Mar 12, 2020, 12:35 PM THE NEED FOR THREE GRAMMARS: EMPATHIC, RATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, UNITED BY TRUTH AND RECIPROCITY ( Rik Storey Yes, I understand the Distributist. I understand you.) I understand the search for supernatural theology in theological terms (submission). I understand the search for secular theology in philosophical (cooperation, exchange). I just also understand the search for transcendence in fact by scientific, technological, institutional, and informational means (dominance). I understand the desire for the feminine, for the libertarian, and for the masculine. And I understand that the behaviors of these three emotional(feminine), rational(compromise), and scientific(masculine) methods are reflections of our degrees of agency over emotion, reason, and action, of ourselves, those near us, and the polity. And I have, I think, understood that these three paradigms, vocabulary, logics (Grammars) reflect our interest, willingness and ability to take on increasing scope of material responsibility, and conversely, the reflection of our preference for, willingness, and ability to go along with the herd in peaceful (non-conflict, non adversarial, agreable ) to unpeaceful(conflict, adversarial, disagreeable) means. And I understand how this spectrum of feminine to masculine strategies is merely a reflection of differences in sexual dimorphism, brain structure, body chemistry, class, indoctrination, training, and skill. And I understand that all three are necessary to prevent the horrors of ignorance and dysgenics and decline under abrahamic or any other monopoly. And I understand the externalities of the feminine(submission, empathic), compromise(exchange,rational), and masculine(dominance, scientific). And I understand the market for elites in all three of these, and the change in the power of elites given changes in demographic composition, economic composition, and strategic and military composition. And I understand that preserving the market for elites and their grammars (paradigms, vocabularies, logics), provides both the most aggressive (male), most adaptive(compromise), and the most regressive (female), and that these three markets keep one another in check. And I understand that via positiva feminine (organize on the positive by emotional myth), via practica in the ascendent male (organize on compromise, cooperation, production by contract), and the via negativa masculine (organize limits by law and war) are not in disharmony or conflict as long as they are relegated (LIMITED) to their domains of CAPABILITY, share the natural law. And that indoctrination (emotional children), training (rational young), and education (scientific adults), just like the ethics of rules, of values, and of outcomes, and the family, society, and polity, all consist of rules of scale. And that all of us are evolved to divide the labor of generating demand for some portion of the temporal and scale spectrums between mothers and children in consumption, brothers in trade, and headmen polity and limits. And that the reason we have developed different grammars is to provide each of us with the most precise tools of calculating thought word and deed, in our spectrum of the division of temporal labor and scale. How do I eliminate the abrahamic method of deceit, and make possible a constant set of grammars from theological(non-conflict and consumption ) to philosophical(competition and contract and production) to scientific(conflcit law and war)? This is the issue. Religion is necessary. A submissive religion may be necessary for the agreeable and feminine brain structure, strategy, and class. A secular religion may suffice – which is what the distributist and the continentals are searching for. My understanding is that there are true religions and false. And that there is no need for a false religion. And that is what I am searching for. No falsehood.
Form: Mini Essay
-
The Need for Three Grammars: Empathic, Rational, Scientific, United by Truth and Reciprocity
Mar 12, 2020, 12:35 PM THE NEED FOR THREE GRAMMARS: EMPATHIC, RATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, UNITED BY TRUTH AND RECIPROCITY ( Rik Storey Yes, I understand the Distributist. I understand you.) I understand the search for supernatural theology in theological terms (submission). I understand the search for secular theology in philosophical (cooperation, exchange). I just also understand the search for transcendence in fact by scientific, technological, institutional, and informational means (dominance). I understand the desire for the feminine, for the libertarian, and for the masculine. And I understand that the behaviors of these three emotional(feminine), rational(compromise), and scientific(masculine) methods are reflections of our degrees of agency over emotion, reason, and action, of ourselves, those near us, and the polity. And I have, I think, understood that these three paradigms, vocabulary, logics (Grammars) reflect our interest, willingness and ability to take on increasing scope of material responsibility, and conversely, the reflection of our preference for, willingness, and ability to go along with the herd in peaceful (non-conflict, non adversarial, agreable ) to unpeaceful(conflict, adversarial, disagreeable) means. And I understand how this spectrum of feminine to masculine strategies is merely a reflection of differences in sexual dimorphism, brain structure, body chemistry, class, indoctrination, training, and skill. And I understand that all three are necessary to prevent the horrors of ignorance and dysgenics and decline under abrahamic or any other monopoly. And I understand the externalities of the feminine(submission, empathic), compromise(exchange,rational), and masculine(dominance, scientific). And I understand the market for elites in all three of these, and the change in the power of elites given changes in demographic composition, economic composition, and strategic and military composition. And I understand that preserving the market for elites and their grammars (paradigms, vocabularies, logics), provides both the most aggressive (male), most adaptive(compromise), and the most regressive (female), and that these three markets keep one another in check. And I understand that via positiva feminine (organize on the positive by emotional myth), via practica in the ascendent male (organize on compromise, cooperation, production by contract), and the via negativa masculine (organize limits by law and war) are not in disharmony or conflict as long as they are relegated (LIMITED) to their domains of CAPABILITY, share the natural law. And that indoctrination (emotional children), training (rational young), and education (scientific adults), just like the ethics of rules, of values, and of outcomes, and the family, society, and polity, all consist of rules of scale. And that all of us are evolved to divide the labor of generating demand for some portion of the temporal and scale spectrums between mothers and children in consumption, brothers in trade, and headmen polity and limits. And that the reason we have developed different grammars is to provide each of us with the most precise tools of calculating thought word and deed, in our spectrum of the division of temporal labor and scale. How do I eliminate the abrahamic method of deceit, and make possible a constant set of grammars from theological(non-conflict and consumption ) to philosophical(competition and contract and production) to scientific(conflcit law and war)? This is the issue. Religion is necessary. A submissive religion may be necessary for the agreeable and feminine brain structure, strategy, and class. A secular religion may suffice – which is what the distributist and the continentals are searching for. My understanding is that there are true religions and false. And that there is no need for a false religion. And that is what I am searching for. No falsehood.
-
Rights don’t exist without numbers.
Mar 13, 2020, 12:58 PM Rights don’t exist without numbers. Therefore maintain the numbers necessary to create and maintain rights. All rights must be reciprocal or cannot be rights, and are but claims on others to tolerate your irreciprocity and prevent their retaliation against your irreciprocity.
—“My rights exist completely apart from any “numbers” or your opinion or agreement. Inherent human right to life, privacy and property. No amount of numbers has the right to violate that for me. I don’t have the right to violate those for you.”— A Noob
You’re demanding behavior from others. To construct a right you must create either a normative or institutional condition under which you have others to appeal to, to enforce it. Natural rights are a desire. They must be brought into existence through production by men. So your desire for rights, or demand for rights, does not mean they exist, any more than a communist’s desire for rights of equidistribution exist. Rights are made by force of men, in normative or institutional form. Moral rights are limited to natural rights: reciprocity. Period. The technique employed in libertarianism presumes that the willingness of the female is transferrable to the male. But it doesn’t. females have intrinsic sexual and reproductive value. Men do not. Men must create reciprocal defense to have value. This is as always the foundational error of all jewish libertarian (Rothbardian) thought: the pretense of the female.
-
Rights don’t exist without numbers.
Mar 13, 2020, 12:58 PM Rights don’t exist without numbers. Therefore maintain the numbers necessary to create and maintain rights. All rights must be reciprocal or cannot be rights, and are but claims on others to tolerate your irreciprocity and prevent their retaliation against your irreciprocity.
—“My rights exist completely apart from any “numbers” or your opinion or agreement. Inherent human right to life, privacy and property. No amount of numbers has the right to violate that for me. I don’t have the right to violate those for you.”— A Noob
You’re demanding behavior from others. To construct a right you must create either a normative or institutional condition under which you have others to appeal to, to enforce it. Natural rights are a desire. They must be brought into existence through production by men. So your desire for rights, or demand for rights, does not mean they exist, any more than a communist’s desire for rights of equidistribution exist. Rights are made by force of men, in normative or institutional form. Moral rights are limited to natural rights: reciprocity. Period. The technique employed in libertarianism presumes that the willingness of the female is transferrable to the male. But it doesn’t. females have intrinsic sexual and reproductive value. Men do not. Men must create reciprocal defense to have value. This is as always the foundational error of all jewish libertarian (Rothbardian) thought: the pretense of the female.
-
Philosophy vs Law vs Science vs P-Law – End the Century of Pseudoscience and Lies
Mar 16, 2020, 1:27 PM Philosophy presumes the positive, and asks whether questions are true or false, and preferable or good, or not. We call this ‘justification” benevolently, and ‘excuse making’ pejoratively. Law presumes the negative – erroneous, dishonest, or fraudulent – and asks whether questions are testifiable or untestifiable, and whether reciprocal and warrantable or not. We call this ‘falsification’ in the technical, or ‘survival’ from prosecution in the practical. Philosophy considers lying an act of intention. The Law considers lying (or any irreciprocity) a failure of due diligence regardless of intention. Science differs from Law only in Science’s defense of the informational commons from false testimony by scientists. Our solution unites Science with Law in defense of the informational commons, regardless of who testifies (speaks), and the manner in which he speaks (spoken, written, media) – and regardless of what he testifies to, when he testifies in public to the public about matters public: whenever he makes or implies a truth or moral claim. We can end the century and a half of pseudoscience, sophistry, and lies by the false promise of freedom from physical laws of nature, the natural law of cooperation, and the evolutionary law of transcendence: marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism. And it’s far easier than you’d think. Because we don’t need to know if a claim is true or not, just whether it is testifiable, reciprocal, evolutionary, warrantable, restitutable or not. P-Law, The Formal, Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity of the European Peoples.
NOTES: 1 – Philosophy, Science, Law: the discipline as demonstrated by the behavior of members of the discipline.
-
Philosophy vs Law vs Science vs P-Law – End the Century of Pseudoscience and Lies
Mar 16, 2020, 1:27 PM Philosophy presumes the positive, and asks whether questions are true or false, and preferable or good, or not. We call this ‘justification” benevolently, and ‘excuse making’ pejoratively. Law presumes the negative – erroneous, dishonest, or fraudulent – and asks whether questions are testifiable or untestifiable, and whether reciprocal and warrantable or not. We call this ‘falsification’ in the technical, or ‘survival’ from prosecution in the practical. Philosophy considers lying an act of intention. The Law considers lying (or any irreciprocity) a failure of due diligence regardless of intention. Science differs from Law only in Science’s defense of the informational commons from false testimony by scientists. Our solution unites Science with Law in defense of the informational commons, regardless of who testifies (speaks), and the manner in which he speaks (spoken, written, media) – and regardless of what he testifies to, when he testifies in public to the public about matters public: whenever he makes or implies a truth or moral claim. We can end the century and a half of pseudoscience, sophistry, and lies by the false promise of freedom from physical laws of nature, the natural law of cooperation, and the evolutionary law of transcendence: marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism. And it’s far easier than you’d think. Because we don’t need to know if a claim is true or not, just whether it is testifiable, reciprocal, evolutionary, warrantable, restitutable or not. P-Law, The Formal, Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity of the European Peoples.
NOTES: 1 – Philosophy, Science, Law: the discipline as demonstrated by the behavior of members of the discipline.
-
Understanding the Services Sector Problem
Mar 18, 2020, 11:11 AM There are no multipliers to services jobs – they are categorically consumptions. Services jobs are only possible because of productive jobs. In that sense services are part of the hyper-consumptive economy. They are a measure of your hyperconsumption. But something must make hyper-consumption possible: something with multipliers.
Multiplier: a phenomenon whereby a given change in a particular input, causes a larger change in an output. Productivity: the effectiveness of productive effort, especially in industry, as measured in terms of the rate of output per unit of input (time). These terms are relative synonyms, and multiplier usually refers to government returns on investment, and productivity to commercial returns on investment. instead of government vs private sector, I tend to use these terms to emphasize why (multiplier) or how (productivity). Services: a term that refers to the production of intangibles. So goods (products) vs services (actions) vs information (knowledge). However some services are defensive (emergency services, health care), some are productive (financial services, legal services), and some are consumptive (waiter, waitress, entertainer, travel and leisure.)
-
Understanding the Services Sector Problem
Mar 18, 2020, 11:11 AM There are no multipliers to services jobs – they are categorically consumptions. Services jobs are only possible because of productive jobs. In that sense services are part of the hyper-consumptive economy. They are a measure of your hyperconsumption. But something must make hyper-consumption possible: something with multipliers.
Multiplier: a phenomenon whereby a given change in a particular input, causes a larger change in an output. Productivity: the effectiveness of productive effort, especially in industry, as measured in terms of the rate of output per unit of input (time). These terms are relative synonyms, and multiplier usually refers to government returns on investment, and productivity to commercial returns on investment. instead of government vs private sector, I tend to use these terms to emphasize why (multiplier) or how (productivity). Services: a term that refers to the production of intangibles. So goods (products) vs services (actions) vs information (knowledge). However some services are defensive (emergency services, health care), some are productive (financial services, legal services), and some are consumptive (waiter, waitress, entertainer, travel and leisure.)
-
Why Does the Left Have to Lie and Deny Differences?
Mar 18, 2020, 12:39 PM The Left= Female Conflict Strategy: Deny, Avoid, Substitute Approval for Truth, Justify, Use Sophistry, Ad Hominem(gsrrm), Rally, Undermine, Strawman, Bait Into Conflict, Bait Into Hazard, Free Ride, Rent Seek, Hyperconsumption, Hypergamy, “Unconscious: The Men Will Take Care of It” The left has to lie. WHY? The suite of programs we have seen in marxism, communism, socialism, Neo-Marxism(cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, hbd-denialism(political correctness) are an attempt to undermine every single system of class and gender harmony in tripartite western civilization from within by the false promise of freedom from evolutionary pressures (Darwin), under the pretense that admittedly meritocratic and eugenic western civlization oppressed rather than incrementally domesticated ourselves. And that this strategy – the cause of our successes – is antithetical to the female reproductive strategy, female cognition, and the female group strategy of intellectuals behind marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and HBD-Denialism. We enfranchised this hostile intellectual group, and women at roughly the same time, and gave elites at practicing the female group strategy, and an audience of easily deceived newly enfranchised females, on top of our traditional underclasses, a market to ply with 51% of the vote, 70% of consumption of government services, and 70% of consumer spending. And we did not give them time to integrate into the franchise, rule of law, meritocracy, and to absorb the shock, before the postwar campaign to undermine western civlization through them. Marxism, postmodernism, feminism together are just a repeated of judaism, christianity islam to undermine the aristocratic empires of the ancient world. And we saw the loss of the arts, letters, culture, civilization and genomes of five great civilizations civilization reduced to dysgenia, decline, regression, ignorance, and superstition. The female group conflict strategy? ie: bait others into conflict.
1. Feminine Undermining: Interpersonal and Social Superpredators 2. Female advocacy strategy: “heaping undue praise”, give everyone a prize, giving false compliments. 3. Female Conflict Strategy: disapproval, shaming, ridicule, rallying, gossiping, straw manning, and reputation destruction without end (destruction). 4. Female anti-social behavior: promiscuity, impulsivity, drugs, alcohol, lying, needling, conflict generation, attention seeking, shrilling, outraging. 5. Female Technique: Seduction: False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard.
—“Using False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard, Advocated by Pilpul, Defended by Critique, Escaping Liability and Warranty; By Pretense of Plausible Deniability; Despite Deliberate Avoidance of Due Diligence, And Deliberate Evasion of Warranty, Deliberate Escape From Liability, Given the Asymmetry of Knowledge, the Presence of Malincentives by both Agent(s) and Victim(s); And Pursued for the Purpose of Attention, Reward (profit), Influence(power), And Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict, And Generating Demand for Authority to Control by the Hazard Maker.”— False promise of freedom from low status and agency. False promise of ability to rule and develop agency. Destruction of civlization culture, arts, knowledge, traditions. The repeat of the christian destruction of the ancient world. Through women and slaves in the old world. Through women and immigrants in the new world. If not for immigrants we would have defeated them. Democracy by 92 Intelligence differences by 99 Gender differences by 12 Group differences in 19 Science would have won. They won by the immigration act. Not by ideas. The romans were too tolerant. So are we. The only way to defeat a social superpredator is with a physical superpredator.
-
Why Does the Left Have to Lie and Deny Differences?
Mar 18, 2020, 12:39 PM The Left= Female Conflict Strategy: Deny, Avoid, Substitute Approval for Truth, Justify, Use Sophistry, Ad Hominem(gsrrm), Rally, Undermine, Strawman, Bait Into Conflict, Bait Into Hazard, Free Ride, Rent Seek, Hyperconsumption, Hypergamy, “Unconscious: The Men Will Take Care of It” The left has to lie. WHY? The suite of programs we have seen in marxism, communism, socialism, Neo-Marxism(cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, hbd-denialism(political correctness) are an attempt to undermine every single system of class and gender harmony in tripartite western civilization from within by the false promise of freedom from evolutionary pressures (Darwin), under the pretense that admittedly meritocratic and eugenic western civlization oppressed rather than incrementally domesticated ourselves. And that this strategy – the cause of our successes – is antithetical to the female reproductive strategy, female cognition, and the female group strategy of intellectuals behind marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and HBD-Denialism. We enfranchised this hostile intellectual group, and women at roughly the same time, and gave elites at practicing the female group strategy, and an audience of easily deceived newly enfranchised females, on top of our traditional underclasses, a market to ply with 51% of the vote, 70% of consumption of government services, and 70% of consumer spending. And we did not give them time to integrate into the franchise, rule of law, meritocracy, and to absorb the shock, before the postwar campaign to undermine western civlization through them. Marxism, postmodernism, feminism together are just a repeated of judaism, christianity islam to undermine the aristocratic empires of the ancient world. And we saw the loss of the arts, letters, culture, civilization and genomes of five great civilizations civilization reduced to dysgenia, decline, regression, ignorance, and superstition. The female group conflict strategy? ie: bait others into conflict.
1. Feminine Undermining: Interpersonal and Social Superpredators 2. Female advocacy strategy: “heaping undue praise”, give everyone a prize, giving false compliments. 3. Female Conflict Strategy: disapproval, shaming, ridicule, rallying, gossiping, straw manning, and reputation destruction without end (destruction). 4. Female anti-social behavior: promiscuity, impulsivity, drugs, alcohol, lying, needling, conflict generation, attention seeking, shrilling, outraging. 5. Female Technique: Seduction: False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard.
—“Using False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard, Advocated by Pilpul, Defended by Critique, Escaping Liability and Warranty; By Pretense of Plausible Deniability; Despite Deliberate Avoidance of Due Diligence, And Deliberate Evasion of Warranty, Deliberate Escape From Liability, Given the Asymmetry of Knowledge, the Presence of Malincentives by both Agent(s) and Victim(s); And Pursued for the Purpose of Attention, Reward (profit), Influence(power), And Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict, And Generating Demand for Authority to Control by the Hazard Maker.”— False promise of freedom from low status and agency. False promise of ability to rule and develop agency. Destruction of civlization culture, arts, knowledge, traditions. The repeat of the christian destruction of the ancient world. Through women and slaves in the old world. Through women and immigrants in the new world. If not for immigrants we would have defeated them. Democracy by 92 Intelligence differences by 99 Gender differences by 12 Group differences in 19 Science would have won. They won by the immigration act. Not by ideas. The romans were too tolerant. So are we. The only way to defeat a social superpredator is with a physical superpredator.