Form: Argument

  • REPEATING – I DON’T HATE ON PEOPLE – THE JQ ANSWERED. (core) Someone just sugges

    REPEATING – I DON’T HATE ON PEOPLE – THE JQ ANSWERED.

    (core)

    Someone just suggested I reiterate. I don’t do hate on people, but on ideas.

    (Although I do a lot of anger and frustration, because I don’t suffer fools, sophists, supernaturalists, or the intellectually dishonest.)

    0. Propertarianism is a social science written in the grammars of law and economics. The product of that work is universal like all sciences. Any people can use it. It is easier for our people to use it because we have higher trust, lower corruption, and more experience under empirical truth and rule of law, because we have been a middle class or middle class organized polity for longer than all other peoples.

    1. I view the Ashkenazim as ‘ours’ – genetically they are half ours, and we’ve “bought and paid for their inclusion” in our polity so to speak over the centuries – at the costs of tens of millions of lives, vast abuse by extreme usury, undermining of every one of our nations, and cultures, and much of our great civil wars.

    2. But I view their problem as ours – our failure to adapt the law to prohibit parasitism upon the commons, false promise and baiting in to moral hazard, and the use of pilpul and critique, including the defense of all of the above by GSRRM.

    3. I view the problem of this kind behavior as relatively easily solved by law – law which I have produced, by accident really, as a byproduct of attempting to explain our own group strategy in scientific terms.

    4. I view the ending of the malincentives of the industries in which they employ false promise, baiting into hazard, pilpul, critique, and GSRRM resulting in continuous undermining of our civlization as relatively easy – using the law I have produced.

    5. I view restoring our high trust society, the civil society, the family, and the market between men and women, definancializing our society, depoliticizing it, de-programming it, cleaning the academy, the media, the government, and business, finance, economics, and law, of this behavior relatively easy – using the law I have produced.

    I DON’T AVOID THE QUESTION – I SHOW YOU THE MIRROR

    So, I don’t avoid the JQ. I explain it. I answer it. I say how to productively solve it. And I do it without hating on anything except our traditional differences in group competition that like all differences must be ameliorated by incremental suppression of novel means of parasitism, by the incremental evolution of the common law of tort.

    IS THIS A CIVNAT POSITION?

    Well, I write LAW. Whatever government you want to produce, whether nationalist, civic nationalist, or globalist, and no matter what economic model you may want to produce, you can do it with P-LAW as long as you do it truthfully and transparently, without fictionalisms, lying, and GSRRM. So it’s an ethno nationalist, civic nationalist, or globalist position.

    WHAT ABOUT ETHNOCENTRISM?

    My position is scientific: (a) ethnocentrism is always and everywhere the optimum group strategy, (b) it is the optimum international order always and everywhere (c) scale is only valuable for (i) suicide by debt expansion, (ii) use of suicide by debt expansion in the production of industrial (Gen 2 and Gen 3) warfare, in an age where hand to hand, and rifle, and mechanized infantry, have been replaced by supersonic autonomous nuclear weaponry – all but eliminating the utility of population and scale from the equation.

    WHAT’S MY PERSONAL OPINION?

    If you want my opinion (i) we are (at least our productive classes) incompatible with peoples who have practiced less self domestication (lower class size reduction, and neotonic evolution) without tragic cost to our future, to ourselves, and to our ancestors (ii) I ‘demand’ ethnocentric polity and (ii) no people or group of people have the right to deny it without conducting genocide, for which genocide is the only possible reciprocity. (iiii) I am willing to demand restitution for past and present lifetime crimes by those that attempt to make that decision for me and mine.

    PRODUCE INCENTIVES BY LAW – THE REST WILL FOLLOW.

    There are no other people other than east asians that are sufficiently compatible with us because they are the only other people more self-domesticated than we are. And there is no need for population, particularly underclass population, in an era where labor is no longer competitive in the international market therefore producing a deadweight cost burden on us for eternity.

    YOU DON”T NEED TO “BELIEVE” THE LAW

    People don’t have to believe in or agree with the Law. They just need to avoid it. They don’t need to be trained. Or educated. Incentives ripple through the economy and polity almost instantaneously. All that is required is incentive to report violations, and any violation of reciprocity that exposes anyone to risk provides incentive.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-23 11:18:00 UTC

  • PROPERTY – FOR THE 1000TH TIME (Not going to repeat every single refutation here

    PROPERTY – FOR THE 1000TH TIME

    (Not going to repeat every single refutation here. If you encounter one where you think you ‘got me’ it won’t happen. sorry. Just ask how we handle it.)

    ;

    DEMAND FOR POSSESSION, PROPERTY, PROPERTY RIGHTS.

    1) Cooperation provides disproportionate returns necessary for survival

    2) Division of labor multiplies disproportionate returns on cooperation.

    3) Reciprocity incentivizes cooperation. Cheating disincentivizes cooperation.

    4) Humans engage in both retaliation, and altruistic (costly) punishment of cheaters in order to preserve the disproportionate returns on cooperation and cooperation at scale.

    5) Morality consists of reciprocity within the local limits of proportionality. Man is amoral and acts in hist interests it is just nearly always in his better long term interests to act morally.

    6) Law evolved to prevent retaliation cycles, to standardize means of conflict resolution, to maintain maximum returns for the majority of the polity, and to increase the revenues of taxing authorities.

    7) Law uses a single measure: demonstrated investment which we call interests or ‘property’ to resolve conflicts and preserve the peace (returns on cooperation), and a single test: reciprocity. Ths law is called ‘tort’ or ‘natural law’.

    8) Law evolves through the continuous evolutionary suppression of violations of reciprocity, through the continuous discovery of findings of law. It is a purely empirical process.

    9) All social science can be expressed in terms of identification, acquisition, transformation, transfer, consumption, and loss of interests in property.

    10) All human cognition can be expressed as reward system responses to that same identification, acquisition, transformation, transfer, consumption, and loss of interests in property.

    THEREFORE;

    Ergo PROPERTARIANISM consist of a universal language of linguistic, psychological, and social sciences that makes use of a standard of measure we commonly call property.

    WHEREAS;

    “Property” refers to:

    1) MEASUREMENT: A category of measurements, within that category we call weights and measures, that provides commensurability and therefore decidability, over the use of all possible human interests, in matters of conflict over those interests, where those interests satisfy any demonstrated human demand.

    AND WHERE;

    Property consists in that series:

    1) POSSESSION(IN FACT): That which I have acted to prevent others from consumption or use.

    2) PROPERTY(NORMATIVE: That which you and I agree not to use or consume from one another.

    3) PROPERTY RIGHTS(INSURED): that which a third party will insure we do not use or consume from one another.

    AND WHERE;

    Rights include no less than:

    1) Constituo – Homesteading: Convert into property through bearing a cost of transformation.

    2) Transitus – Transit: passage through 3d space.

    3) Usus – Use: setting up a stall.

    4) Fructus – Fruits: (blackberries, wood, profits)

    5) Mancipio – Emancipation: (sale, transfer)

    6) Abusus – Abuse: (Consumption or Destruction) Opposite of Constituo.

    AND WHERE;

    Property includes any INTEREST we observe by:

    1) DEFENSE: Men are willing to defend with violence

    2) INVESTMENT: Have a demonstrable investment in

    3) NON-IMPOSITION: Acquired that investment without imposing a cost on others. (via john Zebley)

    WHERE Interests are demonstrated by:

    EITHER

    … 0) Origination (Homesteading, “Constituo”)

    OR

    … 1) Productive (no blackmail etc)

    … 2) Fully informed (no asymmetric knowledge)

    … 3) Warrantied (responsible fo asymmetric knowledge)

    … 4) Voluntary transfer (non coercive)

    AND IN BOTH CASES, WHERE

    … 5) Such action is free of violation of the same by externality. (unharmful)

    AND WHERE;

    Man demonstrates interest and defends the following categories of his means of production:

    1) MEANS OF PRODUCTION OF EXISTENCE

    Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”

    – Physical Body

    – Actions and Time

    – Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.

    – Knowledge ties (skills, crafts)

    – Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.

    AND;

    2) MEANS OF PRODUCTION OF REPRODUCTION

    Means of Reproduction: “relationships with others and tools of relationships upon which we reciprocally depend.”

    – Mates (access to sex/reproduction)

    – Children (genetic reproduction)

    – Familial Relations (security)

    – Consanguineous Relations (tribal and family ties)

    – Racial property (racial ties)

    – Status and Class (reputation)

    AND;

    3). MEANS OF PRIVATE PRODUCTION

    Relational Property

    – Non-Familial Relations (utility)

    – Organizational ties (work)

    Cooperative Property

    – Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)

    Artificial Property

    – Monopoly Property such as intellectual property. (grants of limited monopoly within a geography)

    – Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).

    AND;

    4). MEANS OF COMMONS PRODUCTION

    (Community) Property

    – Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”

    – Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price. The costs are subjective and consists of forgone opportunities.

    – Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws. Formal institutional property is easy to price. costs are visible. And the productivity of the social order is at least marginally measurable.

    – Territory and attendant resources.

    —-END—


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 16:06:00 UTC

  • Crossing the Line Into Legally Actionable

    [L]et’s get something straight. Attack my ideas – please. That’s the only purpose of open discourse. Attack my intellectual ability – fine, I err like everyone else. Attack my character, well I don’t claim to be a person of good character – I’ve got my own piles of mistakes and guilt – I just claim I am correct. Attack my personality – well, I incite that behavior on purpose and it’s good marketing. But attack my biz, or make up nonsense about me that could affect my biz, then try to remember that while not a lawyer, I am a student of, theorist of, and teacher of the law, and can hire practicing lawyers, and it costs me very little time and effort to use the courts for their intended purpose. So far, in the past two weeks, I have a stalker, two actionable claims against the business, and an actionable claim against individuals. At the very least, it will silence you, put you at risk for future silencing, give me and counsel access to your personal life including your digital information, and cost you money. You don’t have to win an action to cost someone money. The process itself is extremely expensive. I’m a grown up. I’ve lived in the grownup world. I’ve spent unimaginable amounts of time in litigation as a cost of doing business. The online right is full of men who have little such experience or achievement. I understand that this means you’re ignorant of such things. So fair warning. I love litigation more than I love sh-t talking with you, argument, and competing in biz. So let’s stick to criticizing my ideas, intellect, and personality in good ‘online’ fashion. I enjoy locker room criticism like anyone else. I enjoy the ‘male means of verbal combat sports’. But signals are signals, online sport is online sport, and money is money, and each requires a different means of defense. So, Zero Tolerance for crossing the line. I don’t do it. Via Reciprocity, don’t do it to me. OK? Good. I’m glad we came to this understanding. Cheers.

  • CROSSING THE LINE INTO LEGALLY ACTIONABLE Let’s get something straight. Attack m

    CROSSING THE LINE INTO LEGALLY ACTIONABLE

    Let’s get something straight. Attack my ideas – please. That’s the only purpose of open discourse. Attack my intellectual ability – fine, I err like everyone else. Attack my character, well I don’t claim to be a person of good character – I’ve got my own piles of mistakes and guilt – I just claim I am correct. Attack my personality – well, I incite that behavior on purpose and it’s good marketing. But attack my biz, or make up nonsense about me that could affect my biz, then try to remember that while not a lawyer, I am a student of, theorist of, and teacher of the law, and can hire practicing lawyers, and it costs me very little time and effort to use the courts for their intended purpose.

    So far, in the past two weeks, I have a stalker, two actionable claims against the business, and an actionable claim against individuals. At the very least, it will silence you, put you at risk for future silencing, give me and counsel access to your personal life including your digital information, and cost you money. You don’t have to win an action to cost someone money. The process itself is extremely expensive.

    I’m a grown up. I’ve lived in the grownup world. I’ve spent unimaginable amounts of time in litigation as a cost of doing business. The online right is full of men who have little such experience or achievement. I understand that this means you’re ignorant of such things. So fair warning. I love litigation more than I love sh-t talking with you, argument, and competing in biz.

    So let’s stick to criticizing my ideas, intellect, and personality in good ‘online’ fashion. I enjoy locker room criticism like anyone else. I enjoy the ‘male means of verbal combat sports’. But signals are signals, online sport is online sport, and money is money, and each requires a different means of defense.

    So, Zero Tolerance for crossing the line. I don’t do it. Via Reciprocity, don’t do it to me. OK? Good. I’m glad we came to this understanding.

    Cheers.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 11:21:00 UTC

  • The rate of productivity under the aryan(indo european) religion and the rate of

    The rate of productivity under the aryan(indo european) religion and the rate of productivity under the abrahamic (afro asiatic) religion is what it is. There is no comparison. The rate of innovation once we exited religious thought is what it is. Abrahamism=Darkness.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-18 14:08:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097498106629898248

    Reply addressees: @shiroe88 @spatiumleo

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097435094925467649


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097435094925467649

  • CAN OUR PEOPLE SURVIVE WHILE ACCOMMODATING CHRISTIANITY? (NO) by Daniel Gurpide

    CAN OUR PEOPLE SURVIVE WHILE ACCOMMODATING CHRISTIANITY? (NO)

    by Daniel Gurpide

    Is it possible to accommodate Christianity once the veil of ignorance has been torn asunder? Is it possible to teach the five core tenets which constitute the ‘optimum group strategy’, discard the rest of the claptrap, and still call that Christianity? Theoretically, yes; in practice, it is as easy as to reinsert a Champagne cork back into the bottle.

    Nowhere are the effects caused by the pursuit of the tenets of Jewish-Christian egalitarianism more existentially dramatic—because it threatens the very survival of the communities concerned—than in the demographic suicide now being committed by the West. The West faces massive Third World immigration, and high fertility rates combined with below-replacement white birth rates. As Lothrop Stoddard feared, a rising tide of colour is swamping the West; and it is guilt about the Third World which is the primary cause of mass immigration into Western lands. Comparison with Japan repays attention, for this Far Eastern country experiences the same economic conditioning as Europe or the United States, but has managed to control migratory fluxes remarkably well.

    Christianity is a derivative, a heresy, from Judaism, but it teaches Europe precisely the opposite lesson as far as ethnocentrism is concerned. In Christianity, European peoples cannot—as a people—have a relation with God: this is for the Jewish people alone. European people can have a relation with God only as individuals. Judaism is a religion for survival in a multicultural society. It is a religion for governing the behaviour of a Jewish minority in the presence of a non-Jewish majority. Christianity, on the other hand, is a religion for governing the behaviour of Christians in a homogeneous Christian society. In a multicultural society it becomes suicidal.

    The original meaning of the Latin word religio—from religare, to tie fast—was never used until Constantinian times to describe the ‘superstitio nova ac malefica’ represented by Christianity and has nothing to do with the metaphysical or fideistic concepts introduced by monotheism. It is simply what binds together the members of a political and ethno-cultural community. As such, religion has two aspects: the myth—the representation that we choose to have of our own past, and more generally of the universe, in relation to the future, the destiny that we want to create; and the rite—the evocation and celebration of our being together with the intention of provoking a general mobilisation of spirits.

    Historical consciousness is also part of human agency. It is time to choose!


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-17 11:08:00 UTC

  • SO IN CLOSING, RETURNING TO THE CENTRAL POINT: METAPHYSICS = SOPHISM OF PSEUDOSC

    SO IN CLOSING, RETURNING TO THE CENTRAL POINT: METAPHYSICS = SOPHISM OF PSEUDOSCIENCE

    Fictions can be used for the purpose of meaning when we cannot model the underlying complexity in mind. Fictions can also be used to deceive.

    —“Max Tegmark says that consciousness is a “new form of matter”

    Theoretical physics is basically just metaphysics.

    Everettian multiverse is basically metaphysics

    Bohmian mechanics is metaphysics because it has unknown variables in the math

    A-theory of time is metaphysics because it needs new physics such as the ether”—

    Yes these are metaphysical statements meaning that they are NONSENSE statements, precisely because there is no discipline of metaphysics, only that category of nonsense we call metaphysics.

    In other words, metaphysics is a name we use for a category of sophism we call pseudoscience. There is neither a discipline (grammar) of pseudoscience nor metaphysics, any more than there is a discipline (grammar) of ghost studies. It is just a name for sophisms of pseudoscience, idealism, and the occult.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-15 18:01:00 UTC

  • They are not wrong. EVERY bit of evidence illustrates quite clearly that (a) eth

    They are not wrong. EVERY bit of evidence illustrates quite clearly that (a) ethnocentrism is the optimum group strategy, (b) nationalism is the optimum political order, and (c) all expansion of semitic and african influence has destroyed every civilization they touched. Period.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-14 17:01:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1096092149689528320

    Reply addressees: @BretWeinstein

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1095413051476533248


    IN REPLY TO:

    @BretWeinstein

    When I say “culture is biological and adaptive” people respond with ‘white nationalists make the same argument’.

    Listen. I’m trying to warn you. It’s urgent: Ethno warriors are products of evolution. They are wrong, but the discussion necessary to see why is becoming impossible.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1095413051476533248

  • “No we don’t. There is no way to describe via current orthodoxy how you are expe

    —“No we don’t. There is no way to describe via current orthodoxy how you are experiencing typing on FB in a non-causal non-evolving domain called objective spacetime geometry.”—

    I can do so in existing language with sufficient precision that further increases in precision will not falsify such a statement (and have). And I know Searle can as well if not Dennett. And this was quite some time ago. I haven’t seen any significant improvement since ’05 in general description. We are simply trying to understand the underlying mechanics and new publications come out almost daily.

    —“There is no way to describe via current orthodoxy how you are experiencing typing on FB in a non-causal non-evolving domain called objective spacetime geometry.”—

    We share experiences all the time. It’s called language. All language is reducible to analogy experience – and has to be. The question is marginal indifference of those experiences since they are always constituted from memory, and while memories are marginally indifferent in composition they very greatly in construction. And that does not mean anything that can be spoken of is marginally different. Just the opposite. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to empathize, sympathize, cooperate, communicate, negotiate, plan, calculate, and compute by the same means. And we can. with just 300 words and time.

    The claim that language cannot be converted to geometry is patently false since I have been involved in doing so for over fifteen years now. We were limited until the current video cards, but we are still limited by board and data bandwidth although this is rapidly decreasing. (We could not obtain funding in the mid 2000’s when we proposed it. it was too early and tenuous but people obtain funding daily at present it’s the hot thing.) As far as I know consciousness proper (not sentience and imitation of consciousness) requires sufficient recursion which is somewhere in the distance due to cost (and possibly heat); the open question is whether it is possible to reason without language and grammar as a proxy for categories of experience. The required mathematical constructs are just manifolds and we are not the only people to have used them and proposed them, and agents to search them. In fact, the only difference between the current vertex based world modeling and what we call ‘meaning’ is extra dimensions. Because the only difference between the existential and experiential is the dimensions possible by our lovely homunculus we call a nervous system.

    Like I said. Phil is dead. It’s been relegated to ‘religion’ in library science and the university for this reason. And when I find a single argument that is not an attempt at deception I will have something to ‘understand’ that I do not now.

    One of our cognitive biases consist in the presumption that when we feel we don’t know something there is much more to be known (mathematics). The converse is that we have overconfidence in the completeness of what we know (economists, and dunning kruger).

    Working in computer science eliminates mathematical idealism. Working with databases eliminates a host of illusions about the complexity of reality as other than variations in language, and working in neural networks eliminates the illusion of ‘complexity’.

    Our imagination is a wonderful machine of free association and we love the daydreaming experience because it stimulates the reward system that seeks opportunities (the undiscovered valley).

    But it is just another recreational drug.

    And we love our self induced recreational drugs.

    And we are easily addicted to them.

    Religion and philosophy more so than literature and science.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-14 11:20:00 UTC

  • IT IS NOT THE LAW, BUT VIOLENCE THAT SAVES US —“Men in power are always gonna

    IT IS NOT THE LAW, BUT VIOLENCE THAT SAVES US

    —“Men in power are always gonna push the envelope to see what they can get away with; and those who invested in their regime are always going to cover for them – at least until it’s no longer profitable for them to do so – and perhaps after that if they have any loyalty or honour. What’s to be done in those cases? I’m curious what your solution is. It seems to me the problem is that men are corruptible, and any system can, and given enough time, will be corrupted by ignoble dishonest men. You’ll have to forgive me, but I’ve lost faith in legal systems, and higher ideals. It seems that all that matters to men is power. The only people who have seem to have any semblance of honour are military folks, which is why militarized fascistic society, where martial virtue is the civil ethic.”—Richard Heathen

    – Violence

    – Organized Violence

    – Law as a proxy for organized violence

    – Politics as a proxy for organized violence at scale

    – Markets as a proxy for universal violence at scale.

    – Knowledge as a proxy for universal violence at scale.

    – Genetic survival by violence and proxies for violence at every scale.

    If the court is restored to common law independence (tort) then the court is just a proxy for violence between those of different physical abilities, but equal rights to property.

    And if the law says men denied the proxy for violence, and licenses violence where such proxy denied, then men will happily use violence rather than court or politics as proxy.

    The only requirement necessary to do so is to restore the militia – most probably in a reform of the regimental system – such that they always have the power to exert violence in the personal and political scale, at personal.

    IT IS NOT THE LAW THAT PROTECTS US BUT THE PERSISTENT MARKET FOR VIOLENCE SERVED ONLY BY THE MARKETS FOR PROXIES FOR VIOLENCE.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-13 09:35:00 UTC