There is a very great difference between transforming the state of the physical world by physical coercion (labor), and transforming the choices and organization of people using incentives (layers of entrepreneurship and management). The physical world can’t choose between options. Man can choose between options unless he is in fact a slave – thereby lacking exit. Now, one might say that exit is not itself a favorable choice, but then it is a choice for labor, and not a choice for slaves. The Communist and Socialist wants to create serf labor – lacking exit but the management (state) takes ownership for the survival of the serfs. The Democratic socialist wants to preserve voluntary organization of production but monopolize involuntary production of commons by maximum extraction of the profits of the market. The classical liberal wants to preserve the private production of goods, services, and information, and the private production of all commons it is possible to produce in that market, while limiting the involuntary production of commons to those of via-negativa constraint: Military, Justice, Law. The anarchist (libertarian) wants to prohibit the production of involuntary commons (despite this is as impossible as communism since there is no incentive to participate in an uncompetitive polity, when a polity is and of itself, a commons. We cannot restore pastoralism(zero-commons). Even if those peoples that have never succeeded at agrarianism and been through it’s evolutionary grinder, desperately want to restore it and resist civilization at every opportunity. All the potential value is created by the martial aristocracy. All the value is created by the entrepreneurial class. The vast amount of the benefit is obtained by the laboring classes, and the underclasses that would otherwise be dead. The beneficiary of civlization is largely labor. The principle benefit of the few at the top, and the minority in the middle, is signaling that preserves their identification as those who successfully organize potential, organize production distribution and trade, and organize the labor that requires little other than the physical to transform the physical world.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Your Choice of Personal Philosophy Is Limited by Others Choice of Political Philosophy
Dear idiots. You don’t get to choose a personal philosophy that isn’t bound by a political philosophy agreed to by others – and still survive competition in that polity. Just as groups don’t get to choose a political philosophy that can’t survive the market for territories. It doesn’t matter what you alone think or want. A personal philosophy is, almost without exception, either a means of succeeding within a political philosophy, or a means of escapism from a political philosophy one is bound by. Further, one can create personal fantasies of escapism; personal philosophies of resistance; personal philosophies of navigation (survival); and of success (competition), and of excellence (heroism). A political philosophy ( meaning a social, economic, political, and military order) empowers enough of the people such that the group survives competition. Political philosophies change when a group either surrenders to competition (multiculturalism), resists competition, or seeks an opportunity for superior competition. But the individual is only as useful and only possesses so much choice, as his philosophy serves the interests of the body politic in the persistence of their group strategy ( what we call ‘philosophy’). So one either assists, is dead weight, or is a drag on the group’s strategy. And by and large, within the margins, one’s success is determined by the relationship one chooses wth the groups strategy. The only choice is creating a large enough group with an new enough strategy that one can disrupt the order and replace it with one that serves the same interests in the new order. In the case of the current order, we have let the evil people go too far in undermining the ‘Third Way’ provided by America in contrast to the other underclass and authoritarian civilizations. We were foolishly optimistic christians, and not empirical Aryans. As such it is very unlikely that without vast bloodshed, we will exit the next crisis with the entire continent. But we will exit the next crisis with self determination. They will decay from demographic weight alone. There is nothing they can do.
-
Your Choice of Personal Philosophy Is Limited by Others Choice of Political Philosophy
Dear idiots. You don’t get to choose a personal philosophy that isn’t bound by a political philosophy agreed to by others – and still survive competition in that polity. Just as groups don’t get to choose a political philosophy that can’t survive the market for territories. It doesn’t matter what you alone think or want. A personal philosophy is, almost without exception, either a means of succeeding within a political philosophy, or a means of escapism from a political philosophy one is bound by. Further, one can create personal fantasies of escapism; personal philosophies of resistance; personal philosophies of navigation (survival); and of success (competition), and of excellence (heroism). A political philosophy ( meaning a social, economic, political, and military order) empowers enough of the people such that the group survives competition. Political philosophies change when a group either surrenders to competition (multiculturalism), resists competition, or seeks an opportunity for superior competition. But the individual is only as useful and only possesses so much choice, as his philosophy serves the interests of the body politic in the persistence of their group strategy ( what we call ‘philosophy’). So one either assists, is dead weight, or is a drag on the group’s strategy. And by and large, within the margins, one’s success is determined by the relationship one chooses wth the groups strategy. The only choice is creating a large enough group with an new enough strategy that one can disrupt the order and replace it with one that serves the same interests in the new order. In the case of the current order, we have let the evil people go too far in undermining the ‘Third Way’ provided by America in contrast to the other underclass and authoritarian civilizations. We were foolishly optimistic christians, and not empirical Aryans. As such it is very unlikely that without vast bloodshed, we will exit the next crisis with the entire continent. But we will exit the next crisis with self determination. They will decay from demographic weight alone. There is nothing they can do.
-
THE VALUE OF THE CLASSES There is a very great difference between transforming t
THE VALUE OF THE CLASSES
There is a very great difference between transforming the state of the physical world by physical coercion (labor), and transforming the choices and organization of people using incentives (layers of entrepreneurship and management). The physical world can’t choose between options. Man can choose between options unless he is in fact a slave – thereby lacking exit. Now, one might say that exit is not itself a favorable choice, but then it is a choice for labor, and not a choice for slaves. The Communist and Socialist wants to create serf labor – lacking exit but the management (state) takes ownership for the survival of the serfs. The Democratic socialist wants to preserve voluntary organization of production but monopolize involuntary production of commons by maximum extraction of the profits of the market. The classical liberal wants to preserve the private production of goods, services, and information, and the private production of all commons it is possible to produce in that market, while limiting the involuntary production of commons to those of via-negativa constraint: Military, Justice, Law. The anarchist (libertarian) wants to prohibit the production of involuntary commons (despite this is as impossible as communism since there is no incentive to participate in an uncompetitive polity, when a polity is and of itself, a commons. We cannot restore pastoralism(zero-commons). Even if those peoples that have never succeeded at agrarianism and been through it’s evolutionary grinder, desperately want to restore it and resist civilization at every opportunity. All the potential value is created by the martial aristocracy. All the value is created by the entrepreneurial class. The vast amount of the benefit is obtained by the laboring classes, and the underclasses that would otherwise be dead. The beneficiary of civlization is largely labor. The principle benefit of the few at the top, and the minority in the middle, is signaling that preserves their identification as those who successfully organize potential, organize production distribution and trade, and organize the labor that requires little other than the physical to transform the physical world.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-16 11:00:00 UTC
-
THE CULT OF SOVEREIGNTY (NATURAL LAW) It’s better to belong to a cult of truth,
THE CULT OF SOVEREIGNTY (NATURAL LAW)
It’s better to belong to a cult of truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, and markets in everything, than (a) to be wrong, (b) to be a sophist (c) be dedicated to any OTHER cult.
Western law is a cult. hence why Americans treat the constitution (of natural law) as sacred. They just couldn’t defend it as such.
The law is a cult, and that is its virtue.
I’m thoroughly thrilled to institutionalize that cult.
You think calling natural law fundamentalism a cult is an insult?
It’s a recognition of SUCCESS.
(a) a moral license for violence…
(b) a set of demands,
(c) a plan of transition
(d) a threat of sufficient concern that the other parties acquiesce.
But better – a scientific religion of intergenerational transmission.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 12:21:00 UTC
-
We Are Men, and Learning from Truth to Power Is Heroic
—“CURT, I’M SORRY I SAID…”— Guess what. You didn’t offend me. I understand what it is to be a man, and you are being a man. You are trying to speak truth to power so to speak (not that I have much power). And this is what men do, what and cowards do not do. They shame, ridicule, gossip, rally, and undermine the person rather than defeat the argument. My work is extremely complicated because what I produce is self organizing, and via-negativa, rather than deliberate – and self organizing systems are hard to understand. We express a series of limits, and all else is possible within them rather than proposing an ideal. This means that instead of tracing a single line of thought through it’s various conditions (like a software program), we have to learn all the systems of limits, and run cases through those limits until we understand how all those limits work together. Criticism is good. Systematically trying to undermine me hurts my message, because it decreases the willingness of people to pay the high investment cost of learning a self organizing system – and therefore hurts our people. So by disagreeing with me we find a man’s way of learning – not by submission and obedience, but by demonstration of commitments to truth even to the powerful. Now, I prefer critical questions rather than attacks, but I can tell the difference between intellectually honest and moral criticism, and the opposite. There is a very great difference between criticism because something doesn’t make sense to you, or you disagree with it, and undermining because it conflicts with a malinvestment that you have made, and are desperately trying to protect from the truth. In that case, it is me who must speak truth to your power (assuming I have the time and energy and you some degree of intellectual honesty. -Cheers
-
We Are Men, and Learning from Truth to Power Is Heroic
—“CURT, I’M SORRY I SAID…”— Guess what. You didn’t offend me. I understand what it is to be a man, and you are being a man. You are trying to speak truth to power so to speak (not that I have much power). And this is what men do, what and cowards do not do. They shame, ridicule, gossip, rally, and undermine the person rather than defeat the argument. My work is extremely complicated because what I produce is self organizing, and via-negativa, rather than deliberate – and self organizing systems are hard to understand. We express a series of limits, and all else is possible within them rather than proposing an ideal. This means that instead of tracing a single line of thought through it’s various conditions (like a software program), we have to learn all the systems of limits, and run cases through those limits until we understand how all those limits work together. Criticism is good. Systematically trying to undermine me hurts my message, because it decreases the willingness of people to pay the high investment cost of learning a self organizing system – and therefore hurts our people. So by disagreeing with me we find a man’s way of learning – not by submission and obedience, but by demonstration of commitments to truth even to the powerful. Now, I prefer critical questions rather than attacks, but I can tell the difference between intellectually honest and moral criticism, and the opposite. There is a very great difference between criticism because something doesn’t make sense to you, or you disagree with it, and undermining because it conflicts with a malinvestment that you have made, and are desperately trying to protect from the truth. In that case, it is me who must speak truth to your power (assuming I have the time and energy and you some degree of intellectual honesty. -Cheers
-
The Incentive to Produce Quality Goods, Services, and Information
by Steve Pender In a village/polity populated entirely by family/loved ones, there is lower incentive to produce low quality goods, since the only people using them would be allies/family, and their use of those goods diminishes the survival of the polity. Voluntarily producing lower quality goods and profiting more due to higher markup opportunities would be seen as a form of treason to one’s people. 3 scenarios: EMPIRE: Individual with high quality production ability + lower-quality strangers = incentivized to lower production standards and privatize profit COSMOPOLITAN FREE MARKET: Individual with high quality production ability + high-quality strangers = incentivized to maximize producer surplus (profits) since no long-term alliance NATIONALISM: High quality production ability + high quality family/allies = incentivized to maximize production quality, lower incentive to profit (since profit is just a means to ensure privatized survival) Why do people maximize profit? Because they can’t guarantee long-term alliances with those around them, and maximizing profit is the means to increase long-term survival. We don’t feel the strong need to profit with trade between friends/family. Why is that? Because long-term survival is more important.May 14, 2018 8:31am -
THE INCENTIVE TO PRODUCE QUALITY GOODS, SERVICES, AND INFORMATION by Steve Pende
THE INCENTIVE TO PRODUCE QUALITY GOODS, SERVICES, AND INFORMATION
by Steve Pender
In a village/polity populated entirely by family/loved ones, there is lower incentive to produce low quality goods, since the only people using them would be allies/family, and their use of those goods diminishes the survival of the polity. Voluntarily producing lower quality goods and profiting more due to higher markup opportunities would be seen as a form of treason to one’s people.
3 scenarios:
EMPIRE: Individual with high quality production ability + lower-quality strangers = incentivized to lower production standards and privatize profit
COSMOPOLITAN FREE MARKET: Individual with high quality production ability + high-quality strangers = incentivized to maximize producer surplus (profits) since no long-term alliance
NATIONALISM: High quality production ability + high quality family/allies = incentivized to maximize production quality, lower incentive to profit (since profit is just a means to ensure privatized survival)
Why do people maximize profit? Because they can’t guarantee long-term alliances with those around them, and maximizing profit is the means to increase long-term survival. We don’t feel the strong need to profit with trade between friends/family. Why is that? Because long-term survival is more important.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 08:31:00 UTC
-
WE ARE MEN, AND LEARNING FROM TRUTH TO POWER IS HEROIC —“CURT, I’M SORRY I SAI
WE ARE MEN, AND LEARNING FROM TRUTH TO POWER IS HEROIC
—“CURT, I’M SORRY I SAID…”—
Guess what. You didn’t offend me. I understand what it is to be a man, and you are being a man. You are trying to speak truth to power so to speak (not that I have much power). And this is what men do, what and cowards do not do. They shame, ridicule, gossip, rally, and undermine the person rather than defeat the argument.
My work is extremely complicated because what I produce is self organizing, and via-negativa, rather than deliberate – and self organizing systems are hard to understand. We express a series of limits, and all else is possible within them rather than proposing an ideal. This means that instead of tracing a single line of thought through it’s various conditions (like a software program), we have to learn all the systems of limits, and run cases through those limits until we understand how all those limits work together.
Criticism is good. Systematically trying to undermine me hurts my message, because it decreases the willingness of people to pay the high investment cost of learning a self organizing system – and therefore hurts our people. So by disagreeing with me we find a man’s way of learning – not by submission and obedience, but by demonstration of commitments to truth even to the powerful. Now, I prefer critical questions rather than attacks, but I can tell the difference between intellectually honest and moral criticism, and the opposite.
There is a very great difference between criticism because something doesn’t make sense to you, or you disagree with it, and undermining because it conflicts with a malinvestment that you have made, and are desperately trying to protect from the truth. In that case, it is me who must speak truth to your power (assuming I have the time and energy and you some degree of intellectual honesty.
-Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 08:23:00 UTC