May 7 at 1:10 PM · by John Mark (I found a few in a comment section on someone else’s post.) Timing matters. Plans matter. Even though there is already all the moral authority necessary and then some, “an undeniable excuse” matters. People exhaust all other options. Virus lockdowns in the face of the real data are approaching that undeniable excuse. People who have been hopping mad for decades are targeting their timing around a moment when critical mass is strong (waiting for a particularly good opportunity) because it increases chance of success. It increases the percentage and numbers of the population willing to “support and copy and join” rather than disavowing out of ignorance, comfort, or fear. Accusing high-agency people who are being smart of being “larpers” is simply false. (I’m not saying there is no such thing as a larper, I’m saying there are many who are not, but are being smart in order to maximize chance of success.) Anyone who countersignals using 2A for its primary intended purpose is either a moron or a coward or both. Force can never be off the table, because if you take it off the table, you are guaranteed to be walked all over by your enemies forever. These people that countersignal using 2A for its primary purpose are just showing their cowardice and idiocy. They have no solution to offer. Either they don’t understand the situation – they don’t realize soon the Right will win no more national elections due to immigration (Covid will give us only temporary reprieve if the current system is not upended), and they don’t realize why persuasion doesn’t work on the Left – or they do understand it and are just weak. Even if you yourself can’t or won’t pay the price or take the risk necessary to be “tip of the spear”, why on earth would you countersignal those who are and will? What kind of idiot countersignals those who are willing to risk their own lives to save your ass? (And if you think “it’s impossible to win” you have no understanding of 4G warfare, or the basic numbers of armed people on each “team”, etc.) Ask these countersignalers what their proposed solution is – they have none. If they have any ideas to offer, it’s always either “form white communities” (you’ll have to use force eventually anyway, you’ll just be on defense instead of on offense), or some version of “we can persuade people” which is dead on arrival due to nonwhite immigration. Don’t countersignal the groups that may seem to be “larpers” to you, either. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between larpers and those who will do what it takes. Sure, many are normiecons/civnats but that just means that the Smart/Winning Right must lead them. Look around. Normiecons are casually talking about bombing the govorner’s mansion due to these lockdowns. A groundswell of support for “replacing the current system” is building on the Right at a faster and faster rate. Why would someone choose this moment to countersignal using 2A for its main purpose and take force off the table? Silly.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Amazingly, There Are Still a Few Village Idiots that Countersignal Use of 2 a For Its Primary Intended Purpose
May 7 at 1:10 PM · by John Mark (I found a few in a comment section on someone else’s post.) Timing matters. Plans matter. Even though there is already all the moral authority necessary and then some, “an undeniable excuse” matters. People exhaust all other options. Virus lockdowns in the face of the real data are approaching that undeniable excuse. People who have been hopping mad for decades are targeting their timing around a moment when critical mass is strong (waiting for a particularly good opportunity) because it increases chance of success. It increases the percentage and numbers of the population willing to “support and copy and join” rather than disavowing out of ignorance, comfort, or fear. Accusing high-agency people who are being smart of being “larpers” is simply false. (I’m not saying there is no such thing as a larper, I’m saying there are many who are not, but are being smart in order to maximize chance of success.) Anyone who countersignals using 2A for its primary intended purpose is either a moron or a coward or both. Force can never be off the table, because if you take it off the table, you are guaranteed to be walked all over by your enemies forever. These people that countersignal using 2A for its primary purpose are just showing their cowardice and idiocy. They have no solution to offer. Either they don’t understand the situation – they don’t realize soon the Right will win no more national elections due to immigration (Covid will give us only temporary reprieve if the current system is not upended), and they don’t realize why persuasion doesn’t work on the Left – or they do understand it and are just weak. Even if you yourself can’t or won’t pay the price or take the risk necessary to be “tip of the spear”, why on earth would you countersignal those who are and will? What kind of idiot countersignals those who are willing to risk their own lives to save your ass? (And if you think “it’s impossible to win” you have no understanding of 4G warfare, or the basic numbers of armed people on each “team”, etc.) Ask these countersignalers what their proposed solution is – they have none. If they have any ideas to offer, it’s always either “form white communities” (you’ll have to use force eventually anyway, you’ll just be on defense instead of on offense), or some version of “we can persuade people” which is dead on arrival due to nonwhite immigration. Don’t countersignal the groups that may seem to be “larpers” to you, either. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between larpers and those who will do what it takes. Sure, many are normiecons/civnats but that just means that the Smart/Winning Right must lead them. Look around. Normiecons are casually talking about bombing the govorner’s mansion due to these lockdowns. A groundswell of support for “replacing the current system” is building on the Right at a faster and faster rate. Why would someone choose this moment to countersignal using 2A for its main purpose and take force off the table? Silly.
-
Giving the little Guy Power
May 7, 2020, 11:14 PM by John Mark
“The way Propertarian law gives the little guy power to punish powerful people via the courts (and cleans up the judiciary and clarifies/strengthens jurisprudence) is good, but won’t the little guy still be at a disadvantage due to lack of ability to pay lawyers compared to the rich?”
(Common question)(There may be more to the answer than I am putting here, but this is part of it.) As I understand it, it will work largely the same way it works now, when, say, an individual sues a car company for selling cars with faulty brakes & people die. Or a group of individuals get together and do it. Often lawyers take the case not cuz of pay up front but because of good chance of getting a nice chunk of the payout. (Most people who win these types of cases don’t win cuz they’re rich, but because they’re right.) But under P-law the ability to keep people accountable for imposing costs (breaking reciprocity) in this manner will be greatly expanded to cover all actions/activities & no more hiding behind position (politician, judge) or corporate veil (CEO). And…good question, but if someone asks this question and eventually concludes “this system won’t work perfectly” (nothing will be perfect, but “much better than now” is certainly possible) and then goes to “it’s not worth supporting or trying this idea”, the onus is then on them to provide a better solution to stopping violations of reciprocity and keeping the powerful accountable. No one ever suggests a better solution. The only one that comes close is “an all-powerful strongman that just punishes people with arbitrary power”, but if we’re strong enough to support and defend such a person who rules arbitrarily, we would also be strong enough to implement propertarian law and cut out the arbitrariness. Arbitrariness carries much larger risk of abuse, and an all-powerful monarch or strongman’s percentage chance of good decisions being made consistently is better than democracy but worse than good rule of law, and much less durable than good rule of law (what if king/strongman’s heir is dumb or evil or capricious etc), so why wouldn’t we just implement and defend P-law instead of supporting and defending a strongman?
-
Giving the little Guy Power
May 7, 2020, 11:14 PM by John Mark
“The way Propertarian law gives the little guy power to punish powerful people via the courts (and cleans up the judiciary and clarifies/strengthens jurisprudence) is good, but won’t the little guy still be at a disadvantage due to lack of ability to pay lawyers compared to the rich?”
(Common question)(There may be more to the answer than I am putting here, but this is part of it.) As I understand it, it will work largely the same way it works now, when, say, an individual sues a car company for selling cars with faulty brakes & people die. Or a group of individuals get together and do it. Often lawyers take the case not cuz of pay up front but because of good chance of getting a nice chunk of the payout. (Most people who win these types of cases don’t win cuz they’re rich, but because they’re right.) But under P-law the ability to keep people accountable for imposing costs (breaking reciprocity) in this manner will be greatly expanded to cover all actions/activities & no more hiding behind position (politician, judge) or corporate veil (CEO). And…good question, but if someone asks this question and eventually concludes “this system won’t work perfectly” (nothing will be perfect, but “much better than now” is certainly possible) and then goes to “it’s not worth supporting or trying this idea”, the onus is then on them to provide a better solution to stopping violations of reciprocity and keeping the powerful accountable. No one ever suggests a better solution. The only one that comes close is “an all-powerful strongman that just punishes people with arbitrary power”, but if we’re strong enough to support and defend such a person who rules arbitrarily, we would also be strong enough to implement propertarian law and cut out the arbitrariness. Arbitrariness carries much larger risk of abuse, and an all-powerful monarch or strongman’s percentage chance of good decisions being made consistently is better than democracy but worse than good rule of law, and much less durable than good rule of law (what if king/strongman’s heir is dumb or evil or capricious etc), so why wouldn’t we just implement and defend P-law instead of supporting and defending a strongman?
-
Archetypes vs Stereotypes
May 9, 2020, 7:55 PM ARCHETYPES VS STEREOTYPES
—“Reals vs. ideals”—Martin Štěpán —“The Map (archetype) vs The Territory (stereotype).”—Günther Shroomacher —“Accurately validated and operationalized reals for the purpose of prediction vs. Mythologically articulated ideals for edifying instruction”—Predmetsky Rosenborg —“Stereotypes are generalizations about groups/ individuals that are true, vs Archetype is more psychological and possibly metaphysical.”— Donald Kent —“Deviation from your group VS composition of your group.”—Vengefül Bobmoran —“Commodity(stereotypt) vs Scarcity(archetype)”—Dave Germaniuk
by JWarren Prescott: ARCHETYPES Archetypes are merely an ‘a priori’ to the posteriori stereotype. This follows the 4 main Jungian archetypes. We have a sense of the core elements of what things ‘should’ be. For example, Jung’s wise old man is an archetype of guidance or wisdom. STEREOTYPES The word, stereotype, tends to have a negative connotation in the vernacular and ironically, the word has hence become its own stereotype in that regard. There are similar words that have similar meanings but without the social baggage attached. Archetype and prototype are similar words but have less negativity in the mind. Ever since childhood, we are instructed not to judge others and then later, the word judge became stereotype and were admonished that stereotyping was also not acceptable behavior. Apart from the common parental cognitive dissonance that most of us are subjugated to, the word stereotype simply means an empirical generalization or group tendency of some trait or behavior. The negative connotations of the word from common usage has done a disservice to an incredibly useful term by basically changing its meaning to include pejoratives like, oversimplified, exaggerated, offensive, distorted, simplistic, unfairly and many other terms that connote and/or elicit social disapproval of an argument. These pejoratives are not valid arguments. An argument is a set of reasons (a premise) to support a conclusion and is such that merely holding a contrary viewpoint is not an argument. Emotions such as outrage or anger are never a support for an argument. The stated premise of an argument must logically follow to prove or show that the conclusion is valid. If it does not follow, then the argument is invalid. To employ such tactics is a form of sophistry and social conditioning that has its own consequences in cognitive dissonance. Common stereotypes should never be rejected out-of-hand due to social pressures but should be evaluated for judgment errors. Facts, data, logic and reason are merely tools of cognition and are neither racist, sexist nor bigoted.
-
Archetypes vs Stereotypes
May 9, 2020, 7:55 PM ARCHETYPES VS STEREOTYPES
—“Reals vs. ideals”—Martin Štěpán —“The Map (archetype) vs The Territory (stereotype).”—Günther Shroomacher —“Accurately validated and operationalized reals for the purpose of prediction vs. Mythologically articulated ideals for edifying instruction”—Predmetsky Rosenborg —“Stereotypes are generalizations about groups/ individuals that are true, vs Archetype is more psychological and possibly metaphysical.”— Donald Kent —“Deviation from your group VS composition of your group.”—Vengefül Bobmoran —“Commodity(stereotypt) vs Scarcity(archetype)”—Dave Germaniuk
by JWarren Prescott: ARCHETYPES Archetypes are merely an ‘a priori’ to the posteriori stereotype. This follows the 4 main Jungian archetypes. We have a sense of the core elements of what things ‘should’ be. For example, Jung’s wise old man is an archetype of guidance or wisdom. STEREOTYPES The word, stereotype, tends to have a negative connotation in the vernacular and ironically, the word has hence become its own stereotype in that regard. There are similar words that have similar meanings but without the social baggage attached. Archetype and prototype are similar words but have less negativity in the mind. Ever since childhood, we are instructed not to judge others and then later, the word judge became stereotype and were admonished that stereotyping was also not acceptable behavior. Apart from the common parental cognitive dissonance that most of us are subjugated to, the word stereotype simply means an empirical generalization or group tendency of some trait or behavior. The negative connotations of the word from common usage has done a disservice to an incredibly useful term by basically changing its meaning to include pejoratives like, oversimplified, exaggerated, offensive, distorted, simplistic, unfairly and many other terms that connote and/or elicit social disapproval of an argument. These pejoratives are not valid arguments. An argument is a set of reasons (a premise) to support a conclusion and is such that merely holding a contrary viewpoint is not an argument. Emotions such as outrage or anger are never a support for an argument. The stated premise of an argument must logically follow to prove or show that the conclusion is valid. If it does not follow, then the argument is invalid. To employ such tactics is a form of sophistry and social conditioning that has its own consequences in cognitive dissonance. Common stereotypes should never be rejected out-of-hand due to social pressures but should be evaluated for judgment errors. Facts, data, logic and reason are merely tools of cognition and are neither racist, sexist nor bigoted.
-
This Diagram Is More Important than You’d Think
MBTI vs BIG5: I put this together tonight since it came up with Brandon. What it means is that between the two competing top down (jungian), outward in (big5), and bottom up (biology) that we have correctly triangulated the hierarchy of human behaviors. It tells us that in it’s search for sex-neturality and ‘positivity’, Big 5 failed to provide the insight of systematizing vs empathizing (men did it) and by not attempting to do so the Jungians (the women did it) correctly identified the primary causal difference. Next it says both failed by not including intelligence, and specifically not separating ability vs accumulated knowledge, and that accumulated knowledge is the result of openness not ability. Next it doesn’t account for Agency (and while I suspect conscientiousness is a requirement I think system thinking and dominance are a requirement as well and I don’t know how to test it.) Next it doesn’t account for moral biases which haidt must have about right since it maps to all known forms of property. Lastly it says that HEROISM and Mindfulness is not accounted for as is neuroticism. Since neuroticism is low on both scales. This is another … side effect of the ‘bias’ of Freudian, feminine, therapeutic rather than relying on full accounting in explanatory science. So I will update my Blue Diagram to include the following 1 – Add brain’s sex structure (systematizing vs empathizing) 2 – Add T-dominance with O-Empathy – reinforcement. 3 – Add IQ with Ability (Fluid) and Acquired (Crystallized) 4 – Add Moral Biases 5 – Add Three weapons of influence bias, which reflect moral biases 6 – Add resulting three specialist classes (Trifunctionalism) that result from three weapons of influence. And then we have the full explanation of psychology from first cause (Sex, brain structure, chemistry, expression). And we can explain the variation in human psychology as a division of cognitive labor. And we can then tie this range of adaptability to our genetic structure which appears to contain more information regulating gene expression than gene expression. And we can then explain why man has survived by extraordinary adaptation. And we can then explain why the success of the western model of trifunctionalism. On Neuroticism (Threat Perception – Not in MBTI) Characteristics associated with neuroticism include anxiety, hostility, anger, depression, self-consciousness, and stress vulnerability. Neuroticism has its benefits—such as intelligence, humor, more realistic if “cynical” expectations, greater self-awareness, drivenness and conscientiousness, lower risk-taking, and a strong need to provide for others—it is also associated with self-criticism, sensitivity to others and social anxiety, moodiness and anxiety, poorer general health, greater day-to-day strain, and strong negative emotional reactions. As a result, neurotic people on average tend to find romantic, personal, and family relationships more effortful and less successful than desired, have problems keeping jobs, and generally aren’t as satisfied with life. Neuroticism drives demand for mindfulness. —“Can you develop a questionnaire to capture a lot of that and an analysis methodology”—Gary Knight Someone can, because most of the tests already exist. Your moral foundations test Your big 5 Test Your IQ Test (both aspects) Your sex Your maternal lineage’s religion for six generations Your paternal occupational history for six generations Your ethnicity for six generations. I’d have to work on agency/non and heroism/victim. I don’t think it’s deducible from what we have. Might be. Dunno. Didn’t research it yet. (Sure someone has tried something similar, but negative postwar bias for supremacy or competitive excellence suppressed it pretty thoroughly. Pre-war it’s dominant. Post war it’s gone.
-
“All Language Consists of Measurements”
May 10, 2020, 10:14 AM We don’t think of it geometrically but that’s the best frame for representing it’s organization. Our senses (nervous system) register pulses, which vary only in on-off, and frequency – a measurement – and we combine those measurements, because our body is a system of commensurability, into a world-model useful for our actions. Then we describe the world in combinations of sense-perceptions. The second fundamental problem with AI so far (aside from our hardware is architected inversely) is that it has no system of commensurability like we have – the body – and so it cannot develop consciousness: a model with predictive differences given our possible actions (physical, logical, verbal). Archetypes – prototype measurements of combinations of instincts Stereotypes – consistent predictions from measurements. In the Foundations Course, I frame our consciousness geometrically from the start. Unfortunately constitution and revolution is more pressing than continuing work on consciousness and behaviour but I will get there….
-
“All Language Consists of Measurements”
May 10, 2020, 10:14 AM We don’t think of it geometrically but that’s the best frame for representing it’s organization. Our senses (nervous system) register pulses, which vary only in on-off, and frequency – a measurement – and we combine those measurements, because our body is a system of commensurability, into a world-model useful for our actions. Then we describe the world in combinations of sense-perceptions. The second fundamental problem with AI so far (aside from our hardware is architected inversely) is that it has no system of commensurability like we have – the body – and so it cannot develop consciousness: a model with predictive differences given our possible actions (physical, logical, verbal). Archetypes – prototype measurements of combinations of instincts Stereotypes – consistent predictions from measurements. In the Foundations Course, I frame our consciousness geometrically from the start. Unfortunately constitution and revolution is more pressing than continuing work on consciousness and behaviour but I will get there….
-
It’s Not an Act. It’s a Methodology.
May 10, 2020, 3:58 PM (Masculinity. Aversarialism. King of the Hill. War) (updated)(reposted) You know, people don’t understand the method to the madness. Nothing is random. It’s painfully deliberate.
- Equality was a false promise
- An aristocracy of everyone was a false promise.
- Aristocracy(Martial limits-via-negativa) > Nobility(Social-Political – choices-via-positiva) > Burgher(Economic practical) > Craftsman (productive, necessary) > Mother(reproductive, promising) > Children(Learning, the proposal) is not a false promise – it’s descriptive: the truth.
We are not equal, we are interdependent. We earn respect despite our inequality by doing our duty to our interdependence. We maintain that respect and interdependence with loyalty despite our inequality. We demonstrate the obligation of the nobility, the duty of the citizenry, and this is how we work together. We are an army first and a polity second, a society third, bound by the EQUALITY UNDER OUR LAW despite our inequality in ability and value to one another. And that is our secret. Hence the ‘act like aristocracy’. You must be what you wish to become. Teach men Adversarialism. Teach by (forgiving) king of the hill games. Teach men across ages not by age – to lead, advise, follow. Teach by metaphor: 1. Kings (dominant male leadership – quarterbacks) 2. Bishops (cunning, intelligence, spies, advisors) 3. Knights (fast, maneuver – receivers, raiders ) 4. Rooks (Heavy Infantry – Bearers – linebackers) 5. Pawns (Infantry – Defense) 6. Fools ( Messengers, Negotiators) 7. Queens (Ambassadors) Teach Men
- War – Adversarialism
… … … (Evolution)
… – Politics – the Proxy for War
… … … … (Political War)
… … – Law – The Organization of Polities
… … … … … (Procedural War)
… … … – Economics – the funding of Polities and War.
… … … … … … (Productive War)
… … … … – Engineering – the manipulation of the world
… … … … … … … (Innovative war)
… … … … … – Testimony – the art of truthful speech
… … … … … … … … (War against ignorance error deceit)
… … … … … … … – Negotiation – The art of compromise.
TRADING MASCULINE EUROPEAN ADVERSARIALISM FOR FEMININE ABRAHAMIC UNDERMINING (important framing) The western canon consists of the study of Adversarialism: Truth(Science), Law, Politics, Economics, and War. That’s my ambition for the Propertarian Institute. The postwar doctrine consists in the eradication of Adversarialism – because women can’t compete. Without grasping that it is the foundation of our civilization. So we have replaced truthful Adversarialism with dishonest, sophomoric, and pseudoscientific feminine undermining. Why? Sexual Genetics: Truth and Systems Vs Approval and Experiences. Adversarialism: truth seeking, Discourse: consensus seeking, Undermining: deception seeking.