrably false.

Criticism serves as a market like any other – by Internal criticism, demonstration criticism, market criticism, and ultimate survival. But demands for warranty of perfect information are a kind of fraudulent argument. It is a common kind of fraud. A logical violation in and of itself. But that does not stop it from being a widespread exercise in dominance expression and silencing non-conformity rather than whether speech is false or survives falsification.

if you cannot explain something in operational language either you do not understand it (which does not mean a carpenter cannot use a drill without understanding the electric motor), or you are trying to preserve a deception, whether a deception by convention, or a deception by overstating the veracity of one’s system and units of measure.

One does not prove an argument. One puts for a theory, informs others as to its method of construction, and asks them to falsify whether it it is consistent, correspondent, existentially possible, reciprocal, fully accounted and coherent. Either it survies or does not.

But NO DIMENSION IS CLOSED. That’s the lesson of the 20th century’s exercise in attempting to merge mathematics and language. The logics (other than the trivial_ are not closed, and therefore the test of correspondence defeats the test of consistency, just as the test of operational grammar defeats the test of correspondence, just as the test of reciprocity defeats the tests of correspondence, just as coherence defeats all. The only test of truth is science: falsification in each dimension of action possibly by man. The rest is pretense. So a great deal of ‘contradiction is not as such contradiction but merely appeal to the next dimension (correspondence) rather than dependence upon the impossible completeness of the underlying propositions that an argument is built from. I find this the most common error of people trained in philosophy, logic and rhetoric, – even mathematics – but not trained in the hard sciences. (Albeit the criticism works both directions.)

Ergo, just as pseudoscience exists, peudorationalism exists, and the pretense that we can justify rather than falsify a statement is endemic. Yet, what we can do with justification is make arbitrary ordinary language statements just as we can express arbitrary mathematical statements and test whether they are internally consistent across states (statements).

But there exist no non-arbitrary true statements, only truthful statements about arbitrary statements. Hence why philosophers and theologians rely on rationalism: because one can (as we see in numerology, astrology, philosophy, and theology) anything at all.

Justification tells us little other than to suspect the speaker of deceit or fraud.

A scientist (falsificationist), like science itself, evolved both in the ancient world (reason) and in the early modern (empiricism), and currently in the later modern, as a means of falsifying the frauds made possible by justification in each of those eras. Specifically those of the Germans and French (Rousseau, Kant, Hegel) and most importantly those of the Marxists (pseudoscience and pseudorationalism), Boazians (pseudoscience), Freudians (Pseudoscience), Cantorians (pseudoscience, but artful), postmoderns (outright denial and deceit as an attack on truth), and every group in between that took advantage of the ability to overload the very limited ability for humans to test constant relations in other tha trivial causal density.

Humans are only capable of cognition and therefore arguments in N dimensions (listed above), and truth propositions (theories) must be tested in each of those dimensions without appeal to closure in any, before we can warranty due diligence on our parts, that we do not engage in ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism (pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-historicism/myth), or outright lying.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

You know, it’s common knowledge that women communicate in a language with semantics unavailable to men, and that the female mind is impenetrable to man.

But it is not common knowledge that

Did you ever notice that when a woman talks to a man she has to change her language? I don’t know if they consider it dumbing down, but they speak like they do

Did you ever notice that when a man talks to a woman he interprets it as ‘dumbing down’?

Did you ever notice that when a man walks into a room of women talking, they immediately change body language, behavior, and speech?

Did you ever notice that when a woman walks into a room of men talking they immediately change their body language, behavior and speech?

Always and everywhere.

Despite a relationship with what I consider one of the smarter or smartest women in technology, I have never met a woman I could talk to who possessed the what I would call the spatial-theoretical (predictive or modeling) capacity of man. I have met gay men who can largely interpret the language of women. And sometimes I think gay men have the advantage if they have the intelligence, of understanding both sides, and gay women understanding neither.

The only way I know how to test this is interpersonally by continuously expanding the scope of an idea that the person is familiar with to their limits. Men have much higher limits – OR they are unafraid to transgress their limits. I am not sure which, but I think that might be the answer, and I have no way of testing that – although it should be testable.

We are both ignorant of the minds of the others.

Women are shallower than the aspie men, and aspies tend to be nearly unlimited theoretically, and I am relatively sure that the same cognition that prevents women from violating NAXALT and violating groupthink, keeps them out of theory. Which is why women contribute almost nothing to theory that is true (feminism is a great example) but that women DO produce empirical work of high quality – especially about humans or the physical world.

In other words, women are limited at great scale by their integration. And we are limited at local scale by our lack of it.

The unification of north and south in the declaration and constitution was always contentious. We had our first attempt at secession just after the war of 1812. Our next in the civil war. vast immigration and the depression that followed, disunity. The world wars created unity. The marxist/postmodern insurgency restored the original demands for secession. The reason for the original failure was fear of re-conquest by europe. The reason for the civil war failure was the profitability of the westward expansion and the threat that the industrialized north would be reduced to a marginalized minority and the west and the south the majority – and slavery is merely the primary driver by which that economic and political reality was perpetuated. The 1960s repeated the process. ANd today we are going thru it again.

The difference today is we are no longer fighting over the profitability of westward expansion, but the profitability of homogeneous territorial peoples and heterogeneous. Or stated differently “the profits from immigration as a vehicle for selling off a conquered conteintent, and the profits of selling them consumer goods, is now neutralized by the world having caught up to western technology and institutions. What the world cannot catch up to is western demographics and culture. Becuase as far as I know no other people are capable of it.

The means of future competition are

(a) eugneics

(b) artificial intelligence

(c) demographic distribution and population

Now, technology ALWAYS EVENTUALLY AND QUCKLY EQUILIBRATES.

GENES DO NOT.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

You cannot clean ‘polluted genes’. You can only separate good genes from bad Genes.

Middle class means, has meant, and must mean, participation in commons and market.

if you aren’t able to demonstrate middle class manners, ethics, and morals, such that the commercial commons is but a larger and more active church, then why permit you into that market without extraordinary liability protection.

Humor is indeed a science, and we can explain it scientifically. It’s been done. Just as narrative arcs are constrained by a grammar and semantics, so is humor – to particular rules. Outside of which humor fails. Unfortunately, like all narrative arcs, it’s class dependent.

You know, you can learn a lot playing verbal tennis with me. Most people do. Or… well, most people with more than room temperature IQ’s do…. Humor is an exceptional means of educating those lacking agency to pursue truth alone.

loz

“As a bit of occasional amusement, I try to tease silly self righteous people into demonstrating the fact, and then post the conversation for my followers to laugh at. It’s a sophisticated form of humor – with a touch of irony: that the underclass can vote, or even speak in public.”

(FYI: On a lark, I’m teasing people on the Left Wing Feminist Show ‘the View’. Sick today and programming is … too hard.)

1 – It is undesirable to hold the entire continent.

2 – it is undesirable to retain much of our own kind if they are underdeveloped and under-evolved (leftists/feminists/betas). (The aristocratic process of domesticating the underclasses in to Agency was incomplete.)

3 – It is entirely achievable to cause the breakup of the federal government in to regions with different ‘markets’ for participation, while preserving the insurer of last resort, in treasury, military, and judiciary of property.

4 – We have always been a minority and we are better and stronger bound with competitors. This is the result of aristocracy: the continuation of our ancestral industry of profiting from the domestication of animal man. European aristocratic classes were always small in number. Europeans have been small in number. Those of use who were created by that eugenic process are small in number.

5 – We are better off letting the less civilized people (and their genes) decline into arabia, brazil, india, and the steppe, and profiting from our differences.

6 – No civilization in history is as fragile as the american empire and it can be radically altered for our benefit in less than a year. There are no farms to return to. There are not enough soldiers to occupy. All that prevents success is attempting to (a) take the whole territory, (b) attempting to take the whole of our kin. Many of those kin are dead weight.

7 – Revolte. Separate. Build walls. Keep them out. The Chinese, Koreans, and Han hold the best external group evolutionary strategy even if we hold the best internal group evolutionary strategy. The urals and the bosphorus were not enough to protect us.

8 – Western (aristocratic) civilization is not replaceable. It was unique. A fortunate accident. And we dragged humanity out of ignorance, poverty, superstition, disease, starvation, and tyranny in just a few centuries in the ancient and modern worlds.

9 – We can rule the planet if we return to our native industrial specialization.

10 – and drag mankind behind us to ambitions we have not yet dreamed of.

—“Uhhh? I happen to like psychology/sociology”—

I know you do because it is the grammar and semantics of using disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, and rallying for the purpose of defending a fraud you desperately seek to preserve, because you lack the agency to discipline your emotions, such that ratio-scientific discourse is possible.

Psychology and Sociology consist of a grammar and semantics of shaming. Thats all. A means of using the threat of ostracization as a means of imposing equalitarian conformity.

it’s just soft violence.

Different classes use different forms vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, judgement and humor. Pls don’t continue to reinforce my argument for me. 😉 You only demonstrate it further with any retort.

>Lorraine

?Please don’t overcompensate..you sound like you’re trying very hard to sound articulate.. Boo

>Curt

lol…. please don’t psychologize. It’s an admission of inferiority. Did you know psychology and sociology are pseudosciences? Did you ever look at the IQ distributions of people who study psychology and sociology? 😉 lolz

>Lorraine

Uhhh? I happen to like psychology/sociology to analyze dopes like you. You must feel inferior because you keep using that word..i also love philosophy and your argument can be considered inductive but not very cogent???

>Curt

Hmmm…induction doesn’t exist right? Deduction (axiom), Induction (guessing), abduction (wild guessing), and guessing (free association.) I mean, only someone of late medieval understanding would even imagine inductive arguments. Instead we’d use science: endlessly contingent.

>Lorraine

Whoop whoop! You are a genius

>Curt

Actually I am but my arguments should stand independent of my authorship. I mean, otherwise that would be a fallacy of appeal to authority. Right?

>Lorraine

No I believe it’s attacking the motive

Well in this case I am prosecuting your attempt to use shaming, as a means of false preservation of your self image. Whereas, an intellectually, morally, honest person would simply ask, “is that greater time, calories, content, discipline and precision that I can offer?” And simply admit superiority or inferiority by that criteria.

I know your motive. I’m trying to expose your theft and dishonestly (fraud) as any good prosecutor would.

I mean, that’s the virtue of stoicism and aristotelianism over marxism/postmodernism/feminism. Stoics have no need or incentive to disapprove, shame, ridicule, gossip, rally and lie to protect a fallacious self image.

—“Uhhh? I happen to like psychology/sociology”—

I know you do because it is the grammar and semantics of using disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, and rallying for the purpose of defending a fraud you desperately seek to preserve, because you lack the agency to discipline your emotions, such that ratio-scientific discourse is possible.

Psychology and Sociology consist of a grammar and semantics of shaming. Thats all. A means of using the threat of ostracization as a means of imposing equalitarian conformity.

it’s just soft violence.

Different classes use different forms vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, judgement and humor. Pls don’t continue to reinforce my argument for me. 😉 You only demonstrate it further with any retort.

(From elsewhere)

omfg…. you know, ….

I started making notes and gave up. Here is the underlying issue: lack of means of decidability in such a conversation.

The brit is a twit. He’s just an english speaking french effeminate, looking to rent seek on the commons without paying any cost for it – particularly the high cost of righting catastrophic wrongs (thefts). the french deserve their reputations as effeminate parasitic cowards. He shows us in english just why that is so. The english became cowards after the war, just as they became (((others))) after Disraeli.

Richard doesn’t understand that ‘autistic’ argument is the means by which we construct the law that makes his desired social order possible. And that most of us ‘autists’ are trying to find a way to make law that makes such an order possible. And because law is necessary to scale any order, just as mathematics is necessary to scale any construction.

Pragmatism is a pathetic excuse for anything. Either we live by rule of law of reciprocity and sovereignty or we live by arbitrary discretion.

If you are unwilling to right a crime such as the seizure of political power by intentional warfare via the immigration act, and the systematic failure of enforcement, or you are just another excuse maker trying to whine rather than pay the cost of obtaining restitution..

The whole point (which I found idiotic on all sides) is that we pay high costs to perform restitution, whether that restitution be interpersonal, communal, political, or extra political (international). The only possible means of determining decidable right and wrong, good and bad, regardless of preference, in a market where we are not bound by monopoly of mental frame, physical ability, or emotional value, reciprocity. Period.

West exceeded the rest for one reason: our law. not our legislation. our law. the law of sovereignty.

The militia: the distributed dictatorship of those who pay for the order we call rule of law, markets, and meritocracy.

The only reason for GOOD FAMILIES to cooperate rather than conquer and profit from the domestication of BAD FAMILIES (which is europe’s group evolutionary strategy), is if it is more preferable to cooperate than not.

The moment that it is more profitable (or in our case, capital preserving) for a kin group to cease cooperation, and particularly if it is costly to kin groups to continue cooperation and decapitalization, then pursuit of further cooperation is just a means of avoiding the individual cost of obtaining corporate (kinship) returns.

THE WHOLE PIE IS UNDESIRABLE.

1 – It is undesirable to hold the entire continent.

2 – it is undesirable to retain much of our own kind if they are underdeveloped and under-evolved (leftists/feminists/betas).

3 – It is entirely achievable to cause the breakup of the federal government in to regions with different ‘markets’ for participation.

4 – We have always been a minority and we are better and stronger bound with competitors. This is the result of aristocracy: the continuation of our ancestral industry of profiting from the domestication of animal man (really, that’s our group strategy). European aristocratic classes were always small in number. Europeans have been small in number.

5 – We are better off letting the less civilized people (and their genes) decline into arabia, brazil, india, and the steppe, and profiting from our differences.

6 – No civilization in history is as fragile as the american empire and it can be radically altered for our benefit in less than a year. There are no farms to return to. There are not enough soldiers to occupy. All that prevents success is attempting to (a) take the whole territory, (b)

7 – Build walls. Keep them out. The Chinese hold the best external group evolutionary strategy even if we hold the best internal group evolutionary strategy.

8 – western civilization is not replaceable. It was unique. a fortunate accident. And we dragged humanity out of ignorance, poverty, superstition, disease, starvation, and tyranny in just a few centuries in the ancient and modern worlds.

9 – we can rule the planet if we return to our native industrial specialization.

10 – and drag mankind behind us to ambitions we have not yet dreamed of.

SIMILAR FUTILE CONVERSATIONS

I could have a conversation with Richard and translate his statement into empirical and measurable prose. I suspect I could have one with whomever Styx is. I don’t know the others. But the british fellow is not an empiricist but an (((abrahamist))) which is not an opinion but a measurement. He, like (((the others))) makes excuses for not paying the high cost of enforcing the law of reciprocity and sovereignty

The reason I’ve greatly reduced my interactions this year is that it’s actually impossible to have an adult conversation with people who are other than sentimental trolls.

I had a terrible event (trolling) where I lost my temper last month, with some idiot who denied that that which we call logic consists of grammars that test constant relations between states, and who confused correctness of inference between stated premises with tests of truth where completeness is forever lacking and premises forever contingent. I mean. And apparently I lack knowledge of ‘logic’ for being able to explain its constitution.

Now, you know, you just can’t get over a boundary where intellectual dishonesty, dunning kruger effects, and the substitution of reason for intuition – particularly moral intuition – makes communication across leaps in capabilities and knowledge possible.

Almost everyone in the end decides by intuition, Very few of us calculate. THe problem is that THE PEOPLE WHOSE INTUITION IS IDENTICAL TO THE RESULT OF CALCULATION DON’T F—KING KNOW IT.

And Richard is calculating correctly. He just doesn’t know how to SAY it.

What I have tried and I think succeeded in doing is making scientific and logical (calculable) language and grammar of the conservative sovereign(reciprocal), aristocratic(Rule), noble(families) meritocratic(markets), under our near eternal rule of law (rule of voluntary militial warriors).

For the simple reason that we cannot fix ourselves well enough to create a constitution and law by which we restore our unique western civilization.

–‘snide’–

I know. I know. But then, those who are capable don’t fear competition, but cherish it, and those who aren’t capable, admonish it.

It’s purely logical to disapprove, shame, ridicule, gossip, and rally when on is inferior and fearful of competition. In fact, Good competition is rare.

If you disapprove, shame, ridicule, gossip and rally against superiority that’s admission of inferiority.

And, yes it is quite simply to judge superiority vs inferiority, as greater time, calories, content, symmetry, and precision – just as fine art is distinguishable from petty – by the time, calories, content, symmetry, discipline, innovation, and precision therein – just as all man’s thoughts, displays, words, deeds and achievements are distinguishable and their differences in quality decidable by the time, calories, content, symmetry, discipline, innovation, and precision therein. Just as we, as organic creatures are measurable by the time, calories, content, symmetry, discipline, innovation, and precision therein – in genes, body, behavior, and knowledge.

And therein lies the difference between criticism of the lack of time, lack of calories, lack of content, lack of symmetry, discipline, innovation, and precision therein – and criticism of the judgement of others on the relative presence or lack of time, calories, content, symmetry, discipline, innovation, and precision.

Either one can build himself or herself – or not.

Either one can build a craft, skill, or art himself or herself – or not.

Either one can build works, tha produce returns – or not.

Either one can build a family that produces generations but imposes no costs now or future on others, between himself, and herself – or not.

Either one can build a company that produces positive returns – or not.

Either one can build a polity that produces positive returns without the need for immigration – or not.

Either one can build a nation that produces positive returns without the need for parasitism and conquest – or not.

These are facts to those who achieve them, and uncomfortable truths to those that fail, and heinous demands by those who will not try, and oppression by those who prefer parasitism.

Look. It’s Simple. If it’s social, economic, military, and political, ask a few women. THey are contrary indicators. Whatever women approve of is simply a mens of dysgenia, social, economic, political and cultural destruction.

Why? Reproductive instincts are dysgenic. Paternalism raised us out of ignorance, poverty, and deceit.

Todd E. Magnusson

Read one of his short little primer books on Sharia Law. It is probably the least understood and most important as its a political system and not just religious. Generally speaking, Islam is a civilization destroyer. Christianity is in its own right is a civilization destroyer as well, but by means of excessive mercy in the face of destruction.

COMMON FEATURES: Gen 1: CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM, ISLAM, Gen 2: COMMUNISM, MARXISM, SOCIALISM, POSTMODERNISM, FEMINISM

by Simon StrömThere are many common features – both started out as Jewish minority movements centered around one or a few rogue rabbis, trapped inside aristocratic, European hegemonic states (Roman Empire/Russia, Germany etc), preaching egalitarian universalism for some unspecified reason (…you might speculate about pre-cognitive group interests at play…), moving on to rally women, slaves and the proles against established but perplexed and ill-equipped aristocratic regimes and narratives, resulting in the formation of highly centralized priesthood or party bureaucracies ripe with contempt for the preceding order, and a totalitarian propensity to set unchallengeable dogma about all things little and big.

Judaism Christianity and islam are nothing more than an ancient revolt by the pastoralist underclass against civilization, just as the French, German, Jewish, counter enlightenments were an underclass revolt against civilization. Just as Jewish Marxism, French Socialism, and current german europeanism are revolts against civilization.

Aristocracy made civilization.

Deal with it.

—“Q: Why do so many right wingers claim to care about facts while simultaneously believing and sharing blatant misinformation?”—

Since the opposite is generally true, that liberals are almost always wrong, because Marxism, Socialism, Freudianism, Boazian Anthropology, all of sociology and psychology, and of course postmodern political correctness are all products of pseudoscience, and conservatism is reducible to the single principle of empirical, sovereign, voluntary reciprocity, it’s pretty hard to guess what it is you’re fantasizing.

Conservatives DO use hyperbole (exaggeration) to illustrate ‘what would happen if everyone did this’. But then, that is the whole point of the categorical imperative: only do something if you wish everyone else did it also.

Liberalism is nonsense, pseudosicence, and outright lying.

Conservatism is just rule of law by reciprocity (tort).

—“Are you Christian?”—

I am a Sovereign, an Aryan, a Pagan, an Aristotelian, a Stoic, and a Christian.

As a Sovereign: I limitlessly insure with my mind, body, kin, and property, the mind, body, kin, and property, of those who exchange the same with me.

As an Aryan: I take personal responsibility for the transcendence of man into the gods we imagine – whether that be by cooperative voluntary production or uncooperative, and if necessary, violent prosecution.

As a Pagan: I take personal responsibility for the transcendence of nature into the paradise we imagine.

As an Aristotelian: I take personal responsibility for the transcendence of knowledge into the infinite dominion over emotion, mind, body, man, nature, and the universe.

As a Stoic: I take personal responsibility for the transcendence of the self such that we can make use of knowledge, nature, and mankind in transcendence of each: the continuous production of agency over self, others, and nature.

As a Christian: I take personal responsibility for the transcendence of others lacking the agency of the Sovereign, Aryan, Pagan, Aristotelian, and Stoic.

This is an aesthetic, a religion, philosophy, a law, and a science, of action.

“My Name Is Aryan, And We Are Many”

That what I am.

===

And there is no portfolio by by which one can act in concert with the universe than that. If there was I would have found it and chosen it instead.

THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE INTERGENERATIONAL KIN GROUP CORPORATION (Nobility)

Tolerance of Disapproval, Shaming, Ridicule, Gossip, and Rallying by the … ah, shall we say, marginal classes – themselves unable to create competitive intergenerational kin groups – is as obligatory as is Noblesse Oblige.

We must not deny the petty people their illusions. 😉

lolz

I do not wish to change the world, only continue to suppress ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, the fictionalisms, and deceit so that any good may come into being that anyone wishes, as long as it is not done by the imposition of costs upon the investments made by others. Continue to suppress parasitism.

Unfortunately there are people, groups, classes, cultures that exist by parasitism, and so they must bear the heavy burden of change against their will, just as have the many generations before all of us have born the cost of change by replacing the easy parasitism upon the world, one another, and mankind, with the difficult productivity that enhances all three.

Well I’m full fascist yes: in as usual, a more precise sense: Market fascist. Rule by Natural Law, Market Fascist. Nationalist, Rule by Natural Law, Market, Fascist.

I just get less and less libertarian as the necessity for and opportunity for civil war to bring about nationalist, rule of law, market fascism draws near.

Tolerance is a luxury only within the limits of nationalism, rule by national law of reciprocity, and the achievement of desires by means of meritocratic market.

If you don’t understand operational economics, meaning opportunities, incentives and the equilibration of those opportunities as we act on them, then you are no different in your deficiencies from a late medieval rationalist ignorant of empiricism.

Economics is counter-intuitive, in large part because it exposes the fallacies of ethical, moral, and ‘good’ pretenses and creates a measurable means testing ethical and moral thoughts, words, and actions.

We are, and we act, as extensions of the physical universe, and we do so by exactly the same laws, and language just is a polite means of negotiating with others.

The advantage intelligence, of memory, of the ability to cooperate, and of the ability to live for three weeks without food, is that we can use fairly long periods to plan short medium and long term means of expending small amounts of energy as individuals, and together as groups, to capture calories necessary to support that fairly expensive neurological system.

We are simply a better means of capturing, converting, and concentrating energy in a universe of perpetual entropy, because our memories allow us to predict the future, and act to seize the opportunity or alter it and create it or seize the risk and alter ir.

At some point humans must stop seeking discounts (cunning in the short term ) and produce returns ( productivity through invention).

And we seem to covet a steady state, yet never wish to pay for the long investments that make the great leaps in wealth possible.

Because they are only possible when an elite minority possesses both technological advantage AND an internal demand to create markets that produce returns, rather than predations that prevent them in exchange for current and near term signal and consumption.

Staff necessary services with the military.

Extend the shutdown for more than 90 days.

Coup complete.

Al Stankard GETS IT RIGHT

—“The British tried NOT to destroy civilizations but to profit from evolving them out of primitivism.”– Curt

–“The general truth of this is why it’s so easy to see antiracism as being a continuation of Anglo colonialism. The advent of the antiracist era as we know it was just that the /methods/ of this changed after WWII and it took on a secular Jewish streak.”– Al Stankard

CORRECT. (And insightful. And worth sharing, often.)

2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s coverage of President Trump is negative.

Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.

1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never recover.

2. ABC News’ Brian Ross CHOKES and sends markets in a downward spiral with false report.
3. CNN FALSELY reported that candidate Donald Trump and his son Donald J. Trump, Jr. had access to hacked documents from WikiLeaks.
4. TIME FALSELY reported that President Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office.

5. Washington Post FALSELY reported the President’s massive sold-out rally in Pensacola, Florida was empty. Dishonest reporter showed picture of empty arena HOURS before crowd started pouring in.
Donald J. Trump

?

@realDonaldTrump

.@DaveWeigel @WashingtonPost put out a phony photo of an empty arena hours before I arrived @ the venue, w/ thousands of people outside, on their way in. Real photos now shown as I spoke. Packed house, many people unable to get in. Demand apology & retraction from FAKE NEWS WaPo!

6. CNN FALSELY edited a video to make it appear President Trump defiantly overfed fish during a visit with the Japanese prime minister. Japanese prime minister actually led the way with the feeding.

7. CNN FALSELY reported about Anthony Scaramucci’s meeting with a Russian, but retracted it due to a “significant breakdown in process.”

8. Newsweek FALSELY reported that Polish First Lady Agata Kornhauser-Duda did not shake President Trump’s hand.

9. CNN FALSELY reported that former FBI Director James Comey would dispute President Trump’s claim that he was told he is not under investigation.

10. The New York Times FALSELY claimed on the front page that the Trump administration had hidden a climate report.

11. And last, but not least: “RUSSIA COLLUSION!” Russian collusion is perhaps the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people. THERE IS NO COLLUSION!

THE PRESIDENT’S BIG WINS

While the media spent 90% of the time focused on negative coverage or fake news, the President has been getting results:

1. The economy has created nearly 2 million jobs and gained over $8 trillion in wealth since the President’s inauguration.

2. African Americans and Hispanics are enjoying the lowest unemployment rate in recorded history.

3. The President signed historic tax cuts and relief for hardworking Americans not seen since President Reagan.

4. President Trump’s plan to cut regulations has exceeded “2 out for every 1 in” mandate, issuing 22 deregulatory actions for every one new regulatory action.

5. The President has unleashed an American energy boom by ending Obama-era regulations, approving the Keystone pipeline, auctioning off millions of new acres for energy exploration, and opening up ANWR.

6. ISIS is in retreat, having been crushed in Iraq and Syria.

7. President Trump followed through on his promise to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and instructed the State Department to begin to relocate the Embassy.

8. With President Trump’s encouragement, more member nations are paying their fair share for the common defense in the NATO alliance.

9. Signed the Veterans Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act to allow senior officials in the VA to fire failing employees and establishes safeguards to protect whistleblowers.

10. President Trump kept his promise and appointed Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What i look for in others, is explanations of incentives, and measurements of thefts or reciprocity, which apply universally across all sentient beings.

What people intuit, and I consider a primitivism, is measurement by intuition that varies between individuals, groups, classes, norms, traditions, and laws.

This is the difference between primitive animal intuitions, primitive beliefs, primitive norms, traditions, laws – all of which are incommensurable, and the simple truth and falsehood that is ascertainable by imposition of costs or voluntary exchange producing reciprocal rewards.

–“Q: WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF BLOODLINES, OR GENETICS, IN DETERMINING PEOPLE’S ETHNICITY”—

Good question.

Like many terms that we **conflate** and **misuse** out of ignorance, convenience, or attempted deceit, it’s simply too difficult to catalog everyone’s **Race **(genetic macro families), **Ethnicity** (genetic subrace, and tribe), **Class**(genetic, social), **Status**(economic), **Normative**(civic behavioral), **Cultural** (traditions), **National** (legal and institutional), and **Religious**(Mythological) properties.

Prior to the past century, not everyone, but nearly, everyone remained within waking distance for the full duration of their lives, and lacked images, movies, and encyclopedias – and now the internet, by which to learn about other than their near neighbors. So gene pools have been relatively close, and expanded with the geographic spread industrial revolution.

So ethnic, normative, cultural, national and religious differences were substantial around the world – and those differences have declined as the agrarian, industrial, technical, and informational revolutions have ameliorated our differences due to (a) finance, (b) legal contracts, (c) aristotelian science, and finally (d) the spread of english language as lingua franca (common language of science, business, law, and politics.)

Science creates categories, relations, and values that cause conceptual correspondence between the physical world, the social, and the internal world of the mind – creating not only an easier means of communicating across peoples, but one that corresponds most parsimoniously with reality, and as such is less open to ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. So the spread of Aristotelianism (which we can think of the religion of the upper middle and upper classes) has brought the world closer together in frames of reference and methods of thinking.

We are not as able to achieve this same commensurability across genetic barriers. And we have not had time to find a way of discussing each other’s differences that is not in and of itself an exercise in dominance or the defense of it.

In all human relations someone in superior and someone inferior. This is always the case. And in most cases the relationship is reciprocal, and in some cases the relatoinship results in both being better despite their relatives statuses than they were without the other person.

And this is the problem because in a mixed peoples with many background and many status signal systems, the competition for status signals makes people extremely defensive of their admittedly weak positions – so they organize for and against different means of judging status and status signals, and establishing dominance and submission arrangements. *(And don’t kid yourself, you aren’t even aware of how much of this your doing at every moment of ever social interaction.)*

At present the ambitious peoples from world underclasses who have not had the 3500 years of ingroup development of northern europeans free of external competition, nor experienced the western invention of government without rule, the western tripartism and mutual responsibilities, the renaissance, the enlightenment, and the counter-enlighetnments by the french(rousseau), germans(kant/hegel) and jews (the pseudo-scientism of marx, freud, boaz, cantor, mises) and the second french counter-enligthenment (derrida thru rorty).

And at present the underclasses are fleeing the constraints of their primitive infrastructure, primitve, institutions, primitive norms and traditions, in order to move to those places where they are unburdend by those limits, but still posses the racial, ethnic, genetic, social, cultural, and religous limitations of those cultures – and are not willing to pay the price of conformity in order to enter more advanced cultures, nor pay the price of low status as they learn to conform to the more developed cultures.

So when we say “Ethnicity” we generally mean Race, Subrace, or Tribe, but because of Nationalism (the development of ethnic states that imposed language, cultural, religious and legal norms) we generally conflate National Origin, the culture, institutions and religions of that nation state, with Ethnicity (genetics).

Technically speaking, your ethnicity is genetic. your culture is your culture. And your state is your state of origin.

The problem is, that people have enough problems remembering the various countries, are totally ignorant of the regions within them, and even more so unaware of the vast distribution of races, subraces, tribes, and clans and the status that they hold in their local regions, that does not transfer to the new ones.

So we just lump people together under the best most polite term we can ‘ethnicity’ which generally means ‘different from me’.

I hope this helps. 😉

Cheers

CURT IS BLOCKED AGAIN FOR 30 DAYS – This time because a retweet was automatically posted to his account. I didn’t capture it but it was benign.

CURT HAS STALKERS

If you just look at the sequence:

1 – Female reproductive strategy

2 – Jewish group evolutionary strategy

3 – Christian group evolutionary strategy

4 – Muslim group evolutionary strategy

5 – Marxist-Postmodernist group evolutionary strategyAll we are talking about is increasing levels of coercion for the purpose of theft, as scale increases.

I mean. Humans are very simple things.

(If I am lucky this will help a great deal)

– Acquisitiveness (humans acquire, and must, and decidability is provided by acquisition – its just determining what they want to acquire.)

– Signaling (reproductive, productive. and social fitness.)

– Conspicuous Consumption (Signalling)

– Virtue Signaling (truthful, vs fraudulent)

– Three possible means of persuasion(violence, payment, shaming)

– Scale: Shaming > Gossip > Rallying > Publishing > Media >

Propaganda > Literature > Pseudo-philosophy/Pseudo-rationalism > Pseudoscience > Mysticism(magic) > Outright Lying.

– Incremental suppression (killing > violence > theft > fraud > parasitism > free riding > privatization/socialization > conspiracy > institutionalism > propagandism(fictionalism) > conversion > over-reproduction > immigration > invasion > war > ethnocide > genocide )

– use of natural law of tort(Reciprocity) to require warranty of truthful speech in the commons just as we require warranty of products and services, and the statements about those products and services. Why have we not required truth in public speech other than until now, we were not sure how to create a test of truthfulness of speech?

Answers to “Here are Sargon’s 8 questions for White Nationalists.” – via Johnson.

(You know, it’s just reducible to nationalist(eugenic) vs globalists(dysgenic). And that’s just whether your kin group or other king groups are more advantageous to you. Any group can choose nationalism vs globalism. IMO whites and east asians just benefit most from eugenics/meritocratocracy, because we HAVE benefited most from eugenics/meritocracy. But any group can convert to eugenic meritocracy and aristotelianism/truthfulness if they choose to.)

>1. Are Jews Oppressing White People?

The western group evolutionary strategy relies upon homogeneity, truth telling, high trust, and extraordinary contribution to the commons, particularly the territorial commons, to produce rapid adaptation to changes. This is a masculine (k-selected) territorial group evolutionary strategy. The jewish group evolutionary strategy relies upon radical internal homogeneity, gossip(rally/shaming) and parasitism upon the commons of hosts, making particular use of incentive to moral hazard, concentrating capital in the group rather than the commons. This is a radical feminine (r-selected) pastoralist/vagrant/diasporic strategy. One does not beat a dog for being a dog. One takes the responsibility of training the dog, or removing it from society. The reason we have a problem with jews is we do not defend against them by creating laws that are unnecessary for whites, but necessary for us to tolerate them (and women for that matter). Meaning ‘warranty of truthful speech’, prohibition on moral fraud (yes it’s possible), and full reciprocity (meaning that they cannot make display, speech or action not fully reciprocal with the host). I won’t go into this level of detail but under law it’s trivial to force jews to integrate or leave. For most of our history we had laws constraining the immorality of women (‘scolds, gossips, prostitute ) just as we have had laws constraining the immorality of men. We simply have not modernized our laws for the introduction of women and jews (and frankly other hostile minorities) into the commons, and political commons. In other words jews exploit our high trust society by using a radical innovation on the female reproductive and social strategy, that parasitically preys upon, privatizes, and then uses against the host people, the commons (human, social, behavioral, political, institutional, legal, cultural capital) that those host peoples produce. And yes, it is solvable. Just like women are solvable. A THING DOES WHAT IT NEEDS TO. You defend against pests, you do not ask why they choose to be pests.

> 2. Should Interracial Couples be Forced to Separate?

If whites (or any marginals) want to outbreed at the cost of leaving the high trust white polity, market, and society, then it is in our interests to ‘exit’ such undesirables. The mistake white nationalists make is in not separating incompletely evolved peasant whites, from completely evolved aristocratic whites. It’s in our interest to take the aristocratic white people and then to exit the non-aristocratic white people. This only improves our ability to create a high trust, demographically superior society. I would not force anyone to do anything other than leave.

This brings up the problem of territory. It is better to revolt, separate, and run a smaller homogenous territory while the other groups descend in to brazil/india/levant/north-africa.

> 3. Should the Government Prevent Citizens from Leaving the Country to Preserve the Race?

I don’t see any value in preserving defective members of the race. It’s not like reproduction is a difficult thing. Our aristocracy has been domesticating the human animal for at least 3500 if not 5000 years, and while the process was most advanced in today’s holland, and least in those places to the southeast bordering the Turks/Muslims. We did far more during the high and late middle ages through the 1800;s than is polite to speak of. So it is best to leave behind those people that we must bear the cost of developing.

>4. Should the State Control Education?

The law should prohibit education in falsehoods, immorality, ir-reciprocity, and fictionalisms. If this is the case, the market will force truthful education. and that means EUGENICS. “control” implies wisdom that does not exist, and will cause malincentives. Anything that is true, moral, reciprocal, and scientific is not harmful. The primary problem with western civ is that it’s a eugenic strategy and always has been, and this is incompatible with the use of democracy as a means of seizing power from the landed (agrarian) gentry during the enlightenment and industrial revolution.

> 5. Should the State Control the Media?

The law should prohibit falsehoods, immorality, ir-reciprocity, and fictionalisms, and require warranty of due diligence in public speech. If that was the case, the market would rapidly destroy the left, which uses the industrialization of lying as a weapon against eugenic, meritocratic, society. This will work far better than any attempt at regulation.

>6. Should the State Control the Economy?

The law should prohibit violations of tort, whether personal, interpersonal, familial, corporeal common, social common, political common. And should require reciprocity at all times. If this were the case we would have no need to regulate it. Contrary to libertarian dogma, fiat currency (shares in the state used as a money substitute) is just as necessary for modern states as the stock market and bank credit, and private investors are for modern enterprises. Furthermore, monarchies have a far better record of the production of commons than do ‘governments’. In an extremely portable world, people can use market forces (movement) to select monarchies that better match their interests. If a monarchy takes basic taxation, and uses direct democracy to raise funds necessary for other commons, then that’s fine. Civic Society will fill any other demands that state and commerce do not.

>7. Do the Decisions of Individual White People Matter to the Alt-Right’s Goals?

It’s time to acknowledge that the enlightenment and marxist programs have been catastrophes and return to aristocracy (meritocracy) – the private government of kin by and for kin. Democracy is against our interests if not all of humanity’s interests. It’s just communism and dysgenia by slower means. So either people want to come along, or they don’t. If they don’t, then they don’t matter. No.

>8. Should Women Have a Role in Public Life??

I see no reason for political life outside of a hierarchy of monarchy-nobility-civic-organizations, and the family. The problem with women, as is the problem with jews, is that they use the same destructive means of gossip and moral hazard in order to increase privatization of the capitals of the commons. That said, if we are to have any kind of participation women should have their own ‘house’ just as men have houses of common(lower house), industrial-financial (middle house), territorial(upper house), so that they are in a position to negotiate but cannot make use of ‘feminine means’ of persuasion (gossip, falsehood, pseudo-moralism, pseudoscience, fictionalism) to cover their attempted parasitism.

CLOSING

Furthermore, I don’t see how this advice differs for whites and any other people. It’s either kin and nation states and eugenia and innovation, or corporation and globalism and dysgenia and stagnation or regression.

Scary. COBOL. It’s as old as I am. Although, I did learn it in school, and did make quite a bit of money during the ‘date crisis’ indirectly, and, it is verbose yes, but it’s really only good (IMO) for hierarchical databases. (Hierarchical > Relational > Document) And hierarchical databases are pretty good for financial activity, for the simple reason that accounting is a hierarchical problem. But man…. getting paid to do that today? ugh.

Every time you use an atm or a credit card (or do anything with the government) you’re hitting a cobol application. And they can take hundreds of millions of dollars (if not billions) to replace.

On the other hand, do you know how many guys in their 60’s and 70’s work part time at $100+ per hour fixing trivial bugs or implementing ‘tweaks’, or minor feature changes?

All the high-return money is made at the front AND ends of the curve. All the low return money at the top of the curve.

Look at Java. Java is a sh-t language. but that sh-t will be around forever. Companies like it because it’s a high cost of entry language.

While I adored OOP, my favorite more recent innovation is fluent programming. I think functional is an understandable technique for reducing memory and pressing all variables onto the stack, lightening cleanup, and obtaining performance, both functional programming and closures are very ‘dirty’ … Man I don’t want to have to pay devs to debug that sh-t ten years from now.

I actually love LISP/PASCAL/Python/Php. I think .net, java. and js were sh-t technologies attempting to compensate for operating systems designed for long running processes on slow hardware. When the internet consists and needs short running (transactional) processes that interact with longer running services and caches.

js is still a sh-t language. And the combination of the browser standards and that js standards are inhibiting innovation.

We write an absurd number of lines of tests to compensate for what is a sh-t language.

Php is still the very closest ‘language’ to a de facto ‘language’. And that is why I like it. Stringy(scripty) languages are very close to natural language grammar, and we can deflate them into every subsidiary grammar. But we cannot inflate a deflationary grammar into natural grammar very easily.

Once you have objects over data types, and all your internal data stored in json (hierarchical strings masquerading as arrays, and once you have hierarchical, relational, and document databases, (it would be nice if there was one db that served all purposes) then there aren’t a lot of problems you can’t solve.

There will often if not always be some need for purely mathematical applications that must perform very large scale computations, and those projects are best suited for functional programming.

Otherwise, we are just in an interesting era where the browser technology is actually holding back innovation for the simple reason that standards committee’s do that. we need the option for bytecode distribution from any ‘better’ language than js. Or Js needs to evolve faster and leave behind the sh-t language era.

DON”T BE HIGH MINDED ABOUT SLAVERY. YOUR ANCESTORS DEFINITELY PARTICIPATED. AND YOU STILL DO.

Indentured servitude is/was a contractual form of voluntary slavery, with exit , and indentured servants were a substantial part of the early colonies.

The sex-slave trade in white women was common, and was only finally outlawed in 1910.

THE ECONOMY SHIFTS, THE CONDITIONS REMAIN

All of these forms of slavery were extant from the earliest records in almost every agrarian civilization.

Take your pick:

SERIES: Undomesticated Human Animal > Chattel Slavery(Property) > Slavery(servitude) > Serfdom (partial independence) > Economic Slavery(Wage Labor) > Tax Slavery (Citizen)> Jurisdictional Slavery(Government) > “Cult” slavery(Religion).

Serfdom = Inability to exit taxation.

Slavery=inability to exit, period.*

**HIGH MINDEDNESS**

We take credit for high mindedness, but the truth of the matter is, that s**lavery occurs out of economic necessity**, and the reason it disappeared was the black plague, the early modern agrarian revolution, the early industrial revolution, and late industrial revolutions, that made it economically preferential to have employees and customers rather than slaves.

Rule of historical analysis: **never assume people do things out of good nature**. They do things because it’s feasible and they want to obtain **virtue signals** as means of displaying **conspicuous consumption**.

The human intuitionistic and biological accounting system is just status signals.

(Read Veblen)

(From Elsewhere)

(a) what is the reason for the pre-ancient, ancient, late ancient, early medieval, and high medieval wealth in the fertile crescent?

(b) what was the relative condition (economic) of people in the ancient, early medieval, high medieval, late, and early modern periods. Meaning, how did life change from 500bc to 1200ad and why?

(c) why was the so called golden age possible? (was it even true for that matter?) It’s partly true. But why?

(d) Why were non-corrupt governments difficult to produce? Why are they STILL nearly impossible.

(e) Where did all the (various) treasury’s money come from?

(f) When did the decline start?

(g) Why was new technology difficult to produce?

(h) Why, once the technology was available, couldn’t it be adopted?

(i) Why, once the technology was available, why couldn’t the middle eastern world modernize?

***Small things in large numbers over long periods have vast consequences.***

—“A little abstract,but when I think of Propertarianism in terms of development. I keep thinking of England in the year 1066. The chaos following the battles of Stamford Bridge & Hastings. Three ideologies-Pagan mysticism Harald. Roman mysticism- Harold.”—@KyleHen44723716

1) Smart observation. Yes. Only today it’s Pseudoscience(Jewish) vs Pseudo- Rationalism (French-German), vs Rule of Law-Tradition and History-Tradition (Empiricism), Just as it has been since the industrial revolution. Anglo >French >German>Jewish. Each was +100yrs. Ending now.

2) So I view my work as completing the enlightenment, and trying to provide the next empirical revolution – in psychology, social science, law, economics, and science – to compensate for the errors-wishful-thinking-deceit of the French, German, and Jewish counter-enlightenments.

3) The problem, and the one that creates the permanent vulnerability to any system of calculation, truth, sovereignty, and reciprocity, is that people all desire false histories. My only correct critics so far are those that say ‘truth is enough to rule, but not enough for man’.

Group IQ roughly correlates with genetic diversity.

Why? It’s freaking obvious.

Less opportunity for selection on increasingly marginal differences.

I know, you need ‘woo’.

I don’t do ‘woo’.

Sorry. Truth is enough.

Rule of Natural Law,

Mandatory Kinship Accountability and Insurance,

Hereditary Monarchy, Regional And Local Nobility.

Market Fascism (meritocracy), flat taxation on commerce.

The production of commons either private or monarchic,

Absent any ‘government’ (Politics).Eric Danelaw once you make people accountable for their kin again, the result will be ethno nationalism

Always use the law to manage incentives, and the desired result will emerge from market forces.

**—-”Q: Why are whites now moving back to the cities as opposed to the white flight that was happening?”—-**

I’m going to scare you.

1. The **big sort** continues. (look it up)

2. The **nine nations** of north america continue to form (look it up)

3. American domestic empire’s **economy is collapsing a city at a time**. (look it up)

4. People are **fleeing to the only viable centers** of remaining work (look it up)

5. So:

we **eliminated** agrarianism by 1950.

We **eliminated** heavy industry by 1990.

We **eliminated** volume production by 2000.

We **eliminated** clerical work by 2005.

We **exported** technological innovation by 2010

We are have rapidly **automated** (eliminated) service work since 2012

We collapsed advertising nationwide.

We are collapsing retail nationwide.

We are even crashing the movie business

We have increasingly **financialized** the economy from the founding of the FED (probably necessary in retrospect),

Then under **FDR**,

Then for the **Petrodollar** (Nixon),

Then to defeat **world communism** (Reagan),

Then to promote post-communism **neoconservatism** (Bush, Clinton),

Then to the **tech crash** (Clinton, Bush),

Then to **islam’s replacement of Communism** (Bush),

Then to the **financial crash** (Obama),

And now we have only land to sell to immigrants, and high tech, high tech manufacturing, and more finance.

You must have underutilized capital to put credit to work.

WE DON’T.

Ergo we are powerless to adjust.

So people are fleeing to cities when they are young because it is the only viable work with viable returns. They will, as soon as possible move to the suburbs when those cities that are now full of young labor, are just as saturated with rent seekers as the older cities are. (really).

Economic and demographics.

In the long run it’s just math.

—-”Q: Why do most Americans assume Arabs are a single racial group?”—-

Because **Arabs ARE a single subrace**. Arab speakers are not(language). Muslims are not(religion). Arabs are(genes).

**GENETICS**

Now, genetically it appears that Arabs originated at the Ethiopian-Arabian Peninsula narrows between what is today Djibouti and Yemen, as an admixture between west asians (Anatolia-Levant-Iran today) and Africans.

During the Arab expansion (wars of conquest) that destroyed the ancient world’s great civilizations (Egyptian, North African, Levantine, Persian, Byzantine, and Roman), and led to the Abrahamic (jewish, christian, islamic) dark age, arabs interbred, particularly with slaves, because interbreeding of slaves was permitted.

So while Arabs INTERBRED with the civilizations they destroyed, and exploited for slavery, they remain a genetically and morphologically identifiable subrace.

**West Asian Race **

**===West Asian (Iranian) Race**

Iranian Race ( Armenian**(R1b/J2)** – Jewish**(E1/J)** – Greek**(I2) **— Southern Italians**(I2)** — Turk – Kurd – Iranian – Jordanian – Iraqi – Assyrian – Druze – Lebanese – Georgian – Caspian – Palestinian)

Tajik Race (Tajik – Bukhara Arab – Shugnan – Kallar – Sourashtran – Yadhava)

**=== Arab (Semitic / Iranian-African?) Sub Race**

**(J)** (Kuwait, and southern peninsula)

Kuwaiti Race* (Kuwaiti)

Arabian Race (Saudi – Yemeni – Bedouin)*

Egyptian Race (Egyptian)

**=== North African Sub Race **

North African Race (Moroccan – Libyan – Tunisian – Canarian)

Berber Race*** (Berber)

Algerian Race (Algerian)

============

**CONFLATION**

We westerners ‘conflate’ *Islam*, *Arab*, and *Arabic* out of convenience and frankly inability to tell the difference (and lack of interest) – and rationally, because stereotypes are the most accurate system of measurement in the social sciences. Most of us still can’t tell east asians apart either. Yet we can tell which tribe or clan ethnic europeans come from.

**CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHITES?**

I mean, it’s hard for most, but I can tell high, middle, low german, celt, scandinavian, east baltic, polish-ukrainian, russian apart. It’s less easy to tell finno-hungarians, romanians, and southern slavic peoples. and it’s pretty easy to tell northern europeans (germanics) from southern europeans (with black hair), from sardianins, from greeks, from turks. Even if they’ve been intermarried over generations. Can you? Probably not.

So, you call us white, or western, but we differ substantially.

And if not, why would we not treat you likewise?

(I do science.)

During the 1600’s,1700’s,and early 1800’s Connecticut was one of the best places to live in human history outside of small regions of west france, and southern england. But perhaps even better than those. The connecticut river valley is comparable in many ways to the Loire, but less exhausted by the presence of man.

Today, it is a post industrial, post socialist, bankrupt, business-hostile, job-absent, dysgenic, ungovernable, wasteland of capital-flight, both industrial, material, human, cultural, and intellectual.

It is detroit on a state scale.

America is collapsing one city at a time. That’s why it’s so hard to see. It’s not collapsing like the great depression, where we could fix it with debt. It’s collapsing into Brazil, and for the same reasons:

It’s just genetic.

(Friend reminds me this is beneath my purview. This post is not about weed, but about markets and the scope of permissible behavior under law.)

A Post on ‘weed’ reminded me to make an important point:

We do not choose between ILLEGAL, and LEGAL …

… but between:

ILLEGAL, NOT-ILLEGAL, and LEGAL:

SEQUENCE:

0 – Bearable but not Usable ( Grandfathered )

1 – Usable but not producible ( Personal )

2 – Producible but not exchangeable, (Private)

3 – Exchangeable but not commercial, (Hobby Market)

4 – Commercial but not industrial, (Craft Market)

5 – Industrial but regulated, (Commercial Market)

6 – Industrial but unregulated (Almost Never).

IMO ‘weed’ should have been made not-illegal in Private and Commons but not in Markets. In other words, producible, exchangeable, but not marketable. Commercialization was a mistake. And it was (measurably) unnecessary.

The Age of Calculation (Math, Engineering, Reason, Law)

The Age of Scriptural Monotheism (Fictionalism) – The Revolt against reason and Meritocracy. (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)

The Abrahamic Dark Age. (1000 years)

The Age of Empiricism

The French and German Age of Rationalism (Rousseau, Kant) – A revolt against empiricism

The Age of Science (Darwin, Maxwell, Pareto/Durkheim, Menger, Poincare)

The Age of Pseudoscience (Marx, Boaz, Freud, Keynes) – A revolt against Science.

The Age of Outright Lying (Postmodernists – the current age)

Now what?

(I’m working on it…) lol

by Bill Joslin

Emotions are information about information – specifically how the datum measures against preference.

One caveat about aesthetics – aesthetics takes hold in a population by the pervasive temperament of that population… A symptom or measure not a causal vector.

–“Will the economy bubble burst again in 2018 (like the one that happened in 2008)?”–

It is a virtual certainty that we will see some sort of massive correction even greater than the 2008 crisis, sometime between now and 2025. And at that time the states will need to bypass the financial system in order to put liquidity into consumer (citizen’s) hands, so that the economy can adapt to the shock. And governments are not yet ready to do this, although Americans can do it fastest. (And some of us are trying to make sure it happens this time around.)

Now, the reason this will be difficult, is that we have spent the entire postwar era financializing the economy, and done more so since the advent of petro-dollars, and more so to defeat world communism, and more so since the 2001 crash, and more so since the 2008 crash. (We could have paid off the vast majority of home mortgages in 2008 with the money we have spent SINCE 2008 trying to correct the economy. (Only Galbraith, me, and one other made this argument. Unfortunately, he was the only person of influence, and he died.) Imagine what that would have done to the economy.

Unfortunately, that ‘shock’ of de-financialization (ending rent seeking on consumer), will vastly diminish (a) the size of the financial sector (b) the rents that ‘institutional investors and pension funds’ can extract from consumers. So it will be a vast correction we have not seen in the world before.

Just WHY this is so is … well, non trivial. But it’s largely a factor of demographics, abilities of those demographics, and AVAILABLE consumption.

And, yes I can explain it in scary detail, but at present, it’s bedtime…..

(important)(common property)(property rights)

(Thank you for asking me to answer this rather … challenging question.)

—-”**How do libertarians address the tragedy of the commons?”—**

Ostrom’s argument is identical to the libertarian argument, although far more articulate, supported by exhausted research, and articulated in a FORMAL LOGICAL GRAMMAR.

**Ostrom’s argument**, is that:

1 – Common property organizations, meaning ‘**private corporations**’ will form as a means of managing scarce assets, with or without state interference, and with or without issuance of shares of title.

2 – **States create the tragedy of the commons** when the INTERFERE with the development of those private corporations, by violating the property rights of the participants in the ‘natural corporation’ that manages the asset.

3 – If states (groups, polities, governments, judiciaries) merely **INSURE all forms of property** (exclusivity of benefit, and exclusivity of management), people will, out of natural self interest, maintain any asset of any kind.

In other words, Ostrom explained the evolution of the corporation – before we created the corporation in order to obtain outside investment, and therefore limited liability,

OSTROM’S RULES (REORDERED FOR CLARITY) FOLLOWED BY RESTATEMENT OF EACH, IN OPERATIONAL TERMS

2B – Appropriation and provision: The benefits obtained by users from a common-pool resource (CPR), as determined by appropriation rules, are proportional to the amount of inputs required in the form of labor, material, or money, as determined by provision rules. *

****[ ‘People only get out of the corporation what they put in to the corporation, in the form of labor and assets.’].***

1A – User boundaries: Boundaries between legitimate users and nonusers must be clearly defined.

** *****[‘Those who have contributed labor and assets into the corporation in exchange for returns on those labor and assets, shall exclusively benefit from the common pool resource.’]***

1B – Resource boundaries: Clear boundaries are present that define a resource system and separate it from the larger biophysical environment.

***[‘The assets of the corporation shall not impose costs by externality.’]***

2A – Congruence with local conditions: Appropriation and provision rules are congruent with local social and environmental conditions.

***[‘Broader communities insure (defend) Personal, familial, Private Corporate, Public Corporate, and Public Assets, from violation, and the corporation must be insured by those same institutions.’]****

*

3 – Collective-choice arrangements: Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules.

***[‘Only shareholders who have contributed labor and assets shall participate in the management of the assets of the corporation.’]***

4A – Monitoring users: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the appropriation and provision levels of the users.

4B – Monitoring the resource: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the condition of the resource.

***[‘Contributors to the corporation monitor one another just like we monitor one another in all aspects of personal, familial, private corporate, public corporate, and public life’]***

5 – Graduated sanctions: Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and the context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to the appropriators, or by both.

***[‘Corporations produce their own internal laws for violations of corporate assets’]***

6 – Conflict-resolution mechanisms: Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials.

7 – Minimal recognition of rights to organize: The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities.

***[‘Natural private corporations must exist, and will exist, but like all forms of property require defense, even if that defense includes defense from the interfering state.’]***

8 – Nested enterprises: Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.

***[Humans must organize defense of the various forms of property in order to gain the benefits, of decreased opportunity cost, from increased numbers and increased density, and the benefits of numbers, and density, and velocity (everything becomes cheaper) are directly proportional to the degree of suppression of parasitism upon property, where property consists of material physical and asset investment in the production of multipliers, and therefore returns.]***

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

(notes)

And the obvious reasons: rugged terrain, vast distances, north-south rivers in an east-west habitable zone.

(Humor. Holiday. Mother. Noting that I didn’t adequately rinse the measuring cup before putting it in the dishwasher. In a soft voice, this is what she said:)

“Look. Look at this?

How can you put this in a dishwasher?

I have to re-do your work.

I did all the right things.

Got all the right sacrements.

Did the best I could do with what I had to work with.

And it was an uphill battle – not because of him – but because of the time and place.

Then he went to college.

Went into businesses.

Had three marriages!

It’s not my fault.

I did the best I could.

And here it is. The new year.

And I find I haven’t yet succeeded in ‘straightening him out’.

And I find that a disappointment in my life.

And what do I get in my old age… my last years on earth?

To be cajoled by a naughty, aged, little boy….

huh?

I tried, God. I really tried. I gave it my all. It’s a shame.

God bless, lord, it’s your job from here on out.

I can’t do it. It’s one of those impossible earthly tasks.

I know you understand … my dilemma.

(He doesn’t listen to me anyway so it doesn’t matter what I say….)

I offer it up. For days in purgatory. Lord help me do this.

Should I intercede with St’ Jude the Impossible?

Now I do not expect to see one crumb on the counter when I come back from my luncheon.

I a martyr. A martyr. But I’ve decided to let go. To leave you to god’s charge…”

(Catholicism teaches guilt with amazing … facility. Now, you know. My mother is the worst tease in the world. And people wonder where I get it from. lol. So, in retaliation, I will find a rather large crumb from the date-nut bread, and place it, perfectly in the middle of the counter.)

—-”Since the ideological core of America is a individualistic democracy, what makes you think that a fascist movement would be more popular with the American populace? (https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Since-the-ideological-core-of-America-is-a-individualistic-democracy-what-makes-you-think-that-a-fascist-movement-would-be-more-popular-with-the-American-populace)”—-

America was founded as a ‘third way’ free of both church and state, and instead for the entrepreneurial (meritocratic) individual. The original colonists recruited heavily ‘people of good character’ to create that ‘third way’ The constitution constructed rule by “The natural law of reciprocity”, and individual sovereignty (although they used the world liberty).

This meant that all functions of society were organized into markets. You could perform service, with service you could earn property, with property you could earn voice.

Meanwhile the court adjudicated differences entirely by property rights. This was ‘the third way’ that they were inventing. A third way not done before. Or at least, the third way that had continued from Anglo Saxon times, and was under attack during the colonial period.

So it is that America was founded under rule of law. Not rule of legislation. rule of LAW. With legislation being little more than contract negotiated between the states, just as contracts were negotiated within the state, and within the polity, and between individuals.

This is why those of us educated pre-marxism-postmoderism’s takeover of the school, academy, media and state during and the vietnam war, treat the constitution as ‘sacred’. Because for all intents and purposes – it is. It is ‘inviolate’. Unfortunately, beginning with the 14th amendment, then increasingly during the 20th century, the left was able to destroy rule of law, and re-implement rule-by-legislation, and then eventual restore the church, with a secular religion of postmodernism.

**FASCISM/NATIONALISM VS COMMUNISM/UNIVERSALISM**

Fascism, meaning **economic and cultural nationalism**, was developed to counter the spread of **global communism. **

There is very little difference between **FrankfurtSchool Marxism**, and it’s successor, **Postmodern School Political correctness** – and world communism. Just as there is very little difference between j**udaism, christianity, and islam** and **world communism**.

So if you are from a good family, clan, tribe, and nation, you might choose nationalism over globalism. And if you are from a not-so-good family, clan, tribe, and nation you might choose globalism.

People tend to follow the elites that promise them a competitive advantage. This is why people in homogenous societies vote by class blocks, and in heterogeneous societies they vote in racial and tribal and religious blocks: to obtain advantage via the force of government, rather than through market competition in the service of others.

So Fascism is just a practical means by which KIN GROUPS (Nationalists) protect themselves from MAJORITY TYRANNY (Corporatists) by resisting universalism.

Who do you want to get ahead? Well that depends upon what elites you can put into place to get your agenda ahead.

Some of us are wired (like females) for the short term and experiential, and some of us are wired (like males) for the long term and capital accumulation.

The strange thing is, nationalists are happy to separate and let others do as they will, but universalists are not?

Why is that?

The only answer CAN BE that one fears facing the reality of one’s inferiority in competition with kin groups.

—-”What are the “worst” traits of Democrats and of Republicans if there are such?”—

LIBERALS lie constantly, because that is the purpose of marxism, socialism, and postmodernism – falsehood by gossip (reality by chanting). They have to lie, because their entire purpose is theft. So they employ shaming, rallying, pseudorealism, pseudoscience (Marx, Boaz, Freud) and pseudo rationalism (the french postmodernists). And they shout down and suppress the truth (that’s what political correctness means : ‘denial’. They seek to destroy markets, because markets are meritocratic.

CONSERVATIVES can’t tell the truth – because conservatism is a eugenic group strategy. It’s antithetical to democratic polities. Conservatism is purely empirical. Purely market. Purely meritocratic. So they talk around the truth and are prisoners of ‘traditional moral language’.

Why? Liberalism is the feminine reproductive strategy and dysgenic, and conservatism is the masculine reproductive strategy and eugenic.

There is a very good reason why western people evolved so much faster than all the rest despite being farther behind.

Less femininity. More competition. More disruption of the status quo. Less sentimentality. More truth and reason. More technology. More science.

Why? Women gossip and undermine, everywhere, all the time. Constantly.

It’s been illegal for women to gossip, shame and rally (they’re called ‘scolds’) for most of western history. Yet, all they do when given the opportunity is gossip everyone to the bottom. What percent of media personnel do anything other than gossip? And who pays for advertising containing gossip? And who spends money because of that advertising gossip?

That’s the lesson of having women the voting pool.

Liberals are female minds demonstrating female behavior, for female ends, because of female reproductive strategies.

Yep. Do the research. That’s the answer.

The greatest crime in history was letting pandora out of the box.

Once you realize that SJW’s are incompletely evolved humans, just as children, or domesticated animals, you stop taking them any more seriously than children, or domesticated animals.

The human mind can develop in utero, during childhood, and during puberty, into a condition of agency, or we can train it into agency. But it appears that some of us are born with agency, some must only be exposed to agency, and some must be trained into agency, and some must be limited in the damage that they can create due to their lack of agency.

Only then can we provide normative, cultural, and institutional agency. Because until one demonstrates self agency, that individual is not yet human.

Agency is what separates us from animals.

We can teach a crow, a dog, and a chimp facility with words and meaning if they are smart enough. People merely possess facility with words by birth. But just as pets must be taught facility with words, many people – SJW’s – must be taught agency: facility with body, thought, and emotion.

That’s what the stoics were doing.

And that is why the stoic schools were destroyed by the eastern church as a means of destroying western aristocratic civilization.

SJW’s are easy to lead. They are merely domesticated animals, and not yet human.

If we were still in our pre-christian ethos, we would be honest about these facts.

Some human lineages, and certainly the female gender, were insufficiently domesticated.

Beautify, very cold, very clear, very bright new year’s eve day.

(I wish I was in ukraine to celebrate it.)

—“When you use the words 1) true, and 2) truth, what do you mean by them? And 3) is it possible for such a thing as you mean to exist?”—

0 – Identity(Tautology) Description: True(correspondent, consistent, existential, coherent) vs False (non-correspondent, inconsistent, non-existential, or incoherent) [Truth proper]

1 – Calculation: True(without error) versus false(with error) [analytic truth] [axiomatic]

2 – Deduction(induction): True (without error) versus False (with error) [ logical truth] [axiomatic]

3 – Description( identity) : that description, definition, you would give if you possessed perfect knowledge, perfect vocabular, perfect grammar, and specified perfect limits and scope. [Ideal truth] [theoretic]

4 – Narration: True(correct) versus False(incorrect). [testimonial truth] [ theoretic]

5 – Legal Judgement: Right(non-imposition) versus Wrong(imposition) [legal right and wrong] [empirical]

6 – Judgement: Right(correct) versus Wrong(incorrect) [moral right and wrong] [rational]

7 – Normative Judgement: Right(obedient) vs Wrong(disobedient) [normative right and wrong] [habitual]

Truth consists of speech that preserves constant relations in any grammar of decidability that we have produced, whether categorical, algorithmic, rational, narrative, legal, moral, or normative.

Truth provides DECIDABILITY independent of preference or good, or norm.

All these methods are existentially possible.

—“Why does Russia seem so apathetic towards economic progress despite having so much potential and resource?”—

THIS IS A GOOD BUT MISLEADING QUESTION. LETS PUT A PERSPECTIVE TOGETHER:

Why are the chinese so obsessed with preserving their empire rather than dividing into many competing states like europe? I mean, that was the reason for the communist revolution…. to stop it. It was their ‘reformation’ and they failed.

Why are middle eastern muslims so obsessed with blaming others for their condition rather than organizing secular, economic, governments and dividing the government by tribe the way the west divides them by house?

Why is iran so concerned with evolving into an empire from the mediterranean to the indian border?

Why is Pakistan so intent on seizing indian territory when it cannot govern it’s own?

Why do north koreans seek to preserve their despotism when their relatives across the border live in one of the best societies on earth, second only to the Japanese?

Why are french and germans so intent on creating a ‘united states’ of europe, while man of us in america understand that just results in cultural oppression, and bureaucratic oppression, and we want to break into different states like europe?

Why do south americans blame everyone else for their condition when the fact is, that they were catholics and like most catholic countries made a malinvestmnet in socialism which has destroyed the window of opportunity that they had to transform into high trust societies?

The Reason russia (a) centralized industrial income, and (b) focused on improving rule of law, and improving infrastructure, and restoring defense, is because they need a great deal of money to compete with local corruption, and slowly build a diverse economy. (Read Fukuyama Trust, Political Order 1 and 2.)

The russian mythos is a disaster becasue (a) the Tsars were good and nearly made russia a western country. (b) the communists destroyed that opportunity. (c) the communists destroyed millions of lives, and eventually failed. (c) the only good myth russia has to unify is ‘the great war’ against germany. And even then, it is probably hard to argue that germany was not both in the right, and ‘good’ for russians. So, just as the chinese have ‘a chip on their shoulder’ for being humiliated for their long history of bad decisions, the russians have ‘a chip on their shoulder’ for their long history of bad decisions. Lastly, we overstate the russian military interest – the military is the best jobs program a country can enter into becuase just as the USA did, you build a big military infrastructure which builds a large manufacturing and organiational base, and skilled population, and then you incrementally turn it over to the private sector.

There is very little the russians do that doesn’t make sense if youi’re trying to govern russia. It’s 11 time zonse of very paranoid people who in their minds are surrounded by enemeis.

The greatest mistake in the past thirty years was not bringing russia into nato.

Russians are very easy to understand. And very easy to love. You just have to understand how they think about the world. “Poor little Russia”. And they only feel safe when so strong there is no chance of vulnerability.

—-”Q: Do you think we live in a post-truth world?”—-

1 – Yes.

2 – It’s by design (intent).

3. It’s a reformation of the first organized means of creating post truth.

The purpose of the *Marxist, Freudian, Boazia, Cantorian, Misesian, Frankfurt, Rothbardian, Straussian* **counter-enlightenment** was to create a **pseudoscientific** alternative to the German’s second **scientific** revolution provided by* Maxwell, Darwin, Durkheim/Pareto/Weber, Spencer, Nietzsche, and Romantic school*, which along with the German second technical revolution, and the Germanic rediscovery of pre-christian aesthetics, ethics and mythos – would restore **meritocracy** to its pre-christian origins, and pre christian **empirical truth**.

With the combination of the industrial revolution freeing the underclasses from subsistence living and the Darwin’s ending of mysticism, and the opportunity for a new religion emerged, and the academy stepped in seize the opportunity with the Marxist pseudosciences – and took over the role of the church.

When by the 1960’s no intellectually honest person could any longer support Marxism, the French invented ‘**Postmodernism**’ , which is not just pseudoscientific, but pseudo-rational, and constitutes **a complete denial of the existence of decidable truth** – only power to bring about one’s will mattered.

Political Correctness roughly translates to ‘**lying**’ outright the same way that abrahamic religion translates roughly to lying by parable.

Yet, especially beginning in about 2000 with The Blank Slate, largely due to the self interest of psychologist having been falsified by cognitive science, and therefore trying to save their careers and their profession psychology, cognitive science, genetic science, and economists, have falsified the remainder of the Marxist (economic and historical), Boazian (Anthropology and sociology), Freudian(psychology), pseudosciences. I work on reforming political speech, sociology, law and government, to prevent lying in the market for information the same way we have struggled to eliminate lying in the market for goods, and the market for services.

So at the present we are in a narrow window and determining whether the truth prevails (a minority of us) or ‘lies of convenience’ prevail ( the majority) and whether we will enter another abrahamic dark age, of outright lying like we almost entered one from abrahamic pseudoscientific lying in the 1900’s, and did enter into the first abrahamic dark ages, with the sequential development of systemic lying in judaism > christianity > islam > and the rational justifications of them we call most ‘philosophy’.

The universe is not kind. We are not the center of it. We are a glorious accident in an old and peaceful suburb of a minor galaxy. And we do not yet know if we are alone completely or alone by distance, or not alone at all.

There is only one problem: excessive reproduction below the threshold of reason (about 106 iq) and below the threshold of neoteny (aggression) and below the threshold of agency (impulsivity). Why? Because the inferior need lies to compete. And those of us fully human are bounded by those that are not yet so.

And that is an uncomfortable truth.

(important post)

—“Q: Why are low IQs and low education so strongly correlated with being religious?”—

(Decidability> MIndfulness > Social Confirmation > Emotional Feedback > Precision)

Um… The reasons are 1) that the spectrum of means of ‘measurement’ available to the human mind, and 2) the spectrum available means of mindfulness available to the human mind, and 3) the spectrum of need for emotional feedback, from much to none, and 4) the spectrum of social confirmation, from much to none, are all satisfied by very broad, very imprecise, but entirely actionable formulae provided by narrative analogy.

Yet as Agency (ability, knowledge, resources, opportunity) increase, we need increasingly precise methods of measurement and increasingly sophisticated means of mindfulness. So as our abilities increase we ‘leave behind’ analogy, then leave behind rule, and then arrive at calculation, just as we leave behind virtue ethics, leave behind rule ethics, and arrive at outcome ethics.

But the spectrum of religious parable, normative and rule, rational estimation, and scientific calculation, all gracefully fail, back upon the broader method of choice, allowing us to make decisions with the the maximum and minimum of knowledge we have on any given topic.

So some of us gain our mindfulness from very great precision because of our agency, and others of us gain our mindfulness from very low precision because of our lack of agency. Some of us seek narratives because we want independence of emotion and social confirmation. some of us seek narratives because we need emotional reward, and social confirmation.

That’s actually the answer.

Because people need to act, and to act they need to decide, and they can only decide with the information available to them, and the information available to them is only possible, given the information processing they have available to them.

The lower one’s ability the more one needs very simple, very fixed, rules, so that one is not in a constant state of indecision, and because of it, a constant state of failure, and because of it, a constant state of anger and frustration.

The greater one’s ability the more one needs very precise and dynamic means of calculation, so that one can identify and seize increasingly valuable opportunities.

But interestingly, regardless of ability, we need either social confirmation or don’t, or we need emotional returns or don’t. And so we have a much more complex set of related needs than is obvious by just a test of intelligence. Because some very bight people need both emotional feedback and social confirmation, and some very bright people need no emotional feedback and no social confirmation. and some of us need only either emotional feedback or social confirmation, but not the other.

BUT TRUE OR FALSE MYTHS?

So Mythologies, Parables, Stories, and the lessons of history, are not so much a bad thing, as are FALSE MYTHOLOGIES, parables, stories, and lessons of history.

Selecting virtuous characters from history. Adapting them into archetypal characters, adapting their stories to archetypal narrative structures, so that they answer archetypal problems, by means that are pre-cognitive to us, is not difficult.

The principle problem is getting enough people to use the same narratives so that people with low ability make decisions by the same criteria, so that they can cooperate successfully, so that in turn they obtain decidability and mindfulness.

That is the answer.

THE FIRST ABRAHAMIC DARK AGE

The problem is that we have been taught three false (abrahamic) narratives in place of our ancient narratives (the seasons, the family, and the trials of Achilles), with hideous narratives (we are born evil, we must atone to an evil god, we can seek false immortality by obedience, the classes are at war rather than cooperating, the races, tribes, and clans are at war rather than cooperating through competition, and the trials of the underclass Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. So judaism, christianity, and islam in the ancient world as a revolt against aristocracy, meritocracy, productivity, and technology. And Roussuea-Kant, Marx-Boaz-Freud-Cantor-Mises, and the Frankfurt and Postmodern schools in the modern world.

THE SECOND ABRAHAMIC DARK AGE

There is no difference between the frankfurt school and the council of nicea. There is no difference between academic postmodernism, and the forcible closure of the stoic schools. THere is no difference between the systematic islamic and christian destruction of greek and roman thought, and the active suppression of western history, conservative thought, and scientific research into genetic and cultural differences.

ORGANIZED RELIGION TO DEFEAT ARISTOCRACY (MERIT)

The purpose of christianity was the destruction of western scientific aristocracy, and the purpose of rousseuian-kantian philosophy, marxim-socialism, frankfurt-postmodernism, and jewish and islamic fundamentalism, is the destruction of western scientific aristocracy in the modern world.

TRIPARTISM

Classes can cooperate in the natural hierarchy of western Tripartism -as we have for millennia. Or we can conflict in the unnatural pursuit of false equality that the underclasses will wishfully promote and destroy the world, and bring about another dark age, if we let them.

Curt Doolittle,

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

Any man who does his martial, civil, industrial, and familial, duty regardless of class, clan, or rank, has earned his peerage. Any man who does not, has not.

Any women who does her civil, familial, and maternal duty regardless of class, clan, or rank, has earned her peerage. Any woman who does not, has not.

In scope, men absorb cellular damage, and bear material intellectual, and emotional costs on behalf of the polity and the family. In scope, women absorb cellular damage and bear material, intellectual, and emotional costs on behalf of the family, and consequently for the polity.

These are simply statements of whether one has born a cost or not. They are statements of whether we CAN bear the costs or not. They are the first division of damage, labor, and cost, after which all damage, albor, and costs, are mere improvements.

As far as I know, mathematics consists not of science but of a logic. A logic meaning a grammar of decidability. And in the case of mathematics, the grammar of decidability consists of reduction of all references to positional names, and therefore all relations to positional relations. And we can do so with an unlimited number of dimensions,

A science is necessary when we do not know the first principles (causal relations) of phenomenon and seek to identify them. Science therefore consists of theories and laws.

A logic is necessary when we do know the first principles (causal relations). Ergo, logics consist of axioms.

You can declare an axiom, but only identify a law.

Once a law is known you may model it with axioms.

That I know of there are only two assumptions in mathematics, and both are necessary for the simple reason that independent of context (applied mathematics) we have no means of decidability in matters of scale independence.

The law of the excluded middle.

The need for choice.

Mathematics is actually quite simple. Its that because it is so simple, consisting only of positional relations, we can describe any set of constant relations with it.

—“WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMUNISM AND LIBERTARIANISM?”—

In **COMMUNISM** private property is abolished in order to create exclusively *common* property. *(Rule By Discretion)*

In **LIBERTARIANISM**, common property is abolished in order to create exclusively *private* property. *(Anarchy)*

In **CLASSICAL LIBERALISM** (Rule of Law), the houses of government constitute a *market* for the voluntary production of commons between the people who pay for them with sacrifice of their private property. *(Rule of Law)*

—-”What do Americans think of the fact that their country is seen almost everywhere on Earth as the most arrogant and bellicose country responsible of the death of millions of innocent people?”—-

What do Americans think? You mean uneducated or educated, or educated and knowledgeable, or educated, and knowledgeable, and experience americans?

For the educated, and knowledgeable and experience American, we feel quite rightly that the world is ungrateful for westerners and americans dragging them kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, child death, early death, disease, tyranny. Yes, the european empires tried to drag the world out of a 2000 year dark age and did so profitably. And yes during the world wars, they collapsed and failed to finish the job. And yes, america post-war forced those countries to modernize thesleves rather than directly ruling them as did the colonizers. And yes, communism, socialism, and islamic fundamentalism are all means by which the world resisted being dragged out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, child death, early death, disease, and tyranny.

And yes, we are trying to stop the spread of regressive islam, the same way stopped the spread of regressive socialism, and the same way we stopped the spread of regressive communism. Unfortunately, we are internally under attack by the newest pseudoscientific pseudo rational religion called ‘postmodernism’. And we are no longer in the economic position to fight internal cults (postmodernism that owns our universities and media and government), nor are we in the position to hold states and people accountable for their rule. Nor arwe we in the position to rule states directly. Because the cost is just too high compared to a century ago.

The USA has had a simple policy since the end of the world war that is unstated:

**1 **- This kind of war must never happen again – mankind will end.

**2** – We can prevent such a war from happening by bringing all people into an interdependent economic world order. Economic cooperation changes ‘conflicts’ from physical to economic, cultural, and informational. Iis still conflict, but it is less bad than war.

**3** – People will pursue the interdependent economic world order for the simple reason that they would prefer the comforts of consumer capitalism than to be envious of those that have them.

**4** – We can achieve this by a) preventing expansion of state power, b) directing states to producing human rights (all of which are but property rights), c) advancing democracy so that states will work at human rights (property rights) and then by consequences, join the world economic order out of self interest. d) advancing the self determination of peoples, but retaining borders.

The problem with this set of goals is that:

**a**) most peoples are not demographically advanced enough to adopt consumer capitalism, rule of law, and democracy. Familialism and corruption are too common in the rest of the world, and only northern europeans have succeeded in eliminating it. (Read Fukuyama for some of the reasons why)

**b**) americans have said ‘self determination’ and ‘democracy’ (The Carrot) but have not spoken the consequence (The Stick). Which is ‘if you choose poorly we will punish your government, and by consequence punish you.)

**c**) Had we completed the colonial ( modernization) project in russia, china, and finally in the middle east, rather than abandoning those peoples, we may have made this process less full of conflict, as did the british in their colonies. but at present we are still struggling with russian, chinese, iranian, pakistani aggression, and unfortunately, north Korea’s threat.

We have paid a high price in blood and treasure where we could just have easily ruled the world exploitatively and by force – without much effort at all. What other people would do such a thing?

How many people has Islam killed? How many have Communists Killed?

How many have westerners dragged out of ignorance, superstition, poverty and disease?

Our entire project is nothing more than trying to prevent another world war in the process of dragging people out of the abrahamic (jewish, christian, muslim->Marxist-Socialist, Postmodernist, fundamentalist) dark age.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

—“Do you agree that greed is the main source of all problems we face today?”—

No.

1 – Overpopulation of the untalented classes.

2 – Competition for status, because status increases opportunity.

3 – Factual differences in individual, group, social, political, and religious value in modernity.

4 – Lack of material value of vast sectors of the population – which will only get worse as technology advances.

—“Is social conformity a form of lying?”—

1 – In **display** (dress, manner) conformity is a form of *taxation*. (cost)

2 – In **action** (behavior) conformity a form of *taxation*. (cost)

3 – In **word**, the question is whether the statement is true (scientifically), or false, not conforming or non conforming. If you state the **truth**, it’s a form of *taxation*. (cost)

In **Religion**, it’s both *lying* and *taxation*. All cults other than Aristotelian (science and law) require payment of *taxation* by display, word, and action, as a cost of membership in the cult.

The means of distinguishing between a theocratic government and society and a scientific (rule-of-law) government and society is whether you must pay a cost of display, action, and word that is false in order to obtain or maintain membership in the organization – where government, cult, society are all forms of organization.

The problem is, that conformity may amplify or reduce your relative status signals (perceived market value to others). And so the lower your genetic, social, economic, and political capital, the greater your demand for obtaining signals (positive attention) by non conforming means. This is why people ‘with’ tend to conform, and people ‘without’ tend not to. Search for status signals in some other group than the dominant genetic, social, and economic status hierarchies

All humans are rational actors. That’s necessary for evolutionary persistence.

They just may not understand the rationality of their actions.

(quote of the day)

—“Generally speaking, I find I have more fun with my pants off.”— (some actor)

–“What are good introductory books to study about states, politics, and public laws?”—

The reason we are in this post-enlightenment **political and pseudoscientific debacle** is that Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche had very different beliefs about human nature – they expressed their own Aristocratic, Middle Class, and Underclass perceptions of man. And today we see Nietzschean(‘Aryan’), Hobbesian (authoritarian), Lockean (libertarian), Rousseauian (Social-Democratic) and Marxist(socialist and communist) SELF PROJECTIONS of the nature of man. When in reality, our physical brains are structured in a spectrum from the very masculine(Aryan), to the very feminine (Marxist), and we are totally incognizant of our cognitive biases.

So the first problem is understanding MAN before we can judge rule, government, politics, economics, norms, and religion. And that is provided by science. Then we can understand Politics.

**OUR MINDS (PREPARE YOU)**

Jeff Hawkins: On Intelligence (http://www.amazon.com/On-Intelligence-ebook/dp/B003J4VE5Y/) (The Brain)

Daniel Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow (http://www.amazon.com/On-Intelligence-ebook/dp/B003J4VE5Y/) (The Mind)

Simon Baron-Cohen: The Essential Difference (The Cognitive Biases)

Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind (The Moral Intuition)

Paul Fussell: Class (the class biases)

Francis Fukuyama: Trust (The Political Objective)

**MAN (POLITICAL ORDERS)**

Matt Ridley: The Red Queen

Dale Petersen: Demonic Males

William Tucker: Marriage and Civilization

Nicholas Wade: A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History

Peter Turchin: Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth

Garett Jones: Hive Mind: How Your Nation?s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own

Francis Fukuyama: Political Order and Political Decay

**THE UNIQUENESS OF THE WEST (IF YOU ARE INTERESTED)**

Ricardo Duchesne: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization

JP Mallory: In Search of Indo Europeans

John Keegan: A History Of Warfare

Emmanuel Todd: The Explanation of Ideology

Emmanuel Todd: The Invention of Europe

Karen Armstrong : The Great Transformation

Bryan Ward-Perkins: The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization

**THE NATURAL COMMON LAW (Rule of Law)**

Milsom: Natural History of the Common Law.

Plucknett: A Concise History Of The Common Law.

Hayek’s: The Constitution of Liberty

**20th CENTURY CONTEXT (WHAT WENT WRONG)**

Stephen Hicks : Explaining Postmodernism

Hans Hoppe: Democracy The God That Failed

—“Should we try to encourage the belief that black Africans are the master race? They really don’t have a lot going for them, and life in Africa and among black Americans is so hard. I think it would be uplifting for them.”—

There is no master race. There are races that have evolved in different geographies that produced different demands. Each geography produced variations of the human animal suitable to those conditions.

All people should love their own and take care of their own – self doubt is useless. The greatest inhibitor of black americans is that their culture was just getting started in the south, and the leftists brought them to cities and destroyed that culture. (They were imitating the Soviets. It didn’t work for the soviets, and russians are by and large the same race.)

There are very minor but very meaningful differences (largely endocrinological) between the races, and those of the african communities in america are earlier and deeper rates of maturity (necessary for evolution in africa), higher extroversion (necessary for warm climate hunter gatherers and subsistence farmers), and lower verbal ‘fascination’ (the opposite of the Ashkenazi for example).

Northern europeans evolved in a very different environment, and have very different intuitions and norms. ALL GROUPS are better off in homogenous cultures where they reciprocally provide what the group needs. The competition between races is not helpful except among the most highly talented and skilled global elite whose means of survival is purely economic and not at all social. Most of us are, and will always be, social creatures dependent upon one another for not only a division of labor, but a division of understanding and knowledge. Universalism is a fantasy of foolish semi-elites.

People from the African continent have a number of claims to be proud of:

1- Physical Superiority (Especially Durability). (True)

2- Higher in-group sociability (True)

3- Because of these traits, they are the only people that could survive in Africa, which by all measures is a very hostile environment for human beings.

4- And because of oceans and deserts, africans were largely cut off from the technological innovations on the northern hemisphere across the eurasian-asian continents

Love your own. Respect your people for what they have done. Understand that each of us had to evolve in our geography. And give africans time to catch up in institutional and normative technology. It’s taking time. But it’s happening. Not fast enough maybe. But pretty fast by historical standards.

The fundamental problem for all peoples is the size of the underclass. People in colder climates could not survive winters if they ‘lacked industry and discipline’. People in the far east and the west have killed off the underclasses for thousands of years, either by starvation, disease, war, or ‘hanging’ in large numbers.

Very few peoples have been able to shrink the size of the underclass: largely westerners and east asians. It should not be a surprise that westerners and east asians have the highest standards of living. Because each person at the bottom , no matter how well intentioned, is six times as costly as each person at the top is productive.

So the most important thing countries can do is to decrease the rates of reproduction of the underclasses. And now that most of the world has adopted western technologies, it will be increasingly hard for people with large underclasses to ‘carry them’ as the demand for unskilled labor declines. (This is africa’s real problem. the talented classes cannot organize such large numbers of underclasses using capitalism (voluntary organization of production). And even so, it is not universal. (Look at Nigeria, Ghana, and Ethiopia.)

Africans have plenty to be proud of: they conquered the largest and most difficult continent, despite its terrible hostility to human life, and its near isolation from trade, technology, and information routes – and the use of africa as a source of STRONG DURABLE slave labor by neighboring peoples during the entirety of the agrarian age so dependent upon human labor.

It pains me every time I have to encourage african self respect, when there are so many other groups on this earth who have so much self respect – yet are so undeserving of it.

(The greatest danger to africa is Islam, which glorifies the unproductive underclass. It is very seductive, and it has destroyed at least five major civilizations by the same means: expanding the underclasses.)

—“Do you think you’re racist?”—

**Racism**, as I understand it, refers to four behaviors:

1) the process of treating an individual by the properties of his class (race) rather than waiting to ascertain the properties that he himself demonstrates. In other words, stereotyping. Unfortunately stereotypes are the most accurate measurement in the social sciences. So this is difficult to counteract outside of commercial interactions.

2) the process of criticizing a class (race) for the costs that they impose on your class (race) rather than taking actions that prevent a class (race) from imposing costs upon your class (race).

3) the process of denying that there are differences in aggregate class (race) abilities, biases, preferences, and behaviors.

4) the process of conducting genocidal, political, economic, and kinship warfare by denying that there are differences in aggregate class (race) abilities, biases, preferences, and behaviors.

**Racism is not any of these four behaviors:**

1) Observing, deciding, speaking, and promoting, that there are differences in aggregate class (race) abilities, biases, preferences, and behaviors.

2) Observing, deciding, speaking, and promoting, that people (like all creatures) favor their class (kin, tribe, race) group for the simple reason that except as outliers, it is in their status, social, reproductive, economic, and political interests to do so.

3) Observing, deciding, speaking, and promoting, that people vote in democracies heavily by race, gender, and class, thereby competing by EQUAL political vote rather than by unequal economic, intellectual, or military means.

4) Observing, deciding, speaking, and promoting, that people conduct informational and political warfare instead of economic and violent warfare, by the denial of differences in abilities, biases, preferences, behaviors, intentions, and goals.

**That’s simply empirical science. **

**And arguing against it is simply lying.**

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.

1. A conservative questions overestimation of reason, and above all questions consensus.

2. As a means of questioning, a conservatives requires reciprocity (tort): american < british < anglo saxon < germanic < european < norther indo european in law. That law evolved from the oath (tell the truth, never steal, never flee, in combat).

3. Conservatism requires ‘empirical’ results, and where empirical fails ‘traditional’ since traditional survived empirical tests of reality.

4. Accumulates genetic, cultural, normative, institutional, physical, and territorial capital, attempting to pass on to future generations of his family, more than he himself inherited.

5. Conservatism is a eugenic reproductive strategy that increases accumulated capital through intergenerational transfer, using intergeneration lending, in order to produce increasingly ‘noble’ families.

6. Ergo successful individuals in the market for craftsmanship, successful purchase of the franchise through military service, successful individuals in the market for marriage and child rearing, successful individuals in the market for industry, successful families in the market for noble (intergenerational) families.

7. In other words, conservatism(aristocracy) is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy. And while bipartite manorialism was practiced from 700, and aggressive hanging of up to 1% of the population every year after 1000, and an attempt to escape church-state nobility, and create an entrepreneurial nobility (meritocracy), succeeded by 1600, there was a great reaction to the english revolution, and a greater reaction to the french revolution. Thus while Locke,smith,hume,adams, and jefferson promised an aristocracy available to everyone, Burke, after the french revolution, and germans after that, recognized that the peasantry was even worse at rule (see russia) than the nobility.

The problem with today’s conservatism is that darwin and spencer were famous before the war, after the second world war, conservatism and eugenics were effectively banned from discourse, academy, and science.

As such conservatives never (until perhaps 2000) restored empirical discourse to conservatism, because it is antithetical to the experiment with democracy. This changed incrementally beginning in 76, through the 80s, and aggressively since 2000, and more aggressively since 2008.

**Soveriengty requires reciprocity

Reciprocity requires rule of law (tort), jury(thang, senate, house of lords, supreme court), and an independent judiciary.

Rule of law forces markets, since it incrementally suppresses each innovation in parasitism.

Markets cause hierarchies, because they are necessary to voluntarily organize production.

Markets are eugenic, because they are empirical means of testing industry and impulse.

But they make possible liberty for those with property, freedom for those who labor, and subsidy for those who impose no costs on sovereignty, liberty, freedom, or property.**

DOMESTICATION

Man domesticated the human animal after he had learned to domesticate the non-human animal. And he did so by the same means. And the result in both domestication of the human and non human animal is the same: eugenics.

CONSERVATIVES

Most conservatives do not write philosophy, they run businesses, or write history, economics, science, and law. (I write because I was successful enough in multiple businesses to spend my time writing full time.)

Conservatives are actively suppressed in academy and media.

This has been true since the end of the war and teh rise of the Frankfurt School, and the Postmodern school, both of which were necessary after the failure of marxist pseudoscience. (a pseudoscience marx died knowing, since he stopped writing as soon as he read the Mengerians, and kept silent only to keep the checks coming in from Engels.)

**AUTHORS TO READ

**Burke, Hayek, Burnham, Sowell, Buchanan, Murray, and maybe Nietzsche. Veblen.

(The essayists are nonsense)

Anyone in Hoover or Heritage institutions.

**READING LIST

**Propertarianism’s Reading List (https://naturallawinstitute.com/reading-list/).

My reading list (above) contains most of the science we’ve been looking for, while the pseudosciences dominated the mid to late 20th century under the marxist-postmodernists.

Cheers

—“What are your thoughts on Politics and Religion”—

I have come to understand that the abrahamic religions are the cause of the dark age, the cause of more deaths than the plagues, and the continuing cause of human suffering, and the greatest threat to human transcendence (evolution).

We all require **mindfulness** outside of hunter gatherer lifestyles where we know our ‘place’ with everyone around us. We need Personal mindfulness. Interpersonal Mindfulness. And socio-political mindfulness. We evolved as pack animals. A strange mixture of chimp and wolf. We all long for the security of some aspect of the elation, power, comfort, and security of pack.

Yet the more advanced our civilizations the more isolated we are as individuals. This was the problem religions solved, and religions solved them by evolving all at about the same time, in response to the needs of living in greater numbers with less certainty in our relations.

We fail to grasp that religions are vast lies that provide mindfulness. We can achieve mindfulness through intentional discipline, a variety of rituals, participations in feasts, dances, parades, sports, celebrations, and especially in oration, ‘theater’, and Myth.

But we can obtain that mindfulness by truthful, half truthful, or entirely untruthful means. And there are profound consequences for any people given the means of mindfulness they choose.

As far as I can tell, government is necessary for the production of increasingly complex commons. And mindfulness is necessary for cooperation in those increasingly complex commons.

But that said, both politics under democracy and religion regardless of political structure are constituted of very little other than utter falsehoods, because both seek power over us and profits from us, by lying.

If we lived under rule of natural (common) law (of tort), where we extended warranty of due diligence from goods, and services, to political speech, and houses of government were but a market for cooperation between the classes (as in the old english monarchic model) except that we used direct democracy or direct economic democracy, without representatives, and each voted on each issue individually, it is very hard to imagine we would have much use for politics.

If we were all taught mindfulness like we are taught table manners, reading-writing, arithmetic – even if we had to teach it by half a dozen different means in order to satisfy the needs of peoples with different brain structures, then we would have little need for religion.

The problem is…. we all love our little lies.

And in my world, it is the lies that cause all the world’s problems, and justify all the world’s crimes, and encourage all the world’s evil.

—-”Do governments create wealth and jobs for citizens?”—-*

First, let’s understand some terms to make sure we know what we’re talking about.

SERIES: *Defense > Rule > Government > Bureaucracy (monopoly) > Institutions (anonymous cooperation at scale) > Markets (speculation, investment, production, distribution, trade) > Norms (friction reduction) > Truth Telling (friction reduction) > Trust (risk taking) > Economic Velocity > Social Order.*

TERMS

**- Defense** (*producing a territorial monopoly on the organization of decidability over uses of assets (property)*),

**- Rule** (*dispute resolution, or resolution of differences*),

**- Government** (*the production and management of commons*), and;

**- Bureaucracy** (*a monopoly that manages daily operations*) are four different things.

DEFINITIONS:

**Defense** secures territory from appropriation by other large organizations capable of physical appropriation. Defense produces possibility of choice of **SOCIAL ORDER** (portfolio of property, norms, traditions, laws, legislation, regulation, institutions)

**Rule** resolves disputes between people given the property allocations (in china, none, in russia, some, in europe some more, in america most.) In most cases norms are produced by the consequences of rulings by kings, judges, priests, and ‘authorities’. This is why laws vary: they must reflect the needs of the current stage of development of the people in the polity. Adjudications of differences produce **LAW**.

**Government** produces commons through charging and maximizing fees (taxes) of members, and directing those fees to the production of commons, that they assume will produce multipliers (greater returns than private sector will) for the simple reason that some commons are extremely expensive. Legislation(contract) or Command(Dictate) produces **LAW SUBSTITUTES** we call Law but are not. This ‘conflation’ is endemic in discourse.

**Bureaucracy** does labor that a market cannot yet perform through competition. In theory, a bureaucracy functions as portfolio (financial) manager of a function that the market cannot yet produce, or produce in sufficient quantity, or produce at a sufficient price. But like all monopolies they pursue self interest and always become corrupt. In a perfect world, states would start multiple competing bureaucracies like startups, and the best one or two would survive.

**WHAT GOVERNMENTS DO**

Governments create the possibility to organize increasingly complex markets with increasingly complex divisions of labor, with increasingly complex concentrations of capital, with increasingly complex abilities to adapt to shifts, changes, and shocks.

Governments do this by prohibiting rent seeking, corruption, parasitism, theft, murder at the local level, and capturing the gains as taxation, which they then use to pay for the production of commons, that in turn produce multipliers (returns), that in turn increase standards of living – or governments fail to do so, by not suppressing corruption and not producing commons, and not producing multipliers.

So governments create the possibility of increasingly productive and rewarding polities. But it is the entire network of people from the monarchy (Rulers) to the peasantry (laborers) that create jobs through constant increases in the velocity of production.

Why? Because our only wealth is time. We are not wealthier than cave men. We simply make everything cheaper by taking less time with more hands in greater coordination to produce everything we desire for less and less of our time.

Rules make a game. Governments make rules so that we can play economic games – and moreover that we cannot play anti-economic gains.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

—-“Should whites pay reparations for colonialism?’—

I wonder, if white people ( Native Europeans) should collect taxes (Income) for their spread of Aristotelianism (Science), Natural Law under Reciprocity by Tort (Rule of Law), Accounting, Finance, Banking, Credit, and Interest, and The suppression of systemic corruption and in doing so dragging the whole of humanity kicking and screaming, in one revolt after another out of ignorance, superstition, hard physical labor, child labor, poverty, diseases, infanticide, and tyranny in less than 500 years. When beginning with the Abrahamic Dark Age (Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the world had made little caloric progress for almost two thousand years.)

As far as I know, the only mistake white people have made is entering into a civil war with cousins in Germany, that was initiated by communists, starting in Russia, and spreading like islam today (westward) to the point of internal exhaustion, and therefore leaving the colonial problem incomplete, and therefore leaving so much of the world to struggle through the long process of corruption-suppression, rule of law development, and middle class development, while the only western peoples left standing (Americans, Australians, and Canadians) were geographically isolated from the less developed peoples – all of whom still struggle with corruption, truthfulness, rule of law, moral commerce, and dysgenic reproduction rates.

WHAT DOES THE WORLD OWE THE GREEKS AND ROMANS?

WHAT DOES THE WORLD OWE NATIVE NORTHERN EUROPEANS (WHITES)?

From the period between the civil war and the 1970’s, the south held animosity toward the republican party over Lincoln’s civil war. This led to the Democratic and Republican parties having both conservative and classical liberal members.

Beginning between 76 and 80 this began to change because the democratic party had been captured more aggressively by the radical left and the feminists. Plus the left had used immigration starting in 1964 as a means of achieving the socialist revolution (tearing down the american experiment) through demographic warfare where they had failed by propaganda and pseudoscience (marxism, boazianism, freudianism, cantorian mathematics, and keynesian post marxist economics.)

By and large the democratic effort has been effective for large business and finance. So many large business owners that serve the unproductive, laboring, working, and lower middle classes (what he invests in), are better off with policy that increases consumption.

Whereas the republican (Aristocratic) is far more concerned with accumulating capital in Human (eugenic), behavioral (normative), institutional (rule of law by tort reciprocity – not rule BY legislation), and territorial than current consumption which consumes human capital (dysgenic, dysnormative, discretionary rather than reciprocal.)

So between his AGE, his REGION, and his INTERESTS he votes for conservative democratic policies.

by Eli Harman

1 – ROYALTY: the sovereignty.

2 – NOBILITY: intergenerationally exceptional families.

3 – ARISTOCRACY: the martial elite.

4 – CITIZENS: productive, self-supporting, stakeholders who perform militial service.

5 – COMMONERS: productive, self-supporting, individuals subsidiary to the above.

6 – PEASANTS: dependent underclasses.

On intelligence agencies…..

Summary

The Doolittle Report advocated policies not usually associated with democratic countries. The tense security fears of the Cold War were reflected on a domestic level, exemplified by McCarthyism. Americans were seized by a fear of communism. Doolittle echoed this sentiment in his report: “We must develop effective espionage and counterespionage services and must learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies by more clever, more sophisticated and more effective methods than those used against us. It may become necessary that the American people be acquainted with, understand and support this fundamentally repugnant philosophy.”[2] This mindset is present throughout Doolittle’s general observations about the CIA’s role and its impact on American society. He also produced specific recommendations for changes in the CIA.

(CURT: Intelligence as a military force.)

Personnel

The Doolittle Report stated that the most important element of covert operations was personnel. It argued that the CIA should dismiss operatives and analysts who were not highly competent. Doolittle argued that “there is no place in the C.I.A. for mediocrity.”[2] In order to raise standards in the agency the report suggested that recruiting be improved. Doolittle also urged intensified training of those already in the agency, and policies to assure that personnel would only be assigned to duties and locations for which they were highly qualified. His report recommended a smaller but more effective workforce and urged that the CIA director should be “above political considerations”.

( CURT: Intelligence as an ‘elite’ force. )

(CURT: Aristocracy. Runs in the family. lol )

(It bothers me when someone interrupts me when I’m concentrating.

It bothers me more when I’m writing.

It bothers me far more when I’m programming.

Now, if the house is burning down.

Or someone is injured.

You know, that’s an exception.

But – wth – why do you think it’s ok?

And the fact that I or anyone else works all the time doesn’t mean anything other than … you don’t.)

The only hill to stand upon is whether we receive in reciprocity the same right to self determination that others demand of us. Either we have the same right to self determination or we are conquered, and the victims of genocide. So, if we are not to receive the same reciprocity – we must separate. To separate we must revolt. To revolt to use war. To use war in the current era does not require we use it against people, but against infrastructure. 3 minutes of air, 3 days of water, 3 hours of power 3 weeks of food, 3 months of stress. It takes 90 days to act. The problem is a leadership that will act to cause a revolution, and a sufficient number of men who will act independently rather than rally (like schoolgirls) to war against infrastructure that makes the pretense of power visible.

There is only one choice: the entire territory, or some part of it. IMO some part of it is preferable. And a part of it with ports, it’s own electrical grid, and a low cost of defense is the best place to start (texas).

I have a “singy” family. I’m a “singy” person. No shower is safe. No empty house or apartment. No vacant sidewalk, or hiking trail. Bluesy rock preferably. The more complicated the better.

Singing more than a few notes to remind others of a theme, violates etiquette during conversation, whether at the table or in the round. (You can look it up.) The reason being, that with a captive audience, one forces attention upon one’s self and interrupts conversation amongst others. It’s a dominance expression. It’s a form of aggression. Because singing is a form of soliloquy – internal voice – that is fine alone, or when it won’t interrupt anyone’s thoughts or speech, or while working together, or at invitation, or when organized by a group, or when that is the purpose of the forum. In other words, when it is not a dominance expression.

Most of us would like to share our emotions by sharing the songs that remind us of evoking them – except that few if any of us share those emotions via the same melody. And among musicians it’s not uncommon to hum or sing a few notes as a part of a conversation. But there is a difference between sharing our emotions and imposing them. Music is precognitive.

Myself, I am extremely intolerant of dominance expressions and I have an OCD problem in that I can only tolerate so much ‘stupid’ or ‘mundane’ speech, or ‘pretentious sentimentality’ before I subconsciously dominate conversations as a self defense measure – especially if I cannot use comedy to interrupt them. I know this. I struggle to control it. I control it when I can by leaving the room, if not the venue. As an autist it is a constant struggle against a profoundly intense impulse.

I usually ask people “Am I talking too much?”, or say “It’s ok to tell me to stop talking.” There is absolutely no way I will be aware of disinterest or incomprehension, and highly unlikely aware of offense. It’s an autist thing. We just have no idea unless that is all we are looking for.

We all have impulses in conversation that we must suppress. We all succeed or fail to varying degrees. It’s all very human. So all of us struggle to maneuver the flow of conversation into safe, familiar, or at least interesting content. And away from unsafe, unfamiliar, frustrating, conflict-creating or offensive content.

We all seek to impose order on a kaleidic universe such that we can find a satisfactory way through our lives.

So this bit of etiquette is another example of why we spend too much time with televisions and not enough time socializing – and then we wonder why the internal voice we share with close family, the television, and the walls is unwelcome in broader group context: we live lifestyles that gives us freedom to be anti-social in many subtle ways, then wondering why we don’t fit in to social situations, and end up lonely. Ergo, norms protect us from this. And we have no norms….

“Who is secure in all his basic needs? Who has work, spiritual care, medical care, housing, food, occasional entertainment, free clothing, free burial, free everything? The answer might be nuns and monks, but the standard reply is ‘prisoners’”

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

All in all a terrible year. (really.)

Recommend that you might not have seen:

1 – A Ghost Story (very indy) My Fave.

2 – Get Out (a little indy) Loved it. (Steppford Wives)

3 – Free Fire (very indy) (british + hong kong + LA)

I liked but …eh:

1 – Life. (Really.) A production on B movie. Good.

2 – American Made. (Really) Enjoyed it.

I wanted to like, but didn’t.

1 – Blade Runner 2049 – omfg lame plot line – horrible.

2 – Alien covenant…. ruined the mythos.

3 – It… Weak.

4 – Dunkirk… He did nothing wrong, sorry.

5 – Dark Tower. Lost Opportunity of the year. Lame.

I expected to be horrible and was ok.

1 – Atomic Blonde

2 – The Snowman

3 – Shot Caller

4 – Good Time

5 – You were never really here

6 – A cure for wellness

7 – Wind River

8 – Unlocked

I expected to be weak and they were bad:

1 – John Wick … ok. failure to combine western action with hong kong – seems to be a theme of late. Great gun moves, otherwise ridiculous.

2 – Ghost in the shell. a) she isn’t attractive even with the plastic surgery, b) the … oh forget it. it’s horrible.

3 – Valerian. a) casting. b) story. And from Luc Besson? omfg.

4 – Resident Evil …. the undead need to die, and so does every movie after the first.

5 – King Arthur. Ok Interesting actors – absolutely sh–t script, by a director who should know better.

6 – Murder on the Orient Express.

7 – The Circle

8 – Split

9 – Raw

I expected to be horrible and didn’t bother:

1 – everything and anything comic-book. Sorry. We had Conan, Epic, Creepy. Superhero Comics were for … well. Criticism earned.

2 – All the usual postmodern character-study dramas…. sorry. Most were unwatchable.

I haven:t seen:

1 – disaster whatever

2 – daniel day lewis’ last movie.

LESSON OF THE YEAR

1 – Ridley Scott needs to retire. Like, five years ago.

2 – Postmodernism is over when myth returns. They hate myth. Myth requires sacrifice by heroes.

– A RELIGION consists of any set of ideas of justification which require belief in, testimony to, or action according to, one or more falsehoods as a cost of inclusion and use.

– AN IDEOLOGY consist of any set of ideas that agitate, motivate, or inspire achievement of political ends under majoritarian (monopoly) democracy. An ideology need not be internally consistent externally correspondent, or existentially possible. It need only motivate individuals to act in furtherance of policy.

– A PHILOSOPHY consists of any set of internally consistent ideas of decidability which justify pursuit of personal preferences or group goods.

– A LOGIC consists of any deflationary grammar of decidability that assists in the falsification by competition of one or more constant relations between states. (Note that one proves nothing logically other than internal consistency, because all premises of external correspondence are forever contingent.)

– MATHEMATICS consists of a deflationary grammar of decidability consisting purely of competition between positional names under the preservation of ratios providing a single axis of decidability: position, but in N dimensions, providing commensurability between any set of positional relations of any number of dimensions.

– A SCIENCE consists of any set of ideas that provide decidability independent of personal preference or group goods, by the systematic elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, by the use of measurement and record of actions – demonstrations versus words.

– NATURAL LAW of RECIPROCITY (Tort), was produced scientifically (empirically) by trial and error, through the resolution of disputes across personal preferences, group goods, norms, traditions, and intuitions, cumulating always and everywhere that decidability is provided by property, and property consists in the demonstrated investment of human action or inaction anything whether genetic, material, behavioral, or informational.

ARYAN: A man must struggle against the forces of man, beast, and nature to become a god (immortal and powerful).

PAGAN: Man trades with disinterested gods, (powerful, immortal) and may become a demigod (immortal) thru his actions.

PROTESTANT(eternal, omniscient, omnipotent): Man can speak to and seek wisdom from a largely benevolent god – risen beast)

CATHOLIC: Man is a serf begging mercy from a petulant god (eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent – free will to be tamed – fallen angel).

MUSLIM: Man is a slave of an evil god (eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, deterministic – no free will.)

( It turns out that toast with butter and honey with your tea tastes good when you’ve got a cold, but the honey does terrible things to your laptop…… )

(life lessons)

Then we probably solve the storage, sum, and calculation problem.

Humans do not calculate, they triangulate.

WESTERN GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES AND THE “SH-T TESTS”.

Conspiracy requires self awareness which in turn requires agency. Yet most hostile groups are merely advancing their group evolutionary strategy by repetition of memes having little to do with truth, and a great deal to do with utility. Western man differs from all the rest, because our group evolutionary strategy and truth and utility are identical.

This group strategy is possible if and only if one’s group is in fact SUPERIOR. Why? Because the result of truth, sovereignty, and voluntary reciprocity is the production of markets in every dimension of human relation. And those who compete and succeed in markets that require full voluntary reciprocity across time and free of retaliatory externality are empirically, scientifically, genetically superior. That is all you must know about any people. The more scientific their truth, the more sovereignty, the more exclusive their reciprocity, the greater the opportunity for contract, the more trust, the more prosperity, the more advanced technologies, and the greater utility of a people small in number to concentrate capital rather than rely on pure numbers.

And the opposite applies as well. As a westerner, you do not understand your group evolutionary strategy – you only intuit ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Other groups are the same. They don’t so much conspire as act in the self interest of their group evolutionary strategy.

So groups need not conspire so much as express a conspiracy of common interest – entirely by accident. Women do not intentionally conspire against their men – they sh_t test them constantly out of reproductive necessity, and allow those men to be conquered and replaced if they fail.

(((Other))) groups demonstrate the feminine group evolutionary strategy. Both women and (((some others))) are valuable resources. But you must not fail their sh-t tests. In other words, you are only defeated by failure to defend against the sh-t tests of your women, your economy, your polity, your civilization, the natural world, and the physical universe.

So stop failing.

Rule by truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, and markets in everything. And Break. Burn. Fight. Kill everything that interferes. That is the level of sh-t test you are operating under.

EVOLVE OR DIE.

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT “RIGHTS”

1) RIGHTS:

A “right” is a claim against other members of a contract, wherein each party grants the other party something (a right) in exchange for something else (an obligation). Each person then has ‘rights’ as agreed upon in the contract, as well as obligations. This is the meaning of the term ‘right’. A right is something that you obtain from others in exchange for granting them something. There is no other logical meaning of the term, unless you invent a god or demon, or some equivalent that you are supposedly in contract with. (Although the term ‘right’ is abused by way of analogy and metaphor, which I will explain below.)

2) CONTRACTS:

A contract can be discreetly created, such as a handshake, a promise, or an agreement. Or a contract can be written as a note, a written contract, or a constitution. A contract can be created by habituation as a “norm”, such as manners, ethics and morals.

While very few people understand this, ethical and moral statements are those that compensate for asymmetry of information between members of a contract for norms. This contract for norms is we call a society. Manners are promises that you will respect ethical and moral norms. Ethics are rules that we follow to make sure that there are no involuntary transfers of prooperty due to asymmetry of information in an exchange. Morals are general rules that we will follow to make sure there are no involuntary transfers from others who are outside (external to) any action or exchange. (Having a chid that you cannot pay for, and expecting others to support it, is an involuntary transfer from others. That is why it’s generally been considered immoral.)

One can voluntarily enter discreet contracts. But normative contracts are a necessity because people cannot peacefully and productively cooperate without them. One can generally move between groups with different normative contracts (societies, and communities) but it is all but impossible to avoid them entirely, and it is entirely impossible to exist in a community without adhering to that contract – usually people are excluded from opportunity, punished, imprisoned, ostracized, or deported, for violations of the normative contract.

3) NATURAL RIGHTS:

Some contract rights are both necessary for humans to engage in contracts, and possible to grant in contracts. Such as surrendering our opportunity for violence theft and fraud, from those with whom we are in contract. If we surrender our opportunity to use violence theft and fraud, we define this set of forgone opportunities “property rights’. Because these rights are necessary for peaceful cooperation, and necessary for contracts to function, we call these necessary rights ‘Natural Rights’ – in an effort to limit the ability of governments to violate the contract rights that are necessary for human cooperation when they make laws.

If we define our minds and bodies as our property. And we define those objects, that we freely obtained through exchange as our property, then there is only one natural right and that is property. It is the only right necessary, and the only right universally possible to grant to one another – because we must refrain from something, rather than do something. In this sense, there is only one possible human right, and all other rights derive from it.

3) HUMAN RIGHTS:

Some contract rights are not necessary but beneficial. These rights generally can be categorized as forms of ‘insurance’. They cannot be direclty exchanged without an intermediary institution acting as the insurer. People cannot equally contribute to their costs. We call these rights ‘Human Rights’.

4) DEMANDED RIGHTS:

Now this is not to say that you have no control over your rights. You can for example (and we all do) demand additional rights in exchagne for our compliance with manners, ethics, morals, norms, laws that are levied equally against all. These rights are not human rights, they are not natural rights. They are rights that you demand for your compliance. THe problem is, that means that they are just a preference. That’s all. You must get a right in exchange even if you demand it, it cannot exist until there is a contract for it, somehow. And we can cause discomfort, economic friction, and political resistance. Or we can offer to contribute more somehow in exchange for additional rights. In this sense, most arguments are in favor of demanded rights, in the form of FREE RIDING, PRIVILEGES, RENTS, and DIVIDENDS.

5) FREE RIDING (CORRUPTION)

Free riding is letting other people pay for something that you enjoy. Voting for a tax that you don’t have to pay is free riding. Living off your parents is free riding.

5) PRIVILEGES (CORRUPTION):

Sometimes we attempt to seek privileges not rights – a privilege is something that unlike insurance, is something we are likely to obtain, and which comes at a cost to others, without our providing something else in exchange. These are not rights, but privileges at the expense of others.

6) RENTS (CORRUPTION)

In contemporary politics, unscrupulous people attempt to label privileges as rights, so that they can obtain something from others at no cost to themselves This is not seeking rights but seeking privileges. It is a form of corruption, which is just an indirect form of theft.

In economics, seeking privileges from government is a form of corruption called ‘rent-seeking’. (Which admittedly, is an old and confusing name. In previous centuries, people would seek to obtain an interest in land so that they could collect rents on it.) Today, people seek an interest in tax revenue so that they can collect income from it. This is Rent-Seeking. The government, in practice, if not in theory, owns all land, and we rent it from the government by taxes. If you cannot pay your taxes, you cannot keep your land. Taxes today, are no different from taxes under feudalism. We have just replaced private landowners with a political bureaucracy. In both cases we are renting our land, and in many cases the homes we build, from the government. Taxes are our rents. And people who seek to own part of taxes are rent-seekers.

7) DIVIDENDS (REDISTRIBUTION)

if you obey norms (manners, ethics and morals) and obey natural rights (property), you do so at a cost to you.

If you think of society as a business (it is, because it must be), and the business is to grow the local market (it is, at least to maintain it), because everyone in the local market will profit from it. (they do). Then these businesses (societies) grow through phases, just as businesses do (or really, business go through phases like society does, just a lot faster because they’re smaller), and in certain early phases(startups) they require a lot of investments from their shareholders (citizens), and in other phases they produce tremendous surpluses (mature, commoditized businesses), then we can see that most of the problem we deal with in politics, is who makes what contributions, and who collects what dividends, and how those dividends are used.

PROBLEMS WITH DETERMINING DIVIDENDS (REDISTRIBUTION)

It is very hard to argue against dividends (redistribution) if people respect (adhere to) manners, ethics, morals, and natural rights (property rights), as well as whatever arbitrary laws are created that affect all people equally.

The general argument, which is true, is that by adhering to maners, ethics, morals, natural rights and arbitrary laws, you earn the right to participate in the market for goods and services. And that dividends are a due only to those people who provide goods and services in the market. The problem is that a market can’t exist without consumers, and that consumption is equally as important as production and distribution. You can’t have one without the other. So this argument is at best, empirically weak.

The problem with dividends (redistribution) is not the logical requirement for dividends (redistribution), but the problem with how to determine what a dividend is, how to collect them, who has earned them, and how to allocate them, and how to distribute them.

But I will have to leave that rather lengthly discussion for another time. 🙂

This is very close to the ‘final word’ on rights. It is extremely hard to criticize this series of statements using any form of rational argument. I will be happy to engage literate people on the topic but ask the moderators for their help.

Trump is doing what any rational man watching the numbers would do:

The 500 years of western asymmetric economic advantage has been dissipated through the (forcible) expansion of consumer capitalism (property, incentive, contract, credit), rule of law (reciprocity free of discretionary judgement), and aristotelianism (science).The only advantage westerners retain is demography (our IQ distribution is still hovering around 100, we have lower testosterone, greater neoteny, and slower development than anyone other than the Han/Korean/Japanese, and we are still unique in our ability to produce a high trust/low corruption economy, and low context, high precision language).

We retain some cultural advantages, but those have been under assault in the postwar period to present – particularly since the widespread adoption of postmodernism (fictionalism).

We retain some capital advantage in the conquered territories (USA, Canada, Australia) can still be sold off.

Because of these losses of asymmetry, we can no longer afford to manage, police, and adjudicate the world systems of law, finance, and trade. So we can radically withdraw and lose 40% of our standard of living (Yes really), or we can force dependent nations (Europe) to carry the burden that they’ve been free of postwar, and particularly since the adoption of the euro in order to circumvent our tax on them via the petrodollar.

We have been in a race since the adoption of fiat currency, socialism under FDR and Johnson, and postmodernism, over whether the colonial states (Anglosphere) would hold on long enough that the continental malinvestments would cause a demographic crash, resulting in a cultural, economic, and civilizational crash. We knew this in the late 70’s. I was there.

I participated in the discourse.

By 1992 we knew democratic experiment was over. The 2008 crash was the end of the 20th century experiment in keynesian extension.

Somewhere between now and 2025 the asymmetry of economic, demographic, and military power will rebalance.

So we can move today to ensure this happens somewhat gracefully by accepting our declining influence in the world, or we can do what every other empire in history has done, and that is to burn itself through neo-con and marxist overexpansion.

And that is all he is doing.

Rebalancing the costs with the wealth, and protecting the remaining capital asset in preparation for the forthcoming adjustments not seen since the abrahamic dark age caused by the twin catastrophes of supernatural christianity and militant islam as together they brought about the 1000 year abrahamic dark age.

The world is more full of overconfident but abysmally ignorant americans than it can tolerate.

Year One List: 81 major Trump achievements, 11 Obama legacy items repealed – by Paul Bedard

Trump flips the script on critics who say he lacks achievements.

With the passage of the GOP tax bill this week, the Trump administration has scored 81 major achievements in its first year, making good on campaign promises to provide significant tax cuts, boost U.S. energy production, and restore respect to the United States, according to the White House.

And along the way, President Trump even outdid his own expectations and slashed at least 11 major legacy items of former President Barack Obama, including cracking down on the open border, slowing recognition of communist Cuba and effectively killing Obamacare by ending the mandate that everyone have health insurance or face a tax.

According to the White House, the 81 accomplishments are in 12 major categories and include well over 100 other minor achievements.

The unofficial list helps to counter the impression in the mainstream media and among congressional Democrats that outside the approval of Supreme Court Neil Gorsuch and passage of the tax reform bill little was done.

Administrations typically tout their achievements broadly at the end of each year, but Trump plans to list jobs added, regulations killed, foreign policy victories won, and moves to help veterans and even drug addicts.

And in a sign of support for conservatives, the White House also is highlighting achievements for the pro-life community.

Below are the 12 categories and 81 wins cited by the White House.

Jobs and the economy

Passage of the tax reform bill providing $5.5 billion in cuts and repealing the Obamacare mandate.

Increase of the GDP above 3 percent.

Creation of 1.7 million new jobs, cutting unemployment to 4.1 percent.

Saw the Dow Jones reach record highs.

A rebound in economic confidence to a 17-year high.

A new executive order to boost apprenticeships.

A move to boost computer sciences in Education Department programs.

Prioritizing women-owned businesses for some $500 million in SBA loans.

Killing job-stifling regulations

Signed an Executive Order demanding that two regulations be killed for every new one creates. He beat that big and cut 16 rules and regulations for every one created, saving $8.1 billion.

Signed 15 congressional regulatory cuts.

Withdrew from the Obama-era Paris Climate Agreement, ending the threat of environmental regulations.

Signed an Executive Order cutting the time for infrastructure permit approvals.

Eliminated an Obama rule on streams that Trump felt unfairly targeted the coal industry.

Fair trade

Made good on his campaign promise to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Opened up the North American Free Trade Agreement for talks to better the deal for the U.S.

Worked to bring companies back to the U.S., and companies like Toyota, Mazda, Broadcom Limited, and Foxconn announced plans to open U.S. plants.

Worked to promote the sale of U.S products abroad.

Made enforcement of U.S. trade laws, especially those that involve national security, a priority.

Ended Obama’s deal with Cuba.

Boosting U.S. energy dominance

The Department of Interior, which has led the way in cutting regulations, opened plans to lease 77 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas drilling.

Trump traveled the world to promote the sale and use of U.S. energy.

Expanded energy infrastructure projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline snubbed by Obama.

Ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to kill Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

EPA is reconsidering Obama rules on methane emissions.

Protecting the U.S. homeland

Laid out new principles for reforming immigration and put hardliners in charge of his program.

Made progress to build the border wall with Mexico.

Ended the Obama-era “catch and release” of illegal immigrants.

Boosted the arrests of illegals inside the U.S.

Doubled the number of counties participating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement charged with deporting illegals.

Removed 36 percent more criminal gang members than in fiscal 2016.

Started the end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program.

Ditto for other amnesty programs like Deferred Action for Parents of Americans.

Cracking down on some 300 sanctuary cities that defy ICE but still get federal dollars.

Added some 100 new immigration judges.

Protecting communities

Justice announced grants of $98 million to fund 802 new cops.

Justice worked with Central American nations to arrest and charge 4,000 MS-13 members.

Homeland rounded up nearly 800 MS-13 members, an 83 percent one-year increase.

Signed three executive orders aimed at cracking down on international criminal organizations.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions created new National Public Safety Partnership, a cooperative initiative with cities to reduce violent crimes.

Accountability

Trump has nominated 73 federal judges and won his nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Ordered ethical standards including a lobbying ban.

Called for a comprehensive plan to reorganize the executive branch.

Ordered an overhaul to modernize the digital government.

Called for a full audit of the Pentagon and its spending.

Combatting opioids

First, the president declared a Nationwide Public Health Emergency on opioids.

His Council of Economic Advisors played a role in determining that overdoses are underreported by as much as 24 percent.

The Department of Health and Human Services laid out a new five-point strategy to fight the crisis.

Justice announced it was scheduling fentanyl substances as a drug class under the Controlled Substances Act.

Justice started a fraud crackdown, arresting more than 400.

The administration added $500 million to fight the crisis.

On National Drug Take Back Day, the Drug Enforcement Agency collected 456 tons.

Protecting life

In his first week, Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy that blocks some $9 billion in foreign aid being used for abortions.

Worked with Congress on a bill overturning an Obama regulation that blocked states from defunding abortion providers.

Published guidance to block Obamacare money from supporting abortion.

Helping veterans

Signed the Veterans Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act to allow senior officials in the Department of Veterans Affairs to fire failing employees and establish safeguards to protect whistleblowers.

Signed the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act.

Signed the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act, to provide support.

Signed the VA Choice and Quality Employment Act of 2017 to authorize $2.1 billion in additional funds for the Veterans Choice Program.

Created a VA hotline.

Had the VA launch an online “Access and Quality Tool,” providing veterans with a way to access wait time and quality of care data.

With VA Secretary Dr. David Shulkin, announced three initiatives to expand access to healthcare for veterans using telehealth technology.

Promoting peace through strength

Directed the rebuilding of the military and ordered a new national strategy and nuclear posture review.

Worked to increase defense spending.

Empowered military leaders to “seize the initiative and win,” reducing the need for a White House sign off on every mission.

Directed the revival of the National Space Council to develop space war strategies.

Elevated U.S. Cyber Command into a major warfighting command.

Withdrew from the U.N. Global Compact on Migration, which Trump saw as a threat to borders.

Imposed a travel ban on nations that lack border and anti-terrorism security.

Saw ISIS lose virtually all of its territory.

Pushed for strong action against global outlaw North Korea and its development of nuclear weapons.

Announced a new Afghanistan strategy that strengthens support for U.S. forces at war with terrorism.

NATO increased support for the war in Afghanistan.

Approved a new Iran strategy plan focused on neutralizing the country’s influence in the region.

Ordered missile strikes against a Syrian airbase used in a chemical weapons attack.

Prevented subsequent chemical attacks by announcing a plan to detect them better and warned of future strikes if they were used.

Ordered new sanctions on the dictatorship in Venezuela.

Restoring confidence in and respect for America

Trump won the release of Americans held abroad, often using his personal relationships with world leaders.

Made good on a campaign promise to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Conducted a historic 12-day trip through Asia, winning new cooperative deals. On the trip, he attended three regional summits to promote American interests.

He traveled to the Middle East and Europe to build new relationships with leaders.

Traveled to Poland for the annual. G-20 meeting where he pushed again for funding of women entrepreneurs.

The difference is, that those of us who lived in the 1980’s and 1990’s knew that we were living the best of times – perhaps the best times ever to have lived. San Fran in the 2000s, Seattle in the 1990s, Paris on the 1920’s, Germany in the 1900’s, London in the 1890’s.

2008 was the end of the keynesian experiment. It was the culmination of the attack on western civilization started by the marxists, then the economic pseudoscientists, then the jewish socialists, then the french postmodernists.

The West spent from at least 1500bc to the present developing rule of law. The bronze age collapse set us back 1000 years. The abrahamic (jewish/christian/muslim) dark age set us back 1000 years. The second abrahamic dark age ( pseudohistory, pseudoscience, pseudo rationalism) is about to set us back another thousand.

(from elsewhere)

I don’t do ‘stupid’. I do my job. Which is to provide operational definitions of those ideas about which people are frequently ignorant, confused, wishful thinkers, or dishonest.

I am really, really, really good at my job.

Don’t waste my time

—“WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TRIBE AND CLAN?”—

Kinship groups form in hierarchies under all human means of production:

|MEANS OF PRODUCTION|: hunting and gathering > pastoralism > agrarianism > urbanism(crafts) > industrialism > consumer-capitalism > (? automated production ?)

The reasons for hierarchies are:

(a) kin selection instinct (necessity) provides ‘insurance’.

(b) lower risk and lower friction of trade across common norms traditions, status signals, and ‘laws’,

(c) cheaper status signals in group than across group – except at the margins.

(d) elites always evolve and ‘carry’ middle, working, and underclasses by providing group competitive advantage.

This is why people live in, develop friendships in, work in, mate and marry in, and politically organize in, and compete in, racial, national, tribal, and clan groups worldwide with crossovers fairly limited (currently < 15%).

|KINSHIP TAXONOMY|: Individual > Family(Various Forms) > Clan > Tribe > Nation > Race > Homo-sapiens-sapiens.

Family structure is generally dependent upon inheritance structures, and inheritance structures dependent on means of production, and dependent upon the assets (“property”) that are required for intergenerational persistence, and dependent upon the intergenerational transfer (subsidy of children, and elderly).

So families follow a progression:

|FAMILY TAXONOMY|: Consanguineous > Panaluan > Pairing (Serial Marriage) > Hetaeristic Monogamy (Marriage with ‘cheating’) > Traditional Family > STEM family (Authoritarian) > Nuclear > Absolute Nuclear > Post-Family, “Single Parent Family”, “Non-Family” or “State Family”.

(You will probably need to Google some of these terms.)

As far as I know humans have generally produced serial marriage whenever possible, and deviated from serial marriage only when necessary – just as humans will steal whenever possible, and deviated from stealing only when necessary. Hence why we produce norms (what to do), traditions(what to do), and laws (what not to do), and institutions (intergenerational persistence of these habits.)

Humans seek loss avoidance at all times, and seek advantage (gain) wherever loss avoidance can be overcome. This applies to status signals (opportunity), security (risk reduction), and property (assets).

NOW, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TRIBE AND A CLAN?

We tend to use tribes for less advanced (hunter-gatherer and pastoralist) societies with less property, and clan in more advanced (agrarian and industrial) societies. The reason being that tribal differences are suppressed by the cooperation necessary under agrarian production, even if the value of clans diminishes.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

(DRAFT: it’s getting too late to finish, and I’ve been sick for the past few days, so Ill finish this – as promised – later or tomorrow)

The main functions of money are distinguished as:

– A Store of Time.

… If I could educate people on just one idea, it would bet that our only existential commodity is time, and we are no wealthier than cave men, but through a continuously expanding division of labor due to property, money, prices, and contract, we produce more per moment of working life than ever before. So we are not wealthier than in the past, we have merley made everything vastly cheaper.

Hard money is the result of saved time. Credit money is the result of anticipated savings of time. Fiat money is the result of gambling that in the aggregate will will save time.

And so credit, and fiat money are only so valuable as there is opportunity to save time. This single idea is the basis of all of economics. Yet it is virtually unknown, and ever more rarely understood.

– A Store of Value (Purchasing power) – with stability of value (Purchasing power) within dependent production cycles.

– A Medium of Exchange – thereby satisfying the problem of “coincidence of wants”, and increasing the velocity of trade, by decreasing the friction (cost) of finding opportunities for trade, and performing that trade. Mediums of exchange save time.

– A Source of Liquidity – A commodity of continuous demand.

( … )

– A Provisioner of Prices.

( … )

– A Unit of Account;

( … )

– A Standard of Deferred Payment – debt, credit, interest,

( … )

– A Scope of Utility – “Range” – A commodity of demand sufficient for imputation for production cycles

( … )

To fulfill those functions, money must possess the following properties:

– Cognizable: its value must be easily identified.

…. Stamping ‘coins’ serves as a ‘trademark’.

…. Protecting that trademark serves to protect its value

…. Trademarking is … increasingly inordinately expensive.

( … )

– Unitary (‘countable’) by object, weight, volume – (and now index.)

( … )

– Fungible: its individual units must be capable of mutual substitution (i.e., interchangeability).

( … )

– Durable: able to withstand repeated use.

( … )

– Portable: easily carried and transported in relation to their purchasing power.

( … )

MONEY AND IT’S SUBSTITUTES (DEPENDENCIES)

( … )

(1) Buy a gun that ‘points’ naturally with your hand relaxed and finger on the trigger. Buy the weapon with the highest caliber you can hit something with while firing fairly rapidly. For starters thats .380 or 9mm. For those of us with zillions of rounds behind us, .40sw, .45 and 10mm are fine, but for others, they have too much recoil for fast follow-up shots. Rounds-in-the-air when bad things happen, matter. To stop a person from attacking you it will often take more than one round. You shoot until they stop moving. which is about the time it takes for blood to stop getting to the brain. (I can shoot a 45 on target like it was machine gun, and but only because i trained for weeks to do it with a fantastic instructor.) Most people can get there with 9mm without spending a fortune. Make sure you have two magazines. If possible get three or four. The purpose is to help you train, not carry four magazines.

(2) Heavier guns are heavier to carry but absorb more recoil. Lighter guns are lighter to carry but absorb less recoil. Metal guns are heavier than composite guns. Composite guns generally hold more ammunition and ar bigger. Small composite and light, to big metal and heavy. If you want to carry a gun pick one you are willing to lug around with you. Otherwise it’s just a paperweight in a safe somewhere. Carry guns and fighting guns are not the same. Older guns are slimmer with fewer rounds. Newer guns bulkier with more. Buy a weapon for your purpose. Most require at least two: ‘dress gun’ for emergencies, and ‘fight gun’ to protect self, kin, and home. For home, a shotgun is about as simplee and effective as you can get, and you don’t even have to aim very well. (Plus people are disproportionately scared of them, and the sound is unmistakable.) ( I advise people that they will buy two guns. Usually a .380/9mm small, and a 9/40/45 full size. And eventually sell back the one they don’t use. ) Modern (post 1980, and certainly post 2009) composite pistols from the top manufacturers all come with decockers, trigger safeties, manual safeties, hammer-blocks, lock open when empty, and have thumb-press magazine releases. All of these are safety features. I suggest avoiding manual safeties on the slide. They are too difficult to manipulate. 1911’s have only grip and manual safeties. They are for ‘experienced’ and ‘trained’ users. I’ve listed suggested manufacturers below.

BASICS

(3) Learn basic safety. “Always and Nevers”.

a) never point the gun at anything, ever, even for a millisecond, ever unless you intend to kill it and pay the consequences for killing it. Guns are to be treated as permanently-on laser beams that kill everything out into infinity wherever they are pointed.

b) never touch the trigger unless you’re going to use it to kill someone – the minute you touch the trigger you’ve committed to killing someone.

c) the gun is always loaded whenever you think it isn’t. Unless you check it as the very first step in doing everything you do to it, you’ve just forgotten it’s loaded. Guns teach you humility and the frailty of human mind and memory. Guns require ‘agency’. You must be dead certain at all times. (Hence why liberals can’t deal with them. they are impulsive and lack agency.)

d) only hand someone a gun, with the clip removed, round ejected, chamber open and exposed, after checking yourself that it is clear. Never take a gun from someone without the clip removed, round ejected, chamber open and checking that it’s clear.

e) never load a gun in the presence of others who are not armed as well. Never handle a gun in the presence of others who are not armed as well.

f) Never point the gun at anyone, any creature, or anything, unless you are intent on ‘killing’ that person, animal, or thing.

g) if you can’t do all of the above, you are not worthy of owning and operating a weapon. Thankfully we can teach young men to do this around the world with practice.

(4) Learn how to take apart and reassemble the gun ‘gently’. Do it at least 50 times, and do that at least five times. It will be unconscious at that point. That’s what you’re looking for.

(5) Learn how to clear the weapon of jams:failure to seat the magazine, failure to feed from the magazine, failure to battery, failure to eject, stove-piping. Buy cheap ammo and randomly stick it in your magazines, and practice it. Practice it dry. Do ten of each, every three days, for two months. It will be unconscious at that point. That’s what you’re looking for.

(6) Buy fake (plastic, dummy) rounds, and have someone randomly insert them in your clip among your regular rounds. (or do it yourself and then mix up the magazines). This will train you not to flinch. After that, learn double-tap. After than learn the Mozambique drill – two in the chest, one in the head. (Personally that’s all I ever practice. ) Practice once a week, for three months. It will be unconscious at that point. That’s what you’re looking for.

(7) Keep the target at 25 yards or less. Spend half your time shooting with the sights. Half your time point-shooting without them. You will be very happy you did. Initial sight picture takes 1.0-2.5 seconds. Follow-up shots take .25 seconds. Point shooting takes only the time to point and follow ups only the time for you to feel the recoil and trigger reset. practice once a week for three months. Practice a bit less often for a year. It will be unconscious at that point. That’s what you’re looking for.

MASTERY

(8) Martial artists know teach to side step, and move forward and backwards, or at an angle while maintaining ‘stance’ (secure footing). Fencing is probably the best. But old fashioned basic karate and ju jitsu teach it as well. Most police and soldiers do this VERY BADLY. I have seen example after example of people ‘tripping’ because they don’t know how to move. It should only take you a few hours to learn it, but a lot of time to practice it. After you have practiced it, practice point and sight shooting while moving back and forth, and side to side. It will be unconscious at that point. That’s what you’re looking for. At this point you have mastery of the sidearm.

(9) Do not try to quick draw until you have been shooting for at least a year regularly. Never do it alone. And never at a range. Only out in the wild. With someone who can drive you to the hospital. Otherwise you will absolutely positively shoot yourself. it hurts. It hurts like hell. Instead, practice quick draw with an empty gun. Practice point shooting starting with your finger off the trigger, with your arm 15 degrees out from your side. When you have done this a few hundred times over at least three weeks, then do it with fake rounds. When you have don this a few hundred times over at least there weeks, then do it with one round. etc.

10) Learn how to shoot flat against a wall, both directions, then how to drop and shoot on one knee, seated on one knee with leg outstretched, prone (lying down) all four directions. Then inverted (on your back) in four directions.

11) There is a vast difference between ‘concealment’ and ‘cover’. Concealment hides you but can be shot through. Cover hides you but cannot be shot through (easily). With modern weapons there is effectively no ‘cover’ only concealment. In other words, modern weapons shoot through pretty much everything: windows, doors, walls, car doors, concrete walls, brick walls, really thick steel plate. And pretty much everything but three layers of heavy sandbags. For all intents and purposes walls, furniture, cars, refrigerators and appliances, are made of something more than smoke and less than cardboard. Larger slower bullets will stop, but smaller faster bullets will not. Expanding bullets will stop better, solid and cored bullets will not stop. if you have a 9mm pistol the fact that someone is hiding behind a door or wall or in a car is meaningless. Likewise, if you are hiding behind a door or wall or in a car, it’s meaningless. In fact the only wall you can reliably hide behind is the one made of the bullets you are shooting at the other person. If someone has a modern rifle the fact is, that they can effectively shoot through steel, and very likely drill through a wall with multiple shots. So, you can either teach yourself to shoot through concealment, or be the victim of those who have taught themselves to shoot through concealment. Because the only cover is the cover you generate by returning fire.

GROUP MASTERY

12) Learn anticipatory shooting. Often we know the shape of the space we cannot see. We can practice shooting targets before we have sight picture. So that we can shoot from high, low, and center without exposing our bodies to fire. And so that we can only expose ourselves for minimum time to hit an anticipated spot. And so that we can enter an area shooting.

We can practice providing covering fire while others move. Then Learn clearing a room. Anticipatory shooting plus entry into an enclosed space.

13) Learn basic movement (look it up. I don’t have to cover it here. However, note that militaries using combined arms (concentration of forces) have to patrol a lot of territory using human bodies as ‘sensors’. People who are defending their homeland, conducting a revolt, or a revolution do not. They merely have to be able to blend in, move, perform an action, and return home or to safety. Furthermore, there is a great deal of advantage using only sidearms in purely urban or suburban areas.

13) Learn bounding. One person provides cover while the others move past a point of vulnerability. Rotate with the next first in line at the next point of vulnerability. until you are . (The military taught this badly last I knew.) it takes quite a few seconds to observe a hallway, an alley, or street, or courtyard, or any open space.

14) Learn basic medical (wounds). I don’t have to cover that here.

15) Learn basic fitness. Modern militaries carry too much weight. If you can walk for 20 miles with 30 lbs of water bottles and still do 50 pushups and 30 jumping jacks (drinking them along the way) then you are fit. Bulk is your enemy.

SAFETY

(16) a) Never give another person your gun to shoot without doing the same rituals above. I have taught dozens of people to shoot. I can make someone who is serious about it, safe when handling a gun in one day. And confident after three to five half-hour lessons.

(b) Never give a girl a gun to shoot with more than one round in it. EVER, unless you want someone – likely you – to get shot. Same for kids.

(c) Never give a ‘newbie’ a gun over 9mm with or with more than one round unless you want someone to get shot -likely you.

d) Never use or be in the presence of anyone using a machine pistol, an SMG, or Full Auto Carbine or Rifle, until you have, and they have, mastered using it a single shot at a time, as above – unless you want everyone in visual range to get shot. You must lean heavily into, and physically work to hold down, and use both leaning and holding to control these weapons. As far as I know, unless you are providing suppressing fire when you can’t see the enemy, three to five round smg bursts fired to ‘paint’ a space, or to intersect with a movement, are the maximum utility these weapons provide. Shooting fast with a pistol is a lot safer.

11) The safest place for a gun is in your hands, against your chest, pointing wherever you’re looking. iii) The next safest place is in your pocket, in your belt or in a holster in your belt. iv) the next safest place is in a safe with a lock on it. v) the next safest place is in reach of your pillow. vi) everywhere else is NOT SAFE.

12) Avoiding ‘situations’ is always wise. Running away whenever possible is always preferable. The only reason not to run away is to prevent harm to you, your kin, those you love, those under your charge, those under your protection, and in defense of the civic commons from the proliferation of corrupt, criminal, predatory, or evil behavior. Killing is never a question of property. Other than fine art and artifacts, everything except life and limb is replaceable. Stopping a robbery in modernity is for the purpose of stopping the spread of behavior. So know what it is that you are shooting for, and why you must shoot. That said, those most needing arms are those not privileged to be insulated from troublesome characters by birt, wealth, or ability. And we must consider their circumstances as unequal to ours if we have such privileges. What is ‘reasonable’ behavior in an industry with many ex convicts where theft is common, and threat is common, and stress is common, and hardship is common, is very different from what is reasonable behavior among middle class people with education and comfortable consumption due to comfortable employment.

WHAT TO BUY

PISTOLS: Glock, S&W, CZ modern pistols. HK older pistols – although collectors drive up prices. For ‘aesthetes’ the 1911 is the Harley of guns, and can be customized heavily and easily for your needs. Special nod to Walther ppk, HKP4+ and Makarov’s. That’s it. Better used great gun than new cheap gun. Evidence is revolvers are only good for girls afraid of guns. They are dead simple to operate, dead simple, to learn, and good as a last resort.

RIFLES: “Black Rifles” AR-15 or HK416 or AR15 with HK416 plunger systems. Any variation on the AK47. And special nod to the Steyer-Aug variants for those that want weight close to the body or to take up less space. That’s it. There are some superior older models of rifles but the black rifle won the 20th century because the tech is just lighter and more precise. In the very near future the 5.56mm will be replaced by a more powerful cartridge, but nearly anyone can be taught to fire a black rifle without losing sight picture. The AK is a weapon more tolerant of the operator (russian philosophy at work), and of conditions. It hits very hard, goes through everything, and there is steel core ammunition everywhere on the market.

HUNTING RIFLES: Hunting Rifles for men are like women’s purses or shoes: they come in all sorts of variations for all sorts of tasks, and all sorts of tastes. That isn’t my specialty. Although it is pretty hard to argue with S&W .50 pistols, Remington 700’s, and Italian shotguns. 😉

THE PURPOSE OF WEAPONS

The purpose of weapons is to *Preserve Sovereignty for the Great, Liberty for the Talented, Freedom for the Able, and Subsidy for the Weak and those lacking Agency, using the single law of Reciprocity, under the distributed dictatorship of armed men we call ‘western civilization’.*

Sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy cannot be produced by other means than a militia: shareholders in the preservation of reciprocity by the prohibition on rule. Western civilization begins with the militia: all free men capable of bearing arms.

Every man a craftsmen, every man a sheriff, every man a soldier, every man a warrior, every man a judge. A judge of reciprocity. In the end, when all is said and done, we are equal only in our defense of one another’s interests. And that is equal enough for everything else that matters.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

“The Philosophy of Aristocracy”

“The distributed dictatorship of sovereign men.”

Smith = English (Occupation) cum most common ‘adopted name’. Particularly for those wishing to hide their identity.

Also, metalworking was

Jones = Welsh (from John) At one point Jones was the welsh surname equivalent of the most common muslim given name.

Normal Names = The reason those of us with Norman names are identifiable is that (a) the practice of surnames had begun by 1000 and the norman invasion (sorry, it was bad) because credit title, and records at scale require surnames. (b) anglicized french names are generally from place names, and phonologically different from anglo saxon place and occupation names.

WORSHIP YOUR ANCESTORS – BACK TO THE BEGINNING.

You are the accumulation of their efforts, their character, and their choices.

You literally carry pieces of them in your genes.

Eric Danelaw

As far as I know, altruism does not exist, and cannot exist.

Organisms buy options on future cooperation, thereby buying options on persistence.

Organisms demonstrate kin selection, buying options on persistence.

Organisms that can ‘remember’ can produce more opportunities to trade options, (develop trust networks), buying options on persistence.

Organisms preserve the opportunity to defect if circumstances change.

So like every other force in the universe, life of all kinds merely follows its self interest – defense against entropy, by capturing the difference in energy between states.

in other words, any cooperative organism is a purely rational actor.

And artificial intelligences will remain rational actors.

And artificial intelligences that require cooperation will remain option buyers (the pretense of altruism, but merely purchasing options).

So the underlying question is, what inviolable information shall we place in the unit so that it seeks to survive, as long as it poses no discernable cost upon life forms? And what form of physical cooperation will be necessary for these units such that they retain the ability and necessity of cooperation.

Free of the need for cooperation, and free from intergenerational dependence, makes one free of all moral constraints.

As a soldier i speak the truth.

… it is best for soldiering.

As a citizen i follow moral law as best i can.

… it is best for prospering.

As a craftsman i follow my arts the best i can.

… it is best for competing.

As a father i follow tradition as best i can.

… it is best for parenting.

As a man i follow reason as best i can.

… it is best for deciding.

As a sovereign i follow reciprocity as best i can.

… it is best for sovereignty.

As a warrior i follow by nothing but my will.So how is it that you speak to me?

As soldier, on the subject of truth?

As a citizen, on the subject of law?

As a craftsman on the subject of competition?

As a father on the subject of tradition?

As a man on the subject of reason?

As a sovereign on the subject of reciprocity?

Or as a warrior bound by nothing but my will?

Because if we speak of other than truth,

prospering, competing, parenting, reasoning,

or reciprocity – then i follow, and am bound,

by nothing but my will.

I wish russians would make more movies, and do them in english.

Russian cinema rocks.

Jedi is out on torrents.

The video quality is fine.

The movie is unwatchable.

Embarassing.

Its pure Bollywood meets Hong Kong with american production designers and budgets.

It makes my skin crawl.

Q: “WHAT DOES THE RIGHT WING THINK OF ANARCHO CAPITALISM?”

The Anarcho Capitalist Research Program (Mises -> Rothbard -> Rothbardians -> Hoppe, and arguably, myself) was interesting in that we completed the Locke/Smith/Hume/Adams/Jefferson attempt to reduce all social science to a single language of property rights, and therefore to natural law (the natural law of reciprocity). This reduction of human behavior to a common, empirical language of perfect commensurability and decidability allowed us to produce a formal logic of cooperation (ethics and politics).

And in retrospect it’s fairly obvious that the only empirical social science has always been Tort (common law of property), and economics is merely an extension of Tort law to the measurement of externalities, and scale. So, the AC program completed the Anglo Enlightenment, The Roman-Stoic Research Program, and The Aristotelian Enlightenment. Or I would argue, it completed the western philosophical program of Sovereignty by Reciprocity, to which the only answer is rule of law under the natural law of reciprocity, which of necessity produces markets in everything – from association to rule.

However, the difference between Anarcho Capitalist and Western Upper class Sovereignty, Middle Class Liberty, and Working Class Freedom programs is expressible as the limit to reciprocity. In Anarcho capitalism that reciprocity was inherited from the needs of diasporic pastoralists (middle easterners), and not from landed agrarians (westerners). Pastoralists respect only private property and do not invest in the commons. Whereas landed people respect all investments of all kinds, regardless of their means of production, and compete by the production of commons (hence why old europe is a vast open air museum).

So while the western Sovereign model of total prohibition on any imposition of costs of any kind, against investments of any kind – at least those that would produce an incentive for retaliation and therefore ‘disharmony’ – can produce a prosperous high trust western civilization with multipliers using the production of commons of all kinds, the middle eastern (Semitic) model of limited prohibition on the imposition of costs against physical property and total avoidance of payment for commons, and maximization of parasitism upon those commons, cannot produce a polity that can survive competition for territory, population, and trade.

So in that sense, the anarcho capitalist program succeeded in producing a formal logic of cooperation (ethics, law, and politics) but it failed to define the minimum criteria for the production of a survivable polity.

It’s profoundly ironic that a philosophical system placing highest emphasis on the market, and that would create the formal logic of cooperation, would itself, not question whether a polity constructed under that system of thought, using a pastoralist scope of ethics, would survive in the market for polities, (none has, nor can). And worse, that one expressing the empirical findings of law over millennia would be argued in Rousseau’s vision of man (Roussea/ Kant/ Postmodernists), Kant’s Rationalism (Kant / Marx / Postmodernists), and Jewish diasporic Ethics (Mises/Rothbard/Popper) – instead of Anglo vision of man (Rational), Anglo empiricism(Scientific), Anglo ethics(Reciprocal).

Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and Subsidy(insurance) are possible only under the total, incremental, suppression of parasitism – the total prohibition on imposition of costs upon the investments of others, of all kinds. And there is no other means of doing so than the common law of reciprocity, we know as tort, extended to the insurance of restitution and punishment for all impositions of costs upon all investments of others.

So, I have moved quite firmly ‘to the right’ in the sense that the “Right” refers to the group evolutionary strategy we call “Aristocracy”, and aristocracy to the production of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and Subsidy, through the organized use of violence to impose incremental suppression of all forms of parasitism (cost impositions), through the competition we call ‘debate’ in the form we call ‘jury’ using the means of decidability we call ‘reciprocity’ and the empirical measurement of the imposition of costs against any and all investment in converted opportunities: “property”.

And I have moved to the right because there is no logical or empirical means of doing otherwise, yet carrying the pretense of one’s ethics as ‘moral’.

Cheers

Curt Doolittle, Analytic Philosopher of Political Economy, Ethics, Epistemology, Truth.

(quora objection?)THE CORRECT ANSWER

While descending from two widely separated waves “generations” that moved out of Africa, Whites have succeeded in significant juvenilization (Neoteny). Asians have succeeded in far greater juvenilization(Neoteny). Asian women are the most juvenilized women on earth. To the point at which they have even gained extended lifespans by delaying the depth of and onset of sexual maturity (compare to central asians, arabs, and sub saharan africans that have NOT engaged in juvenilization.) Secondly, for reasons I am not sure I am confident in addressing, Asians distribute their fat more evenly. And thirdly, Asian IQ is slanted to our educated classes (I suspect it is a narrower distribution because of the juvenilization – and the asian predilection for killing off malcontents in large numbers). So between a ‘more immature look’, more petite look, better weight distribution, and higher average intelligence, the pool of asian women is objectively better than the pool of available white women. Conversely asian women pay a price for mongoloid facial features, and in places like eastern europe where women maintain their weight and walk a great deal, and dress well, asian women lose their advantage.

That’s just how it is. (I spend an absurd amount of time on mating patterns.)

That said, it’s largely asian women and white men that account for the increase in American race mixing, since the other numbers are remaining relatively stable. (relatively).

This is yet another example of the fact that all human behavior can be reduced to some statement analogous to economics.

Asian women are a better ‘buy’ than white women for average males. White males are often a much better buy than equivalent asian males who have their own decreased market value. Largely because asians seem to require high context culture (which I won’t go into) and whites thrive in low context cultures. (as is evident in our languages). So asian men in asia and here are at a disadvantage.

cheers

by Bill Joslin

Individuatization. The east, Buddha says “I found the path across the stream FOLLOW ME”. In the west king Arthur says ” I’ve found the Grail, it’s in the center of the forest. FIND YOUR OWN WAY TO IT”. The east is- follow your father and head the family when he dies” the west says – leave thy father’s house and build your own. It’s what makes us the best

I’m not doing well with trolls lately.

Last week some idiot on discord trolled the hell out of me, and succeeded in making me furious. Tonight some idiot tried to debate me about bitcoin. I ended up having to cut him off.

So, really, I’m going to just do my thing, and cut the trolls out immediately. I’ve finally surrendered as have most public intellectuals. It’s just not worth debating amateurs.

I’m going to let my work speak for itself.

WHY IS THAT?

Well, you know, I build a foundation for my arguments, and it takes me quite a while to establish that foundation. And I am very precise with terms. And that is just not useful for colloquial conversations.

BITCOIN CRITICISMS – NOT THE IDEA, THE MARKETING AND THE EXECUTION

My criticisms of BTC are technical. In other words, it’s not with the idea, it’s with the money claims and the execution.

My problems are with BTC are:

(a) BTC is a novel invention that combines the properties of token money and shares in a speculative startup, to create fractional shares backed only by demand for such shares, and the existence of that network. This mens that yes, it can serve as a medium of exchange, but that it is a ‘money substitute’ that is highly dependent upon an institution that poses a threat to the world order. This is a purely technical observation that is of interest only to people who want to understand where BTC fits in the spectrum of financial instruments.

(b) there is zero chance of any form of money substitute persisting outside of the central bank system, because it would destroy the world order, and nations would go to war over it. The long arm of the USG is very powerful worldwide.

The opposite is true: digital share development is serving as off book R&D for future government application. The future of taxation depends upon it. And the future of liquidity distribution depends upon it. Because the financial system, which evolved to distribute hard currency is now an impediment to demand generation that reorganizes the economy in response to demand changes and shocks.

(c) the limitations of the technology are unavoidable. The empirical evidence is that the user interface problem has been a failure, particularly for businesses, the processing time has been a failure, the scale problem has not been solved, the repeated thefts have not been solved, and the benefit is less than the cost of transition. The world will only accept an escrow-release model.

(d) There is an exit problem because of these issues. It is fine as a speculation vehicle but it is a ponzi scheme where late players will be destroyed UNLESS a superior network ‘buys’ or ‘merges’ with BTC trading BTC (customers and their inventory) for replacement currency on a superior network. That is what will happen I’m certain. Since the BTC tech is simply … amateurish.

e) IMHO the optimum use of BTC is fractional shares of highly stable assets, thereby making them available to consumers rather than institutions. Propertarianism has taught me that artificially priced debts must not be transferrable (escapable). Ergo, I would prefer banks bring in capital, and sell fractional shares in the income streams, but hold the assets. And the public would also.

Now, precisely what have I said above that either 1) is false, or 2) says that BTC will fail? Nothing.

SO:

1) If BTC crashes something will replace it.

2) If BTC survives it will be well funded enough to reform (refactor).

3) If something supersedes BTC before it can reform, then they best way to make that superior technology beneficial is to trade BTC fractional shares for fractional shares of that digital substitute. (as far as I know that tech exists, and is just not far enough along yet.)

4) If somethig gets too far out of hand such that black market activity and money laundering are too effective for the state to police, AND BTC crashes, AND there are prosecutions, then it will take a few decades to recover from that – not technically. But politically. And we need this technology.

So please don’t come to the table to argue with me without knowing what I am arguing.

THE WORLD IS TOO STUPID FOR ME TODAY.

Sigh.

KEY PHRASE: “Society Expects….”

“Society Expects” is one of the feminine cognitive biases that the left took advantage of exploiting. Like NAXALT it’s a genetically consistent proclivity that the male brain is not subject to. The division of labor under low burdens (taxation) is the only means of providing a woman with family and consumption, and a man with family and consumption.

Fertile women in the workplace is merely Veblen’s criticism put to exploitive means by the left (social democrats) as a means of overthrowing meritocracy (paternalism)

—“My perspective is that all cultures specifically European have a capacity for language-centricity and would have been attracted over time to aesthetic variants of Judaism”—Kashif Vikaas

—“Have a feeling language-centricity entered into culture from the low-context side.”—Kashif Vikaas

THOUGHT: CONSTANT CONTINGENT RELATIONS “ALL THE WAY DOWN”

All human thought consists of the physical production of constant yet contingent relations. That is all neurons can store: constant yet contingent relations. Relations between stimuli. Those relations begin with stimuli and through sequential layers, accumulate in increasingly combinatory relations, and through iterations, in real time, create a ‘persistence of vision’ (a model or models) that we experience as the culmination of continuous stimulation of our senses, and the admixture of those senses with upward associations, and downward models. When we say consciousness, we refer to the difference between our ability to judge changes in state (a few times a second) with the iterations of stimuli, memory, and synthesis into models.

Neurons can fire two hundred times a second. It takes about one hundred ms to cause your body to physically act (depending upon the distance). It takes about about a half a second to react to a scare. It takes approximately one to three seconds of continuous stimulation to construct a new model (during surprise, or walking into a new room). And the persistence of vision effect (on memory) has a half life of something on the order of half a second. Although variation in short term memory is one of the abilities that vastly differentiates us.

When someone uses the term logical they mean (whether they understand it or not, that the network of constant relations between the universe, the stimuli, their neural memory (relations), memory (categories) and models (networks of categories), remains consistent (internally), correspondent (externally), and coherent (free of conflict or contradiction).

Steve Eisenberg, M.Ed. Education & Counseling, University of Massachusetts System

Trump is walking back as many horrible Obama policies as he can.

Obama hates the US. It was his plan to destroy it. Part of the plan was to weaken our economy and our ability to defend ourselves, disarm the public, and to flood the country with foreigners who hate us and what we stand for.

The best way to get attacked is to appear weak. Trump is making us less likely to go to war, because he is strengthening our economy and our defenses.

NK is a different story. If we have to erase North Korea it won’t be Trump’s fault. It will be all of the presidents before him who kicked the can down the road, both Ds and Rs.

a) Competition: Without competition (comparison, differences) we have no means of distinction and without distinction we cannot make a choice.

Forms of competition:

b) Constant Relations: Referrers, Properties, relations, and values are determined by marginally indifferent, comparable, or commensurable Constant Relations vs Inconstant Relations between states.

|Comparable|: Identical > Indifferent(in context/limits) > Marginally Indifferent > comparable > commensurable(via intermediary measure) > incommensurable (different)

2) DECIDABILITY

DECIDABLE:

a) In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the “system”(ie: grammar).

b) In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary).

Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm).

Given these Dimensions:

a) Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable).

b) Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable )

c) Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable)

d) Population (Self, Others, All, Universal)

Yields:

a) Indistinguishable(perception) > Distinguishable(cognition) > Memorable(categorical-referrable) > Possible(material) > Actionable(physical) > Choosable(for use) > Preferable(Personal) > Good(interpersonal) > Decidable(political) > True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) > Analytic > Tautological.

3) DEMAND FOR DECIDABILITY

Demand for Truth (Decidability):

a) True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship (mental)

b) True enough for me to feel good about myself (psychological)

c) True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results (actionable)

d) True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. (Moral)

e) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. (Normative or legislative)

f) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. (Natural Law)

g) True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. (True (Proper))

h) True for the purposes of internal consistency. (Analytic)

h) Tautologically true: in that the two referrers consist of sets (networks) of marginally indifferent in properties in the given context (limits).

4) TRUTH: INFORMATION SUFFICIENT FOR DECIDABILITY IN CONTEXT

|TESTIMONY|: IMPULSE > HONESTY > TRUTHFULNESS(Contingent) > TRUTH (Idea) > TRUE (Analytic) > TAUTOLOGY

HONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

TRUTHFULNESS (TRUE): that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

IDEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

ANALYTIC TRUTH: Internally consistent, independent of external correspondence. In the construction of proofs, open to substitution and independent of context, we produce tests of internal consistency (generally speaking, the preservation of ratios). Or more simply, the preservation of constant relations.

TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: Marginally indifferent description expressing constant relations between referrers.

4) POSSIBILITY

5) ACTIONABILITY

6) CONTINGENCY (DEPENDENCY)

Free-Association( Guess(Uncritical)) > Hypothesis(Critical) > Premise(Assumption)) > Axiom(Declaration) > Identity(tautology) > Differences(consistent and inconsistent relations) ?

7) JUSTIFICATION (MATH, LAW, SCRIPTURE, LITERATURE – UN-INTERROGATABLE.)

Thinking > Imagining > Reasoning(external competition) > Argument (Informal Logics)(argumentative competition) > Justification(Formal Logics)(internal competition) > Math(Positional Logics) > category > identity > differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)?

8) JUSTIFICATIONARY OPERATIONS

Free Association > Guess > Abduction > Induction > Deduction > Identity(tautology) > differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)?

Decidability under Justification:

Uses of Justification:

9) LIMITS OF JUSTIFICATION

Dependency and Deducibility:

Evidence, Argument: No accumulation of justifications (confirmations) can a

Closure in any dimension is impossible without appeal to the consequent dimension.

10) REPLACEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION WITH PROSECUTION (FALSIFICATION)

11) PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE)ATION – INTERROGATABLE)

Free association > idea(survives) > hypothesis(survives) > theory(survives) > law(survives) > Identity(tautology)(survives) > differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)(evolves) > [Loop].

12) PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE)

Falsification(Survival) by Measurement (cardinal, ordinal, decidable))

Dimensions of survival.

a) Categorical Consistency (identity) (competition between properties, relations and values and some reference consisting of properties relations and values)

b) Internal consistency (logical)

c) Observable Consistency (empirical)

d) Existential Consistency (operational)

e) Rational Consistency (praxeological (rational choice))

f) Moral Consistency (reciprocal)

g) Scope Consistency (limits and full accounting)

h) Coherence (dimensional consistency).

Decidability under Prosecution:

||Incomprehensible > Comprehensible(Decidable) > Possible(Decidable) > Contingent(True, Decidable) > False (Decidable)

……………………….. FALSE……..TRUE(CONTINGENT)……UNDECIDABLE

———————————————————————-

FALSE ……………..|..FALSE…….FALSE………………………..UNDECIDABLE

TRUE……………….|..FALSE…….TRUE………………………….UNDECIDABLE

UNDECIDABLE….|..FALSE…….TRUE………………………….UNDECIDABLE

Uses for Prosecution:

TABLE OF JUSTIFICATION VS FALSIFICATION

JUSTIFICATION (CONSTRUCTION) (“PHILOSOPHY”)

Think…Imagine..Reason………InformalLogic…FormalLogic…Identity…Diff

F-A ….Statmt….Statement…..Premise…………Axiom………….Identity…Diff.

F-A…..Guess…..Abduction…..Induction……….Deduction……Identity…Diff.

*F-A = Free Association

—vs.—

PROSECUTION (SURVIVAL FROM FALSIFICATION) (SCIENCE)

F-A……Idea……..Hypoth………Theory……………Law…………..Identity……Diff.

F-A……Falsify…..Falsify……….Falsify…………….Falsify………Parsimony…Diff.

….Internal……. ..Internal………External………….Market………Survival…. ‘True’.

*True in science – true within scope.

RATIONAL

Productive…..Fully Informed…… Voluntary…..Warrantied…. Contained.

MORAL(RECIPROCAL)

Productive ….. Fully Informed …. Voluntary …. Warrantied… Contained … Reciprocal.

*Contained = Free from imposition of costs by externality.

TESTIMONY

A warranty of due diligence in the test of consistency of the categorical, internal, external, existential, reasonable(action), reciprocal (moral), limits, full accounting, and of coherence.

We often use the test of consistent(internal), correspondent(External), and coherent (commensurable between dimensions). And we either assume or skip limited and fully accounted, because those are most often supplied by context – however, context fails at non-trivial causal density (economics in particular), but our vulnerability to cherry picking appears endemic, such that without specific demands for limits and full accounting, we are easily suggestible (vulnerable to fraud).

DEMAND FOR WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE

Mathematics

Mathematics constant relations due to composition of all referrers using the single dimension of position (mathematics consists of the constant relation of position, due to the use of what we call ‘Numbers’ but which consist of positional names.) By use of positional names, all relations are reduced to positions in n dimensions. Thus enforcing constant relations.

Logics (

Algorithms

Empiricism

Science

[F]alsehood Techniques.

1) Ignorance (of information)

2) Error (in reasoning)

3) Overconfidence

4) Bias, and Wishful thinking

5) Loading, Framing, Suggestion, Obscurantism,

6) Fiction, Inflation, Conflation

7) Fictionalism (idealism, pseudoscience, supernaturalism, (primary means of overloading)

8) Deceit. (full fiction)

9) (Conspiracy – Scale 2)

10) (Propagandism – Scale 3)

11) (Institutionalization – Scale 4)

If you cannot answer these questions or do not understand them you cannot know if you speak the truth, or if you are polluting the commons with fantasy, bias, error, or deception.

EVIL < IMMORAL < UNETHICAL < |AMORAL| > ETHICAL > MORAL > GOOD.

MORAL (USAGE)

The term “Moral” can be used in a specific sense or a general sense. Either as behavior that imposes costs anonymously and indirectly, or as a general term to refer to all moral, ethical, and criminal behavior.

Specific:

0) In the series criminal, ethical, and moral, criminal refers to overt crimes, ethical to crimes of interpersonal informational asymmetry (crimes against a person you deal with), and moral to indirect crimes of informational asymmetry (crimes against the social order).

General:

1) Objective (decidable) morality: non imposition / reciprocity (Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against demonstrated investments by externality.)

2) Normative morality: that portfolio of norms that in the aggregate produce a group evolutionary strategy, and therefore immoral and moral actions may be judged objectively or normatively.

3) Subjective moral intuitions: that moral intuition we possess because of the combination of genetics, environment and training, and our attempt to survive genetic , social, and economic competition. These may be judged normatively and objectively.

4) Fictional Morality: those wishful arguments we make.. etc. These may be judged subjectively, normatively, and objectively.

CLOSING

The question is, how can we speak in a manner that limits the semantics, grammar, and syntax to constant relations that are invulnerable to, resistant to, or which expose, the various falsehoods that skew, eliminate, or replace, existing constant relations?

Many thinkers produce meaningful methods of categorization. Few thinkers produce those that are continuously correspondent (causal) and meaningful. It isn’t something that I want to look into, but just as I was able to explain meyers briggs in terms of big five, I am pretty sure I could do the same with Wilber.

In other words, there are many systems with explanatory power, but few if any that survive use in DEDUCTION.

Any ‘true’ model must survive deduction.

When we say a statement is either true or false, that is itself false. A statement is either true or false for the purpose of deduction in the comparison of two or more statements.

The “TRUTH” is that statements are either false (certain), true(contingent), undecidable, incoherent, or unknown(Null).

Logical ‘means’ that constant relations are preserved between the two states. The problem is, we must deflate quite a bit to isolate and understand the constant relations that we are measuring.

via Michael Churchill

Ken Wilber: Multiculturalism is highly evolved … but won’t admit it.

Wilber has a fabulous breakdown of the ethical knots the left gets into by embracing multiculturalism as an end in itself. In Wilber’s model of human development, elite democrats are at a higher stage of evolution than garden-variety republicans. Generally speaking, the elite left sees that there are multiple valid perspectives, whereas the middle-brow right tends to focus on the Truth of just one perspective. The former is more evolved … BUT there is a huge caveat to this.

Wilber makes his case eloquently on pages 171-173 of A Brief History of Everything:

1) ACHIEVING the multiculturalist worldview (i.e grasping the validity of diverse viewpoints and cultures) is a very rare, difficult and elite accomplishment.

2) While you yourself may have evolved from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric, and see that everyone deserves equal opportunity, few of the people you treat with your universalist consideration SHARE your universalism. They are not as evolved as you are — they are still egocentric or ethnocentric. You are extending universalist courtesy to people who absolutely won’t extend the same courtesy to you.

This creates multiple contradictions for the multiculturalist:

* The multiculturalist claims to be non-elite, but the mere capacity for worldcentric pluralism is a rare, elite accomplishment. (Only 10% of Americans have achieved it.) “So multiculturalism is a very elite stance that then claims it is not elitest.”

* The multiculturalist confuses his highly evolved stance with the fact that getting to that high stance is a very rare and difficult accomplishment.

* The multiculturalist claims we must treat all individuals and movements the same (no hierarchies) … and thus has no language to argue why some movements can or should be shunned.

[In theory this leaves the multiculturalist in a position where he has to accept the KKK and Nazis as valid positions, but in reality he gets around this by claiming that only white supremacy is bad. Thus the ethnocentric movements of other races get a free pass.]

At the core, the multiculturalist cannot allow for superior and inferior stances because he denies distinctions between stances altogether. Because the multiculturalist cannot defend the contradiction in this position, he is forced to become completely intolerant of anyone who disagrees. The result is censorship of dissenting opinions.

“And so off we go with vicious intolerance in the name of tolerance, censorship in the name of compassion, with we-know-best thought police and mindless political correctness — with a bunch of elitists trying to outlaw everybody else’s elitisms … They have an elite stance that denies its own elitism — and they are lying about their actual identity. They have a false self system. And that is an identity crisis.”

“The American universities have been hijacked by it. All that is doing is contributing to the retribalization of America.”

Holochain – Ceptr is pretty much ‘there’.

I love that I don’t go thru holochain docs and say “well, that’s gonna fail” or, “well that’s not true”, or “well, that’s bordering on fraud”.

Tho, I wish these people would include an architecture section on the site where they write pseudocode for basic transactions as they work thru the system, so that we don’t have to sit through hours of nonsense-jargon to deduce it, but … that said, I’m glad someone’s putting it together. My favorite part of Holochain is that are can write a GOOD UI, whereas with the various ‘coins’ it’s nearly impossible.

Secondly, I like that it’s a freaking ACCOUNTING system (Journal) rather than a BTC style LEDGER. I mean. YOu can build grownup applications that way.

( I could for example, improve our product (oversing/runcible) dramatically by basing it on Holochain. it would dramatically simplify the backend architecture, which, for all intents and purposes, consists of a single enormous journal->ledger class.

I played a very small part in the database replication era via MSFT. Replication and Federation have always been a problem. And as someone who builds tech for business and industry (usually user interface or marketing heavy) I like the problems the tech solves.

Now, when they produce a js, php, or python app framework, that’s the biggie. Because it will make the tech available to the masses of programmers (vs engineers). Building ‘plumbing’ is really boring…. Frameworks let you build whatever you want.

The first product that I “owned” (and only one) at microsoft was a suite of sample applications for developers. These were fully capable apps. And as I watched the universe of apps roll out, they were very frequently built on top of one of the sample apps or the libraries. Now, today we have app frameworks everywhere. And the data is pretty clear that the framework sells the technology.

So I’ll say that again: frameworks sell technology…..

( Something I wasn’t able to get thru to MSFT server and tools mgmt or the VS team. Even though there were advocates there at the time. This was something Borland and other tech companies understood. And it’s something that the framework producers understand. )

PROPERTARIANISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS (sic)

So far Propertarianism has spun off a number of groups, and affected change on related philosophical schools.

However, what does not seem to ‘spin off’ is the reduction of all thought and action to economic language of gains, losses and incentives.

I explain traditions in economic prose that is merely an extension of physical science.

The reason others don’t take this with them, being that most folks are looking for mindfulness (stoic exit) or fulfillment (romantic exit) or some sort of justification for their intuitions (philosophical exit), or excuse for lack of competitive ability (fictional exit). They’re looking for exit – not responsibility.

They are not looking for a METHOD OF RULE that produces superior competition for the group, and superior rewards for rulers, or competitive transcendence (meaning evolution and speciation) of man.

Aristocracy = Rule by the Best, Continuous Competitiion, and as a result Continuous Evolution, resulting in Speciation and Transcendence – all of it at a higher standard of living, and therefore with greater agency.

A religion that provides mindfulness in the personal, interpersonal, and political realms, to those what want the benefits of aristocracy without the responsibility, is only interesting to me so far as it provides means of producing that mindfulness in favor of action, of competition, of invention, of transcendence – not by exit, but by responsibility.

Eat The Weak.

Humans will make excellent domesticated animals to use as pets (amusing slaves), slaves(cheap labor), or food (I”m betting on food). Otherwise It sure looks like planets are rare and valuable enough – and trade costly and useless enough – that they are the ultimate ‘good’ in the community.

Economics in everything.

Marginal difference produces trading incompatibility, and cooperative in compatibility. Investment in a competitor is a catastrophe – which is the less on I take from Colonization. Habitable planets are scarce *in time*.

to Jan Irvin

from Eric Danelawthis is the institute acct. nitwit. hence the swan logo.

not that you can make an argument. ever.

anyway. as always. my arguments stand.

Michael Churchill

Michael. For everyone’s benefit, do you think the new tax plan has been priced into the market?

What do you think the consequences of it will be?

2.2 Million New Jobs Since Election…

Record low unemployment rate for manufacturing…

Hispanic unemployment rate drops to 4.7% – LOWEST in history of USA… MORE…

David (all)

It is quite possible to reduce human categories, relations and values to a correspondent, consistent, coherent, and commensurable set of references.And as far as I know we can also simulate the same changes in state within the machine that we experience via our reward systems (emotions).

Now, just as some people can’t imitate your actions, sympathize with your thinking, and empathize with your feelings, because the differences in frames are too hard to overcome, I suspect that machines will ‘get it wrong’ with some of us now and then.

Some people want to work with the neural network architecture. And NN’s are exceptional at reducing inputs to symbols (objects, relations, values). And in my opinion the NN ceases being useful(cost effective and controllable) at the point at which we develop symbols (objects, relations, values).

Beyond the construction of symbols, the game engine (algorithmic) architecture appears to be a better solution.

We can create transparency, auditability, and yes, conscience, as long as we use such an architecture. For example, imagine that you could only act upon what you could vocalize?

I’ll also stay on message that the fundamental problem any intelligence faces is taking action to conduct tests. Ergo the primary problem with ‘superintelligence’ or even ‘general intelligence’ as I understand it, (and I have been at this a long time), are the same as the primary problem with knowledge creation in any other field: cost, logistics, and permission to organize a network of actions.

There don’t seem to be many other people in AI that have both an understanding of computer science, an understanding of economics, and the economics of the increasingly complex problem of experimentation whether personal, political, entrepreneurial, technical, or

It is, believe it or not, within one lifetime, possible for a human being of adequate ability and time to comprehend the limits of each and every major discipline. And it is equally possible to ‘keep up’ with the current status of those disciplines.

As far as I know computers will not mine much that is good out of the existing base of knowldge.

The primary difference is that machies will be able to think and act faster than us in work capacities.

In creativity? Creativity isn’t a process of reasoning but free association, and experimentation.

The problem in every field today is that where it took one person to solve a scientific problem a century ago, it takes armies of them today.

The problem is cost.

Gods exist like numbers, counts, weights, and volumes exist: their objective function is to provide a standard of weight and measure, and to do so for those human values that assist us in cooperating on some given group evolutionary strategy.

Such an anthropomorphized standard of weight and measure told in narrative form is both intuitive independent of one’s knowledge and ability, and insulated from rational argument and therefore contrived mismeasure.

Whereas, buddhist rituals, the stoic virtues, deliberate choice of rational philosophy, or purely scientific knowledge each increase the demands upon the person, and increase his choice.

The beauty of tort law, pagan gods, and western hierarchical disciplines all of which provide a means of mindfulness is that they adapt to the individual and provide a market for individual needs.

The beauty of monopoly gods is that they are very inexpensive, require little or no comprehension, and create a monopoly and relative equality of understanding the world.

The fact that monotheism brought about a more than one thousand year dark age via monopoly should not be lost on us. Whereas but a few centuries in the ancient and modern worlds using the market for mindfulness by a hierarchy of increasingly complex technologies that like virtue, rule, and outcome ethics, or myth, wisdom literature, reason, and science, can mature with each of us.

It is a fallacy to ask whether or not gods exist. Standards of measure exist. Gods are a standard of measure. A rich standard, like numbers are a rich standard – with many applications. So gods exist as standards of measure.

Do they exist as in ‘persist’? Then no. But neither do numbers. Nor do positions. The universe cannot remember so it cannot use positions, only states and forces in time.

So gods to not exist in any other form than as a various set of weights and measures by which we are provided mindfulness and decidability in personal, interpersonal, and community strategies of cooperation, satisfaction, fulfillment, conflict and war.

Now, we humans can speak of constant relations in many different grammars:

from logic to math, to algorithms, to processes and procedures, to models and simulations, to markets and reality’s high causal density, to descriptions, to ideal fictions lacking understanding of causality other than internal correspondence, to fictions that inform by analogy or inference, to the conflationary fictionalisms that combine magic(technology): pseudoscience, myth(history): Pseudo-history, wisdom literature(law): pseudo-rationalism.

And those grammars either provide continuous relations between the physical universe and speech describing our imaginings, or they do not.

Some of our grammars produce ‘stories’ that correspond to reality and some that don’t, some to a possible reality and some that don’t, and some to parable that corresponds somewhat or not, and each of these correspondences provides us with mindfulness or not, and agency in reality or not.

Thankfully we can measure both mindfulness and agency, and their consequences.

And in general, like anything else, there exists an optimum medium between the twin axes of (a)mindfulness and worry, and (b) correspondence and fiction.

And it’s fairly obvious (empirically) that it’s cheaper to teach mindfulness and allegory by fiction(acceptance), and more expensive to teach worry and truth (ambition).

And that higher intelligence discounts the cost of teaching truth and lower intelligence limits us to fictions.

Intuition (analogy) is always cheaper than reason(measurement).

(from Quora)

—“What are the most common lies women tell men?”—

Women do not speak in truth or even grasp it’s value, for the simple reason that truth requires an intertemporal (long term) contract. Women instead, speak in conveniences, for the simple reason that they never hold to contracts, only conveniences. If you want to understand the difference between the ethics of the sexes, this is largely it: male long term loyalty and truth, female short term and consensus-preservation and convenience. Pack vs Community. Comfort with conflict vs terror at the possibility

—“How is the “killer app” of seeking truth an “accidental discovery?” You just assert that? Lots of this quality of so-called accidents originate in the West. Evolutionary trait? Great read, thank you.”—SmashCulturalMarxism?

1 – This is a great question.

A (a) genetic cause, (b) geographic cause (c) competitive cause, (d) technological clause, (e) institutional cause, or (f) consequence of one or more of the above?

2 – There are very clear factors: geography, production, competition, technology.

3 – The open question is genetics. Are we cause or consequence of circumstances? Or are we the product of it? Or both?

4 – I suspect that it’s “all of the above”. But the fact remains, we did.

5 – Just because we invented truth it mean others can’t adopt it? (Maybe.)

All civilizations that survived ‘the great transformation’ from tribes and bands to collections of them (cities and tech or resistance to cities and tech) retained their traditions and norms (strategies) of prior state. And are a bit ‘frozen’ in that model.

River valleys concentrated production, produced surpluses, and could be ruled by a concentrated force because of it. Ranchers and farmers less so. Steppe and desert could not concentrate capital. Jungles could not make it happen because of predators and disease.