—“What’s the unbiased pros and cons of socialism, communism and capitalism?”— Each proposes a MONOPOLY, just as the abrahamic religions proposed a MONOPOLY – all monopolies are bad (and all monopolistic arguments are false) The only possible economic structure is a Mixed Economy, and the only structure that every has existed at any scale is a mixed economy. The underclass requires redistribution because they have no ability to participate in the market. Labor requires insurance against the vicissitudes of manual labor, the clerical and managerial classes require commons in order to produce multiples, the professional and entrepreneurial class require property and rule of law in order to produce the voluntary organization of production, the financial and political classes need organization such that they can produce redistribution, insurance, and property rights, so that all the classes can function as producers and consumers and parents and elderly. THE TRUTH OF RULE OF LAW VS RULE BY DISCRETION(MAN) If you practice rule of law – meaning the natural law of torts (not legislation, which is not law, but either contract or command. And commands are not laws, but commands alone), then you will produce a mixed economy. If you practice discretionary rule or legislative rule you will produce failed attempts at the MONOPOLIES of communism (underclass) socialism (working class), or capitalism (middle and upper middle class). When instead we require communism (redistribution), socialism (production of commons), and capitalism (production of goods, services, and information) in EVERY economy. THE ASHKENAZI (Authoritarian) VS EUROPEAN (Rule of Law ) DEBATE 1 – Germanics (Masculine) : Rule of Law and Mixed economies. 2 – French (Feminine): Republican Socialism 3 – Ashekanazi (authoritarian): Communism, Libertarianism, Neo-Conservatissm. 4 – Ashkenazi-Russian-Chinese (Authoritarian) : Communism, Socialism. However, the Ashkenazi and the French are the intellectual vanguard of authoritarianism, having produced every variation from Rousseau to the Postmodernists, and Marx/Boas/Freud/Cantor/Trostsky/Lenin/Mises/Rothbard all the way to the Frankfurt school. While the french retaliated against the english use of empiricism with their nonsense rationalism, and the germans imitated Rousseau with their nonsense moralism, it was the Ashkenazi of Europe, Russia, and America, who weaponized pseudoscience and propaganda against western civilization by creating pseudoscientific cults with false promise of economic and political paradise just as they had done so in the ancient world with false promise of life after death. Every time you ask the question which is better you are demonstrating that you have been the victim of a pseudoscientific cult in the modern world, just as your ancestors were the victims of supernatural cults in the anceient world. The only economy possible is a mixed economy.
Form: Mini Essay
-
The Lie of Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism
—“What’s the unbiased pros and cons of socialism, communism and capitalism?”— Each proposes a MONOPOLY, just as the abrahamic religions proposed a MONOPOLY – all monopolies are bad (and all monopolistic arguments are false) The only possible economic structure is a Mixed Economy, and the only structure that every has existed at any scale is a mixed economy. The underclass requires redistribution because they have no ability to participate in the market. Labor requires insurance against the vicissitudes of manual labor, the clerical and managerial classes require commons in order to produce multiples, the professional and entrepreneurial class require property and rule of law in order to produce the voluntary organization of production, the financial and political classes need organization such that they can produce redistribution, insurance, and property rights, so that all the classes can function as producers and consumers and parents and elderly. THE TRUTH OF RULE OF LAW VS RULE BY DISCRETION(MAN) If you practice rule of law – meaning the natural law of torts (not legislation, which is not law, but either contract or command. And commands are not laws, but commands alone), then you will produce a mixed economy. If you practice discretionary rule or legislative rule you will produce failed attempts at the MONOPOLIES of communism (underclass) socialism (working class), or capitalism (middle and upper middle class). When instead we require communism (redistribution), socialism (production of commons), and capitalism (production of goods, services, and information) in EVERY economy. THE ASHKENAZI (Authoritarian) VS EUROPEAN (Rule of Law ) DEBATE 1 – Germanics (Masculine) : Rule of Law and Mixed economies. 2 – French (Feminine): Republican Socialism 3 – Ashekanazi (authoritarian): Communism, Libertarianism, Neo-Conservatissm. 4 – Ashkenazi-Russian-Chinese (Authoritarian) : Communism, Socialism. However, the Ashkenazi and the French are the intellectual vanguard of authoritarianism, having produced every variation from Rousseau to the Postmodernists, and Marx/Boas/Freud/Cantor/Trostsky/Lenin/Mises/Rothbard all the way to the Frankfurt school. While the french retaliated against the english use of empiricism with their nonsense rationalism, and the germans imitated Rousseau with their nonsense moralism, it was the Ashkenazi of Europe, Russia, and America, who weaponized pseudoscience and propaganda against western civilization by creating pseudoscientific cults with false promise of economic and political paradise just as they had done so in the ancient world with false promise of life after death. Every time you ask the question which is better you are demonstrating that you have been the victim of a pseudoscientific cult in the modern world, just as your ancestors were the victims of supernatural cults in the anceient world. The only economy possible is a mixed economy.
-
Demand for Authority (decidability) from Institutions by Region Over Time
Some institutional network of decidability must provide people with decidability given the available institutions versus the available means of production. That intersection sophistication of institutions vs Trusthworthiness of those institutions, v available means of production determined demand for institutions and decidability under those institutions. This is rather obvious but I wasn’t able to put together the German incentive until now. Fukuyama only gets the recent not the ancient and medieval and late modern. ===== From discussion with “Teacher” Alhaji Dada OK. I see what you mean. I see. I just have to translate it from the intellectuals justification to what it was that they were justifying…. So the Germans haven’t been far out of aristocracy, they had developed the first professional bureaucracies, in Europe, and had them before democracy, so that they never rebelled against the aristocracy, and trust their government – and still (unfortunately) do. The French rebelled against aristocracy and church, and were already the most backward government in Europe by the time of the revolution. They still retain self righteousness of the ‘liberty equality fraternity’ and the fantasy that they led the world with the revolution rather than they were the rebellion against modernity. The English rebelled against France and Spain in particular, the church in general, and the continent in general and did not have the fracture or diversity of the French, so they retained internal trust. The empire gave them the resource (commerce) curse, and when the empire collapsed they followed the Spanish into fantasy-preservation without the resources for it and lost their industrial base as well. So they profit by becoming a virtue signal and financial center while their continue their collapse. The Americans rebelled against the aristocracy but not the church, although the church was terribly weak (protestant) without the catholic institutions, land ownership, and political infrastructure, and and could retain the English (Scandinavian) raiding (pirate) culture because they were expansionary at all times. So the “Demand for Authority” took very different routes across the Atlantic continent and european plain given the different trust-paths to modernity. But, as you’ve said this tendency is ANCIENT, and as Candice Mary is trying to get across to me, the maternalism – heaviest in France because of the original Venus cult’s influence – less so in Germany, non-existent in the slavic lands, but still dominating and dominant the south, …. that demand is constant over time. So we have lower trust south all around (maternal), with demand for family, church, and hierarchy. While we have the germans, germanic Scandinavians (west), Finnio-russian Scandinavians, and then the slavs, and southern slavs, each retaining…. ok. I get it. And that demand never changed because it was a constant in old (south eastern) Europe in antiquity since they had the least admixture from the north, were most similar to greek (llyrian), had much migration (Scythian), and were ruled by old europeans (byzantines), then by ottomans (muslims), so they never had the northern influences other than during Austro-hungarians. ok. ok. I can start to see how this works now. (Why is it that you, more than anyone, point me in the right direction when I am off?) thank you. (Thinking: Damn …. DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY (A SET OF INSTITUTIONS) + DEMAND FOR TRUST (FROM A SET OF INSTIUTUTIONS) + Degree of paternalism from raiding, and then from trade, vs demand for maternalism as resistance, vs settled-landed mixed demand. yep. demand for trusted authority from the set of available institutions given the means of available production.) Aug 17, 2018 6:46pm
-
Demand for Authority (decidability) from Institutions by Region Over Time
Some institutional network of decidability must provide people with decidability given the available institutions versus the available means of production. That intersection sophistication of institutions vs Trusthworthiness of those institutions, v available means of production determined demand for institutions and decidability under those institutions. This is rather obvious but I wasn’t able to put together the German incentive until now. Fukuyama only gets the recent not the ancient and medieval and late modern. ===== From discussion with “Teacher” Alhaji Dada OK. I see what you mean. I see. I just have to translate it from the intellectuals justification to what it was that they were justifying…. So the Germans haven’t been far out of aristocracy, they had developed the first professional bureaucracies, in Europe, and had them before democracy, so that they never rebelled against the aristocracy, and trust their government – and still (unfortunately) do. The French rebelled against aristocracy and church, and were already the most backward government in Europe by the time of the revolution. They still retain self righteousness of the ‘liberty equality fraternity’ and the fantasy that they led the world with the revolution rather than they were the rebellion against modernity. The English rebelled against France and Spain in particular, the church in general, and the continent in general and did not have the fracture or diversity of the French, so they retained internal trust. The empire gave them the resource (commerce) curse, and when the empire collapsed they followed the Spanish into fantasy-preservation without the resources for it and lost their industrial base as well. So they profit by becoming a virtue signal and financial center while their continue their collapse. The Americans rebelled against the aristocracy but not the church, although the church was terribly weak (protestant) without the catholic institutions, land ownership, and political infrastructure, and and could retain the English (Scandinavian) raiding (pirate) culture because they were expansionary at all times. So the “Demand for Authority” took very different routes across the Atlantic continent and european plain given the different trust-paths to modernity. But, as you’ve said this tendency is ANCIENT, and as Candice Mary is trying to get across to me, the maternalism – heaviest in France because of the original Venus cult’s influence – less so in Germany, non-existent in the slavic lands, but still dominating and dominant the south, …. that demand is constant over time. So we have lower trust south all around (maternal), with demand for family, church, and hierarchy. While we have the germans, germanic Scandinavians (west), Finnio-russian Scandinavians, and then the slavs, and southern slavs, each retaining…. ok. I get it. And that demand never changed because it was a constant in old (south eastern) Europe in antiquity since they had the least admixture from the north, were most similar to greek (llyrian), had much migration (Scythian), and were ruled by old europeans (byzantines), then by ottomans (muslims), so they never had the northern influences other than during Austro-hungarians. ok. ok. I can start to see how this works now. (Why is it that you, more than anyone, point me in the right direction when I am off?) thank you. (Thinking: Damn …. DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY (A SET OF INSTITUTIONS) + DEMAND FOR TRUST (FROM A SET OF INSTIUTUTIONS) + Degree of paternalism from raiding, and then from trade, vs demand for maternalism as resistance, vs settled-landed mixed demand. yep. demand for trusted authority from the set of available institutions given the means of available production.) Aug 17, 2018 6:46pm
-
WE ARE BEING MEN. BUT WE ARE CONVERGING (Read This) (Revolution Comes) —“It’s
WE ARE BEING MEN. BUT WE ARE CONVERGING
(Read This) (Revolution Comes)
—“It’s astonishing the Right has grown so much – and so much during an economic boom.”— John Reeves
We are just being men….. many packs, each with a set of leaders, each with cognitive frames mirroring our experiences, all from a hierarchy of economic and social classes, coalescing on a viable strategy under which we can combine arms.
To some degree in these matters we are as slow as we see women organize for small endeavors. While under duress we are much faster (insensitive). When SOMETIMES working on large programs across many tribes we are faced with the same problem that individual women ALWAYS face within groups: risk of dissassociation and resentment that impedes future cooperation. ( Candice Mary, see this paragraph)
So we are being men, but we are moving slowly, beuause without an urgency to force our hands, we are acting like cautious women. That said, we are converging on a solution and that solution is revolution, and we all are beginning to understand that it is not only possible, but preferable, and the most preferable of the options.
—“Right now we have the luxury to contemplate different ideas, follow different diets etc. One day we won’t have that luxury anymore and we’ll be forced to unite on the basis of what’s truly important, fundamental and realistic (rather than idealistic).”—@Ivar Diederik
(Repeating:)
If we remove the wealth and order, then the tolerance, like the dam will end, and the natural pressure of the conflict will produce deterministic ends.
Never has an empire been so fragile, because never has an empire undermined it’s culture, it’s demographics, and it’s militia (men), at the same time as it has infra structurally, industrially(production), economically(trade), financially(debt and dependence on the dollar), militarily (lost use of the post-communist peace as a means of military transformation) , and politically over extended (bet on a failed strategy of globalism in the face of universal historical balance of powers).
All we have to do is break the momentum that preserves the illusion of competence.
The greater the fragility the less strength is required.
10K will be enough 100k a risk reduction, 1m a labor reduction, and 10M a time reduction. Numbers buy us comforts but we don’t need them to win.
The undomesticated animals will do everything that we don’t need to – chaos.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-17 19:02:00 UTC
-
DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY (DECIDABILITY) FROM INSTITUTIONS BY REGION OVER TIME Some i
DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY (DECIDABILITY) FROM INSTITUTIONS BY REGION OVER TIME
Some institutional network of decidability must provide people with decidability given the available institutions versus the available means of production. That intersection sophistication of institutions vs Trusthworthiness of those institutions, v available means of production determined demand for institutions and decidability under those institutions. This is rather obvious but I wasn’t able to put together the German incentive until now. Fukuyama only gets the recent not the ancient and medieval and late modern.
=====
From discussion with “Teacher” Alhaji Dada
OK. I see what you mean. I see. I just have to translate it from the intellectuals justification to what it was that they were justifying….
So the Germans haven’t been far out of aristocracy, they had developed the first professional bureaucracies, in Europe, and had them before democracy, so that they never rebelled against the aristocracy, and trust their government – and still (unfortunately) do.
The French rebelled against aristocracy and church, and were already the most backward government in Europe by the time of the revolution. They still retain self righteousness of the ‘liberty equality fraternity’ and the fantasy that they led the world with the revolution rather than they were the rebellion against modernity.
The English rebelled against France and Spain in particular, the church in general, and the continent in general and did not have the fracture or diversity of the French, so they retained internal trust. The empire gave them the resource (commerce) curse, and when the empire collapsed they followed the Spanish into fantasy-preservation without the resources for it and lost their industrial base as well. So they profit by becoming a virtue signal and financial center while their continue their collapse.
The Americans rebelled against the aristocracy but not the church, although the church was terribly weak (protestant) without the catholic institutions, land ownership, and political infrastructure, and and could retain the English (Scandinavian) raiding (pirate) culture because they were expansionary at all times.
So the “Demand for Authority” took very different routes across the Atlantic continent and european plain given the different trust-paths to modernity.
But, as you’ve said this tendency is ANCIENT, and as Candice Mary is trying to get across to me, the maternalism – heaviest in France because of the original Venus cult’s influence – less so in Germany, non-existent in the slavic lands, but still dominating and dominant the south, …. that demand is constant over time. So we have lower trust south all around (maternal), with demand for family, church, and hierarchy. While we have the germans, germanic Scandinavians (west), Finnio-russian Scandinavians, and then the slavs, and southern slavs, each retaining…. ok. I get it.
And that demand never changed because it was a constant in old (south eastern) Europe in antiquity since they had the least admixture from the north, were most similar to greek (llyrian), had much migration (Scythian), and were ruled by old europeans (byzantines), then by ottomans (muslims), so they never had the northern influences other than during Austro-hungarians.
ok. ok. I can start to see how this works now. (Why is it that you, more than anyone, point me in the right direction when I am off?) thank you.
(Thinking: Damn …. DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY (A SET OF INSTITUTIONS) + DEMAND FOR TRUST (FROM A SET OF INSTIUTUTIONS) + Degree of paternalism from raiding, and then from trade, vs demand for maternalism as resistance, vs settled-landed mixed demand. yep. demand for trusted authority from the set of available institutions given the means of available production.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-17 18:46:00 UTC
-
“Who is driving social Marxism across the globe, and why?”— THE CORRECT ANSWER
—“Who is driving social Marxism across the globe, and why?”—
THE CORRECT ANSWER
—”Who is driving social Marxism across the globe, and why?”—-
If you mean Cultural Marxism, then that was the third generational failure of the Ashkenazi Jews:
1 – Labor Communism (Marx), Generation 1
2 – State Socialism (Trotsky/Lenin/Mao/(Many), Generation 2
3 – Academic Cultural Marxism (The Frankfurt School: Adorno et al.). Generation 3
4 – But upon the failure of all three the French supplied Postmodernism (Derrida, Foucault), and all the university, media, and state actors that had over-invested in the three generational failures of marxism converted to postmodernism.
Postmodernism states that there is no truth, no science, no reason, only power, and as such, by use of ideology, propaganda, academy, and media, the ‘Revolution’ against meritocracy (western civilization) can be achieved by the power of words and voting instead of by ideas, science, reason, and achievement.
It’s worth noting that The French (always europe’s enemy) had the most authoritarian government in Europe prior to its revolution, the most authoritarian after the revolution, and remains the most authoritarian in Europe today. With Rousseau providing the authoritarian arguments. Arguments that were first copied by the (timid) Germans, then the Rebellious Ashkenazis (Marxists). And horridly implemented by the Soviets, the Maoists, and the Cambodians. And still the cause of South American and Indian poverty.
5 – If we look at the chief propagandists in the west, it’s single women, immigrants, the lower middle class, lower class, underclass, and American jews. As always since American jews are superior competitors in verbal presentation, they provide a disproportionate influence in Entertainment, Entertainment Media, News, Pseudosciences, and Propaganda. (This is easily measured by random sampling of authors of daily propaganda.)
Note: Read Paul Fussel’s “Class” for an improvement on marxist class theory. It’s Fussel’s categories I refer to, because they roughly reflect (a) occupational hierarchy, (b) IQ hierarchy, and as such, they match the data.
“Defectors”
One thing I did not expect was that while the majority of white americans are of german decent (not english), the germans are MUCH LESS likely to serve the country in the military, and the burden is HEAVILY born by the Anglo – Scotts-Irish demographics. Likewise, the Germans and the Puritans of New England are more likely to ‘defect’ into marxism, socialism, postmodernism, and the Scandinavians of the north central even more likely to defect.
Note: a friend counsels that the ‘defect’ has been on the continent forever, and goes back to Heraclitus. So the ‘defect’ we see in German Americans, if not all but anglo-scots-iris (southerners). And therefore the question is, what is this defect, and how do we name it operationally?
(Really)
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-17 14:16:00 UTC
-
THE LIE OF COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, AND CAPITALISM —“What’s the unbiased pros and
THE LIE OF COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, AND CAPITALISM
—“What’s the unbiased pros and cons of socialism, communism and capitalism?”—
Each proposes a MONOPOLY, just as the abrahamic religions proposed a MONOPOLY – all monopolies are bad (and all monopolistic arguments are false)
The only possible economic structure is a Mixed Economy, and the only structure that every has existed at any scale is a mixed economy.
The underclass requires redistribution because they have no ability to participate in the market. Labor requires insurance against the vicissitudes of manual labor, the clerical and managerial classes require commons in order to produce multiples, the professional and entrepreneurial class require property and rule of law in order to produce the voluntary organization of production, the financial and political classes need organization such that they can produce redistribution, insurance, and property rights, so that all the classes can function as producers and consumers and parents and elderly.
THE TRUTH OF RULE OF LAW VS RULE BY DISCRETION(MAN)
If you practice rule of law – meaning the natural law of torts (not legislation, which is not law, but either contract or command. And commands are not laws, but commands alone), then you will produce a mixed economy.
If you practice discretionary rule or legislative rule you will produce failed attempts at the MONOPOLIES of communism (underclass) socialism (working class), or capitalism (middle and upper middle class). When instead we require communism (redistribution), socialism (production of commons), and capitalism (production of goods, services, and information) in EVERY economy.
THE ASHKENAZI (Authoritarian) VS EUROPEAN (Rule of Law ) DEBATE
1 – Germanics (Masculine) : Rule of Law and Mixed economies.
2 – French (Feminine): Republican Socialism
3 – Ashekanazi (authoritarian): Communism, Libertarianism, Neo-Conservatissm.
4 – Ashkenazi-Russian-Chinese (Authoritarian) : Communism, Socialism.
However, the Ashkenazi and the French are the intellectual vanguard of authoritarianism, having produced every variation from Rousseau to the Postmodernists, and Marx/Boas/Freud/Cantor/Trostsky/Lenin/Mises/Rothbard all the way to the Frankfurt school.
While the french retaliated against the english use of empiricism with their nonsense rationalism, and the germans imitated Rousseau with their nonsense moralism, it was the Ashkenazi of Europe, Russia, and America, who weaponized pseudoscience and propaganda against western civilization by creating pseudoscientific cults with false promise of economic and political paradise just as they had done so in the ancient world with false promise of life after death.
Every time you ask the question which is better you are demonstrating that you have been the victim of a pseudoscientific cult in the modern world, just as your ancestors were the victims of supernatural cults in the anceient world.
The only economy possible is a mixed economy.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-17 13:14:00 UTC
-
The Problem of Symbolic Existence
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLIC EXISTENCE Or to quote my long time friend Frank Lovell, Knowledge of unicorns exists, even if unicorns do not exist. And even this statement depends upon how we demarcate between Knowledge with Information. We actually don’t have a vocabulary for existence as idea or information other than ‘symbol’. And symbol is often confused with ‘glyph’. So, assuming we demarcate symbol and glyph unicorns exist only symbolically while horses exist existentially. So for existence we have grammars: || platonic < symbolic < constructive(operational) <- descriptive(existential) -> analogistic > literary > and fictional(isms) ||
-
LESSONS FROM ISIS More isn’t better. The problem with 1M men, is feeding and she
LESSONS FROM ISIS
More isn’t better. The problem with 1M men, is feeding and sheltering them. That’s not a problem with 10k, or even 50K men. Groups of 150 are most effective. But in general, you need a lot of men working to feed the rest. Or, you have to plunder, then work, plunder then work. But as we learned from ISIS, if you keep moving and don’t try to hold territory it’s almost impossible to stop you. ISIS only had something on the order of 20k to start with. And while we have estimates of up to 50k in the fields those are very questionable numbers. If you are going to have more men it is better to fight multiple fronts (regions) with 10K groups of men, than it is to have 1M. Shutting down a major city is trivial with even a few hundred men. The only value of large numbers of people is so that the few who do the hard work of real fighting can hide among them as human shields.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-15 15:48:00 UTC