Apr 15, 2020, 7:05 PM 1) Continuing my criticism: You notice that Erice is GSRRM’ing all day long, but he’s not proposing an alternative model. Not how to create the research economy. Now how to reform the academy. He hasn’t provided enough a solution that’s strong enough to falsify the existing body of work. All he’s doing is GSRRM. And he pulls entertaining pseudo-intellectual analogy that makes a good story out of his hat rather than produce solutions open to criticism. 2) He goes after Lisi who took a different strategy and at least provided one output: candidates. I don’t see an output here. I see someone hinting at an avenue he wants other men to investigate? 3) Eric’s Attempt at description Two Models GR=General Relativity, . SM=Standard Model Four forces. One Gravitational, three not: 1) photons, 2) gluons and 3) intermediate vector Bosons. Then Matter. GR = Pride of place to gravity. SM = The other three of the four forces shine. photons, gluons and intermediate vector Bosons Take a manifold … (explains a manifold as a workspace in some geometry or other)… then goes off the rails again. Tired. Either you can construct an operational argument or you can’t. Mathematics is a trivial logic that because it is one dimensional (positional) is so simple that we can use it to describe any set of constant referents in constant relation independent of scale. All this childish digression into cartoons is self congratulatory nonsense. Either make the argument or don’t. And yes, it can be made in ordinary language because there is nothing that can be said in mathematics that cannot be said in ordinary, operational language, albeit with effort. 4) Well done on Gauge Theory: that is the best most accurate most parsimonious definition of gauge theory. To construct an operational argument, next describe Arithmetic > Accounting > Geometry > Calculus > Gauge Theory > Schrodinger > Weyl > Dirac > Yang-Mills-Maxwell > Lagrangian etc, using the same technique and it’s an obvious progression. I wish he’d do the same for symmetries and lie groups and explain why they’re important (evidence of equilibria). Correct on how the world hasn’t even caught up to the standard model, but then again, it’s not clear the community has either … because without it farther along, it’s still spoken in platonic language like a neo-mysticism just as dozen’s of great mathematicians warned. Regarding Dimensions: always confuses people when we confuse people with the four dimensional world and the forces (dimensions) that influence the points of reference (Positions) in that four dimensional space. As far as we know only three+one dimensions are required to describe a point in space time, but to to describe changes to it can require absurd numbers of dimensions. It’s one of those problems of the grammar of mathematical platonism. We describe space time with four dimensions, and we describe the forces on points in those four dimensions with additional dimensions when we say ‘it has’ vs ‘ we use’. Space and time do not have anything. We describe them with three plus one dimensions. No point that I know of requires more than three. This platonic (supernatural) vocabulary always loses the audience. 5) There is very little difference between strictly constructed law and the mathematics of euclidian geometry other than the far larger number of referents and operations in human behavior, and the far larger number of causal dimensions in mathematics that needn’t be described in human action.. If I can do it in my field Eric can do it in his. I had similar difficulty when I didn’t fully understand the problem. Once you fully understand the problem you should be able to reduce it to operational language (meaning scientific testimony). He doesn’t. He can’t. I have a lifetime of experience with people across the spectrum whether dyslexia or aspergers or anything in between. The fact that these people (myself included) identify patterns of promise does not mean that they are capable of doing anything about it. And so far the sour grapes thing, which I have also for the exact same reason, is.. well… not helping. Public therapy by verbal exegesis tiresome. Listening to his presentation of his theory, I understood his deduction. Until I understand his construction, assuming there is one, then I can’t tell if obsessions with critiques, virtue signaling, and trauma pandering combined with lack of ability to articulate solutions, is cover for lacking solutions. So, I understand administrative skepticism. Conversation ends.
Form: Critique
-
Notes on Eric Weinstein interview:
Apr 15, 2020, 7:05 PM 1) Continuing my criticism: You notice that Erice is GSRRM’ing all day long, but he’s not proposing an alternative model. Not how to create the research economy. Now how to reform the academy. He hasn’t provided enough a solution that’s strong enough to falsify the existing body of work. All he’s doing is GSRRM. And he pulls entertaining pseudo-intellectual analogy that makes a good story out of his hat rather than produce solutions open to criticism. 2) He goes after Lisi who took a different strategy and at least provided one output: candidates. I don’t see an output here. I see someone hinting at an avenue he wants other men to investigate? 3) Eric’s Attempt at description Two Models GR=General Relativity, . SM=Standard Model Four forces. One Gravitational, three not: 1) photons, 2) gluons and 3) intermediate vector Bosons. Then Matter. GR = Pride of place to gravity. SM = The other three of the four forces shine. photons, gluons and intermediate vector Bosons Take a manifold … (explains a manifold as a workspace in some geometry or other)… then goes off the rails again. Tired. Either you can construct an operational argument or you can’t. Mathematics is a trivial logic that because it is one dimensional (positional) is so simple that we can use it to describe any set of constant referents in constant relation independent of scale. All this childish digression into cartoons is self congratulatory nonsense. Either make the argument or don’t. And yes, it can be made in ordinary language because there is nothing that can be said in mathematics that cannot be said in ordinary, operational language, albeit with effort. 4) Well done on Gauge Theory: that is the best most accurate most parsimonious definition of gauge theory. To construct an operational argument, next describe Arithmetic > Accounting > Geometry > Calculus > Gauge Theory > Schrodinger > Weyl > Dirac > Yang-Mills-Maxwell > Lagrangian etc, using the same technique and it’s an obvious progression. I wish he’d do the same for symmetries and lie groups and explain why they’re important (evidence of equilibria). Correct on how the world hasn’t even caught up to the standard model, but then again, it’s not clear the community has either … because without it farther along, it’s still spoken in platonic language like a neo-mysticism just as dozen’s of great mathematicians warned. Regarding Dimensions: always confuses people when we confuse people with the four dimensional world and the forces (dimensions) that influence the points of reference (Positions) in that four dimensional space. As far as we know only three+one dimensions are required to describe a point in space time, but to to describe changes to it can require absurd numbers of dimensions. It’s one of those problems of the grammar of mathematical platonism. We describe space time with four dimensions, and we describe the forces on points in those four dimensions with additional dimensions when we say ‘it has’ vs ‘ we use’. Space and time do not have anything. We describe them with three plus one dimensions. No point that I know of requires more than three. This platonic (supernatural) vocabulary always loses the audience. 5) There is very little difference between strictly constructed law and the mathematics of euclidian geometry other than the far larger number of referents and operations in human behavior, and the far larger number of causal dimensions in mathematics that needn’t be described in human action.. If I can do it in my field Eric can do it in his. I had similar difficulty when I didn’t fully understand the problem. Once you fully understand the problem you should be able to reduce it to operational language (meaning scientific testimony). He doesn’t. He can’t. I have a lifetime of experience with people across the spectrum whether dyslexia or aspergers or anything in between. The fact that these people (myself included) identify patterns of promise does not mean that they are capable of doing anything about it. And so far the sour grapes thing, which I have also for the exact same reason, is.. well… not helping. Public therapy by verbal exegesis tiresome. Listening to his presentation of his theory, I understood his deduction. Until I understand his construction, assuming there is one, then I can’t tell if obsessions with critiques, virtue signaling, and trauma pandering combined with lack of ability to articulate solutions, is cover for lacking solutions. So, I understand administrative skepticism. Conversation ends.
-
The Simple Version of Metaphysics as Addiction
May 3, 2020, 12:22 PM
—“you don’t believe metaphysics is anything other than imagination”—
So you didn’t understand then. You’re another one of the mouth breathers who say “calculus is hard so it must be false”. Here in simple terms for simple folks:
- Language consists of measurements organized into transactions and sets of transactions. We cannot speak in anything other than measurements of sense-perception-auto-association.
We refer to each internally consistent system of measurement as “metaphysics” if we are using platonic (imaginary) vocabulary, and “paradigm” if we are using the descriptive (existential) language paradigm.
There is only one most parsimonious system of measurement of physical, natural, and evolutionary laws of action. That language is what we call the formal(logical), physical(non-sentient), and social (sentient, action) sciences.
All other systems of measurement vary from that most parsimonious paradigm. Each variation from that most parsimonious paradigm produces costly consequences for the individual, those who associate with the individual, the society that is affected by them, and the polity that includes them, and under some conditions the world.
People have explicable incentives for a) varying from that most parsimonious paradigm. b) choosing a fictional narrative (parables, stories, networks of parables and stories (mythologies), as means of decision (choice) making. c) habituating the degree of separation of conflation the parsimonious paradigm (real unknown), experienced (real known) from the fictional paradigm (imagined).
Our brains develop our minds in a predictable hierarchy from the sensory to the physical to the interpersonal to the rational, and the impulsive, normative, and considered, at varying rates. The degree of ‘friction’ due to developmental failures in our ability to learn each step in that hierarchy determines the degree of complexity we use for our ‘resting state’. Some of us more sensory, some more physical, some more imaginary, some more social, and some more rational resting states (our normal). And we are more or less able to express agency, or vulnerable to sedation givne our lack of agency dependent upon that resting state.
We are all subject to involuntary defect (psychosis, schizophrenia), voluntary defect (sedatives, psychedelics stimulants) invent and construct addiction to because cognitive agency is costly in the face of uncertainty, amplified by one’s failures to reduce costs of calculating successful actions, amplified by one’s failures of prediction of outcomes, amplified by one’s competitive failures in the familial, social, economic and political marketplaces, and by amplified others rejection and low status in those marketplaces. The solution of course is to lower one’s demands to suit one’s market value (epicureanism), and to learn to insulate one’s self from market pressures (stoicism, buddhism, christianity). The problem being that most of us maintain biological demand for social interaction and membership so that we seek means of sedation by escape, psychological construction, social construction, or changing our social circumstance, or improving our agency and market value so that we are more competitive.
We differ in cognitive ability, meaning we differ in the dependence upon a) physical sense-perception and auto association b) intuitionistic auto-associative valuation and subsequent emotional response c) prediction of social (empathic/short/interpersonal) and physical (physical/long/political) permutations, d) regulation of those predictions by direction of attention to differing predicted experiences and states, e) agency in selecting which of those regulated predictions we will permute upon in order to produce a desired outcome, f) skill in calculating (imputing, calculating and computing) the means of achieving those ends. Ergo we differ in demand for mindfulness (relief from competitive pressures), and our means of obtaining mindfulness.
The difference in individual family, class, and group ability is not superiority but accumulated defects due to genetic load due to survival of defects under monogamy, familism, pastoralism, agrarianism, industrialism, and lack of selection pressures, combined competing with those who continuously suppress genetic load by continuous selection pressure, which produces evolution of neotonic maturity, rational agency, and calculative ability as a consequence.
We have however discovered the genes for improving heart, muscle, lungs, and remove defects from liver, kidney, and stomach. So it is possible in the future to both add innovations and remove defects. Even if man’s continues dysgenic reproduction means we cannot control negative selection pressures (increasing genetic load) we can still speciate with elites by selective breeding (classes) and by selective genetic manipulation (positive eugenics).
That’s the simple version in bullet points for simple folks.
-
The Simple Version of Metaphysics as Addiction
May 3, 2020, 12:22 PM
—“you don’t believe metaphysics is anything other than imagination”—
So you didn’t understand then. You’re another one of the mouth breathers who say “calculus is hard so it must be false”. Here in simple terms for simple folks:
- Language consists of measurements organized into transactions and sets of transactions. We cannot speak in anything other than measurements of sense-perception-auto-association.
We refer to each internally consistent system of measurement as “metaphysics” if we are using platonic (imaginary) vocabulary, and “paradigm” if we are using the descriptive (existential) language paradigm.
There is only one most parsimonious system of measurement of physical, natural, and evolutionary laws of action. That language is what we call the formal(logical), physical(non-sentient), and social (sentient, action) sciences.
All other systems of measurement vary from that most parsimonious paradigm. Each variation from that most parsimonious paradigm produces costly consequences for the individual, those who associate with the individual, the society that is affected by them, and the polity that includes them, and under some conditions the world.
People have explicable incentives for a) varying from that most parsimonious paradigm. b) choosing a fictional narrative (parables, stories, networks of parables and stories (mythologies), as means of decision (choice) making. c) habituating the degree of separation of conflation the parsimonious paradigm (real unknown), experienced (real known) from the fictional paradigm (imagined).
Our brains develop our minds in a predictable hierarchy from the sensory to the physical to the interpersonal to the rational, and the impulsive, normative, and considered, at varying rates. The degree of ‘friction’ due to developmental failures in our ability to learn each step in that hierarchy determines the degree of complexity we use for our ‘resting state’. Some of us more sensory, some more physical, some more imaginary, some more social, and some more rational resting states (our normal). And we are more or less able to express agency, or vulnerable to sedation givne our lack of agency dependent upon that resting state.
We are all subject to involuntary defect (psychosis, schizophrenia), voluntary defect (sedatives, psychedelics stimulants) invent and construct addiction to because cognitive agency is costly in the face of uncertainty, amplified by one’s failures to reduce costs of calculating successful actions, amplified by one’s failures of prediction of outcomes, amplified by one’s competitive failures in the familial, social, economic and political marketplaces, and by amplified others rejection and low status in those marketplaces. The solution of course is to lower one’s demands to suit one’s market value (epicureanism), and to learn to insulate one’s self from market pressures (stoicism, buddhism, christianity). The problem being that most of us maintain biological demand for social interaction and membership so that we seek means of sedation by escape, psychological construction, social construction, or changing our social circumstance, or improving our agency and market value so that we are more competitive.
We differ in cognitive ability, meaning we differ in the dependence upon a) physical sense-perception and auto association b) intuitionistic auto-associative valuation and subsequent emotional response c) prediction of social (empathic/short/interpersonal) and physical (physical/long/political) permutations, d) regulation of those predictions by direction of attention to differing predicted experiences and states, e) agency in selecting which of those regulated predictions we will permute upon in order to produce a desired outcome, f) skill in calculating (imputing, calculating and computing) the means of achieving those ends. Ergo we differ in demand for mindfulness (relief from competitive pressures), and our means of obtaining mindfulness.
The difference in individual family, class, and group ability is not superiority but accumulated defects due to genetic load due to survival of defects under monogamy, familism, pastoralism, agrarianism, industrialism, and lack of selection pressures, combined competing with those who continuously suppress genetic load by continuous selection pressure, which produces evolution of neotonic maturity, rational agency, and calculative ability as a consequence.
We have however discovered the genes for improving heart, muscle, lungs, and remove defects from liver, kidney, and stomach. So it is possible in the future to both add innovations and remove defects. Even if man’s continues dysgenic reproduction means we cannot control negative selection pressures (increasing genetic load) we can still speciate with elites by selective breeding (classes) and by selective genetic manipulation (positive eugenics).
That’s the simple version in bullet points for simple folks.
-
Canon: Debunking of Marx (the Ordered List)
May 4, 2020, 11:44 AM EUROPEAN PREMISES OF MAN 1) While personality factors are relatively similar between the sexes other than male disagreeablness-domnance-political-physical, and female agreeableness-submission-interpersonal-empathic that the underlying personality facets of each factor differs by sex accordingly 2) that we all vary in the distribution of male and female cognitive biases, but that collectively (in distributions) we cluster in three stereotypical traits: i) the female (socialist) ii)the ascendent male (libertarian), and the established or dominant male (conservative). 3) that nature-nurture debate is over via twin studies and genetic studies, and that 80% of behavior is genetic, and the other 20% is the result of idiosyncratic developmental differences. 4) that intelligence is a personality trait and that it may be indistinguishable from openness to experience, 5) that individuals and groups differer by genetic load (accumulation of errors not of excellences), 6) that the differences between races, subraces, and classes is due largely but not entirely to: … i) the group’s development of neoteny which produces cognitive agency, … ii) the local adaptation to local environmental conditions such as disease gradients in africa, closed group winter living along the ice, time under agrarianism, time under eastern or western manorialism (or worse, under middle east agrarianism) … iii) the group’s genetic load which we express as the ratio of the genetic underclass (those that cannot learn by at least reading), versus those that can learn by reading self study self investigation or self theorizing. 7) that a group’s relative condition is dependent upon the median of the group’s abilities more so than the outliers, 8) that unless a group can organize a pareto hierarchy of voluntary organization of production it cannot compete in the world market for goods services and information and drag the population out of poverty. PREMISES OF EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION 1) Man desires consumption, consumption is increased by opportunity, and opportunity is increased by liberty, but so is irresponsibility. And so is free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, immigration, conversion, conquest, and genocide. 2) The state evolved to incrementally suppress local parasitism decreasing local transaction costs, in exchange for paying taxes to pay the cost of decreasing local transaction costs. This made markets possible where only primitive trade previously existed. 3) Man is amoral by nature, and pragmatic. By the institution of parenting, acculturation, indoctrination, training, laws, restitution, punishment, and prevention we invest in his domestication. 4) Man develops theology, philosophy, ideologies, rationalizations, myths, fantasies, and various other forms of frauds, to attempt to obscure and justify his free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime. 5) In order to produce the suppression of free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime, requires a power law of institutions of prevention, investigation, dispute resolution, prosecution, restitution, punishment and prevention. 6) In order to produce a market requires a pareto distribution of assets, so that the organization of networks in an market can produce a complex division of labor and its returns without which the terms freedom and liberty have no meaning. 7) In order to produce a society that tolerates market competition and the suppression of free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime, requires the resulting distribution of rewards satisfy a marginal nash equilibrium. 8) Given three possible means of coercion: force-defense (Military-police, government), trade-boycott(commerce-law), and advocacy+insurance-undermining+ostracization(social, education, religion), elites will combine to use and misuse these skills in a competition. 9) Given that Man varies greatly from barely human to superhuman in physical, social, and intellectual ability, and sexual, social, economic, political, and military value, and given the power, Pareto, and Nash necessities of distributions, man will sort by value to others by his value in those markets – producing networks of competing and overlapping hierarchies that we call sexual, social, economic, and political class. 10) As such, rule of law and the independent judiciary provide a market for the suppression of not only individuals and groups of individuals, but elites in all three dimensions of elites, such that sovereignty, liberty and freedom are maintained DESPITE the presence of necessary hierarchies. 11) That or individual, familial, clan, tribal, subracial, and racial status in family, clan, class, polity is dependent upon our sexual, social, economic, political, and military market value in competition with those in our polity. 12) That as such classes are the result of sortition by our sexual, social, economic, political, and military a market value to OTHERS. 13) And that due to market sortition, there is little class rotation other than in and out of the middle in both directions. 14) And that the only aggregate difference we can make for teh polity is the reduction of the rates of reproduction of the underclasses as measured by their demonstrated success in the social, economic, political, and military markets for value to one another. 15) And that the current relative condition of the world polities is the result of domestication both in neoteny and in removal of genetic load. 16) And that all groups can transcend by use of soft eugenics limiting the reproduction of the lower classes by the same means. 17) But that cooperation is not an endless good. cooperation is only valuable until it’s not. When it is not then non-cooperation is preferable to cooperation. But non cooperation is only preferable to non predation until it’s not. When it’s not, then predation is preferable to non-cooperation. MARX’S PREMISES (via Hoppe) 1) The history of mankind is the history of class struggles between a ruling class and the exploited. VS: The history of mankind is the creation of cooperation in increasing numbers, to achieve increasing productivity in time, to increase consumption with the same amount of time, despite our vast differences in ability. 2) The ruling class is unified by its position and maximizing its position – change dependent upon whether or not the exploited are aware of their status and united in opposition to exploitation. VS: The ruling class is running a business for profit, and the largest human organizations for the most profit and the most returns, are government, state, and empire. 3) The ruling class organizes the allocation of property necessary to preserve their position. VS: The ruling class can choose between extraction (consumption) for a short time, or capitalization (Saving) for the longer term, and everything in between. 4) The competition within the ruling class generates an expansion of exploitation that is increasingly centralized. VS: Minimizing the number of dividend receiving shareholders in the organization we call the government, state, or empire in exchange for removal of tariffs between governments, states, or empires is profitable. Maximizing the sources of revenues is profitable. All that matters is whether one is achieving a balance between consumption(extraction) and capitalization (savings). 5) This concentration will lead to interstate wars and expansion of exploitative rule. VS: Political warfare, economic warfare, business warfare, social warfare, family conflict are all means of competition that discover optimums by trial and error, and discover failures by trail and error. 6) Economic stagnation and crisis will result making necessary underclass revolt and … etc. VS: Periodically, if capital becomes centralized sufficiently that it is obtaining rents rather than producing returns on investments int he commons, it is necessary to reallocate the capital from rent seeking to productive means regardless of the family, business, industry, society, government, state, or empire it is within. The question is only one of measurement and measurement is possible if not easy. HALF TRUTHS ARE USED TO BAIT INTO HAZARD All of these are half true, but as you can see, they are only half true because they presume the falsehood of the garden of eden in which an invisible god rules rather than men. The organized use of violence permitted the reduction of transaction costs, the expansion of production cycles, and the accumulation of built capital, and the accumulation of commons, in exchange for an alternate organization of these same human built resource and territorial capital. But people weren’t exploited, they were domesticated like all other plants and animals. And they were domesticated by the incremental suppression of local corruption and rent seeking in exchange for central production of commons, and subsequent incentives to corruption. The false presumption is that it is possible to defend an organization of people, production, distribution, and trade without the concentration of forces in the prevention of alternatives. Or that it is possible to produce scale commons without the state. All of these are half true. All of them offer personalize a market necessity, propose a false conflict, a false promise baiting well meaning fools into hazard. The organized use of violence permitted the reduction of transaction costs, the expansion of production cycles, and the accumulation of built capital, and the accumulation of commons, in exchange for an alternate organization of these same human built resource and territorial capital. But people weren’t exploited, they were domesticated like all other plants and animals. And they were domesticated by the incremental suppression of local corruption and rent seeking in exchange for central production of commons, and subsequent incentives to corruption. The false presumption is that it is possible to defend an organization of people, production, distribution, and trade without the concentration of forces in the prevention of alternatives. Or that it is possible to produce scale commons without the state. MARX’S FAILINGS 1) The labor theory of value (debunked) 2) The possibility of economic calculation (debunked) 3) The sufficiency of incentives (debunked) 4) The determination of needs-subsistence vs wants-other than subsistence (lie of suggestion)(debunked) 5) That status hierarchy was not a necessity of survival of the species (debunked) 6) The possibility of ending scarcity (debunked) 7) The inescapability of and incalculability of redistributive choices – rather than “death panels” (debunked) 8) The malleability of human behavior (debunked) 9) a society as a family – rather than a competition (debunked) 10) The exploitation of labor – rather than that labor is the primary beneficiary of capitalism (debunked) 11) The possibility of a worker revolution (debunked) 12) The possibility of the competency of workers in the organization of production distribution and trade (debunked) 13) That man was oppressed – rather than domesticated (debunked) 14) The possibility of suppression of markets of self interests without a totalitarian government to maintain it (debunked) 15) That capitalist countries would cause worker revolution – rather than peasant societies (debunked) 16) The (teleological) prediction that societies would move toward socialism or communism – rather than the opposite (debunked) 17) That socialism to communism could possibly function anywhere – despite all the failed attempts (debunked) 18) The possibility of a stateless social order (the restoration of semitic tribalism under the great empires) – given all of the above (debunked) WHY? 1) Marxism was “built on sand”: a long list of false premises. 2) Marx took smith and ricardo not to incrementally explain but claim solution and to advocate for revolt. 3) Marxism (peasant class – jewish) had a huge impact because it was the competitor to utilitarianism (middle class-british) and social contract theory (working class french), both of which required more developed societies with more middle class talent. CAUSE 1) Marx simply advance the semitic group strategy of the levant, which was the codification of the female strategy against the dominant males, and the slave against the empire: parasitism in exchange for submission, approval, affecting, care, and sex, rather than undermining if needs and wants not satisfied. We do not yet know if this strategy is genetic (that they have reversed or moderated cognitive dimorphism) although it appears to be and persists over outbred generations. Or whether it is cultural or the degree to which is is both. What we do know is that female vs male cognitive bias is genetic in origin and that the ‘stereotypes’ of the genders (at list within a pair of overlapping distributions) are in fact true. 2) —“Marx was trapped in Hebrew prophet mode where only he – the chosen one – had the secret of history and the future. Like a typical Abrahamic folk tale this one has a beginning in innocence (state of nature familial communism) and fall from grace (private property, capitalism) and a redemption and end of history (global communism). Like many things Hebraic it was a beguiling tale to bait people into moral hazard by false pretense of authority and insight, and promise of escape from the constraints of scarcity, voluntary exchange and the reality of distributed information and the consequent necessity of price signals for the sufficiently un-fragile organization of production distribution and trade.”—By Scott De Warren) That’s enough for now.
-
Canon: Debunking of Marx (the Ordered List)
May 4, 2020, 11:44 AM EUROPEAN PREMISES OF MAN 1) While personality factors are relatively similar between the sexes other than male disagreeablness-domnance-political-physical, and female agreeableness-submission-interpersonal-empathic that the underlying personality facets of each factor differs by sex accordingly 2) that we all vary in the distribution of male and female cognitive biases, but that collectively (in distributions) we cluster in three stereotypical traits: i) the female (socialist) ii)the ascendent male (libertarian), and the established or dominant male (conservative). 3) that nature-nurture debate is over via twin studies and genetic studies, and that 80% of behavior is genetic, and the other 20% is the result of idiosyncratic developmental differences. 4) that intelligence is a personality trait and that it may be indistinguishable from openness to experience, 5) that individuals and groups differer by genetic load (accumulation of errors not of excellences), 6) that the differences between races, subraces, and classes is due largely but not entirely to: … i) the group’s development of neoteny which produces cognitive agency, … ii) the local adaptation to local environmental conditions such as disease gradients in africa, closed group winter living along the ice, time under agrarianism, time under eastern or western manorialism (or worse, under middle east agrarianism) … iii) the group’s genetic load which we express as the ratio of the genetic underclass (those that cannot learn by at least reading), versus those that can learn by reading self study self investigation or self theorizing. 7) that a group’s relative condition is dependent upon the median of the group’s abilities more so than the outliers, 8) that unless a group can organize a pareto hierarchy of voluntary organization of production it cannot compete in the world market for goods services and information and drag the population out of poverty. PREMISES OF EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION 1) Man desires consumption, consumption is increased by opportunity, and opportunity is increased by liberty, but so is irresponsibility. And so is free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, immigration, conversion, conquest, and genocide. 2) The state evolved to incrementally suppress local parasitism decreasing local transaction costs, in exchange for paying taxes to pay the cost of decreasing local transaction costs. This made markets possible where only primitive trade previously existed. 3) Man is amoral by nature, and pragmatic. By the institution of parenting, acculturation, indoctrination, training, laws, restitution, punishment, and prevention we invest in his domestication. 4) Man develops theology, philosophy, ideologies, rationalizations, myths, fantasies, and various other forms of frauds, to attempt to obscure and justify his free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime. 5) In order to produce the suppression of free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime, requires a power law of institutions of prevention, investigation, dispute resolution, prosecution, restitution, punishment and prevention. 6) In order to produce a market requires a pareto distribution of assets, so that the organization of networks in an market can produce a complex division of labor and its returns without which the terms freedom and liberty have no meaning. 7) In order to produce a society that tolerates market competition and the suppression of free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime, requires the resulting distribution of rewards satisfy a marginal nash equilibrium. 8) Given three possible means of coercion: force-defense (Military-police, government), trade-boycott(commerce-law), and advocacy+insurance-undermining+ostracization(social, education, religion), elites will combine to use and misuse these skills in a competition. 9) Given that Man varies greatly from barely human to superhuman in physical, social, and intellectual ability, and sexual, social, economic, political, and military value, and given the power, Pareto, and Nash necessities of distributions, man will sort by value to others by his value in those markets – producing networks of competing and overlapping hierarchies that we call sexual, social, economic, and political class. 10) As such, rule of law and the independent judiciary provide a market for the suppression of not only individuals and groups of individuals, but elites in all three dimensions of elites, such that sovereignty, liberty and freedom are maintained DESPITE the presence of necessary hierarchies. 11) That or individual, familial, clan, tribal, subracial, and racial status in family, clan, class, polity is dependent upon our sexual, social, economic, political, and military market value in competition with those in our polity. 12) That as such classes are the result of sortition by our sexual, social, economic, political, and military a market value to OTHERS. 13) And that due to market sortition, there is little class rotation other than in and out of the middle in both directions. 14) And that the only aggregate difference we can make for teh polity is the reduction of the rates of reproduction of the underclasses as measured by their demonstrated success in the social, economic, political, and military markets for value to one another. 15) And that the current relative condition of the world polities is the result of domestication both in neoteny and in removal of genetic load. 16) And that all groups can transcend by use of soft eugenics limiting the reproduction of the lower classes by the same means. 17) But that cooperation is not an endless good. cooperation is only valuable until it’s not. When it is not then non-cooperation is preferable to cooperation. But non cooperation is only preferable to non predation until it’s not. When it’s not, then predation is preferable to non-cooperation. MARX’S PREMISES (via Hoppe) 1) The history of mankind is the history of class struggles between a ruling class and the exploited. VS: The history of mankind is the creation of cooperation in increasing numbers, to achieve increasing productivity in time, to increase consumption with the same amount of time, despite our vast differences in ability. 2) The ruling class is unified by its position and maximizing its position – change dependent upon whether or not the exploited are aware of their status and united in opposition to exploitation. VS: The ruling class is running a business for profit, and the largest human organizations for the most profit and the most returns, are government, state, and empire. 3) The ruling class organizes the allocation of property necessary to preserve their position. VS: The ruling class can choose between extraction (consumption) for a short time, or capitalization (Saving) for the longer term, and everything in between. 4) The competition within the ruling class generates an expansion of exploitation that is increasingly centralized. VS: Minimizing the number of dividend receiving shareholders in the organization we call the government, state, or empire in exchange for removal of tariffs between governments, states, or empires is profitable. Maximizing the sources of revenues is profitable. All that matters is whether one is achieving a balance between consumption(extraction) and capitalization (savings). 5) This concentration will lead to interstate wars and expansion of exploitative rule. VS: Political warfare, economic warfare, business warfare, social warfare, family conflict are all means of competition that discover optimums by trial and error, and discover failures by trail and error. 6) Economic stagnation and crisis will result making necessary underclass revolt and … etc. VS: Periodically, if capital becomes centralized sufficiently that it is obtaining rents rather than producing returns on investments int he commons, it is necessary to reallocate the capital from rent seeking to productive means regardless of the family, business, industry, society, government, state, or empire it is within. The question is only one of measurement and measurement is possible if not easy. HALF TRUTHS ARE USED TO BAIT INTO HAZARD All of these are half true, but as you can see, they are only half true because they presume the falsehood of the garden of eden in which an invisible god rules rather than men. The organized use of violence permitted the reduction of transaction costs, the expansion of production cycles, and the accumulation of built capital, and the accumulation of commons, in exchange for an alternate organization of these same human built resource and territorial capital. But people weren’t exploited, they were domesticated like all other plants and animals. And they were domesticated by the incremental suppression of local corruption and rent seeking in exchange for central production of commons, and subsequent incentives to corruption. The false presumption is that it is possible to defend an organization of people, production, distribution, and trade without the concentration of forces in the prevention of alternatives. Or that it is possible to produce scale commons without the state. All of these are half true. All of them offer personalize a market necessity, propose a false conflict, a false promise baiting well meaning fools into hazard. The organized use of violence permitted the reduction of transaction costs, the expansion of production cycles, and the accumulation of built capital, and the accumulation of commons, in exchange for an alternate organization of these same human built resource and territorial capital. But people weren’t exploited, they were domesticated like all other plants and animals. And they were domesticated by the incremental suppression of local corruption and rent seeking in exchange for central production of commons, and subsequent incentives to corruption. The false presumption is that it is possible to defend an organization of people, production, distribution, and trade without the concentration of forces in the prevention of alternatives. Or that it is possible to produce scale commons without the state. MARX’S FAILINGS 1) The labor theory of value (debunked) 2) The possibility of economic calculation (debunked) 3) The sufficiency of incentives (debunked) 4) The determination of needs-subsistence vs wants-other than subsistence (lie of suggestion)(debunked) 5) That status hierarchy was not a necessity of survival of the species (debunked) 6) The possibility of ending scarcity (debunked) 7) The inescapability of and incalculability of redistributive choices – rather than “death panels” (debunked) 8) The malleability of human behavior (debunked) 9) a society as a family – rather than a competition (debunked) 10) The exploitation of labor – rather than that labor is the primary beneficiary of capitalism (debunked) 11) The possibility of a worker revolution (debunked) 12) The possibility of the competency of workers in the organization of production distribution and trade (debunked) 13) That man was oppressed – rather than domesticated (debunked) 14) The possibility of suppression of markets of self interests without a totalitarian government to maintain it (debunked) 15) That capitalist countries would cause worker revolution – rather than peasant societies (debunked) 16) The (teleological) prediction that societies would move toward socialism or communism – rather than the opposite (debunked) 17) That socialism to communism could possibly function anywhere – despite all the failed attempts (debunked) 18) The possibility of a stateless social order (the restoration of semitic tribalism under the great empires) – given all of the above (debunked) WHY? 1) Marxism was “built on sand”: a long list of false premises. 2) Marx took smith and ricardo not to incrementally explain but claim solution and to advocate for revolt. 3) Marxism (peasant class – jewish) had a huge impact because it was the competitor to utilitarianism (middle class-british) and social contract theory (working class french), both of which required more developed societies with more middle class talent. CAUSE 1) Marx simply advance the semitic group strategy of the levant, which was the codification of the female strategy against the dominant males, and the slave against the empire: parasitism in exchange for submission, approval, affecting, care, and sex, rather than undermining if needs and wants not satisfied. We do not yet know if this strategy is genetic (that they have reversed or moderated cognitive dimorphism) although it appears to be and persists over outbred generations. Or whether it is cultural or the degree to which is is both. What we do know is that female vs male cognitive bias is genetic in origin and that the ‘stereotypes’ of the genders (at list within a pair of overlapping distributions) are in fact true. 2) —“Marx was trapped in Hebrew prophet mode where only he – the chosen one – had the secret of history and the future. Like a typical Abrahamic folk tale this one has a beginning in innocence (state of nature familial communism) and fall from grace (private property, capitalism) and a redemption and end of history (global communism). Like many things Hebraic it was a beguiling tale to bait people into moral hazard by false pretense of authority and insight, and promise of escape from the constraints of scarcity, voluntary exchange and the reality of distributed information and the consequent necessity of price signals for the sufficiently un-fragile organization of production distribution and trade.”—By Scott De Warren) That’s enough for now.
-
A Useful Idiot Illustrates Marxist Pilpul Trying to Retaliate Against My (mainstream) Argument Against Marx
A USEFUL IDIOT ILLUSTRATES MARXIST PILPUL TRYING TO RETALIATE AGAINST MY (MAINSTREAM) ARGUMENT AGAINST MARX Before we begin, if you want to counter a scientific proposition raised from the underlying data you have to address the data. I know the underlying data in most every field other than chemistry and molecular biology (which I consider ‘icky’ subjects ) So as an example if you wanted to counter my arguments on the five factor model, the facet model under it, you could argue the foundation (that it’s top down diagnosis not bottom up) and I would respond with say, the diagrams attached, and show the biological construction of different emotional impulses. If pressed I would explain how different facets would emerge simply by simple differences in developmental connectivity between regions both in utero and during the first two years of development. And I would move from the diagrams to the literature. In other words, as in all things, as a practitioner of operationalism, I would explain the physical construction of behavioral differences in humans from the bottom up. And from there I would link you to the vast literature on the subject which would take you (anyone) somewhere between a year and four years to comprehend. If you questioned it then I would take you to the research on the duplication of human brain functioning in computer science and the differences between what we are able to accomplish in computers, and in what biology can accomplish that computers cant and why. Now, you know, I know the average idiot doesn’t have access to people like me. But I also know that the average idiot has been taught pseudoscience for the past seventy years or more. In the following ‘rebuttal’ from a useful idiot, please note he’s not once used a scientific argument. he’s actually applying sophistry (as if I’m making a rhetorical argument) and applying sophistry (as if I’m making a philosophical argument) to what is a scientific question: “is this from observations sufficient to suppress human tendency to error bias and deceive by due diligence against error base, wishful thinking, fictionalisms and deceits. Is this consistent with realism, naturalism, and operationalism, and is it categorically consistent, internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally constructed, fully accounted, parsimonious, competitive. SUMMARY: (To Lee Meyers) You use the word ‘Vague’ to reverse blame. You use “Suspect” to accuse. You do both to claim I’m vague or ill intentioned when you’re ignorant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. You use your ignorance as the test or measure of deep rich complex scientific literature of which you clearly have no demonstrated knowledge whatsoever. You employ philosophical rationalism that was developed for legal and scriptural interpretation of language, against evidentiary claims – without consciousness of the difference between axiomatic(declared), rational(deduced)), and scientific (laws). In doing so you practice sophistry becuase you aren’t sufficiently cognizant of the misapplication of the method of testing – or if intentional you’re making false claims dependent on others ignorance of your deceit. You cast the foundations of all my statements such as the fact of existential sexes as if they are arbitrary categories of sex preference. You imply that marginal differences and their causes and consequences in individuals and groups are immaterial. You cast a century of economic evidence, decades of rigorous science in psychology, cognitive science, and neurobiology as presumptions from general observation. You pose as if you are more than a petulant schoolchild. You presume that your opinion has value, rather than people like me (us) seek to limit the harm you do to the informational commons with you ignorance and self importance. You do this because you’re operating under the pretense that your approval, or agreement is somehow necessary despite your demonstrated ignorance. And that the collective you have any choice whatsoever if those of us who find you undesirable and disgusting, from separating from you. And you illustrate better than the less articulate but equally ignorant and incompetent why we must separate from you so that the harm you do by your very display, word, deed – even your very existence, can be contained like the biology of plagues, the pseudosciences of marxism, communism, and theology of islam have been contained. CURRENT USEFUL IDIOT: === by: @lee.myers.148 Lee Myers === Man premise objections —“1) Stereotypes are the most accurate measures in the social sciences”— Premise 1 is just false (CD: non-argument) —“2) While personality factors are relatively similar between the sexes other than male disagreeablness-domnance-political-physical, and female agreeableness-submission-interpersonal-empathic that the underlying personality facets of each factor differs by sex accordingly”— Premise 2 is false and subscribed to a completely unjustified normative claim on maleness and Feminity (CD: False. Ascribed to structural and behavioral differences in cognitive development, in the evidentiary record. ) —“3) that we all vary in the distribution of male and female cognitive biases, but that collectively (in distributions) we cluster in three stereotypical traits: i) the female (socialist) ii)the ascendent male (libertarian), and the established or dominant male (conservative).”— Premise 3 again is false, and the typology is not justified or grounded at all. (CD: false it is in fact scientifically grounded in empirical measurements of sex differences and… I’m not sure how you can even disagree with xx xy chromosome differences and their expressions in brain structure.) —“4) that nature-nurture debate is over via twin studies and genetic studies, and that 80% of behavior is genetic, and the other 20% is the result of idiosyncratic developmental differences.”— Premise 4 is not only false, but arrogant and unbecoming of actual scientific discourse. (CD: No argument. Not an argument) —“5) that intelligence is a personality trait and that it may be indistinguishable from openness to experience,”— Premise 5 is vague. (no argument, not an argument. it’s a common question in the literature.) –“6) that individuals and groups differer by genetic load (accumulation of errors not of excellences),”– CD: Premise 6 is incredibly vague and partly incoherent. (It’s a simple statement: look up ‘genetic load’. the lower classes carrier heavier genetic loads (defects). which is rather obvious if you look at photos of large numbers of people.) —“7) that the differences between races, subraces, and classes is due largely but not entirely to: … i) the group’s development of neoteny which produces cognitive agency, … ii) the local adaptation to local environmental conditions such as disease gradients in africa, closed group winter living along the ice, time under agrarianism, time under eastern or western manorialism (or worse, under middle east agrarianism) … iii) the group’s genetic load which we express as the ratio of the genetic underclass (those that cannot learn by at least reading), versus those that can learn by reading self study self investigation or self theorizing.”– Premise 7 is racist, incoherent, not justified or grounded, false and completely unaware of the history of race construction (CD: non argument. false. yes it’s grounded in data. and I am certain I can recount the history of race construction from aristotle to the present, which is why i’m the most citied person on the subject in Quora.) –“8) that a group’s relative condition is dependent upon the median of the group’s abilities more so than the outliers,”– Premise 8 is unfalsifiable and extremely vague and therefor not apt to Popperian-scientific testing. (CD: it’s easily falsifiable. It’s not falsified. There is a whole literature on it. (See IQ and the wealth of nations)) (CD And at present I’m the leading theorist in the completion of the scientific method. and while the subject is over your head because it’s over almost everyone’s head, I’ll debate any philosopher living on the subject and it won’t be a contest.) And that said you clearly don’t know what falsification means in popperian reasoning. —“9) that unless a group can organize a pareto hierarchy of voluntary organization of production it cannot compete in the world market for goods services and information and drag the population out of poverty.”— Premise 9 assumes General Equilibrium and Pareto Optimality holds in the world market as a wealth building mechanism and is a necessary precondition for engagement as such when in fact neither completely hold empirically. (CD It doesn’t assume anything. It’s that pareto identified it a century and a half ago and we can’t find a single counter-example nor rationally explain how alternative is possible, and every attempt at alternatives has failed.) None of these are actual premises for an argument and appear to look like they divine some type of ideal or current humanity, I’m not completely sure, but all around unclear as to why these are premised as such. (CD: you mean you can’t comprehend it? Lack the knowledge to comprehend it? because clearly thousands of others do comprehend it. So why can’t you comprehend it? The premise is pretty simple: man demonstrates all these behaviors – that’s the evidence. Can you counter that these are evidentiary claims? No. you can’t. That’s why you didn’t.
-
A Useful Idiot Illustrates Marxist Pilpul Trying to Retaliate Against My (mainstream) Argument Against Marx
A USEFUL IDIOT ILLUSTRATES MARXIST PILPUL TRYING TO RETALIATE AGAINST MY (MAINSTREAM) ARGUMENT AGAINST MARX Before we begin, if you want to counter a scientific proposition raised from the underlying data you have to address the data. I know the underlying data in most every field other than chemistry and molecular biology (which I consider ‘icky’ subjects ) So as an example if you wanted to counter my arguments on the five factor model, the facet model under it, you could argue the foundation (that it’s top down diagnosis not bottom up) and I would respond with say, the diagrams attached, and show the biological construction of different emotional impulses. If pressed I would explain how different facets would emerge simply by simple differences in developmental connectivity between regions both in utero and during the first two years of development. And I would move from the diagrams to the literature. In other words, as in all things, as a practitioner of operationalism, I would explain the physical construction of behavioral differences in humans from the bottom up. And from there I would link you to the vast literature on the subject which would take you (anyone) somewhere between a year and four years to comprehend. If you questioned it then I would take you to the research on the duplication of human brain functioning in computer science and the differences between what we are able to accomplish in computers, and in what biology can accomplish that computers cant and why. Now, you know, I know the average idiot doesn’t have access to people like me. But I also know that the average idiot has been taught pseudoscience for the past seventy years or more. In the following ‘rebuttal’ from a useful idiot, please note he’s not once used a scientific argument. he’s actually applying sophistry (as if I’m making a rhetorical argument) and applying sophistry (as if I’m making a philosophical argument) to what is a scientific question: “is this from observations sufficient to suppress human tendency to error bias and deceive by due diligence against error base, wishful thinking, fictionalisms and deceits. Is this consistent with realism, naturalism, and operationalism, and is it categorically consistent, internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally constructed, fully accounted, parsimonious, competitive. SUMMARY: (To Lee Meyers) You use the word ‘Vague’ to reverse blame. You use “Suspect” to accuse. You do both to claim I’m vague or ill intentioned when you’re ignorant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. You use your ignorance as the test or measure of deep rich complex scientific literature of which you clearly have no demonstrated knowledge whatsoever. You employ philosophical rationalism that was developed for legal and scriptural interpretation of language, against evidentiary claims – without consciousness of the difference between axiomatic(declared), rational(deduced)), and scientific (laws). In doing so you practice sophistry becuase you aren’t sufficiently cognizant of the misapplication of the method of testing – or if intentional you’re making false claims dependent on others ignorance of your deceit. You cast the foundations of all my statements such as the fact of existential sexes as if they are arbitrary categories of sex preference. You imply that marginal differences and their causes and consequences in individuals and groups are immaterial. You cast a century of economic evidence, decades of rigorous science in psychology, cognitive science, and neurobiology as presumptions from general observation. You pose as if you are more than a petulant schoolchild. You presume that your opinion has value, rather than people like me (us) seek to limit the harm you do to the informational commons with you ignorance and self importance. You do this because you’re operating under the pretense that your approval, or agreement is somehow necessary despite your demonstrated ignorance. And that the collective you have any choice whatsoever if those of us who find you undesirable and disgusting, from separating from you. And you illustrate better than the less articulate but equally ignorant and incompetent why we must separate from you so that the harm you do by your very display, word, deed – even your very existence, can be contained like the biology of plagues, the pseudosciences of marxism, communism, and theology of islam have been contained. CURRENT USEFUL IDIOT: === by: @lee.myers.148 Lee Myers === Man premise objections —“1) Stereotypes are the most accurate measures in the social sciences”— Premise 1 is just false (CD: non-argument) —“2) While personality factors are relatively similar between the sexes other than male disagreeablness-domnance-political-physical, and female agreeableness-submission-interpersonal-empathic that the underlying personality facets of each factor differs by sex accordingly”— Premise 2 is false and subscribed to a completely unjustified normative claim on maleness and Feminity (CD: False. Ascribed to structural and behavioral differences in cognitive development, in the evidentiary record. ) —“3) that we all vary in the distribution of male and female cognitive biases, but that collectively (in distributions) we cluster in three stereotypical traits: i) the female (socialist) ii)the ascendent male (libertarian), and the established or dominant male (conservative).”— Premise 3 again is false, and the typology is not justified or grounded at all. (CD: false it is in fact scientifically grounded in empirical measurements of sex differences and… I’m not sure how you can even disagree with xx xy chromosome differences and their expressions in brain structure.) —“4) that nature-nurture debate is over via twin studies and genetic studies, and that 80% of behavior is genetic, and the other 20% is the result of idiosyncratic developmental differences.”— Premise 4 is not only false, but arrogant and unbecoming of actual scientific discourse. (CD: No argument. Not an argument) —“5) that intelligence is a personality trait and that it may be indistinguishable from openness to experience,”— Premise 5 is vague. (no argument, not an argument. it’s a common question in the literature.) –“6) that individuals and groups differer by genetic load (accumulation of errors not of excellences),”– CD: Premise 6 is incredibly vague and partly incoherent. (It’s a simple statement: look up ‘genetic load’. the lower classes carrier heavier genetic loads (defects). which is rather obvious if you look at photos of large numbers of people.) —“7) that the differences between races, subraces, and classes is due largely but not entirely to: … i) the group’s development of neoteny which produces cognitive agency, … ii) the local adaptation to local environmental conditions such as disease gradients in africa, closed group winter living along the ice, time under agrarianism, time under eastern or western manorialism (or worse, under middle east agrarianism) … iii) the group’s genetic load which we express as the ratio of the genetic underclass (those that cannot learn by at least reading), versus those that can learn by reading self study self investigation or self theorizing.”– Premise 7 is racist, incoherent, not justified or grounded, false and completely unaware of the history of race construction (CD: non argument. false. yes it’s grounded in data. and I am certain I can recount the history of race construction from aristotle to the present, which is why i’m the most citied person on the subject in Quora.) –“8) that a group’s relative condition is dependent upon the median of the group’s abilities more so than the outliers,”– Premise 8 is unfalsifiable and extremely vague and therefor not apt to Popperian-scientific testing. (CD: it’s easily falsifiable. It’s not falsified. There is a whole literature on it. (See IQ and the wealth of nations)) (CD And at present I’m the leading theorist in the completion of the scientific method. and while the subject is over your head because it’s over almost everyone’s head, I’ll debate any philosopher living on the subject and it won’t be a contest.) And that said you clearly don’t know what falsification means in popperian reasoning. —“9) that unless a group can organize a pareto hierarchy of voluntary organization of production it cannot compete in the world market for goods services and information and drag the population out of poverty.”— Premise 9 assumes General Equilibrium and Pareto Optimality holds in the world market as a wealth building mechanism and is a necessary precondition for engagement as such when in fact neither completely hold empirically. (CD It doesn’t assume anything. It’s that pareto identified it a century and a half ago and we can’t find a single counter-example nor rationally explain how alternative is possible, and every attempt at alternatives has failed.) None of these are actual premises for an argument and appear to look like they divine some type of ideal or current humanity, I’m not completely sure, but all around unclear as to why these are premised as such. (CD: you mean you can’t comprehend it? Lack the knowledge to comprehend it? because clearly thousands of others do comprehend it. So why can’t you comprehend it? The premise is pretty simple: man demonstrates all these behaviors – that’s the evidence. Can you counter that these are evidentiary claims? No. you can’t. That’s why you didn’t.
-
Rousseau-Marx were perverts, Epstein-Madoff, and the NYC-Hollywood Self-Indulgen
Rousseau-Marx were perverts, Epstein-Madoff, and the NYC-Hollywood Self-Indulgence, Anti-Western-Excellence as dominance-expression crowd is all perverse. That’s how they War: Undermining by normalization of perversion by baiting into hazard under false promise of null effect.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 17:29:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256999312791404544
Reply addressees: @StefanMolyneux
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256765364609978370
-
RE: MINDFULNESS BY SH-T TALKING VS GSRRM ( In response to this post: ) —“Chris
RE: MINDFULNESS BY SH-T TALKING VS GSRRM
( In response to this post: https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle.personal/posts/272629420801885 )
—“Christians remember all the times you allowed that yes, Christianity at least provides mindfulness. They’re reading this post about shit talking and the penny is going to drop. Some ways of getting an ounce of mindfulness are less costly than others. That’s why some ways need a monopoly and why you’re a blasphemer and The Little Old Lady was right and she didn’t beat you enough as a child and she should definitely make up for lost time. … Not that it will do any good. How am I doing today?”—Daniel Roland Anderson
Well, I read it to the little old lady and it sure made her day. 😉 … You know, you understand what I’m doing. I have no idea how many others understand what I”m doing. But you’re one of the sharper tools in the shed. And I’m not sure the penny is going to drop (they’re going to understand). It would be interesting if they did. Because it would positively select for the best Christians – those who could lead. And because it would mean we could have rational conversations about leading each other’s frames. 😉
—“It’s fun to watch when I can see [what’s going on]—which means I’m not angry anymore. Not really. … But man. That Abrahamic bullshit cost me a lot of time, and has caused some damage to relationships that I had no idea how to avoid and still be the person I think my parents intended to raise. … And this has been very hard for them. … Ok. Maybe I’m still a little angry. 😂🤣😂🤣 Whew. But by the time a man kills all his sacred cows he might be about one lonesome sumbitch. That’s what I think.”—
Oh. An honest man. That’s what will make you lonely. 😉
—“Well, here’s the thing. I’ve got a long free will vs determinism thing going on. And it’s the kind of thorn in the side that bleeds funny sometimes.”—
Truth is costly. Solutions are costly. Leadership is costly. But what we are purchasing the survival of our civilization. So I choose to pay the cost. An I understand that not all can fight this war becasue they cannot bear that cost.
As the bard said: “But the greater share of glory to those of us who do”.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 17:15:00 UTC