¿De qué manera ha sido deshonesta la civilización occidental? Nuestra civilización no está libre de pecado.
Ninguna civilización realmente entiende sus estrategias grupales de evolución. Pero nosotros podemos hacer el intento de comprender la nuestra.
Cuando los arios combinaron el bronce, la rueda y el caballo, lograron cubrir grandes distancias con velocidad. Se arriesgaron, y el caballo, la carreta y las armaduras eran costosas. Pero le permitían a los hombres ser depredadores de otros hombres así como defenderse de otros hombres. Así que los hombres utilizaron esta tecnología con fines militares para expandir su dominio desde la China Occidental hasta España.
Resulta que si los hombres son militarmente capaces de desarrollar una casta guerrera profesional, capturar y conquistar territorio y esclavizar a habitantes primitivos de los territorios conquistados para ponerlos a trabajar, eso resultó ser una industria rentable. Pero solo un subgrupo de la población es apto para ser gobernado de una manera costo-efectiva y con bajo riesgo.
Así que mientras las tribus consanguíneas habían tolerado amplias variaciones en personalidades, sus gobernantes no lo toleraron, y encontraron a los más problemáticos, agresivos y la más constante persecución de las partes más aisladas, los gobernantes lograron con el hombre lo que lograron con los perros, cerdos, vacas y caballos: la domesticación progresiva del hombre animal.
La esclavitud es costosa, eres responsable de todos los costos, incluida la servidumbre. Y sólo se toman las ganancias de alguna parte del proceso del trabajo del esclavo. Cuando se toman parte de esas ganancias y se les paga, se utiliza el crédito fiduciario de manera dilucional para otorgarles a los ex-esclavos-ahora empleados el poder de consumo y capturar las verdaderas ganancias de su producción.
Así que con el pasar de los siglos nuestros ancestros han combinado el ahorcar desde el 1% hasta la mitad de la población de forma anual, retrasar la tasa reproductiva y limitar la reproducción con el señorío, duros inviernos para matar de hambre a los débiles y flojos, se libraron guerras de forma consuetudinaria con la promesa de obtener botín, y la conspiración de la Iglesia para debilitar a las clases inferiores a finales de la edad media. Eso logró que la población europea fuera la progenie de la clase media genética.
El cristianismo proveyó poco más que la excusa para justificar a los arios: La industria por la cual la clase marcial domestica a los hombres para su ganancia. Esto fue seguido por el yugo del hombre blanco- el restablecimiento del ideal ario en términos de la moralidad. Lo cual fue seguido por el proyecto americano- el restablecimiento del ideal ario en términos heroicos. Lo cual fue seguido por el humanismo democrático secular de la postguerra- un restablecimiento de la cristiandad en términos seculares. Y ahora la tendencia más reciente es el neo-conservadurismo: un restablecimiento del judaísmo en términos arios.
Ahora démosle la vuelta esto y digamos que porque hemos domesticado al hombre, hemos mantenido el tripartidismo, practicado el gobierno descontrolado para cada clase, y creado mercados para todo, la ley común natural, una definición eterna de la verdad, hemos arrastrado a la humanidad de su ignorancia, superstición, pobreza, esclavitud, enfermedad y elmiedo constante de las vicisitudes de la naturaleza.
Hemos hecho de este mundo mucho más que cualquier otra civilización.
Y lo hicimos no porque fuéramos los primeros en hacerlo, sino porque lo hicimos más RÁPIDAMENTE y EFICIENTEMENTE que otros, porque aprendimos a aprehender y adaptarnos a pesar de ser una pequeña población al borde de la edad de bronce.
El problema que afronta la humanidad es que no hemos terminado el trabajo. Nosotros constreñimos los intentos de Alemania de completar la formación de la civilización hanseática, y creamos una guerra civil que casi nos destruyó y permitimos la segunda invasión ideológica de Occidente en la figura de la pseudociencia, y ahora estamos trayendo abordo a millones de personas con las que hemos librado guerras durante mil cuatrocientos años para prevenir la diseminación de su ideología cancerosa – una versión más venenosa de la profesionalización de la mentira.
Así que calladamente seremos vencidos por las sombras o continuaremos domesticando a la humanidad o regresaremos a la domesticación del hombre, obteniendo ganancias de dicha domesticación, y continuando la trascendencia de muchos, por medio del uso de los bien más costoso que cualquier civilización jamás haya desarrollado: la verdad.¿Por que la democracia no funciona?
La democracia funciona si se desarrolla bajo la figura de un voto por familia, en un estado pequeño y homogéneo, bajo una sociedad agraria, y si tenemos las cuatro casas gubernamentales bajo el modelo anglosajón: Monarquía, aristocracia, negocios, industria y la Iglesia (proletaria, aseguradora y cuidadora de los enfermos).
Porque las clases y las familias tienen suficiente en común para usar el gobierno mayoritario como un medio para seleccionar prioridades para financiarse con recursos escasos. Pero la democracia en la que hombres, mujeres y clases poseen votos por igual solo resulta en el gobierno parasitario proletario con todos los incentivos negativos para que las sociedades saquen lo peor de si. Podemos usar el sistema de gobierno mayoritario para seleccionar prioridades entre pueblos con intereses comunes pero no podemos usar el gobierno mayoritario para seleccionar preferencias entre pueblos con intereses dispares. Es ilógico
Los datos señalan que si las mujeres no votaran, estaríamos bien. Las mujeres expresaron sus estrategias reproductivas en la política bajo la democracia. Ellas deshicieron a la civilización occidental. Es una píldora dura de tragar.
El paternalismo y los derechos de propiedad, el jurado y el testimonio honesto y la familia nuclear absoluta, junto con la reproducción retrasada bajo el señorío fueron medios por los cuales logramos suprimir la reproducción de las clases inferiores, y controlamos el comportamiento destructivo de la mujer- reproducirse a su voluntad, de forma aleatoria, y causando que su tribu sufra las consecuencias de sus impulsos Malthusianos.
Las mujeres seleccionan una estrategia reproductiva tipo “r” (volumen), no una estrategia reproductiva tipo “K” (excelencia). La civilización requiere la supresión del parasitismo masculino (agresión) así como la supresión del parasitismo femenino (reproducción).
Nosotros deshicimos la historia indoeuropea y la familia como la unidad política central, con una sola actuación. Así que, ¿Cómo construimos compromisos en vez de opresiones? Diferentes casas, bien sea físicas, y representativas o electrónicas y virtuales para aquellos grupos con estrategias reproductivas distintas.¿Hay alguna salida a la situación actual? ¿Cómo ganamos el control de nuestros países de vuelta?
Por supuesto, pero el chismorreo es barato. La violencia es costosa -aunque muy rápida y efectiva, y las preferencias se demuestran, no se declaran.
No hay una solución astuta, no hay una respuesta fácil. O usamos la violencia para exigir un cambio o perdemos nuestra civilización para siempre.
Nosotros o agitamos a una pequeña minoría para que eleve los costos de carga de nuestros competidores, sobrecargando su capacidad, enfrentándonos a la pseudo ciencia y la mentira, y elevamos el costo de su colonización o nosotros hemos probado que sólo estamos hablando y no actuando.¿Cómo creamos una revolución?
El problema con la revolución es que en sí misma es una expresión de frustración. No trae cambios buenos necesariamente. Y algunas revoluciones son peores que sus estados originales: Francia y Rusia son buenos ejemplo de ello.
Para implementar cambios uno tiene que tener algo que exigir. Y lo que uno exija debe satisfacer los intereses de mucha gente. Esas demandas tienen que ser posibles y ser puestas en procesos operativos que habremos de llamar “instituciones”. Ellas tienen que ser posible para persistir, a pesar de las creencias de sus participantes. Así que debemos crear los incentivos adecuados.- Para crear una revolución se requiere de autoridad moral -algo en lo que la gente vaya a usar la violencia como recurso de forma voluntaria como imperativo moral y como justificación moral. CON LA VERDAD BASTA. Estamos cansados de mentiras, pseudo ciencia, y justificaciones racionales oscurantistas. Estamos cansados de que nuestras élites quemen nuestra civilización.
Con la verdad basta. A diferencia del chisme, el culpar y acusar. Y a diferencia de la pseudociencia y la propaganda, la verdad es costosa. La verdad es el arma argumentativa más poderosa jamás desarrollada. Y el propietarismo nos enseña a exigir la verdad y a decir la verdad. - Después de tener autoridad moral. Se requiere de una solución política – algo que exigir, y de forma suficiente que sea posible discutir racionalmente e implementarlo como instituciones formales.
- Luego se requiere de un plan de transición suficiente para que una revolución no sea necesaria y no mueran millones de personas para llevarla a cabo.
- Se requiere de una serie de objetivos-no un plan- para anular, seccionar, revolucionar y librar una guerra civil. Con la esperanza de que puedas lograr con la anulación progresiva pero estar dispuesto a librar una guerra civil o desarrollar una revolución de ser necesario. Y que de ser requerido, lleves todos esos objetivos a cabo a la vez.
- Se requiere de organización. Un grupo de personas que actúan como el personal general que responde preguntas, y propone ideas sobre cómo implementar, como traicionar y como elevar el costo del estatus quo para que la transición sea preferible a la incertidumbre e inestabilidad.
- Es necesario tener una cierta cantidad de hombres dispuestos a morir por su pueblo, por su cultura y por su civilización, pero que tengan la creencia razonable de que su sacrificio no sea en vano.
No es sabio entrar en los detalles de las tácticas. Pero en general. La idea es ésta: ¿Cuántos días de electricidad, agua, alimentos, y días de “orden” están en la línea de producción todos los días? Si cosas malas pasan en Ucrania o Rusia, el 40% de los alimentos los produce su pueblo. Todos podemos regresar a los campos.
¿Que ocurre en el mundo desarrollado si se éste se altera?
Vivimos en los tiempos más frágiles de la historia. Ya no es necesario que las masas tomen las calles para hacer la revolución. Se requiere de un número pequeño de personas que incrementen la fricción de la vida diaria. Nunca ha sido más fácil crear una revolución. Sólo necesitamos un plan, autoridad moral y algo que exigir.
Y es nuestro trabajo el otorgárselo a la gente.
Form: Full Essay
-
Cambiando el Status Quo
-
Cambiando el Status Quo
¿De qué manera ha sido deshonesta la civilización occidental? Nuestra civilización no está libre de pecado.
Ninguna civilización realmente entiende sus estrategias grupales de evolución. Pero nosotros podemos hacer el intento de comprender la nuestra.
Cuando los arios combinaron el bronce, la rueda y el caballo, lograron cubrir grandes distancias con velocidad. Se arriesgaron, y el caballo, la carreta y las armaduras eran costosas. Pero le permitían a los hombres ser depredadores de otros hombres así como defenderse de otros hombres. Así que los hombres utilizaron esta tecnología con fines militares para expandir su dominio desde la China Occidental hasta España.
Resulta que si los hombres son militarmente capaces de desarrollar una casta guerrera profesional, capturar y conquistar territorio y esclavizar a habitantes primitivos de los territorios conquistados para ponerlos a trabajar, eso resultó ser una industria rentable. Pero solo un subgrupo de la población es apto para ser gobernado de una manera costo-efectiva y con bajo riesgo.
Así que mientras las tribus consanguíneas habían tolerado amplias variaciones en personalidades, sus gobernantes no lo toleraron, y encontraron a los más problemáticos, agresivos y la más constante persecución de las partes más aisladas, los gobernantes lograron con el hombre lo que lograron con los perros, cerdos, vacas y caballos: la domesticación progresiva del hombre animal.
La esclavitud es costosa, eres responsable de todos los costos, incluida la servidumbre. Y sólo se toman las ganancias de alguna parte del proceso del trabajo del esclavo. Cuando se toman parte de esas ganancias y se les paga, se utiliza el crédito fiduciario de manera dilucional para otorgarles a los ex-esclavos-ahora empleados el poder de consumo y capturar las verdaderas ganancias de su producción.
Así que con el pasar de los siglos nuestros ancestros han combinado el ahorcar desde el 1% hasta la mitad de la población de forma anual, retrasar la tasa reproductiva y limitar la reproducción con el señorío, duros inviernos para matar de hambre a los débiles y flojos, se libraron guerras de forma consuetudinaria con la promesa de obtener botín, y la conspiración de la Iglesia para debilitar a las clases inferiores a finales de la edad media. Eso logró que la población europea fuera la progenie de la clase media genética.
El cristianismo proveyó poco más que la excusa para justificar a los arios: La industria por la cual la clase marcial domestica a los hombres para su ganancia. Esto fue seguido por el yugo del hombre blanco- el restablecimiento del ideal ario en términos de la moralidad. Lo cual fue seguido por el proyecto americano- el restablecimiento del ideal ario en términos heroicos. Lo cual fue seguido por el humanismo democrático secular de la postguerra- un restablecimiento de la cristiandad en términos seculares. Y ahora la tendencia más reciente es el neo-conservadurismo: un restablecimiento del judaísmo en términos arios.
Ahora démosle la vuelta esto y digamos que porque hemos domesticado al hombre, hemos mantenido el tripartidismo, practicado el gobierno descontrolado para cada clase, y creado mercados para todo, la ley común natural, una definición eterna de la verdad, hemos arrastrado a la humanidad de su ignorancia, superstición, pobreza, esclavitud, enfermedad y elmiedo constante de las vicisitudes de la naturaleza.
Hemos hecho de este mundo mucho más que cualquier otra civilización.
Y lo hicimos no porque fuéramos los primeros en hacerlo, sino porque lo hicimos más RÁPIDAMENTE y EFICIENTEMENTE que otros, porque aprendimos a aprehender y adaptarnos a pesar de ser una pequeña población al borde de la edad de bronce.
El problema que afronta la humanidad es que no hemos terminado el trabajo. Nosotros constreñimos los intentos de Alemania de completar la formación de la civilización hanseática, y creamos una guerra civil que casi nos destruyó y permitimos la segunda invasión ideológica de Occidente en la figura de la pseudociencia, y ahora estamos trayendo abordo a millones de personas con las que hemos librado guerras durante mil cuatrocientos años para prevenir la diseminación de su ideología cancerosa – una versión más venenosa de la profesionalización de la mentira.
Así que calladamente seremos vencidos por las sombras o continuaremos domesticando a la humanidad o regresaremos a la domesticación del hombre, obteniendo ganancias de dicha domesticación, y continuando la trascendencia de muchos, por medio del uso de los bien más costoso que cualquier civilización jamás haya desarrollado: la verdad.¿Por que la democracia no funciona?
La democracia funciona si se desarrolla bajo la figura de un voto por familia, en un estado pequeño y homogéneo, bajo una sociedad agraria, y si tenemos las cuatro casas gubernamentales bajo el modelo anglosajón: Monarquía, aristocracia, negocios, industria y la Iglesia (proletaria, aseguradora y cuidadora de los enfermos).
Porque las clases y las familias tienen suficiente en común para usar el gobierno mayoritario como un medio para seleccionar prioridades para financiarse con recursos escasos. Pero la democracia en la que hombres, mujeres y clases poseen votos por igual solo resulta en el gobierno parasitario proletario con todos los incentivos negativos para que las sociedades saquen lo peor de si. Podemos usar el sistema de gobierno mayoritario para seleccionar prioridades entre pueblos con intereses comunes pero no podemos usar el gobierno mayoritario para seleccionar preferencias entre pueblos con intereses dispares. Es ilógico
Los datos señalan que si las mujeres no votaran, estaríamos bien. Las mujeres expresaron sus estrategias reproductivas en la política bajo la democracia. Ellas deshicieron a la civilización occidental. Es una píldora dura de tragar.
El paternalismo y los derechos de propiedad, el jurado y el testimonio honesto y la familia nuclear absoluta, junto con la reproducción retrasada bajo el señorío fueron medios por los cuales logramos suprimir la reproducción de las clases inferiores, y controlamos el comportamiento destructivo de la mujer- reproducirse a su voluntad, de forma aleatoria, y causando que su tribu sufra las consecuencias de sus impulsos Malthusianos.
Las mujeres seleccionan una estrategia reproductiva tipo “r” (volumen), no una estrategia reproductiva tipo “K” (excelencia). La civilización requiere la supresión del parasitismo masculino (agresión) así como la supresión del parasitismo femenino (reproducción).
Nosotros deshicimos la historia indoeuropea y la familia como la unidad política central, con una sola actuación. Así que, ¿Cómo construimos compromisos en vez de opresiones? Diferentes casas, bien sea físicas, y representativas o electrónicas y virtuales para aquellos grupos con estrategias reproductivas distintas.¿Hay alguna salida a la situación actual? ¿Cómo ganamos el control de nuestros países de vuelta?
Por supuesto, pero el chismorreo es barato. La violencia es costosa -aunque muy rápida y efectiva, y las preferencias se demuestran, no se declaran.
No hay una solución astuta, no hay una respuesta fácil. O usamos la violencia para exigir un cambio o perdemos nuestra civilización para siempre.
Nosotros o agitamos a una pequeña minoría para que eleve los costos de carga de nuestros competidores, sobrecargando su capacidad, enfrentándonos a la pseudo ciencia y la mentira, y elevamos el costo de su colonización o nosotros hemos probado que sólo estamos hablando y no actuando.¿Cómo creamos una revolución?
El problema con la revolución es que en sí misma es una expresión de frustración. No trae cambios buenos necesariamente. Y algunas revoluciones son peores que sus estados originales: Francia y Rusia son buenos ejemplo de ello.
Para implementar cambios uno tiene que tener algo que exigir. Y lo que uno exija debe satisfacer los intereses de mucha gente. Esas demandas tienen que ser posibles y ser puestas en procesos operativos que habremos de llamar “instituciones”. Ellas tienen que ser posible para persistir, a pesar de las creencias de sus participantes. Así que debemos crear los incentivos adecuados.- Para crear una revolución se requiere de autoridad moral -algo en lo que la gente vaya a usar la violencia como recurso de forma voluntaria como imperativo moral y como justificación moral. CON LA VERDAD BASTA. Estamos cansados de mentiras, pseudo ciencia, y justificaciones racionales oscurantistas. Estamos cansados de que nuestras élites quemen nuestra civilización.
Con la verdad basta. A diferencia del chisme, el culpar y acusar. Y a diferencia de la pseudociencia y la propaganda, la verdad es costosa. La verdad es el arma argumentativa más poderosa jamás desarrollada. Y el propietarismo nos enseña a exigir la verdad y a decir la verdad. - Después de tener autoridad moral. Se requiere de una solución política – algo que exigir, y de forma suficiente que sea posible discutir racionalmente e implementarlo como instituciones formales.
- Luego se requiere de un plan de transición suficiente para que una revolución no sea necesaria y no mueran millones de personas para llevarla a cabo.
- Se requiere de una serie de objetivos-no un plan- para anular, seccionar, revolucionar y librar una guerra civil. Con la esperanza de que puedas lograr con la anulación progresiva pero estar dispuesto a librar una guerra civil o desarrollar una revolución de ser necesario. Y que de ser requerido, lleves todos esos objetivos a cabo a la vez.
- Se requiere de organización. Un grupo de personas que actúan como el personal general que responde preguntas, y propone ideas sobre cómo implementar, como traicionar y como elevar el costo del estatus quo para que la transición sea preferible a la incertidumbre e inestabilidad.
- Es necesario tener una cierta cantidad de hombres dispuestos a morir por su pueblo, por su cultura y por su civilización, pero que tengan la creencia razonable de que su sacrificio no sea en vano.
No es sabio entrar en los detalles de las tácticas. Pero en general. La idea es ésta: ¿Cuántos días de electricidad, agua, alimentos, y días de “orden” están en la línea de producción todos los días? Si cosas malas pasan en Ucrania o Rusia, el 40% de los alimentos los produce su pueblo. Todos podemos regresar a los campos.
¿Que ocurre en el mundo desarrollado si se éste se altera?
Vivimos en los tiempos más frágiles de la historia. Ya no es necesario que las masas tomen las calles para hacer la revolución. Se requiere de un número pequeño de personas que incrementen la fricción de la vida diaria. Nunca ha sido más fácil crear una revolución. Sólo necesitamos un plan, autoridad moral y algo que exigir.
Y es nuestro trabajo el otorgárselo a la gente.
-
IN DEFENSE OF PROPERTARIANISM – NATURAL LAW *My function is to provide for rule
IN DEFENSE OF PROPERTARIANISM – NATURAL LAW
*My function is to provide for rule that will defeat all other forms of rule.*
1 -Of all the available terms for a philosophy I chose propertarianism because it was the name of the measurement upon which the decidability was provided. Likewise, when I chose from all the available terms “Operationalism” I chose it because it was the name of the measurement upon which decidability was provided. Of all the available terms for truth I chose testimonialism because it names the action. While possession exists as a demonstration of energy expenditure(action), operationalism consists as a demonstration of energy expenditure(action), and testimony exist as a demonstration of energy expenditure (speech-action).
2 – By referring to another definition (Stanford) rather than the definition I use, just as say Einstein corrected the definition of gravity? Are you saying I can’t correct the Operationalists(Physics), Intuitionists(Mathematics), and Operationists (Psychology), Praxeologists(Economics), Strict Constructionists(Law), and Critical Rationalists(Philosophy), and the Philosophy of Action(Metaphysics), by providing the integration that they all intuit but could not previously provide?
3 – Are you conflating the sequence of states of possibility: meaning (free association), explanation (justification), survival (criticism), truth (parsimony), with one another and stating that there is no difference in informational content?
4 – Do you not understand the difference between via-positiva: the addition of information and properties that through suggestion assist in free association and therefore meaning – with via-negativa: the subtraction of information and properties that were created through via-positiva association and suggestion?
5 – Do you confuse (conflate) necessary causal relations, with causal relations, with potential relations, with meaningful relations, with relations only through relations of meaning
5 – Do you confuse the scope ‘existence’ in all its impossible, potential and even yet unknown forms, with the scope of existences that are possible, with the scope of ‘existence’ in which men can imagine, men can speak, men can act, and men produce instruments upon that which they can act? And whether they can testify to an existence that they cannot imagine, speak of, and act upon?
7 – And (While I believe you are intellectually honest and reasonably erudite) how do I know that you are not (like all other people) the victim of your genes, which bias your the weights of your intuition, which bias your accumulation of useful justifications (knowledge), which cumulatively constitute investment, which cumulatively render you insulated from falsification of that genetic bias? The only way to know that is testimony. For there is nothing that cannot be said Testimonially (Truthfully), there are only false claims of preference, persuasion, and authority that cannot be made Testimonially(Truthfully). And I am quite certain it is fear of truth’s exposition of their false claims of prefernece, persuasion, and authority that prevents people from speaking truthfully.
8 – I did not make a philosophy(decidability within a context) or a literature ( possibilities within that context of decidability) of meaning – meaning from which we obtain joy, inspiration, ideas, and within which we can seize opportunities, make plans, take actions, and organize into groups to divide the labor. I facilitated the means of doing so at increasing scales, by facilitating the means of defense against ignorance, errors, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit. Just as others invent means of exploiting ignorance, errors, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit. We can then choose between methods of deceit and methods of truth, and everything in between. But the evidence has shown that truth produces western civilization and anything else does not. The reason being that truth allows adaptation to circumstance at all levels of a hierarchy faster than all other means of adapting to circumstances at all levels of a hierarchy.
9 – I did not make Propertarianism (Natural Law) to inspire, or to create ideas – that will only occur as an externality. And it is via-externality that one rules by incentive rather than command.
Law is a parsimonious method of rule that makes use of selfishness, by taking advantage of our willingness to expend energy (bear costs) in altrusitic punishment, to impose the harm of greater sized organizations (the insurer of last resort) upon those of lesser sized organizations (groups, organizations, families, and individuals).
Property is a parsimonious method of rule that makes use of selfishness, by taking advantage of our willingness to expend energy to fulfill our wants, with whatever limited resource are available to us in the moment.
By externality, property and law produce wealth that can be extracted and put to use – by any individual, group, minority or majority, for whatever purpose one chooses.
What one does to invest in one’s in-group, between groups, or against out groups, is a matter of preference.
10 – In the great question that still lies unanswered: did western man originally demonstrate a more existential bias in his genes? Or was it the natural consequence of those who were superior at war maneuver warfare? Or was the combination of maneuver warfare and the culture that employed it a cause of internal reproductive selection? Or was it an origin myth that caused all of the above? Well while we do not yet know if westerners were more empirically biased – although some researchers suggest so because of language, we are fairly certain at this point that the sequence was one of the utility of technology, the development of heroism, contract, and property to make use of the tactics of maneuver (speed), and the transformation of culture (patriarchy) that resulted from it, and the narratives that resulted from justifying that culture. It may be true (it is true) that one needs intergenerational narratives to persist group evolutionary strategies.
Now onto the question of the bourgeoise.
1 – there is a difference between each of: goals, resources, strategy, tactics, training, and inspiration.
The great generals are always men who apply new technology, invest heavily in logistics, and rely least on the mercurial character of their men.
I do not see anything terribly difficult in the conduct of war because authoritarian structures are trivially simple to organize, build, and command. But they are dead weight costs and the most expensive direct costs a people can bear. It is the investment in new weapons, arms, and armor that makes a competitive difference in war. The development of an economy that makes that investment possible. And the abilty to afford to maintain a standing army of professional warriors.
2 – in any conflict one man may be marginally different from another – something that is genetically determined. Rifles eliminated marginal difference in physicality, and reduced it to temperament and fitness – which through training we learned to eliminate. But once we have anything other than one-to-one, the difference is purely that of training and technology. And once we have technological parity we have tactical parity, and the difference is purely that of logistics and strategy. And if we have logistic and strategic parity, then the difference is purely economic and demographic scale. And once we have economic and demographic parity the difference is purely one of demographic distribution. And this is where western man’s aristocratic eugenics have been so influential. Professional warriors (athletes) with from the aristocratic classes, and armies from the meritocratic classes rather than a few aristocratic generals and a large number of eunochs, peasants, and slaves.
Secondly, most warfare is now conducted economically today rather than militarily for that reason.
3 – Kings develop assets. Generals develop strategies with them given strategic problems. Majors manage resource for their men. Captains train men to work with the tech and resources that they must use in battle. Lieutenants divide the labor of rule, sergeants direct the men, and soldiers fight with all their might using what that long chain of men has given them to work with – and until the (now ended) Peace of Westphalia they profited by the capture of whatever it is that was left on the field, the farms, the village, and the cities now undefended as their compensation – reserving great prizes for their superiors and taking portable wealth for themselves.
4 – So, while I do not want to dissuade the soldiers and warriors from whatever religion, myth, literature, and ritual that assists them in forming the bonds necessary to enter into battle in confidence and contract with one another, I do not take seriously criticisms that worries of the soldiery are causal – but consequential. And I do not take criticism of the kings and generals and majors and capitans who ensure that those men, those warriors – even if marginally in different – and only marginally different in numbers, technology, devotion, and skill.
My job is to provide for rule that will defeat all other forms of rule.
Once we win we must rule. We stopped ruling. And that was our mistake.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 10:57:00 UTC
-
On Revolution: Changing the Status Quo
1. What Has The West Been Dishonest About? We Aren’t Free of Sin Either.
Lets face it: no civilization really understands its group evolutionary strategy. But we can understand ours: When the first Aryans combined horse, bronze and wheel, they were able to cover long distances with speed. They took big risks, and horse, chariot (cart), and armor were very expensive – but they were able to prey upon neighboring people, as well as defend their own. So they used this military technology to expanded from western China to Spain. It turns out that if you’re militarily capable of it, and develop a professional warrior caste, that capturing better territory and enslaving primitive locals for labor, was a profitable industry. But only some subset of the population is fit for being ruled cost effectively and at low risk. So where consanguineous tribes had tolerated wide variations in personalities, the rulers did not, found the most aggressive the most troublesome, and by constant prosecution of outliers, the rulers achieved with man, what they had achieved with dog, sheep, pig, cow, and horse: gradual domestication of the animal man. Slavery is expensive – you are responsible for all costs, serfdom less – taking only the proceeds and some of their labor, employee less – taking most of the proceeds and paying them, and credit slave even less – using dilutive fiat credit to grant them consumption and capturing most of the real proceeds of their production. So over the centuries our ancestors have used the combination of hanging half to one percent of the population per year, delaying reproduction and limiting reproduction with manorialism, the harsh winters to starve the feeble and lazy, frequent wars under the promise of booty, and the conspiracy of the church to enfeeble the underclasses so that by the late middle ages Europe consisted largely of the progeny of the middle genetic classes. Christianity provided little more than an excuse to justify Aryanism: the industry by which the martial class domesticated man for profit. This was followed by the White Man’s Burden – a restatement of Aryanism in Moral terms. Which was followed by the American Project – a restatement of Aryanism in heroic terms. Which was followed by Postwar Democratic Secular Humanism – a restatement of christianity in secular terms. And which we have seen most recently as Neo-Conservatism: a restatement of Judaism in Aryan terms. Now let us flip that around and say that because we have domesticated man, maintained tripartism, practiced unconflated rule for each class, and created markets in everything, the natural common law, and an ever more correspondent definition of truth, we have dragged humanity out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, labor, disease, and the constant fear of the vicissitudes of nature. We have made this world more so than any other civilization. Not because we were first, but because we were FASTEST to learn and adapt, despite being a small population on the edge of the bronze age. The problem facing mankind, we didn’t finish the job: We wrongly constrained Germany’s attempt to complete the formation of the north sea’s hanseatic civilization, and created a civil war that nearly destroyed us; and allowed the second ideological invasion of the West in the form of pseudoscience, and are now bringing aboard millions of those people who we have struggled for 1400 years to prevent from spreading the cancer of their ideology – a more venomous version of the first professionalization of lying. So, will we go quietly into the night, or will we continue to domesticate mankind, or will we return to the domestication of man, profiting from the domestication of man, and continuing the transcendence of many, through the most expensive commons that any civilization has ever developed: truth.
2. Why Doesn’t Democracy work?
[D]emocracy does work if it’s under one-family-one-vote, in a small homogeneous polity, under agrarianism, and if we have four houses of government in the Anglo Saxon model: monarchy, aristocracy, business and industry, and the church (proletarian, insurance and caretaking). Because the classes and families have enough in common to use majority rule as a means of selecting priorities for funding with scarce resources. But democracy wherein men, women, and classes possess equal votes just results in proletarian parasitic rule with every possible malincentive. We can use majority rule to select priorities among people with common interests but we cannot use majority rule to select preferences among people with disparate interests. That’s just illogical. The data says that without women voting we would have been fine. Women expressed their reproductive strategy in politics under democracy. They undid civilization. That is a painful pill to swallow. Paternalism and property rights, the jury, and truth telling and the absolute nuclear family, and delayed reproduction under manorialism were means by which we suppressed the reproduction of the lower classes, and controlled women’s destructive behavior – reproducing at will at random and causing the tribe to bear the consequences of her Malthusian impulses. Women select by r-strategy (volume), not K-strategy (excellence). Civilization requires suppression of free riding of the masculine kind (aggression) as well as the female kind (reproduction). We undid Indo-European history and the family as the central political unit, with one act. So, how do we construct compromises rather than oppressions? Different houses – whether physical and representative, or electronic and virtual, for those groups with different reproductive strategies.
3. Is There a Way Out of Our Current Situation? Can We Gain Control of Our Own Countries Again?
[O]f course. But… Gossip is cheap. Violence is very expensive – but very fast and effective. And preferences are demonstrated not stated. There is no cunning solution. There is no easy answer. None. You are either going to use violence to demand change, or lose your civilization forever. We will either agitate a small minority to raise the cost of our competitors’ loading, framing, overloading, engaging in pseudoscience and lying, and raise the cost of their colonization, or we will prove we are just talking not acting.
4. How Do We Create a Revolution?
The problem with a revolution is that in and of itself, it‘s just an expression of frustration. It doesn’t necessarily bring change for the better. And some revolutions are far worse than their original states: France and Russia in particular. To implement change one has to have something to demand. And what one demands has to satisfy a lot of people‘s interests. Those demands have to be possible to put into operational processes that we call ‘institutions‘. They have to be possible to persist regardless of the beliefs of the participants. So they have to create the right incentives.
- So to create a revolution you need moral authority – something that people will willingly use violence to bring about. And as a moral imperative, and moral justification, TRUTH IS ENOUGH. We are tired of lies, pseudoscience, and obscurant rational justifications. We are tired of our elites burning our civilization.
The truth is enough. Unlike gossip, guilting and shaming. And unlike pseudo-science and propaganda, the truth is expensive. Truth is the most powerful argumentative weapon ever developed. And Propertarianism teaches us how to demand truth and speak the truth. - After moral authority – then you need a political solution – something to demand, and in sufficient detail that it is possible to discuss rationally, and implement as formal institutions.
- Then you need a sufficient plan of transition that a revolution isn‘t necessary, and people don‘t die by the millions to do it.
- Then you need a rough set of goals – not a plan – for nullification, secession, revolution, and civil war – and hope you can accomplish it with incremental nullification and secession but willing to conduct a revolution or civil war if need be. And you pursue all of them at once.
- Then you need an ‘organization‘ – a group of people who act as the general staff that answer questions, and propose ideas on how to implement, how to transition and how to raise the cost of the status quo so that the transition is preferable to the uncertainty and instability.
- Then you need a small number of people willing to die for their people, culture, and civilization, but who have reasonable belief that their sacrifice is not in vain.
I don’t go into tactics because that‘s unwise. But in general, I try to get across this idea: How many hours of electricity, days of water, days of food, days of ‘order‘ are in the production line every day? I mean, if bad stuff happens in Ukraine and Russia, 40% of food is produced by the people. Everyone can go back to the village to relatives and the farm. What happens in the developed world if it‘s disrupted? We live in the most fragile time in history. It no longer takes masses in the streets to bring about revolution. It takes a small number of people to increase the friction of daily life. It has never been easier to create a revolution. People just need a plan, moral authority, and something to demand. It‘s our job to give it to them. (Or, mine at least.)
- So to create a revolution you need moral authority – something that people will willingly use violence to bring about. And as a moral imperative, and moral justification, TRUTH IS ENOUGH. We are tired of lies, pseudoscience, and obscurant rational justifications. We are tired of our elites burning our civilization.
-
On Revolution: Changing the Status Quo
1. What Has The West Been Dishonest About? We Aren’t Free of Sin Either.
Lets face it: no civilization really understands its group evolutionary strategy. But we can understand ours: When the first Aryans combined horse, bronze and wheel, they were able to cover long distances with speed. They took big risks, and horse, chariot (cart), and armor were very expensive – but they were able to prey upon neighboring people, as well as defend their own. So they used this military technology to expanded from western China to Spain. It turns out that if you’re militarily capable of it, and develop a professional warrior caste, that capturing better territory and enslaving primitive locals for labor, was a profitable industry. But only some subset of the population is fit for being ruled cost effectively and at low risk. So where consanguineous tribes had tolerated wide variations in personalities, the rulers did not, found the most aggressive the most troublesome, and by constant prosecution of outliers, the rulers achieved with man, what they had achieved with dog, sheep, pig, cow, and horse: gradual domestication of the animal man. Slavery is expensive – you are responsible for all costs, serfdom less – taking only the proceeds and some of their labor, employee less – taking most of the proceeds and paying them, and credit slave even less – using dilutive fiat credit to grant them consumption and capturing most of the real proceeds of their production. So over the centuries our ancestors have used the combination of hanging half to one percent of the population per year, delaying reproduction and limiting reproduction with manorialism, the harsh winters to starve the feeble and lazy, frequent wars under the promise of booty, and the conspiracy of the church to enfeeble the underclasses so that by the late middle ages Europe consisted largely of the progeny of the middle genetic classes. Christianity provided little more than an excuse to justify Aryanism: the industry by which the martial class domesticated man for profit. This was followed by the White Man’s Burden – a restatement of Aryanism in Moral terms. Which was followed by the American Project – a restatement of Aryanism in heroic terms. Which was followed by Postwar Democratic Secular Humanism – a restatement of christianity in secular terms. And which we have seen most recently as Neo-Conservatism: a restatement of Judaism in Aryan terms. Now let us flip that around and say that because we have domesticated man, maintained tripartism, practiced unconflated rule for each class, and created markets in everything, the natural common law, and an ever more correspondent definition of truth, we have dragged humanity out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, labor, disease, and the constant fear of the vicissitudes of nature. We have made this world more so than any other civilization. Not because we were first, but because we were FASTEST to learn and adapt, despite being a small population on the edge of the bronze age. The problem facing mankind, we didn’t finish the job: We wrongly constrained Germany’s attempt to complete the formation of the north sea’s hanseatic civilization, and created a civil war that nearly destroyed us; and allowed the second ideological invasion of the West in the form of pseudoscience, and are now bringing aboard millions of those people who we have struggled for 1400 years to prevent from spreading the cancer of their ideology – a more venomous version of the first professionalization of lying. So, will we go quietly into the night, or will we continue to domesticate mankind, or will we return to the domestication of man, profiting from the domestication of man, and continuing the transcendence of many, through the most expensive commons that any civilization has ever developed: truth.
2. Why Doesn’t Democracy work?
[D]emocracy does work if it’s under one-family-one-vote, in a small homogeneous polity, under agrarianism, and if we have four houses of government in the Anglo Saxon model: monarchy, aristocracy, business and industry, and the church (proletarian, insurance and caretaking). Because the classes and families have enough in common to use majority rule as a means of selecting priorities for funding with scarce resources. But democracy wherein men, women, and classes possess equal votes just results in proletarian parasitic rule with every possible malincentive. We can use majority rule to select priorities among people with common interests but we cannot use majority rule to select preferences among people with disparate interests. That’s just illogical. The data says that without women voting we would have been fine. Women expressed their reproductive strategy in politics under democracy. They undid civilization. That is a painful pill to swallow. Paternalism and property rights, the jury, and truth telling and the absolute nuclear family, and delayed reproduction under manorialism were means by which we suppressed the reproduction of the lower classes, and controlled women’s destructive behavior – reproducing at will at random and causing the tribe to bear the consequences of her Malthusian impulses. Women select by r-strategy (volume), not K-strategy (excellence). Civilization requires suppression of free riding of the masculine kind (aggression) as well as the female kind (reproduction). We undid Indo-European history and the family as the central political unit, with one act. So, how do we construct compromises rather than oppressions? Different houses – whether physical and representative, or electronic and virtual, for those groups with different reproductive strategies.
3. Is There a Way Out of Our Current Situation? Can We Gain Control of Our Own Countries Again?
[O]f course. But… Gossip is cheap. Violence is very expensive – but very fast and effective. And preferences are demonstrated not stated. There is no cunning solution. There is no easy answer. None. You are either going to use violence to demand change, or lose your civilization forever. We will either agitate a small minority to raise the cost of our competitors’ loading, framing, overloading, engaging in pseudoscience and lying, and raise the cost of their colonization, or we will prove we are just talking not acting.
4. How Do We Create a Revolution?
The problem with a revolution is that in and of itself, it‘s just an expression of frustration. It doesn’t necessarily bring change for the better. And some revolutions are far worse than their original states: France and Russia in particular. To implement change one has to have something to demand. And what one demands has to satisfy a lot of people‘s interests. Those demands have to be possible to put into operational processes that we call ‘institutions‘. They have to be possible to persist regardless of the beliefs of the participants. So they have to create the right incentives.
- So to create a revolution you need moral authority – something that people will willingly use violence to bring about. And as a moral imperative, and moral justification, TRUTH IS ENOUGH. We are tired of lies, pseudoscience, and obscurant rational justifications. We are tired of our elites burning our civilization.
The truth is enough. Unlike gossip, guilting and shaming. And unlike pseudo-science and propaganda, the truth is expensive. Truth is the most powerful argumentative weapon ever developed. And Propertarianism teaches us how to demand truth and speak the truth. - After moral authority – then you need a political solution – something to demand, and in sufficient detail that it is possible to discuss rationally, and implement as formal institutions.
- Then you need a sufficient plan of transition that a revolution isn‘t necessary, and people don‘t die by the millions to do it.
- Then you need a rough set of goals – not a plan – for nullification, secession, revolution, and civil war – and hope you can accomplish it with incremental nullification and secession but willing to conduct a revolution or civil war if need be. And you pursue all of them at once.
- Then you need an ‘organization‘ – a group of people who act as the general staff that answer questions, and propose ideas on how to implement, how to transition and how to raise the cost of the status quo so that the transition is preferable to the uncertainty and instability.
- Then you need a small number of people willing to die for their people, culture, and civilization, but who have reasonable belief that their sacrifice is not in vain.
I don’t go into tactics because that‘s unwise. But in general, I try to get across this idea: How many hours of electricity, days of water, days of food, days of ‘order‘ are in the production line every day? I mean, if bad stuff happens in Ukraine and Russia, 40% of food is produced by the people. Everyone can go back to the village to relatives and the farm. What happens in the developed world if it‘s disrupted? We live in the most fragile time in history. It no longer takes masses in the streets to bring about revolution. It takes a small number of people to increase the friction of daily life. It has never been easier to create a revolution. People just need a plan, moral authority, and something to demand. It‘s our job to give it to them. (Or, mine at least.)
- So to create a revolution you need moral authority – something that people will willingly use violence to bring about. And as a moral imperative, and moral justification, TRUTH IS ENOUGH. We are tired of lies, pseudoscience, and obscurant rational justifications. We are tired of our elites burning our civilization.
-
The State of Mathematical Economics
Understanding advanced mathematics of economics and physics for ordinary people. The Mengerian revolution, which we call the Marginalist revolution, occurred when the people of the period applied calculus ( the mathematics of “relative motion”) to what had been largely a combination of accounting and algebra. 20th century economics can be seen largely as an attempt to apply the mathematics of relative motion (constant change) from mathematics of constant categories that we use in perfectly constant axiomatic systems, and the relatively constant mathematics of physical systems, to the mathematics of inconstant categories that we find in economics – because things on the market have a multitude of subsequent yet interdependent uses that are determined by ever changing preferences, demands, availability, and shocks. Physics is a much harder problem than axiomatic mathematics. Economics is a much harder problem than mathematical physics, and before we head down this road (which I have been thinking about a long time) Sentience (the next dimension of complexity) is a much harder problem than economics. And there have been questions in the 20th century whether mathematics as we understand it can solve the hard problem of economics. But this is, as usual, a problem of misunderstanding the very simple nature of mathematics as the study of constant relations. Most human use of mathematics consists of the study of trivial constant relations such as quantities of objects, physical measurements. Or changes in state over time. Or relative motion in time. And this constitutes the four dimensions we can conceive of when discussing real world physical phenomenon. So in our simplistic view of mathematics, we think in terms of small numbers of causal relations. But, it does not reflect the number of POSSIBLE causal relations. In other words, we change from the position of observing change in state by things humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density higher than humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density such that every act of measurement distorts what humans can observe and act upon, by distorting the causality. One of our discoveries in mathematical physics, is that as things move along a trajectory, they are affected by high causal density, and change through many different states during that time period. Such that causal density is so high that it is very hard to reduce change in state of many dimensions of constant relations to a trivial value: meaning a measurement or state that we can predict. Instead we fine a range of output constant relations, which we call probabilistic. So that instead of a say, a point as a measurement, we fined a line, or a triangle, or a multi dimensional geometry that the resulting state will fit within. However, we can, with some work identify what we might call sums or aggregates (which are simple sets of relationships) but what higher mathematicians refer to as patterns, ‘symmetries’ or ‘geometries’. And these patterns refer to a set of constant relations in ‘space’ (on a coordinate system of sorts) that seem to emerge regardless of differences in the causes that produce them. These patterns, symmetries, or geometries reflect a set of constant relationships that are the product of inconstant causal operations. And when you refer to a ‘number’, a pattern, a symmetry, or a geometry, or what is called a non-euclidian geometry, we are merely talking about the number of dimensions of constant relations we are talking about, and using ‘space’ as the analogy that the human mind is able to grasp. Unfortunately, mathematics has not ‘reformed’ itself into operational language as have the physical sciences – and remains like the social sciences and philosophy a bastion of archaic language. But we can reduce this archaic language into meaningful operational terms as nothing more than sets of constant relations between measurements, consisting of a dimension per measurement, which we represent as a field (flat), euclidian geometry (possible geometry), or post Euclidian geometry (physically impossible but logically useful) geometry of constant relations. And more importantly, once we can identify these patterns, symmetries, or geometries that arise from complex causal density consisting of seemingly unrelated causal operations, we have found a constant by which to measure that which is causally dense but consequentially constant. So think of the current need for reform in economics to refer to and require a transition from the measurement of numeric (trivial) values, to the analysis of (non-trivial) consequent geometries. These constant states (geometries) constitute the aggregate operations in economies. The unintended but constant consequences of causally dense actions. Think of it like using fingers to make a shadow puppet. If you put a lot of people together between the light and the shadow, you can form the same pattern in the shadow despite very different combinations of fingers, hands, and arms. But because of the limits of the human anatomy, there are certain patterns more likely to emerge than others. Now imagine we do that in three dimensions. Now (if you can) four, and so on. At some point we can’t imagine these things. Because we have moved beyond what is possible to that which is only analogous to the possible: a set of constant relations in multiple dimensions. So economics then can evolve from the study of inputs and outputs without intermediary state which allows prediction, to the study of the consequence of inputs and the range of possible outputs that will likely produce predictability. in other words, it is possible to define constant relations in economics. And of course it is possible to define constant relations in sentience. The same is true for the operations possible by mankind. There are many possible, but there are only so many that produce a condition of natural law: reciprocity. Like I’ve said. Math isn’t complicated if you undrestand that it’s nothing more than saying “this stone represents one of our sheep”. And in doing so produce a constant relation. all we do is increase the quantity of constant relations we must measure. And from them deduce what we do not know, but is necessary because of those constant relations. Math is simple. That’s why it works for just about everything: we can define a correspondence with anything. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
The State of Mathematical Economics
Understanding advanced mathematics of economics and physics for ordinary people. The Mengerian revolution, which we call the Marginalist revolution, occurred when the people of the period applied calculus ( the mathematics of “relative motion”) to what had been largely a combination of accounting and algebra. 20th century economics can be seen largely as an attempt to apply the mathematics of relative motion (constant change) from mathematics of constant categories that we use in perfectly constant axiomatic systems, and the relatively constant mathematics of physical systems, to the mathematics of inconstant categories that we find in economics – because things on the market have a multitude of subsequent yet interdependent uses that are determined by ever changing preferences, demands, availability, and shocks. Physics is a much harder problem than axiomatic mathematics. Economics is a much harder problem than mathematical physics, and before we head down this road (which I have been thinking about a long time) Sentience (the next dimension of complexity) is a much harder problem than economics. And there have been questions in the 20th century whether mathematics as we understand it can solve the hard problem of economics. But this is, as usual, a problem of misunderstanding the very simple nature of mathematics as the study of constant relations. Most human use of mathematics consists of the study of trivial constant relations such as quantities of objects, physical measurements. Or changes in state over time. Or relative motion in time. And this constitutes the four dimensions we can conceive of when discussing real world physical phenomenon. So in our simplistic view of mathematics, we think in terms of small numbers of causal relations. But, it does not reflect the number of POSSIBLE causal relations. In other words, we change from the position of observing change in state by things humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density higher than humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density such that every act of measurement distorts what humans can observe and act upon, by distorting the causality. One of our discoveries in mathematical physics, is that as things move along a trajectory, they are affected by high causal density, and change through many different states during that time period. Such that causal density is so high that it is very hard to reduce change in state of many dimensions of constant relations to a trivial value: meaning a measurement or state that we can predict. Instead we fine a range of output constant relations, which we call probabilistic. So that instead of a say, a point as a measurement, we fined a line, or a triangle, or a multi dimensional geometry that the resulting state will fit within. However, we can, with some work identify what we might call sums or aggregates (which are simple sets of relationships) but what higher mathematicians refer to as patterns, ‘symmetries’ or ‘geometries’. And these patterns refer to a set of constant relations in ‘space’ (on a coordinate system of sorts) that seem to emerge regardless of differences in the causes that produce them. These patterns, symmetries, or geometries reflect a set of constant relationships that are the product of inconstant causal operations. And when you refer to a ‘number’, a pattern, a symmetry, or a geometry, or what is called a non-euclidian geometry, we are merely talking about the number of dimensions of constant relations we are talking about, and using ‘space’ as the analogy that the human mind is able to grasp. Unfortunately, mathematics has not ‘reformed’ itself into operational language as have the physical sciences – and remains like the social sciences and philosophy a bastion of archaic language. But we can reduce this archaic language into meaningful operational terms as nothing more than sets of constant relations between measurements, consisting of a dimension per measurement, which we represent as a field (flat), euclidian geometry (possible geometry), or post Euclidian geometry (physically impossible but logically useful) geometry of constant relations. And more importantly, once we can identify these patterns, symmetries, or geometries that arise from complex causal density consisting of seemingly unrelated causal operations, we have found a constant by which to measure that which is causally dense but consequentially constant. So think of the current need for reform in economics to refer to and require a transition from the measurement of numeric (trivial) values, to the analysis of (non-trivial) consequent geometries. These constant states (geometries) constitute the aggregate operations in economies. The unintended but constant consequences of causally dense actions. Think of it like using fingers to make a shadow puppet. If you put a lot of people together between the light and the shadow, you can form the same pattern in the shadow despite very different combinations of fingers, hands, and arms. But because of the limits of the human anatomy, there are certain patterns more likely to emerge than others. Now imagine we do that in three dimensions. Now (if you can) four, and so on. At some point we can’t imagine these things. Because we have moved beyond what is possible to that which is only analogous to the possible: a set of constant relations in multiple dimensions. So economics then can evolve from the study of inputs and outputs without intermediary state which allows prediction, to the study of the consequence of inputs and the range of possible outputs that will likely produce predictability. in other words, it is possible to define constant relations in economics. And of course it is possible to define constant relations in sentience. The same is true for the operations possible by mankind. There are many possible, but there are only so many that produce a condition of natural law: reciprocity. Like I’ve said. Math isn’t complicated if you undrestand that it’s nothing more than saying “this stone represents one of our sheep”. And in doing so produce a constant relation. all we do is increase the quantity of constant relations we must measure. And from them deduce what we do not know, but is necessary because of those constant relations. Math is simple. That’s why it works for just about everything: we can define a correspondence with anything. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
CORE: Acquisitionism – Restating Psychology
ACQUISITIONISM (draft) (worth repeating) A RESTATEMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY: PROPERTARIANISM’S THREE-FACTOR CAUSAL MODEL (core)(central concept)(necessary)(innovation) I. ASSETS (FACTS) P1) ASSETS: self/body, energy, relations, investment/opportunity P2) ABILITY: intellect/intellectual effort, emotional reserves/ability, physical ability / effort, P3) DESIRABILITY: other-acceptance(non-rejection), other-information, other-insurance), Note that these three are (a) evidentiary in the individual’s experience of his or her life, (b) habitual in the family unit and the information and training of the family unit – and informationally inherited. (c) evident in the assets of the family unit, (c) genetically inheritable. But what assets do we humans seek to preserve, consume, acquire, and maintain? A rich portfolio that varies from our life itself, time, food, shelter, kin, mates, allies (people to cooperate with), private property (stuff), private commons, public commons, territory, information, opportunity, normative institutions, cultural institutions, formal institutions. The reasons being that as we increase each of these our discount on intellectual, emotional, and physical effort increases. Through cooperation in a division of temporal perception, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy, we use the one commodity that is most precious: time, to make everything we desire cheaper – so profoundly so that we actually cannot fathom its scale. By the simple combination of sovereignty and reciprocity; norm, tradition, literature and myth; property, contract and law; money, prices and credit; family(marriage), organization(corporation), voluntary(civic), local, regional, and national government; we convert the little time of our human lives into the production of complex goods any one, even the most simple, the production of which would consume lifetime of an individual. II. REACTIONS (GENETIC/BIOLOGICAL INSTRUCTIONS/INFORMATION) E1) Pleasure(reward) vs Pain(cost) (pre cognitive) E2) Excitement(projected gain/loss) vs Rest (conserve) (cognitive but pre-social) E3) Aggression(dominance) vs Fear(submission) (cognitive and social) All emotions describe anticipated changes in state of (P1)Assets. That is all that they describe. Nothing more. They may evolve through complex combinations of assets and emotional reactions, so that we experience a ‘chord’ or ‘symphony’ of emotions. And we might (artists do) attempt to compose such ‘symphonies’ for us to experience. But just as all music is constructed from a limited number of properties, and complexity emerges from its subtle combinations, emotions are constructed from only a small number of properties, and complexity in our experience emerges from dense combinations of those subtle combinations. Note that by combining these three emotions with the various forms of ASSETS, and the various values of those assets, we can produce the entire spectrum of human emotions in a rich orchestra no matter which emotional framework we wish to describe. III. THE REPRODUCTIVE DISTRIBUTION OF ADVOCACY I1) The feminine near term need for inventory and consumption given the fragility and duration of the maturity of offspring. (socialistic/individualistic/offspring) I2) The immature male need for opportunity to accumulate assets in order to attract and maintain females. (libertarian/individualistic/assets) I3) The mature male need to preserve costly personal, familial, group, tribal investments (conservative/familial/tribal/preservation) Note that these differences in reproductive strategy are expressed in our advocacy for the distribution of the proceeds of population density, cooperation within that population density: female egalitarian, male youth individualist, and adult male meritocratic. Each bias reflects the reproductive strategy of the the genders. Each member does in fact contribute to the creation of returns withing a polity (group) as long as he or she doe not predatorially, parasitically, free-ride upon the group’s efforts. Individuals can specialize or develop portfolios of contributions to a polity. And most of us develop portfolios that produce the maximum returns for us given our abilities. Those portfolios consist in: The provision of caretaking. The adherence to and policing of norms, traditions, rituals, the recitation of myths. Participation in cooperation of defense, goods, services, and information. Virtuous contribution to the commons through donation and redistribution. Meritorious contribution to the commons through the production of excellence. Status contribution to the commons through the contribution to or production of institutions and monuments. Heroic contribution to the commons by self sacrifice or risk. ( But let us remember that people can also engage in false advertising in order to obtain opportunity and free riding without performance or investment. ) Note that nothing else is necessary to describe all ethical, moral, and social behavior. REASONS WHY THESE CAUSES ARE OBSCURED FROM US 1) The terms used above are analogies that we can reduce to frames of current experience. How our brains record, anticipate gains and losses of the various forms of assets they find useful is still something we must discover. However, in that discipline we call psychology: the operations and variables that constitute the human experience, I have significant doubts whether further refinement of this set of ‘names’ will vary further any more so than have number and note, weight, volume, and velocity. And that all further refinement to psychology will consist largely of subtle expressions constructed upon these terms. Whenever we change the paradigm of any model that serves our ability to describe phenomenon, it is because we have developed a technology by which the scale of our perceptions and scale of our actions, require redefinition of the model to accommodate the new increases in scope. 2) Human conscious experience is conflationary: the combination of perception, memory, and recursive interactions of perception and memory, producing a continuous ‘overload'(conflation) that our short term memories are insufficient to preserve as a state, and where that preserved state would be necessary for introspection. Were we able to capture (freeze) frames of that complex experience in our short term memories we might be able to trace the causal routes through the layers of our brain with a great deal of practice. And in some cases we are able to do that. But because our experience is ‘assembled’ and ‘reassembled’ each time, and because we actually modify it with each reflection upon it, the sheer quantity of fragmentary information would be ‘unfollowable’ except as a sequence of concepts – a sequence that through introspection we can sometimes deduce. IIII. THE INTERGENERATIONAL DIVISION OF ASSETS (KNOWLEDGE vs ENERGY) Given youthful poverty, ignorance, energy, and lack of accumulated cellular damage, and mature wealth, and knowledge accumulated at the cost of accumulated cellular damage, the generations engaged (until the 20th century usurpation by government and redistribution from the mature and aged to underclass reproduction) in a voluntary exchange between the generations. The most obvious is the transmission of care and property between generations of families, but the least obvious is the borrowing and lending of money and interest OUTSIDE of families, and even outside of those who are known to us by use of the legal, finance, and banking system – in one of the most egalitarian but meritocratic means of intergenerational cooperation while preserving accumulated information by which the old could control the risks of the young. Again which was destroyed by government interference in the 20th century through the use of fiat credit and the subsequent empowerment of the financial sector. Note that nothing else is required to explain various cultural behaviors other than reproductive strategies, moral intuitions for ‘proper/fair’ property and proceed distribution in relation to reproductive strategies. Family strategies and the correspondence of family strategies with the increasing accumulation of various properties, with individual property ownership instead of family currently eliminating the last vestiges of the family as an asset-transfer unit (made possible by the destruction of the family by the government transfer of assets from productive to unproductive individuals). V. THE INTRA-CIVILIZATIONAL DIVISION OF TEMPORAL SPECIALIZATION It’s rather obvious that the bronze and iron ages radiated out from the fertile crescent whose seasonal flooding provided reliable irrigation that could be controlled by a warrior elite, the proceeds of production extracted, consumption increased by the elites, and investments in commons produced by their followers. It is somewhat obvious that the trade routes from northern Italy overland to the north sea, wherein the Venetians provided a navy for the wealthier but more despotic Byzantines and their Conquerors the Muslims, created the foundation for first the failed Carolingian civilization, and the ‘truncated’ Hanseatic civilization. And that today’s european heartland still reflects Carolingian Lotharingia. It is less obvious that in european civilization, from Spain to the Urals, the same pattern of radiation outward is visible from the north sea down to the Hajnal line, within which northern europeans practiced bipartite manorialism the nuclear, and absolute nuclear family, as well as the common law of sovereign men, as well as rule of law – governance without rule by market means. And then through the catholic countries where they did not, to the eastern european countries where the middle class evolution was late – and truncated by the Russians, to the Russian that civilization that was too young, to experience either the scientific enlightenment, or the reformation to which they were more suitable, and busy conquering the remains of the Mongol’s Golden Horde empire from Belarus to the pacific and into what is today Alaska. Below the protestant, catholic, and orthodox lines of civilization we see a polar opposite strategy: not one of incremental domestication for profit in pursuit of limiting or eliminating rule: Sovereignty, but one of preservation of ignorance, preservation of underclasses, preservation of family and tribal orders, preservation of tribal conflict, and thereby an ever INCREASING demand for authoritative rule – a rule that is profitable for a large number of religious ‘judges’ and advisors, and an authoritarian militaristic state apparatus. Were it not for the presence of cheaply extracted oil, this part of the world would be somewhere developmentally below south america given it’s indigenous underclass, between rural India and its indigenous underclass, and high conflict subsaharan Africa, and its indigenous underclasses. And far to the east we have Indian civilization who, thanks to Hinduism has succeed at least in creating a relatively gentle people, and who has (unwantingly) imported anglo logic, and russian economics and politics and law. Chinese civilization that has imported russian philosophy, economics, and politics, and is now importing anglo empiricism and technology. But where indians are optimistically untruthful people, chinese are pessimistically untruthful people. And Russians are opportunistically untruthful people. What the chinese and russians have had is a military capable of altering the course of the civilization when necessary. This is what the hindus do not have. Perhaps for the simple reason that the continent of india unlike the narrow strips of green that constitution the population centers of russia and china, is simply impossible to rule centrally without an external threat that gives rise for the need to form a military as did china to resist modernity, and russia to provide an alternative to modernity. THE SPECIALIZATIONS With this history in mind we can see something quite interestinsg that the stock market and high risk and highly ‘evangelical’ movements exist in america, and that americans practice scientific law – and that maericans deny the existence of their classes. That the bond market and banking exist in England. That the british have traded Anglo empiricism for a conflation with French Rousseuian moralism and practice moral law. And that the british complain about their classes. That engineering and perhaps the most psychologically precise language and high capital investment and an explicity hierarchy exist in germany along with requisite ‘duty’ more so than empathic ‘morality’. That eastern europe has been truncated but now forms a relatively moral labor force. That Russia provides the military and resources on a scale and practicality that the idealistic utopianism of the american military can never hope to achieve despite it’s technological and operational excellence – which is exactly its primary weakness. No Russian would produce a US military. It’s fragile. It’s just big. What makes american military dangerous is TRUST. Americans fight and maintain formation. and take initiative to win. So what we see is high risk Americans, tepid risk Britons, low risk Germans, risk averse eastern europeans, and highly risk intolerant if not outright paranoid Russians. That this civilization from Australia to america to Europe, to Russian Asia constitutes a series of specializations in the inter-temporal demands of the civilization is not so obvious. That’s unfortunate, because no other civilization can manage it. NOTE: Note that nothing else is needed to explain the differences between these societies other than the atomicity of property due to the advancement of the commercial sector that we call the middle class. RECIPROCITY AS INFORMATION, AND ASSETS AS DECIDABILITY: NATURAL LAW Just as voluntary exchange free of fraud is the only test of whether a good, service, or information has been a use of resources, a personal consumption, or waste of resources, voluntary cooperation free of deceit is the only means of testing reciprocity(sovereignty) whether the resource of cooperation (time, energy, opportunity, resources) has been productive, parasitically consumed, or wasted. When we engage in cooperative exchanges across our various abilities, needs, and biases we discover which goods, services, and information is desired by the market, and we therefore adjust our relations, efforts, and or thoughts, to find a balance between what we desire to do, what is available to do, and what others want us to do. In this way, through sovereignty, reciprocity, and markets in all walks of life we ‘calculate’ methods of achieving one another’s goals without having the intention of achieving one another’s goals. We the rely on rebellion, rallying, shaming, ridicule, disagreement, debate, discourse, agreement, congratulations, advocacy, and cooperative action depending upon we agree with or disagree with one ‘ambition’ in the portfolio of ambitions that we are aware of and capable of understanding at any time. And while only those with errors (mental illnesses – wether physical, emotional, or intellectual) engage in those topics of investigation that are increasingly difficult to reduce to direct experience:, economics, engineering, biology, chemistry, physics, logic, mathematics – because they possess neither a portfolio of investments nor knowledge to trade them; unfortunately everyone can reduce questions of reciprocity, ethics, morality, politics, culture, and civilization to direct experience because from micro investors to major investors each of us has defacto constructed a portfolio of cooperation. Unfortunately, just as the economics of the family, the business, the nation, and the world, operate by very different and completely counterintuitive, and often opposite rules, such that excellence in one niche is not commutable to another, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and humans of all levels of sophistication overestimate their knowledge. One of the reasons for teaching and speaking, and legislating in Propertarianism’s Natural Law, is that the logic of law and cooperation is no longer subjectively undecidable, but objectively decidable regardless of norm, tradition, culture, or legislation. And as such we educate in morality by a means as certain as mathematics: because just as mathematics must be constructible by means of operations retaining consistent relations, consent, cooperation, contract and law must be constructible by means of operations consisting of constant relations we call ‘reciprocity’ : the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of our assets and limited to productive externalities to the assets of others. And more importantly, since the invention of the pulpit in prior eras, and the print in subsequent eras, and mass media in our just-ending era, has led to the incremental industrialization of error, suggestion, and deceit, and that we developed reason as a counter to eastern supernaturalism in the ancient world, were defeated by eastern supernaturalism, and then rescued ourselves by empiricism in early modern world, nearly completed the second scientific revolution in Germany before it was truncated by the world wars, and that we have nearly been defeated by eastern pseudoscientific mysticism of the cosmopolitans in the twentieth century world, and given that the thinkers of the last century (darwin, nietzsche, spencer, poincare, brouwer, bridgman, mises, popper, hayek) failed to produce the *advancement* in empiricism that would allow us to refute the pseudoscitsts that attempted the third wave of supernaturalism – this time by even more innovative means (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, the Frankfurt School). SUMMARY: As far as I know all human emotion and behavior can be explained by these three ASSETS, these three EMOTIONS, and the MEMORY of our life experience to date; along with the division of reproductive labor, the division of intertemporal labor, the division of productive labor, the division of class labor in producing commons, and the division of civilizational labor in producing commons at the largest scales. As far as I know differences in personalities allow us to specialize in niches and as long as we do not err in our assessments of our assets, all personality types both (a) gravitate to empirically available portfolios and the uses of those portfolios, and (b) react rationally and emotionally rationally to the current and future value of those portfolios. (c) and assistance in improving those portfolios is the best that we can do for one another – and what makes us love one another – investing in one another. As far as I know some individuals are defective primarily in their limited reserves of frustration in relation to their other abilities. As far as I know the classes consist of individuals with increasing inheritances of (P1)Assets, (P2)Abilities, and (P3)Desirability. And as far as I know the classes sort according to familial, associative, productive, reproductive, and political utility to one another. As far as I know the west and the far east have been most successful because a combination of climate (cold), production techniques (small family farms), aristocracy imposed manorialism (access to land and therefore reproduction), and an aristocracy that aggressively exterminated those troublemakers. Meanwhile the process of reproductive selection among those that remained favored lower impulsivity, lower and slower maturity, and more feminine traits in women, which resulted in domestication of then population through pedomorphic evolution much more so than all other forms of evolutionary influence combined. UNCONSCIOUS VS CONSCIOUS TRAINING OF THE MIND. We can vary our assets. We can get fit, we can primp and preen, we can learn manners and small talk, We can learn skills. We can develop relationships, produce and save. But we can only do so to the limits of our genetically inherited abilities. Therefore, the primary means of self improvement given the limits of our genetic assets, is through the REMOVAL OF ERROR: the problems of the self: ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking. The problem is, that we often cannot tolerate a true accounting of our assets, or opportunity for assets, because the realization that we have empty pockets so to speak, and are totally dependent upon the favor of others, when we are undesirable by others, because we are either a cost or lacking value to others, would remove from us the will to live. It is for this reason alone that Buddhism Succeeded among the poor, and Stoicism Succeeded among the working and middle classes, and science, economics, law, and philosophy, among the upper middle and upper classes: these methods of thought correspond to the means of eliminating fear of falling behind our peers in the constant race with the red queen in all walks of social life. PERSONALITIES ARE THE RESULT OF A NEED TO COOPERATE AND THE CONSTANT COMPETITION FOR COOPERATIVE ASSETS If we do not need to cooperate, how complex a set of personalities do we need? we need to be more mobile to find food, we need to be smarter to hunt food, we need to be smarter to outwit competitors, we need to be much smarter to cooperate to outwit competitors – whether within the group or without it. We must seek to find niches to exploit within group and without group, and within nature by individual means, and within nature by cooperative means. We seek to create allies in cooperation, to join allies in cooperation, and to outwit allies by defection, and to outwit enemies by circumvention, cooperation, or defeat. But most of our cooperation occurs within group. Most of our evolution occurred because of in-group problems of negotiation. The band/family was knowable. The family/tribe somewhat knowable. The village/family knowable. The city not knowable, but because of family religion and law and barter, somewhat predictable. The big city is not knowable whatsoever without jobs, law and pricing. The metropolis is not knowable whatsoever without jobs, law, pricing, credit, and mass media – like religion, attempting to force us into peerage. And modernity is was beginning to be terrifyingly unknowable until jobs, law, pricing, credit, and the new distributed media that allowed us to find peers around the world easily. I suspect the future will be an expansion of interpersonal reputation, legal reputation, credit reputation, and ‘social media’ reputation of some sort – so that we may identify informational peers amidst the multitude of different grains of human sand. And I would expect to see an increase in specialization of identities – if only for signaling purposes – and personalities – as means of adapting – just as we have seen an increase in the specialization of knowledge and labor. DIVERSITY OF PERSONALITIES EVEN WITHIN A HETEROGENOUS POLITY ARE AN ASSET Personalities are a means of dividing the problem of the intertemporal and reproductive division of perception knowledge, negotiation advocacy, and labor into that thing we call reciprocity and the benefits of cooperating in increasing scales while taking advantage of both increasingly small niches for those with lesser abilities, maintaining niches, and generating new niches, that destroy the old. BUT THERE ARE NO LIMITLESS GOODS (undone ) WE BOUND THE LIMITLESS GOODS WITH VOLUNTARY COOPERATION AND UNBIND THEM WITH VIOLATIONS OF VOLUNTARY COOPERATION. (undone) Ergo, the government has destroyed the checks and balances of a heterogeneous polity. THE HYPOTHALAMIC PROBLEM/BENEFIT AND MODERNITY (undone) COMPARE TO THE FIVE FACTOR MODEL – THE “AUTHORITARIAN” or “MONOPOLY” or “CONFORMITY” or “ILLNESS” INDUSTRIAL ERA’s SYMPATHETIC MODEL OF MAN In every era of history we have used the most sophisticated technology we know of as an analogical model to both describe the introspectively unavailable functions of the human mind, and to justify whatever authoritarian model we wish to impose upon one another. Freud and Jungs attempt to escape Darwin and Nietzsche by fabricating pseudosciences with which they could criticize what they held in disdain made use of the uniformity-industrialism and sexually-repressive-victorian (due to syphilis) models of the day. Wile in the last century thanks to Maxwell, we spoke physical phenomenon as changes in energy. In the current era, thanks to physicists we speak of physical phenomenon as changes in the state of information. In the past eras we spoke of passions and virtues, then of emotions and wants. and thanks to Hayek we now speak of social science, and now thanks to Turing, we speak of psychology as changes in state of information. In doing so we cast off the imprecision and bias of prior eras, and the attempts at deception of prior political and cultural movements. The current model of personality that psychologists operate by retains both the authoritarianism of the industrialist and socialist era, with only tepid attempts at reform in response to the findings of the cognitive sciences, and the conversion of pseudoscientific psychology to empirical psychology. The current Five Factor (or six or seven) model in its various forms does in fact correspond somewhat to services provided by brain structures. FF1) CURIOSITY (INTELLECT-NOVEL) / REPEATABILITY (MEMORY-KNOWN) (psychology): The ability available to find rewards in success through experimentation or the inability to tolerate frustration in failure and the discovery of success in repetition FF2) EXTRAVERSION / INTROVERSION (psychology): Method by which one processes information: dependence upon self reflection, or dependence upon empathy and communication from others. The limits to frustration we obtain with seeking information from others depending upon our desirability for informational cooperation with others. FF3) AGREEABLENESS / DISAGREEABLENESS (Psychology): “the willingness to bear small costs of investment in order to identify present and longer term opportunities for gains or consumption and prevent current and future costs or losses.” (byproduct of conscientious ness/extroversion?) FF4) CONSCIENTIOUSNESS / BLAME-AVOIDANCE: (undone) FF5) CONFIDENCE-EMOTIONAL STABILITY / FEAR – NEUROTICISM (undone) Curt Doolittle The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
CORE: Acquisitionism – Restating Psychology
ACQUISITIONISM (draft) (worth repeating) A RESTATEMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY: PROPERTARIANISM’S THREE-FACTOR CAUSAL MODEL (core)(central concept)(necessary)(innovation) I. ASSETS (FACTS) P1) ASSETS: self/body, energy, relations, investment/opportunity P2) ABILITY: intellect/intellectual effort, emotional reserves/ability, physical ability / effort, P3) DESIRABILITY: other-acceptance(non-rejection), other-information, other-insurance), Note that these three are (a) evidentiary in the individual’s experience of his or her life, (b) habitual in the family unit and the information and training of the family unit – and informationally inherited. (c) evident in the assets of the family unit, (c) genetically inheritable. But what assets do we humans seek to preserve, consume, acquire, and maintain? A rich portfolio that varies from our life itself, time, food, shelter, kin, mates, allies (people to cooperate with), private property (stuff), private commons, public commons, territory, information, opportunity, normative institutions, cultural institutions, formal institutions. The reasons being that as we increase each of these our discount on intellectual, emotional, and physical effort increases. Through cooperation in a division of temporal perception, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy, we use the one commodity that is most precious: time, to make everything we desire cheaper – so profoundly so that we actually cannot fathom its scale. By the simple combination of sovereignty and reciprocity; norm, tradition, literature and myth; property, contract and law; money, prices and credit; family(marriage), organization(corporation), voluntary(civic), local, regional, and national government; we convert the little time of our human lives into the production of complex goods any one, even the most simple, the production of which would consume lifetime of an individual. II. REACTIONS (GENETIC/BIOLOGICAL INSTRUCTIONS/INFORMATION) E1) Pleasure(reward) vs Pain(cost) (pre cognitive) E2) Excitement(projected gain/loss) vs Rest (conserve) (cognitive but pre-social) E3) Aggression(dominance) vs Fear(submission) (cognitive and social) All emotions describe anticipated changes in state of (P1)Assets. That is all that they describe. Nothing more. They may evolve through complex combinations of assets and emotional reactions, so that we experience a ‘chord’ or ‘symphony’ of emotions. And we might (artists do) attempt to compose such ‘symphonies’ for us to experience. But just as all music is constructed from a limited number of properties, and complexity emerges from its subtle combinations, emotions are constructed from only a small number of properties, and complexity in our experience emerges from dense combinations of those subtle combinations. Note that by combining these three emotions with the various forms of ASSETS, and the various values of those assets, we can produce the entire spectrum of human emotions in a rich orchestra no matter which emotional framework we wish to describe. III. THE REPRODUCTIVE DISTRIBUTION OF ADVOCACY I1) The feminine near term need for inventory and consumption given the fragility and duration of the maturity of offspring. (socialistic/individualistic/offspring) I2) The immature male need for opportunity to accumulate assets in order to attract and maintain females. (libertarian/individualistic/assets) I3) The mature male need to preserve costly personal, familial, group, tribal investments (conservative/familial/tribal/preservation) Note that these differences in reproductive strategy are expressed in our advocacy for the distribution of the proceeds of population density, cooperation within that population density: female egalitarian, male youth individualist, and adult male meritocratic. Each bias reflects the reproductive strategy of the the genders. Each member does in fact contribute to the creation of returns withing a polity (group) as long as he or she doe not predatorially, parasitically, free-ride upon the group’s efforts. Individuals can specialize or develop portfolios of contributions to a polity. And most of us develop portfolios that produce the maximum returns for us given our abilities. Those portfolios consist in: The provision of caretaking. The adherence to and policing of norms, traditions, rituals, the recitation of myths. Participation in cooperation of defense, goods, services, and information. Virtuous contribution to the commons through donation and redistribution. Meritorious contribution to the commons through the production of excellence. Status contribution to the commons through the contribution to or production of institutions and monuments. Heroic contribution to the commons by self sacrifice or risk. ( But let us remember that people can also engage in false advertising in order to obtain opportunity and free riding without performance or investment. ) Note that nothing else is necessary to describe all ethical, moral, and social behavior. REASONS WHY THESE CAUSES ARE OBSCURED FROM US 1) The terms used above are analogies that we can reduce to frames of current experience. How our brains record, anticipate gains and losses of the various forms of assets they find useful is still something we must discover. However, in that discipline we call psychology: the operations and variables that constitute the human experience, I have significant doubts whether further refinement of this set of ‘names’ will vary further any more so than have number and note, weight, volume, and velocity. And that all further refinement to psychology will consist largely of subtle expressions constructed upon these terms. Whenever we change the paradigm of any model that serves our ability to describe phenomenon, it is because we have developed a technology by which the scale of our perceptions and scale of our actions, require redefinition of the model to accommodate the new increases in scope. 2) Human conscious experience is conflationary: the combination of perception, memory, and recursive interactions of perception and memory, producing a continuous ‘overload'(conflation) that our short term memories are insufficient to preserve as a state, and where that preserved state would be necessary for introspection. Were we able to capture (freeze) frames of that complex experience in our short term memories we might be able to trace the causal routes through the layers of our brain with a great deal of practice. And in some cases we are able to do that. But because our experience is ‘assembled’ and ‘reassembled’ each time, and because we actually modify it with each reflection upon it, the sheer quantity of fragmentary information would be ‘unfollowable’ except as a sequence of concepts – a sequence that through introspection we can sometimes deduce. IIII. THE INTERGENERATIONAL DIVISION OF ASSETS (KNOWLEDGE vs ENERGY) Given youthful poverty, ignorance, energy, and lack of accumulated cellular damage, and mature wealth, and knowledge accumulated at the cost of accumulated cellular damage, the generations engaged (until the 20th century usurpation by government and redistribution from the mature and aged to underclass reproduction) in a voluntary exchange between the generations. The most obvious is the transmission of care and property between generations of families, but the least obvious is the borrowing and lending of money and interest OUTSIDE of families, and even outside of those who are known to us by use of the legal, finance, and banking system – in one of the most egalitarian but meritocratic means of intergenerational cooperation while preserving accumulated information by which the old could control the risks of the young. Again which was destroyed by government interference in the 20th century through the use of fiat credit and the subsequent empowerment of the financial sector. Note that nothing else is required to explain various cultural behaviors other than reproductive strategies, moral intuitions for ‘proper/fair’ property and proceed distribution in relation to reproductive strategies. Family strategies and the correspondence of family strategies with the increasing accumulation of various properties, with individual property ownership instead of family currently eliminating the last vestiges of the family as an asset-transfer unit (made possible by the destruction of the family by the government transfer of assets from productive to unproductive individuals). V. THE INTRA-CIVILIZATIONAL DIVISION OF TEMPORAL SPECIALIZATION It’s rather obvious that the bronze and iron ages radiated out from the fertile crescent whose seasonal flooding provided reliable irrigation that could be controlled by a warrior elite, the proceeds of production extracted, consumption increased by the elites, and investments in commons produced by their followers. It is somewhat obvious that the trade routes from northern Italy overland to the north sea, wherein the Venetians provided a navy for the wealthier but more despotic Byzantines and their Conquerors the Muslims, created the foundation for first the failed Carolingian civilization, and the ‘truncated’ Hanseatic civilization. And that today’s european heartland still reflects Carolingian Lotharingia. It is less obvious that in european civilization, from Spain to the Urals, the same pattern of radiation outward is visible from the north sea down to the Hajnal line, within which northern europeans practiced bipartite manorialism the nuclear, and absolute nuclear family, as well as the common law of sovereign men, as well as rule of law – governance without rule by market means. And then through the catholic countries where they did not, to the eastern european countries where the middle class evolution was late – and truncated by the Russians, to the Russian that civilization that was too young, to experience either the scientific enlightenment, or the reformation to which they were more suitable, and busy conquering the remains of the Mongol’s Golden Horde empire from Belarus to the pacific and into what is today Alaska. Below the protestant, catholic, and orthodox lines of civilization we see a polar opposite strategy: not one of incremental domestication for profit in pursuit of limiting or eliminating rule: Sovereignty, but one of preservation of ignorance, preservation of underclasses, preservation of family and tribal orders, preservation of tribal conflict, and thereby an ever INCREASING demand for authoritative rule – a rule that is profitable for a large number of religious ‘judges’ and advisors, and an authoritarian militaristic state apparatus. Were it not for the presence of cheaply extracted oil, this part of the world would be somewhere developmentally below south america given it’s indigenous underclass, between rural India and its indigenous underclass, and high conflict subsaharan Africa, and its indigenous underclasses. And far to the east we have Indian civilization who, thanks to Hinduism has succeed at least in creating a relatively gentle people, and who has (unwantingly) imported anglo logic, and russian economics and politics and law. Chinese civilization that has imported russian philosophy, economics, and politics, and is now importing anglo empiricism and technology. But where indians are optimistically untruthful people, chinese are pessimistically untruthful people. And Russians are opportunistically untruthful people. What the chinese and russians have had is a military capable of altering the course of the civilization when necessary. This is what the hindus do not have. Perhaps for the simple reason that the continent of india unlike the narrow strips of green that constitution the population centers of russia and china, is simply impossible to rule centrally without an external threat that gives rise for the need to form a military as did china to resist modernity, and russia to provide an alternative to modernity. THE SPECIALIZATIONS With this history in mind we can see something quite interestinsg that the stock market and high risk and highly ‘evangelical’ movements exist in america, and that americans practice scientific law – and that maericans deny the existence of their classes. That the bond market and banking exist in England. That the british have traded Anglo empiricism for a conflation with French Rousseuian moralism and practice moral law. And that the british complain about their classes. That engineering and perhaps the most psychologically precise language and high capital investment and an explicity hierarchy exist in germany along with requisite ‘duty’ more so than empathic ‘morality’. That eastern europe has been truncated but now forms a relatively moral labor force. That Russia provides the military and resources on a scale and practicality that the idealistic utopianism of the american military can never hope to achieve despite it’s technological and operational excellence – which is exactly its primary weakness. No Russian would produce a US military. It’s fragile. It’s just big. What makes american military dangerous is TRUST. Americans fight and maintain formation. and take initiative to win. So what we see is high risk Americans, tepid risk Britons, low risk Germans, risk averse eastern europeans, and highly risk intolerant if not outright paranoid Russians. That this civilization from Australia to america to Europe, to Russian Asia constitutes a series of specializations in the inter-temporal demands of the civilization is not so obvious. That’s unfortunate, because no other civilization can manage it. NOTE: Note that nothing else is needed to explain the differences between these societies other than the atomicity of property due to the advancement of the commercial sector that we call the middle class. RECIPROCITY AS INFORMATION, AND ASSETS AS DECIDABILITY: NATURAL LAW Just as voluntary exchange free of fraud is the only test of whether a good, service, or information has been a use of resources, a personal consumption, or waste of resources, voluntary cooperation free of deceit is the only means of testing reciprocity(sovereignty) whether the resource of cooperation (time, energy, opportunity, resources) has been productive, parasitically consumed, or wasted. When we engage in cooperative exchanges across our various abilities, needs, and biases we discover which goods, services, and information is desired by the market, and we therefore adjust our relations, efforts, and or thoughts, to find a balance between what we desire to do, what is available to do, and what others want us to do. In this way, through sovereignty, reciprocity, and markets in all walks of life we ‘calculate’ methods of achieving one another’s goals without having the intention of achieving one another’s goals. We the rely on rebellion, rallying, shaming, ridicule, disagreement, debate, discourse, agreement, congratulations, advocacy, and cooperative action depending upon we agree with or disagree with one ‘ambition’ in the portfolio of ambitions that we are aware of and capable of understanding at any time. And while only those with errors (mental illnesses – wether physical, emotional, or intellectual) engage in those topics of investigation that are increasingly difficult to reduce to direct experience:, economics, engineering, biology, chemistry, physics, logic, mathematics – because they possess neither a portfolio of investments nor knowledge to trade them; unfortunately everyone can reduce questions of reciprocity, ethics, morality, politics, culture, and civilization to direct experience because from micro investors to major investors each of us has defacto constructed a portfolio of cooperation. Unfortunately, just as the economics of the family, the business, the nation, and the world, operate by very different and completely counterintuitive, and often opposite rules, such that excellence in one niche is not commutable to another, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and humans of all levels of sophistication overestimate their knowledge. One of the reasons for teaching and speaking, and legislating in Propertarianism’s Natural Law, is that the logic of law and cooperation is no longer subjectively undecidable, but objectively decidable regardless of norm, tradition, culture, or legislation. And as such we educate in morality by a means as certain as mathematics: because just as mathematics must be constructible by means of operations retaining consistent relations, consent, cooperation, contract and law must be constructible by means of operations consisting of constant relations we call ‘reciprocity’ : the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of our assets and limited to productive externalities to the assets of others. And more importantly, since the invention of the pulpit in prior eras, and the print in subsequent eras, and mass media in our just-ending era, has led to the incremental industrialization of error, suggestion, and deceit, and that we developed reason as a counter to eastern supernaturalism in the ancient world, were defeated by eastern supernaturalism, and then rescued ourselves by empiricism in early modern world, nearly completed the second scientific revolution in Germany before it was truncated by the world wars, and that we have nearly been defeated by eastern pseudoscientific mysticism of the cosmopolitans in the twentieth century world, and given that the thinkers of the last century (darwin, nietzsche, spencer, poincare, brouwer, bridgman, mises, popper, hayek) failed to produce the *advancement* in empiricism that would allow us to refute the pseudoscitsts that attempted the third wave of supernaturalism – this time by even more innovative means (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, the Frankfurt School). SUMMARY: As far as I know all human emotion and behavior can be explained by these three ASSETS, these three EMOTIONS, and the MEMORY of our life experience to date; along with the division of reproductive labor, the division of intertemporal labor, the division of productive labor, the division of class labor in producing commons, and the division of civilizational labor in producing commons at the largest scales. As far as I know differences in personalities allow us to specialize in niches and as long as we do not err in our assessments of our assets, all personality types both (a) gravitate to empirically available portfolios and the uses of those portfolios, and (b) react rationally and emotionally rationally to the current and future value of those portfolios. (c) and assistance in improving those portfolios is the best that we can do for one another – and what makes us love one another – investing in one another. As far as I know some individuals are defective primarily in their limited reserves of frustration in relation to their other abilities. As far as I know the classes consist of individuals with increasing inheritances of (P1)Assets, (P2)Abilities, and (P3)Desirability. And as far as I know the classes sort according to familial, associative, productive, reproductive, and political utility to one another. As far as I know the west and the far east have been most successful because a combination of climate (cold), production techniques (small family farms), aristocracy imposed manorialism (access to land and therefore reproduction), and an aristocracy that aggressively exterminated those troublemakers. Meanwhile the process of reproductive selection among those that remained favored lower impulsivity, lower and slower maturity, and more feminine traits in women, which resulted in domestication of then population through pedomorphic evolution much more so than all other forms of evolutionary influence combined. UNCONSCIOUS VS CONSCIOUS TRAINING OF THE MIND. We can vary our assets. We can get fit, we can primp and preen, we can learn manners and small talk, We can learn skills. We can develop relationships, produce and save. But we can only do so to the limits of our genetically inherited abilities. Therefore, the primary means of self improvement given the limits of our genetic assets, is through the REMOVAL OF ERROR: the problems of the self: ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking. The problem is, that we often cannot tolerate a true accounting of our assets, or opportunity for assets, because the realization that we have empty pockets so to speak, and are totally dependent upon the favor of others, when we are undesirable by others, because we are either a cost or lacking value to others, would remove from us the will to live. It is for this reason alone that Buddhism Succeeded among the poor, and Stoicism Succeeded among the working and middle classes, and science, economics, law, and philosophy, among the upper middle and upper classes: these methods of thought correspond to the means of eliminating fear of falling behind our peers in the constant race with the red queen in all walks of social life. PERSONALITIES ARE THE RESULT OF A NEED TO COOPERATE AND THE CONSTANT COMPETITION FOR COOPERATIVE ASSETS If we do not need to cooperate, how complex a set of personalities do we need? we need to be more mobile to find food, we need to be smarter to hunt food, we need to be smarter to outwit competitors, we need to be much smarter to cooperate to outwit competitors – whether within the group or without it. We must seek to find niches to exploit within group and without group, and within nature by individual means, and within nature by cooperative means. We seek to create allies in cooperation, to join allies in cooperation, and to outwit allies by defection, and to outwit enemies by circumvention, cooperation, or defeat. But most of our cooperation occurs within group. Most of our evolution occurred because of in-group problems of negotiation. The band/family was knowable. The family/tribe somewhat knowable. The village/family knowable. The city not knowable, but because of family religion and law and barter, somewhat predictable. The big city is not knowable whatsoever without jobs, law and pricing. The metropolis is not knowable whatsoever without jobs, law, pricing, credit, and mass media – like religion, attempting to force us into peerage. And modernity is was beginning to be terrifyingly unknowable until jobs, law, pricing, credit, and the new distributed media that allowed us to find peers around the world easily. I suspect the future will be an expansion of interpersonal reputation, legal reputation, credit reputation, and ‘social media’ reputation of some sort – so that we may identify informational peers amidst the multitude of different grains of human sand. And I would expect to see an increase in specialization of identities – if only for signaling purposes – and personalities – as means of adapting – just as we have seen an increase in the specialization of knowledge and labor. DIVERSITY OF PERSONALITIES EVEN WITHIN A HETEROGENOUS POLITY ARE AN ASSET Personalities are a means of dividing the problem of the intertemporal and reproductive division of perception knowledge, negotiation advocacy, and labor into that thing we call reciprocity and the benefits of cooperating in increasing scales while taking advantage of both increasingly small niches for those with lesser abilities, maintaining niches, and generating new niches, that destroy the old. BUT THERE ARE NO LIMITLESS GOODS (undone ) WE BOUND THE LIMITLESS GOODS WITH VOLUNTARY COOPERATION AND UNBIND THEM WITH VIOLATIONS OF VOLUNTARY COOPERATION. (undone) Ergo, the government has destroyed the checks and balances of a heterogeneous polity. THE HYPOTHALAMIC PROBLEM/BENEFIT AND MODERNITY (undone) COMPARE TO THE FIVE FACTOR MODEL – THE “AUTHORITARIAN” or “MONOPOLY” or “CONFORMITY” or “ILLNESS” INDUSTRIAL ERA’s SYMPATHETIC MODEL OF MAN In every era of history we have used the most sophisticated technology we know of as an analogical model to both describe the introspectively unavailable functions of the human mind, and to justify whatever authoritarian model we wish to impose upon one another. Freud and Jungs attempt to escape Darwin and Nietzsche by fabricating pseudosciences with which they could criticize what they held in disdain made use of the uniformity-industrialism and sexually-repressive-victorian (due to syphilis) models of the day. Wile in the last century thanks to Maxwell, we spoke physical phenomenon as changes in energy. In the current era, thanks to physicists we speak of physical phenomenon as changes in the state of information. In the past eras we spoke of passions and virtues, then of emotions and wants. and thanks to Hayek we now speak of social science, and now thanks to Turing, we speak of psychology as changes in state of information. In doing so we cast off the imprecision and bias of prior eras, and the attempts at deception of prior political and cultural movements. The current model of personality that psychologists operate by retains both the authoritarianism of the industrialist and socialist era, with only tepid attempts at reform in response to the findings of the cognitive sciences, and the conversion of pseudoscientific psychology to empirical psychology. The current Five Factor (or six or seven) model in its various forms does in fact correspond somewhat to services provided by brain structures. FF1) CURIOSITY (INTELLECT-NOVEL) / REPEATABILITY (MEMORY-KNOWN) (psychology): The ability available to find rewards in success through experimentation or the inability to tolerate frustration in failure and the discovery of success in repetition FF2) EXTRAVERSION / INTROVERSION (psychology): Method by which one processes information: dependence upon self reflection, or dependence upon empathy and communication from others. The limits to frustration we obtain with seeking information from others depending upon our desirability for informational cooperation with others. FF3) AGREEABLENESS / DISAGREEABLENESS (Psychology): “the willingness to bear small costs of investment in order to identify present and longer term opportunities for gains or consumption and prevent current and future costs or losses.” (byproduct of conscientious ness/extroversion?) FF4) CONSCIENTIOUSNESS / BLAME-AVOIDANCE: (undone) FF5) CONFIDENCE-EMOTIONAL STABILITY / FEAR – NEUROTICISM (undone) Curt Doolittle The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Trump’s Negotiating Strategy in Detail
TRUMP’S STRATEGY: (second version) “Negotiate with corrupt, immoral, dishonest, unsophisticated, incompetent, competitors, ‘frenemies’, and hostile parties, from a position of demand for moral transparency, while evidencing mistrust and maintaining walk away power, causing your opponents to creatively negotiate, and provide and commit to details, while on the defensive – causing those opponents to pay the cost and liability of educating everyone else involved, leaving you free of having made commitments – the judgement, intention, and morality, of which can be questioned.” “Say what the base, soldiers, workers, employees think, and cause the state bureaucracy, media, public intellectuals, and academy, to justify its position thereby educating the people.” He has been practicing this strategy with the media and they do his bidding. It is how he obtained free press. It is how they are under his control today. In this way he talks to his base, who understands exactly what he is doing, and avoids putting the opponents in control of the discourse. As long as his base will repeat what he says the opposition will remain on the defensive. He used this strategy throughout his career. He did it through the campaign. He did it prior to taking office. And he has continued to do it since taking office. GOALS – THE STRATEGY OF SIMPLE MAN TAKING THE MORAL HIGH GROUND 1 – Propose a deal that is either big opportunity or big threat (or both). (bait/greed or threat/fear) 2 – Position your decision criteria as the ‘moral man’ that wants everyone to be happy, and do the right thing in the long term. 3 – Propose extreme strategy, tactics, and solutions uncompromisingly to move people to the center. 4 – Never give away any information or your acceptable compromise position. This just weakens your negotiating influence. 5 – Force the other side to come to your table with ideas if they want to participate or defend themselves. 6 – Play the last most unreasonable man: dumb, irrational, paranoid, angry, while holding to a moral high ground narrative. This means that they have to constantly educate you. 7 – Listen to the parties, your employees, and sponsors, for ‘things to mistrust’. Use this information to either question or attack the motives, intentions, or character of opposition parties. This keeps them on the defensive, proposing new ideas. Maintain the moral high ground. 8 – Speak in the voice of your investors, employees, followers, customers, or whomever is necessary so that they feel you are working in their interest. Use Hyperbole to illustrate to your base that you hear them. This creates trust, and weakens the other parties ability to create consensus and forces them to spend energy on defense. 9 – Find proposed solutions that are unacceptable by inflexible parties and promote those antagonistic ideas in order to force them to change their positions by choosing a lesser of two evils. 10 – Always act decisively and immediately when you find an opportunity to move forward one single step at a time. Incrementally accumulate information, commitments, contracts, and influence. 11 – Exhaust your opponent’s tactics, ideas, and will to try to plan or to outwit you. 12 – This strategy makes narratives, plans, and alliances against you very difficult, reduces your costs of inquiry, puts you in control by creating chaos, keeps opponents off balance, and results in you gathering exceptionally good information by evidence – rather than words. Make incremental progress toward big wins until the investment is such that people are trapped and cannot back out. 13 – If people took advantage of you and others during the process, ensure that they lose all gains later in the process. Explain that it was their greed or folly, or character, caused it. 14 – Failure is always your opponents fault. Just stay on moral message the entire time. NEGOTIATION AS PROXY WARFARE Imagine (you probably can’t) what it is like to negotiate with Yassir Arafat, any given president of Iran, any given member of the Russia duma, or any given Chinese Party official. In these countries DECEPTION is not only an art, but it is HONORABLE. In the case of Russians, telling the truth that exposes a vulnerability or gives away information is considered stupid. In the case of Chinese it is simply good manners to lie in most circumstances. In the case of Iran(and much of the arab world), the difference between suggestion, wishful thinking, faith, an outright lying is non-existent. And skilled lying is not only something to be proud of but religiously sanctioned. Trump uses very well understood negotiating techniques. They have names. People teach them. You can hire people to use them for you. Most of us cannot grasp the art of negotiation with enemies, competitors, and ‘frenemies’. (Foreign Governments, Domestic Politicians, Bureaucrats, Unions, Financiers, Construction, Garbage Disposal, Maintenance, Housekeeping, and Utility companies.) Imagine what it is to negotiate with rooms full of lawyers trying to seek advantage through contractual nuance (deceit). Trump has vast experience with ‘the unskilled laboring classes’, ‘the semi-skilled working classes’, and the ‘the skilled classes’, the ‘managerial classes’, the ‘professional classes’, and the ‘bureaucratic classes.’ He has build his career negotiating with people in an industry (construction) where corruption is rife at political, government, union, and contractor level, and where profits and losses are often determined in by the resolution of conflicts over prices and responsibility in courts – and where everyone is trying to get a dime out of everyone else. You might consider this ‘crafty’ but it is just ‘the craft of negotiating’, that anyone learns when negotiating under threat of legal, financial, or military consequences with many parties, in competitive if not hostile environments, with sometimes single digit profits, but large numbers to work with. WHITE COLLAR BLINDNESS (The curse of the educated but lacking experience with responsibility for objectively testable outcomes.) People who advocate, politic, and criticize for a living rarely if ever have had any responsibility for anything other than themselves. Those who manage soldiers; those who manage the incomes of many families, tens, hundreds or thousands; those who manage the money of investors; those who manage the political demands of millions; all have responsibility – because they can fail, with dire consequences. Unfortunately, politicians, public intellectuals, media, and the academy can’t really fail because – while we could – we don’t measure them the way we measure war, economy, business, industry, and finance. When you compete in business you fight, and when you fight in business in ‘the trades’ you’re dealing with very small margins, and very ‘creative’ means of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and outright deceit. Trump’s strategy creates a funnel through which deceit, manipulation, pretense, ignorance, incompetence are filtered by the negotiating community and its clients. Instead of layers of political lies and compromises and positioning, it creates material outcomes regardless of those attempts at politicking, fraud and deceit. His strategy is to reverse the roles of cat and mouse, and to put the competitors on the defensive by forcing them to testify to the public, thereby exposing the pretenses that politicians, intellectuals, bureaucrats, operate under. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine