[A]n obvious truth I don’t like: Europeans are not only the youngest race (~10k ybp), and more neotenous than other races – except east asians who are more neotenous than we are – but our neoteny comes at the cost of greater emotional instability – which explains european women. We are in a middle range and east asians are off the neotenous cliff. And what does this mean? Neoteny has interesting consequences: not enough and you mature too early for agency except late in life and prevent lifelong learning. If you have enough you develop agency later and lifelong ability to learn, and too much you develop agency early at the cost of life long learning ability. (I might be one of the first people to discuss this, I’m not sure, but it’s obvious in the data.) We could test IQ, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability and then democracy might work. Or we could just restore property owning, married, european males and females employing any number of non-family members – which is demonstrated evidence of intelligence, conscientiousness and emotional stability rather than test evidence. And then a house of women and a house of men to negotiate differences between genders. The chinese used the former, for access to bureaucracy. I recommend the latter because we use markets for production. Evidence is evidence. So what’s my point? My point is that christianity is more necessary for europeans to stabilize the emotions than is obvious from our average intelligence. We tnd to link the two but that’s not really it. That’s why while there is a relationship between religiosity and intelligence, the christian ethic remains constant across the population. I also understand that for those of us who are more pagan, we respect christians out of LOYALTY, like we respect the flag out of LOYALTY and our ancestors out of loyalty.As such I am loyal to my christian brothers, and observant out of loyalty. Even if my god is far closer to Thor-Tyr-Zeus, and my prophets are lawgivers: Odin and Aristotle.The solution is to request loyalty in exchange not that we seek to defeat the gods of dominance and submission to which the opposite cannot tolerate thanks (debt).
Form: Mini Essay
-
On Farmers in The Division of Labor
(The flip side of “I, Pencil”.) (probably an important lesson) Military(organization of territory) <> Judiciary (organization of cooperation-contract) <> Finance (organization of money(stored time)) <> Entrepreneurship (Organization of opportunity, capital, people) <> Professionals (organization of production(calculation)) <> Managers (Organization of people) <> Producers (Organization of resources) <> Distributors (organization of distribution) <> Trade (organization of transactions) <> Consumers (organization of consumption) <> Parents (organization of reproduction) <> teachers, priests, public intellectuals politicians ( sedation, facilitation, and amelioration of stress arising from scarcity, individual and familial irrelevance, and alienation in the division of labor upon which they depend.) Given the problem of “I,Pencil” (distribution of knowledge), an individual farmer has to input a lot of diverse knowledge and effort for low return on investment, in no small part because petroleum products, industrialization, fertilizer, feed were fully commoditized, and distribution. A farmer organizes primary resources (animals, food stuffs) and as such must be a skilled craftsman (organizers of specialized resources) at the very limit of craftsman’s capital (tools – no other craftsman requires so many tools). But the returns on the organization of resources are small – there are few multipliers. As you move up the production hierarchy you are responsible for organizing more and more and more people – where there are multipliers. This is why Marx is wrong. In order to organize people by rational incentives, one must produce marginal competitive differences by which to influence their choices. As such the entire difficulty in organizing production is organizing the human beings in a vast network to engage in it with nothing other than the bribe of doing the work (payment).
-
On Farmers in The Division of Labor
(The flip side of “I, Pencil”.) (probably an important lesson) Military(organization of territory) <> Judiciary (organization of cooperation-contract) <> Finance (organization of money(stored time)) <> Entrepreneurship (Organization of opportunity, capital, people) <> Professionals (organization of production(calculation)) <> Managers (Organization of people) <> Producers (Organization of resources) <> Distributors (organization of distribution) <> Trade (organization of transactions) <> Consumers (organization of consumption) <> Parents (organization of reproduction) <> teachers, priests, public intellectuals politicians ( sedation, facilitation, and amelioration of stress arising from scarcity, individual and familial irrelevance, and alienation in the division of labor upon which they depend.) Given the problem of “I,Pencil” (distribution of knowledge), an individual farmer has to input a lot of diverse knowledge and effort for low return on investment, in no small part because petroleum products, industrialization, fertilizer, feed were fully commoditized, and distribution. A farmer organizes primary resources (animals, food stuffs) and as such must be a skilled craftsman (organizers of specialized resources) at the very limit of craftsman’s capital (tools – no other craftsman requires so many tools). But the returns on the organization of resources are small – there are few multipliers. As you move up the production hierarchy you are responsible for organizing more and more and more people – where there are multipliers. This is why Marx is wrong. In order to organize people by rational incentives, one must produce marginal competitive differences by which to influence their choices. As such the entire difficulty in organizing production is organizing the human beings in a vast network to engage in it with nothing other than the bribe of doing the work (payment).
-
Why Request Exchange of Tribal Loyalty Between European Religious Factions?
(core) (religion)
—“Upon what foundation then did the progenitors of civilisation, Greece then Rome, build itself?”—
[W]e evolve a means of production, and a means of military competition under that means of production, an organization to manage both, and a narrative to justify both, so that we can reduce the cost and opportunity for conflict in order to maintain those strategies. Every civilization’s strategy is fairly easy to express in those terms. European civilization in mediterranean, continental, north sea, and Atlantic eras continue the aristocratic egalitarian tripartite trifunctional organization, and the old military strategy, old law (legal), old myths (social), philosophical, and theological (political) varying little other than the replacement of the ancient warrior-hunter-farmer heroic religion with the medieval farmer-peasant submissive religion of christianity. But given tripartism and trifunctionalism the law and the military remains constant and the church rise and fell. Today the new church is again semitic, with islam, judaism, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism, in competition with our traditional masculine hierarchical markets and law.
—“Are not their successes constituted of the virtues they upheld?”–
Virtues are excuses for the group competitive strategy we rarely if ever know. Values persist because they persist the competitive strategy. values can be undermined. Judiasm, christianity, marxism, postmodernism, and feminism sought to undermine european values and succeeded because women are vulnerable to the false promise and men are vulnerable to satisfying the demands of women unless in continuous competition with other males. Our natural ancestral religion upon which our civilization is founded is one of chaotic gods we compete, cooperate, and trade with – not one we are submissive to. These gods of warriors, whether the greek, roman, germanic pantheons. The church sought to supplant them with submissive gods of slaves who were docile in their fear and ignorance – and who the church could extract revenue from by rent seeking. Submission to gods so that one is devoid of responsibility is a christian innovation, achieving its zenith in islam. This is why it is seductive. Devotion to gods so that one is free of status pressure is not a christian innovation. It is even more seductive. Submission to scripture so that one is free of continuous calculation for which one may fail or be subject to blame is semitic innovation. It is seductive as well. These seductions are successful and they are the opposite of the aryan demand for non submission and non-alienation of rights and responsibilities, including pursuit of status, achievement, and innovative reason. The church failed the aristocracy succeeded, and we have not yet found a means of accommodating christianity in its decline, while producing a non-false religion. We are in a time of transition. Either the second dark age of the jews will succeed, the second dark age of the muslims, or we will discover a means of combining our three religions chistian(feminine), heathen-nature(familial), pagan-hero(masculine), and aristotelian(judicial), or at least exchanging loyalty between the three, so that we are not subject to a second semitic dark age. So we are still and will always be a triparite people: Scientific and Legal and heroic (agency), Philosophical and practical for the able, theological and submissive for the less able or more sensitive to conflict and social pressure (or the dysfunctional who confuse their spiritual accommodation of reality with reality itself.
—“What Christianity was there here?”–
What “here” are you referring to?
—“When you come to Christians asking not the renunciation of their faith but merely loyalty, remember that this is all the Romans first asked of the Christians too.”—
Our ancestors came to jews. Who we were too tolerant of, just as we are too tolerant of islamists, jews, marxists, postmodernists, feminists and science denialists. And because of our tolerance the jews used false promise, to bait our people into hazard, causing a dark age of ignorance and poverty and disease and suffering only aristotelian thought reversed, and ended the centuries of corruption by the church. Corruption not seen by americans until the prosecution of the deviancy of catholic churches, because protestants have forgotten the corruption of the church prior to the reformation, and the personalization of the relationship between the individual and god first, and the individual and jesus second – due largely to american evangelical protestants.
—“Remember, it wasn’t the strange and foreign beliefs of the Christians that first caught the attention of the Romans, but rather their abstention from community.”—
It was the use of christianity to undermine greco roman civlization just as islam, judaism, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and their science denialism is used to undermine european civilzation for the past century and a half. Sol invictus was the migration of roman religion from zeus-jupiter. Mithras was the migration of the persian version of Mithra – the perfect man. Christianity was invented by using the victim-narrative and the promise of life after death, in stead of the Zeus-Sol-Mithra character we should aspire to be, and the jesus narrative invented so that it could replace the Epic Cycle (Homer) which had conquered and was about to erase the semitic world. Judaism, christianity, ad islam were invented by the poor ignorant desert peasantry as a means of using the female group strategy of undermining by gossip, to overthrow the invention of markets, law, reason, merit, and transcendence of man into gods. And I am, like my predecessors, trying once again to prevent another semitic dark age – by accommodating christians. Christians who have not yet converted christianity into a hearth religion. But are very close to having done so. If not for the invasion by jews, muslims, and the underclasses – because of christian tolerance – we would have had the time for christianity to evolve, and science to falsify the marxists, postmodernists feminists and difference-denialists. So we are in a position where I must, or at least, someone of ability must, try to discover a vehicle for unity at faster pace than would naturally evolve. If not for immigration I would not need to do this work. Because science has solved the lies. But false promise to the vulnerable is seductive and spreads more quickly than we can stop it.
-
Why Request Exchange of Tribal Loyalty Between European Religious Factions?
(core) (religion)
—“Upon what foundation then did the progenitors of civilisation, Greece then Rome, build itself?”—
[W]e evolve a means of production, and a means of military competition under that means of production, an organization to manage both, and a narrative to justify both, so that we can reduce the cost and opportunity for conflict in order to maintain those strategies. Every civilization’s strategy is fairly easy to express in those terms. European civilization in mediterranean, continental, north sea, and Atlantic eras continue the aristocratic egalitarian tripartite trifunctional organization, and the old military strategy, old law (legal), old myths (social), philosophical, and theological (political) varying little other than the replacement of the ancient warrior-hunter-farmer heroic religion with the medieval farmer-peasant submissive religion of christianity. But given tripartism and trifunctionalism the law and the military remains constant and the church rise and fell. Today the new church is again semitic, with islam, judaism, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism, in competition with our traditional masculine hierarchical markets and law.
—“Are not their successes constituted of the virtues they upheld?”–
Virtues are excuses for the group competitive strategy we rarely if ever know. Values persist because they persist the competitive strategy. values can be undermined. Judiasm, christianity, marxism, postmodernism, and feminism sought to undermine european values and succeeded because women are vulnerable to the false promise and men are vulnerable to satisfying the demands of women unless in continuous competition with other males. Our natural ancestral religion upon which our civilization is founded is one of chaotic gods we compete, cooperate, and trade with – not one we are submissive to. These gods of warriors, whether the greek, roman, germanic pantheons. The church sought to supplant them with submissive gods of slaves who were docile in their fear and ignorance – and who the church could extract revenue from by rent seeking. Submission to gods so that one is devoid of responsibility is a christian innovation, achieving its zenith in islam. This is why it is seductive. Devotion to gods so that one is free of status pressure is not a christian innovation. It is even more seductive. Submission to scripture so that one is free of continuous calculation for which one may fail or be subject to blame is semitic innovation. It is seductive as well. These seductions are successful and they are the opposite of the aryan demand for non submission and non-alienation of rights and responsibilities, including pursuit of status, achievement, and innovative reason. The church failed the aristocracy succeeded, and we have not yet found a means of accommodating christianity in its decline, while producing a non-false religion. We are in a time of transition. Either the second dark age of the jews will succeed, the second dark age of the muslims, or we will discover a means of combining our three religions chistian(feminine), heathen-nature(familial), pagan-hero(masculine), and aristotelian(judicial), or at least exchanging loyalty between the three, so that we are not subject to a second semitic dark age. So we are still and will always be a triparite people: Scientific and Legal and heroic (agency), Philosophical and practical for the able, theological and submissive for the less able or more sensitive to conflict and social pressure (or the dysfunctional who confuse their spiritual accommodation of reality with reality itself.
—“What Christianity was there here?”–
What “here” are you referring to?
—“When you come to Christians asking not the renunciation of their faith but merely loyalty, remember that this is all the Romans first asked of the Christians too.”—
Our ancestors came to jews. Who we were too tolerant of, just as we are too tolerant of islamists, jews, marxists, postmodernists, feminists and science denialists. And because of our tolerance the jews used false promise, to bait our people into hazard, causing a dark age of ignorance and poverty and disease and suffering only aristotelian thought reversed, and ended the centuries of corruption by the church. Corruption not seen by americans until the prosecution of the deviancy of catholic churches, because protestants have forgotten the corruption of the church prior to the reformation, and the personalization of the relationship between the individual and god first, and the individual and jesus second – due largely to american evangelical protestants.
—“Remember, it wasn’t the strange and foreign beliefs of the Christians that first caught the attention of the Romans, but rather their abstention from community.”—
It was the use of christianity to undermine greco roman civlization just as islam, judaism, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and their science denialism is used to undermine european civilzation for the past century and a half. Sol invictus was the migration of roman religion from zeus-jupiter. Mithras was the migration of the persian version of Mithra – the perfect man. Christianity was invented by using the victim-narrative and the promise of life after death, in stead of the Zeus-Sol-Mithra character we should aspire to be, and the jesus narrative invented so that it could replace the Epic Cycle (Homer) which had conquered and was about to erase the semitic world. Judaism, christianity, ad islam were invented by the poor ignorant desert peasantry as a means of using the female group strategy of undermining by gossip, to overthrow the invention of markets, law, reason, merit, and transcendence of man into gods. And I am, like my predecessors, trying once again to prevent another semitic dark age – by accommodating christians. Christians who have not yet converted christianity into a hearth religion. But are very close to having done so. If not for the invasion by jews, muslims, and the underclasses – because of christian tolerance – we would have had the time for christianity to evolve, and science to falsify the marxists, postmodernists feminists and difference-denialists. So we are in a position where I must, or at least, someone of ability must, try to discover a vehicle for unity at faster pace than would naturally evolve. If not for immigration I would not need to do this work. Because science has solved the lies. But false promise to the vulnerable is seductive and spreads more quickly than we can stop it.
-
War Crime?
[W]ar crimes exist only under (a) Westphalian state responsibility for actions of all citizens and their agents – a monopoly on violence. (b) Soldiers under direction of the state. War crimes were necessary under state run warfare in order to i) license states’ wars of aggression, ii) with conscripted soldiers, and iii) protecting the populace from harm, iiv) while preventing escalation that will prohibit the population from tolerating cessation and settlement. In other words the purpose of war crimes is to facilitate the cooperation of the population with the state in the conduct of the state’s war. Otherwise, war is war and there are no limits on behavior, and all else is pretense and deceit. Islam broke the Westphalian peace with islamic terrorism Russia broke the postwar consensus by seizing Ukraine. We are in fourth generation warfare: the end of the european domestication of warfare. The state no longer has or can have control over the monopoly of violence. The non-state actors are more effective at fourth generation warfare in urban environments than are states and armor in the fields. TOTAL WAR Total war is warfare that includes any and all civilian-associated resources and infrastructure as legitimate military targets, mobilizes all of the resources of society to fight the war, and gives priority to warfare over non-combatant needs. The Oxford Living Dictionaries defines “total war” as “A war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded.” Fourth-generation Warfare (Premodern Warfare) Fourth-generation warfare (4GW) is conflict characterized by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians. The term was first used in 1980 by a team of United States analysts, including William S. Lind, to describe warfare’s return to a decentralized form. In terms of generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies the nation states’ loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times. The treaties of Westphalia brought to an end a calamitous period of European history which caused the deaths of approximately eight million people. Scholars have identified Westphalia as the beginning of the modern international system, based on the concept of Westphalian sovereignty, though this interpretation has been challenged.
-
War Crime?
[W]ar crimes exist only under (a) Westphalian state responsibility for actions of all citizens and their agents – a monopoly on violence. (b) Soldiers under direction of the state. War crimes were necessary under state run warfare in order to i) license states’ wars of aggression, ii) with conscripted soldiers, and iii) protecting the populace from harm, iiv) while preventing escalation that will prohibit the population from tolerating cessation and settlement. In other words the purpose of war crimes is to facilitate the cooperation of the population with the state in the conduct of the state’s war. Otherwise, war is war and there are no limits on behavior, and all else is pretense and deceit. Islam broke the Westphalian peace with islamic terrorism Russia broke the postwar consensus by seizing Ukraine. We are in fourth generation warfare: the end of the european domestication of warfare. The state no longer has or can have control over the monopoly of violence. The non-state actors are more effective at fourth generation warfare in urban environments than are states and armor in the fields. TOTAL WAR Total war is warfare that includes any and all civilian-associated resources and infrastructure as legitimate military targets, mobilizes all of the resources of society to fight the war, and gives priority to warfare over non-combatant needs. The Oxford Living Dictionaries defines “total war” as “A war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded.” Fourth-generation Warfare (Premodern Warfare) Fourth-generation warfare (4GW) is conflict characterized by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians. The term was first used in 1980 by a team of United States analysts, including William S. Lind, to describe warfare’s return to a decentralized form. In terms of generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies the nation states’ loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times. The treaties of Westphalia brought to an end a calamitous period of European history which caused the deaths of approximately eight million people. Scholars have identified Westphalia as the beginning of the modern international system, based on the concept of Westphalian sovereignty, though this interpretation has been challenged.
-
Thoughts on American Military Tech
Thinking…. Something is wrong with the military’s robotic warfare initiative, that has to do with how it’s using vulnerable monolithic modules on top of heavy armor, and cramming too much into each platform. But my intuition is that they’re applying missile and airframe tech to land vehicles, and putting it on a platforms rather than building AI capacity into the platform – because Missiles and airframes face very different problems from vehicles. Going to have to look into the requirements if I can spare a couple of hours, because current AI tech shouldn’t need this vulnerability. Given that people in that industry aren’t stupid I clearly don’t understand something. Other issue is that we have to fly armor to the battlefield and if that’s true we shouldn’t rely on armor. Most obvious example is success of the Abrams, but failure of our personnel carriers, particularly Bradley and Humvee, but inability to copy the Russians’ use of tank platform and armor as personnel carriers because of weight. Third is our failure to equip light infantry with an intermediate weapon – a more advanced version of the Russian RPG, and transport. And I am not sure why we should be looking at overseas deployment strategies if we’re getting out of the policing business – and if we can’t possibly compete with china and Russia in arming the not-first-world, and we need Europe to rearm on their own. I am not sure we should be engaging in urban warfare rather than adopting the Russian strategy of just using artillery to reduce it to rubble, or the Chinese strategy of just building a fortress and overwhelming the opposition. There is no chance for the USA to fight a land war in Asia or Africa without a colony or base structure, and we no longer have an economic interest or the economic ability to do finance a world of bases. The policing strategy has to end. The only way of fighting a war not on our territory – where we want to preserve capital – is to use the Russian strategy of saturation with artillery or in our case, bombs and missiles. The only reason to have people on the ground is political. Reducing a country to rubble, their infrastructure to rubble, and their military to scrap doesn’t take standing there. It takes AI’s and drones to discover targets, long range bombers, and missiles – and lots and lots of them. the only reason to put people on the ground is to police and hold the territory – which we shouldn’t be doing other than where we can fight land wars: in our homelands. We also have to come to terms with the reality that nuclear weapons that White People have refused to deploy against each other are going to be used in the future, and probably not infrequently.
-
Thoughts on American Military Tech
Thinking…. Something is wrong with the military’s robotic warfare initiative, that has to do with how it’s using vulnerable monolithic modules on top of heavy armor, and cramming too much into each platform. But my intuition is that they’re applying missile and airframe tech to land vehicles, and putting it on a platforms rather than building AI capacity into the platform – because Missiles and airframes face very different problems from vehicles. Going to have to look into the requirements if I can spare a couple of hours, because current AI tech shouldn’t need this vulnerability. Given that people in that industry aren’t stupid I clearly don’t understand something. Other issue is that we have to fly armor to the battlefield and if that’s true we shouldn’t rely on armor. Most obvious example is success of the Abrams, but failure of our personnel carriers, particularly Bradley and Humvee, but inability to copy the Russians’ use of tank platform and armor as personnel carriers because of weight. Third is our failure to equip light infantry with an intermediate weapon – a more advanced version of the Russian RPG, and transport. And I am not sure why we should be looking at overseas deployment strategies if we’re getting out of the policing business – and if we can’t possibly compete with china and Russia in arming the not-first-world, and we need Europe to rearm on their own. I am not sure we should be engaging in urban warfare rather than adopting the Russian strategy of just using artillery to reduce it to rubble, or the Chinese strategy of just building a fortress and overwhelming the opposition. There is no chance for the USA to fight a land war in Asia or Africa without a colony or base structure, and we no longer have an economic interest or the economic ability to do finance a world of bases. The policing strategy has to end. The only way of fighting a war not on our territory – where we want to preserve capital – is to use the Russian strategy of saturation with artillery or in our case, bombs and missiles. The only reason to have people on the ground is political. Reducing a country to rubble, their infrastructure to rubble, and their military to scrap doesn’t take standing there. It takes AI’s and drones to discover targets, long range bombers, and missiles – and lots and lots of them. the only reason to put people on the ground is to police and hold the territory – which we shouldn’t be doing other than where we can fight land wars: in our homelands. We also have to come to terms with the reality that nuclear weapons that White People have refused to deploy against each other are going to be used in the future, and probably not infrequently.
-
Simple Deep Understanding of Operational Language
(core) (operational language) (or, why you don’t get it at first) Jason asks, “is this sentence correct ePrime?” We probably need to stop using the ePrime reference and simply teach people the steps to transforming fuzzy intuitive language to very clear operational language. The first step is eliminating the Copula (the connector): the verb to-be. This connector says “imply the connection” it does not state the connection. This is how ‘suggestion’ (deceit) is inserted into our otherwise very precise, english language. It’s the basis of all sophism. The second step, which may be necessary to complete the first step requires starting sentences with the subject rather than the actor – and this is what’s probably causing your struggle. P and ePrime ask you to think in terms of actor rather than subject. To put the actor before the subject in composing your “episode”. Thinking in, writing in, speaking in actors, adds a computational cycle, because the more advanced our thinking the more we’re thinking about subjects rather than actors. And the more ‘generalized’ our statement – which means the more masculine and analytic – the more the subject is the basis for context and the less the actor is the basis for content. So yes, operational language is slightly more burdensome, because it is more precise – at least until you habituate it. The Example: –“With the ability to protect it with violent defense, exercised at will, on an individual and group level, “— Change to: —At an individual or group level, [we / they] [can / develop the ability to] protect [it / or restate subject] with violent defense, exercised at will.”— Phrase: 1 – actor 2 – acted upon 3 – consequence So: 1 – Repeat with Collection of Phrases. 2- Producing a Complete sentence. 3- That explicitly states the COMPLETE transformation (Transaction) In other worlds:
- Actor, Operation, Subject: “John threw the ball (to mark who caught it).”
- Subject, Actor, Operation: “The ball john threw (to mark who caught it.)”
and not: Language in operational terms is an accounting system That’s the secret of operational language “full accounting of changes in state”. Phrase (debit) Journal Entry , Phrase (credit) Journal Entry Sentence = Ledger Entry. Paragraph = Income Statement Story = Balance Sheet If you begin to see ‘the grammars’ in everything you will finally understand why P is so powerful … and it will, at some point, horrify you with wonder at it all. Language is a means of measurement. Arithmetic is a very precise language Accounting is just a very precise language. Geometry is another precise language Programming is another precise language P-Law is another precise language P-Testimony is the most precise language possible All language functions as a system of measurement using measurements provided by the human body. and accounting of changes in state in that measurement system. Why? Because the brain does nothing other than detect and predict, changes in state. We can either account well(operational language), or account poorly(ordinary language), or account deceptively (postmodern/feminist language) I hope this helps because it is the summary of the meaning of operational prose. ==== attn: Bill Joslin