Curt Doolittle

Form: Full Essay

  • Once You “C” It You Can’t Un-“C” It

    Oct 30, 2019, 10:31 PM ONCE YOU “C” IT YOU CAN’T UN”C” IT CULTURE The future is birthed from culture and nature. Culture defined as masculine and nature feminine. The divide IS this deep. It takes the interplay between each domain in positive feedback in order to produce outcomes better suited to cope with each sphere. Not only this; but because children (the future) are malleable {unlike the PAST <stop trying to fix that bit; it’s in the PAST} they will adapt to the environment mediated by the two interwoven parents. BUT (big but), because we are mal-adaptively adaptive [we make excuses for the animal; we justify suffering] we must constrain and control feedback from both culture and nature to be maximally adversarial without dipping into deeply traumatic [and we must be able to tell the difference between the two]. We must have constraint. CONSTRAINTS Boundaries, borders, boxes, branding; by and large allow for form and function to emerge. A world without constraint is maximally entropic. Non-existent. And the bucking of our constraints in the abstract (thought realms) have only made us upset about manifestation constrained by said constraints in the real-world; because pretending something doesn’t exist isn’t the same as it truly not existing. These are limits; moving past them only warps the fabric of reality in way unaccounted for; we eschew comprehensive and correspondent constraint at risk of dire consequence. We are witness to this now in the biological realm [the combination/meshing/blurring of masculine and feminine into something that is neither]. The hard constraints are where human beings ought to exercise some control. CONTROL Neither the left nor the right like control. Hell, animals don’t like to be controlled; they already have plenty of constraint; their limitations innate are infuriating enough on their own. Except they aren’t. We control territory (property), we control animals, we control our children, we control ourselves (emotions); we ought to be in control. Recently a loss of control is being lauded as brave and courageous. The only relation a loss of control has to bravery and courage is the landscape lacking control requires bravery and courage to overturn. Nobody likes telling a child that they must calm down; especially the children! BUT, we (adults)[father; culture] ought to know what’s good for them. Look, I empathize; nature (mother) has abused us and we rebelled by tempering her with culture (father); who in-turn insulated us from the love of our mother (as well as her devouring nature) so much so we crave her reappearance. But, just because we lack love doesn’t mean we ought to annihilate discipline. It’s the alternation between the two extremes; single mother-hood and single father-hood that is leaving children in their infantile state well beyond the years they ought to be. Which bring us to necessary complexity. COMPLEXITY Complexity is emergent via constraint and control through time. Complexity isn’t complicated it’s multi-variant and multi-faceted. A complex being holds the feminine and the masculine in balance. Uses each to the extent necessary in the domain that’s appropriate with expert timing and tact. What it means to be a transcendent human is to eschew (…better integrate) the animal impulses that drive you. That is a truly transcendent complex being; it’s a complexity (paradox) that only humans can hold; and many human animals seemingly can’t. We have an unhelpful crossing of domains; too many men acting like bitches in domains where bitching ought to get you pummeled. And to many women acting as tyrants as if they have the violent ability to enforce their preference on the rest of us; they DON’T. We have a hoard of hypocrites. Hypocrites that believe creativity is to deny the existent and operate as if it doesn’t exist in the very space in which it certainly does {denying reality}. This ISN’T creative {creativity stems and springs from emergent connection WITH nature NOT the denial of its existence} what you’re creating is destruction. CREATIVITY True creativity comes from allowing and synergistically coopting the emergent complexity arising from constraint and control. Why? Simply because you’re not fighting the very things that give you form and function. To rebel against the complexity of life; to revert to animal status and raise those animal instincts above the man is to relegate men back to animal company. Destruction NOT creation. A return to nature NOT a higher culture. Being creatively destructive isn’t exactly creation (production). Being creatively destructive can bring back the necessary landscape for creation (production), but this ought to be a last-ditch effort; one taken up when hope has been lost… and be wary, hope has been lost since before Obama; why do you think “Hope and Change” resonated with so many? Your creativity in a direction away from compatibility (individualism; atomization) is crippling our ability to complement each-other leaving us to converge in temperament and pursuit, eliminating dimorphism and specialization along with the gains that come from cohesion and cooperation. COMPATIBILITY Masculine integrated with the feminine; culture controlling nature; packs tempering the preference of the herds; law lending a landscape of love… Life is birthed of compatible optimally adversarial antagonistic forces; that force one another to improve in their domains yet still be desirable to the other. To become similar or much worse, the same; is to remove all the good we do each-other and relegate competition to the realm of consumption and resources. Compatibility allows for creativity in the complementary space; there are many more modes of success with a partner (family, community) than without; and to the extent we tool this place so this reality increasing becomes NOT the case, we do ourselves and humanity a disservice. We undermine the family unit for individual units and quite frankly kill the future before it is born at all. Which brings us to compliments. COMPLEMENTS Compatibility is one thing; complement is another. Because compatibility exists complements emerge. We combine as partners; constrained by biology, controlled by culture, infinitely complex in nature allowing us to be creative (adapt) in our complementary skills. We specialize in completing (complementing) our environments. The human environment mostly made up of human beings. As it is humans we deal with most often. Dimorphism and specialization NOT atomization (individualism) are the ways to prosperity. This “forces” the cohesion of man and women which provides a landscape of children to uphold future generations. COHESION Due to the nature of culture (patriarchy) as human nature (nurture; family) at scale; cohesion is needed to ensure children are loved and disciplined in a fashion so that this system of continual improvement can keep on keeping on. A culture that puts its future (children) ahead of its present (preference, typically “animal”) and doesn’t seek to rectify the past (what is dead) is ideal. Not because you shouldn’t indulge in what it means to be a human animal (because you should it’s part of thee ride) but because that ought not be your ultimate aim. It’s the pursuit NOT the happiness that is the genius behind the words in the American Declaration. And if the founding fathers understood what technology was coming around the bend {you may be thinking Facebook; but I’m thinking weaponized lying and justification of wants} they wouldn’t have worded that bit so ambiguously. Cohesion around the understanding that future flourishing is paramount if we’d like to continue this human experiment into perpetuity. Perpetuity being the ball you ought to keep your eye on. Children being the only thing that allow for its perpetuation. COOPERATION And here we are; at the beginning and the end. The Alpha and Omega. Cooperation; the emergent morality between living beings IS the end all be all of the human experiment. Maintaining a landscape of sovereignty solving for cooperation is optimal. It’s the ideal system of human interaction and it posits no aim but this: cooperation IS the optimum strategy for the living and forgoing cooperation (when able) for predation or parasitism is immoral (bad). The natural law of reciprocity ensures our cohesion expands beyond the realm of mating; that we continue to complement one another in every human realm and that we remain compatible. It posits that we create rather than destroy; that complex agents controlled by simple rules beat out simple agents following complicated rules 10 times out of 10; and that it’s our cultural constraints that allow our (any) culture to form and function… See once you see it you can’t unsee it.

  • Once You “C” It You Can’t Un-“C” It

    Oct 30, 2019, 10:31 PM ONCE YOU “C” IT YOU CAN’T UN”C” IT CULTURE The future is birthed from culture and nature. Culture defined as masculine and nature feminine. The divide IS this deep. It takes the interplay between each domain in positive feedback in order to produce outcomes better suited to cope with each sphere. Not only this; but because children (the future) are malleable {unlike the PAST <stop trying to fix that bit; it’s in the PAST} they will adapt to the environment mediated by the two interwoven parents. BUT (big but), because we are mal-adaptively adaptive [we make excuses for the animal; we justify suffering] we must constrain and control feedback from both culture and nature to be maximally adversarial without dipping into deeply traumatic [and we must be able to tell the difference between the two]. We must have constraint. CONSTRAINTS Boundaries, borders, boxes, branding; by and large allow for form and function to emerge. A world without constraint is maximally entropic. Non-existent. And the bucking of our constraints in the abstract (thought realms) have only made us upset about manifestation constrained by said constraints in the real-world; because pretending something doesn’t exist isn’t the same as it truly not existing. These are limits; moving past them only warps the fabric of reality in way unaccounted for; we eschew comprehensive and correspondent constraint at risk of dire consequence. We are witness to this now in the biological realm [the combination/meshing/blurring of masculine and feminine into something that is neither]. The hard constraints are where human beings ought to exercise some control. CONTROL Neither the left nor the right like control. Hell, animals don’t like to be controlled; they already have plenty of constraint; their limitations innate are infuriating enough on their own. Except they aren’t. We control territory (property), we control animals, we control our children, we control ourselves (emotions); we ought to be in control. Recently a loss of control is being lauded as brave and courageous. The only relation a loss of control has to bravery and courage is the landscape lacking control requires bravery and courage to overturn. Nobody likes telling a child that they must calm down; especially the children! BUT, we (adults)[father; culture] ought to know what’s good for them. Look, I empathize; nature (mother) has abused us and we rebelled by tempering her with culture (father); who in-turn insulated us from the love of our mother (as well as her devouring nature) so much so we crave her reappearance. But, just because we lack love doesn’t mean we ought to annihilate discipline. It’s the alternation between the two extremes; single mother-hood and single father-hood that is leaving children in their infantile state well beyond the years they ought to be. Which bring us to necessary complexity. COMPLEXITY Complexity is emergent via constraint and control through time. Complexity isn’t complicated it’s multi-variant and multi-faceted. A complex being holds the feminine and the masculine in balance. Uses each to the extent necessary in the domain that’s appropriate with expert timing and tact. What it means to be a transcendent human is to eschew (…better integrate) the animal impulses that drive you. That is a truly transcendent complex being; it’s a complexity (paradox) that only humans can hold; and many human animals seemingly can’t. We have an unhelpful crossing of domains; too many men acting like bitches in domains where bitching ought to get you pummeled. And to many women acting as tyrants as if they have the violent ability to enforce their preference on the rest of us; they DON’T. We have a hoard of hypocrites. Hypocrites that believe creativity is to deny the existent and operate as if it doesn’t exist in the very space in which it certainly does {denying reality}. This ISN’T creative {creativity stems and springs from emergent connection WITH nature NOT the denial of its existence} what you’re creating is destruction. CREATIVITY True creativity comes from allowing and synergistically coopting the emergent complexity arising from constraint and control. Why? Simply because you’re not fighting the very things that give you form and function. To rebel against the complexity of life; to revert to animal status and raise those animal instincts above the man is to relegate men back to animal company. Destruction NOT creation. A return to nature NOT a higher culture. Being creatively destructive isn’t exactly creation (production). Being creatively destructive can bring back the necessary landscape for creation (production), but this ought to be a last-ditch effort; one taken up when hope has been lost… and be wary, hope has been lost since before Obama; why do you think “Hope and Change” resonated with so many? Your creativity in a direction away from compatibility (individualism; atomization) is crippling our ability to complement each-other leaving us to converge in temperament and pursuit, eliminating dimorphism and specialization along with the gains that come from cohesion and cooperation. COMPATIBILITY Masculine integrated with the feminine; culture controlling nature; packs tempering the preference of the herds; law lending a landscape of love… Life is birthed of compatible optimally adversarial antagonistic forces; that force one another to improve in their domains yet still be desirable to the other. To become similar or much worse, the same; is to remove all the good we do each-other and relegate competition to the realm of consumption and resources. Compatibility allows for creativity in the complementary space; there are many more modes of success with a partner (family, community) than without; and to the extent we tool this place so this reality increasing becomes NOT the case, we do ourselves and humanity a disservice. We undermine the family unit for individual units and quite frankly kill the future before it is born at all. Which brings us to compliments. COMPLEMENTS Compatibility is one thing; complement is another. Because compatibility exists complements emerge. We combine as partners; constrained by biology, controlled by culture, infinitely complex in nature allowing us to be creative (adapt) in our complementary skills. We specialize in completing (complementing) our environments. The human environment mostly made up of human beings. As it is humans we deal with most often. Dimorphism and specialization NOT atomization (individualism) are the ways to prosperity. This “forces” the cohesion of man and women which provides a landscape of children to uphold future generations. COHESION Due to the nature of culture (patriarchy) as human nature (nurture; family) at scale; cohesion is needed to ensure children are loved and disciplined in a fashion so that this system of continual improvement can keep on keeping on. A culture that puts its future (children) ahead of its present (preference, typically “animal”) and doesn’t seek to rectify the past (what is dead) is ideal. Not because you shouldn’t indulge in what it means to be a human animal (because you should it’s part of thee ride) but because that ought not be your ultimate aim. It’s the pursuit NOT the happiness that is the genius behind the words in the American Declaration. And if the founding fathers understood what technology was coming around the bend {you may be thinking Facebook; but I’m thinking weaponized lying and justification of wants} they wouldn’t have worded that bit so ambiguously. Cohesion around the understanding that future flourishing is paramount if we’d like to continue this human experiment into perpetuity. Perpetuity being the ball you ought to keep your eye on. Children being the only thing that allow for its perpetuation. COOPERATION And here we are; at the beginning and the end. The Alpha and Omega. Cooperation; the emergent morality between living beings IS the end all be all of the human experiment. Maintaining a landscape of sovereignty solving for cooperation is optimal. It’s the ideal system of human interaction and it posits no aim but this: cooperation IS the optimum strategy for the living and forgoing cooperation (when able) for predation or parasitism is immoral (bad). The natural law of reciprocity ensures our cohesion expands beyond the realm of mating; that we continue to complement one another in every human realm and that we remain compatible. It posits that we create rather than destroy; that complex agents controlled by simple rules beat out simple agents following complicated rules 10 times out of 10; and that it’s our cultural constraints that allow our (any) culture to form and function… See once you see it you can’t unsee it.

  • The Curse of Institutionalized Paradigms

    Nov 20, 2019, 4:40 PM THE CURSE OF INSTITUTIONALIZED PARADIGMS It seems strange to tell someone that the earth is round, or that the stars are not pricks in the fabric of the sky, or most of all that velocity through space significantly alters the rate of change we call time. The fact that we continually correct ourselves is the purpose of reason. The strangeness of an increase in parsimony is evidence of the substantiality of error given its absence. Why? because by the combination of memory, action, and reason, we can continually increase our agency (physical, emotional, intellectual, social, political, evolutionary) and continually increase the capture of differences in state of the universe through our actions. OBSCURANTISM When we use the verb “to-be”, we use it to obscure one of the following (including my intentional use of the verb to be to refer to “currently acting” (doing) as illustration). 1 – to overcome limits of less able minds to bear the cost in short term memory of 2 – to save time and effort of grammatical construction among those who share sufficient context that they will not misconstrue our intent. 3 – to avoid accountability for our testimony (promise). 4 – to inflate a promise (conduct a pretense of knowledge) by habitual repetition of a convention we do not understand 5 – to obscure our ignorance of the relations we testify to (promise). 6 – to suggest relations that are present but insufficient for fulfillment of our promise. 7 – to suggest relations that are not present because of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, for the purpose of coercion. 8 – to suggest relations that are not present for the purpose of deception or fraud. In other words, we use it because of Convenience, Ignorance, Error, Coercion, and Deceit.. THE FICTION OF CONFLATION OF LAW(SCRIPTURE) WITH SPEECH. And so, while we can interpret scripture, the written word, and the recorded law, when we are dependent upon appeals to the authority of scripture, written word, and recorded law, in any circumstance where recursive discourse is possible, we produce statements that are undeniable (false), decidable(true), informative but undecidable, undecidable, and incomprehensible. And we can determine intentions are scientific and logical (false), testimonial and constructive (moral/true ), honest(moral), considerate(polite), immoral (coercive), and criminal (fraudulent). TRANSACTIONS RATHER THAN CREATIVE INTERPRETATIONS AND DECEPTIONS And to determine degree of decidability, and intentionality requires little more than complete sentences(full accounting) in operational grammar and semantics (complete transactions). And exercises in the ‘interpretation’ of incomplete transactions is … well, something close to a victorian parlor game. For example: “The cat is black” vs “I promise I see a cat, and I promise that its body appears black.” Is very similar to: “It’s a rational number” vs “That number consists of a fractional ratio of two or more positional names converted to decimal notation, that produces a equi-divisible, and therefore terminating, positional name” (where fraction is defined elsewhere). is very similar to: “The square root of two” and “infinity”, neither of which can exist, for precisely the same reasons: limits. And in the Ship of Theseus “of” serves that same function as ‘is’: to mislead. Stating the question as “That ship we contractually refer to as the ship owned by, paid for by, designed by, crafted by, constructed of….” each asks a different question.” (Our nouns contain these general properties of ownership, probability etc). While nouns, ( or referrers ) may be constructed by many means, from the arbitrary, to the fictional, to the allegorical, to the analogical, to the normative and traditional, to the descriptive to a set of measurements, to a set of relative measurements of a set of constant relations. So the ship of theseus consists which category of referrers? A contractual (normative) one. THE OPERATIONAL NAME OF “LOGIC”. The word “logic”, operationally refers to ‘the preservation of constant relations’ between states (statements) by one or more dimensions of constant relations. 1 – So far as we know, the universe consists entirely of a hierarchical network of constant relations. (Soft Determinism) 2 – While that universe appears to consist of a small number of constant relations (state) and possible operations (changes in state), through layers of permutations of possible operations great complexity can emerge. 3 – Statements Definitions, tautologies, deductions, inductions, abductions and guesses (even free associations) require some set of constant relations between states (statements), by one or more dimensions of constant relations. 4 – We are able to promise descriptions through guesses 5 – We are able to state Tautologies through Guesses (even free associations) as a means of suggesting relations. 6 – And we are able to state sets of tautologies through guesses to cumulatively (repeatedly) suggest relations. 7 – And we are able at times (special cases) to construct proofs of possibility that survive competition with proofs of impossibility. (Where a proof consists of demonstration and survival of the preservation of constant relations between states (Statements). STRONG LANGUAGE WITH WEAK GRAMMAR Lucky as we are that english provides as a low context high precision language, and luckier that we are that english grammar generates an analytic rather than synthetic language, and lucky as we are that english contains semantics dialects such as working class germanic, aristocratic french, and intellectual latin and greek. And lucky as we are that english preserves methodological dialects, each of which varies in the preservation of one or more constant relations, including but not limited to the categorical (differences), arithmetic (positional), mathematical, financial, (formal) logical, algorithmic, scientific, legal, experiential(ordinary), fictional, mythic, supernatural, and occult. We remain somewhere between unlucky and primitive, because our grammar remains tainted by the 20th century failure of brewer, bridgman, mises, hayek, popper and dozens of others to complete the transition through probabilistic to operational semantics and grammar. But as lucky as we are and as unlucky as we have been, it is quite possible to produce a semantics, grammar and syntax of universal commensurability across all methodological dialects, using each to falsify the other. And that is the continued evolution of inventions of science, (inherited quite honestly from engineering), of the limit of testimony (descriptions) to operational language. THE SHIP OF THESEUS AS AN EXERCISE IN THE STUDY OF DECEPTION. Rational (kantian) Philosophy, mathematical platonism, pseudoscientific ficationalsms, hermeneutics, the interpretation of scripture, and the interpretation of law, all are So the proper answer to the Ship of Theseus, is that names consist of some combination of promises, and the contract for the name of the ship of theseus is by definition provided by the question, one of ownership, and our underlying cause of this undecidability begs the questions: 1) why are we ignorant of grammar and semantics of the language we use, and 2) why does sophomoric philosophy consist largely of questions employing this weakness in our semantics, grammar and its understanding, 3) why is it, that we do not ask the question why most paradoxes of this nature are not in fact paradoxes, but deceptions. And 4) why do we not learn that our world is full of deceptions because of the persistence of ideal, supernatural, and occult semantics and grammar? And 5) why do we not punish people who perpetuate such deceptions by use of ideal, supernatural, and occult semantics and grammar? 😉 (The last a bit tongue in cheek.) So this particular ‘deception’ (by means of suggestion) is interesting because it provides a vehicle for exploring the techniques of deception and the techniques we use to construct names, and the REASON we use those names rather than other names. So we could say the ship built for theseus, using money he’d made from trading olive oil, by tom, dick, and harry, and designed by eric, during a certain date range, at a certain port, out of materials obtained from here there and everywhere. So the question is, which constant relations are we discussing? If the ship is dismantled and rebuilt by the same design I would say that one does not testify falsely by using the same short-name (theseus’s ship Mathilda). TRANSACTIONS: (CLOSING SUGGESTION): LOGIC WITHOUT GRAMMAR IDENTICAL TO ADDITION WITHOUT EQUALS SIGN, OR ACCOUNTING WITHOUT BALANCES, OR THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE WITHOUT EQUILIBRATION. Now, one last idea for you to mull over: We have been fussing over ‘logic’ for a very long time, and by and large it turns out to have done nothing at all beyond the trivial documentation of the various dimensions of constant relations in our language (nouns and verbs). Like game theory, logic does not scale. Our method of scaling logic has resulted in grammar just as the means of scaling physical interactions results in chemistry. The foundations of mathematics consist of a trivial necessity of the consequences of constant relations made possible to measure by use of positional names. The foundations of Language (a sequence of transactions describing change in state of relations using semantics(referents), grammar/rules, syntax) consist of three ranges of experience(measurements): physical(voluntary), experiential(involuntary), and imaginary(voluntary). And the actionable universe ends at four dimensions. And the semantic universe is constructed by changes in state within them, given the three ranges of experiences available to us, just as the physical, chemical, biological, and semantic evolve from the underlying forces of the universe. We have been trying to deflate our semantics, grammar, and syntax without grasping the rather obvious: that language consist of a fairly exhaustive inventory of thought at any given point in time, consisting of three sets of dimensions, four dimensions of reality, and n-dimensions of experience in an (as yet) endless set of hierarchical permutations. We must use language with some dependence upon logic or the relatively low bandwidth of serial phonetic communication using referential symbols would be useless. So humans are good at scaling logic. The problem we face consists of the conflation of various semantic sets (sets of in-commensurable constant relations), and the ease at which people’s abilities are overloaded by that process, forcing us to return to intuition because of the un-testability of incommensurable suggestions. in other words, logic merely amplifies the problem of overloading (which is why formal logic is not used outside of the discipline), and all other disciplines require demanding grammar, just as philosophy DOES NOT (heidegger etc). The problem we face is not the study of logic which is a necessary property of comprehension using referents (symbols) but constraining the grammar to complete transactions and the semantics to correspondence with a universal standard, and the only universal standard available to man – is actions. TRANSACTIONS: (CLOSING SUGGESTION): LOGIC WITHOUT GRAMMAR IDENTICAL TO ADDITION WITHOUT EQUALS SIGN, OR ACCOUNTING WITHOUT BALANCES, OR THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE WITHOUT EQUILIBRATION. Now, one last idea for you to mull over: We have been fussing over ‘logic’ for a very long time, and by and large it turns out to have done nothing at all beyond the trivial documentation of the various dimensions of constant relations in our language (nouns and verbs). Like game theory, logic does not scale. Our method of scaling logic has resulted in grammar just as the means of scaling physical interactions results in chemistry. The foundations of mathematics consist of a trivial necessity of the consequences of constant relations made possible to measure by use of positional names. The foundations of Language (a sequence of transactions describing change in state of relations using semantics(referents), grammar/rules, syntax) consist of three ranges of experience(measurements): physical(voluntary), experiential(involuntary), and imaginary(voluntary). And the actionable universe ends at four dimensions. And the semantic universe is constructed by changes in state within them, given the three ranges of experiences available to us, just as the physical, chemical, biological, and semantic evolve from the underlying forces of the universe. We have been trying to deflate our semantics, grammar, and syntax without grasping the rather obvious: that language consist of a fairly exhaustive inventory of thought at any given point in time, consisting of three sets of dimensions, four dimensions of reality, and n-dimensions of experience in an (as yet) endless set of hierarchical permutations. We must use language with some dependence upon logic or the relatively low bandwidth of serial phonetic communication using referential symbols would be useless. So humans are good at scaling logic. The problem we face consists of the conflation of various semantic sets (sets of in-commensurable constant relations), and the ease at which people’s abilities are overloaded by that process, forcing us to return to intuition because of the un-testability of incommensurable suggestions. in other words, logic merely amplifies the problem of overloading (which is why formal logic is not used outside of the discipline), and all other disciplines require demanding grammar, just as philosophy DOES NOT (heidegger etc). The problem we face is not the study of logic which is a necessary property of comprehension using referents (symbols) but constraining the grammar to complete transactions and the semantics to correspondence with a universal standard, and the only universal standard available to man – is actions. NOW, IN THIS CONTEXT, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION. Does any ideal exist? No. Identity requires a contract for constant relations. The question is, who is that contract with? And what are the terms? Because while a positional name cannot vary except in scale and referent, nearly all other names refer to some contractual necessity, norm, or habit. Can I use a better name than another to refer to the same entity under the same terms? Of course. The most parsimonious operational description possible constitutes the least erroneous name. Unfortunately, the terms of semantic contract vary substantially over time. Yet if all are expressed in a universally commensurable language of operational descriptions, then it is very difficult for the contractual terms of that contract to vary over time. Attempts to conflate the identity of positional names of scale independence with contractual references is rather foolish when we give it even the most tepid bit of thought. Either we speak in measurements of we speak in fantasies, and the most important question is not whether we speak the optimum: the most parsimonious description possible at the current level of understanding (truth), but whether we testify falsely as to the state of our knowledge.

  • The Curse of Institutionalized Paradigms

    Nov 20, 2019, 4:40 PM THE CURSE OF INSTITUTIONALIZED PARADIGMS It seems strange to tell someone that the earth is round, or that the stars are not pricks in the fabric of the sky, or most of all that velocity through space significantly alters the rate of change we call time. The fact that we continually correct ourselves is the purpose of reason. The strangeness of an increase in parsimony is evidence of the substantiality of error given its absence. Why? because by the combination of memory, action, and reason, we can continually increase our agency (physical, emotional, intellectual, social, political, evolutionary) and continually increase the capture of differences in state of the universe through our actions. OBSCURANTISM When we use the verb “to-be”, we use it to obscure one of the following (including my intentional use of the verb to be to refer to “currently acting” (doing) as illustration). 1 – to overcome limits of less able minds to bear the cost in short term memory of 2 – to save time and effort of grammatical construction among those who share sufficient context that they will not misconstrue our intent. 3 – to avoid accountability for our testimony (promise). 4 – to inflate a promise (conduct a pretense of knowledge) by habitual repetition of a convention we do not understand 5 – to obscure our ignorance of the relations we testify to (promise). 6 – to suggest relations that are present but insufficient for fulfillment of our promise. 7 – to suggest relations that are not present because of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, for the purpose of coercion. 8 – to suggest relations that are not present for the purpose of deception or fraud. In other words, we use it because of Convenience, Ignorance, Error, Coercion, and Deceit.. THE FICTION OF CONFLATION OF LAW(SCRIPTURE) WITH SPEECH. And so, while we can interpret scripture, the written word, and the recorded law, when we are dependent upon appeals to the authority of scripture, written word, and recorded law, in any circumstance where recursive discourse is possible, we produce statements that are undeniable (false), decidable(true), informative but undecidable, undecidable, and incomprehensible. And we can determine intentions are scientific and logical (false), testimonial and constructive (moral/true ), honest(moral), considerate(polite), immoral (coercive), and criminal (fraudulent). TRANSACTIONS RATHER THAN CREATIVE INTERPRETATIONS AND DECEPTIONS And to determine degree of decidability, and intentionality requires little more than complete sentences(full accounting) in operational grammar and semantics (complete transactions). And exercises in the ‘interpretation’ of incomplete transactions is … well, something close to a victorian parlor game. For example: “The cat is black” vs “I promise I see a cat, and I promise that its body appears black.” Is very similar to: “It’s a rational number” vs “That number consists of a fractional ratio of two or more positional names converted to decimal notation, that produces a equi-divisible, and therefore terminating, positional name” (where fraction is defined elsewhere). is very similar to: “The square root of two” and “infinity”, neither of which can exist, for precisely the same reasons: limits. And in the Ship of Theseus “of” serves that same function as ‘is’: to mislead. Stating the question as “That ship we contractually refer to as the ship owned by, paid for by, designed by, crafted by, constructed of….” each asks a different question.” (Our nouns contain these general properties of ownership, probability etc). While nouns, ( or referrers ) may be constructed by many means, from the arbitrary, to the fictional, to the allegorical, to the analogical, to the normative and traditional, to the descriptive to a set of measurements, to a set of relative measurements of a set of constant relations. So the ship of theseus consists which category of referrers? A contractual (normative) one. THE OPERATIONAL NAME OF “LOGIC”. The word “logic”, operationally refers to ‘the preservation of constant relations’ between states (statements) by one or more dimensions of constant relations. 1 – So far as we know, the universe consists entirely of a hierarchical network of constant relations. (Soft Determinism) 2 – While that universe appears to consist of a small number of constant relations (state) and possible operations (changes in state), through layers of permutations of possible operations great complexity can emerge. 3 – Statements Definitions, tautologies, deductions, inductions, abductions and guesses (even free associations) require some set of constant relations between states (statements), by one or more dimensions of constant relations. 4 – We are able to promise descriptions through guesses 5 – We are able to state Tautologies through Guesses (even free associations) as a means of suggesting relations. 6 – And we are able to state sets of tautologies through guesses to cumulatively (repeatedly) suggest relations. 7 – And we are able at times (special cases) to construct proofs of possibility that survive competition with proofs of impossibility. (Where a proof consists of demonstration and survival of the preservation of constant relations between states (Statements). STRONG LANGUAGE WITH WEAK GRAMMAR Lucky as we are that english provides as a low context high precision language, and luckier that we are that english grammar generates an analytic rather than synthetic language, and lucky as we are that english contains semantics dialects such as working class germanic, aristocratic french, and intellectual latin and greek. And lucky as we are that english preserves methodological dialects, each of which varies in the preservation of one or more constant relations, including but not limited to the categorical (differences), arithmetic (positional), mathematical, financial, (formal) logical, algorithmic, scientific, legal, experiential(ordinary), fictional, mythic, supernatural, and occult. We remain somewhere between unlucky and primitive, because our grammar remains tainted by the 20th century failure of brewer, bridgman, mises, hayek, popper and dozens of others to complete the transition through probabilistic to operational semantics and grammar. But as lucky as we are and as unlucky as we have been, it is quite possible to produce a semantics, grammar and syntax of universal commensurability across all methodological dialects, using each to falsify the other. And that is the continued evolution of inventions of science, (inherited quite honestly from engineering), of the limit of testimony (descriptions) to operational language. THE SHIP OF THESEUS AS AN EXERCISE IN THE STUDY OF DECEPTION. Rational (kantian) Philosophy, mathematical platonism, pseudoscientific ficationalsms, hermeneutics, the interpretation of scripture, and the interpretation of law, all are So the proper answer to the Ship of Theseus, is that names consist of some combination of promises, and the contract for the name of the ship of theseus is by definition provided by the question, one of ownership, and our underlying cause of this undecidability begs the questions: 1) why are we ignorant of grammar and semantics of the language we use, and 2) why does sophomoric philosophy consist largely of questions employing this weakness in our semantics, grammar and its understanding, 3) why is it, that we do not ask the question why most paradoxes of this nature are not in fact paradoxes, but deceptions. And 4) why do we not learn that our world is full of deceptions because of the persistence of ideal, supernatural, and occult semantics and grammar? And 5) why do we not punish people who perpetuate such deceptions by use of ideal, supernatural, and occult semantics and grammar? 😉 (The last a bit tongue in cheek.) So this particular ‘deception’ (by means of suggestion) is interesting because it provides a vehicle for exploring the techniques of deception and the techniques we use to construct names, and the REASON we use those names rather than other names. So we could say the ship built for theseus, using money he’d made from trading olive oil, by tom, dick, and harry, and designed by eric, during a certain date range, at a certain port, out of materials obtained from here there and everywhere. So the question is, which constant relations are we discussing? If the ship is dismantled and rebuilt by the same design I would say that one does not testify falsely by using the same short-name (theseus’s ship Mathilda). TRANSACTIONS: (CLOSING SUGGESTION): LOGIC WITHOUT GRAMMAR IDENTICAL TO ADDITION WITHOUT EQUALS SIGN, OR ACCOUNTING WITHOUT BALANCES, OR THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE WITHOUT EQUILIBRATION. Now, one last idea for you to mull over: We have been fussing over ‘logic’ for a very long time, and by and large it turns out to have done nothing at all beyond the trivial documentation of the various dimensions of constant relations in our language (nouns and verbs). Like game theory, logic does not scale. Our method of scaling logic has resulted in grammar just as the means of scaling physical interactions results in chemistry. The foundations of mathematics consist of a trivial necessity of the consequences of constant relations made possible to measure by use of positional names. The foundations of Language (a sequence of transactions describing change in state of relations using semantics(referents), grammar/rules, syntax) consist of three ranges of experience(measurements): physical(voluntary), experiential(involuntary), and imaginary(voluntary). And the actionable universe ends at four dimensions. And the semantic universe is constructed by changes in state within them, given the three ranges of experiences available to us, just as the physical, chemical, biological, and semantic evolve from the underlying forces of the universe. We have been trying to deflate our semantics, grammar, and syntax without grasping the rather obvious: that language consist of a fairly exhaustive inventory of thought at any given point in time, consisting of three sets of dimensions, four dimensions of reality, and n-dimensions of experience in an (as yet) endless set of hierarchical permutations. We must use language with some dependence upon logic or the relatively low bandwidth of serial phonetic communication using referential symbols would be useless. So humans are good at scaling logic. The problem we face consists of the conflation of various semantic sets (sets of in-commensurable constant relations), and the ease at which people’s abilities are overloaded by that process, forcing us to return to intuition because of the un-testability of incommensurable suggestions. in other words, logic merely amplifies the problem of overloading (which is why formal logic is not used outside of the discipline), and all other disciplines require demanding grammar, just as philosophy DOES NOT (heidegger etc). The problem we face is not the study of logic which is a necessary property of comprehension using referents (symbols) but constraining the grammar to complete transactions and the semantics to correspondence with a universal standard, and the only universal standard available to man – is actions. TRANSACTIONS: (CLOSING SUGGESTION): LOGIC WITHOUT GRAMMAR IDENTICAL TO ADDITION WITHOUT EQUALS SIGN, OR ACCOUNTING WITHOUT BALANCES, OR THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE WITHOUT EQUILIBRATION. Now, one last idea for you to mull over: We have been fussing over ‘logic’ for a very long time, and by and large it turns out to have done nothing at all beyond the trivial documentation of the various dimensions of constant relations in our language (nouns and verbs). Like game theory, logic does not scale. Our method of scaling logic has resulted in grammar just as the means of scaling physical interactions results in chemistry. The foundations of mathematics consist of a trivial necessity of the consequences of constant relations made possible to measure by use of positional names. The foundations of Language (a sequence of transactions describing change in state of relations using semantics(referents), grammar/rules, syntax) consist of three ranges of experience(measurements): physical(voluntary), experiential(involuntary), and imaginary(voluntary). And the actionable universe ends at four dimensions. And the semantic universe is constructed by changes in state within them, given the three ranges of experiences available to us, just as the physical, chemical, biological, and semantic evolve from the underlying forces of the universe. We have been trying to deflate our semantics, grammar, and syntax without grasping the rather obvious: that language consist of a fairly exhaustive inventory of thought at any given point in time, consisting of three sets of dimensions, four dimensions of reality, and n-dimensions of experience in an (as yet) endless set of hierarchical permutations. We must use language with some dependence upon logic or the relatively low bandwidth of serial phonetic communication using referential symbols would be useless. So humans are good at scaling logic. The problem we face consists of the conflation of various semantic sets (sets of in-commensurable constant relations), and the ease at which people’s abilities are overloaded by that process, forcing us to return to intuition because of the un-testability of incommensurable suggestions. in other words, logic merely amplifies the problem of overloading (which is why formal logic is not used outside of the discipline), and all other disciplines require demanding grammar, just as philosophy DOES NOT (heidegger etc). The problem we face is not the study of logic which is a necessary property of comprehension using referents (symbols) but constraining the grammar to complete transactions and the semantics to correspondence with a universal standard, and the only universal standard available to man – is actions. NOW, IN THIS CONTEXT, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION. Does any ideal exist? No. Identity requires a contract for constant relations. The question is, who is that contract with? And what are the terms? Because while a positional name cannot vary except in scale and referent, nearly all other names refer to some contractual necessity, norm, or habit. Can I use a better name than another to refer to the same entity under the same terms? Of course. The most parsimonious operational description possible constitutes the least erroneous name. Unfortunately, the terms of semantic contract vary substantially over time. Yet if all are expressed in a universally commensurable language of operational descriptions, then it is very difficult for the contractual terms of that contract to vary over time. Attempts to conflate the identity of positional names of scale independence with contractual references is rather foolish when we give it even the most tepid bit of thought. Either we speak in measurements of we speak in fantasies, and the most important question is not whether we speak the optimum: the most parsimonious description possible at the current level of understanding (truth), but whether we testify falsely as to the state of our knowledge.

  • Why Anglos Think European Bureaucracy and Law Is Idiotic

    1. There is only one law and that is property. All else is an application of that law to circumstance.
    2. Every man is sovereign and equal before the law
    3. The members of the state are merely members of the polity who have taken jobs administering the polity.
    4. We ‘battle’ before the court, and jury, with arguments, and the jury (really) can nullify laws or decisions at will.
    5. Judges discover violations of the one law creating decisions that become applications of, and records of, that law.
    6. This law is PURELY EMPIRICAL (scientific) method of continuously discovering what not to do, without determining what we should do.
    7. This law adapts immediately without administrative intervention or process to changes in circumstance and technology.
    8. Under this system of law anything not illegal is legal, and moreover, law may not be applied retroactively: where there is no law there is no crime.
    9. Under this system of law, we have very little constraint on people but more conflict in courts as a result, so we trade maximum opportunity for cooperation for higher chances of conflict we must defend against if we err.
    10. MOST IMPORTANTLY: To govern we only need to prohibit crimes. The ‘market’ and the court does the rest of its own self regulation, purely empirically not theoretically.

    The real difference? Because we could trust anglo judges and the french couldn’t trust french judges. Now the answer to that question of why is fascinating. Judges are just professional lawyers in Common law, not political or state bureaucrats. (the best generals were soliders) The European Union And The Common Law By Dr. Gary K. Busch There are many reasons why the European Union has failed in its task to create a system of democracy, fairness and transparency in its internal dealings. These include political corruption, economic ineptitude and the elites adherence to the religion of federalism among states and citizens whose agnosticism to that faith is proven at every referendum. The political and economic vacuity of the European bureaucrats is a heavy burden for any organisation to bear. However, despite the manifold failings of the leadership of the EU, the root cause of its incapacity lies elsewhere. There is a fundamental problem which has beset the European Community since its inception the conflict between the common law and the Roman-Dutch civil law of the Continent. THE COMMON LAW In essence, the Common Law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in England where it originated in the Middle Ages, and in nations or regions that trace their legal heritage to England as former colonies of the British Empire. It is a system of law which is founded on case law and precedents. This Common Law was developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. The fundamental principle is that of the continuity of the law and the root belief that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. The body of precedents developed through prior adjudication binds future legal decisions on similar points of law.. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past presidential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as Stare Decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a “matter of first impression”), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent. Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts. This system of Common Law is the source of law in England, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the former British colonies in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. This Common Law distinguishes itself from Statutory or Regulatory Law promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to delegation of rule-making authority from the legislature and is generally anterior to these statutory or regulatory laws. The Common Law arises from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to define what the law is, even in absence of an underlying statute, Most criminal law and procedural law; most of contract law and the law of torts; and court decisions that interpret and decide the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies relies on judges taking evidence in an adversarial proceeding and delivering a judgement which establishes the strictures of the ensuing law. This body of common law, sometimes called “interstitial common law,” includes judicial interpretations of the Constitution, of statutes, and of regulations, and examples of application of law to facts. This Common Law system is very different that the civil law system which prevails in Europe. Common law systems place great weight on court decisions, which are considered “law” with the same force of law as statute for nearly a millennium, common law courts have had the authority to make law where no legislative statute exists, and statutes mean what courts interpret them to mean. By contrast, in civil law jurisdictions courts lack authority to act where there is no statute, and judicial precedent is given less interpretive weight which means that a judge deciding a given case has more freedom to interpret the text of a statute independently, and less predictably. For example, the Napoleonic code expressly forbade French judges from pronouncing general principles of law. CIVIL LAW Civil law is a legal system inspired by Roman law and whose primary feature is that laws are codified into collections which are referenced. Conceptually, it is the group of legal ideas and systems ultimately derived from the Code of Justinian, but heavily overlaid by Germanic, ecclesiastical, feudal and local practices as well as doctrinal strains such as natural law, codification, and legislative positivism. Civil law proceeds from abstractions, formulates general principles, and distinguishes substantive rules from procedural rules. It holds legislation as the primary source of law, and the court system is usually inquisitorial, unbound by precedent, and composed of specially trained judicial officers with a limited authority to interpret law. Juries separate from the judges are not used, although in some cases, volunteer lay judges participate along with legally trained career judges. European civil law relies on the notion of codification. The concept of codification was developed as conforming to a political ideal which required the creation of certainty of law, through the recording of law and through its uniformity.[iii] The principle of civil law is to provide all citizens with an accessible and written collection of the laws which apply to them and which judges must follow. Where codes exist, the primary source of law is the law code, which is a systematic collection of interrelated articles arranged by subject matter in some pre-specified order, and that explain the principles of law, rights and entitlements, and how basic legal mechanisms work. Law codes are usually created by a legislature’s enactment of a new statute that embodies all the old statutes relating to the subject and including changes necessitated by court decisions[iv] There are many differences between the Common Law and civil law, much too abstruse for this analysis. For the purpose of analysing the conflict of laws within the European Union a simple concept will suffice. This was recited to me by the new head of the Legal Division of the European Economic Community in the early 1970s. I was researching and writing a television documentary for the Canadian Windows on the World� (CTV) called The New Europeans. The legal head was a British lawyer. He said to me, This European Community will never work. English law says that whatever is not illegal is permitted. In Europe, if something is not specifically permitted under some codified rule, than it is illegal. He went on to say that not only must everything be specifically permitted it has to be permitted uniformly throughout the Community. That is why there are so many directives, guidelines and rules set up by the EU which govern all aspects of economic and political life. All these rules must be the same throughout the EU. Most of the time taken up by the EU (except for the profitable business of allocating subsidies, allowances and quotas) is spent dealing with the minutiae of governance. This is why the EU is bogged down by pettifoggery and why the English cannot fathom what these bureaucrats are about. If it isn’t illegal than one should be free to do it. It certainly makes sense to Americans, Canadians, Australians and others. This conflict of laws is equally a challenge to multinational companies attempting to pursue their aims in the EU. Much of what is taken for granted as legal and permissible in other parts of the world is differently construed in Europe. This is repeated in Africa where ex-British colonies are often in conflict with ex-French, Spanish and Portuguese colonies. This issue is an important factor in the current debate on the imposition of a tax on financial transactions. It is a dilemma for those involved. Ultimately there is no solution to this dilemma. Perhaps a separation of the Common Law countries from the civil law bureaucracies is inevitable. To quote Marx, it contains the seeds of its own destruction. [i] Garner, Bryan A. (2001). A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2nd, revised ed.). New York: OUP. [ii] Neubauer, David W.,and Stephen S. Meinhold. Judicial Process: Law, Courts, and Politics in the United States. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007, pg.28. [iii] Smits, Jan (ed.); Dotevall, Rolf (2006), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, “63: Sweden”, Edward Elgar Publishing, [iv] Neubauer, David W.,and Stephen S. Meinhold., op.cit.

  • Why Anglos Think European Bureaucracy and Law Is Idiotic

    1. There is only one law and that is property. All else is an application of that law to circumstance.
    2. Every man is sovereign and equal before the law
    3. The members of the state are merely members of the polity who have taken jobs administering the polity.
    4. We ‘battle’ before the court, and jury, with arguments, and the jury (really) can nullify laws or decisions at will.
    5. Judges discover violations of the one law creating decisions that become applications of, and records of, that law.
    6. This law is PURELY EMPIRICAL (scientific) method of continuously discovering what not to do, without determining what we should do.
    7. This law adapts immediately without administrative intervention or process to changes in circumstance and technology.
    8. Under this system of law anything not illegal is legal, and moreover, law may not be applied retroactively: where there is no law there is no crime.
    9. Under this system of law, we have very little constraint on people but more conflict in courts as a result, so we trade maximum opportunity for cooperation for higher chances of conflict we must defend against if we err.
    10. MOST IMPORTANTLY: To govern we only need to prohibit crimes. The ‘market’ and the court does the rest of its own self regulation, purely empirically not theoretically.

    The real difference? Because we could trust anglo judges and the french couldn’t trust french judges. Now the answer to that question of why is fascinating. Judges are just professional lawyers in Common law, not political or state bureaucrats. (the best generals were soliders) The European Union And The Common Law By Dr. Gary K. Busch There are many reasons why the European Union has failed in its task to create a system of democracy, fairness and transparency in its internal dealings. These include political corruption, economic ineptitude and the elites adherence to the religion of federalism among states and citizens whose agnosticism to that faith is proven at every referendum. The political and economic vacuity of the European bureaucrats is a heavy burden for any organisation to bear. However, despite the manifold failings of the leadership of the EU, the root cause of its incapacity lies elsewhere. There is a fundamental problem which has beset the European Community since its inception the conflict between the common law and the Roman-Dutch civil law of the Continent. THE COMMON LAW In essence, the Common Law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in England where it originated in the Middle Ages, and in nations or regions that trace their legal heritage to England as former colonies of the British Empire. It is a system of law which is founded on case law and precedents. This Common Law was developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. The fundamental principle is that of the continuity of the law and the root belief that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. The body of precedents developed through prior adjudication binds future legal decisions on similar points of law.. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past presidential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as Stare Decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a “matter of first impression”), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent. Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts. This system of Common Law is the source of law in England, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the former British colonies in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. This Common Law distinguishes itself from Statutory or Regulatory Law promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to delegation of rule-making authority from the legislature and is generally anterior to these statutory or regulatory laws. The Common Law arises from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to define what the law is, even in absence of an underlying statute, Most criminal law and procedural law; most of contract law and the law of torts; and court decisions that interpret and decide the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies relies on judges taking evidence in an adversarial proceeding and delivering a judgement which establishes the strictures of the ensuing law. This body of common law, sometimes called “interstitial common law,” includes judicial interpretations of the Constitution, of statutes, and of regulations, and examples of application of law to facts. This Common Law system is very different that the civil law system which prevails in Europe. Common law systems place great weight on court decisions, which are considered “law” with the same force of law as statute for nearly a millennium, common law courts have had the authority to make law where no legislative statute exists, and statutes mean what courts interpret them to mean. By contrast, in civil law jurisdictions courts lack authority to act where there is no statute, and judicial precedent is given less interpretive weight which means that a judge deciding a given case has more freedom to interpret the text of a statute independently, and less predictably. For example, the Napoleonic code expressly forbade French judges from pronouncing general principles of law. CIVIL LAW Civil law is a legal system inspired by Roman law and whose primary feature is that laws are codified into collections which are referenced. Conceptually, it is the group of legal ideas and systems ultimately derived from the Code of Justinian, but heavily overlaid by Germanic, ecclesiastical, feudal and local practices as well as doctrinal strains such as natural law, codification, and legislative positivism. Civil law proceeds from abstractions, formulates general principles, and distinguishes substantive rules from procedural rules. It holds legislation as the primary source of law, and the court system is usually inquisitorial, unbound by precedent, and composed of specially trained judicial officers with a limited authority to interpret law. Juries separate from the judges are not used, although in some cases, volunteer lay judges participate along with legally trained career judges. European civil law relies on the notion of codification. The concept of codification was developed as conforming to a political ideal which required the creation of certainty of law, through the recording of law and through its uniformity.[iii] The principle of civil law is to provide all citizens with an accessible and written collection of the laws which apply to them and which judges must follow. Where codes exist, the primary source of law is the law code, which is a systematic collection of interrelated articles arranged by subject matter in some pre-specified order, and that explain the principles of law, rights and entitlements, and how basic legal mechanisms work. Law codes are usually created by a legislature’s enactment of a new statute that embodies all the old statutes relating to the subject and including changes necessitated by court decisions[iv] There are many differences between the Common Law and civil law, much too abstruse for this analysis. For the purpose of analysing the conflict of laws within the European Union a simple concept will suffice. This was recited to me by the new head of the Legal Division of the European Economic Community in the early 1970s. I was researching and writing a television documentary for the Canadian Windows on the World� (CTV) called The New Europeans. The legal head was a British lawyer. He said to me, This European Community will never work. English law says that whatever is not illegal is permitted. In Europe, if something is not specifically permitted under some codified rule, than it is illegal. He went on to say that not only must everything be specifically permitted it has to be permitted uniformly throughout the Community. That is why there are so many directives, guidelines and rules set up by the EU which govern all aspects of economic and political life. All these rules must be the same throughout the EU. Most of the time taken up by the EU (except for the profitable business of allocating subsidies, allowances and quotas) is spent dealing with the minutiae of governance. This is why the EU is bogged down by pettifoggery and why the English cannot fathom what these bureaucrats are about. If it isn’t illegal than one should be free to do it. It certainly makes sense to Americans, Canadians, Australians and others. This conflict of laws is equally a challenge to multinational companies attempting to pursue their aims in the EU. Much of what is taken for granted as legal and permissible in other parts of the world is differently construed in Europe. This is repeated in Africa where ex-British colonies are often in conflict with ex-French, Spanish and Portuguese colonies. This issue is an important factor in the current debate on the imposition of a tax on financial transactions. It is a dilemma for those involved. Ultimately there is no solution to this dilemma. Perhaps a separation of the Common Law countries from the civil law bureaucracies is inevitable. To quote Marx, it contains the seeds of its own destruction. [i] Garner, Bryan A. (2001). A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2nd, revised ed.). New York: OUP. [ii] Neubauer, David W.,and Stephen S. Meinhold. Judicial Process: Law, Courts, and Politics in the United States. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007, pg.28. [iii] Smits, Jan (ed.); Dotevall, Rolf (2006), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, “63: Sweden”, Edward Elgar Publishing, [iv] Neubauer, David W.,and Stephen S. Meinhold., op.cit.

  • Stoicism’s Answer to Mindfulness

    Jan 9, 2020, 4:04 PM Missed this, but omfg, yes it’s that simple. I am a Stoic if: 1) I live in accordance with natural law and reason; 2) I avoid fallacy of sunk costs in everything; 3) I limit my attention to what is actionable; 4) I am never a victim of circumstances as I always have a choice to change them. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Stoic. – Martin Štěpán In effect, mindfulness provides control of loss aversion and all the subsequent feeling of being ‘out of control’ of one’s environment. Saying “it’s god’s plan” does exactly the same thing”. The difference being that under stoicism you are in control and under theology the big man in the sky is in control. Why? Because we are twice as motivate by fear of lass as we are by incentive to gain. Why? Because we know most of our theories (plans) fail. Why? Because of neural economy, mental calculation (thinking) is expensive, error prone, but we must maintain the will to act in the kaleidic universe so we preserve the illusion. SUNK COSTS Fallacy of sunken cost is when you consider something you’ve already invested into more valuable even though that investment doesn’t exist anymore. I.e. I might keep repairing an old car I’ve already poured lots of money into despite the fact that I’d save money by replacing it with a better because I fallaciously include what I paid in the value of the old one. In Stoicism, I can use the most extreme example provided by Epictetus. If my child dies, there’s no sense in getting emotional over it because that investment is gone and I can’t get it back. LOSS AVERSION Loss aversion is encapsulated in the expression “losses loom larger than gains” The pain of losing is psychologically about twice as powerful as the pleasure of gaining. People are more willing to take risks (or behave dishonestly) to avoid a loss than to make a gain. Loss aversion has been used to explain the endowment effect and sunk cost fallacy, and it may also play a role in the status quo bias. The basic principle of loss aversion can explain why penalty frames are sometimes more effective than reward frames in motivating people. REGRET AVERSION When people fear that their decision will turn out to be wrong in hindsight, they exhibit regret aversion. Regret-averse people may fear the consequences of both errors of omission (e.g. not buying the right investment property) and commission (e.g. buying the wrong investment property) (Seiler et al., 2008). The effect of anticipated regret is particularly well-studied in the domain of health, such as people’s decisions about medical treatments. A meta-analysis in this area suggests that anticipated regret is a better predictor of intentions and behavior than other kinds of anticipated negative emotions and evaluations of risk (Brewer et al., 2016). MENTAL ACCOUNTING Mental accounting is when people think of value in relative rather than absolute terms. They derive pleasure not just from an object’s value, but also the quality of the deal – its transaction utility (Thaler, 1985). In addition, humans often fail to fully consider opportunity costs (tradeoffs) and are susceptible to the sunk cost fallacy. Why are people willing to spend more when they pay with a credit card than cash? Why would more individuals spend $10 on a theater ticket if they had just lost a $10 bill than if they had to replace a lost ticket worth $10? Why are people more likely to spend a small inheritance and invest a large one? According to the theory of mental accounting, people treat money differently, depending on factors such as the money’s origin and intended use, rather than thinking of it in terms of the “bottom line” as in formal accounting (Thaler, 1999). An important term underlying the theory is fungibility, the fact that all money is interchangable and has no labels. In mental accounting, people treat assets as less fungible than they really are. Even seasoned investors are susceptible to this bias when they view recent gains as disposable “house money” that can be used in high-risk investments. In doing so, they make decisions on each mental account separately, losing out the big picture of the portfolio. Consumers’ tendency to work with mental accounts is reflected in various domains of applied behavioral science, especially in the financial services industry. Examples include banks offering multiple accounts with savings goal labels, which make mental accounting more explicit, as well as third-party services that provide consumers with aggregate financial information across different financial institutions ENDOWMENT EFFECT This bias occurs when we overvalue something that we own, regardless of its objective market value. It is evident when people become relatively reluctant to part with a good they own for its cash equivalent, or if the amount that people are willing to pay for the good is lower than what they are willing to accept when selling it. Put more simply, people place a greater value on things once they have established ownership. This is especially true for things that wouldn’t normally be bought or sold on the market, usually items with symbolic, experiential, or emotional significance. Endowment effect research has been conducted with goods ranging from coffee mugs to sports cards (List, 2011). While researchers have proposed different reasons for the effect, it may be best explained by psychological factors related to loss aversion. STATUS QUO BIAS Status quo bias is evident when people prefer things to stay the same by doing nothing (see also inertia) or by sticking with a decision made previously. This may happen even when only small transition costs are involved and the importance of the decision is great. Field data from university health plan enrollments, for example, show a large disparity in health plan choices between new and existing enrollees. One particular plan with significantly more favorable premiums and deductibles had a growing market share among new employees, but a significantly lower share among older enrollees. This suggests that a lack of switching could not be explained by unchanging preferences. Samuelson and Zeckhauser note that status quo bias is consistent with loss aversion, and that it could be psychologically explained by previously made commitments, sunk cost thinking, cognitive dissonance, a need to feel in control, and regret avoidance. The latter is based on Kahneman and Tversky’s observation that people feel greater regret for bad outcomes that result from new actions taken than for bad consequences that are the consequence of inaction. While status quo bias is frequently considered to be irrational, sticking to choices that worked in the past is often a safe and less difficult decision due to informational and cognitive limitations (see bounded rationality). For example, status quo bias is more likely when there is choice overload or high uncertainty and deliberation costs. COMMITMENT BIAS Commitments (see also precommitment) are often used as a tool to counteract people’s lack of willpower and to achieve behavior change, such as in the areas of dieting or saving. The greater the cost of breaking a commitment, the more effective it is (Dolan et al., 2010). From the perspective of social psychology, individuals are motivated to maintain a consistent and positive self-image (Cialdini, 2008), and they are likely to keep commitments to avoid reputational damage (if done publicly) and/or cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). A field experiment in a hotel, for example, found 25% greater towel reuse among guests who made a commitment to reuse towels at check-in and wore a “Friend of the Earth” lapel pin to signal their commitment during their stay (Baca-Motes et al., 2012). The behavior change technique of ‘goal setting’ is related to making commitments (Strecher et al., 1995), while reciprocity involves an implicit commitment. ACTION BIAS Some core ideas in behavioral economics focus on people’s propensity to do nothing, as evident in default bias and status quo bias. Inaction may be due to a number of factors, including inertia or anticipated regret. However, sometimes people have an impulse to act in order to gain a sense of control over a situation and eliminate a problem. This has been termed the action bias (Patt & Zeckhauser, 2000). For example, a person may opt for a medical treatment rather than a no-treatment alternative, even though clinical trials have not supported the treatment’s effectiveness. Action bias is particularly likely to occur if we do something for others or others expect us to act (see social norms), as illustrated by the tendency for soccer goal keepers to jump to left or right on penalty kicks, even though statistically they would be better off if they just stayed in the middle of the goal (Bar-Eli et al., 2007). Action bias may also be more likely among overconfident individuals or if a person has experienced prior negative outcomes (Zeelenberg et al., 2002), where subsequent inaction would be a failure to do something to improve the situation. INFORMATION AVOIDANCE Information avoidance in behavioral economics (Golman et al., 2017) refers to situations in which people choose not to obtain knowledge that is freely available. Active information avoidance includes physical avoidance, inattention, the biased interpretation of information (see also confirmation bias) and even some forms of forgetting. In behavioral finance, for example, research has shown that investors are less likely to check their portfolio online when the stock market is down than when it is up, which has been termed the ostrich effect (Karlsson et al., 2009). More serious cases of avoidance happen when people fail to return to clinics to get medical test results, for instance (Sullivan et al., 2004). While information avoidance is sometimes strategic, it can have immediate hedonic benefits for people if it prevents the negative (usually psychological) consequences of knowing the information. It usually carries negative utility in the long term, because it deprives people of potentially useful information for decision making and feedback for future behavior. Furthermore, information avoidance can contribute to a polarization of political opinions and media bias. CONFIRMATION BIAS Confirmation bias (Wason, 1960) occurs when people seek out or evaluate information in a way that fits with their existing thinking and preconceptions. The domain of science, where theories should advance based on both falsifying and supporting evidence, has not been immune to bias, which is often associated with people processing hypotheses in ways that end up confirming them (Oswald & Grosjean, 2004). Similarly, a consumer who likes a particular brand and researches a new purchase may be motivated to seek out customer reviews on the internet that favor that brand. Confirmation bias has also been related to unmotivated processes, including primacy effects and anchoring, evident in a reliance on information that is encountered early in a process (Nickerson, 1998). Edit

  • Stoicism’s Answer to Mindfulness

    Jan 9, 2020, 4:04 PM Missed this, but omfg, yes it’s that simple. I am a Stoic if: 1) I live in accordance with natural law and reason; 2) I avoid fallacy of sunk costs in everything; 3) I limit my attention to what is actionable; 4) I am never a victim of circumstances as I always have a choice to change them. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Stoic. – Martin Štěpán In effect, mindfulness provides control of loss aversion and all the subsequent feeling of being ‘out of control’ of one’s environment. Saying “it’s god’s plan” does exactly the same thing”. The difference being that under stoicism you are in control and under theology the big man in the sky is in control. Why? Because we are twice as motivate by fear of lass as we are by incentive to gain. Why? Because we know most of our theories (plans) fail. Why? Because of neural economy, mental calculation (thinking) is expensive, error prone, but we must maintain the will to act in the kaleidic universe so we preserve the illusion. SUNK COSTS Fallacy of sunken cost is when you consider something you’ve already invested into more valuable even though that investment doesn’t exist anymore. I.e. I might keep repairing an old car I’ve already poured lots of money into despite the fact that I’d save money by replacing it with a better because I fallaciously include what I paid in the value of the old one. In Stoicism, I can use the most extreme example provided by Epictetus. If my child dies, there’s no sense in getting emotional over it because that investment is gone and I can’t get it back. LOSS AVERSION Loss aversion is encapsulated in the expression “losses loom larger than gains” The pain of losing is psychologically about twice as powerful as the pleasure of gaining. People are more willing to take risks (or behave dishonestly) to avoid a loss than to make a gain. Loss aversion has been used to explain the endowment effect and sunk cost fallacy, and it may also play a role in the status quo bias. The basic principle of loss aversion can explain why penalty frames are sometimes more effective than reward frames in motivating people. REGRET AVERSION When people fear that their decision will turn out to be wrong in hindsight, they exhibit regret aversion. Regret-averse people may fear the consequences of both errors of omission (e.g. not buying the right investment property) and commission (e.g. buying the wrong investment property) (Seiler et al., 2008). The effect of anticipated regret is particularly well-studied in the domain of health, such as people’s decisions about medical treatments. A meta-analysis in this area suggests that anticipated regret is a better predictor of intentions and behavior than other kinds of anticipated negative emotions and evaluations of risk (Brewer et al., 2016). MENTAL ACCOUNTING Mental accounting is when people think of value in relative rather than absolute terms. They derive pleasure not just from an object’s value, but also the quality of the deal – its transaction utility (Thaler, 1985). In addition, humans often fail to fully consider opportunity costs (tradeoffs) and are susceptible to the sunk cost fallacy. Why are people willing to spend more when they pay with a credit card than cash? Why would more individuals spend $10 on a theater ticket if they had just lost a $10 bill than if they had to replace a lost ticket worth $10? Why are people more likely to spend a small inheritance and invest a large one? According to the theory of mental accounting, people treat money differently, depending on factors such as the money’s origin and intended use, rather than thinking of it in terms of the “bottom line” as in formal accounting (Thaler, 1999). An important term underlying the theory is fungibility, the fact that all money is interchangable and has no labels. In mental accounting, people treat assets as less fungible than they really are. Even seasoned investors are susceptible to this bias when they view recent gains as disposable “house money” that can be used in high-risk investments. In doing so, they make decisions on each mental account separately, losing out the big picture of the portfolio. Consumers’ tendency to work with mental accounts is reflected in various domains of applied behavioral science, especially in the financial services industry. Examples include banks offering multiple accounts with savings goal labels, which make mental accounting more explicit, as well as third-party services that provide consumers with aggregate financial information across different financial institutions ENDOWMENT EFFECT This bias occurs when we overvalue something that we own, regardless of its objective market value. It is evident when people become relatively reluctant to part with a good they own for its cash equivalent, or if the amount that people are willing to pay for the good is lower than what they are willing to accept when selling it. Put more simply, people place a greater value on things once they have established ownership. This is especially true for things that wouldn’t normally be bought or sold on the market, usually items with symbolic, experiential, or emotional significance. Endowment effect research has been conducted with goods ranging from coffee mugs to sports cards (List, 2011). While researchers have proposed different reasons for the effect, it may be best explained by psychological factors related to loss aversion. STATUS QUO BIAS Status quo bias is evident when people prefer things to stay the same by doing nothing (see also inertia) or by sticking with a decision made previously. This may happen even when only small transition costs are involved and the importance of the decision is great. Field data from university health plan enrollments, for example, show a large disparity in health plan choices between new and existing enrollees. One particular plan with significantly more favorable premiums and deductibles had a growing market share among new employees, but a significantly lower share among older enrollees. This suggests that a lack of switching could not be explained by unchanging preferences. Samuelson and Zeckhauser note that status quo bias is consistent with loss aversion, and that it could be psychologically explained by previously made commitments, sunk cost thinking, cognitive dissonance, a need to feel in control, and regret avoidance. The latter is based on Kahneman and Tversky’s observation that people feel greater regret for bad outcomes that result from new actions taken than for bad consequences that are the consequence of inaction. While status quo bias is frequently considered to be irrational, sticking to choices that worked in the past is often a safe and less difficult decision due to informational and cognitive limitations (see bounded rationality). For example, status quo bias is more likely when there is choice overload or high uncertainty and deliberation costs. COMMITMENT BIAS Commitments (see also precommitment) are often used as a tool to counteract people’s lack of willpower and to achieve behavior change, such as in the areas of dieting or saving. The greater the cost of breaking a commitment, the more effective it is (Dolan et al., 2010). From the perspective of social psychology, individuals are motivated to maintain a consistent and positive self-image (Cialdini, 2008), and they are likely to keep commitments to avoid reputational damage (if done publicly) and/or cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). A field experiment in a hotel, for example, found 25% greater towel reuse among guests who made a commitment to reuse towels at check-in and wore a “Friend of the Earth” lapel pin to signal their commitment during their stay (Baca-Motes et al., 2012). The behavior change technique of ‘goal setting’ is related to making commitments (Strecher et al., 1995), while reciprocity involves an implicit commitment. ACTION BIAS Some core ideas in behavioral economics focus on people’s propensity to do nothing, as evident in default bias and status quo bias. Inaction may be due to a number of factors, including inertia or anticipated regret. However, sometimes people have an impulse to act in order to gain a sense of control over a situation and eliminate a problem. This has been termed the action bias (Patt & Zeckhauser, 2000). For example, a person may opt for a medical treatment rather than a no-treatment alternative, even though clinical trials have not supported the treatment’s effectiveness. Action bias is particularly likely to occur if we do something for others or others expect us to act (see social norms), as illustrated by the tendency for soccer goal keepers to jump to left or right on penalty kicks, even though statistically they would be better off if they just stayed in the middle of the goal (Bar-Eli et al., 2007). Action bias may also be more likely among overconfident individuals or if a person has experienced prior negative outcomes (Zeelenberg et al., 2002), where subsequent inaction would be a failure to do something to improve the situation. INFORMATION AVOIDANCE Information avoidance in behavioral economics (Golman et al., 2017) refers to situations in which people choose not to obtain knowledge that is freely available. Active information avoidance includes physical avoidance, inattention, the biased interpretation of information (see also confirmation bias) and even some forms of forgetting. In behavioral finance, for example, research has shown that investors are less likely to check their portfolio online when the stock market is down than when it is up, which has been termed the ostrich effect (Karlsson et al., 2009). More serious cases of avoidance happen when people fail to return to clinics to get medical test results, for instance (Sullivan et al., 2004). While information avoidance is sometimes strategic, it can have immediate hedonic benefits for people if it prevents the negative (usually psychological) consequences of knowing the information. It usually carries negative utility in the long term, because it deprives people of potentially useful information for decision making and feedback for future behavior. Furthermore, information avoidance can contribute to a polarization of political opinions and media bias. CONFIRMATION BIAS Confirmation bias (Wason, 1960) occurs when people seek out or evaluate information in a way that fits with their existing thinking and preconceptions. The domain of science, where theories should advance based on both falsifying and supporting evidence, has not been immune to bias, which is often associated with people processing hypotheses in ways that end up confirming them (Oswald & Grosjean, 2004). Similarly, a consumer who likes a particular brand and researches a new purchase may be motivated to seek out customer reviews on the internet that favor that brand. Confirmation bias has also been related to unmotivated processes, including primacy effects and anchoring, evident in a reliance on information that is encountered early in a process (Nickerson, 1998). Edit

  • Choose, A Second Fall of Rome, or The Carthaginian War?

    Jan 28, 2020, 11:09 AM (important) (core) 1) So will you go down in history as the second fall of Rome? Or will you go down as Rome defeating Carthage and salting the earth so it can never rise again? 2) I think of racists as solving the obvious problem by the simplest means that they can imagine – but one that easily fails. People’s sensitivity changes under duress. So you must increase duress in order to reduce their tolerance to threats. This is how a general thinks about a strategic problem. Minimum force here, to cause minimum resistance there, for maximum consequence over there, 3) P was purely conservative libertarian. Race based people came to P when I stated that the science is clear that the optimum social order is ethnocentrism, the optimum political order rule of law, and the optimum ethic christian because it is compatible and enhances via negativa natural law into a via-positiva advantage. In P I didn’t even consider race as a motivator. I just stated that if you want a wealthy, competitive, commons producing, highly redistributive, high trust polity that continues the western tradition you need to restore the market for polities with rule of law and many small polities each producing commons needed by that body of people given the differences in our abilities, rates, and depths of maturity and genetic load. 4) If you search my site you will find (a) a decade of my argument stating that conflict is largely one of the primacy of loyalty to kin because of the advantage of kin cooperation, with the problem being differences in class sizes between the races and tribes, with whites and east asians producing the best genetic distribution with the least genetic load (bad genes). And (b) that the primary conflict is one over natural status conflicts given the differing demands for commons – including that of normative behavior – between different groups with different rates and depths of sexual matureity and different class sizes. So my argument was that ending segregation was not only a catastrophic failure, not only destroyed the nascent black middle class leadership, but forced the abandonment of the black underclass. This is not dissimilar to the hispanic-indian-black divide in south america (that like mexico at its core is often still amerindian). 5) I think sh-t thru. So I am aware that all political movements move from the fringe where they depend on very radical very dissatisfied, and often mentally troubled individuals, through ‘generatons’ until they reach enough people to obtain power. I have done the same with P by attacking and undermining the jewish libertarians, then providing a home for the hard right while undermining the swastika ideology and replacing it with the hard science of economics and biology, and I have been working on neutralizing the feminism of the christian right that like women operates under the pretense of needing their approval on their terms, rather than that they need a means of survival and competition in the generations to come but that christianity is scientifically ‘right’ as far as christian ethics – and that I have an answer to the institutionalization of that ethic by embodying it in law. At present john and I together took a gamble last year (and I risked the whole movement) that we could move directly to the revolutionary message, and eventually an anti-left constitutional convention, from there to the certain threat of civil war, while trump was still in office. Right now I think we have to demonstrate (YET AGAIN) that I am right, and that it is with science, reason, evidence, and the law, expressed in our rights to self determination, and to state openly and truthully the superiority of our civilization, and its rescue of man. And that we need to correctly identify the enemy as the financial and political sector. and that the returns on ‘correcting past crimes’ will produce a renaissance not only for our people but for the world and for mankind – or else another dark age. If we do this successfully, there will be no resistance from even the middle, and only resistance from the political and financial sector and hard leftists, and dependent immigrants. How we conduct that war is something I am absolutely confident in and know how to win. It is actually a matter of choosing a strategy from the number I have in my head. All of them will produce such horrific pressure not only on our government but on the rest of the world, that it will be increasingly hard for anyone other than our unwanted immigrants in blue cities and the new mexico-invasion, that to resist the solution. That solution will provide a peaceful transitional means while preserving the strength of the military and the continental defense. Conversely, with resistance we would make a certain union general’s destruction of the south, and isis’ destruction of Syria/Iraq look like a visit from father christmas. (Just one example. What would Mexico do if certain things started happening? What would the largest military base in the states be occupied with? This is how you strategically think about war. Small pressures that create large pressures from elsewhere.) 6) “All who bleed with me will be my brother in war.” After war, we will naturally sort by our kin as all people do when advantageous, and try to ‘associate or mate upward or downward’ to capture better opportunities if the kin group is not in your interest. The objective being obtaining the ability to voluntarily associate or disassociate as our preference demands. So my understanding is that: (a) all of us who want to be left alone so to speak to build a middle class majority polity will get a long just fine as long as we can separate into polities or neighborhoods; (b) if we limit our political order to those people wanting a middle class majority polity, then the racial differences will largely ameliorate because most differences that cause conflict are the difference in class sizes between the races on the one hand, and the group strategy of other tribes, races, sub-races being destructive on the other. (c) therefore given the vast demographic differences between the races we would end up with a very white polity with minorities, all whom agree to rule of law, and all whom operate under rule of law. And if we can produce commons suitable to our kin we will be fine. I suspect that over time we will re-sort into small nation states if only to limit competition. (d) the only problem then is really eliminating falsehood and irreciprocity and letting market forces do their thing., Why? We (and some east asians) appear to be the only people who can do it. We could have fixed this politically in 92 at the latest. Now we have to fix it militarily, and this is our last chance to do it before the second fall of the roman empire. So will you go down in history as the second fall of Rome? Or will you go down as Rome defeating Carthage and salting the earth so it can never rise again?

  • Choose, A Second Fall of Rome, or The Carthaginian War?

    Jan 28, 2020, 11:09 AM (important) (core) 1) So will you go down in history as the second fall of Rome? Or will you go down as Rome defeating Carthage and salting the earth so it can never rise again? 2) I think of racists as solving the obvious problem by the simplest means that they can imagine – but one that easily fails. People’s sensitivity changes under duress. So you must increase duress in order to reduce their tolerance to threats. This is how a general thinks about a strategic problem. Minimum force here, to cause minimum resistance there, for maximum consequence over there, 3) P was purely conservative libertarian. Race based people came to P when I stated that the science is clear that the optimum social order is ethnocentrism, the optimum political order rule of law, and the optimum ethic christian because it is compatible and enhances via negativa natural law into a via-positiva advantage. In P I didn’t even consider race as a motivator. I just stated that if you want a wealthy, competitive, commons producing, highly redistributive, high trust polity that continues the western tradition you need to restore the market for polities with rule of law and many small polities each producing commons needed by that body of people given the differences in our abilities, rates, and depths of maturity and genetic load. 4) If you search my site you will find (a) a decade of my argument stating that conflict is largely one of the primacy of loyalty to kin because of the advantage of kin cooperation, with the problem being differences in class sizes between the races and tribes, with whites and east asians producing the best genetic distribution with the least genetic load (bad genes). And (b) that the primary conflict is one over natural status conflicts given the differing demands for commons – including that of normative behavior – between different groups with different rates and depths of sexual matureity and different class sizes. So my argument was that ending segregation was not only a catastrophic failure, not only destroyed the nascent black middle class leadership, but forced the abandonment of the black underclass. This is not dissimilar to the hispanic-indian-black divide in south america (that like mexico at its core is often still amerindian). 5) I think sh-t thru. So I am aware that all political movements move from the fringe where they depend on very radical very dissatisfied, and often mentally troubled individuals, through ‘generatons’ until they reach enough people to obtain power. I have done the same with P by attacking and undermining the jewish libertarians, then providing a home for the hard right while undermining the swastika ideology and replacing it with the hard science of economics and biology, and I have been working on neutralizing the feminism of the christian right that like women operates under the pretense of needing their approval on their terms, rather than that they need a means of survival and competition in the generations to come but that christianity is scientifically ‘right’ as far as christian ethics – and that I have an answer to the institutionalization of that ethic by embodying it in law. At present john and I together took a gamble last year (and I risked the whole movement) that we could move directly to the revolutionary message, and eventually an anti-left constitutional convention, from there to the certain threat of civil war, while trump was still in office. Right now I think we have to demonstrate (YET AGAIN) that I am right, and that it is with science, reason, evidence, and the law, expressed in our rights to self determination, and to state openly and truthully the superiority of our civilization, and its rescue of man. And that we need to correctly identify the enemy as the financial and political sector. and that the returns on ‘correcting past crimes’ will produce a renaissance not only for our people but for the world and for mankind – or else another dark age. If we do this successfully, there will be no resistance from even the middle, and only resistance from the political and financial sector and hard leftists, and dependent immigrants. How we conduct that war is something I am absolutely confident in and know how to win. It is actually a matter of choosing a strategy from the number I have in my head. All of them will produce such horrific pressure not only on our government but on the rest of the world, that it will be increasingly hard for anyone other than our unwanted immigrants in blue cities and the new mexico-invasion, that to resist the solution. That solution will provide a peaceful transitional means while preserving the strength of the military and the continental defense. Conversely, with resistance we would make a certain union general’s destruction of the south, and isis’ destruction of Syria/Iraq look like a visit from father christmas. (Just one example. What would Mexico do if certain things started happening? What would the largest military base in the states be occupied with? This is how you strategically think about war. Small pressures that create large pressures from elsewhere.) 6) “All who bleed with me will be my brother in war.” After war, we will naturally sort by our kin as all people do when advantageous, and try to ‘associate or mate upward or downward’ to capture better opportunities if the kin group is not in your interest. The objective being obtaining the ability to voluntarily associate or disassociate as our preference demands. So my understanding is that: (a) all of us who want to be left alone so to speak to build a middle class majority polity will get a long just fine as long as we can separate into polities or neighborhoods; (b) if we limit our political order to those people wanting a middle class majority polity, then the racial differences will largely ameliorate because most differences that cause conflict are the difference in class sizes between the races on the one hand, and the group strategy of other tribes, races, sub-races being destructive on the other. (c) therefore given the vast demographic differences between the races we would end up with a very white polity with minorities, all whom agree to rule of law, and all whom operate under rule of law. And if we can produce commons suitable to our kin we will be fine. I suspect that over time we will re-sort into small nation states if only to limit competition. (d) the only problem then is really eliminating falsehood and irreciprocity and letting market forces do their thing., Why? We (and some east asians) appear to be the only people who can do it. We could have fixed this politically in 92 at the latest. Now we have to fix it militarily, and this is our last chance to do it before the second fall of the roman empire. So will you go down in history as the second fall of Rome? Or will you go down as Rome defeating Carthage and salting the earth so it can never rise again?