Form: Critique

  • Why would his being black have anything to do with anything?

    Oct 19, 2019, 10:49 AM As if obama had ANY influence on the business cycle that didn’t make it worse, and as if Trump hasn’t systematically worked to repatriate business to the USA.

    —“Why does it bother you that a black President could succeed after being handed aftermath of 2 recessions + 2 wars. If you don’t know tRump by now your education has failed you. #TrumpRussia Mafia Giuliani Ukraine Visa Mob Ties Russia.” — Global News Thailand 🇹🇭 สาระความรู้

    Why would his being black have anything to do with anything? Why does it bother you that someone who specializes in disambiguating pseudoscience from pseudoscience states the rather obvious that obama furthered the global parasitism and Trump undermines global parasitism. The Clintons are the most corrupt people ever to hold office (they stole 2M from me personally). We don’t have evidence that Trump did anything except work in finance, construction, maintenance, and food service industries in a world where corruption is a cost of doing business. Obama didn’t do anything other than ride the normal business cycle. He certainly didn’t do what I (right), or Galbraith (Left) recommended. He didn’t end the wars like Trump. He didn’t repatriate business. He didn’t force europeans to pay for their defense, or stop chinese theft. And as far as we know Russian interference was to sew discord (undermine, in proper marxist, pomo, feminist tradition) in both parties – which is where Russian intelligence spends 70% of their resources – finding ‘useful idiots’ like you and feeding them ‘desirable’ propaganda. Russians learned from the Marxists, Bolsheviks, Feminists and Postmodernists, that it is cheaper to sew discord and undermine from within, than to fight economically (they can’t) or militarily (they can’t) or politically (they can’t). The female competitive strategy is to undermine by gossiping, rallying, shaming, ridiculing, moralizing, psychologizing, straw manning, disapproval, and denial (verbal) and the male strategy is economic political and military (material). Russians use the female strategy. And that is what you’re doing. Because undermining, disapproval, lying, and denial are necessary to obscure undesirable truth and falsehood.

  • More Non-Argument from GA Postmodernists

    I don’t care if your a left wing postmodern liar or a right wing postmodern liar. Lying is lying and the purpose of P is to end the utility of lying forever. TO:​ Imperius

    —“What is meant by the contrast between “description within experience” and “analogy beyond”?— Imperius

    1. Within the limits of sense perception
    2. Within the limits of physical instrumentation.
    3. Within the limits of reason( deduction, induction, abduction, guessing.)
    4. Within the limits of logic (constant relations).
    5. Within the limits of calculation (logical instrumentation).

    Ergo: (a) – within sense, perception, reason, calculation = Experience. (b) – Within instrumental evidence testable by sense, perception, reason, calculation = Analogy to experience.(c) “Reduction of the imperceptible to analogy to experience sufficient for comparison within the limits of sense, perception, reason, experience. Operational means of stating what others have said by previous means — preventing idealism and subsequent conflation and inflation by reduction to operational terms.

    —” morality is processed in the declarative, “— Imperius

    DEFINITIONS: RECIPROCITY: productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests of other group members, sufficient to cause retaliation (demand for restitution). MORALITY Good <- Moral <- Ethical <- amoral -> unethical -> immoral -> Evil. (I’ve defined this in detail elsewhere, search the site rather than repeat here.) 1) Objectively Moral: Reciprocal (mutually beneficial) within the limits of proportionality (defection). No cooperative species can survive otherwise. 2) Personal Moral Intuition: Minimum Reciprocity within the Limits of proportionality that I prefer given my gender and sexual, social, economic, and political market value. 3) Interpersonal Personal Moral Intuition: Minimum Reciprocity within the limits of proportionality I can get away with given my sexual social economic and political market value. 4) Normative Morality: standards of reciprocity given the group evolutionary strategy, and the portfolio of conditions necessary to preserve sufficient reciprocity that sufficient proportionality is maintained that the polity survives. DECLARATIVE, OSTENSIVE, IMPERATIVE 1) STATEMENT Declarative (Subjective): of the nature of or making a declaration; a statement; (irresponsibility) ie: Objective: Promissory. (responsibility) 2) DESCRIPTION Ostensive: (Subjective) directly or clearly demonstrative. (irresponsibility) ie: Objective: Operational. (Responsibility) CLAIM(PROMISE), VALUE Imperative: (Subjective) an essential or urgent thing; (irresponsibility) ie: Objective Necessary: (responsibility) Grammatical difference between: a) Command free of responsibility (ir-reciprocity: immorality) And; b) Argument inclusive of responsibility. (reciprocity: morality) So while you claim I don’t understand language as far as I know I understand all grammars known to man, the common (geometric) constitution of those grammars; the point of view each of them is uttered from; and the incentive to use each one of them for the purpose of NOT speaking truthfully. And as usual you’re claiming that I don’t understand when no, I understand, I don’t value, because I am seeking a means of deciding conflict, and suppressing lying of all kinds, thus prohibiting the abrahamic means of deceit (which is the only one we westerners are vulnerable to given our high trust), and this is counter to your interests because of reasons I’ve explained before. I don’t really disambiguate your claims often, and I emphasize the only known incentives to avoid reciprocal (testimonial) speech, and all are either to justify authoritarianism or justify deceit. But if I can ‘correct’ Kantian sophism I’m equally comfortable disambiguating postmodern (social construction) sophism whether left appeal to authority to avoid darwin, or right appeal to authority to advance darwin. Fact remains is that if you can’t state it truthfully the question is why? I mean, authoritarianism especially martial and political does nto require obscuring the demand for authority. The reason being that one already has the power to exercise. Supernatural authority or sophomoric authority or pseudoscientific authority are simply means by which those lacking the power to exercise try to construct it by inspirational means. There is no other reason to use it. But the total failure of continental civilization to produce anything without trying to rescue a country under external pressure and conquest (interwar germany), when people have an incentive to follow a message of rallying for material reasons. If you can on the other hand construct some promise whether true (economic, political) or false ( supernatural salvation, economic power, political power), and a pseudoscientific, sophomoric, or occult means of advancing it (an ideology) then you at least have an excuse. TO OBSCURE a strategy for the obtaining of power. And then a strategy for preserving power, and operation that polity or faithful. Now if you had that to offer then I could come back with ‘this will work, that won’t work’ or something or other. BUt if you’re just talking the theory of lying that in that context I don’t see any value in promoting various new means of lying among our people when it is precisely this kind of lying that has made them vulnerable to marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, and postmodernism. I mean, is start with ‘here is a constitution that will solve the problem of current modernity; here is a recipe for restoring our historically successful group strategy; here is a recipe for creating a new mythology but not what it is; here is a recipe for creating a new religion, but not what it is. so others please have at it. So we have had this same conversation for something between four and five years now: I analyze, architect, engineer, and render into law. (Science) the means of operating a polity that cannot be defeated by abrahamic means (or military, or economic, or immigration). The rest is up to “storytellers”. If you want to write a story do so. As long as it doesn’t try to undermine our strategy, which is our group’s competitive advantage, then I don’t care what it is. But if it does try to perpetuate abrahamic deciets then I’m going to do my duty and falsify, undermine, and eradicate it.

  • More Non-Argument from GA Postmodernists

    I don’t care if your a left wing postmodern liar or a right wing postmodern liar. Lying is lying and the purpose of P is to end the utility of lying forever. TO:​ Imperius

    —“What is meant by the contrast between “description within experience” and “analogy beyond”?— Imperius

    1. Within the limits of sense perception
    2. Within the limits of physical instrumentation.
    3. Within the limits of reason( deduction, induction, abduction, guessing.)
    4. Within the limits of logic (constant relations).
    5. Within the limits of calculation (logical instrumentation).

    Ergo: (a) – within sense, perception, reason, calculation = Experience. (b) – Within instrumental evidence testable by sense, perception, reason, calculation = Analogy to experience.(c) “Reduction of the imperceptible to analogy to experience sufficient for comparison within the limits of sense, perception, reason, experience. Operational means of stating what others have said by previous means — preventing idealism and subsequent conflation and inflation by reduction to operational terms.

    —” morality is processed in the declarative, “— Imperius

    DEFINITIONS: RECIPROCITY: productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests of other group members, sufficient to cause retaliation (demand for restitution). MORALITY Good <- Moral <- Ethical <- amoral -> unethical -> immoral -> Evil. (I’ve defined this in detail elsewhere, search the site rather than repeat here.) 1) Objectively Moral: Reciprocal (mutually beneficial) within the limits of proportionality (defection). No cooperative species can survive otherwise. 2) Personal Moral Intuition: Minimum Reciprocity within the Limits of proportionality that I prefer given my gender and sexual, social, economic, and political market value. 3) Interpersonal Personal Moral Intuition: Minimum Reciprocity within the limits of proportionality I can get away with given my sexual social economic and political market value. 4) Normative Morality: standards of reciprocity given the group evolutionary strategy, and the portfolio of conditions necessary to preserve sufficient reciprocity that sufficient proportionality is maintained that the polity survives. DECLARATIVE, OSTENSIVE, IMPERATIVE 1) STATEMENT Declarative (Subjective): of the nature of or making a declaration; a statement; (irresponsibility) ie: Objective: Promissory. (responsibility) 2) DESCRIPTION Ostensive: (Subjective) directly or clearly demonstrative. (irresponsibility) ie: Objective: Operational. (Responsibility) CLAIM(PROMISE), VALUE Imperative: (Subjective) an essential or urgent thing; (irresponsibility) ie: Objective Necessary: (responsibility) Grammatical difference between: a) Command free of responsibility (ir-reciprocity: immorality) And; b) Argument inclusive of responsibility. (reciprocity: morality) So while you claim I don’t understand language as far as I know I understand all grammars known to man, the common (geometric) constitution of those grammars; the point of view each of them is uttered from; and the incentive to use each one of them for the purpose of NOT speaking truthfully. And as usual you’re claiming that I don’t understand when no, I understand, I don’t value, because I am seeking a means of deciding conflict, and suppressing lying of all kinds, thus prohibiting the abrahamic means of deceit (which is the only one we westerners are vulnerable to given our high trust), and this is counter to your interests because of reasons I’ve explained before. I don’t really disambiguate your claims often, and I emphasize the only known incentives to avoid reciprocal (testimonial) speech, and all are either to justify authoritarianism or justify deceit. But if I can ‘correct’ Kantian sophism I’m equally comfortable disambiguating postmodern (social construction) sophism whether left appeal to authority to avoid darwin, or right appeal to authority to advance darwin. Fact remains is that if you can’t state it truthfully the question is why? I mean, authoritarianism especially martial and political does nto require obscuring the demand for authority. The reason being that one already has the power to exercise. Supernatural authority or sophomoric authority or pseudoscientific authority are simply means by which those lacking the power to exercise try to construct it by inspirational means. There is no other reason to use it. But the total failure of continental civilization to produce anything without trying to rescue a country under external pressure and conquest (interwar germany), when people have an incentive to follow a message of rallying for material reasons. If you can on the other hand construct some promise whether true (economic, political) or false ( supernatural salvation, economic power, political power), and a pseudoscientific, sophomoric, or occult means of advancing it (an ideology) then you at least have an excuse. TO OBSCURE a strategy for the obtaining of power. And then a strategy for preserving power, and operation that polity or faithful. Now if you had that to offer then I could come back with ‘this will work, that won’t work’ or something or other. BUt if you’re just talking the theory of lying that in that context I don’t see any value in promoting various new means of lying among our people when it is precisely this kind of lying that has made them vulnerable to marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, and postmodernism. I mean, is start with ‘here is a constitution that will solve the problem of current modernity; here is a recipe for restoring our historically successful group strategy; here is a recipe for creating a new mythology but not what it is; here is a recipe for creating a new religion, but not what it is. so others please have at it. So we have had this same conversation for something between four and five years now: I analyze, architect, engineer, and render into law. (Science) the means of operating a polity that cannot be defeated by abrahamic means (or military, or economic, or immigration). The rest is up to “storytellers”. If you want to write a story do so. As long as it doesn’t try to undermine our strategy, which is our group’s competitive advantage, then I don’t care what it is. But if it does try to perpetuate abrahamic deciets then I’m going to do my duty and falsify, undermine, and eradicate it.

  • Marx, Marxism, the Western Solution, and His Life of Fraud, in Historical Context

    MARX, MARXISM, THE WESTERN SOLUTION, AND HIS LIFE OF FRAUD, IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT

    —“Folks criticize what they don’t understand. Marxism advocates nothing like uniform income. The central dogma of Marxist economic philosophy is “From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need”. How can this translate into an advocacy for uniform income? The redistribution programs and other such interventions are geared towards redressing the prior social injustices that led to the undue accumulation of the means of production and opportunities by a few; to create access and opportunity for those with the ability to become productive members of society, but by the very accident of their births lack such opportunities. This should not be contorted into the school of thought which indiscriminately redistributes wealth without recourse to ability nor need, typical of the welfare state. Thus it’s quite instructive to distinguish the welfare state from the socialist state. …. Mind you, egalitarianism calls for equal rights and equal opportunities; this does not in any way guarantee equality of outcomes. Thus the presupposition that Socialists’ advocacy of equality of rights and opportunity means a certain determination of equality of incomes and any other such social outcomes is a flawed deduction. …. Lastly, it’s Marxism that introduced the concept of labour as capital in the production process in the first place; insisting that without labour, Finance Capital and Production Capital cannot automatically create value. So at what point does Marxism deny the value of humans in the production process?”—Jason Tutu

    Yes, except every premise he relied upon, and you reiterated is false, and those that aren’t false, are dysgenic. Families produce individual members of families. The distribution of proceeds of production by family despite the individual rights of the individual to property. That’s why families exist as the central unit of production in all civilizations that survive – and their work product is another generation of humans. The only ‘according to need’ that is ‘measurable’ is equality with subsidy for the dysgenic, diseased, or results of accident. Nothing else is need. The only ‘according to ability’ that’s measureable without markets is coercion, favoritism, corruption. The only ‘advantage’ to be gained under such a scheme is competition for the most dysfunctional so that one can do the least and consume the must – and that’s what we see in every instance. Labor isn’t capital. That’s the thing. Its just cheaper than automating until the present era. all the value that is created is created by the ORGANIZATION of production. Everyone else is just a fungible domesticated animal. And that is what we see in labor markets around the world. Labor is cheaper than slaves, because they can be positively motivated, and seek self interest. (In fact, investing hgh trust hgh value capital into low trust low value labor is merely a way of putting dead weight semi-domesticated animals to use such that they are less a burden on the productive.) All marxism did was return man to the condition under which he makes the least possible contribution in order to survive, and seeks rents, black markets, and corruption, by every possible venue. Marx tried to restore slave economy. All creativity (Positive incentive) evolves in the invention of black markets (every market other than the productive market, and every market other than the one suppressed by the authoritarian communist state). No one teaches marxism in economics, as other than yet another fantasy-moral-literature, except in pseudoscientific rather than supernatural, or moralizing prose. The most damning evidence of all, and why the marxist program of undermining western civilization’s tripartic division of responsibilities between the classes, by the generation of class conflict ended in the 60s and was replaced immediately by the Postmodern and Feminism as a means of undermining western civilization through gender and identity conflict, was that consumer capitalism and fiat credit, and fiat currency, made possible the expansion of employment and the vast at the cost of entrepreneurs and capitalists’ inability to save accumulated earnings except by flight into commodities (oil) or rental assets (land, buildings). The only beneficiary of the capitalist program has been the common man. And the only correct that needs to be made is the redirection of consumer credit from the financial sector (which has captured all gains from increases in employment and increased consumption) to the government, thus relegating the financial sector to the production of innovation, instead (driving them again out of savings) and back into longer and longer research cycles, with higher and higher returns . To offset this shift, the government may no longer generate inflation that would alter this investment, and instead redistribute liquidity (increase in the money supply to maintain monetary velocity in the economy) directly to consumers, to maintain the velocity and volume of investment, without requiring manipulation of the labor market. This effectively makes ordinary people shareholders in the state and eliminates all demand for, want of, immigration outside of exceptionally talented experts. And immigration must be stopped because it will destroy the balance by increasing the unproductive and dependent population to the point of causing the same systemic failure as the concentration of the results of liquidity distribution in the financial sector. I’m a lot better than marx mostly because I don’t want to lie cheat and steal, and undermine western civilization. He did. He was a parasite his entire life. And he tried desperately to justify and expand hs parasitism. Else if he was a moral and ethical and honest man he would have stopped taking money from Engels when he stopped writing, as soon as he’d read Menger and the marginalists, and in doing so understood his entire edifice was wrong, and that he had been falsified, and his work no longer of merit. Others would have known this except when Keynes used marx’s research to write the general theory he couldn’t believe anyone would see it as other than a means of recovering from the war, and a general strategy for economic development. Hayek likewise didn’t refute keynes’ reformation of marx, because he couldn’t imagine people being that stupid. Unfortunately, he didn’t, move on once he understood the problem of modernity was not economics but the rule of law, and while keynes told hayek he would correct the public and government if they got out of hand, he died early before he could do so. Marx was just another lying cheating scumbag like Boaz, Freud, Adorno, Derrida, trying to overthrow the applecat for no other reason than to rebel and get attention, so that he could have the pretense of moral cover by which to get away with parasitism – and he wanted to industrialize parasitism. And 100M people are dead because of it. An there are still idiots running around talking about marxism without realizing that there isn’t any difference between marx and tolkien other than subject matter. It’s fiction. Fantasy fiction. The difference is tolkien was moral and marx was, like saul of tarsus who he imitated, a sick evil immoral human being. I understand marx far better than anyone else I’ve ever met. But that’s because I’ve spent a great time studying the female and abrahamic means of deceit by false promise, baiting into hazard, profiting from hazard, and hiding behind pretense of moral ambition, selling by pilpul and defending by critique, to create the semitic dark ages we escaped, and to try to create the second semitic dark ages, we have been entering since Das Capital. Marx is just another crook lying by intuition, and covering his lies with extremely detailed fictionalisms. The most obvious sophism in the above post, is:

    —“Marxism advocates nothing like uniform income.”—

    Not directly, but he presumes (a) people are relatively equal in value, or worse, that many people are not harmful to others by their mere existence; When it is the excess of harmful people that are more influential to the current condition than the beneficial people; (c) western success was as much a product of our thousands of years of eugenics, as it was our truth telling, traditional law of sovereigns, and preference for technology and magic we controlled, over supernaturalism and the occult that controlled us. (d) labor is other than yet another fungible resource, and organization of production takes all the risk and creates all the value – automation has made this painfully obvious over the past fifty years – and it’s escalating. Marx was recommending a repeat of the semitic dark ages, this time in pseudoscience instead of supernaturalism, that would expand the underclasses we sought so hard to gracefully reduce, thereby reversing our self-evolution. He was a fantastic liar.

  • Marx, Marxism, the Western Solution, and His Life of Fraud, in Historical Context

    MARX, MARXISM, THE WESTERN SOLUTION, AND HIS LIFE OF FRAUD, IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT

    —“Folks criticize what they don’t understand. Marxism advocates nothing like uniform income. The central dogma of Marxist economic philosophy is “From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need”. How can this translate into an advocacy for uniform income? The redistribution programs and other such interventions are geared towards redressing the prior social injustices that led to the undue accumulation of the means of production and opportunities by a few; to create access and opportunity for those with the ability to become productive members of society, but by the very accident of their births lack such opportunities. This should not be contorted into the school of thought which indiscriminately redistributes wealth without recourse to ability nor need, typical of the welfare state. Thus it’s quite instructive to distinguish the welfare state from the socialist state. …. Mind you, egalitarianism calls for equal rights and equal opportunities; this does not in any way guarantee equality of outcomes. Thus the presupposition that Socialists’ advocacy of equality of rights and opportunity means a certain determination of equality of incomes and any other such social outcomes is a flawed deduction. …. Lastly, it’s Marxism that introduced the concept of labour as capital in the production process in the first place; insisting that without labour, Finance Capital and Production Capital cannot automatically create value. So at what point does Marxism deny the value of humans in the production process?”—Jason Tutu

    Yes, except every premise he relied upon, and you reiterated is false, and those that aren’t false, are dysgenic. Families produce individual members of families. The distribution of proceeds of production by family despite the individual rights of the individual to property. That’s why families exist as the central unit of production in all civilizations that survive – and their work product is another generation of humans. The only ‘according to need’ that is ‘measurable’ is equality with subsidy for the dysgenic, diseased, or results of accident. Nothing else is need. The only ‘according to ability’ that’s measureable without markets is coercion, favoritism, corruption. The only ‘advantage’ to be gained under such a scheme is competition for the most dysfunctional so that one can do the least and consume the must – and that’s what we see in every instance. Labor isn’t capital. That’s the thing. Its just cheaper than automating until the present era. all the value that is created is created by the ORGANIZATION of production. Everyone else is just a fungible domesticated animal. And that is what we see in labor markets around the world. Labor is cheaper than slaves, because they can be positively motivated, and seek self interest. (In fact, investing hgh trust hgh value capital into low trust low value labor is merely a way of putting dead weight semi-domesticated animals to use such that they are less a burden on the productive.) All marxism did was return man to the condition under which he makes the least possible contribution in order to survive, and seeks rents, black markets, and corruption, by every possible venue. Marx tried to restore slave economy. All creativity (Positive incentive) evolves in the invention of black markets (every market other than the productive market, and every market other than the one suppressed by the authoritarian communist state). No one teaches marxism in economics, as other than yet another fantasy-moral-literature, except in pseudoscientific rather than supernatural, or moralizing prose. The most damning evidence of all, and why the marxist program of undermining western civilization’s tripartic division of responsibilities between the classes, by the generation of class conflict ended in the 60s and was replaced immediately by the Postmodern and Feminism as a means of undermining western civilization through gender and identity conflict, was that consumer capitalism and fiat credit, and fiat currency, made possible the expansion of employment and the vast at the cost of entrepreneurs and capitalists’ inability to save accumulated earnings except by flight into commodities (oil) or rental assets (land, buildings). The only beneficiary of the capitalist program has been the common man. And the only correct that needs to be made is the redirection of consumer credit from the financial sector (which has captured all gains from increases in employment and increased consumption) to the government, thus relegating the financial sector to the production of innovation, instead (driving them again out of savings) and back into longer and longer research cycles, with higher and higher returns . To offset this shift, the government may no longer generate inflation that would alter this investment, and instead redistribute liquidity (increase in the money supply to maintain monetary velocity in the economy) directly to consumers, to maintain the velocity and volume of investment, without requiring manipulation of the labor market. This effectively makes ordinary people shareholders in the state and eliminates all demand for, want of, immigration outside of exceptionally talented experts. And immigration must be stopped because it will destroy the balance by increasing the unproductive and dependent population to the point of causing the same systemic failure as the concentration of the results of liquidity distribution in the financial sector. I’m a lot better than marx mostly because I don’t want to lie cheat and steal, and undermine western civilization. He did. He was a parasite his entire life. And he tried desperately to justify and expand hs parasitism. Else if he was a moral and ethical and honest man he would have stopped taking money from Engels when he stopped writing, as soon as he’d read Menger and the marginalists, and in doing so understood his entire edifice was wrong, and that he had been falsified, and his work no longer of merit. Others would have known this except when Keynes used marx’s research to write the general theory he couldn’t believe anyone would see it as other than a means of recovering from the war, and a general strategy for economic development. Hayek likewise didn’t refute keynes’ reformation of marx, because he couldn’t imagine people being that stupid. Unfortunately, he didn’t, move on once he understood the problem of modernity was not economics but the rule of law, and while keynes told hayek he would correct the public and government if they got out of hand, he died early before he could do so. Marx was just another lying cheating scumbag like Boaz, Freud, Adorno, Derrida, trying to overthrow the applecat for no other reason than to rebel and get attention, so that he could have the pretense of moral cover by which to get away with parasitism – and he wanted to industrialize parasitism. And 100M people are dead because of it. An there are still idiots running around talking about marxism without realizing that there isn’t any difference between marx and tolkien other than subject matter. It’s fiction. Fantasy fiction. The difference is tolkien was moral and marx was, like saul of tarsus who he imitated, a sick evil immoral human being. I understand marx far better than anyone else I’ve ever met. But that’s because I’ve spent a great time studying the female and abrahamic means of deceit by false promise, baiting into hazard, profiting from hazard, and hiding behind pretense of moral ambition, selling by pilpul and defending by critique, to create the semitic dark ages we escaped, and to try to create the second semitic dark ages, we have been entering since Das Capital. Marx is just another crook lying by intuition, and covering his lies with extremely detailed fictionalisms. The most obvious sophism in the above post, is:

    —“Marxism advocates nothing like uniform income.”—

    Not directly, but he presumes (a) people are relatively equal in value, or worse, that many people are not harmful to others by their mere existence; When it is the excess of harmful people that are more influential to the current condition than the beneficial people; (c) western success was as much a product of our thousands of years of eugenics, as it was our truth telling, traditional law of sovereigns, and preference for technology and magic we controlled, over supernaturalism and the occult that controlled us. (d) labor is other than yet another fungible resource, and organization of production takes all the risk and creates all the value – automation has made this painfully obvious over the past fifty years – and it’s escalating. Marx was recommending a repeat of the semitic dark ages, this time in pseudoscience instead of supernaturalism, that would expand the underclasses we sought so hard to gracefully reduce, thereby reversing our self-evolution. He was a fantastic liar.

  • Why Don”t We Teach Marxist Economics Except in Sociology, Philosophy and Literature?

    WHY DON”T WE TEACH MARXIST ECONOMICS EXCEPT IN SOCIOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY AND LITERATURE?

    —“No one teaches Marxism in economics….” vitiates any merits there may be to your rather prosaic submission 🤔”— Jason Tutu

    Find me some university economics department that teaches marxist economics. They may teach a touch of marx in the history of economic thought. They don’t teach it at all. IN fact I don’t know any economics department that teaches anything other than mainstream (keynesian, saltwater) thought, albeit with some nod to chicago and at least in the best, some nod to austrian (mengerian). That’s because the labor theory of value is clearly false, economic calculation and coordination is impossible, and incentives are impossible, and every attempt at marxism whether fast failure (communism), medium failure (authoritarian socialism), or slow failure (democratic socialism) has failed, for not just one of the three reasons, but for ALL three reasons. And it cannot be otherwise. Why? Because in the end it violates the laws of physics, violates human moral intuition, which is bound by the laws of physics and therefore reflects them, and because there are limits to the debt-credit of human intuition and memory that make it possible for us to shift time between us so that we can obtain the outsized returns on cooperation, within those laws of physics. There are few people on this planet whounderstand these subjects as well as I do and if you manage to capture the attention of one of us and actually respond to you, its wise counsel to read and understand what is being said to you. I do this for a living online because the public functions not just as my classroom but because of my method by teaching using king of the hill games, the public also serves as my test subjects. Affections. Curt

  • Why Don”t We Teach Marxist Economics Except in Sociology, Philosophy and Literature?

    WHY DON”T WE TEACH MARXIST ECONOMICS EXCEPT IN SOCIOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY AND LITERATURE?

    —“No one teaches Marxism in economics….” vitiates any merits there may be to your rather prosaic submission 🤔”— Jason Tutu

    Find me some university economics department that teaches marxist economics. They may teach a touch of marx in the history of economic thought. They don’t teach it at all. IN fact I don’t know any economics department that teaches anything other than mainstream (keynesian, saltwater) thought, albeit with some nod to chicago and at least in the best, some nod to austrian (mengerian). That’s because the labor theory of value is clearly false, economic calculation and coordination is impossible, and incentives are impossible, and every attempt at marxism whether fast failure (communism), medium failure (authoritarian socialism), or slow failure (democratic socialism) has failed, for not just one of the three reasons, but for ALL three reasons. And it cannot be otherwise. Why? Because in the end it violates the laws of physics, violates human moral intuition, which is bound by the laws of physics and therefore reflects them, and because there are limits to the debt-credit of human intuition and memory that make it possible for us to shift time between us so that we can obtain the outsized returns on cooperation, within those laws of physics. There are few people on this planet whounderstand these subjects as well as I do and if you manage to capture the attention of one of us and actually respond to you, its wise counsel to read and understand what is being said to you. I do this for a living online because the public functions not just as my classroom but because of my method by teaching using king of the hill games, the public also serves as my test subjects. Affections. Curt

  • “The most obvious sophism in the above post, is : ‘Marxism advocates nothing lik

    —“The most obvious sophism in the above post, is : ‘Marxism advocates nothing like uniform income’.”— Tutu

    Not directly, but he presumes (a) people are relatively equal in value, or worse, that many people are not harmful to others by their mere existence; When it is the excess of harmful people that are more influential to the current condition than the beneficial people; (b) western success was as much a product of our thousands of years of eugenics, as it was our truth telling, traditional law of sovereigns, and preference for technology and magic we controlled, over supernaturalism and the occult that controlled us. (c) labor is other than yet another fungible resource, and organization of production takes all the risk and creates all the value – automation has made this painfully obvious over the past fifty years – and it’s escalating. Marx was recommending a repeat of the semitic dark ages, this time in pseudoscience instead of supernaturalism, that would expand the underclasses we sought so hard to gracefully reduce, and restore the communalism of the herd, which is the feminine cognitive bias, that appears to separate semitic from european thought, in metaphysical, preferable, intuitionistic, and argumentative methods, including the use of feminine means of conflcit: false promise, baiting into hazard, profiting from the hazard, plausible deniability as pretense of moral cover, using pilpul (sophism) critique(undermining), in a continuous effort to prevent dominant males from organizing a hierarchy, which would cause loyalty gains, asymmetrically more influential than feminine demands for consumption in exchange for sex, affection, and ingroup advocacy.

  • More Fun with Christians

    —“Darwin doesn’t even agree with macro evolution. DNA, the eye, Cambrian explosion all disprove any macro evolution not to mention that species actually show just as much entropy as positive gains over time just look at how many useless dogs exist today. To pretend things get better and more organized over time is simply false.”—Charles Schiavo

    Did you just try to make sense? Because you didn’t. I’m perfectly able to narrate, almost without checking first, the history of the development of the eye, in at least the two times it evolved. I don’t know how many times blood evolved but I know of two. Darwin didn’t know about DNA, but we do, that’s no argument. DNA merely explains why Darwin was right (massive parallelization, niche exploitation, favoring nothing but increased complexity. The Cambrian explosion is the result of bottlenecking, creating opportunity, increase in oxygen levels increasing available energy – particularly by increasing surface area, and the cliff effect of a new generation of genetic grammars making possible more rapid evolution. So, Energy Density > Entropy > fundamental structure(Tetrahedron?) > fundamental forces > quantum fields > particles > atoms > chemistry > biochemistry > biology > neurons > memory > sentience > consciousness > language > calculation. The same applies for the complexity of biochemical constructions, especially proteins, which function as mechanical devices at the molecular level whose changes in state are powered by changing of charges produced by attachment and detachment of molecules. So there was a Cambrian explosion just as there was a bronze age, steel age, science age, and technological age, and now computational age revolution. Just as the first generations of stars contained little, but made the higher elements, and distributed them through explosion, and laying the seeds for the development of future permutations upon those elements. In evolutionary biology this is called ‘punctuated equilibrium’ where there are periods of explosive growth due to some particular innovation. For example the Indo europeans conquered much of Eurasia in no small part because they developed the ability to drink milk, giving them 40% more calories for the same effort of production. The same for business, economic, state, and civilizational cycles. The entire universe follows the same simple rules from it’s most basic foundations through our most complex inventions. And what on earth would make you think you’re smart enough, knowledgeable enough, intellectually honest enough to make such an argument when the greatest minds of our age make the opposite.

  • I Think You’re Confused About Property and Commons and The Evolution of Each

    —“Commons are for high-input, savage hunter-gatherers. Deconstruction of the commons via recognition of private property is the first step to civilisation.”— Jonathan Besler

    Um. Well, not quite the argument you’re making. European Hunter gatherers either did not produce fixed commons (hunting grounds, grazing grounds, farms) before they competed with settled peoples, only after they competed with herding peoples, or settled peoples. All people have always produced normative institutional commons: Norms, traditions, myths, manners, customs, and even property respect itself are commons. The central problem for settled people has been the gradual conversion from familial property to individual property, that followed the increase in the division of labor, and the development of inheritance, and the devotion of surplus to the incremental production of commons (defense, granaries(ex:africa), buildings(south america), walls(mesopotamia), grazing lands(caucuses, steppe), farming lands(anatolia), walkways(britain), bridges(asia), water transport (mesopotamia) ). The excess productivity of the flood river valleys when irrigated made possible the conquest of, taxation of, and centralization of proceeds of production in administrative(clerical) and martial (military) classes, in exchange for suppression of local rent seeking, corruption, and exposure to brigandry. Europe was unable to centralize as such until the conquest of other peoples under agrarianism, and the expansion of mediterranean trade. Europe lacks the flood river valleys and warm climate and so production was distributed, power, distributed, and evolved only in parallel with trade. Even the english, the most corporate of european peoples still maintained intergenerational familial property (land, animals, house) until the early modern period. The jews maintained serial marriage until the late middle ages, and the irish until the 1800’s, and slavery, polygamy, and child marriage, and paternal ownership of property are still practiced in developing countries. The distribution of decidability upon the scope and interest in property evolves with the division of labor, just as it did with women in this century. The distribution of decidability in conflict over demonstrated interests determines property. As property increases in atomization, free riding of all kinds is incrementally eradicated. This pushes people into all four directions: decrease in consumption, increases in productivity, innovation in production, or innovation in parasitism. The population always seeks means of externalization of loss, privatization of commons, free riding, parasitism, and predation, so the law must keep pace with innovations in The individual is the most rapid means of adapting to constriction of consumption. The market for goods services and information is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of production. The market for suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of parasitism. The common law is the most rapid means of suppressing innovations in the parasitism by the immediate expansion of the suppression of innovations in parasitism, by the first case adjudicated. It requires no further institutional support other than communication between judges. The principle difference P-adds is that ALL demonstrated interests of all kinds and require strict construction of judgements (findings), contracts (agreements), regulations (insurance against non-resitutability), legislation (contracts of the commons) and command (military dictate in cases of duress). And it prevents ir-reciprocal and untruthful (untestimonial) speech in matter of the commons to the commons. This means sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity, and truthful speech, and no more marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, as well as no more judaism and islam or any other religion contrary to the natural law of reciprocity and testimonial truth. Cheers