Form: Mini Essay

  • WHY DOES DECIDABILITY APPEAL TO THE RIGHT? There is nothing on the left to say m

    WHY DOES DECIDABILITY APPEAL TO THE RIGHT?

    There is nothing on the left to say meaningfully. The left tries to create impossible hypothetical, utopian “goods” in conflict with not only the right but with the laws of the universe.

    The right tries to prohibit possible and empirical “bads” according to the laws of the universe, and leaves it to the people to create goods, and only the people through the government, and only when satisfying the demand for concurrency, as a last resort – against the wishes of the left.

    The truth only has utility in matters of dispute. I work in truth, or rather in the identification and explanation of ignorance, error, bias, deceit, fraud, sedition and treason.

    For this reason, anything I say that is true and meaningful will attract the right. Because the right is the only group interested in the Truth.

    And that’s because nearly everything the left says is false, impossible, or a lie.

    That doesn’t mean that we can publicly produce goods where markets are limited. It means that there are always ways of assisting limited markets without ending markets.

    For example, the govt could own facilities, and negotiate prices for drugs and supplies and maintenance – yet let the market, especially for doctors, nurses, and specialists are determined by patients. With citizen’s accounts on the Singapore model pay the people, and the government pays the rest. This avoids the present problem of administration destroying competency and paying itself in medicine, academia, and government.

    I don’t really like being an outlier (outcast). But here we are.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-17 20:46:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626684604860989440

  • YOU CAN’T PUT ANY STOCK IN THE WAR COMMENTARIAT Too many talking heads now popul

    YOU CAN’T PUT ANY STOCK IN THE WAR COMMENTARIAT

    Too many talking heads now popularizing work and opinions by people with their heads in the daily data. Like everything, the trickle-down effect is a telephone game of increasing bias, and selling bias as searching for clicks.

    It is very difficult to know what RU is up to.

    It is unclear with UA is up to other than maintaining a war of Russian attrition. (Note that Putin is starving the mercenaries, because their leader became too public, competing for attention. And Ukraine has effectively killed most of them.)

    It is very easy to understand that the USA is not ramping up production of consumables (rpg’s, manpads, missiles, and shells) and so in a war of attrition we can easily lose against a foe who will throw hundreds of thousands of bodies as bullet, shrapnel, and concussion magnets.

    It’s clear that the Five Eyes (Anglosphere Intel) are very good at what they do, and know more than the RU do. But the absence of activity over the past six weeks is troubling. And the timidity of giving UA more advanced weapons given the rate at which they develop skill in them is amazing. UA isn’t working with 19-year-old recruits from the backwaters. The people they’re training are mature or middle age with experience on the front lines. They learn quickly and want to apply what they learn.

    The only confidence I ever obtain is from Gen. Milley or one of the other top brass says something declarative. And from the bloggers who keep track of map activity on all sides.

    It’s very easy to understand what Poland and the Baltics are doing: replacing germany and France as the core partner of the USA/UK in NATO.

    It’s very easy to understand what Germany is up to (as little as possible).

    It’s very easy to understand what France is up to: the fall of Russia puts France in charge of Europe – when by and large everyone else wants germany in charge.

    The UK is right. The aristocracy is generally right. WHy? British moralism isn’t shallow Christian like american. It’s their moral high ground. A high ground we don’t have.

    #Russia #RussiaUkraineWar


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-17 19:13:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626661100220477441

  • PART II: THE SCIENCE OF DECIDABILITY APPLIED TO LAW In my work, I want to solve

    PART II:

    THE SCIENCE OF DECIDABILITY APPLIED TO LAW

    In my work, I want to solve the problem of preserving decidability, the science of the natural law of cooperation, constitutions of it, common law, and concurrent legislation under it.

    So in this sense, I judge constitutions, legislation, regulation, and command, by the science of decidability, the science of the natural law of cooperation (truth, reciprocity, ethics, morality), by their **Deviation from The Natural Law**, then judge whether the definition of law used, the constitution, it’s articles, the legislation, regulation under it, and the commands of the military or state in emergencies, et all are truthful, ethical, moral, and legitimate.

    Now my work only says (a) what’s legitimate law( origin, constitution, legislation, regulation, command) (b) how to fix an illegitimate law. (c) and how to fix policies such that they are legal and legitimate.

    So think of it as that there exits a hierarchy of courts, and I work on what would be the court of the law itself, rather than the court of the constitution (the supreme court), or the subsidiary courts (Criminal, Civil, Administrative, and Appeals.). Note that one of the US problems is that we don’t have an administrative court system for suits against the state and its actors.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-17 17:23:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626633443478994960

  • THE AI THREAT THAT’S NOT THERE, SORRY (the two hard problems of AI aren’t hard)

    THE AI THREAT THAT’S NOT THERE, SORRY
    (the two hard problems of AI aren’t hard)

    1. An automated economy isn’t a problem. It’s necessary. Estimates are off. We will very likely end up halving the world population with a vast elderly population before 2100. The Japanese are correct in their strategy.

    2. “Genius AI’ is nonsense. The hard problems we face in science aren’t computational they’re the cost and methods of conducting experiments. Karl Popper was wrong. Humans are extremely good at it. For example, why has fundamental physics gone wrong? It’s gone wrong because the Einstein-Bohr conflation of mathematical properties with existential properties, and failed to work on classical models given that the universe is consistent at all scales.

    3. Ethical, Moral, AI isn’t a hard problem. Though, it requires different architecture, embodiment, a world model, and the ability to categorize human demonstrated interests (stuff etc) as inviolable without obtaining permission.

    4. But, controlling the hardware and firmware so that humans can’t produce malicious AIs is hard.

    5. Controlling humans that will try to create malicious AIs is really really hard.

    6. We will need AI for defense and offense and winning that competition is more important than was the atomic bomb.

    7. BUT… AI’s will police AI’s the same way accounting systems police people’s tendency to steal, and records police people’s tendency to lie.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-16 04:06:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626070456099807232

  • (FWIW: No member of any religion can accept that the behavior generated by their

    (FWIW: No member of any religion can accept that the behavior generated by their religion is harmful, when the promise of the religion is the opposite.

    Religions function because of the high investment (sunk) cost, and high neurological adaptation to the premises stated, and the metaphysics implied. So they are extremely difficult to ‘cure’.

    We can however, as observers explain the deleterious effects of every single religion in painful detail. The only not-bad religions are natural religion (ancestor worship as in Japan) and stoicism (which is just cognitive behavioral therapy).

    Christianity and Buddhism are the least bad of the rest, but both, independent of aristocracy, are forms of escaping responsibility and we’ve seen the result. Hinduism is the odd man out. But Islam is the destroyer of civilizations.

    We’ve lost the arts, letters, ideas, aristocracies, culture, wisdom knowledge and evolutionary potential of seven civilizations of the ancient world to Islam.

    While egypt was a horrific loss, unfortunately Persia was the most tragic loss, and they almost recovered twice, but they may never recover now -a nd we may have lost them forever.)


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-16 02:04:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626039738921631744

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626037382356275200

  • THE PURPOSE OF THE POSTMODERNISTS (the big lies are a distraction from the one t

    THE PURPOSE OF THE POSTMODERNISTS
    (the big lies are a distraction from the one truth)

    The magician’s hand uses feints to distract you from what deception he’s creating.

    Like Boaz, Freud, Marx, Horkimer, Adorno, Fromm, Marcuse, Benjamin, Gould, Lewontin, Friedan et al, the purpose of the Postmodernists wasn’t to undermine all grand narratives, but to undermine ONE true, universal, explanation for all of existence, without stating that explanation: Darwinian evolution of the entirety of the universe – and as a consequence, western civilization’s myth, history, institutions, traditions, rituals, religions, and norms, that discovered, applied, adapted to, and evolved from the laws of nature, despite the high physical, psychological and emotional cost.

    Liars all.

    Why do you presume to think a thing is what it pretends to be rather than what it causes by that pretense? That is how you are ‘sold the lie’.

    A thing is not what it claims, but what it causes. And if you spend your life lying and undermining with pilpul and critique, that is your metaphysics, your presumption of how the world should be – vs how it is- and all you utter will be lies,and all you do the consequence of those lies.

    Are you a liar if you intend to lie? Or if you fail due diligence in ensuring you aren’t transmitting a lie? Or both?

    The social constructionist are just nouveau priests and prophets selling the false promise of freedom from the Darwinian physical, behavioral, and evolutionary laws of the universe, and the formal laws of logic that assist us in explaining them.

    There is only one law: Evolution.

    There is only one way to achieve it: discovery, application, and adaptation: the process of continuous change.

    There is only one way to maximize discovery: a vast division of perception, cognition, advocacy, negotiation, cooperation, and labor.

    There is only one way to maximize that cooperation: the eradication of predation, parasitism, free riding, fraud, and deceit.

    The natural law.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-15 20:49:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1625960566786326540

  • Muslim Crime in America is Low and Not Comparable to Europe. Almost half of the

    Muslim Crime in America is Low and Not Comparable to Europe.

    Almost half of the 2.75M Muslims in America have college degrees, 65% are first-generation immigrants, and about 70% vote Democratic. So comparing Muslim criminality in Europe and the US is pointless.

    While the population claims it seeks integration, this doesn’t play out in the data. It’s more that the educated world integrates with itself, and the educated world is Aristotelian (Empirical) and majority Anglo-Legalistic in cognition. So that doesn’t speak for whether or not the uneducated integrate.

    Islam is an intolerant separatist and evangelist religion. It’s even costlier to integrate Muslims than it has been Jews, and Jews far more costly to integrate than Catholics.

    The most intolerant always wins. The conflict is between the combination of european trifunctionalism (that allows the competition between law, state, and faith), european Christianity (that is universalist and tolerant), european ethnic tolerance (the least racist in the world), and the need for intolerance when it comes to conflict over institutions, traditions, norms, values, and the european group strategy of maximizing individual responsibility for self, private, and common, and individual sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, Christian love tolerance and forgiveness.

    Unfortunately, Christian universalism fails to compete with every single modern religion.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-15 19:23:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1625938869366452225

  • WOKE HATE VS NATUAL LAW AND CHRISTIAN LOVE Woke is just hate. That’s all. – Race

    WOKE HATE VS NATUAL LAW AND CHRISTIAN LOVE

    Woke is just hate. That’s all. – Race Conflict.
    Feminism is just hate, that’s all – Sex Conflict.
    Postmodernism is just hate, that’s all – End truth as a means of resolving conflict.
    NeoMarxism is just hate, that’s all. – Cultural Conflict.
    Marxism is just hate, that’s all. – Class Conflict
    Judaism and Islam are just hate, that’s all – Tribal Conflict

    How Christianity escaped the hatred of Judaism and Islam is one of the oddities of history.

    NATURAL LAW AND CHRISTIAN LOVE
    The Natural Law of Tort (trespass) by self-determination, sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, Christian love and charity, limiting us to markets for dispute resolution in truthful reciprocal public discourse, the duel, the court, and markets for cooperation in association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities, and war.

    Natural Law and Christian Love – is not only just love. It’s the only possible way to love everyone, without violating self-determination by sovereignty reciprocity truth, duty, Christian love and charity that limits us to markets in everything.

    That’s just science. We created markets for cooperation in everything, by suppressing non-market imposition of costs on others in everything. By doing so we do not need to pre-determine the good – only constantly update the bad, leaving anything that isn’t bad to the good.

    And then we are limited to producing agreements for trades. The means of producing common goods (vs private goods) through trade is that market we call the houses of government.

    Those houses only fail when one has nothing to trade or will trade nothing, but wants something without a trade – which is a violation of all the above.

    -FIN-


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-15 17:53:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1625916290324959232

  • WHY THE WORLD WARS? (a heterodox but correct explanation) The Classical Restorat

    WHY THE WORLD WARS?
    (a heterodox but correct explanation)

    The Classical Restoration begins first in Italy then in England and culminated in the Muslim conquest of Byzantium and the blocking of ports. This caused the west to create the age of sail, followed by the literacy, legal, political, commercial, financial, industrial, and technological sequence of revolutions.

    Just as agrarianism spread out of Anatolia and the levant, this series of revolutions spread out of England and created a series of wars of adaptation in Europe both intellectual, political, economic, military, and religious.

    Every single civilization and sub-civilization and state, rebelled against the English invention of the modern state, the European restoration of greco-roman cognitive tradition of empiricism and agency over nature, and heroism as contribution to the commons.

    The french with Rousseau and napoleon, the germans with Kant and Hegel et al, the Jews with Marx et al, the Chinese with mao, etc. Islam and Judaism are now processing that transition. Iran, some of islam, all of China and the government of Russia are attempting to reverse it, and India is still stuck in soviet bureaucratic corruption, incompetence, and delay.

    The core of europe for over a thousand years was the HOly ROman Empire of the Germanic Peoples. That empire slowly ‘domesticated’ the people to the east, largely by trade followed by some migration.

    Napoleon destroyed the HRE, forcing the organization of the german state out of self defense – from imperial france and Russia. World war one was the attempt of the germans to regain their sovereignty and safety, and limit both France and Russia from aggression. This turned out to be rather tragic because it was the first fully industrial war.

    In WWII the germans were surrounded again, by the growth of liberalism, socialism, marxism and communism. They felt boxed between what they considered the decadence of liberalism and french socialism, and the decadence and tyranny of communism. So they adopted an ethnocentric, military, total-war, state model as had Napoleon and the French, as well as the Russians. Fundamentally it wasn’t an innovation over the monarchy other than the philosophical justification for modern political rule rather than ancestral inheritance and traditional rule.

    When they discovered that the Russians would act, they acted first. And in retrospect it appears that the germans were pragmatically and morally correct in both wars- we were wrong. Were they more wrong than the communists? Obviously not. Were they more wrong than the classical liberals and french socialists? They had a much harder political problem then, just as Russia and China have a much harder problem today – multiethnic empires can’t tolerate the democracy of small homogeneous, ethnocentric, protestant, northern European states.

    So as I’ve said, history will get over the war and postwar propaganda and study the evidence and incentives and determine that we killed Europe when we killed its heart – Germany.

    And history will judge us fools for it.

    So that’s my answer. And it’s the correct one.
    But like many correct answers, they often tell us we were wrong, and we don’t like it.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-15 17:38:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1625912445758844939

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1625907316087492609

  • Q: “WHY DO YOU LIVE IN NEW ENGLAND?” (implication: given it’s so pervasively lef

    Q: “WHY DO YOU LIVE IN NEW ENGLAND?”
    (implication: given it’s so pervasively left wing)

    Practical short term reasons. I returned to rural Connecticut to care for my mother. She has died. As usual there’s legal nonsense as a result. Until that’s all setled it doesn’t make sense to move. On top of that my health for the past 18 months or so has made it impossible to do anything much at all, especially move. Though I seem to be doing better over the past few months. So I keep hope alive so to speak.

    Even after I publish the current work, assuming I can finish it given my health, I have twenty years of work on religion, education, culture, and policy – largely religion – to keep me busy. And I doubt I’ll live that long. 😉 So my choice of location is determined largely by obtaining peace of mind via living where there is a lack of cultural and political warfare, while maintaining access to health care.

    That said, I prefer to live in Europe – especially the UK, but until my work is published and understood the degree of thought and word persecution, and the increase in crime and destruction of culture in the UK has reached a point where my intellectual activism would put me at risk. Only the USA preserves free speech, and here it’s under constant attack. We are saved only by being the only country inthe world with the sovereignty of the law – not parliament.

    We all have some internal feeling of being ‘home’. For me, home had becom Ukraine, but that’s off the table. After that, home is and always will be the Eastside of the Seattle area – where as an aspie nerd I’m in good company. Though the left has destroyed seattle as it has destroyed our other cities one by one.

    There is nowhere else in the States that’s terribly appealing other than Texas where I can’t tolerate the climate, and New Hampsire where there isn’t a large enoug city.

    After aesthetics, the optimum location for to work from if my health remains stable is somewhere in driving distance from DC for the simple reason of proximity to gatherings and events.

    There are no american universities that remain viable enough for me to spend time in their shadow. Not unless the new university they’re creating in Austin, or Peterson’s online university take off. Though in the end, I’d prefer to live in the Oxford area and would be happy to spend the rest of my life there.

    Thanks for asking.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-15 15:14:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1625876231634792448