He was right you know. We are all pirates. Whether Chariots, Triremes, Longboats, Galleys, Schooners, or Planes we are, of our nature Pirates, Vikings, Raiders. And that is what it means to be European. To Hunt(Explore), Fight(Conquer), Decimate(Domesticate), Rule(Profit From).
We are at our best when we do not lie to ourselves. 😉 Domestication of the animal man for fun and profit.
Source date (UTC): 2017-10-18 16:21:00 UTC
UNDERSTANDING WESTERN vs ASIAN vs SEMITIC ETHICS
Judaism and Islam are poly-moral/poly-ethical religions. Westerners are monological and mono ethical/moral. Jewish culture relies upon a low trust (ghetto) moral system and culture. Western culture is a high trust (martial) moral system. Jewish culture produces minimum no commons. Western culture produces maximum commons. Jewish culture produces insular commons. Western culture produces universal commons. Jewish culture seeks to privatize commons. Western Culture prohibits privatization of commons. Jewish culture eschews production over arbitrage. Western culture eschews arbitrage and over production. Jewish culture ignores and costs from externalities. Western culture expressly demands responsibility for externalities. Jewish culture universally allies with the state against the people. Western culture expressly defends against the state (aristocracy).
If you stack the germanic westerners, the mediterranean westerners, the russians, chinese, the jews, and the gypsies, in that order, you move from productive individualistic, to productive clannish, to productive authoritarian, to parasitic tribal, to parasitic clannish civilizations. The only major difference between the gypsies and the jews is the IQ basis and therefore the means of parasitism upon host cultures. The only difference between the chinese and the russian is quality of the bureaucracy. The difference between the protestant and mediterranean west is familial versus militial.
And that is why the jews and arabs are always ostracized: violation of the contract of the commons. It’s not just the jews. It appears that all the peoples who originated in what is Yemen today, but which was ethiopian/arabian civilization in the prehistoric world, never went through the agrarian phase, and retained low trust parasitic pastoralist ethics. Whether it is genetic or not we don’t know yet. We will know in the span of 20-30 years.
And if I am correct it will be that the structure of the brains of the semitic peoples (or at least, the arabic/jewish/ethiopian) peoples who are a subset of the semitic speaking peoples, have either preserved the female brain structure, or reversed gender distribution of it, and as a consequence pursue the female reproductive strategy. Which is about all that is necessary to preserve cultural and genetic differences. Small things in large numbers create vast differences.
I suspect I will be correct in this. The genetic, the hormonal, data and the emerging data on sexual dimorphism is just too consistent. The only major differences between the human races that I an find is the degree of neoteny and the distribution of sexual dimorphism in the body and brain followed by the distribution of the IQ curve. Which leaves the jews as the top semites, then the various arab tribes underneath them. With the turks bridging the gap.
Source date (UTC): 2017-10-17 12:21:00 UTC
The barbaric behavior would have been in a way, the natural state of the hispanoamerican republicans, the necessary fruit of the combination of aboriginal cultures that the conquistadors found, with conquest itself and the process of spaniard colonization, and finally with the civil wars that begun with the War of Independence in Venezuela. Carlos Rangel. From the good savage to the good revolutionary
History of mankind is one of conflict and constant competition for limited resources: Water, earth, food and women. Those who trash Columbus day want to make people believe that the pre columbine societies were much more advanced than the european societies and history has proven that this isn’t the case. Europeans have proven to be better in these sorts of disputes, conflicts and competences than any other race in the face of the earth, the indigenous peoples were losers, and their friends and successors want europeans to feel sorry, shame and regret for being better than the savages in matters of conquest and exploration. Vengeful indigenous movementes demand reparations for all the resources extracted from the american continent while ignoring completely that the pre columbine societies were backward, cannibalistic and savage. Neither Spain, nor the West have to feel sorry for nothing, the indigenous (((holocaust))) happened for a series of reasons: Indigenous peoples were savages that discriminated far worse than the conquistadors. They did not know the value of precious metals, nor gems because of the backwardness of their own societies not open to cooperation amongst fellow men. Indigenous peoples sold their territory and lands because they lacked the knowledge to make assessments on these issues. I’d like to point out that these things are not deemed fair in the development of this text because the term “fair” derives from the architectonics and constructs of european societies. It is very peculiar that the indigenous, marxist leaning and vengeful can discriminate against everything that has a scent of nationalisms of european-american descent but they look the other way in an arbitrary fashion on the fact that their arguments are the product of analysis of a society with post european traditions of judeo-christian architectonics. All of the elements that have sustained previous forms of success and european western pride are either in decline or withered to the extreme. What the west must do is to awaken and stop giving terrain to the demands of minorities and other groups that demand from majorities a more liberal mindset. Spanish conquistadors without GPS, not internal combustion engines threw themselves in boasts to seek for resources and made their way to the american continent, and they did that in a glorious way, with strength and racial sentiment. The same racial sentiment that the losers of the conquest war seem to evoke when they mention Tiuna, Guaicaipuro, Moctezuma, Tupac Amaru and the like. It is very peculiar, unfair and excluding that the ones that lost the war, being sore losers seek to use the elements of grandeur of those who won the war to feel ashamed for putting an end to cannibalistic massacres of pre columbine tribes for everything that they managed to conquer. Our children are being taught by academia that they pre columbine peoples that lived in the american continent weren’t merciless savages (as Thomas Jefferson would refer to them in the declaration of independence). We must bear in mind that many of these societies worshipped human sacrifice, torture, mutilation and cannibalism. Liberal academics seek to teach our youth that the pre columbine societies were “spiritually enlightened natives” whose wisdom and peaceful nobility were destroyed by hordes of barbaric europeans. Academia and its vices of hatefulness towards the west is hellbent on telling the lie that the Aztecs didn’t sacrifice lower tribes in enormous altars of carved stone built with slave labor and they ate the corpses of those murdered in such heinous and overwhelming ways that the mind of a Westerner could hardly grasp nor comprehend. On another note: Slavery wasn’t introduced into the americas by europeans, the pre columbines already had it in practice, and even though the europeans took a couple of centuries in putting an end to it, it was western civilization that put that practice into practice. The impulse, the moral strength and drive to put an end to slavery came from within western civilization as an imposition towards less developed civilizations, less open and far more backwards. ¿What kind of life would an african man in his homeland before being brought to the american continent and presented to western civilization? In the same way that Winston Smith used to delete headlines from newspapers in the Orwell novel “1984”, nowadays we are being pushed into forgetting details of history that fall short of the liberal narrative. Many of the indigenous peoples that preach and champion socialism and social justice causes in the american continent overlook the fact that if it weren’t for Christopher Columbus, socialism and Karl Marx’s ideas would have never made it to the american continent. If it weren’t for the Spanish Yoke, the american indians would have carried on with the peaceful, spiritual and easy way of killing each other with machetes, eat the flesh of those the died and carried on with their nomadic lifestyles, subsistence agriculture and perpetual warfare. The conflict that arises out of conquist in which there was a struggle for resources between opposed societies couldn’t have been solved in a civilized way. There was no culture, government, or legal system that the parties involved could share to solve those disputes, and it was the West with its advancements in technology, discovery of law that had to put an end to the dispute by the way of council or by the sword, (a latin principle called “aut consilis, aut ense”. The idea that Columbus, Cortés and the conquistadors could appeal to sentiments and feelings of common humanity, empathy with the good savages is a sentimental ethnocentric projection that dissipates very quickly when you learn about how the pre columbine indians. It is really foolish and decadent when western men, that have never have had to subdue entire tribes of savages are forced to morally condemn those men that in a past fought tooth and nail to take the continent for their Kingdom. Those men who’s blood, swear, tears, pain, broken bones bought peace at a very high cost for the territories over which liberals cry and communists fantasize about by lying to the public by saying that the indians were good savages Alberto Zambrano
The barbaric behavior would have been in a way, the natural state of the hispanoamerican republicans, the necessary fruit of the combination of aboriginal cultures that the conquistadors found, with conquest itself and the process of spaniard colonization, and finally with the civil wars that begun with the War of Independence in Venezuela. Carlos Rangel. From the good savage to the good revolutionary
History of mankind is one of conflict and constant competition for limited resources: Water, earth, food and women. Those who trash Columbus day want to make people believe that the pre columbine societies were much more advanced than the european societies and history has proven that this isn’t the case. Europeans have proven to be better in these sorts of disputes, conflicts and competences than any other race in the face of the earth, the indigenous peoples were losers, and their friends and successors want europeans to feel sorry, shame and regret for being better than the savages in matters of conquest and exploration. Vengeful indigenous movementes demand reparations for all the resources extracted from the american continent while ignoring completely that the pre columbine societies were backward, cannibalistic and savage. Neither Spain, nor the West have to feel sorry for nothing, the indigenous (((holocaust))) happened for a series of reasons: Indigenous peoples were savages that discriminated far worse than the conquistadors. They did not know the value of precious metals, nor gems because of the backwardness of their own societies not open to cooperation amongst fellow men. Indigenous peoples sold their territory and lands because they lacked the knowledge to make assessments on these issues. I’d like to point out that these things are not deemed fair in the development of this text because the term “fair” derives from the architectonics and constructs of european societies. It is very peculiar that the indigenous, marxist leaning and vengeful can discriminate against everything that has a scent of nationalisms of european-american descent but they look the other way in an arbitrary fashion on the fact that their arguments are the product of analysis of a society with post european traditions of judeo-christian architectonics. All of the elements that have sustained previous forms of success and european western pride are either in decline or withered to the extreme. What the west must do is to awaken and stop giving terrain to the demands of minorities and other groups that demand from majorities a more liberal mindset. Spanish conquistadors without GPS, not internal combustion engines threw themselves in boasts to seek for resources and made their way to the american continent, and they did that in a glorious way, with strength and racial sentiment. The same racial sentiment that the losers of the conquest war seem to evoke when they mention Tiuna, Guaicaipuro, Moctezuma, Tupac Amaru and the like. It is very peculiar, unfair and excluding that the ones that lost the war, being sore losers seek to use the elements of grandeur of those who won the war to feel ashamed for putting an end to cannibalistic massacres of pre columbine tribes for everything that they managed to conquer. Our children are being taught by academia that they pre columbine peoples that lived in the american continent weren’t merciless savages (as Thomas Jefferson would refer to them in the declaration of independence). We must bear in mind that many of these societies worshipped human sacrifice, torture, mutilation and cannibalism. Liberal academics seek to teach our youth that the pre columbine societies were “spiritually enlightened natives” whose wisdom and peaceful nobility were destroyed by hordes of barbaric europeans. Academia and its vices of hatefulness towards the west is hellbent on telling the lie that the Aztecs didn’t sacrifice lower tribes in enormous altars of carved stone built with slave labor and they ate the corpses of those murdered in such heinous and overwhelming ways that the mind of a Westerner could hardly grasp nor comprehend. On another note: Slavery wasn’t introduced into the americas by europeans, the pre columbines already had it in practice, and even though the europeans took a couple of centuries in putting an end to it, it was western civilization that put that practice into practice. The impulse, the moral strength and drive to put an end to slavery came from within western civilization as an imposition towards less developed civilizations, less open and far more backwards. ¿What kind of life would an african man in his homeland before being brought to the american continent and presented to western civilization? In the same way that Winston Smith used to delete headlines from newspapers in the Orwell novel “1984”, nowadays we are being pushed into forgetting details of history that fall short of the liberal narrative. Many of the indigenous peoples that preach and champion socialism and social justice causes in the american continent overlook the fact that if it weren’t for Christopher Columbus, socialism and Karl Marx’s ideas would have never made it to the american continent. If it weren’t for the Spanish Yoke, the american indians would have carried on with the peaceful, spiritual and easy way of killing each other with machetes, eat the flesh of those the died and carried on with their nomadic lifestyles, subsistence agriculture and perpetual warfare. The conflict that arises out of conquist in which there was a struggle for resources between opposed societies couldn’t have been solved in a civilized way. There was no culture, government, or legal system that the parties involved could share to solve those disputes, and it was the West with its advancements in technology, discovery of law that had to put an end to the dispute by the way of council or by the sword, (a latin principle called “aut consilis, aut ense”. The idea that Columbus, Cortés and the conquistadors could appeal to sentiments and feelings of common humanity, empathy with the good savages is a sentimental ethnocentric projection that dissipates very quickly when you learn about how the pre columbine indians. It is really foolish and decadent when western men, that have never have had to subdue entire tribes of savages are forced to morally condemn those men that in a past fought tooth and nail to take the continent for their Kingdom. Those men who’s blood, swear, tears, pain, broken bones bought peace at a very high cost for the territories over which liberals cry and communists fantasize about by lying to the public by saying that the indians were good savages Alberto Zambrano
WE ARE SPECIATING
(important post)
Source date (UTC): 2017-10-11 09:50:00 UTC
WE ARE SPECIATING
(important post)
—“My point is that a philosophy that puts emphasis on truth telling is distinct from a philosophy that views truth or deceit as just tools for social manipulation. Are we living in reality, the world, which exists independent of human perception and is indifferent to it, to which we need to adapt ourselves in order to survive – or are we living in a socially constructed world that depends on a group consensus which is manufactured with specific social goals in mind. In the former, truth matters more because it gives us an advantage in perceiving reality, in the latter it doesn’t because only social “truths” matter. Violence is an honest approach which an accurate perception of reality facilitates, deceit is an indirect overcoming of immediate weakness, an adaptation that a weaker (in terms of violence) competitor would employ. Deceit as a political strategy of the left would then be an adaptation to the success of truth. Or, lacking a material way to compete, deceit would be used to trick the superior into believing they occupy an inferior position, etc.”— A Friend
Truth and violence – truth requires violence. Deceit may or may not require violence. Hence we must master violence.
Well, you’re again, trapped in your own frame, but you’re insightful and you are arguing to incentives rather than norms so you’ve progressed farther than most ever will.
But, Instead (a) a science consists in a coherent, consistent, and correspondent, method of decidability independent of goals. (b) a philosophy consists of coherent and consistent method of decision making in pursuit of some anticipated goals. (c) a religion consists of a normative contract to adhere to a method of decision making, in pursuit of some anticipated goals, regardless of correspondence, and with the minimum coherence and consistency. (d) an ideology consists of a set of narratives without constraint of correspondence, coherence, or consistency, for the purpose of achieving a political end under majoritarianism (democracy).
So when you say:
—“Are we living in reality, the world, which exists independent of human perception and is indifferent to it to which we need to adapt ourselves in order to survive”—
Meaning, “Do we make our decisions scientifically.”
—“or are we living in a socially constructed world that depends on a group consensus which is manufactured with specific social goals in mind”—
Meaning “Do we make our decisions according to an ideology or a religion?” (I have never found a philosophy practiced in politics except via cherry picking among some set of them.)
Well, we make our decisions by science, philosophy, religion and ideology, (a spectrum of declining truth), given their utility to us. So each of us cherry picks a portfolio of decidability from that list.
We are living in an objective reality. We act in that reality according to our interests. We justify those interests with narratives (excuses). For some of us truth(Science) is an advantage (eugenic meritocracy), and for some of us truth is a disadvantage (dysgenic equality), and fiction (‘fictionalisms’) is an advantage.
In Propertarianism I merged philosophy, logic, and science into a single vocabulary, grammar, and syntax. Now, with that science, logic, and philosophy you can *describe* every single political order truthfully, because as a science, propertarianism provides commensurability (perfect commensurability). (The question is whether I can make it into a religion. That may be what is required for our people. Adherence by contract to the truth may be better than pressing each individual into mastering it – for costs alone.)
Now, one can use science to develop a plan, philosophy, religion, or ideology to advance your interests, or you can use a fictionalism to develop a plan, an ideology, and a religion.
Does that science, logic, and philosophy mean that the left can construct their ideology and religion truthfully? Well, yes. Does that mean they need to? No. They can function by creating fictionalisms – they HAVE TO because truth means they must admit inferiority. Does it mean we need to construct our science, logic, philosophy, and law scientifically? Yes. Because that is our group evolutionary strategy – and it is the optimum group evolutionary strategy. The only reason we are in the current position was our failure to state our group evolutionary strategy honestly. Truth is our advantage, and always has been.
So the advice I would give to all of us given my studies, is that our reproductive differences were equilibrated as hunter gatherers. They were disequilibrated by the necessity of property leading to a new compromise between the genders that we call ‘marriage’. And that in the present era, we are now wealthy enough to express our reproductive strategies in non-universal means. As such *WE ARE SPECIATING* according to our differences in reproductive strategies – just as all species speciate according to differences in reproductive strategy and advantage.
And as such we have only two choices: being defeated so they win, defeating the others so we win, or separating and creating a market in which either or both many win.
And I think this question is the question of our time. the era of monopoly is over. Universalism is dead. It was all a convenience of wars of religion under agrarianism.
If you grasp this it is profound.
Source date (UTC): 2017-10-11 09:49:00 UTC