Form: Mini Essay

  • The resurrection was added much later and copied from a babylonian source. There

    The resurrection was added much later and copied from a babylonian source. There are no records of testimony from the period, nor records of his existence. We know the origin of the three days narrative, and we know the origin of the rising from the dead narrative. These were added later by other authors. Saul (Paul) made up most of it, from what was possibly a real person who was rebelling against the use of the temple to raise more money – the roman occupation and the introduction of roman gods meant that temple revenues had decreased rapidly, so the priests were ‘drumming up new business’ and it seems likely some zealot rebelled and was imprisoned and killed for it. But there are no ‘testimonies’ and every pretense of testimony we have appears to be a fabrication.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:24:00 UTC

  • No, Right Political Correctness Does Not Exist.

    Right political correctness? That’s typical deceit by Pilpul. Left political correctness (postmodern shaming) relies on falsehoods to mask unpleasant truths. Conservative shaming relies on truths to prevent involuntary transfers. Conservative morality suppresses imposition of costs (meritocracy), left pretense of morality attempts to justify involuntary transfer (theft). What could be obtained by trade (usually conformity for subsidy) is sought at a discount by shaming. In other words, it’s using Pilpul to cast the equivalency of shaming as an equivalence of actions – and that’s dishonest (actually, fraudulent). Conservative reciprocity versus classical liberal equality of opportunity, vs leftist equality of outcome, versus radical leftist harm to truth, duty, reciprocity, and markets as a means of rebellion against low social, sexual, economic, and political market value. It’s just class warfare between middle class (desirable) and underclass (undesirable) genes, with the left playing top and bottom expanding low trust against the high trust but shrinking middle.

  • No, Right Political Correctness Does Not Exist.

    Right political correctness? That’s typical deceit by Pilpul. Left political correctness (postmodern shaming) relies on falsehoods to mask unpleasant truths. Conservative shaming relies on truths to prevent involuntary transfers. Conservative morality suppresses imposition of costs (meritocracy), left pretense of morality attempts to justify involuntary transfer (theft). What could be obtained by trade (usually conformity for subsidy) is sought at a discount by shaming. In other words, it’s using Pilpul to cast the equivalency of shaming as an equivalence of actions – and that’s dishonest (actually, fraudulent). Conservative reciprocity versus classical liberal equality of opportunity, vs leftist equality of outcome, versus radical leftist harm to truth, duty, reciprocity, and markets as a means of rebellion against low social, sexual, economic, and political market value. It’s just class warfare between middle class (desirable) and underclass (undesirable) genes, with the left playing top and bottom expanding low trust against the high trust but shrinking middle.

  • —-”How Do We Fight Racism?”—-

    You can’t. You can simply avoid the problem. All that happens in mixed race cultures, is that castes replace races. I can’t find anywhere any attempt has worked and hasn’t resulted in the total collapse of the civilization. When you increase the size of the polity you get classes. Sorry. That’s how it is for the simple reason that some people are more genetically desirable in every way than other peoples, and that’s what social class means: reproductive, associative, cooperative, economically cooperative, politically cooperative, militarily cooperative desirability. Each of us has a social market value and that social market value is what we call our class. We have higher sexual and social market value within group than across group except at the extremes. The desirability of different subraces is well documented, and is determined by ratio-proportionality and degree of neoteny. The only way to avoid the problem is to** segregate within states, or separate into separate states.** The science behind this reality is quite simple: 1 – Races and Subraces have different sized underclasses and **different distributions** around the mean in the personality traits that are genetically determined and largely immutable: a) intelligence, b) industriousness, and in rates of sexual development and depths of sexual development, and the retention of those features that illustrate retention of childhood features. (we have been domesticated just like other animals. We are no different. Some groups are more domesticated (lower testosterone, lower impulsivity, lower and slower sexual development, and therefore greater agency (self discipline of our emotions and impulses). 2 – Because of these differences **we need to produce VERY different commons** (manners, ethics, morals, norms, traditions, laws, institutions, education and training in the intuitionistic [what we call religion], in physical training, and in skills training, and in occupational training.) The median (average) (66% majority) determines the demand for formal and informal institutions (listed below). 3 – **Proximity Creates Animosity **because of the different status signals in and across groups, and the different rates of development both genetically, informatively, and culturally. Groups that are happy with their condition separately become hostile in proximity, and more hostile in cohabitation, and more hostile in political competition. This is true everywhere on earth. 4 – Because of these differences we need **very different political orders** – from the very liberal northern European high trust, to the very disciplined as we see in religious regions, to the nearly military needed in others. I could go on but the end is the end: Trying to eliminate races always and everywhere produces a **race to the bottom**. Creating many small nation states that are little more than corporations that serve the needs of their kin group and that kin group’s distribution will produce a** race to the top**. There is a very good reason why Europe evolved faster than the rest of the world combined in both the ancient and modern worlds: small homogeneous states. **Monopolies are always bad**. They are even worse in federations and empires. China is the interesting exception since the Han slowly conquer and integrate near neighbors, and are currently in the process of doing so to the remaining border nations. The Han are the largest ethnic group in the world. And they conquer and ‘make disappear’ every group possible. The Indians, who were (at least in what is today’s Pakistan) one of the oldest civilizations, were not able to progress – we don’t understand why yet but probably demographics. The Chinese stagnated despite good demographics. The Arabs destroyed every great civilization of the ancient world (North African, Egyptian, Levantine, Mesopotamian, Persian, Byzantine, (and as a consequence Roman by raids and slave taking) and ended by 1200, with the remains of their empire was only preserved by the new population of Turks who were forced out of china’s territories – but even the Turks declined rather quickly, and the middle east is still in the 7th century in most ways. South Americans are falling behind again. East Africa was on the cusp of development when the Europeans arrived and pitted the emerging civilizations against each other. **Races** are a good thing. **Subraces** are a good thing. **Tribes** are a good thing. **Clans** are a good thing. **Families** are a good thing. You can choose between kingroup-states, or Corporate States. You can choose between small very different states, or large homogeneous states. You can choose between collapse under political monopoly, or rapid progress under political diversity. Because in the spectrum from dictatorship to anglo rule of law you must possess an increasingly optimum demographic as you move from dictatorship to liberty. **The only value of scale is military conquest**. The value of homogeneity is psychological, not real. The effect of diversity in a polity that has access to political power is always the same: collapse. The best countries to live in have **small homogeneous populations** with very **small underclasses**, high median **intelligence**, and well developed **neoteny**, without hostile **competitors** on their borders.

  • New Territory Or Return To Normal

    Well, we are in new territory, because we have not been in a situation where women are able to produce sufficient income that they can pay other women to raise their children before, rather than depend upon men for income (and defense). It’s just never happened before. There is no means of producing that kind of male leadership for approximately two thirds of males. Without the compromise of marriage and the family and the division of labor, under contemporary technology, women basically do not need men whatsoever, unless they can capture one of the top third of men. And that is what is happening. It’s working out for about half of men and the other half are basically screwed. There are means of fixing this problem so that we nullify the ancestral family in accordance with the new economic and biological reality. (Which in turn restores our pre-agrarian relationships to their evolutionary state: serial relationships where women are heads of ‘households’. And men rotate through them as desired. with brothers and uncles providing ingroup care rather than husbands providing that care. That’s what we did prior to agrarianism and agrarian marriage. The first is to end redistribution so that we account for the higher demands of men in slower maturity, greater cellular damage, greater illness because of it and greater care needed in old age because of it. And he second is we end redistribution due do children so that men can trade income for affection. The third is that we restore all male institutions that have existed throughout history, for the caretaking of excess males. The fourth is to separate male and female education again so that males can learn in a highly competitive environment. Fifth is to create separate houses of government for men and women so that the tendency of women to welcome invaders that will destroy the productive potential of men, and male’s tendency to want to subordinate women. Otherwise we get what we see is men creating a civil war, which is what ALWAYS HAPPENS when there is an excess of unsatisfied men. This basically ends the experiment with universal marriage as a means of defending the polity against women bearing children and forcing the cost upon the group/tribe/village/polity. This is no problem any longer because women are, in large part, doing do. Furthermore divorced single mothers prefer to not divide their attention between men and children. (data). So we can reverse the (relatively recent) male centered household, and create the mother centered household with the males transiting in and out of households as desired by the women. None of that asks anything of women other than to end income provided my men to women, and end political domination of one sex over the other. If men are economically unnecessary then they are. That is what has happened because of modernity and the pill. So marriage is only valuable to 1/3 of men and women, and the rest of the time, men are merely gene contributors. So what are we going to do with those extra men – if they don’t have anything to care about? ‘Cause history is very clear on this subject

  • New Territory Or Return To Normal

    Well, we are in new territory, because we have not been in a situation where women are able to produce sufficient income that they can pay other women to raise their children before, rather than depend upon men for income (and defense). It’s just never happened before. There is no means of producing that kind of male leadership for approximately two thirds of males. Without the compromise of marriage and the family and the division of labor, under contemporary technology, women basically do not need men whatsoever, unless they can capture one of the top third of men. And that is what is happening. It’s working out for about half of men and the other half are basically screwed. There are means of fixing this problem so that we nullify the ancestral family in accordance with the new economic and biological reality. (Which in turn restores our pre-agrarian relationships to their evolutionary state: serial relationships where women are heads of ‘households’. And men rotate through them as desired. with brothers and uncles providing ingroup care rather than husbands providing that care. That’s what we did prior to agrarianism and agrarian marriage. The first is to end redistribution so that we account for the higher demands of men in slower maturity, greater cellular damage, greater illness because of it and greater care needed in old age because of it. And he second is we end redistribution due do children so that men can trade income for affection. The third is that we restore all male institutions that have existed throughout history, for the caretaking of excess males. The fourth is to separate male and female education again so that males can learn in a highly competitive environment. Fifth is to create separate houses of government for men and women so that the tendency of women to welcome invaders that will destroy the productive potential of men, and male’s tendency to want to subordinate women. Otherwise we get what we see is men creating a civil war, which is what ALWAYS HAPPENS when there is an excess of unsatisfied men. This basically ends the experiment with universal marriage as a means of defending the polity against women bearing children and forcing the cost upon the group/tribe/village/polity. This is no problem any longer because women are, in large part, doing do. Furthermore divorced single mothers prefer to not divide their attention between men and children. (data). So we can reverse the (relatively recent) male centered household, and create the mother centered household with the males transiting in and out of households as desired by the women. None of that asks anything of women other than to end income provided my men to women, and end political domination of one sex over the other. If men are economically unnecessary then they are. That is what has happened because of modernity and the pill. So marriage is only valuable to 1/3 of men and women, and the rest of the time, men are merely gene contributors. So what are we going to do with those extra men – if they don’t have anything to care about? ‘Cause history is very clear on this subject

  • “Q: What if there was only one ethnicity in existence?”— THE CORRECT ANSWER Wh

    —“Q: What if there was only one ethnicity in existence?”—

    THE CORRECT ANSWER

    When there is one ethnicity we form Castes and Classes and Clans, and Cults, and Political polities, and orders, and war bands.

    As long as women practice signal competition with other women, and hypergamy (an evolutionary necessity) men will practice signaling and organizing together to create competitive advantage. As long as we are intellectually, physically, and intuitionistically different (we are), and as long as groups differ in distributions of intellectual, physical, and intuitionistic abilities, we will compete like all other species and practice reproductive, social, economic and political selection (competition). If we stop we will die off.

    Race is just the easiest first means of discrimination in pursuit of higher sexual, social, economic, political, and military market value. After that is class. After class is physical attractiveness and behavior and intelligence.

    We are riders on our genes. We either assist those genes, or we will face extinction by those who do.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-30 09:30:00 UTC

  • Of course. wealth and lack of enforced norms allow us to explore the extremes of

    Of course. wealth and lack of enforced norms allow us to explore the extremes of our intuitions. Women never satisfied with last month’s fashion will always innovate in order to attract attention and feel they are ‘giving’ somehow.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-30 02:03:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034985036737597440

    Reply addressees: @SmashMarxCult @jboschredux @BlackDawning

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034778561088053248


    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/1034778561088053248

  • —“Q: What did you choose to be your personal meaning of life?”—

    I had set most of my life’s goals before I was thirteen and haven’t really altered them. I’ve rebuilt myself and my life about once a decade to fulfill those goals. If your goals are clear life is much easier. 1 – “Life is short, and **We only get one chance. Do as much as you can** with it and leave your mark on history. It is the only possible immortality.” or Life is an apple, take big bites, moderation is for monks. Probably from the life of Alexander. 2 – Build a **fortune** to make it possible. (done) Probably inspired by my paternal family’s lifestyle (wealth) compared to my maternal family’s loss of it during the depression. A promise I made when probably eight or ten. 3 – **Know everything** in every book in the library (pretty much done, frighteningly.) (Whenever I imagined I had three wishes, this was always the first. Knowledge is power. Wisdom is an asset to put it into play. And wisdom provides mindfulness.) 4 – “**Build my god a church**” (Almost done, although a far different result, and much greater project than I’d imagined) From a promise I made to myself at twelve, while sitting in church. 5 – “Smile and laugh often”, “**Treat everyone you meet as a potential friend** until demonstrated otherwise” , “Be respectful and kind to the working man and the little people who are not so privileged – they are the most moral people in society”, “Do many minor goods and kindnesses for no reason at all” – big demonstrations are for your self aggrandizement and create senses of debt in others. Many small kindnesses accumulate in the change of behavior of the people around you. 6 – “**Die Well**. Put The Willingness to Die to Good Use” (Planning on it.) Promise I made to myself in my teens. The Opposite Side I did not expect to “**brook no slight**” even though it is a family motto. I found that tolerance is not a virtue but a convenience of those who take no responsibility for themselves, others, or the commons. I did not expect to **compete ruthlessly **and perhaps too much so. But that ended up being a part of my life that had mixed results for me personally, even if it created wealth. I did not expect to be a relatively **useless (absent) father** and in retrospect I should have forgone fatherhood despite my children being my greatest joy. I did not expect my **health** to be such a problem for my life but I have prevailed mostly despite it. Ill health is not something I would wish on anyone. I think I made three great mistakes, my first being not transferring when a professor asked me to join his department, so that I would have become a philosopher earlier; not staying ‘quit’ when I quit my job as CEO – loyalty was a bad idea;  divorcing my wife, who was a saint, but I was too ill to understand she really did love me. I think I only really **failed** meaningfully once, and fairly recently, and I still plan on remedying that failure, so that I can depart this life not having done so.

  • —“Q: What did you choose to be your personal meaning of life?”—

    I had set most of my life’s goals before I was thirteen and haven’t really altered them. I’ve rebuilt myself and my life about once a decade to fulfill those goals. If your goals are clear life is much easier. 1 – “Life is short, and **We only get one chance. Do as much as you can** with it and leave your mark on history. It is the only possible immortality.” or Life is an apple, take big bites, moderation is for monks. Probably from the life of Alexander. 2 – Build a **fortune** to make it possible. (done) Probably inspired by my paternal family’s lifestyle (wealth) compared to my maternal family’s loss of it during the depression. A promise I made when probably eight or ten. 3 – **Know everything** in every book in the library (pretty much done, frighteningly.) (Whenever I imagined I had three wishes, this was always the first. Knowledge is power. Wisdom is an asset to put it into play. And wisdom provides mindfulness.) 4 – “**Build my god a church**” (Almost done, although a far different result, and much greater project than I’d imagined) From a promise I made to myself at twelve, while sitting in church. 5 – “Smile and laugh often”, “**Treat everyone you meet as a potential friend** until demonstrated otherwise” , “Be respectful and kind to the working man and the little people who are not so privileged – they are the most moral people in society”, “Do many minor goods and kindnesses for no reason at all” – big demonstrations are for your self aggrandizement and create senses of debt in others. Many small kindnesses accumulate in the change of behavior of the people around you. 6 – “**Die Well**. Put The Willingness to Die to Good Use” (Planning on it.) Promise I made to myself in my teens. The Opposite Side I did not expect to “**brook no slight**” even though it is a family motto. I found that tolerance is not a virtue but a convenience of those who take no responsibility for themselves, others, or the commons. I did not expect to **compete ruthlessly **and perhaps too much so. But that ended up being a part of my life that had mixed results for me personally, even if it created wealth. I did not expect to be a relatively **useless (absent) father** and in retrospect I should have forgone fatherhood despite my children being my greatest joy. I did not expect my **health** to be such a problem for my life but I have prevailed mostly despite it. Ill health is not something I would wish on anyone. I think I made three great mistakes, my first being not transferring when a professor asked me to join his department, so that I would have become a philosopher earlier; not staying ‘quit’ when I quit my job as CEO – loyalty was a bad idea;  divorcing my wife, who was a saint, but I was too ill to understand she really did love me. I think I only really **failed** meaningfully once, and fairly recently, and I still plan on remedying that failure, so that I can depart this life not having done so.