Form: Argument

  • A Priest Is the Enemy of Civilization

      I prefer we return to a prohibition on priests, and a requirement that citizens, especially leading citizens, lead the rituals. As far as I know this is the optimum social model and priests are a threat to civilization. I prefer the rotation of ceremony among the population, regardless of age and gender. I prefer the protestant method with a male judge (moderator) and the community ‘speaking their minds’. This produces the optimum debate. The problem with female judges (moderators) is that women (really) cannot divorce themselves sufficiently (produce agency) and this is why men and women eventually prefer working for men whenever there is any differences in the group. I find it almost impossible just to listen to a female judge in court for the same reason I can’t tolerate a female speaker on theoretical instead of empirical (where women excel) content. This is because I am extremely sensitive to logical errors, and ‘cheats’ and women simply cannot reach male levels of speaking the uncomfortable truth regardless of its impact on the dominance hierarchy. And it is this willingness to speak the truth regardless of its impact on the hierarchy, and the risk to one’s self for having said it, that is the origin of the uniqueness of the west. Priests are as evil as pseudoscientists, bureaucracy and democracy. Never again.

  • No Political Parties, or Politicians

    There is no value in a political party under rule of law since there are no political parties. There are no political parties because there are no politicians. There are no politicians because there is nothing for politicians to do. Either return to monarchical decision making. Or direct equi-distributive economic voting. Or direct proportional economic voting. All of which are bound by the limits of the natural law of reciprocity. Ergo, king is bound by contract, and voters cannot but vote for contracts. And only judges discover and make laws. There is no need for politicians when the only purpose of politicians was to solve the problem of distance from one another. This problem no longer exists. Quite contrary to every presumption I had going in, the constitutional monarchies were far better at governing than democracies. I don’t care which model, but representative democracy is the worse possible model.

  • No Political Parties, or Politicians

    There is no value in a political party under rule of law since there are no political parties. There are no political parties because there are no politicians. There are no politicians because there is nothing for politicians to do. Either return to monarchical decision making. Or direct equi-distributive economic voting. Or direct proportional economic voting. All of which are bound by the limits of the natural law of reciprocity. Ergo, king is bound by contract, and voters cannot but vote for contracts. And only judges discover and make laws. There is no need for politicians when the only purpose of politicians was to solve the problem of distance from one another. This problem no longer exists. Quite contrary to every presumption I had going in, the constitutional monarchies were far better at governing than democracies. I don’t care which model, but representative democracy is the worse possible model.

  • Marriage Is Just a Limited Liability Organization

    End community property, alimony, child support, welfare, and end all taxation until one’s retirement is fully funded. At that point marriage is just a limited liability organization. Education loses value after grade six, so mix apprenticeship(work) with two hours of classes, which include accounting, statistics, basic economics and or the sciences and mathematics on the other. and logic and rhetoric.

  • End community property, alimony, child support, welfare, and end all taxation un

    End community property, alimony, child support, welfare, and end all taxation until one’s retirement is fully funded. At that point marriage is just a limited liability organization. Education loses value after grade six, so mix apprenticeship(work) with two hours of classes, which include accounting, statistics, basic economics and or the sciences and mathematics on the other. and logic and rhetoric.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 15:05:00 UTC

  • NO POLITICAL PARTIES, OR POLITICIANS. There is no value in a political party und

    NO POLITICAL PARTIES, OR POLITICIANS.

    There is no value in a political party under rule of law since there are no political parties.

    There are no political parties because there are no politicians.

    There are no politicians because there is nothing for politicians to do.

    Either return to monarchical decision making.

    Or direct equi-distributive economic voting.

    Or direct proportional economic voting.

    All of which are bound by the limits of the natural law of reciprocity.

    Ergo, king is bound by contract, and voters cannot but vote for contracts.

    And only judges discover and make laws.

    There is no need for politicians when the only purpose of politicians was to solve the problem of distance from one another. This problem no longer exists.

    Quite contrary to every presumption I had going in, the constitutional monarchies were far better at governing than democracies.

    I don’t care which model, but representative democracy is the worse possible model.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 10:03:00 UTC

  • The Military Industrial Complex Is a Good Thing.

      —“What’s wrong with the military industrial complex?”—Steve Pender (rhetorical question) Nothing. At it’s very worst it is: (a) the optimum research and development investment, and (b) the optimum means of economic redistribution, (c) the optimum means of producing male investment in the social order, (d) the optimum means of producing male prosociality. (Besides we replaced it with the Cathedral complex and that’s the worst possible of each.)

  • The Military Industrial Complex Is a Good Thing.

      —“What’s wrong with the military industrial complex?”—Steve Pender (rhetorical question) Nothing. At it’s very worst it is: (a) the optimum research and development investment, and (b) the optimum means of economic redistribution, (c) the optimum means of producing male investment in the social order, (d) the optimum means of producing male prosociality. (Besides we replaced it with the Cathedral complex and that’s the worst possible of each.)

  • The Answer to Christianity: Choosing Godhood as Our Own

    . There is good Christianity and bad. There are good christians and bad. This [set of statements] is very good christianity, and I’m not going to criticize good Christians – at least unless good Christians (a) violate natural law (unlikely), or (b) seek to use faith in argument rather than faith in self confirmation (too commonly). Faith is for the faithful, literature for those without faith. Aristotle for those who have no need for, and science and law for those of us who rule and cannot afford it. Render under each, that which is needed by each, and natural law of men, and physical law of science to decide the conflicts between them. My objective is to institutionalize the insights (habits) of christianity in scientific prose, and provide means of ritual mindfulness for those that cannot or will not tolerate ‘magic’. And a set of festivals that all of us chan participate in. Those insights are (a) the daily discipline of personal humility, (b) the elimination of hatred from the human heart, (c) the extension of kinship love to non kin, (d) the exhaustion of personal forgiveness as a means of training the most misguided, and (e) the empiricism of direct, personal charity as a means of achieving, and testing both, and (f) the political intolerance of those who do otherwise, (g) the limiting of government to the natural law of reciprocity leaving only market harmony and charity for the achievement of goods, and (h) surrender of defense and rule to the aristocracy who master in violence what we master in love and charity. And I know that this is the ultimate strategy for optimum human cooperation because science and logic tell me so. There is an ever declining percentage of educated people that find value in the parables of underclass semitic pastoralists, depending on magic and an after life to escape lack of agency in this one, and an ever increasing percentage of people that find value in scientific exposition of the same virtues, and historical and mythical ideas of OUR PEOPLE, for whom their ‘book’ was that of homer (the trials of achilles), the great greek and roman heroes, the carolingian, germanic, arthurian, scandinavian pagan myths, and the REAL accomplishments of OUR people, which begins with the cult of non-submission of those with agency. Just as the cult of submission is the retreat of those lacking it in islam and christianity. There is nothing in the world of faith that is not available to those who practice natural science, natural law, the histories, rituals of self authoring, and the festivals of the heroes and seasons – except a greater need to negotiate between different wants, and greater demand for mindfulness against the saddening, and a greater demand for agency and reason in taking actions in the world. Among the poor, feeble, and lacking agency in the world, christianity is the compromise position between barbarism and science that Augustine intended to make it. And among those who are increasingly joining the prosperous, the able, and those with agency, it is increasingly unnecessary. Among the prosperous, the able, and those with agency, that compromise is harmful. And this is what we have seen. Morality is fully contained in individual sovereignty, physical and law natural law and the markets for cooperation, and exhaustive forgiveness in bringing the immoral into both. The only people that need comforting lies are those that cannot look the only ultimate truth in the face without fear: the universe is a hostile place, we are an nothing but a deterministic accident, and it is we who shall be the gods who transform it into the edent we desire. We must only choose godhood as our own.

  • THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IS A GOOD THING. —“What’s wrong with the milit

    THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IS A GOOD THING.

    —“What’s wrong with the military industrial complex?”—Steve Pender (rhetorical question)

    Nothing. At it’s very worst it is: (a) the optimum research and development investment, and (b) the optimum means of economic redistribution, (c) the optimum means of producing male investment in the social order, (d) the optimum means of producing male prosociality.

    (Besides we replaced it with the Cathedral complex and that’s the worst possible of each.)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-05 10:52:00 UTC