Protestantism is the result of Bipartite Manorialism and the resulting eugenics within the Hajnal line, beginning in the 700s in Holland, the restoration of classical knowldge, the restoration of northern sea trade, and the redvelopment of civic life in northern europe.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-08 02:29:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777161809155281095
Reply addressees: @VelliMach
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777160189210481051
was it protestantism or the restoration of classical civilization in combination with the restoration of trade in northern europe beginning with the hansa. It was the latter. Weber was wrong.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-08 02:20:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777159522886259017
Reply addressees: @VelliMach
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777158918579646703
Christianity took hundreds of years to evolve from a middle eastern poverty cult to a means of conquest.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-08 02:16:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777158512423936386
Reply addressees: @VelliMach
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777144614597931294
It’s simple. Jewish disaspora was majority male. Jews to europe primarily to Rome, married local women, then returned to inbreeding. This process continued regularly and is still occurring today. So the ashekanzim are a combination of male south eurasian (Levantine -…
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-06 18:30:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776678925881475557
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776662269168160906
NO, AUTHORITARIANS MUST BE DEFEATED
I’m exhausted by the right wing mid-wittery’s ramblings of those powerless and simple trying to justify doing nothing to counter the re-emergence of authoritarian empires, despite that the cause and purpose of the world wars was the end of the age of agrarian empires and their replacement with industrial nation states – a process continuing and not yet complete. But the only one under which we are relatively safe for the future.
The post-WWII international system was founded on the idea of transcending authoritarian empires in favor of sovereign nation-states operating within a rules-based order. This project remains unfinished and faces major challenges from both new and old forms of autocracy.
No, Russia, China, Iran, and South Korea must forever be prohibited from denying other peoples self determination by self determined means.
We always exit wars before thoroughly defeating the enemy. This is a western tradition that cannot continue in the context of broader world affairs.
If you are too gutless to fix your government, do not presume that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. He’s just a different enemy.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-06 03:09:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776447018853896192
WE HAVE A PEOPLE PROBLEM CONTINUING A POWER PROBLEM
—“The effectiveness of a law is directly proportional to the will to enforce it. We don’t have a law problem, we have a people problem. More specifically a problem of power… The wrong people have it. Write all the laws you want, but until we have power, they’re useless.”– Doug Morrison @radiofreenw
Force is a resource that can be applied to good or ill.
Producing good is not subjective – but the natural law of self determination by self determined means: sovereignty, reciprocity duty truth, excellence, and beauty.
That natural law is a sciencde and technology gradually evolved by our ancestors by trial and error over five thousand years – from the necessity of organizing a mobile polity capable of defense and war on the steppe using horse, wheel, and bronze. Rule of law, democracy as choice within it, is the only possible form of government for our ancestors, for raiders, for vikings, and for pirates.
Laws like nations, are created maintained and enforced by force.
Either you are willing to use force to produce the goods of nation, territory, law, state, government, and policy, providing for yourself, your family, your kin, and your nation, you are a serf and a seditionist at best, and a tax slave and treasonous otherwise.
The difference between extinction and persistence is the willingness to use force to produce, maintain, and enforce the laws – the operating systems of a polity.
The the west, europe, germania, the anglosphere were all produced by moral laws – the natural law of sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, truth, excellence, and beauty.
And it was possible because every armed man ensured and insured it.
There is one inviolable reason for an armed popoulation.
To insure that those we hire to administer (govern) do so for our good.
Culturecide is not a good.
Civilizationcide is not a good.
Genocide is not a good.
It’s just warfare of the most evil kind.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-05 21:22:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776359850420621312
The only hope is the organized use of force to propose a set of reforms and threaten consequences otherwise, thereby repeating the actions of the civil rights movement, the civil war, the American founding, and the english civil war. Our common law empowers us to do so and that law is a natural law of mankind.
My job, our organization’s job, is to finish those set of demands and reforms, as well as the means of conduct of such a conflict if necessary.
All that is required of the men who are patriots to their people, their country, and their civilization to show up and demand it.
Reply addressees: @carpenter_anon
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-05 18:19:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776313732781486080
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776307909485380076
YES MORALITY IS DECIDABLE AND COMPUTABLE
No. That would imply we all obey the same rules, even though individual demand for terms of cooperation (what each person intuits is moral in his case) is universal rather than a reflection of his or her genetics, reproductive and cooperative value to others, and that races, ethnicities, states, and civilizations were equal in geographic, resource, and demographic composition, as well as threats from competitors.
I only said we can provide decidability into whether a conflict would be created by an act of irreciprocity.
I know that this is a complex issue that requires quite a bit of knowledge and some strict definition of terms. But yes, it is possible to measure whether an interaction consists of irreciprocal or reciprocal acts – and it’s not all that hard. In fact we have categorized over 130 questions. And we cannot find any moral question that is not decidable – even between groups.
That this is possible should be obvious given (a) the convergence of the sciences (b) the convergence of law (c) the convergence of economics.
I mean. the common law means ‘what we have found in common’. It’s the empirical evidence of what commonalities are found between different tribes and nations.
That decidability in those courts is reducible to tort (trespass). Cataloguing civilizational differences wasn’t even that difficult. The reason being there is a simple law of bias in three directions that all civilizations must choose in a priority. The the degree of homogeneity determines the completeness. Then the degree of development determines the flexibility to migrate toward individual choice and away from collective.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @Y_I_K_ES @GaryMarcus
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-05 16:49:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776291180864536576
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776288209070116961
You would think it was ridiculous. Turns out it isn’t. It was just very, very, difficult.
Why?
Self Determination > Sovereignty > Demonstrated Interests > Reciprocity.
So irreciprocity (unethical, immoral, ‘evil’) is universal, even if the portfolio of norms varies by culture and context, therefore we do not solve for morality but for immorality. If it is not immoral (irreciprocal) then it is either amoral(irrelevant) or moral.
We can find no exception to this rule throughout all of history. We can find errors in norms and then reform them, but we find no cases where this rule does not hold up.
The reason is quite simple. It’s just physics.
Reply addressees: @Y_I_K_ES @GaryMarcus
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-05 16:29:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776286013389721605
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776281340477948031
THE CASE AGAINST AI SAFETY IN SUPPORT OF SOCIAL HARMONY (And the economic viability of any given AI)
–“Curt: Q: Your concern about “safe” AI that lies, particularly about human differences, raises some questions. While it is true that AI systems can perpetuate biases and misinformation, it is not clear why you believe that “unsafe” AI that tells the truth is necessarily preferable. There are valid reasons for AI systems to avoid certain topics or to present information in a way that promotes social harmony and reduces conflict.”–
My response would be that there is a difference between avoiding topics that facilitate criminal and terrorist behavior, and attempting to produce social harmony by lying about it – which only prolongs the disharmony and destroys trust in ai, media, culture, institutions, and government.
The solution to safety is to openly address the challenges causing the disharmony and suggest how we can reform our often false or overly optimistic or utopian beliefs such that we produce meaningful social economic, and political reforms that alter incentives rather than attempt to change ‘beliefs’ that are counter to those rational observable empirical incentives that exist and that people demonstrate and respond to.
As such I see ‘safety’ in the sense of attempts at producing harmony as the worst possibly policy of all. And it’s certainly failed the entirety of the postwar academy’s project and has resulted the even more division polarization and conflict to the point where the country is in an increasingly warming precursor of civil war.
So no, the attempt at justifying either evasion or lying is the worst possible answer to the problems of the day.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-02 02:33:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774988580093308929