Form: Critique

(FB 1549970958 Timestamp) THOUGHTS ON OTHERS AND THE MOMENT (important read, esp near the end) PETERSON I prefer not to punch on Peterson. I am very critical of his (lame) “Darwinian Truth” (ack). I do like his use of archetypes but not the semitic ‘submission’ despite its utility in therapy of the suffering. I prefer he spend more time on restoring Self Authoring as stoicism (development) rather than self help (correction after the fact). I don’t think he should end his straddling. He makes a sales funnel for us. MOLLY I won’t punch on Molly (although he is not gonna cut it as a philosopher and I wish he’d stop saying that) he is a great teacher, and he opens the sales funnel for us much further. … I disagree that he should move faster with our direction. He has a large audience to move and they trail. … I disagree that I should try to advocate my work on his show, I just feel that I should help his arguments when they are … insufficient (like the taleb issue). WOODS I have never that I know of said anything bad about Woods, although if I recall I’ve pushed back on issues where he is simply wrong. Tom is a good person. And I would love it if he could convince me that the church was not terrible for our people. I don’t follow tom so much as try to understand his rather ‘normie’ position in general. MISES INSTITUTE I have a personal mission to end the mises institute and their income stream unless they abandon the rothbardian fraud, and transfer to hayekian thought and western ethics. ROTHBARD, MISES, HOPPE I attacked rothbard, mises and hoppe to reform libertarianism and re-demarcate western libertarianism from semitic libertinism – and do clearly demarcate semitic pilpul, german rationalism, from anglo ratio-empiricism. I use Block (who I personally have affection for) as an example of rothbardian folly because he is the only serious rothbardian advocate of it. STRATEGY My strategy was to undermine jewish libertinism, and restore western soverentarianism(upper), liberty (middle), freedom (lower) so that we libertarians can once again form the intellectual vanguard of the ‘conservative’ (male) western strategy. TALEB I used to support Taleb but now that he’s come out as anti-white I”m going to have to put him on the ‘prosecute’ list. AUGUSTUS I don’t ever disagree with Augustus and like him very much and I like his via positiva as the opposite of my via-negativa. I also prefer his frame of thought because he understands the law so well. TRS I have a friendship with the TRS guys because they were the first people to pay attention to me … and I just like them. I mean, it’s really hard NOT to like them. They’re Hysterical. OTHERWISE I DON’T PAY ATTENTION I don’t pay attention to anyone else. Unless someone swings at me. Really. Unless someone asks me to look at something I don’t. The primary value of others is finding excuses to riff off their thoughts, so that I can illustrate a point, and continue the stream of education I provide to people. It’s this repetition from dozens of different angles, that makes it possible for me to slowly carve away and accumulated error bias and deceit. THE POPULAR CULTURE ISN”T MY TARGET I’m trying to recreate a frankfurt school that is in favor of our people rather than the enemy of our people. And I am pretty close to doing it. WIth these people we can easily saturate the informational commons with our arguments. It is very difficult if not impossible to defeat them. Because they expose the methods and consequences of abrahamism and it’s predation upon our people. WHAT I PAY ATTENTION TO Mostly I read the books, papers and blogs in Economics, Social Science, Cognitive Science, Genetics (anthropology), General physical science although I ignore biology and chemistry. Right now is a relatively dead period for economics. Social science continues to reform. CogSci (doesn’t really exist any longer but it is a term of convention now) continues to move rapidly, as does genetics. Physical science is really just improving measurements but we see very little indication of the next revolutionary step. AI is what it is and I think nothing is to be said other than we CAN make moral AI’s with propertarianism, but we cannot stop people from making immoral AI’s unless we hold people, organizations, governments, and nations accountable for doing so. INDIA PROJECT I am currently trying to understand the indian tradition and this turns out to be both interesting and difficult. The problem is finding material in sufficiently scientific form rather than the hindu equivalent of rational philosophy. India might provide an optimum solution of how to evolve a heart tradition. This is because india’s problem is simply demographic. but what passes for religion is not really good for europeans but the structure of it is … amazing. So really we have the european the indian, and confucian traditions to rely on with only the semitic as a threat to the world and mankind. THE CHRISTIANITY PROBLEM Most of the frustration I’m generating at the moment is due to the fact that I am still trying to find a way to accommodate the existing christians, and it appears that I have discovered the only possible solution because there is no direct solution under natural law (truth). It’s harder for christians in the first place, and harder for christians who stumble upon this phase of my work. Because they don’t understand how I work through criticism. And while I have solved the problem of religion (what generates demand). I just am struggling for a way to accommodate christians without providing an eternal weak point in the law. MY OWN PROBLEM – IN GENERAL It is a well understood phenomenon that overly smart folk cannot imagine the minds of not overly smart folks, and I am guilty always of overestimating the cognitive ability of others. We are all victims of cognitive biases that evolution gave us so that we would live in the illusion of greater similarity than we actually possess. The hard problems were not as hard for me to solve as learning how to communicate them parsimoniously. The hardest problem is not one which we communicate, but one which we intuit. We call this religion although it is more analogous to the “operating system” we install (train into) in our intuitions so that other software “paradigms” are open to understanding, negotiation, cooperation, and performance. But I struggle to understand and to adapt accordingly. It’s just a never ending battle.

(FB 1549970958 Timestamp) THOUGHTS ON OTHERS AND THE MOMENT (important read, esp near the end) PETERSON I prefer not to punch on Peterson. I am very critical of his (lame) “Darwinian Truth” (ack). I do like his use of archetypes but not the semitic ‘submission’ despite its utility in therapy of the suffering. I prefer he spend more time on restoring Self Authoring as stoicism (development) rather than self help (correction after the fact). I don’t think he should end his straddling. He makes a sales funnel for us. MOLLY I won’t punch on Molly (although he is not gonna cut it as a philosopher and I wish he’d stop saying that) he is a great teacher, and he opens the sales funnel for us much further. … I disagree that he should move faster with our direction. He has a large audience to move and they trail. … I disagree that I should try to advocate my work on his show, I just feel that I should help his arguments when they are … insufficient (like the taleb issue). WOODS I have never that I know of said anything bad about Woods, although if I recall I’ve pushed back on issues where he is simply wrong. Tom is a good person. And I would love it if he could convince me that the church was not terrible for our people. I don’t follow tom so much as try to understand his rather ‘normie’ position in general. MISES INSTITUTE I have a personal mission to end the mises institute and their income stream unless they abandon the rothbardian fraud, and transfer to hayekian thought and western ethics. ROTHBARD, MISES, HOPPE I attacked rothbard, mises and hoppe to reform libertarianism and re-demarcate western libertarianism from semitic libertinism – and do clearly demarcate semitic pilpul, german rationalism, from anglo ratio-empiricism. I use Block (who I personally have affection for) as an example of rothbardian folly because he is the only serious rothbardian advocate of it. STRATEGY My strategy was to undermine jewish libertinism, and restore western soverentarianism(upper), liberty (middle), freedom (lower) so that we libertarians can once again form the intellectual vanguard of the ‘conservative’ (male) western strategy. TALEB I used to support Taleb but now that he’s come out as anti-white I”m going to have to put him on the ‘prosecute’ list. AUGUSTUS I don’t ever disagree with Augustus and like him very much and I like his via positiva as the opposite of my via-negativa. I also prefer his frame of thought because he understands the law so well. TRS I have a friendship with the TRS guys because they were the first people to pay attention to me … and I just like them. I mean, it’s really hard NOT to like them. They’re Hysterical. OTHERWISE I DON’T PAY ATTENTION I don’t pay attention to anyone else. Unless someone swings at me. Really. Unless someone asks me to look at something I don’t. The primary value of others is finding excuses to riff off their thoughts, so that I can illustrate a point, and continue the stream of education I provide to people. It’s this repetition from dozens of different angles, that makes it possible for me to slowly carve away and accumulated error bias and deceit. THE POPULAR CULTURE ISN”T MY TARGET I’m trying to recreate a frankfurt school that is in favor of our people rather than the enemy of our people. And I am pretty close to doing it. WIth these people we can easily saturate the informational commons with our arguments. It is very difficult if not impossible to defeat them. Because they expose the methods and consequences of abrahamism and it’s predation upon our people. WHAT I PAY ATTENTION TO Mostly I read the books, papers and blogs in Economics, Social Science, Cognitive Science, Genetics (anthropology), General physical science although I ignore biology and chemistry. Right now is a relatively dead period for economics. Social science continues to reform. CogSci (doesn’t really exist any longer but it is a term of convention now) continues to move rapidly, as does genetics. Physical science is really just improving measurements but we see very little indication of the next revolutionary step. AI is what it is and I think nothing is to be said other than we CAN make moral AI’s with propertarianism, but we cannot stop people from making immoral AI’s unless we hold people, organizations, governments, and nations accountable for doing so. INDIA PROJECT I am currently trying to understand the indian tradition and this turns out to be both interesting and difficult. The problem is finding material in sufficiently scientific form rather than the hindu equivalent of rational philosophy. India might provide an optimum solution of how to evolve a heart tradition. This is because india’s problem is simply demographic. but what passes for religion is not really good for europeans but the structure of it is … amazing. So really we have the european the indian, and confucian traditions to rely on with only the semitic as a threat to the world and mankind. THE CHRISTIANITY PROBLEM Most of the frustration I’m generating at the moment is due to the fact that I am still trying to find a way to accommodate the existing christians, and it appears that I have discovered the only possible solution because there is no direct solution under natural law (truth). It’s harder for christians in the first place, and harder for christians who stumble upon this phase of my work. Because they don’t understand how I work through criticism. And while I have solved the problem of religion (what generates demand). I just am struggling for a way to accommodate christians without providing an eternal weak point in the law. MY OWN PROBLEM – IN GENERAL It is a well understood phenomenon that overly smart folk cannot imagine the minds of not overly smart folks, and I am guilty always of overestimating the cognitive ability of others. We are all victims of cognitive biases that evolution gave us so that we would live in the illusion of greater similarity than we actually possess. The hard problems were not as hard for me to solve as learning how to communicate them parsimoniously. The hardest problem is not one which we communicate, but one which we intuit. We call this religion although it is more analogous to the “operating system” we install (train into) in our intuitions so that other software “paradigms” are open to understanding, negotiation, cooperation, and performance. But I struggle to understand and to adapt accordingly. It’s just a never ending battle.

(FB 1550006778 Timestamp) Jarrod Woodard Make an argument or admit you can’t. THE ANTI-ROTHBARDIAN CANON. Against Mises Against Rothbard Against Hoppe https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/09/15/the-anti-rothbardian-libertarian-canon/ THE ANTI-UPB EXTENSION OF THE ANTI-ROTHBARDIAN CANON UNIVERSALLY PREFERABLE BEHAVIOR (UPB) Against Molyneux’s Universally Preferable Behavior. Jewish libertarianism (libertinism): voluntarism, plausible deniability, and denial of responsibility for externality. (“Can I get away with this?”) The ethics of the gypsy trader, ghetto, and pale. Jewish law and custom and habit is ‘it only takes two to make a deal” and “us vs them” and “undermining others is heroic”. European libertarianism (Sovereignty): reciprocity, full accounting of responsibility, for internality and externality. (“What can I be prosecuted for trying to get away with?”) The ethics of landholders who are militia and kin. European law and custom is we must limit our actions to internalization of costs, and as such ‘productive, fully informed, warrantied, transfer, free of imposition of costs by externality upon the interests of others. The purpose of law is to prevent low trust, low risk, retaliation cycles, and the feuds, and feuds accumulating in wars that result. The reason we developed the commons, merchatilism, the corporation, and large private corporations and capital markets and high trust and high economic velocity in the west, is because we practiced high trust ethics. The reason jews must live off a host, and muslims cannot build organizations larger than the family except for their dogmatic religion, and as a consequence lived in poverty, is this difference in ethics. Europeans: Truth before face. Muslims: Face before truth. Judaism: neither truth nor face but simple utility. What you and every other libertarian (sucker) falls prey to is the semitic group strategy of baiting in to moral hazard using a half truth that baits your moral intuition into bypassing your critical reason (skepticism, distrust), with horrendous external consequences. This is the strategy of women. Women evolved to bait with promise of verbal attention, support, affection, care, or sex, without delivering on the sex, affection, or care. Women bait men into moral hazard. We call it manipulating but it is just their natural reproductive strategy at work. Women bait each other into moral hazard out of fear of ‘sticking out’ or ‘going against the grain’ thus generating pressure of ostracization. The semitic peoples evolved clannism, low trust, ghetto ethics, and baiting in to moral hazard using religion and intolerance as their group strategy. This is not successful against each other, but it is successful against more advanced (higher trust higher neoteny) people. The abrahamic religions and sophism of the old world and the abrahamic pseudosciences and sophisms of the modern world, all function by the same method of deceit: baiting a sucker into moral hazard, by offer of a discount. Western people are higher trust both genetically (low clannishness) and culturally (christian universalism), and institutionally (involuntary warranty of due diligence in products and services). All I have done is put into law the inability to use thse weapons against our people. Ive ended the ability to use half truths baiting into moral hazard, as a means of lying, in the commons. I finished the law for the age of information.

So yes, there is no material difference between UBP and NAP except the excuse for its construction and the inclusion of the word ‘lying’ in addition to fraud. The ethics of the pale. The ethics of the ghetto The ethics of the bazaar The ethics of those who cannot hold territory. It is still the ethics of poverty. === HAZARD “A tiger trap presents a hazard not only to the tiger, but to man.” 1. In old English law. An unlawful game at dice, those who play at being called “hazardors.” Jacob. 2. In modern law. Any game of chance or wagering. Cheek v. Com., 100 Ky. 1,87 S. W. 152; Graves v. Ford, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 113; Somers v. State, 6 Sneed (Tenn.) 488. 3. In insurance law. The risk, danger, or probability that the event Insured against may happen, varying with the circumstances of the particular case. See State Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 14 Colo. 499, 24 Pac. 883, 20 Am. St. Rep. 281. 4. Moral hazard. In fire insurance. The risk or danger of the destruction of the insured property by fire, as measured by the character and interest of the insured owner, his habits as a prudent and careful man or the reverse, his known integrity or his bad reputation, and the amount of loss he would suffer by the destruction of the property or the gain he would make by suffering it to burn and collecting the insurance. See Syndicate Ins. Co. v. Bohn. 65 Fed. 170. 12 0. O. A. 531, 27 L. R. A. 614. ==== UPB BASED ON THE FOLLOWING PREMISES: We both exist. The senses have the capacity for accuracy. Language has the capacity for meaning. Correction requires universal preferences. An objective methodology exists for separating truth from falsehood. Truth is better than falsehood. Peaceful debating is the best way to resolve disputes. Individuals are responsible for their actions. I present to you the twelve principles that compose the framework of Universally preferable behavior — or, if you want to, a secular theory of morality. If you want to find out whether a moral principle is true, all you have to do is apply them to the moral principle and you’ll know right away: REALITY IS OBJECTIVE AND CONSISTENT. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.” Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.” Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.” “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB). Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.” As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false. Using them, you can verify that the most obvious moral principles are, in fact, obviously true: INITIATING AGGRESSION (USE OF FORCE) IS WRONG. Stealing is wrong. Rape is wrong. Murder is wrong. Fraud is wrong. Lying is wrong.

(FB 1550006778 Timestamp) Jarrod Woodard Make an argument or admit you can’t. THE ANTI-ROTHBARDIAN CANON. Against Mises Against Rothbard Against Hoppe https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/09/15/the-anti-rothbardian-libertarian-canon/ THE ANTI-UPB EXTENSION OF THE ANTI-ROTHBARDIAN CANON UNIVERSALLY PREFERABLE BEHAVIOR (UPB) Against Molyneux’s Universally Preferable Behavior. Jewish libertarianism (libertinism): voluntarism, plausible deniability, and denial of responsibility for externality. (“Can I get away with this?”) The ethics of the gypsy trader, ghetto, and pale. Jewish law and custom and habit is ‘it only takes two to make a deal” and “us vs them” and “undermining others is heroic”. European libertarianism (Sovereignty): reciprocity, full accounting of responsibility, for internality and externality. (“What can I be prosecuted for trying to get away with?”) The ethics of landholders who are militia and kin. European law and custom is we must limit our actions to internalization of costs, and as such ‘productive, fully informed, warrantied, transfer, free of imposition of costs by externality upon the interests of others. The purpose of law is to prevent low trust, low risk, retaliation cycles, and the feuds, and feuds accumulating in wars that result. The reason we developed the commons, merchatilism, the corporation, and large private corporations and capital markets and high trust and high economic velocity in the west, is because we practiced high trust ethics. The reason jews must live off a host, and muslims cannot build organizations larger than the family except for their dogmatic religion, and as a consequence lived in poverty, is this difference in ethics. Europeans: Truth before face. Muslims: Face before truth. Judaism: neither truth nor face but simple utility. What you and every other libertarian (sucker) falls prey to is the semitic group strategy of baiting in to moral hazard using a half truth that baits your moral intuition into bypassing your critical reason (skepticism, distrust), with horrendous external consequences. This is the strategy of women. Women evolved to bait with promise of verbal attention, support, affection, care, or sex, without delivering on the sex, affection, or care. Women bait men into moral hazard. We call it manipulating but it is just their natural reproductive strategy at work. Women bait each other into moral hazard out of fear of ‘sticking out’ or ‘going against the grain’ thus generating pressure of ostracization. The semitic peoples evolved clannism, low trust, ghetto ethics, and baiting in to moral hazard using religion and intolerance as their group strategy. This is not successful against each other, but it is successful against more advanced (higher trust higher neoteny) people. The abrahamic religions and sophism of the old world and the abrahamic pseudosciences and sophisms of the modern world, all function by the same method of deceit: baiting a sucker into moral hazard, by offer of a discount. Western people are higher trust both genetically (low clannishness) and culturally (christian universalism), and institutionally (involuntary warranty of due diligence in products and services). All I have done is put into law the inability to use thse weapons against our people. Ive ended the ability to use half truths baiting into moral hazard, as a means of lying, in the commons. I finished the law for the age of information.

So yes, there is no material difference between UBP and NAP except the excuse for its construction and the inclusion of the word ‘lying’ in addition to fraud. The ethics of the pale. The ethics of the ghetto The ethics of the bazaar The ethics of those who cannot hold territory. It is still the ethics of poverty. === HAZARD “A tiger trap presents a hazard not only to the tiger, but to man.” 1. In old English law. An unlawful game at dice, those who play at being called “hazardors.” Jacob. 2. In modern law. Any game of chance or wagering. Cheek v. Com., 100 Ky. 1,87 S. W. 152; Graves v. Ford, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 113; Somers v. State, 6 Sneed (Tenn.) 488. 3. In insurance law. The risk, danger, or probability that the event Insured against may happen, varying with the circumstances of the particular case. See State Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 14 Colo. 499, 24 Pac. 883, 20 Am. St. Rep. 281. 4. Moral hazard. In fire insurance. The risk or danger of the destruction of the insured property by fire, as measured by the character and interest of the insured owner, his habits as a prudent and careful man or the reverse, his known integrity or his bad reputation, and the amount of loss he would suffer by the destruction of the property or the gain he would make by suffering it to burn and collecting the insurance. See Syndicate Ins. Co. v. Bohn. 65 Fed. 170. 12 0. O. A. 531, 27 L. R. A. 614. ==== UPB BASED ON THE FOLLOWING PREMISES: We both exist. The senses have the capacity for accuracy. Language has the capacity for meaning. Correction requires universal preferences. An objective methodology exists for separating truth from falsehood. Truth is better than falsehood. Peaceful debating is the best way to resolve disputes. Individuals are responsible for their actions. I present to you the twelve principles that compose the framework of Universally preferable behavior — or, if you want to, a secular theory of morality. If you want to find out whether a moral principle is true, all you have to do is apply them to the moral principle and you’ll know right away: REALITY IS OBJECTIVE AND CONSISTENT. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.” Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.” Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.” “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB). Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.” As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false. Using them, you can verify that the most obvious moral principles are, in fact, obviously true: INITIATING AGGRESSION (USE OF FORCE) IS WRONG. Stealing is wrong. Rape is wrong. Murder is wrong. Fraud is wrong. Lying is wrong.