Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

More correctly brad helped me understand how to get through to you two. 😉
You see, I see the world as incentives. And I ignore what people say as nothing more than misdirecting, obscuring, excusing or advocating their incentives.
For some reason it’s extremely difficult to get across the complexity of influences that produce such things as the world wars and the solutions proposed after them. So in my view you attribute too much to the negative influences that brought about the condition and I attribute too much to the positive ambitions as a consequence of of the wars. So if you want to draw attention to the bad actors – especially the financial sector and ‘the enemy’s stated goal of ending the monarchies’, I have no problem with that. On the other hand you’d need to recognize that there were moral men with moral ambitions that precisely because they were anglo-scotts-dutch-german protestant moralists, believe they were doing the best thing for mankind – and they were and it worked. If they had other ambitions Patton could have destroyed russia and macarthur china and we would have an even better world fully transformed out of the age of empires.
That they were duped into fighting the wrong enemy. That they were naive in understanding the internal and external enemy. That they were naive in believing the nature of man would reject the false promises of the enemy. That they failed to purge them in the McCarthy era. That they failed to sop them in the sixties. That they continue to fail to stop them – is still a matter of that damned protestant evangelical optimism and nw European heroism, white man’s burden, and aristocratic mercy is not the same as that they were and still are conspiratorial. Just the opposite.
And this is exactly what the Russian elites think, and why they call us fools. And its why muslim immigrants refer to europeans as easy ‘victims’. It’s why the jews continue to take advantage of americans – which Bebe has said not so directly but repeatedly. Our morals are both our internal asset and our external risk.
The smithians were correct. But only if one understands that we europeans domesticated warfare, But the rest of the world still practices TOTAL WAR.
Which is what I am trying to get across, and somehow for some reason, Luke is opposing that and … well, it caused me to say ‘Ok, I’ve had enough of fighting this team’ for a while and maybe it’s time I just gave up on trying.
So, you know, I don’t know why this is so hard for y’all to get but brad tried to explain both of your positions to me and he says I’m creating the wrong impression and I think I’m trying to counter a failure to recognize the moral ambitions and the success of those ambitions despite the naivety that both provides those ambitions and allows their undermining.

Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS