Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • Why We Need to Peacefully Separate and Let Eachother Go Our Separate Ways

    Why We Need to Peacefully Separate and Let Eachother Go Our Separate Ways https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/why-we-need-to-peacefully-separate-and-let-eachother-go-our-separate-ways/


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:07:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179850409139228675

  • Why We Need to Peacefully Separate and Let Eachother Go Our Separate Ways

    [T]here are only a few directions the brain can evolve: 1) Neoteny (delay of maturity, retention of childlike features, giving more time for cognitive development). … a) developmental specialization (sense, physical, social, abstract), which for some reason we tend to vary in. … b) Prefrontal, cortical, inhibition (agency) – appears to be neotonic in origin. … c) Intelligence (I won’t get into that here) but there are many underlying variables including neocortical volume. The big 5/6 personality traits, and measured differences in brain volume and function can be described by these dimensions. 2) Sex: feminine and masculine, and this happens in early development. The differences in gender distributions of the big 5/6 (called ‘factors’, and their subfactors can be described by masculine and feminine differences, which are largely reduced to agreeableness, assertiveness, risk. We call these two resulting moral biases conservative (masculine pack) and liberal (feminine herd). And they reflect the different evolutionary strategies of males and females. Even so, all of us exist on a spectrum from the female mind to the male mind. There are pack (masculine minded) women, herd (feminine) minded men. Mental illness, anti social behavior, cognitive biases, moral intuition, use of language, vary consistently along this spectrum with very simple tests identifying the sex of the brain – regardless of sexual attraction, which is a developmental success or failure. One of the differences in cognitive biases between men and women is that men see differences and are slightly better at generalizing observations, and women the opposite at seeing similarity and individual empathy. This is our division of labor, and again – all of us are somewhere on this spectrum of masculine to feminine biases. And the cause of these differences is well understood, not only in hormones and developmental rehearsal of different biases, but in the structure of information processed in the brain, where one side (female) is language empathy and prey focused, and the other is action, objectivity, and predator focused. SO WHAT DO WE DO? We were speciating into regional human groups when we discovered farming. We were forced to compromise with each other during farming. Farming is over and we are now wealthy enough to pursue our genetic biases (interests, strategies) and so we must separate between masculine (suburban and rural hunters) and feminine (urban gatherers) and there is no reason not to. We are simply able to afford specialization. It’s time to return to speciation and stop fighting our instincts as different animals returning to speciation now that the agrarian era is over.

  • Why We Need to Peacefully Separate and Let Eachother Go Our Separate Ways

    [T]here are only a few directions the brain can evolve: 1) Neoteny (delay of maturity, retention of childlike features, giving more time for cognitive development). … a) developmental specialization (sense, physical, social, abstract), which for some reason we tend to vary in. … b) Prefrontal, cortical, inhibition (agency) – appears to be neotonic in origin. … c) Intelligence (I won’t get into that here) but there are many underlying variables including neocortical volume. The big 5/6 personality traits, and measured differences in brain volume and function can be described by these dimensions. 2) Sex: feminine and masculine, and this happens in early development. The differences in gender distributions of the big 5/6 (called ‘factors’, and their subfactors can be described by masculine and feminine differences, which are largely reduced to agreeableness, assertiveness, risk. We call these two resulting moral biases conservative (masculine pack) and liberal (feminine herd). And they reflect the different evolutionary strategies of males and females. Even so, all of us exist on a spectrum from the female mind to the male mind. There are pack (masculine minded) women, herd (feminine) minded men. Mental illness, anti social behavior, cognitive biases, moral intuition, use of language, vary consistently along this spectrum with very simple tests identifying the sex of the brain – regardless of sexual attraction, which is a developmental success or failure. One of the differences in cognitive biases between men and women is that men see differences and are slightly better at generalizing observations, and women the opposite at seeing similarity and individual empathy. This is our division of labor, and again – all of us are somewhere on this spectrum of masculine to feminine biases. And the cause of these differences is well understood, not only in hormones and developmental rehearsal of different biases, but in the structure of information processed in the brain, where one side (female) is language empathy and prey focused, and the other is action, objectivity, and predator focused. SO WHAT DO WE DO? We were speciating into regional human groups when we discovered farming. We were forced to compromise with each other during farming. Farming is over and we are now wealthy enough to pursue our genetic biases (interests, strategies) and so we must separate between masculine (suburban and rural hunters) and feminine (urban gatherers) and there is no reason not to. We are simply able to afford specialization. It’s time to return to speciation and stop fighting our instincts as different animals returning to speciation now that the agrarian era is over.

  • What Do People Mean by Trust in Their Government

    What Do People Mean by Trust in Their Government https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/what-do-people-mean-by-trust-in-their-government-2/


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:04:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179849721105571840

  • What Do People Mean by Trust in Their Government

    WHAT DO PEOPLE MEAN BY TRUST IN THEIR GOVERNMENT

    [I]n the political context, when people are expressing in their government, it only refers to three factors: (a) the framing of the debate by the media, academy, state complex, (b) the orderliness or at least comprehensibility of the patterns of speech and (c) the current levels of anxiety over the future. In other words, the academy, state, media, create demand by generation of conflict, just as diversity of race, ethnicity, and class generates conflict, just as ideological competition creates conflict. The state generates conflcit for ATTENTION which gets them POWER. Trust is a synonym for predictability over time.

  • What Do People Mean by Trust in Their Government

    WHAT DO PEOPLE MEAN BY TRUST IN THEIR GOVERNMENT

    [I]n the political context, when people are expressing in their government, it only refers to three factors: (a) the framing of the debate by the media, academy, state complex, (b) the orderliness or at least comprehensibility of the patterns of speech and (c) the current levels of anxiety over the future. In other words, the academy, state, media, create demand by generation of conflict, just as diversity of race, ethnicity, and class generates conflict, just as ideological competition creates conflict. The state generates conflcit for ATTENTION which gets them POWER. Trust is a synonym for predictability over time.

  • The National Socialism Question: It Won the 20th Right?

    The National Socialism Question: It Won the 20th Right? https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/the-national-socialism-question-it-won-the-20th-right/


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 19:56:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179847823053000705

  • The National Socialism Question: It Won the 20th Right?

    [I] know history is currently overturning the mythology but I want to address the National Socialist community for a moment, even if it’s politically incorrect for now. My problem with supporting the NS political program at least as the french and italians envisioned it, is frustrated by the strange german obsession with recreating a secular religion to replace the devotion of the catholic church. It’s in everything they do. It’s also why they’re the most moral people on earth most of the time. So this remains one of my most frustrating problems: the germans have pretty much always ‘been right’, throughout all of history. And I know why (customary law). Am I right that we must create this formal law, but that we must also produce a secular political religion on top? NS won the 20th right? I mean, that’s what China is practicing, and that’s what Russia wants to practice – if we’d let them. Democracy failed as always. Representative democracy failed as always. and the only decent countries are those with intact monarchies, or politicians who in practice act as monarchs rather than CEO’s. Now. I prefer a monarchy, under our traditional rule of law of sovereignty and reciprocity, with the purpose of the government the intergenerational persistence of family and nation. Where the monarchy appoints a cabinet but in english fashion, a jury of the people (or multiple houses acting as juries) approve or veto requests from the cabinet, which are all to be structured as contracts of the commons. This depoliticizes society, which has been a catastrophe for western civlization. There is precious little evidence that political competition does anything except undermine the nation. And by limiting people to voluntary means of cooperating, we deprive them of pursuit of rents. But given our historical mistake of not making the state treasury the bank of the realm, and separating credit to the people, with credit in business and industry, we allowed creation of rents against the people that belong to them in the first place, not to the finance sector. This problem is easily rectified.

  • The National Socialism Question: It Won the 20th Right?

    [I] know history is currently overturning the mythology but I want to address the National Socialist community for a moment, even if it’s politically incorrect for now. My problem with supporting the NS political program at least as the french and italians envisioned it, is frustrated by the strange german obsession with recreating a secular religion to replace the devotion of the catholic church. It’s in everything they do. It’s also why they’re the most moral people on earth most of the time. So this remains one of my most frustrating problems: the germans have pretty much always ‘been right’, throughout all of history. And I know why (customary law). Am I right that we must create this formal law, but that we must also produce a secular political religion on top? NS won the 20th right? I mean, that’s what China is practicing, and that’s what Russia wants to practice – if we’d let them. Democracy failed as always. Representative democracy failed as always. and the only decent countries are those with intact monarchies, or politicians who in practice act as monarchs rather than CEO’s. Now. I prefer a monarchy, under our traditional rule of law of sovereignty and reciprocity, with the purpose of the government the intergenerational persistence of family and nation. Where the monarchy appoints a cabinet but in english fashion, a jury of the people (or multiple houses acting as juries) approve or veto requests from the cabinet, which are all to be structured as contracts of the commons. This depoliticizes society, which has been a catastrophe for western civlization. There is precious little evidence that political competition does anything except undermine the nation. And by limiting people to voluntary means of cooperating, we deprive them of pursuit of rents. But given our historical mistake of not making the state treasury the bank of the realm, and separating credit to the people, with credit in business and industry, we allowed creation of rents against the people that belong to them in the first place, not to the finance sector. This problem is easily rectified.

  • The Great Failure of the 20th

    —“Any ‘new right’ must recognize ancient western liberal tradition of ‘noble individualism’ & liberal education, etc. to avoid throwing it out with the bathwater of ‘egalitarian individualism’, which diverted the liberal idea to modern hedonic socialist ends.”— @demontage2000

    [Y]es, but those are not terms that can be institutionally enforced. Use instead:

    1. Legal: Sovereignty and Reciprocity; Juridical Defense and Jury; Truth before face, Duty before self
    2. Political: Markets before authority.
    3. Aesthetic: Heroism, Excellence, Transcendence

    [pullquote] This inflection and the failure to continue eugenics will be seen in history like the failure of the greeks to bring about the industrial revolution.[/pullquote]

    That the foundation. There is still more. The right loves the feeling of moral righteousness as much as the left loves outrage. But that is why conservative thinkers failed. We must like the founders, but better than they, create institutions and processes that provide shared incentives, not that require shared belief. The left invented desirable denial, sophism and pseudoscience. The postwar right doubled down on moralizing, b/c they were as afraid of admitting western civ is eugenic as the left was of eugenics. It invalidated democracy as national virtue narrative, in addition to the church. This inflection and the failure to continue eugenics will be seen in history like the failure of the greeks to bring about the industrial revolution. It is the basis for all problems of humanity in the post agrarian era. Vast numbers of people and cultures are detrimental to man.