One of the cures for “IQ Shredding” is to follow the postwar german example, of limiting housing in cities to those for families. So that the benefits of low cost of commons (density) are only available to those who produce generations. This is a very simple alternative. In other words, today, large organizations can use stock market capital, to bring young people to cities, profit from them, at the expense of IQ by way of reproductive rates. When, as whites and jews have shown us, the objective must always be to do the opposite: distribute reproduction upwards. Combined with one-child policy for the underclasses this will work by a means regularly unconscionable to libertines: redistribution of opportunity costs to those that pay the costs of intergenerational reproduction.
Form: Mini Essay
-
One of Propertarianism’s Cures for Iq Shredding
https://blog.jim.com/economics/the-cure-for-iq-shredders/THE CURE FOR “IQ SHREDDERS” (CITIES) from Jim’s Blog Our best hopes for a high tech future, for avoiding a dark age, are consuming the genes needed for a high tech future. Smart people go to Hong Kong and Singapore and fail to reproduce. Singapore has taken numerous measures, similar to those of the Nazis and Emperor Augustus, to improve fertility, which will doubtless be as ineffectual as those of the Nazis and Emperor Augustus. Just as the cure for Chinese poverty was to import the economic laws and customs of Hong Kong into Shanghai, the cure for Singaporean infertility is to import the marital laws and customs of Timor Leste, where women cannot own property, because they are wards of their parents until they become wards of their husbands. Dubai already has a system where low status expat workers are effectively wards of their employers. This typically applies to Indian construction workers (who are all male and unaccompanied by their wives and families) and Filipino “maids”, who are all female and normally single when they arrive. If an employee’s sponsor is her employer, the employee is effectively a ward of the employer. A higher status employee usually has the free zone authority is his sponsor, not his employer, even though his employer asked the free zone to sponsor the employee so the process looks very similar. An employee sponsored by her employer normally resides in accommodation provided by the employer. The employee cannot change jobs without her employers permission. If the employer dismisses the maid, he normally cancels her visa, her bank accounts, her phone, and gives her a ticket back to her homeland. He has to give her a ticket out, because he paid a deposit to obtain her work visa, and because if she fails to leave by her employer’s fault, the employer is in trouble. If the employer cancels his employees visa, he is supposed to provide the employee with the means to leave. Often however, she fails to show up by her fault, in which case the employer still loses his deposit, so if he can, he drags her off to the airport whether she will or not. Male Indian construction workers seldom do a run. If fired, they leave without any drama. “Maids” frequently do a run and fail to show up at the airport, because the usual cause of a falling out with her employer is raging hormones. If she does a run, her phone stops working, her credit cards stop working, her bank account stops working and if she does not withdraw any money in her bank account in a timely fashion, she loses the money. She cannot get a new phone, bank account or legal accommodation, and is subject to a large fine for every day she fails to show up. If caught, and unable to pay the fine, goes to jail for considerable time, then is sent out of the country and forbidden ever to return. -
One of Propertarianism’s Cures for Iq Shredding
One of the cures for “IQ Shredding” is to follow the postwar german example, of limiting housing in cities to those for families. So that the benefits of low cost of commons (density) are only available to those who produce generations. This is a very simple alternative. In other words, today, large organizations can use stock market capital, to bring young people to cities, profit from them, at the expense of IQ by way of reproductive rates. When, as whites and jews have shown us, the objective must always be to do the opposite: distribute reproduction upwards. Combined with one-child policy for the underclasses this will work by a means regularly unconscionable to libertines: redistribution of opportunity costs to those that pay the costs of intergenerational reproduction.
https://blog.jim.com/economics/the-cure-for-iq-shredders/THE CURE FOR “IQ SHREDDERS” (CITIES) from Jim’s Blog Our best hopes for a high tech future, for avoiding a dark age, are consuming the genes needed for a high tech future. Smart people go to Hong Kong and Singapore and fail to reproduce. Singapore has taken numerous measures, similar to those of the Nazis and Emperor Augustus, to improve fertility, which will doubtless be as ineffectual as those of the Nazis and Emperor Augustus. Just as the cure for Chinese poverty was to import the economic laws and customs of Hong Kong into Shanghai, the cure for Singaporean infertility is to import the marital laws and customs of Timor Leste, where women cannot own property, because they are wards of their parents until they become wards of their husbands. Dubai already has a system where low status expat workers are effectively wards of their employers. This typically applies to Indian construction workers (who are all male and unaccompanied by their wives and families) and Filipino “maids”, who are all female and normally single when they arrive. If an employee’s sponsor is her employer, the employee is effectively a ward of the employer. A higher status employee usually has the free zone authority is his sponsor, not his employer, even though his employer asked the free zone to sponsor the employee so the process looks very similar. An employee sponsored by her employer normally resides in accommodation provided by the employer. The employee cannot change jobs without her employers permission. If the employer dismisses the maid, he normally cancels her visa, her bank accounts, her phone, and gives her a ticket back to her homeland. He has to give her a ticket out, because he paid a deposit to obtain her work visa, and because if she fails to leave by her employer’s fault, the employer is in trouble. If the employer cancels his employees visa, he is supposed to provide the employee with the means to leave. Often however, she fails to show up by her fault, in which case the employer still loses his deposit, so if he can, he drags her off to the airport whether she will or not. Male Indian construction workers seldom do a run. If fired, they leave without any drama. “Maids” frequently do a run and fail to show up at the airport, because the usual cause of a falling out with her employer is raging hormones. If she does a run, her phone stops working, her credit cards stop working, her bank account stops working and if she does not withdraw any money in her bank account in a timely fashion, she loses the money. She cannot get a new phone, bank account or legal accommodation, and is subject to a large fine for every day she fails to show up. If caught, and unable to pay the fine, goes to jail for considerable time, then is sent out of the country and forbidden ever to return. -
Taxes and Reproduction
(probably an important set of ideas you need to grasp) The fact that we tax tradesmen and members of bureaucracies at the same rate is counter-progressive (regressive). If you’re going to tax progressively (effectively a sales tax on market participation), employment in or as Laborers, Tradesmen, Professionals, Small Medium Businesses, Industries, Government should be taxed progressively. However the single most detrimental policies have been: (a) inter temporal redistribution and risk propagation (which is incalculable) rather than the Singapore/Texas model of forced savings and redistribution into personal health and retirement accounts (which is calculable – and reinvest-able). (b) The redistribution of middle class reproduction to the underclasses due to (i) inability to self segregate, thereby forcing families to ‘buy their way’ into expensive neighborhoods and schools at the cost of increased female labor, and decreased rates of reproduction. (b) the taxation and burning of reproduction by the middle class to redistribute reproduction to the lower classes (that should either be sterilized or limited to one child.) Because ‘white people’ can live extremely well in high trust high quality well maintained commons by purely voluntary labor, it is possible for ‘whites’ to spend very little on redistribution and commons production, and also work less if they can isolate themselves from less advanced (domesticated) groups. There is zero reason, other than interest rates on home and auto, and the need to buy overpriced housing in overpriced neighborhoods, for more than 10% overhead of GDP. White westerners with small arms, required service, some artillery and nuclear weapons can build extremely low cost per capita high quality commons simply because IT IS IN OUR NATURE. Heterogeneity (diversity) has destroyed western civilization. We let pandora out of her box when we allowed women to vote without first limiting the damage that they could do once loosed in the polity by compensating for their dysgenic impulses. Civilization occured because of paternalism: the use of competition and capital to limit the reproductive damage done by women’s intuitions.
-
Taxes and Reproduction
(probably an important set of ideas you need to grasp) The fact that we tax tradesmen and members of bureaucracies at the same rate is counter-progressive (regressive). If you’re going to tax progressively (effectively a sales tax on market participation), employment in or as Laborers, Tradesmen, Professionals, Small Medium Businesses, Industries, Government should be taxed progressively. However the single most detrimental policies have been: (a) inter temporal redistribution and risk propagation (which is incalculable) rather than the Singapore/Texas model of forced savings and redistribution into personal health and retirement accounts (which is calculable – and reinvest-able). (b) The redistribution of middle class reproduction to the underclasses due to (i) inability to self segregate, thereby forcing families to ‘buy their way’ into expensive neighborhoods and schools at the cost of increased female labor, and decreased rates of reproduction. (b) the taxation and burning of reproduction by the middle class to redistribute reproduction to the lower classes (that should either be sterilized or limited to one child.) Because ‘white people’ can live extremely well in high trust high quality well maintained commons by purely voluntary labor, it is possible for ‘whites’ to spend very little on redistribution and commons production, and also work less if they can isolate themselves from less advanced (domesticated) groups. There is zero reason, other than interest rates on home and auto, and the need to buy overpriced housing in overpriced neighborhoods, for more than 10% overhead of GDP. White westerners with small arms, required service, some artillery and nuclear weapons can build extremely low cost per capita high quality commons simply because IT IS IN OUR NATURE. Heterogeneity (diversity) has destroyed western civilization. We let pandora out of her box when we allowed women to vote without first limiting the damage that they could do once loosed in the polity by compensating for their dysgenic impulses. Civilization occured because of paternalism: the use of competition and capital to limit the reproductive damage done by women’s intuitions.
-
Germany Saw Herself (rightly) as A Civilization Encircled by Hostile Powers
GERMANY SAW HERSELF (RIGHTLY) AS A CIVILIZATION ENCIRCLED BY HOSTILE POWERS CONJECTURE —“The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. He has failed, not because the theory of evolution is false, but because he has made three fatal blunders in its application. The first was in forcing the pace of evolution among his own people; he raised their warlike passions to such a heat that the only relief possible was that of aggressive war. His second mistake lay in his misconception of the evolutionary value of power. All that a sane evolutionist demands of power is that it should be sufficient to guarantee the security of a nation; more than that is an evolutionary abuse of power. When Hitler set out to conquer Europe, he had entered on that course which brought about the evolutionary destruction of Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes (see Chapter 34). His third and greatest mistake was his failure to realize that such a monopoly of power meant insecurity for Britain, Russia, and America. His three great antagonists, although they do not preach the doctrine of evolution, are very consistent exponents of its tenets.” —Sir Arthur Keith, Essays on Human Evolution, (London: Watts & Co., 1946), 210 (cf. Evolution and Ethics, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1947), 229.) REFUTATION by Aaron Kahland (SUMMARY ) “Germany saw itself as a civilization not merely an ‘Empire’ or a ‘state’ as this author indicates. A civilization that was encircled and threatened by outside powers.” I don’t want to presume what I’m to write is educational to the others here but I’ll try to elucidate my rebuttal to the author. He begins with the following: —“He has failed, not because the theory of evolution is false, but because he has made three fatal blunders in its application. The first was in forcing the pace of evolution among his own people.”— Unless I’m mistaken he’s implicitly admitting that Germany was destined to be the European superpower. I don’t think that is particularly contestable. Then he goes on to state his three reasons for this failure:’ 1. —“He raised their warlike passions to such a heat that the only relief possible was that of aggressive war.”— From what I have researched there is simply no evidence to support this claim. It is, instead, well documented that Germans, in 1939, remained war-weary – there were no outbreaks of relief or displays of ‘passion’. If Hitler believed Germans were in ‘heat’ – why were his war aims so modest – namely recovery of previously German territories in what was then Poland? Why not march against the historic enemy France, why not make the demand for the return of Alsace or Lorraine? Many, but Anglos in particular, constantly misconceive German expertise at war for German desire for war. I believe it is a self-delusion, ‘the Germans constantly best others on the battlefield – it can only be explained by their thirst for blood.’ It’s ridiculous as every serious scholar of war knows. 2. —“His second mistake lay in his misconception of the evolutionary value of power. All that a sane evolutionist demands of power is that it should be sufficient to guarantee the security of a nation; more than that is an evolutionary abuse of power. When Hitler set out to conquer Europe, he had entered on that course which brought about the evolutionary destruction of Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes (see Chapter 34).”—- This is a remarkable claim coming from an Englishman. The only thing ‘sufficient’ is ‘to guarantee the security of a nation’? Wasn’t that what Britain claimed to be doing itself in WW2 – by declaring war on Germany? Is not the historical record clear that Hitler’s war aims were at all times to destroy, once and for all, Germany’s mortal foe to its East? That Germany’s survival depended on defeating Bolshevism? That Germany’s security depended on securing territory and resources in the East so that it could, next time, match the resources of the United States and the British Empire? Criticize Hitler’s ‘sanity’ if the author must – but how can he claim anything other than his goal was ‘guaranteeing the security of the nation.’ Equally bizarre is his statement on Genghis Khan. What evolutionary failure is he referring to? The blood of the Mongols stretches as far as Hungary. Is he confusing ‘nation’ for ’empire?’ 3. —“His third and greatest mistake was his failure to realize that such a monopoly of power meant insecurity for Britain, Russia, and America. His three great antagonists, although they do not preach the doctrine of evolution, are very consistent exponents of its tenets.”— This is nonsense. Why not state that ‘Stalin’s great mistake was his failure to realize a monopoly of power meant insecurity for Brtiain?’ The author misses the point – there was never going to be a German ‘monopoly’ of power. How was German power ever going to be overwhelming to the United States? The real problem was not a potential German monopoly on power but Britain’s objection to the very idea of the inevitability of German power. Germany perceived the means of survival of German civilization as necessitating strength to counter the mortal threat in the East. This fact dominated German thinking at least as far back as the dual alliance with Austria of 1879 and was at fever pitch by the time Russia and France signed an alliance in 1894. Germany saw itself as a civilization not merely an ‘Empire’ or a ‘state’ as this author indicates. A civilization that was encircled and threatened by outside powers. Britain never, ever, felt this sensation and this, I believe, helps to understand this author’s analytical error. His analysis is, in my view, superficial and erroneous.
-
Germany Saw Herself (rightly) as A Civilization Encircled by Hostile Powers
GERMANY SAW HERSELF (RIGHTLY) AS A CIVILIZATION ENCIRCLED BY HOSTILE POWERS CONJECTURE —“The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. He has failed, not because the theory of evolution is false, but because he has made three fatal blunders in its application. The first was in forcing the pace of evolution among his own people; he raised their warlike passions to such a heat that the only relief possible was that of aggressive war. His second mistake lay in his misconception of the evolutionary value of power. All that a sane evolutionist demands of power is that it should be sufficient to guarantee the security of a nation; more than that is an evolutionary abuse of power. When Hitler set out to conquer Europe, he had entered on that course which brought about the evolutionary destruction of Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes (see Chapter 34). His third and greatest mistake was his failure to realize that such a monopoly of power meant insecurity for Britain, Russia, and America. His three great antagonists, although they do not preach the doctrine of evolution, are very consistent exponents of its tenets.” —Sir Arthur Keith, Essays on Human Evolution, (London: Watts & Co., 1946), 210 (cf. Evolution and Ethics, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1947), 229.) REFUTATION by Aaron Kahland (SUMMARY ) “Germany saw itself as a civilization not merely an ‘Empire’ or a ‘state’ as this author indicates. A civilization that was encircled and threatened by outside powers.” I don’t want to presume what I’m to write is educational to the others here but I’ll try to elucidate my rebuttal to the author. He begins with the following: —“He has failed, not because the theory of evolution is false, but because he has made three fatal blunders in its application. The first was in forcing the pace of evolution among his own people.”— Unless I’m mistaken he’s implicitly admitting that Germany was destined to be the European superpower. I don’t think that is particularly contestable. Then he goes on to state his three reasons for this failure:’ 1. —“He raised their warlike passions to such a heat that the only relief possible was that of aggressive war.”— From what I have researched there is simply no evidence to support this claim. It is, instead, well documented that Germans, in 1939, remained war-weary – there were no outbreaks of relief or displays of ‘passion’. If Hitler believed Germans were in ‘heat’ – why were his war aims so modest – namely recovery of previously German territories in what was then Poland? Why not march against the historic enemy France, why not make the demand for the return of Alsace or Lorraine? Many, but Anglos in particular, constantly misconceive German expertise at war for German desire for war. I believe it is a self-delusion, ‘the Germans constantly best others on the battlefield – it can only be explained by their thirst for blood.’ It’s ridiculous as every serious scholar of war knows. 2. —“His second mistake lay in his misconception of the evolutionary value of power. All that a sane evolutionist demands of power is that it should be sufficient to guarantee the security of a nation; more than that is an evolutionary abuse of power. When Hitler set out to conquer Europe, he had entered on that course which brought about the evolutionary destruction of Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes (see Chapter 34).”—- This is a remarkable claim coming from an Englishman. The only thing ‘sufficient’ is ‘to guarantee the security of a nation’? Wasn’t that what Britain claimed to be doing itself in WW2 – by declaring war on Germany? Is not the historical record clear that Hitler’s war aims were at all times to destroy, once and for all, Germany’s mortal foe to its East? That Germany’s survival depended on defeating Bolshevism? That Germany’s security depended on securing territory and resources in the East so that it could, next time, match the resources of the United States and the British Empire? Criticize Hitler’s ‘sanity’ if the author must – but how can he claim anything other than his goal was ‘guaranteeing the security of the nation.’ Equally bizarre is his statement on Genghis Khan. What evolutionary failure is he referring to? The blood of the Mongols stretches as far as Hungary. Is he confusing ‘nation’ for ’empire?’ 3. —“His third and greatest mistake was his failure to realize that such a monopoly of power meant insecurity for Britain, Russia, and America. His three great antagonists, although they do not preach the doctrine of evolution, are very consistent exponents of its tenets.”— This is nonsense. Why not state that ‘Stalin’s great mistake was his failure to realize a monopoly of power meant insecurity for Brtiain?’ The author misses the point – there was never going to be a German ‘monopoly’ of power. How was German power ever going to be overwhelming to the United States? The real problem was not a potential German monopoly on power but Britain’s objection to the very idea of the inevitability of German power. Germany perceived the means of survival of German civilization as necessitating strength to counter the mortal threat in the East. This fact dominated German thinking at least as far back as the dual alliance with Austria of 1879 and was at fever pitch by the time Russia and France signed an alliance in 1894. Germany saw itself as a civilization not merely an ‘Empire’ or a ‘state’ as this author indicates. A civilization that was encircled and threatened by outside powers. Britain never, ever, felt this sensation and this, I believe, helps to understand this author’s analytical error. His analysis is, in my view, superficial and erroneous.
-
The Ongoing Semitic Revolt in Historical Context
SOCIALISM: THE VILLAGE Socialism is an economy in which productive property (factories, farms, workshops) is controlled socially. This can mean direct workers’ control, or community ownership, or state control on behalf of the people. There are a great deal of socialist ideologies. Broad categories include democratic socialism, Marxism, and anarchism. COMMUNISM: THE HUNTER GATHERER BAND Communism is a classless, stateless society in which productive property is commonly owned and economic distribution is operated on the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” It also refers to a group of ideologies which hold this form of social organization as their end goal. The most significant form of communism is Marxism, and the 20th century was characterized by a number of Marxist-Leninist states. Anarchist communism is also historically significant, though has not been nearly as popular as the various forms of Marxist communism since the late-19th and early-20th centuries, except in select countries or localities. MARXISM: THE SECOND RETALIATION AGAINST THE AGRARIANS. Marxism is an analytical framework based on the writings of 19th century German philosopher, economist, and sociologist Karl Marx and political philosopher and social scientist Friedrich Engels. It holds that human society is built primarily on economic relations between classes and that political and social structures are built around these relations. One’s class is defined by one’s relationship to production—who owns capital, who works it for a wage? Marxism analyzes social changes and developments as the product of conflicting classes changing the structure of the economy. Modern capitalism as the result of the bourgeoisie, the current capital-owning class, having wrested control of the economy away from the aristocracy, or the feudal owning-class. Bourgeois democracy follows as political structures adapt. The primary class conflict in capitalism is between the capital-owning class (the bourgeoisie) and the working-class (the proletariat). Marx argued that the proletariat would seize control of the economy and society, in a stage he described as socialism. In Marxist analysis, every state is the “dictatorship” of the economically dominant class. The socialist stage is therefore the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” in which the workers will reorganize the economy until there are no longer any classes. Without a class that needs to enforce its dominance over others, Marxists believe that the state will wither away and the final stage, communism, will be reached. These socialist revolutions will happen when capitalism reaches its final stages of development and becomes consumed by its own contradictions. CAIN AND ABLE: THE ETERNAL REBELLION OF SEMITIC PASTORALIST PRIMITIVISM AGAINST EUROPEANS Read Cain and Abel Abel (literally “herdsman”), works with livestock (Pastoralist/Female/Equalitarian) Cain (literally “metalsmith”) works with agriculture (Agrarian/Masculine/Hierarchical) The Jews had been in a war with the people of Crete (the Philistines) who were, among other things, metalworkers. The Jews (so far as I know) had no metalworking. As far as I know, once defeated by the Assyrians, the Jews committed their first genocide and killed every living person of the Philistines, and burned their cities. (This is the current archaeological evidence as I understand it). So as we can see, ancient judaism, rabbinical judaism, christianity, and islam are all revolts against the people of PROPERTY, TECHNOLOGY, and HIERARCHY. -
The Ongoing Semitic Revolt in Historical Context
SOCIALISM: THE VILLAGE Socialism is an economy in which productive property (factories, farms, workshops) is controlled socially. This can mean direct workers’ control, or community ownership, or state control on behalf of the people. There are a great deal of socialist ideologies. Broad categories include democratic socialism, Marxism, and anarchism. COMMUNISM: THE HUNTER GATHERER BAND Communism is a classless, stateless society in which productive property is commonly owned and economic distribution is operated on the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” It also refers to a group of ideologies which hold this form of social organization as their end goal. The most significant form of communism is Marxism, and the 20th century was characterized by a number of Marxist-Leninist states. Anarchist communism is also historically significant, though has not been nearly as popular as the various forms of Marxist communism since the late-19th and early-20th centuries, except in select countries or localities. MARXISM: THE SECOND RETALIATION AGAINST THE AGRARIANS. Marxism is an analytical framework based on the writings of 19th century German philosopher, economist, and sociologist Karl Marx and political philosopher and social scientist Friedrich Engels. It holds that human society is built primarily on economic relations between classes and that political and social structures are built around these relations. One’s class is defined by one’s relationship to production—who owns capital, who works it for a wage? Marxism analyzes social changes and developments as the product of conflicting classes changing the structure of the economy. Modern capitalism as the result of the bourgeoisie, the current capital-owning class, having wrested control of the economy away from the aristocracy, or the feudal owning-class. Bourgeois democracy follows as political structures adapt. The primary class conflict in capitalism is between the capital-owning class (the bourgeoisie) and the working-class (the proletariat). Marx argued that the proletariat would seize control of the economy and society, in a stage he described as socialism. In Marxist analysis, every state is the “dictatorship” of the economically dominant class. The socialist stage is therefore the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” in which the workers will reorganize the economy until there are no longer any classes. Without a class that needs to enforce its dominance over others, Marxists believe that the state will wither away and the final stage, communism, will be reached. These socialist revolutions will happen when capitalism reaches its final stages of development and becomes consumed by its own contradictions. CAIN AND ABLE: THE ETERNAL REBELLION OF SEMITIC PASTORALIST PRIMITIVISM AGAINST EUROPEANS Read Cain and Abel Abel (literally “herdsman”), works with livestock (Pastoralist/Female/Equalitarian) Cain (literally “metalsmith”) works with agriculture (Agrarian/Masculine/Hierarchical) The Jews had been in a war with the people of Crete (the Philistines) who were, among other things, metalworkers. The Jews (so far as I know) had no metalworking. As far as I know, once defeated by the Assyrians, the Jews committed their first genocide and killed every living person of the Philistines, and burned their cities. (This is the current archaeological evidence as I understand it). So as we can see, ancient judaism, rabbinical judaism, christianity, and islam are all revolts against the people of PROPERTY, TECHNOLOGY, and HIERARCHY. -
How to Study Any Subject
Some idiot on Quora counter-signaling one of my posts on ethnicity, by demanding sources. You know, I don’t put sources for a lot of things because it requires a second copy-paste, and google image search or text search will always find it. (and maybe subconsciously i like to bait these assholes.) As usual, it’s a diagram and quotes from Nature. Which is pretty much the top of the scientific stack. and… Fuck. Do people think I make this shit up? Fucking read something other than stupid shit…. You know how easy getting a grasp of anything is? You find a subject. You search wiki and read the articles and copy the references. Now you search for those references. you read reviews of published papers that were published later, and you read reviews of books on amazon. You read the reviews of all related books suggested by amazon. You make a list of names, and terms, and key-phrases. You repeat this process until ‘I cant find anything that isn’t a duplicate of something someone else said’. Once you’ve done that pick the best book, and read it’s table of contents. Try figure out which chapter makes the argument rather than prepares for it or explains it. Scan that chapter. then read it. Then if you think there is more to learn read more until there isn’t. Check the back of the book’s glossary and bibliography. Just scan them for things you either don’t know or sound interesting. Pick another book. Do the same. Most of the time BOOKS CAN BE REDUCED TO A SET OF KEY PAPERS REFERENCED IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY. If not, they can be reduced to a central thesis, and the rest of the book is just DEFENSE of it. My opinion on research is not to put a lot of stock in any defense, but to put stock tin the competition of books and papers that compete with one another on the topic. So I recommend using the cheapness of the internet to survey a subject and then get into the books. Most of the time I work by finding an author that has created a novel insight and then reading the papers in his bibliography. It may seem like a lot is published but the truth is very few books in any year are of substance at the level of group evolutionary strategy and politics. Once you are ‘current’ with the state of knowledge you just literally follow the top blogs, and read the relatively few papers that have any meaning. What you find is that all the discipilnes duplicate effort on what you would consider awfully obvious matters. By contrast, what most people do is the other way around: try to find one book and they get ‘hooked by the authors frame.’ and then they’re anchored. Start with an overview of the ‘market for ideas’. This isn’t the middle ages. Nearly every book more than a year old is available for free somewhere somehow. In fact, we have just about everything worth reading already in our library in digital form. (Rant off.)
-
How to Study Any Subject
Some idiot on Quora counter-signaling one of my posts on ethnicity, by demanding sources. You know, I don’t put sources for a lot of things because it requires a second copy-paste, and google image search or text search will always find it. (and maybe subconsciously i like to bait these assholes.) As usual, it’s a diagram and quotes from Nature. Which is pretty much the top of the scientific stack. and… Fuck. Do people think I make this shit up? Fucking read something other than stupid shit…. You know how easy getting a grasp of anything is? You find a subject. You search wiki and read the articles and copy the references. Now you search for those references. you read reviews of published papers that were published later, and you read reviews of books on amazon. You read the reviews of all related books suggested by amazon. You make a list of names, and terms, and key-phrases. You repeat this process until ‘I cant find anything that isn’t a duplicate of something someone else said’. Once you’ve done that pick the best book, and read it’s table of contents. Try figure out which chapter makes the argument rather than prepares for it or explains it. Scan that chapter. then read it. Then if you think there is more to learn read more until there isn’t. Check the back of the book’s glossary and bibliography. Just scan them for things you either don’t know or sound interesting. Pick another book. Do the same. Most of the time BOOKS CAN BE REDUCED TO A SET OF KEY PAPERS REFERENCED IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY. If not, they can be reduced to a central thesis, and the rest of the book is just DEFENSE of it. My opinion on research is not to put a lot of stock in any defense, but to put stock tin the competition of books and papers that compete with one another on the topic. So I recommend using the cheapness of the internet to survey a subject and then get into the books. Most of the time I work by finding an author that has created a novel insight and then reading the papers in his bibliography. It may seem like a lot is published but the truth is very few books in any year are of substance at the level of group evolutionary strategy and politics. Once you are ‘current’ with the state of knowledge you just literally follow the top blogs, and read the relatively few papers that have any meaning. What you find is that all the discipilnes duplicate effort on what you would consider awfully obvious matters. By contrast, what most people do is the other way around: try to find one book and they get ‘hooked by the authors frame.’ and then they’re anchored. Start with an overview of the ‘market for ideas’. This isn’t the middle ages. Nearly every book more than a year old is available for free somewhere somehow. In fact, we have just about everything worth reading already in our library in digital form. (Rant off.)