Form: Mini Essay

there need be no justification for war, conquest, colonization, exploitation, decimation and genocide since moral questions are only relevant between cooperators. The past happened and we cannot alter history, only cooperate in the present or war in the present. i have no debt to the past. you have no credit from it. build a civil society today or admit you cant and need to be ruled. there are plenty of peoples more advanced that can rule if you cant. time moves. the weak are conquered. evolution continues. excuses are meaningless because the universe is deaf. the past is irrelevant. cooperate, conquer or be conquered. morality is an exclusively present question. — edit — This post is in response to intertemporal claims of debts between peoples who have been in conflict and particularly asymmetrical conflict. In the west, we do not regularly tell the Turks that they are occupying white lands. Yet we tell the arabs they are occupying jewish lands. We tell the Boers that they are occupying African lands. And texans they are occupying mexican (Amerindian) lands. And the russians are occupying Siberian and caucasian lands. And the north and south Americans occupying amerindian lands. And the amerindians occupying the previous generations of Siberians who discovered and hunted the americas first. I’ve answered this question before, but in my understanding, you establish ownership of territory by infrastructure and monuments (contribution) not use (extraction). otherwise you are making poor use of territory at others’ expense, and therefore harm by your very existence. Just as if you cannot rule without imposing costs upon your neighbors, that you are making poor use of territory at other’s expense. So if you cannot produce capital (physical, and institutional) then the market for territories demonstrates your unfitness to hold it. Not by arbitrary reasons but by EVOLUTIONARY means. Debts end when restitution is no longer possible between creditor and debtor. And when no insurer exists to enforce them. That’s just a statement of possibility. All else is just means, motive, and opportunity. Given: Criminal(for physical gains) > ethical (for interpersonal gains) > moral (for extrapersonal gains) > evil ( for psychic reward from interpersonal and interpersonal losses) Moral questions are those where our actions are unobservable and not directly calculable – say, when you bear a child you cannot afford and impose the cost of its upkeep on the community through the creation of moral hazard. It seems most people who are commenting confuse the practical and calculable with the moral (invisible and incalculable). You might say that it’s practical to avoid offending competing groups. And that the reason for practicality is incentive for retaliation against the imposition of costs upon others. And in that sense the practical and the moral are both questions imposition, but they are not equal questions of cooperation. Whether you are immature (stupid) enough to allow your training in jewish, christian, muslim universalism and superstition, and conflate the criminal, ethical, moral, and practical, you’re doing the same things as women do by expanding the communalism of family to the market that is the polity, by extending the market of the polity, to that of the international market of competitors. Conquest, Decimation, Genocide, are extremely effective. And the products of our arts and sciences are the products of groups that expand, conquer, and put territories and resources to superior use in the production of temporal and intertemporal capital. Always expand. Always Create. Always Innovate. Always Conquer and put to better use – assuming you can put to better use in ten accumulation of genetic, cultural, knowledge, and institutional capital. Evolution is the end point decision of all conflicts. Experience is only useful in getting there. Evolve or die. Eat the Weak.

there need be no justification for war, conquest, colonization, exploitation, decimation and genocide since moral questions are only relevant between cooperators. The past happened and we cannot alter history, only cooperate in the present or war in the present. i have no debt to the past. you have no credit from it. build a civil society today or admit you cant and need to be ruled. there are plenty of peoples more advanced that can rule if you cant. time moves. the weak are conquered. evolution continues. excuses are meaningless because the universe is deaf. the past is irrelevant. cooperate, conquer or be conquered. morality is an exclusively present question. — edit — This post is in response to intertemporal claims of debts between peoples who have been in conflict and particularly asymmetrical conflict. In the west, we do not regularly tell the Turks that they are occupying white lands. Yet we tell the arabs they are occupying jewish lands. We tell the Boers that they are occupying African lands. And texans they are occupying mexican (Amerindian) lands. And the russians are occupying Siberian and caucasian lands. And the north and south Americans occupying amerindian lands. And the amerindians occupying the previous generations of Siberians who discovered and hunted the americas first. I’ve answered this question before, but in my understanding, you establish ownership of territory by infrastructure and monuments (contribution) not use (extraction). otherwise you are making poor use of territory at others’ expense, and therefore harm by your very existence. Just as if you cannot rule without imposing costs upon your neighbors, that you are making poor use of territory at other’s expense. So if you cannot produce capital (physical, and institutional) then the market for territories demonstrates your unfitness to hold it. Not by arbitrary reasons but by EVOLUTIONARY means. Debts end when restitution is no longer possible between creditor and debtor. And when no insurer exists to enforce them. That’s just a statement of possibility. All else is just means, motive, and opportunity. Given: Criminal(for physical gains) > ethical (for interpersonal gains) > moral (for extrapersonal gains) > evil ( for psychic reward from interpersonal and interpersonal losses) Moral questions are those where our actions are unobservable and not directly calculable – say, when you bear a child you cannot afford and impose the cost of its upkeep on the community through the creation of moral hazard. It seems most people who are commenting confuse the practical and calculable with the moral (invisible and incalculable). You might say that it’s practical to avoid offending competing groups. And that the reason for practicality is incentive for retaliation against the imposition of costs upon others. And in that sense the practical and the moral are both questions imposition, but they are not equal questions of cooperation. Whether you are immature (stupid) enough to allow your training in jewish, christian, muslim universalism and superstition, and conflate the criminal, ethical, moral, and practical, you’re doing the same things as women do by expanding the communalism of family to the market that is the polity, by extending the market of the polity, to that of the international market of competitors. Conquest, Decimation, Genocide, are extremely effective. And the products of our arts and sciences are the products of groups that expand, conquer, and put territories and resources to superior use in the production of temporal and intertemporal capital. Always expand. Always Create. Always Innovate. Always Conquer and put to better use – assuming you can put to better use in ten accumulation of genetic, cultural, knowledge, and institutional capital. Evolution is the end point decision of all conflicts. Experience is only useful in getting there. Evolve or die. Eat the Weak.