Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • DAVID FRIEDMAN’S BOOK ON LIBERTINE LEGAL SYSTEMS ALL (Feedback) (Joseph Valerius

    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lega…/LegalSystemsContents.htmON DAVID FRIEDMAN’S BOOK ON LIBERTINE LEGAL SYSTEMS

    ALL (Feedback) (Joseph Valerius thanks for inviting me to respond.)

    Just read through these chapters quickly – I know this material already. As usual David’s work is readable and enjoyable. My central criticism is that ‘different from ours’ plus the choice of legal system’s included, implies an arbitrary equality (difference) rather than an honest statement of intent by which these particular legal systems are chosen according to their shared properties.

    1) The list is interesting because it includes so many failed peoples, and does not include many successful peoples. By successful, I mean, those that can hold territory, create their own institutions, and defend them against competitors. Why is it that most of these legal systems could not produce sufficient productivity and as a consequence sufficient investment in the commons to hold territory against competitors?

    2) Why NOT include these systems of law:

    Hammurabi’s Code

    Early Roman Law

    Late (Stoic) Roman Law

    Frankish Law (Saliq Law)

    Germanic and Anglo Saxon Law

    Continental (Napoleonic) Law

    Soviet Law

    International law

    (FWIW: in intelligence gathering and in propaganda production, what is mentioned tells us more about the speaker than what is mentioned. Just as in straw man arguments, we learn more about the speaker from what he avoids speaking of than we do of what he speaks. Just as in marxist propaganda and postmodern propaganda we learn that heaping of undue praise, and straw man arguments as excuses for criticism serve as the principal means of deception by suggestion.) So I don’t like the selection without qualification of its purpose: what did so many legal codes fail, and why did others succeed?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_legal_codes

    3) The list is even more interesting if we look at which produced high trust societies – where high trust is the most expensive commons, which is why no one outside of the Hajnal Line produces it. Societies that progressed through the agrarian phase and succeeded in holding territory emerged with superior demographics through the reduction of the scale of the underclass. Societies that did not progress through holding territory and the agrarian phase either failed to develop truth, reason, technology, science, formal institutions, and particularly institutions of competitive law.

    4) The Han are the largest homogenous ethnic group, that other than northern europeans, has held the same territory, for the longest period of time. There is a reason that history of only two peoples is worthy of study: the Han and the European: the han could not produce trust but they held territory, produced reason and technology. The Europeans held territory less effectively (particularly against islamic invasion), produced reason, trust, technology and science.

    5) Laws express a group’s evolutionary strategy both in-group and out-group. And it is trivially easy to judge a set of laws by their survival from competition – their evolutionary success or failure.

    6) There is only one universal criteria of decidability in matters of conflict: non imposition of costs against that which others have born costs to obtain an interest: reciprocity. And that is how international law functions today.

    The origin of all legal codes that I know of is the need to suppress retaliation cycles (feuds) in eras where property was largely insured by kin (brothers, uncles, cousins), and where crimes and punishments (or restitutions) were asymmetric, which led to exacerbation of retaliation cycles. So if we look at early legal codes, they emphasize not rules, but standardization of punishments.

    As legal codes mature, they include standardization of crimes, not just punishments. in fact, the word ‘liberty’ refers to the permission to retain local law and custom independent from the ruling law (territorial defense and taxation).

    As legal codes mature further, they include weights and measures (prohibitions against metric fraud). And further as they mature they include prohibitions against verbal fraud. At present for example, we lack prohibitions on a great deal of verbal fraud using pseudoscience (we call this set of frauds economics and financialization). But nearly all the social sciences consist largely of pseudoscientific frauds yet to be prohibited.

    As legal codes mature further they include prohibitions on externalities. And if we go through david’s list, it’s easy to see which of these legal codes prohibits externalities, and which LICENSE or actually encourage externalities. (poly-logical, poly-ethical) legal codes in particular. (Jewish and Islamic ethics in particular).

    The most interesting is the chinese structure for families (it’s a crime to report on your parents) vs the soviet (it’s a requirement to report on them). Or the class based systems where punishments are progressive as are taxes today. Or the egalitarian systems that prohibit differences by class or group.

    In large part these different ethics tell us a great deal about social orders, and the group’s evolutionary strategy. (Western market model is to profit from domestication. Han model is just a large extended family with identical interests. )

    7) We can judge (measure) the difference between legal systems by the methods of parasitism (ir-reciprocity) that they preserve. What kinds of parasitism do each of the listed legal systems preserve? Why did they preserve it. So it is possible to objectively compare the morality or immorality of different cultural systems by their judicial method and content.

    8) Diversity is bad – particularly ethnic diversity. High trust is good. Empirical law is good. Empirical law requires a method of decidability. The only universal method of decidability is perfect reciprocity. Perfect reciprocity is only possible under non-imposition of costs upon that which others have born costs to obtain an interest.

    9) The roman failure is reducible to the underinvestment in the Great Wall Against The Steppe and Desert Peoples that the chinese had managed to construct, and attempts to integrate undomesticated (inferior) peoples into the empire. Or better said: empires leave behind monuments, but cause the death of their originators. As such, as the Han and Medieval Europeans demonstrated, the optimum strategy is nationalism.

    10) Our lesson is that while conquest is profitable in the short term, the cost of colonialism is always higher in the long term than the benefit. And that the success of the only people who rely on fully on markets (europeans), was possibly only where they eradicated prior peoples. The fact that this is obvious from any study of evolutionary biology should not surprise us.

    Worse, wherever europeans (light haired european, dark haired iranian) expanded, wherever they integrated with the locals they were destroyed. They survived only in Europe and Persia. And were (it appears) eradicated by the arab conquest. Those that made it to india are simply outbred and gone.

    Our lessons are the trust of the europeans by use of militia and reason, and the security of the Chinese through isolation and reason.

    11) At present the only matters of contention in legal theory are:

    a) whether democratic polities should be permitted to construct legislation that circumvents reciprocity, or merely agree upon binding contracts within the limits of reciprocity.

    b) whether to contain the law to strict construction, textualism, and original intent (all of which may mean the same thing), or whether to allow judges discretionary control over the law.

    c) when the law is unclear whether to demand clarity from the legislature, or whether judges decide and compensate for weaknesses of the legislature.

    d) whether or not to rely on the common law’s argument to first principles and judicial review, or whether to rely on the continental law establishing intermediary first principles, regardless of judicial review.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 09:18:00 UTC

  • (Um. Don’t get me wrong. Hoppe’s APPLIED ethics of property is just about flawle

    (Um. Don’t get me wrong. Hoppe’s APPLIED ethics of property is just about flawless. It’s his ‘excuses’ for the institution of property that are just more Kantian, jewish, cosmopolitan, marxist, libertine, total freaking nonsense. But don’t blame him He’s a german. They’re incredibly gullible that way. 😉 )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 12:49:00 UTC

  • PETERSON’S IRONICALLY POSTMODERN VERSION OF TRUTH: PRAGMATIC —“Peterson’s noti

    PETERSON’S IRONICALLY POSTMODERN VERSION OF TRUTH: PRAGMATIC

    —“Peterson’s notions of truth and falsity are very “pragmatic” – an ends justifies the means sort of conception – “lies” within his world view have very little to do with scientific or empirical accuracy. Peterson is brilliant but has significant blind spots as it relates to metaphorical or allegorical truisms which necessitate an aspect of “falsehood” and the contrast therein.”— Rob Ellerman

    Well said. I didn’t think of that positioning. )

    Peterson sees the frustrated mind of the human less valuable to others than than it can manage, struggling to make sense of, and succeed in, the universe given its lack of internal and external agency.

    Peterson is acting as a Priest. (I’m acting a judge). And it’s the competition between the need to teach meaning in order to act, and the need to resolve conflict in order to prevent (empirical) ill actions.

    The common ground between Priest and Judge is near perfection – if and only if he succeeds in constructing a new ‘religion’ out of literary analysis of myth, BUT if the battle for good and evil among those myths, is between the eastern fictionalist, and the western supernormal.

    I think this is the origin of his problem. What you call ‘pragmatism’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 08:22:00 UTC

  • A SHORT CRITICISM ON METHOD – WHY? You’ve made the case that the Postmodernists

    A SHORT CRITICISM ON METHOD – WHY?

    You’ve made the case that the Postmodernists (we’ll avoid the Marxists for now) not only practice falsehood, but intentionally deny truth. And do so to circumvent discourse (Correct).

    Presumably because they cannot win an honest, truthful, true, and moral (test of reciprocity) argument. You’ve made the case less directly that Postmodernists are not engaging in reciprocity. (Correct) But not necessarily that they are doing so for the purpose of parasitism, or theft, rather than engaging in voluntary exchanges. (I believe you position this as ‘wrong’ or ‘immoral’ but not ‘theft’ or ‘predation’.) Although I do think you at least imply that the

    You’ve made the case that Truth is has been the competitive advantage of the West. (Correct) I am not sure if you have made the point that this reduces transaction costs, and therfore reduces opportunity costs, and therefore increases experimental velocity in a division of perception, valuation, labor, and advocacy.

    You’ve demonstrated that you rely heavily on the literary model of Jung. (Understandable – but questionable.) (Why choose wisdom literature instead of scientific, economic, and historical literature? Isn’t the difference one of precision?)

    You’ve made the case that you have worked for many years to understand the myth and literature of civilizations – and that is was hard work. ( Understandable – but curious why one would choose ‘wisdom literature’ for one’s research? )

    You’ve demonstrated that you’ve kept current with the research in cognitive science and (recently operationalized) experimental psychology. (Obvious, understandable, and necessary)

    You’ve demonstrated that you can identify correspondences between the research and the survival of the content of these myths over many generations: Monomyth, Archetypes, and then less specifically virtues.

    You’ve made the case that one must extract from this (vast) literature, that which allows you to functionally (demonstrably) succeed, and NOT what prevents you from functionally (demonstrably) succeeding.

    I am not sure if you’ve distinguished between the western use of DEFLATIONARY TRUTH, common law, philosophy, and science that preserves competition between institutions and disciplines, and the Fertile Crescent use of CONFLATIONARY WISDOM using Supernaturalism to produce a monopoly that doesn’t preserve competition between institutions and disciplines.

    I am pretty certain that you haven’t distinguished between the decidability of deflated truths and conflated wisdom. Or the difference between low context deflationary truth, and high context wisdom literature. Or the costs of producing each. Or the difference of rule by via-negativa (common law) versus via-positiva (commanded law), and the consequences it produced.

    Because high context low precision monopoly wisdom literature empirically produces very different rates of innovation and adaptation compared to the use of low context, high precision, competitive literature (or the difference in consequences between heroic and scientific (western pagan), and submissive and religious (persian/abrahamic), and familial and ‘rational’ (Sinic/Japanese) forms of literature.

    You’ve tried to maintain the difficult position of conflating the true (decidable), good(commons), preferential (personal) and useful (possible) in the fertile crescent tradition, as a method of argument (decidability) rather than as a method of advice (wisdom). (‘darwinian arguments’).

    And I don’t think you’ve touched on the use of conflationary fictionalisms as methods of deception:

    1) Pseudo-mythology: scriptural monotheism that conflates law, wisdom, and truth. False promise of life after death. Promise of life after death.

    2) Pseudo-science: the construction of cosmopolitan pseudosciences (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises), Promise of paradise.

    3) Pseudo-rationalism: the construction of modern idealism (platonism, the the frankfurt school, the postmodernists) – creating ‘reality by chanting’ (social construction) Promise of power.

    And perhaps most importantly you don’t illustrate, that I know of, that the west lost to conflationary wisdom literature (christianity) in the ancient world, including the closure of the institutions of ‘deflationary literature’ (the stoic schools), and was resurrected by the restoration of truthful literature in the enlightenment, and that conflationary literature is the means by which the postmodernists have adopted the work of the marxists.

    And this all leads me to a set of questions:

    How does one know what to select without knowing what to select already? Or worse, how does one know what NOT to select? From the herd of literary preachers of wisdom literature, how does one decide between them? How does one choose that which I prefer, that which is good, and that which is true whether I prefer it, whether we think it is good or not, because we can only decide between the useful, the preferable, and the good, by what is true (decidable)?

    What is the cost of teaching wisdom (conflationary) literature versus truthful (deflationary and decidable)literature? What are the consequences of teaching wisdom literature instead of truthful? And most importantly, what opportunities do we perpetuate and create by teaching wisdom literature instead of truthful literature?

    How is fictionalism not only a terrible thing to teach, a terrible method of transferring meaning, but it is the means by which we have been defeated in the ancient world, and nearly defeated in the present?

    How is fictionalism only not an answer, but demonstrably the reason for the failure of the west to complete the enlightenment by its extension to the economic, legal, social, and political disciplines?

    Hasn’t psychology largely rescued itself from fictionalism and justifiable criticism as a pseudoscience precisely by abandoning fictionalism and adopting the ‘operationalism’ (in psychology, ‘operationism’, and mathematics ‘intuitionism’)?

    How can one deflate the Fertile Crescent fictionalisms (‘lies’) and still convey them without at the same time merely perpetuating the crime?

    Why is there not enough non-false, non fictionalist, non omnipotent and omniscient mythos, history of heroes, saints, scientists?

    Why can’t we teach people meaning through the lenses of hyperbole of myth, the hyperbole of heroes, the hyperbole of history, the empirical evidence of our history, our truthful speech?

    If conflationary literature is the vehicle by which we have been lied to and the vehicle for deceit, do we not want to teach people how do identify the differences, and is there any value in the conflationary that cannot be obtained from the deflationary?

    I know that in the spectrum of methods by which we can convey meaning that the dream state is the most subjective, the rational less so, the calculative much less so. And I understand that creativity requires that we enable free association by the construction of habits that allow us to easily enter the waking dream state most creative people call ‘the zone’.

    But what evidence is that we need to do so by the very means of exploiting it: suggestion. Deceit by suggestion. Deceit by loading, framing, overloading such that the suggestion is created by statement or by inference or by inference from absence?

    What is the difference between the transfer of meaning, the transfer of truth, and the transfer of deception?

    In other words, Why do we need to teach people to lie?

    —NOTES—

    DIMENSIONS OF REALITY: THE DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR WARRANTY OF TESTIMONY (TRUTH CLAIM)

    1) categorical consistency (identity)

    2) internal consistency (logical)

    3) external consistency (empirical)

    4) existential consistency (operational language and grammar)

    5) rational consistency (rational choice of the actor)

    6) moral consistency (reciprocity – at least intertemporal)

    7) scope consistency (full accounting and limits [no cherry picking, no unlimited theories])

    8) cognitive consistency (test by jury: theory)

    9) survival consistency (test by market: law)

    10) exhaustive consistency (Parsimony / tautology)

    RULE OF INCOMPLETENESS

    1) “No truth proposition can be tested without appeal to the subsequent dimension”.

    FROM LOW PRECISION HIGH CONTEXT TO HIGH PRECISION LOW CONTEXT.

    5) History.

    4) Wisdom: Greek/Roman/Germanic/Slavic Paganism (archetypes) (categories and measures)

    3) Morals: Roman Stoicism (virtues) (via positiva) (subcategories and measures)

    2) Ethics: Roman Law (limits) (via negativa) (further subcategories and measures) (Natural Law of Reciprocity)

    1) Psychology: Acquisitions or stoic ‘pursuits’ rather than ‘psychology’ (all moral intuitions and all emotions can be expressed as reactions to change in state of acquisitions).

    0) Existence: The Laws of Nature (science) further subcategories and measures)

    THE HIERARCHY OF MEASUREMENTS :

    7) THE MONOMYTH – Transcendence (Transformation)

    6) THE ARCHETYPES – Characters (Categories)

    5) THE VIRTUES – Comparison Operators (Values)

    4) THE ORDERS – Axioms (Relations: sets of conditions)

    3) THE NARRATIVES – Operations (Methods of change in state)

    2) THE DISCIPLINES – Mindfulness/Stoicism ( Noise Reduction)

    1) THE SCIENCES – Measurement (reduction of ignorance, error, bias, deception reduction)

    0) THE TRUTH – Parsimony (Most Parsimonious Operational Name of a Recipe of Transformation.)

    Assertions:

    There exists only one objective – transcendence – ‘Agency’.

    There exists only one narrative – personal transcendence

    There exist only a few sub-narratives – methods of transcendence (the N-number of plots)

    There exist only so many non-false virtues – variables of transcendence (stoic virtues?)

    There exist only so many portfolios of virtues – transcendent characters. (Archetypes)

    There exist only so many methods of non-false noise reduction – transcendent mind. ( physical rituals, stoic disciplines, discursive prayer, recitative prayer, buddhist contemplation – and some combination)

    There exist only so many methods of non-false elimination of falsehoods – reason.

    There exists only so many sets of primary operations – transcendent truths.

    Via-Positiva:

    A myth can employ animism and anthropomorphism in an act of transcendence.

    A myth can employ hyperbole (super-normalism) in an act of transcendence.

    A myth can employ any technique to create an immoral condition against which one employs virtues to transcend.

    A myth can employ virtues in an act of transcendence.

    Via Negativa:

    A myth cannot contradict the virtue of transcendence.

    A myth cannot contradict of a virtue of transcendence in an act of transcendence.

    A myth cannot employ a falsehood in an act of transcendence

    A myth cannot employ luck or miracles in an act of transcendence.

    A myth cannot employ fictionalism (idealism, supernaturalism, pseudoscience/pseudo-rationalism) in an act of transcendence.

    If a myth can survive these tests then it is true, and good.

    If a myth cannot survives these tests then it is false, and evil.

    SUMMARY

    I can find no reason to perpetuate the use of fictionalism in pedagogy or even in public speech.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-13 11:59:00 UTC

  • “There are no such thing as races, subraces…99% of anthropologists agree…”–

    —“There are no such thing as races, subraces…99% of anthropologists agree…”—

    Appeal to majority fallacy. Appeal to authority fallacy. Appeal to self reporting fallacy. Appeal to statistics fallacy. (Do I need to list more of them?)

    1) is it possible to classify people into categories of major races, minor races, subraces, tribes, clans, and families. (yes evidently so. it’s been done on geographic, linguistic, cultural, archeological migration, morphological, blood type, and genetic testing and is remarkably consistent)

    2) do these classifications carry visibly morphological or empirically genetic correspondence (yes)

    3) How many samples of a kin group do we need to trace their relations (~1000 to get within 3%), (why? genes are complicated and we do not know the causal relations, we can only now identify a few common markers, so we must output-test morphology (evidentiary features)as well as input test our limited understanding of markers.

    4) what degree of precision do we need to falsify morphological, historical, linguistic, cultural differences? (given the colloquial measure that we are very little different from chimps, the degree of precision necessary to genetically falsify categories is ‘near complete’.)

    5) do these evident categories correspond to evolutionary, reproductive, linguistic, and cultural records? (yes)

    6) do people self identify with these categories? (yes)

    7) do people demonstrate preference in association for these categories. (yes, in all walks of life)

    8) do people demonstrate kin selection according to these classifications? (yes)

    9) do people in democratic countries vote by these categories (yes, when demographic distributions are to their advantage)

    10) do people in all countries report preferences (surveys) differently from how they demonstrate preferences (economic, marital, dating, friendship, phone calls, text messages, business relationships) (yes, universally – which is why the polling industry is in such a crisis)

    11) do people in the the media, academy, state, and church historically lie about scientific theories and facts that would cause them disfavor with their customer bases? (yes, always and everywhere)

    12) do people in the academy and the sciences demonstrate paradigm anchoring so severely that that they block research that contradicts their investments, and often paradigm reformation occurs only after prior paradigm authors have died? (yes)

    13) do people in the social sciences demonstrate the highest rates of falsehood in the publications of papers, books, and articles? (yes)

    14) does all the evidence lead us to conclude that reported opinions by social scientists differ from the scientific evidence? (yes).

    99% of psychologists *report* that iq has no meaning.

    Pretty much the entire social science profession other than economics is pseudoscience.

    In economics we know (finally) why much of economics is pseudoscience. (data. method. cherry-picking and selective accounting. political bias, moral bias, class bias. gender bias..)

    Don’t get me started on ‘global warming/cooling/climate change’. Or that we don’t have too many people living on the planet, or …..

    Please do not come to a gunfight with a squirt gun. I don’t like having to waste my time defending myself against the room-temperature-iq crowd. You’re clearly a well intended useful idiot indoctrinated into marxist and postmodern pseudoscience just as the church indoctrinated centuries of idiots before you.

    But thanks for forcing me to make this list so that I can use it over and over again.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-11 17:43:00 UTC

  • YOU ARE WEAK The Romantic. The Intuitive. The Spiritual. The Occult. Just be hon

    YOU ARE WEAK

    The Romantic. The Intuitive. The Spiritual. The Occult.

    Just be honest. You’re a woman. And you need the comforting lies of a woman.

    Because you aren’t sovereign. You aren’t a man. You haven’t transcended.

    You can’t rely on reason alone.

    There is only one good. Transcendence.

    The rest is just useful or not, preferable or not. true or false.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-11 11:01:00 UTC

  • ‘ INSERT IGNORANT MARXIST / KEYNESIAN DRIVEL HERE ‘—- (the relationship betwee

    —‘ INSERT IGNORANT MARXIST / KEYNESIAN DRIVEL HERE ‘—-

    (the relationship between time, money, interest, and limits)

    Time is the commodity we all manage, savings of time produced by a division of labor, savings or loss tested only by voluntary exchange and mutual gain, and hard money in an agrarian economy, and soft money in a regulated money supply is a means of storing it in least possible volatile form, given that the only means of testing the existing voluntary organization of production in sustainable networks of specialization and trade, is exhausting them, and the resulting corrections.

    The primary problem we face in modernity is the reduced transaction cost of large, regulated, money supplies, and the extension of risk because of the insurance such supplies provide, dampens information distribution, and allows us to overcommit to the existing anticipated demand, and its networks of sustainable specialization and trade, and then corrections are not small and frequent but less frequent and very large. At present major corrections (overcommitments of promises based upon erroneous estimations of demand) are cycling every five to eight years. But we are accumulating overextensions across the economy under marxist, socialist, Keyensian, and postmodern assumptions of ongoing innovation that will provide greater gains than any correction can erase. (this is demonstrably false not only in the present century but throughout all of history).

    Well of course, the problem is that it’s necessary for us to charge interest on production for reasons that are well understood, and only simpletons don’t understand.

    We dont’ need to pay interest on consumer CONSUMPTION since the need for interest is provided by the calculation of production.

    Democratic is always use as a lie, since it means ‘majority rule’ or ‘mob rule’ and nothing else. I think you mean, instead, ‘capacity to repay’.

    And no it is not as simple as double entry book keeping. It is as simple as calculating the losses from a failure to collect interest in the treasury, and treating it as redistribution instead (cost).

    The reason you don’t grasp all of this, which is fairly obvious to me, and might be obvious to economists who practice full accounting (austrians), is that all forms of exhcange and their constituent products, including barter, money, cost, profit, credit, interest, exist to calculate the underlying commodity of TIME.

    But if you fancy marxist pseudoscientific drivel, then it’s unlikely that you have the knowledge necessary to grasp such things.

    We manage time. And it’s time that we use to coerce each other. Money is just a store of accumulated time savings. Credit is borrowing against future time.

    The average idiot still does not grasp that naturall production, agrarian production, and cooperation from agrarian barter were able to sustain small numbers, and that the production of TIME was limited by the rates of production of consumable flora and fauna minus the cost of harvest, and that when we developed a division of labor and then money, we could still calculate our uses of time, such that we were staying ahead of the production of monther nature.

    The central issue with the current era is that hydrocarbons have given us the illusion that we no longer need conduct a full accounting, but this is a ‘spendable inheritance’.

    (.. I will not go deeper. Not worth my time…..)

    MONEY = a store of TIME. Credit = Borrowing of time. we can run out of ‘time’ just as we run out of gold. Although that is probably a simplification that is too difficult for you.

    Hence why I am an advocate of full accounting in economics and all of science.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-10 09:18:00 UTC

  • THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IS DEAD – AND A COLLABORATOR The catholic church is dead. S

    THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IS DEAD – AND A COLLABORATOR

    The catholic church is dead. She abandoned us. Our people have abandoned her.

    The protestant church has reverted to jewish sect. The puritans have become but jews.

    There has been no Augustine to save the church this time. There is no Enlightenment romantic attachment to defend her failures.

    She is now but a wing of the Abrahamists, Marxists, Socialists, Postmodernists, and Feminists.

    For the conquest by Byzantines against the West alone we should end her.

    For the destruction of Stoicism, Philosophy, and science alone we should end her.

    For the indoctrination of our people into Abrahamic lies alone we should end her.

    For the desecration of our sacred groves, holidays, festivals, alone we should end her.

    For the preservation of the ignorance of our people in illiteracy alone we should end her.

    For the destruction of the templars alone we should end her.

    For the failure to reform in response to the enlightenment we should end her.

    For the collaboration with the marxists, socialists, postmodernists and feminists, we should end her.

    For her collaboration with the islamists we should end her.

    We need no lies. We have become the gods of old. We need only contemplate and celebrate their and our achievements.

    The solution is a new religion from the old, free of abrahamism, and free of lies.

    And the financing and incentives to make it happen.

    And to retain the rituals with different parables, different readings, different histories, and a different oath.

    And thankfully, that is something that can be done….

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 14:55:00 UTC

  • WHAT DID MARX GET RIGHT? (NOTHING) He articulated class as a conflict rather tha

    WHAT DID MARX GET RIGHT? (NOTHING)

    He articulated class as a conflict rather than as genetic differences in ability that the aristocracies since the dawn of western civilization had correctly observed. Hence human animal > slave > serf > freeman > burgher > church(nobility) > aristocracy (peerage).

    It’s not that his observation was new, its that his observation was wrong. The east and the west succeeded in no small party by the continuous reduction of the size of the underclass by upward redistribution of reproduction.

    Today we know that each person in the underclass is six times as costly as any individual in the middle class can produce in surplus of his consumption.

    There is a reason Marx is taught as fantasy literature of historical curiosity only: he was wrong about almost everything.

    The problem is quite different: the middle class seizure of the state under capitalism under the rubric of equality and democracy is incompatible with the evidence: at every standard deviation in ability, humans are demonstrably superior in every way. So much so that at two standard deviations, the ability to communicate on other than trivialities disappears.

    Marx created a fantasy, as did Boaz and Freud. Why? the same reason that Maxwell, Menger, Darwin, Spencer, Nietzsche, were right: the middle class seizure of power DID upset the natural order. The natural order being a hierarchy of the classes with the aristocracy organizing the suppression of parasitism driving everyone into the market to survive; the middle class experimenting, inventing, financing, entrepreneurship, planning, organizing, and collecting the resources of which labor is merely one input.

    What marx got mostly wrong, is that all the value is created by the middle and upper class, and the working class is the chief beneficiary of organizing them to produce consumer goods that they can now afford to purchase because they lack the ability to perform the middle class and upper class functions otherwise.

    That’s the science of it.

    The people who benefit from consumer capitalism are the working class. My ancestors were far happier with their higher status in previous generations than the relative equality with the lower classes under consumer capitalism. And imagine how the aristocracy feels.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 19:47:00 UTC

  • HOW IS THIS NOT AN ATTEMPT AT DECEPTION? 100% of people die. There are four caus

    HOW IS THIS NOT AN ATTEMPT AT DECEPTION?

    100% of people die.

    There are four causes of death.

    1 – Biological Failure, (UNAVOIDABLE)

    2 – Biological self abuse ( SELF NEGLIGENCE )

    3 – Accident, and (UNINTENTIONAL, OR NEGLIGENT )

    4 – Murder and Terrorism (INTENTIONAL)

    Everyone eventually dies of an illness (Biological Failure), ergo, that leaves us with Accidents and Murder.

    Accidents are unpreventable by the individual, although we have dramatically reduced accidents through standards, legislative regulation, insurance regulation, and training. That leaves us with murder and terrorism.

    Of Murder, nearly all murders occur via known relationship or relative, and are avoidable, and we spend vast resources on legislation, regulation, insurance,and policing to prevent them.

    Terrorism is INTENTIONAL, is UNAVOIDABLE, is NON NEGLIGENT, yet it is PERFECTLY REGULATABLE by eliminating all individuals who demonstrate any affiliation with the organizations or clans that commit terrorism.

    Why is it then that we do not act on the most preventable of methods of death?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 10:50:00 UTC