Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • CREATORS OF THE SECOND ABRAHAMIC DARK AGE Once you understand P, and especially

    CREATORS OF THE SECOND ABRAHAMIC DARK AGE

    Once you understand P, and especially the abrahamic method of deceit, you rapidly understand that Freudians, Boasians, Marxists, The French Academy, Postmodernists, Feminists are all telling the same lie, to achieve the same destruction of the modern world as they did the ancient world.

    (Event: Revolt against end of theology and man centered-universe, revolt against modern world)

    1. PSEUDOMATHEMATICS: Cantor, Bohr, Feynman, and yes, even Einstein.

    2. PSEUDOSCIENTISTS: Freud, Boas, Marx

    3. CONQUERORS (Murderers): Lenin – Trotsky – Mao – Tito

    (Event: Failure of Revolution, Failure of Class Warfare by Economic Means)

    4. SOPHISTS (NEO-MARXISTS): Morris – Bebel -Bernstein – De Leon – Kautsky – Debs – Hardie – Plekhanov – Zetkin – Gorky – Connolly – Luxemburg – Liebknecht – Kollontai – Pannekoek – Stalin – Borochov – Korsch – Benjamin – Ibarruri – Reich – Aragon – Brecht – Lefebvre – Sartre – Rubel – Beauvoir – Allende – Dunayevskaya – Mills – Hobsbawm – Althusser – Pasolini – Zinn – Miliband – Bauman – Guevara – Castro – Debord – Harvey – Wolff – Eagleton – Zizek- McDonnell – West – Varoufakis

    (Event: Attempt to undermine culture of modernity )

    6. CULTURAL MARXISTS (UNDERMINING): Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer, Benjamin, Fromm, Habermas, Pollock Löwenthal Schmidt Honneth Kraucer Kirchheimer

    7. György Lukács, Antonio Gramsci

    (Event: Attempt to undermine, truth, argument, and language as measurement)

    8. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Ferdinand de Saussure, George Herbert Mead, Noam Chomsky, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Roland Barthes.

    (Event: Attempt at pseudomathematical economics of cherry picking consumption – feminine marxist income statement vs masculine european balance sheet economics.)

    9. Keynesians: Keynes…

    10. Postmodernists: Jacques Derrida , Foucault, Baudrillard,

    (Event: Undermine american empire from within)

    11. Feminists: Friedan

    12. Libertarians: Rand, Rothbard, and to a lesser extent Hoppe

    13. Conquest: Popper’s “Open Society” and Soros’ money.

    14. American Political Anti-Westerners: …

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-24 10:20:00 UTC

  • COST OF PRODUCING TV SHOWS: (collected from various articles) The minimum cost o

    https://www.imdb.com/list/ls056710448/?sort=list_order%2Casc&st_dt&mode=detail&page=1THE COST OF PRODUCING TV SHOWS:

    (collected from various articles)

    The minimum cost of producing a TV show would be half a million. The high end would be around several million dollars. The following is a very basic guideline. There are actually numerous items that can increase expenses.

    Rules of Thumb

    1 – Documentary 50k per episode (/e)

    2 – Cheap Cable Presentation 75K/e

    3 – Low end reality 100k/e

    4 – Series 500k-3M/e

    5 – High concept series 3-5M/e

    7 – Top Series 5-10M/e

    Average Costs Per Episode

    If you take the cost of all the networks and average them, the cost would be around $1 million to $1.5 million for every episode. On free TV, there are 22 to 26 episodes per season. On cable there are usually 13 per season. This doesn’t always mean that cable shows are less expensive. It depends on the production quality and if the show becomes a hit.

    The cost of producing a TV show’s pilot episode is about $500,000. This is for a typical drama series. For science fiction / fantasy, the expenses will be a little higher due to the makeup, clothing and special effects.

    However the cost will go up if the show becomes popular. ER for example, cost over $12 million per episode. Other shows that become popular like the Sopranos and the X Files, also cost millions per airing.

    Actor Fees

    This also varies as much as the episode cost. Assume that the actor is unknown and will star in a new drama series. For the pilot episode he / she may fetch $50,000 at least. This goes to explain why the cost of producing a TV show is high.

    If the program becomes a hit, the actor will want to renegotiate for a higher fee. Stars of high rating TV shows can fetch anywhere from $800,000 to a million dollars per episode.

    Not all actors receive this kind of money. For those in the background scenes, it’s about $130 per day. Those with one dialogue get around $800 for every day of work. Those who get a three day contract are paid $2,000. For those who perform every week it is $3,000 to $5,000. A stunt coordinator makes approximately $3,000 weekly.

    Other Expenses

    But the costs of producing a TV show do not end with actor fees of course. There are the writers, director and other personnel. Other expenditures include the food, transportation, building a set and lodging. A lot of shows also have flight insurance. Shooting on location, special effects and marketing have to be considered too.

    Not to be discounted is marketing. A show has to be promoted to get noticed. The nature of the program also affects the cost. Reality programs are said to be less expensive. Independent outfits have substantially lower costs too.

    Generating Revenues

    While the expenses are high, producers are able to recoup the costs through advertising and commercials. In cable programs, the producers make money from subscription fees and product placement.

    The cost of placing a commercial depends on its length and the show. Typically, a 30 second ad in a high rating show will cost about $250,000 to $300,000.

    The cost of producing a TV show is high. Given the competition in the entertainment industry, it might go up even more.

    THE LIFE OF A TV SHOW

    A TV show begins its life in one of four larval forms: a pitch, a script, a piece of source material, or a talent deal.

    A pitch involves writers and agents presenting concepts to studios, production companies, or networks. Five hundred or more pitches may wend their way through the system in any given year. Only a few are chosen for script development. The strength of a pitch has as much to do with the team behind it as it does the concept. As the old saying goes: ideas are worthless; execution counts. An inexperienced or obscure writer is unlikely to get a pitch meeting and unlikelier still to close a deal. A writer or producer with a strong track record, on the other hand, can sometimes sell a pitch with little more than George Costanza’s logline.

    Alternatively, a show could develop from a speculative or “spec” script pitched “around town” by a writer’s agent. Spec sales occur throughout the year, though a lot more specs get shelved than sold. They are also more common in the movie business than in TV. Evaluating the merits of a season of episodes involves thinking about more than a single script.

    A hot spec – an original project from a writer with a hit-filled track record or the rare buzzworthy project from a newcomer – can easily fetch six figures. Its price depends to some degree on the quality of the script, but more so on the degree of interest the project generates around town. High spec prices usually result from bidding wars between the networks.

    Other shows originate with the purchase or optioning of a piece of intellectual property. This could be a book, a newspaper article, a blog post, a video game, or even the rights to someone’s life story. Sourcing material is often the cheapest way to develop a concept. It can also be the riskiest, especially if the IP holder is unqualified to transform the concept into a full-fledged show. This is why networks often hand off sourced concepts to established writers to flesh out.

    The hottest writers in Hollywood even have shows pitched to them. In what’s known as a “blind deal,” a studio pays a writer a handsome figure – often in the millions of dollars per year – to flesh out scripts based on any ideas the studio and the writer dream up together over the life of the contract. The writer is “blind” in the sense that she is committing to developing scripts for a buyer before the ideas are fully baked.

    Breaking Bad started as a concept that X-Files veteran Vince Gilligan developed as a struggling and intermittently employed writer. Gilligan attracted the interest of Sony, who joined him in pitching the idea to networks around Hollywood. Gilligan admits that the pitch “was turned down all over town” before AMC purchased it. At the time, AMC was an unlikely buyer as smaller cable networks like AMC had only recently entered the scripted originals game. Since then, AMC has had a string of hits with Breaking Bad, Mad Men, and The Walking Dead.

    With the entrance of outsiders like AMC, Netflix, Amazon, and Microsoft, there are more buyers in the marketplace than ever before. Depending on the stage of the idea, a would-be show could be bought or optioned by a production company, a studio, a distribution company, an individual producer, or a network.

    If the lines between these entities seem blurry and confusing, don’t worry; an in-depth exploration of the tangled web of media companies involved won’t help. The vertical and horizontal integration in the TV industry can be staggering.

    To take one example: 20th Century Fox, a holding company, owns Fox Television Studios (a production company), 20th Century Fox Television (a production group and studio), 20th Television (a syndication and distribution company), and Fox Broadcasting Company (the network, also known as FBC or simply as Fox). 20th Century Fox is in turn a division of Fox Entertainment Group, itself a subsidiary of 21st Century Fox, which also happens to own the Fox movie studio. Until June 2013, all of these entities were owned by another parent company, News Corporation.

    Even insiders have trouble prying apart the intricacies of the system. This author worked at 20th Century Fox Television in the mid-2000s and couldn’t tell you who signed his paychecks.

    A 98% Failure Rate

    In some ways, TV networks are like venture capital firms. They place a series of bets, many of them quite expensive, on a portfolio of pilots: proof-of-concept episodes for prospective series. Only a small number of pilots will become shows, yet a typical half-hour comedy pilot costs $2 million to shoot, and an hour-long drama costs about $5.5 million. And that’s just for shooting the pilots themselves; those costs don’t include the millions of dollars spent acquiring and developing scripts, pitches, and talent deals.

    The 2012-13 “development season,” which ran from January to April, saw the production of a record 186 pilots for broadcast and cable television. The Hollywood Reporter, a trade paper, estimates that the networks spent $712 million shooting those pilots.

    That level of investment looks even higher when we consider the odds stacked against any given project. Fox, for instance, shot 8 dramas and 8 comedies for the upcoming Fall 2013 TV season. Of these 16 pilots – each of which was subsequently screened for executives and focus groups – only 9 were selected for the fall lineup. Competitor ABC ordered a heftier slate of 12 dramas and 12 comedies, of which 8 shows made the cut.

    For those keeping score, that’s a pilot-to-series rate of 56% for Fox and 33% for ABC. Using industry production-cost averages, we estimate that Fox spent $60 million to bring 9 shows to the air, and ABC spent $90 million to bring 8 shows to the air.

    Within the industry, that’s a great year. Variety estimates that one pilot is produced for every 5 scripts purchased. And in a typical year, a network will order about 20 pilots and bring 6 to the air. That means a script has a 20% chance of being produced as a pilot and a 6% chance of being aired on television. A writer who sells her script has a depressingly small chance of ever seeing it on the air.

    But wait – it gets worse. Of all the pilots aired on a new TV lineup, only 35% will air longer than a single season without cancellation. So the odds of a script achieving success are actually closer to 2.1%. To put it another way, any given script a network buys stands a 98% chance of commercial failure.

    This process may strike the astute reader as absurd. Given the millions of dollars thrown around every development season, and assuming that 98% of scripts in development fail, how on earth do networks stay in business? Why can’t they find a more scalable, more efficient, less expensive way to test concepts?

    The answer has a lot to do with how networks make money, and the very structured way in which TV advertising is sold. And Hollywood’s inability to predict the next hit doesn’t help.

    The Biggest Show of the Year

    The bulk of TV advertising sales takes place every May in New York at a series of presentations called the “network upfronts.” As the name implies, networks sell their new schedules months in advance. Up front. This is sort of like having to sell 5-year financial projections to an investor, and then being held strictly accountable for hitting each number. Advertisers don’t like to gamble on whether a show will exceed expectations. Uncertainty is the enemy. But almost nothing is certain about the fate of a show this far out.

    Big advertisers, such as Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble, spend hundreds of millions of dollars each May. While they can and do make buys on individual programs (particularly on big hits like American Idol or The Big Bang Theory), they can negotiate better terms by agreeing to set levels of spending on a given network across a bundle of its programs.

    Many of those shows, especially the new ones, are still in various stages of production. Nevertheless, they must be presented as if in finished form. This is especially tricky for pilots, which are essentially proofs of concept. Advertisers will scrutinize them at the upfronts, often on the basis of short clips and word of mouth. A poorly received pilot is unlikely to attract advertising dollars. In this sense, the upfronts serve as the final gating mechanism before pilots can secure a spot on the air. Small changes can be made to the schedule – a shuffling of the deck chairs, so to speak – but it’s too late to shoot new pilots to fill any gaps that emerge during the upfronts.

    This system forces networks to place a polished facade over the chaos of the creative process. It strongly discourages the network from showing rougher, more minimal concepts to advertisers. Advertisers can’t tell the quality of the product from clips of the pilot. Instead they judge the confidence the network projects in its slate. A successful upfront presentation is more Steve Jobs than Steve Wozniak.

    Furthermore, networks have their own brands to worry about. The risk associated with a string of failures can be quite high and hard to recover from. NBC, which has languished near the bottom of the ratings pool for a few years in a row, now suffers from the lowest average advertising rates of all the major networks.

    Due to the fixed upfront schedule, iteration (improving or tweaking the show multiple times in response to viewer feedback) is also challenging. A show either looks good in May or it gets the axe. There’s very little time to make changes before the start of the Fall season. If everything gets the axe, there’s no time to develop something new. Shows that do survive the upfronts need to be staffed right away and their writing staffs to get cranking. As many as four scripts could be finished by the time the pilot debuts on TV, so there’s no room to respond to the show’s first reception by a live national audience.

    This is perhaps the biggest reason why networks keep so many projects in development each year: to hedge their bets. Networks operate in an environment that demands up-front commitments against uncertain outcomes; their best way to mitigate the risk is to have many, many pilots as fallback options.

    None of this would seem necessary if the networks had a halfway decent way of predicting success in the first place. They do conduct market research (usually in the form of focus groups) while in pilot production. But judging the future success of a show is extremely difficult at all stages of development.

    BUDGET FOR OVER 100 POPULAR TV SHOWS

    (Not price adjusted for inflation)

    https://www.imdb.com/list/ls056710448/?sort=list_order%2Casc&st_dt&mode=detail&page=1Updated Dec 23, 2019, 6:01 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-23 18:01:00 UTC

  • Traditional values were necessary under agrarianism. Today’s ‘opportunities’ are

    Traditional values were necessary under agrarianism. Today’s ‘opportunities’ are the product of american fiat credit made possible by american military (british empire).

    It is very easy to bring this to an end.
    Abrahamic Deceit + Debt + Immigration is all it is.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-23 13:23:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1209102307041763330

    Reply addressees: @galt_the

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1209092838987665408

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1209092838987665408

  • IS BIDEN A GOOD CANDIDATE OR PRESIDENT? (from Quora) Thanks for the Ask to Answe

    IS BIDEN A GOOD CANDIDATE OR PRESIDENT?

    (from Quora)

    Thanks for the Ask to Answer.

    **I’ll give the answer to the question you don’t know how to ask: is anyone a good candidate for president?**

    Biden is a nice fellow. He genuinely loves people. He can collect votes by likability. Criticisms of his character are undeserved, unethical, and immoral – but then the left has adopted the female technique of denial, undermining, and personalization captured in the Alinsky method, and over the past seventy years has destroyed our public discourse, given undermining is a substitute for substantive argument, it’s no wonder a good man is slandered by infantilized minds from both sides of the spectrum.

    But like all the left wing candidates, he’s living in mental image of a bygone era, believing that they are about to win the political battle of the 20th by immigration, indoctrination, media propaganda, postmodern sophism and psychological and social pseudoscience, when it’s no longer the 20th, and votes no longer matter, and there is nothing left to win.

    (Bear with me as I pain a picture.)

    So Biden’s a good secular priest, he’d make a good senator or governor, or statesman.

    But we need a ruthless president, and a ruthless congress if we are to survive the coming decades – and he’s not that man.

    * He is not capable of negotiating a restoration of the anglosphere post-brexit, providing us with naval, military, investment, and trade capacity sufficient to resist china’s declared intention to replace the united states as the world superpower in both military and economic terms.

    * He is not capable of reforming the US Government for the Post-Imperial Period, from an imperial to domestic (and much smaller) government.

    * He is not capable of reforming the defense sector for post imperial period, without a world war that exposes enemy strategies such that we know what to invest in now that we failed to modernize after the cold war because we kicked out the only president capable of it (Bush) and put in three strategically incompetent presidents in a row (Clinton, Bush2, Obama).

    * He is not capable of reforming state and intelligence departments for the post-imperial period, so that they change from political to military, economic, and technological goals.

    * He is not capable of continuing trump’s program of reforming (western) world dependence upon american subsidy at the expense of the middle and working classes – and managing the collapse of europe’s social services (‘privileges’) as they transition to the need for self defense, and a major navy given their lack of resources.

    * He is not capable of managing the re-arming of europe, eastern europe, while at the same time preventing russian reconquest of eastern europe and the baltics. And he certainly isn’t capable of persuading the russians to continue their historical plan of removing the Turks (and muslims) from the southeast and Bosphorus and restoring orthodox civlization instead.

    * He certainly is not capable of even thinking of a world where INSTABILITY is in the interests of american peoples military, economic, political, and quality of life. (which is now is.)

    * He is not capable of even thinking about how to prevent the chinese from replacing the dollar, nor the iranians from conquering the oil fields, creating a bourse, requiring that all oil is purchased in the Iranian Rial, crashing the developed worl’d’s economy, and using the wealth and vulnerability to restore their fantasy of expansionist military islam, the caliphate, and dominance over advanced civilizations.

    * He is not capable of restoring the economy, by repatriating technology, and restoring military investment in technology, and the traditional indirect means of funding R&D with public military funds that lead to private sector competitive advantage in basic research that the private sector increasingly cannot perform given that we are far beyond the point where basic research is conducted at energy levels within private sector financing ability.

    * He is not capable of managing the ongoing failure of the mexican state (and other south american states) and the effect on our demographics, public services, and economy.

    * He’s not capable of even addressing social security medicaid, and military spending, nor capable of reforming the treasury and banking system so that we can survive the next correction, and bypass interests rates and social security when ‘money’ is no longer ‘money’ but information persuasion.

    * He is not capable of forcing the reformation of brazil (which will take panama canal levels of investment) so that it can either break into european like states, or sufficiently centralize that it can be the core state of south america – right nowt hat looks like Argentina (which is the only european rather than amerindian country in south america)

    * He is not capable of restoring middle and working class reproduction through suppressing the reproduction of the vast immigrant underclasses, reforming cities, modifying taxes to reflect population density so that working and middle class people that perform high investment parenting in children at or above the median of ability can afford to repopulate faster than the underclasses who produce lowe investment parenting in children below the median of ability.

    * He is not capable of reforming education nor university costs, nor reforming universities, and he’s specifically disincentivized to do so. He can’t even imagine that the only solution is to limit 4 year educations to STEM classes, tand limit university overhead so that young people can afford to breed, instead of pay off debt, and to push education by simulation (artificial apprenticeship) down into high school, and the ‘fake degrees’ out of the education system.

    * He is not capable of transitioning our civilization now that the 400 years of european exceptionalism are over. We are returning to the historical battle of europe, india, and china against the cancers of judaism and islam, so that the restoration of our 1400 year war against islam is only now returning after a short break from 1920 onward.

    * And he certainly isn’t capable of governing under the civil war that will most certainly kick off in the next year, and leave tens of millions of americans dead, end the american experiment, and embolden russian, chinese, islamic civilizations to pursue aggressions in this world that the US navy has prevented since the collapse of the british empire.

    The problem is that NONE of the left candidates are capable of it, and any right candidate who grasps it is too smart to take the job. The rest of the candidates are also ‘unlikable’ by other than the left (people who lack economic knowledge, and material responsibility for others.)

    And worse, the fact that about five thousand people at best undrestand this is what’s going to happen, and that the vox populi are ignorant of it and incapable of either understanding or adapting to it.

    The pendulum ended. The postwar period is over. The century of political, economic, social and psychological pseudoscience is over. The century of american prosperity is over. With the failure of european civlization to continue colonization (modernization of the world) The world is swinging back to its traditional balance of powers between civilization, led by core states, and where conflicts are persistent in borderland states (or torn states).

    *I’ll remind the vox populi that I have a reputation for accurate long term prediction and rather infrequent error. So please don’t waste my time unless you are sufficiently competent to at least quote some set of numbers.*

    *-Curt*

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-22 17:59:00 UTC

  • I don’t know what ‘liberalism’ means any longer. It used to mean constraining go

    I don’t know what ‘liberalism’ means any longer. It used to mean constraining government. But it meant that under parliamentary control. I think the western experiment in ‘aristocracy of everyone’ by continuous expansion of the franchise in order to justify taking political power(organization of the production of private and common) from the monarchy and the church, and to justify the expansion of taxation for the purposes of redistribution – is a clear failure.

    I don’t think you can get away from 1) rule of law and markets for adaptive velocity 2) state-private investment in increasingly complex and expensive investment in competitive innovation, 3) the need for ‘decider of last resort’, whether despot, monarchy, 4) money isn’t real any longer, so it’s just a tool of positive incentive (coercion?) and we will (shortly) see the end of the private global capitalists, and the universal adoption of the chinese method of state money and interest management.

    The liberal order was made possible by the European Colonial Expansion, and the relative weakness of (small) european governments compared to the strength of the emerging middle class, and the vast pool of middle class genetic reserves built up in europe over more than a thousand years. We have been in the post modern order since marx, freud, boas, cantor, adorno, friedan, rothbard/rand, trotsky/neocons sequentially tried to undermine men (marxism), culture (frankfurt), truth (derrida), women (feminism), and the western identity.

    We have been in the post liberal order since the bolsheviks started the revolt against it, and now the muslims are revolting against it – last century the jewish revolt, an this century the muslim revolt. The chinese and russians and now indians have been through their experiment and are returning to world norms. The west is more malinvested in the falsehood because of the jewish postwar influence in the academy to suppress all eugenics (study of human behavior)was successful at displacing the germanic martial aristocratic tradition, by rallying women and minorities using media, academy, democracy, immigration to destroy western civilization with false promise of freedom from darwinian necessity that made western excellences possible.

    Our constitution (Rule of Law of sovereignty and reciprocity ) is not rigid enough (like a scriptural document) to limit our conquest by democratic and propaganda means. ANd we did not understand our traditions we only practiced them. So we were easily sold false promise by sophism, pseudoscience in the modern world like our women and lower classes were sold false promise by sophism and supernaturalism in the ancient world – and this ‘second great failure’ is the end of the possibility of democratic majoritarianism – unless we can prohibit false promise of freedom from natural law from the informational commons. As far as I know there is no optimum social political and economic order, only a sliding scale of what is possible given a genetic distribution and the relative state of development. If it is possible to develop many small monarchies under the same rule of law of sovereignty and reciprocity that is the optimum social and political order, as long as the ‘bottom’ is prohibited from reproduction as it was in the ancient world by nature, the middle world by manorialism, ad the present and future world by eugenic policy. Every other order declines in competitive utility from there.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-19 19:30:00 UTC

  • DOES METAPHYSICS EXIST? DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION. The question is only whether

    DOES METAPHYSICS EXIST? DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION.

    The question is only whether metaphysics = paradigm. As far as I know it does (must). So to say there is no such thing as metaphysics, is only to say that there is no such thing as relativism. In other words, there is either a most parsimonious paradigm for the description of reality or their isn’t.

    As far as I know there is always and everywhere one most parsimonious and most complete paradigm, and that discipline we call science slowly converges upon it. And that this most parsimonious paradigm always and everywhere will provide decidability between less coherent (complete and consistent) paradigms.

    And the current limitation on progress in physical science is our present failure (or challenge of) creating a language (mathematics or logic of) of geometric rather than point (positional) relations.

    The more obvious demands of protein modeling appear to be working toward a solution to that problem more so than physicists.

    As far as I know social science (cooperation, law, politics) is solved because it’s at human scale. As far as I know economics remains unsolved and is a harder problem than the transition from positional (curves) to geometric (shapes), if for no other reason than we simply can’t create consistent categories so are stuck with bayesian categorization, prediction, falsification, and adaptation, with symmetries (which are showing up in certain economic patterns) providing the intermediary measures that the original data itself cannot.

    So, I don’t see the meaning of a discipline of metaphysics other than the rather obvious demarcation between deflationary (logical, operational, empirical, science) and fictional (allegorical) grammars (vocabularies). And it certainly appears to do nothing more than that.

    The underlying conflict being that the most parsimonious language launders information present in experience. And as we have seen the empathic vs analytic difference in demand for priority on one hand, and a desire for psychological sedation (suppression, mindfulness,) on the other.

    And from my tests over the past two years in particular that (masculine vs feminine cognition ) appears to be impossible to resolve. Which as far as I know is the source of the conflict of the present age, and what’s driving the incentive to separate (or dominate).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-19 19:03:00 UTC

  • OUR VERSION OF THE SOCRATIC METHOD: COMPETITION (I’m about finished with the pro

    OUR VERSION OF THE SOCRATIC METHOD: COMPETITION

    (I’m about finished with the propertarian project although there are always nuances to work with, but this is worth repeating.)

    KING OF THE HILL GAMES

    I teach by creating games that men will compete in. This is how men are best taught. Instead of asking questions I start arguments. Instead of preaching an angle, I attack a proposition and force others to defend it. Instead of assuming equality I play king of the hill and bait them into attacking me. Instead of writing essays of appeal I write arguments to criticize.

    BAIT MEN INTO DOMINANCE PLAY.

    Teaching men is really easy: Bait them into dominance play.

    Just as exhaustive forgiveness in tit-for-tat is the optimum cooperative strategy, exhaustive baiting for dominance play is the optimum MALE cooperative strategy.

    Set up King of the Hill games where ANY forward progress gets the men recognition. Do not criticize failure, only cowardice, attention seeking, or time wasting.

    If you are too predictable you will ruin the game. You must present a variety of challenges.

    We cannot feel ‘good’ about learning by conformity the way girls and women do. We must play at fighting or it’s not worth our time.

    AN EXPERIMENTAL CLASSROOM: KING OF THE HILL GAME: TEACHING MEN

    I have developed the “King of the Hill” strategy of discourse (teaching) because it is actually THE BEST method of teaching (masculine) men. Iâ��ve been doing this since we used 300 baud dial up modems and 80 character monochrome screens. And I learned it early.

    Men can attack me and my ideas, without acting vulnerable, or submissive, or begging for attention, but by exercising their dominance. And they can fail and no one cares. This is actually the optimum method of reaching men: we create a dominance game of low risk. We learn from playing this dominance game. The secret is to reward dominance expression if it�s backed by insight, argument, or wit. And to stop on effeminate, abrahamic, and non-argument.

    I make serious arguments to teach. I make half arguments to encourage debate. And I push controversial ideas to encourage them to refute them.

    My role in this game is to play king of the hill, and say “come get me“. I provide symbolic rewards (sharing quotes), and meaningful rewards (investing time in those with potential), and lifetime rewards (skill development).

    That is why this game works.

    Not everyone can play this game. But if they can play this game, and get good at it they will master a very special skill. And it’s that collection of talent I’m interested in creating.

    The internet does change. Men don�t change. The number of stupid men with access to digital discourse simply increases.

    The internet of such men requires street fighting, and I try to create a locker room for street fighters. In that locker room we play king of the hill. WE PUT DOMINANCE PLAY TO CONSTRUCTIVE USE. If you want beta-and-chick-friendly theatre watch TED videos. It’s a cult of pseudoscience.

    I teach argument.. I teach men. (And the occasional woman with character, intellectual honesty, and brains.)

    You might not realize I know this is a game, and that we are playing a game until you meet me in person or talk to me in an interview � because I�m not very much like my online persona.

    This is educational entertainment and theatre.

    I DON’T DO HATE

    I’m pro natural law; pro my people; pro humanity; and pro transcendence; Yes, I will dig on genetic differences, biological differences, genetic differences, cultural differences, class, gender, and racial differences. Yes I will make objective analysis of the those differences. I will work to destroy the cherished lies of every race, civilization, culture, nation, tribe, and class. And I will crush those lies with some sense of both desperation, conviction and joy.

    But I don’t do racism. I hate on parasitism predation, and fictionalism to justify it. But I don’t hate on people. I fault my people for not using their superiority to defend against the group evolutionary strategies of other groups. I fault my people for failing to rule and rule well. I fault my people for intellectual folly and dishonesty.

    I advocate nationalism, tribalism, sovereignty and natural law of reciprocity and markets in everything for all human beings. And as many nations as it takes to transcend all humans through the gradual improvement of all and the gradual reduction of the underclasses that prohibit our transcendence.

    I don’t like hating on people. It’s not Christian and therefore not European. And not even Aryan. The beauty of christianity is that it seeks to extirpate all hatred from the human heart. And once extirpated we are free to use reason, with clear minds and clear judgement.

    I have no problem with war, murder, violence and destruction. i have no problem with rule, punishment, and if necessary incarceration or enslavement.

    I have a problem with hatred. A problem with deception. And a problem with any order other than the laws of nature, the natural law of reciprocity, and the transcendence of man.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-18 15:16:00 UTC

  • “Would be sooo great if the Fed would further lower interest rates and quantitat

    —“Would be sooo great if the Fed would further lower interest rates and quantitative ease. The Dollar is very strong against other currencies and there is almost no inflation. This is the time to do it. Exports would zoom!”—Donald J. Trump

    @realDonaldTrump

    —“The dollar will weaken soon, but exports will not zoom. The biggest effect will be to increase the cost of our imports, leading to even higher trade deficits. There is plenty of inflation now, but it’s about to get much worse. We can’t make America great again by printing money!”—Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff

    Let’s just keep in mind that our trade deficit is tiny. We’re practically autarkic, and we could be with ease. If we repatriated autos and electronics (which we should for every single reason imaginable) we wouldn’t have a trade deficit worth talking about)

    We could take the country entirely autarkic, pay a two to three year cost for it, and emerge with a century-long benefit from it.And that is the problem with democracy and monetary inflation that causes short term investment in what is largely rents rather than long term returns.

    —“That is the dumbest suggestion ever… That is exactly what USSR tried to do and failed miserably…. Come on man, study up on the past before you talk about the future…”—

    That’s a different question, and you’re leaping to a conclusion.

    How Autarkic is france? Why?

    The reasons for the failure of the soviet union are as long as the failure of the roman empire. The primary reasons are (a) effectively a universal minimum/maximum wage, (b) incentives because of it (c) corruption because of it, (d) centralization rather than transformation b/c.

    The sole reason for the failure of the USSR was socialism…. The govt spent too much on defense and could no longer afford to keep their union together. People need to be free to make whatever economic choices they want, and should not be made dependent on a govt bound to fail

    I think you need to read something that isn’t propaganda. They converted a very primitive backward people (1/3 of which still live in villages today using outhouses) into urbanization and industrialization.The chinese haven’t failed using the same strategy, because they use debt.

    Where the Russians used price control on labor. But central investment and planning of transformation is optimum velocity if catching up. Private capital is superior for returns on capital and limiting corruption. Russians created black markets in everything. Chinese haven’t.

    State financing of core industries has always been a competitive advantage and the USA has ‘hidden it’ by using the military as means of R&D, that the private sector privatizes and converts to a market good. Other countries keep the returns on those investments. We don’t.

    So the prevailing argument at present, is that we have stopped using the military as a sufficient means of indirect investment in R&D, and because of unions, saw capital and skill flight (like the russians/ukrainians did after 92).

    So do we keep using the military for basic and technological research or do what world does, which is use state(debt) to finance longer term returns, and continue to turn the returns to the private sector or capture some of those returns to pay down the debt directly?

    And that is the explanation for the decline in productivity (aside from the decline in the IQ of the population due to destruction of middle class reproduction, urbanization, and the Baumol effect urban prices produce in the economy?

    —“No economic system is more productive than unfettered capitalism. The problem is some are just WAY more productive than others and class envy inevitably occurs. This is why there is welfare. So unproductive classes don’t cut the heads off productive classes. French Revolution”—

    Define unfettered capitalism because you’re a sucker for another of the tribe’s false dichotomies.

    There is no more productive system than rule of law of reciprocity within the limits of proportionality.

    The result is markets. Jewish capitalism != European rule of law

    —“Unfettered capitalism occurs when govt does not insert itself into the economy to the benefit of those who can lobby the govt best. The US has always been mercantilist. Never have we been true capitalists.”—

    You know, all libertarian tropes are half truths that use the abrahamic technique of deception, to bait you into hazard.

    1) How do you distinguish productive from parasitic transfers? 2) how do you prevent externalities?

    3) Can private capital produce returns on 20+ yr horizons?

    4) What is the demarcation between productive voluntary transfer and rent seeking?

    5) What is the demarcation between profitability, productivity, and privatization of commons, socialization of losses?

    Libertarianism=private property marxism. Communism=common property marxism.

    6) rule of law and the institution of property = commons, and the function of the state (military, judiciary) is to defend commons, and the function of the government(however it’s done) is to produce and maintain commons. And the purpose of markets is production of consumption.

    So whenever someone is using the term ‘capitalism’ instead of rule of law (Lule of Law of Sovereignty in demonstrated interests (property) and reciprocity (productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfer, free of externality) they’re participating in 2nd gen Big Lies.

    The false dichotomy of Capitalism / socialism-communism, like Marxism, Neoconservatism (trotskyism), Libertarianism (rothbardianism), Feminism, Postmodernism and Denialism(Political correctness) are just the modern era’s equivalent of judaism, christianity and islam: big lies.

    You either have rule of law by Sovereignty, Demonstrated Interest, Reciprocity, Testimonial Truth and Contract, or you have discretionary rule that seeks to license some form of violation of sovereignty and reciprocity by deceit.

    Capitalism is another lie by half truth.

    Rule of law by reciprocity within the limits of proportionality (defection), where Reciprocity consists of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition upon the demonstrated of interests of others by externality.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-17 12:37:00 UTC

  • Why Aren’t Women Having Children?

    People follow incentives. What percent of women obtain non-stem degrees at cost $100k debt during peak fertility? What is female tax vs interest contribution? What percent of tax revenues to women consume vs men? And what percent of tax revenue do women contribute vs men? (I know.) You can’t use women’s endless demand for hyperconsumption (esp of attention) as vehicles for academic, commercial, and interest revenue, and expect them to bear the same costs out of civic ‘duty’ (as men do for sex). Any more than men military without offer of the franchise. Women’s hyperconsumption and hypergamy evolved for the purpose of nesting for children, and competing with other women. If you direct that hyperconsumption to other ends, you will get the present result. And hyper-consumptive women are far better laborers for revenue extraction. Add moral relativism, and non-conformity, and multiculturalism, and moral persuasion no longer functions as incentives, since it no longer conveys status or attention, on one and, and loss of status and attention on the other. Women have no incentive to bear children. We forget that we domesticated both men AND women’s instincts with property, meritocracy, and monogamy. And we domesticated men’s violence, and women’s undermining with equal fervor until giving the franchise without demonstrating ability. All answers in economics and social science are rather obvious if you work in incentives instead of shallow moralizing. Use evolutionary demand, specialization, cognitive and emotional differences, not pretense of equality. The century of pseudoscience and sophism is at a close.

  • Understanding the European vs Semitic Conflict Provides More Value than Criticism and Complaint:

    (Rabbi Reuven is a beautiful human being, great teacher, and a wise man.) [A] bit of explanation helps us understand each other: Evolution(or God) has only so many tools with which to alter the behavior of peoples. First among them is neoteny – what we call domestication. Or Self Domestication. This provides us with reason and agency over our impulses. The second is gender differences in instinct, intuition, and cognition – which are dramatic. The third is eugenic reproduction – or what the jews have achieved through upward redistribution of reproduction to the verbal, and out-casting those who fail. And what europeans have achieved through upward redistribution of reproduction to the Martial and Political, and limiting the reproduction of those who fail. This is the reason for Ashkenazi, European, and East Asian separation from the rest of the world: for one reason or another, we have been more successful at eugenics, by limiting and reducing the size of our underclasses. The difference between our strategies is that jews carry a higher genetic load from small numbers, in exchange for limiting cognitive dimorphism, thereby providing males with female cognitive abilities in the verbal. The science has explained Ashkenazi excellences, as well as european. The east asian is quite different because while Ashkenazi retain learning ability through life, europeans slightly less so, asians much less so, and other peoples far less so. So both cognitive dimorphism and neoteny have given us all slightly different variations in competitive excellences. This has created an interesting world:

    [table id=2 /]

    Women parasitically consume the productivity of men in exchange for reproduction of male’s offspring. Europeans prosper and control our destiny because we produce commons. (Production). Jews prosper but do not control their destiny because they profit by the taking of others’ commons. (Parasitism) But there is no benefit to be had from ‘marriage’ with the Jews. I tell a joke. It is, that Jews are all hyperconsumption, hypergamous women trying to constantly upgrade husbands on civilizational scale, and surprised when the men punish them for cheating. This is a bit of humor. But it is true. The only solutions to our old conflict are separation, integration, or cooperation, where cooperation is possible by incrementally extending our european laws to prohibit the industrialization of parasitism. Then good Jews will stay, and bad Jews will leave. The Jews are not innocent. There is every evidence in every country at every time in history, that the jews have prospered by operating as an organized crime family for the purpose of extracting from the commons of host peoples, and using their prosperity (like women) to undermine the host peoples. Why do europeans never learn the cost of our tolerance? Why do the chosen never learn the cost of their ‘immorality’ (profiting from undermining)? Because neither males nor females understand what they do. We do what we intuit as good. But these are two extremes of intuition. They are opposites. And these intuitions are only good if we compromise like men and women compromise in marriage. But the Jews do not compromise because it requires integration OR reformation of jewish religion and law to conform to high trust european ethics and morality that prohibit externalities (impositions of costs upon others or the commons). This would prohibit most of the profit jews make from undermining the host civilization through complaint and criticism (Critique), [T]he crisis in western civilization today is the product of invasion by eastern european secular Jewish intellectuals undermining western civilization from within by the use of the Abrahamic Technique of Fraud: False Promise, Baiting in to Hazard, Advocated by Pilpul, Defended by Critique, Under Pretense of Plausible Deniability, Given Western Tolerance for Individual Choice (Sovereignty), to Undermine the Markets between the Classes by False Promise of Outcome Equality using Pseudoscience (Boas, Marx, Freud, Adorno) and Sophism (Derrida), the way the Jews, Christians, and Muslims destroyed the ancient world by False promise of Life after death using Supernaturalism and Sophism. The last Semitic Big Lies cost us a thousand year dark age and a billion dead, and every great civilization of the ancient world, was reduced to ignorance, poverty, and dysgenia. The Semitic Big Lies of the present age, have cost us 100M people under communism alone, have brought the west to the brink of civil war, and the reorganization and restoration of the historical balance of powers because of the ‘big lies’ will undoubtably cost us many many millions if not billions more. The Europeans are merely fools. When Alexander crossed the Bosphorus to punish the Persians for their invasions, and sought like all others in the orient to obtain profits from the taxation of trade routes, particularly in tin (bronze), between the continents – he infected western man with semitic supernaturalism and authoritarianism. The Romans repeated the folly. And the byzantines destroyed europe by the forcible conversion of a Rome overwhelmed by Barbarians. Thankfully northern europe eventually replaced mediterranean trade with atlantic trade and ended the value of the historical overland trade routes across eurasia. Combined with the reintroduction of Aristotle (who is the European People’s equivalent of a Prophet), They could produce enough wealth once again to restore european independence from oriental trade routes, and return to their foundations of competing by technological innovation despite smaller numbers. But. Europeans have reformed. It’s time for you. No More Complaints. No More False Promises. No More Lies. No More Baiting into Hazard No More Profiting from harming the commons. No More Undermining the host civilization. No More Parasitism Survive by Production. Or go home to the lands we have restored to you. We paid for you. Dearly. We are not hostile to you. But we are no longer tolerant of your crimes. Because once a crime is understood it can be outlawed. And if outlawed we can live together in peace. And otherwise can be punished until we live in peace. So. Learn from your mistakes. Or ‘Never Again” will be “Yet Again” and this time, it will be even worse than the last. I never err. Ever. Cheers

    (archive)   

    EUROPEAN: Male Cognitive Elites:     Physical/Political Superpredators.. 
SEMITIC:  Feminine Cognitive Elites: Verbal/Social Superpredators

European = Masculine Paternal...Sovereign.......Hierarchical
Semitic = Feminine...Maternal...Authoritarian...Equalitarian,

European = Militaristic (physical), Expansionist,..Commons Producing
Semitic = .Undermining (social), Diasporic, ...... Commons Consuming

European = Technological(physical)..Testimony..Decidability
Semitic =  Supernatural (verbal)....Opinion....Reasonableness

European = Reciprocal.....Universal High Trust
Semitic =  Voluntary......Ingroup High/Outgroup Low Trust