Form: Mini Essay

  • Nations aren’t impotent against globalism(trade). They pay the cost of avoiding

    Nations aren’t impotent against globalism(trade). They pay the cost of avoiding the discounts that result from globalism (trade). Whether they are insulated from the marxist-progressive- woke sequence is a matter of local failure since not all countries are equally tolerant of…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-16 19:52:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868746108102647968

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @SulllySullly @FreeTheGoyimNOW

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868739878076420322

  • The beauty of mythicism which is the means by which christianity is constructed,

    The beauty of mythicism which is the means by which christianity is constructed, is that anyone can interpret it according to their own biases and presume that’s what ‘true’ christianity consists of rather than the person’s projection of what it means in his or her self interest.

    Christianity is absolutely positive (a)female (b) slave (c) submission (d) irresponsible for the commons – the very opposite of european. Over time, through the’germanization’ of christianity the europeans maintained aristocratic (greek-roman-germanic) herosim (male) and incorporated the mythology for the poor and peasants (submission, obedience, superstition, and ignorance) into that european aristocratic heroic civilization – as a means of domesticating the underclasses that emerge with the production of governments.

    Reply addressees: @quilty_dan @WalterIII


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-16 19:51:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868745702983307264

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868744887245717530

  • THE RIGHT DOESN’T UNDERSTAND ME AT ALL: SCIENCE VS APPLIED SCIENCE I think it’s

    THE RIGHT DOESN’T UNDERSTAND ME AT ALL: SCIENCE VS APPLIED SCIENCE
    I think it’s funny that the right chastises me for holding a humorous rational discussion with some BLM activists (who were smart, talented, and skilled by the way – unlike so many on the right.) They view this as tratorious rather than practical. And they are selfish enough that they fail to understand that all groups have grievances that have resulted from the false promises of the marxist-progressive-feminine- credentialist movements of the 20th century that attempted the impossible under the pretense of endless growth and the blank slate. Very often, you can’t solve your own problems without solving the problems of others with whom you are in conflict.

    I might be a race realist in the context of politics but that doesn’t mean I’m a racist in the negative sense as unsympathetic or universally critical of other peoples – just the opposite. I want us all to get along and cooperate even if that takes smaller more homogenous polities to do so. And I myself, might want to live in a small ethnically homogenous polity befitting my northern european preferences. But that’s all. And even then I’d be more comfortable with my peers in my class worldwide than I might be with a normal distribution of my people. That’s normal for intellectuals.

    Most of us would like a homogenous family life, a homogenous class social life, and a homogenous political life and the luxury of a heterogenous economic life. But those things all emerge in any urban or rural territory as people naturally sort into those groups. The problem arises when trying to create universal rules and laws for heterogeneous populations with different abilities and therefore needs. For anglos the adage that “god is an englishman” applies. But it’s the same for all populations. Our religions, myths, traditions, norms, and institutions are an expression of the needs of our civilization in the context of our demographic distributions (abilities and stages of development)

    There is a difference between the science (what I do) and applied science (forming polities using that science). Our motto is ‘let a thousand nations bloom’ for a reason. It’s in our mutual interests to build polities economies societies and families that suit our demographic differences and degree of genetic cultural technological and institutional development.

    If you wish I was a ‘white power’ advocate, I mean, even if that were what I think is best for humanity, europeans, and maybe myself, that doesn’t mean the science differs. The science just tells us how to make different polities, and the consequences of our choices.

    And it does so by ending the false promise that these collectivist and universalist nonsense religions are ever possible. Diversity creates demand for authority to resolve differences that either cannot be solved because of demographic differences or would better be solved by different polities where similarities are advantags by trade and differences are ameliorated by homogeneity.

    I don’t exist and no science exists to solve a preference. A science exists and I exist for the production of decidability independent of context – something that we call truth. I exist only to provide people with the truth necessary to organize economies, societies, and polities sufficiently to obtain their needs, wants, and preferences without causing conflict and warfare with others doing the same.

    Affections.
    -CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-15 19:40:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868380569882759169

  • THE RIGHT DOESN’T UNDERSTAND ME AT ALL: SCIENCE VS APPLIED SCIENCE I think it’s

    THE RIGHT DOESN’T UNDERSTAND ME AT ALL: SCIENCE VS APPLIED SCIENCE
    I think it’s funny that the right chastises me for holding a humorous rational discussion with some BLM activists (who were smart, talented, and skilled by the way – unlike so many on the right.) They view this as tratorious rather than practical. And they are selfish enough that they fail to understand that all groups have grievances that have resulted from the false promises of the marxist-progressive-feminine- credentialist movements of the 20th century that attempted the impossible under the pretense of endless growth and the blank slate. Very often, you can’t solve your own problems without solving the problems of others with whom you are in conflict.

    I might be a race realist in the context of politics but that doesn’t mean I’m a racist in the negative sense as unsympathetic or universally critical of other peoples – just the opposite. I want us all to get along and cooperate even if that takes smaller more homogenous polities to do so. And I myself, might want to live in a small ethnically homogenous polity befitting my northern european preferences. But that’s all. And even then I’d be more comfortable with my peers in my class worldwide than I might be with a normal distribution of my people. That’s normal for intellectuals.

    Most of us would like a homogenous family life, a homogenous class social life, and a homogenous political life. But those things all emerge in any urban or rural territory as people naturally sort into those groups. The problem arises when trying to create universal rules and laws for heterogeneous populations with different abilities and therefore needs. For anglos “god is an englishman”. But it’s the same for all of us. Our religions, myths, traditions, norms, and institutions are an expression of the needs of our civilization in the context of our demographic distributions (abilities and stages of development)

    There is a difference between the science (what I do) and applied science (forming polities using that science). Our motto is ‘let a thousand nations bloom’ for a reason. It’s in our mutual interests to build polities economies societies and families that suit our demographic differences and degree of genetic cultural technological and institutional development.

    If you wish I was a ‘white power’ advocate, I mean, even if that were what I think is best for humanity, europeans, and maybe myself, that doesn’t mean the science differs. The science just tells us how to make different polities, and the consequences of our choices.

    And it does so by ending the false promise that these collectivist and universalist nonsense religions are ever possible. Diversity creates demand for authority to resolve differences that either cannot be solved because of demographic differences or would better be solved by different polities where similarities are advantags by trade and differences are ameliorated by homogeneity.

    I don’t exist and no science exists to solve a preference. A science exists and I exist for the production of decidability independent of context – something that we call truth. I exist only to provide people with the truth necessary to organize economies, societies, and polities sufficiently to obtain their needs, wants, and preferences without causing conflict and warfare with others doing the same.

    Affections.
    -CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-15 19:40:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868376136847077376

  • WHAT IF WE ARE RETURNING TO MOST MEN AND WOMEN LIVING SEPARATE LIVES – AND DURAB

    WHAT IF WE ARE RETURNING TO MOST MEN AND WOMEN LIVING SEPARATE LIVES – AND DURABLE MARRIAGE IS LIMITED TO UPPER CLASSES AGAIN?
    Men and women living shared lives is not the norm in human history. It’s a product of agrarianism – and we’re a post-agrarian civilization. In the not-too-distant past men spent most of their time with men, and women with women. The irish only stopped serial marriage in the 1800s. The jews only in the 1500s. There are still populations in east asia where men visit at night and otherwise stay with their families. Today, in africa, there are still groups where men and women live in different buildings.
    There is no longer a need for marriage for a woman to maintain self sufficiency. Even for her to have a child. There is no longer an incentive other than affection and sex for many people to maintain long term relationships.
    So was farming an unnatural aberration and are we returning to hunter gatherer and early agrarian relationships?
    On the other hand given the collapse of reproduction among such people, and less so among the traditional nuclear family, and even less so among the traditional extended family group, are we going to breed out those people from the polity? (It’s happening already).
    My point here is that marriage is an extraordinary advantage for SOME – where the family is of higher value than individual freedom in its absence. But it is not for others. And moreover, if we restore liability for interference in a marriage, end child support, alimony, and common property leaving costs to the custodial parent, then incentives will do their work, the malincentives for divorce – largely to the detriment of men and children – will be suppressed again. The consequences would include a suppression of marriage for those unfit for it, and a preservation of marriage for those fit for it. And the resulting eugenic consequences of that policy.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-14 20:05:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868024497674272768

  • Greek mythology traces back to the Indo-European migrations from the Eurasian st

    Greek mythology traces back to the Indo-European migrations from the Eurasian steppes and is a subject of scholarly debate, but it provides an interesting perspective on the origins of Greek myths:

    Indo-European Roots: The Proto-Indo-Europeans, who are believed to have lived on the Pontic-Caspian steppe around 4500-2500 BCE, are thought to have had a common set of myths and religious beliefs. These early beliefs might include themes like the sky father (similar to Zeus), the dawn goddess (akin to Eos in Greek mythology), and stories about a world tree or cosmic battles.
    Migration and Cultural Exchange: When Indo-European speakers migrated into Europe, including into what would become Greece, they likely brought with them some of these myths, which then mingled with local pre-Indo-European narratives. This is where theories like the “Kurgan hypothesis” come in, suggesting that Indo-European languages and accompanying cultural elements, including myths, spread through migrations.
    Evidence from Comparative Mythology: Scholars like Georges Dumézil have looked at the structural similarities between myths across Indo-European cultures (from India to Ireland) to argue for a common mythological heritage. For instance, the myth of a storm god battling a serpent or dragon, seen in Zeus vs. Typhon or Indra vs. Vritra, might reflect this shared heritage.
    Greek-Specific Adaptations: Even if some mythological themes were brought by Indo-European migrations, they were significantly adapted and expanded upon in Greece. The Greek gods, while perhaps sharing roots with other Indo-European deities, developed distinctly Greek characteristics, roles, and mythologies influenced by local cultures, including the Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations.

    Reply addressees: @quilty_dan


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-14 05:55:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867810514770046978

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867789216966689035

  • @KonstantinKisin: All such political discourse, debate, argument, and polemic ta

    @KonstantinKisin: All such political discourse, debate, argument, and polemic takes place on a distribution where each of us is attracted some sympathetic narrative.
    Over time convergence evolves sufficiently to alter the behavior of the group, or dissolution gives way to competition between the remaining narratives.
    The error we all make is in failing to grasp the rational incentives shared across that distribution and to propose a single narrative rather than to explain the rational incentives and propose solutions that satisfy them. Its not constructive.
    In most cases the right (masculine responsible) will accept trades and the left (femimine irresponsible) will not.
    That’s the hard problem of participatory government.

    Reply addressees: @KonstantinKisin


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-13 20:55:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867674842709078016

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867626701322146099

  • It was a good investment. It was not expensive. It only required paying attentio

    It was a good investment. It was not expensive. It only required paying attention and focused interaction at the right times. Good people will go the right direction most on their own. All you must do is confirm or support their progress in the optimum direction and lay out a bit of intellectual and moral bait that helps them create their own vision. But never overdo it. It must be THEIR vision and an expression of THEIR motives.

    Reply addressees: @bierlingm @Brad_der_Volk @pundasdad @whatifalthist


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-13 19:40:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867655756713275393

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867653257910530224

  • THE PROBLEM OF HARD RIGHT AND HARD LEFT OK. So, there is moral righteousness, co

    THE PROBLEM OF HARD RIGHT AND HARD LEFT
    OK. So, there is moral righteousness, conviction in it, and then there is operational possibility and practicality.

    Every person’s moral position is a NEGOTIATING STRATEGY: an advertisement for demands for terms of his or her cooperation. The problem is, your cooperation must have value sufficient to compromise. If it diverges to far it has no value, and therefore your cooperation is not only unnecessary, but unwanted, and harmful.

    This means that the hard left and hard right are both correct in their complaints but incorrect in their prescriptions for correcting them because they project their frames, biases, wants and wishes as universals rather than particulars.

    We must govern with the people we have, producing institutions that can cause them to behave productively, despite the spectrum of their differences.

    We have developed the science of explaining these negotiating positions whether genetic, cultural, or temporal.

    We have advocated, whether from my optimistic or your pessimistic position, for the use of this science in limiting arguments to truth under the conditions of this science – despite that we might prefer different systems to bring about different ends, for our ouwn benefits as individual and groups.

    You can’t get what your faction wants, you can only get what the minimum set of factions capable of expressing power share.

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @pundasdad @whatifalthist


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-13 19:37:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867655112174530560

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867653110039970272

  • GETTING THE MOST OUT OF PETER ZEIHAN REGARDLESS OF YOUR POLITICAL BIAS Peter Zei

    GETTING THE MOST OUT OF PETER ZEIHAN REGARDLESS OF YOUR POLITICAL BIAS
    Peter Zeihan (@PeterZeihan) has a revenue base he depends upon, government relationships he depends upon, and a personal ‘atlanticist’ bias, and possibly could be considered center-left in personal intuition. If you know these things you can read through his biases, dismiss them, and rely on the quality of information he provides which is both deep, insightful, and articulate. Dont’ expect others to perfectly agree with you. Only look for the non-false information and insight that they provide regardless of the bias they deliver it from.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-13 17:12:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867618497322528771