Form: Mini Essay

  • LOVE IS ENOUGH. TRUTH IS FOR MEN. POSSIBILITY FOR WOMEN. Like I said. Love women

    LOVE IS ENOUGH. TRUTH IS FOR MEN. POSSIBILITY FOR WOMEN.

    Like I said. Love women. Listen to them (it’s hard to do that for any length of time I know – but all men develop the ability to filter, respond, and not try to solve all their problems). Try to make them happy as you can without going into debt. Don’t argue truth and falsehood, or good or bad, just take a stand on what is possible and advisable or not. Women are the most awesome part of life I’ve found, and other than destroying the competition in business the greatest high. 😉 But they aren’t men, and we aren’t women, and we’re both much happier when we understand that. 😉 It’s usually easier to get men to understand that women aren’t men than get (american) women to understand men aren’t women. The problem is very simple economics of demographics: since women are more marginally indifferent and more narrowly distributed, the number of men desirable for women is much smaller than the number of women desirable for men – and this is a constant problem. Women settle much more often than men. And while women almost always underestimate their sexual market value (it’s just weight and preening and you’re there), men vastly overestimate their sexual market value. So for men, it’s not complicated: read heavy things, lift heavy things, save and invest everything you can. When a woman attracts a man her standard of living increases by twenty percent or more. When a man attracts a woman his standard of living decreases by twenty percent or more. For women men are emotionally burdensome, and for men women are experientially (financially) burdensome. So make sure you understand the investment you’re making in one another. Marriage is the most damaging financial mistake you can make and is the most significant factor in determining whether you will be comfortable and happy or poor and depressed in old age.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 17:04:00 UTC

  • Wisdom Literature Past and Present: Units of Measurement

    WISDOM LITERATURE PAST AND PRESENT: UNITS OF MEASUREMENT (very, very, important piece) So, you know, how some fiction author creates a ‘universe’ and writes multiple books using that universe? Well, some authors write stories for other authors’ universes. And then publishers combine these stories into a compendium of short stories (anthologies)? Paul (Saul of Tarsus) created a fantasy ‘universe’, just like Tolkien’s Middle Earth, Saberhagen’s Berserkers, Herbert’s Dune, Martin’s Song (Game of Thrones), Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, the Arthurian Legends, or the greek and roman myths, or any of our original natural mythologies. And a lot of other authors made up stories and attributed them to paul’s characters. (And whomever converted christian literature to islamic). Then the only debate was over which stories were included in the anthology (bible). These stories consist of a rather small set of archetypal characters and archetypal plots, in a host of circumstances. And we use these characters, circumstances and plots as units of measurement for making decisions in the kaleidic complexity of real life. And in this sense we do need stories the same way we need logic, mathematics, weights and measures, norms and laws. So these stories are no less important than any other system of measurement and standard of weights and measures. The differences is we do not see the consequences (and externalities) of mass use of these systems of measurement, and we are unable to correct these stories once we release them into the ‘wild’ (market). In other words, while in most systems of measurement (what we call ‘weights and measures’) we can prohibit fraudulent systems of measure, and fraudulent exchanges. It’s not so much that we need to create standards (while we do for the purposes of commensurability, and as such for the prevention of fraud by incommensurability), it’s that we must ensure that our weights and measures are not fraudulent or harmful either directly, indirectly, or by externality. In the ancient world, modernity was disrupting tribal hierarchies and traditions, and as such nearly all the underclass (vast majority of peoples) lost any hope of expressing dominance, success, or excellence. They lacked the genetics, agency, knowledge, and institutions to produce the confidence necessary to make decisions in a kaleidic universe undergoing dramatic change. They were losing their ability to calculate a feeling of success at whatever level of success or failure they were achieving. And this is a serious problem, because evolution provided us with a set of cognitive biases to keep us pursuing lifespan even in the most hopeless of circumstances. And in order to prevent in the ancient world what middle age white men are doing today (committing suicide) young men are doing today (withdrawing from society), and women are doing today (forgoing children, then taking anti-depressants), they inverted the heroic legends of dominance with an heroic legend of submission and resistance – primarily resistance against the roman-greco-persian and less so egyptian empires: the people of fertile crescent slavery and impoverished pastoralists, against the people of armies, metal, reason, mathematics, farm, and trade. In the recent era, we have seen Marxism and it’s suite of literatures, the continuation of Democratic literature (anti-aristocratic literature), Postmodern literature (all of these meaning the political literatures), and Science Fiction(our modern aryan mythos), Medieval fantasy, the War story, the Western, and the spy and detective story (the personal literatures). We have devolved into effeminate literatures (Japanese), and childish literatures (superheroes) – an attempt to create heroes without armies. And we have seen the active suppression of our ancestral literatures – of armies – as the democratic, marxist, and postmodern seek to erase them, just as the jewish, christian, and islamic sought to erase them in the ancient world – and all but succeeded. Now, creating a conflationary wisdom literature that combines a fictional world, archetypal characters and plots, into stories and from stories into an anthology as a mythology( pseudohistory), that includes prescribed rules (pseudolaw), and a method of argument (pseudo rationalism), and justifies it by some sort of magic (pseudoscience), is to some degree necessary to create commensurability between the units of measurement (stories). The difference is that the west began with sovereignty, and divided into specialized literatures: logic, mathematics, science, history, law, philosophy, literature, mythology – and all competed against each other using different terminologies and sometimes different languages (in english: german, french, latin, and greek). The chinese reacted to greek reason with confucian, dao, and eventually buddhism – a class based set of logics rather than a discipline base set of logics. The Persians reacted to greek reason and greek reason to persian, with a cult that slowly transformed the sky god into mithra. The semites reacted to greek reason by inverting every single dimension of the markets and creating a mandatory monopoly system of thought. The west’s use of competing markets of measurements (stories) rather than chinese hierarchy of stories, or semitic authoritarian monopoly stories is a natural consequence of western sovereignty. However, while the western system can adapt to changes faster than all others – it can be defeated by Overloading (immigration, conversion, propaganda) precisely because the underlying system of measurement (truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets) was never written down – only practiced out of habit in our traditional (pre urban) (indo-)european law. Had this underlying system of weights measures and values (truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets) been articulated, the market for disciplines (grammars and semantics) would have remained possible. The reason being that our aryan system of weights and measures and values, (truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets) is purely via-negativa. It does not tell us what to do, only what we may not. As such each discipline may compete for what we should do, even though we prohibit discretion in what we may not do: violate truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets. And while our law contains implicitly a record of decisions using truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, and markets, our law does not articulate the mandate for truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, and markets. So what I have tried to do for my people, and perhaps if they wish to use it, the rest of mankind, is to articulate those first principles in a formal logic, as a via negativa, so that those markets for stories (systems of measurement) may continue to compete via positiva, but so that we can prohibit stories (systems of measurement) that violate those first principles of formal logic that make the rapid adaptation and therefor rapid innovation, and therefore rapid wealth, of western aryan civilization possible. In this way I seek to modify (amend, rewrite) our constitutions such that they make explicit these first principles in formal logic, and their objective and purpose as a via negativa commensurable system of decidability, across all competing grammars, as a defense against another abrahamic dark age that inverted those values, and the marxist-postmoder-feminist age that seeks through immigration, takeover of the academy, the media, and the state, to replace that system once again- and deliver us and mankind into another dark age like the jewish-christian-islamic, and the loss of another thousand years, and the suffering that is produced, by the inversion of the first principles of western (aryan) civilization. The cost of this defense against the second abrahamic dark age is the criminalization of literatures that violate truth(scientific truth), sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, and markets. In other words, we will be able to suppress invasion by fraudulent systems of measurement that seek to create monopolies by which we undermine and replace markets. And the cost of persisting that prosperity is the upward redistribution of reproduction and the downward redistribution of compensation, in order to maintain a polity that is far more invulnerable to desirable monopoly frauds. And the reversal of underclass immigration and forced integration the purpose of which is to achieve through culture-cide and genocide that which could not be achieved by the veracity of their ideas.

  • Wisdom Literature Past and Present: Units of Measurement

    WISDOM LITERATURE PAST AND PRESENT: UNITS OF MEASUREMENT (very, very, important piece) So, you know, how some fiction author creates a ‘universe’ and writes multiple books using that universe? Well, some authors write stories for other authors’ universes. And then publishers combine these stories into a compendium of short stories (anthologies)? Paul (Saul of Tarsus) created a fantasy ‘universe’, just like Tolkien’s Middle Earth, Saberhagen’s Berserkers, Herbert’s Dune, Martin’s Song (Game of Thrones), Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, the Arthurian Legends, or the greek and roman myths, or any of our original natural mythologies. And a lot of other authors made up stories and attributed them to paul’s characters. (And whomever converted christian literature to islamic). Then the only debate was over which stories were included in the anthology (bible). These stories consist of a rather small set of archetypal characters and archetypal plots, in a host of circumstances. And we use these characters, circumstances and plots as units of measurement for making decisions in the kaleidic complexity of real life. And in this sense we do need stories the same way we need logic, mathematics, weights and measures, norms and laws. So these stories are no less important than any other system of measurement and standard of weights and measures. The differences is we do not see the consequences (and externalities) of mass use of these systems of measurement, and we are unable to correct these stories once we release them into the ‘wild’ (market). In other words, while in most systems of measurement (what we call ‘weights and measures’) we can prohibit fraudulent systems of measure, and fraudulent exchanges. It’s not so much that we need to create standards (while we do for the purposes of commensurability, and as such for the prevention of fraud by incommensurability), it’s that we must ensure that our weights and measures are not fraudulent or harmful either directly, indirectly, or by externality. In the ancient world, modernity was disrupting tribal hierarchies and traditions, and as such nearly all the underclass (vast majority of peoples) lost any hope of expressing dominance, success, or excellence. They lacked the genetics, agency, knowledge, and institutions to produce the confidence necessary to make decisions in a kaleidic universe undergoing dramatic change. They were losing their ability to calculate a feeling of success at whatever level of success or failure they were achieving. And this is a serious problem, because evolution provided us with a set of cognitive biases to keep us pursuing lifespan even in the most hopeless of circumstances. And in order to prevent in the ancient world what middle age white men are doing today (committing suicide) young men are doing today (withdrawing from society), and women are doing today (forgoing children, then taking anti-depressants), they inverted the heroic legends of dominance with an heroic legend of submission and resistance – primarily resistance against the roman-greco-persian and less so egyptian empires: the people of fertile crescent slavery and impoverished pastoralists, against the people of armies, metal, reason, mathematics, farm, and trade. In the recent era, we have seen Marxism and it’s suite of literatures, the continuation of Democratic literature (anti-aristocratic literature), Postmodern literature (all of these meaning the political literatures), and Science Fiction(our modern aryan mythos), Medieval fantasy, the War story, the Western, and the spy and detective story (the personal literatures). We have devolved into effeminate literatures (Japanese), and childish literatures (superheroes) – an attempt to create heroes without armies. And we have seen the active suppression of our ancestral literatures – of armies – as the democratic, marxist, and postmodern seek to erase them, just as the jewish, christian, and islamic sought to erase them in the ancient world – and all but succeeded. Now, creating a conflationary wisdom literature that combines a fictional world, archetypal characters and plots, into stories and from stories into an anthology as a mythology( pseudohistory), that includes prescribed rules (pseudolaw), and a method of argument (pseudo rationalism), and justifies it by some sort of magic (pseudoscience), is to some degree necessary to create commensurability between the units of measurement (stories). The difference is that the west began with sovereignty, and divided into specialized literatures: logic, mathematics, science, history, law, philosophy, literature, mythology – and all competed against each other using different terminologies and sometimes different languages (in english: german, french, latin, and greek). The chinese reacted to greek reason with confucian, dao, and eventually buddhism – a class based set of logics rather than a discipline base set of logics. The Persians reacted to greek reason and greek reason to persian, with a cult that slowly transformed the sky god into mithra. The semites reacted to greek reason by inverting every single dimension of the markets and creating a mandatory monopoly system of thought. The west’s use of competing markets of measurements (stories) rather than chinese hierarchy of stories, or semitic authoritarian monopoly stories is a natural consequence of western sovereignty. However, while the western system can adapt to changes faster than all others – it can be defeated by Overloading (immigration, conversion, propaganda) precisely because the underlying system of measurement (truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets) was never written down – only practiced out of habit in our traditional (pre urban) (indo-)european law. Had this underlying system of weights measures and values (truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets) been articulated, the market for disciplines (grammars and semantics) would have remained possible. The reason being that our aryan system of weights and measures and values, (truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets) is purely via-negativa. It does not tell us what to do, only what we may not. As such each discipline may compete for what we should do, even though we prohibit discretion in what we may not do: violate truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets. And while our law contains implicitly a record of decisions using truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, and markets, our law does not articulate the mandate for truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, and markets. So what I have tried to do for my people, and perhaps if they wish to use it, the rest of mankind, is to articulate those first principles in a formal logic, as a via negativa, so that those markets for stories (systems of measurement) may continue to compete via positiva, but so that we can prohibit stories (systems of measurement) that violate those first principles of formal logic that make the rapid adaptation and therefor rapid innovation, and therefore rapid wealth, of western aryan civilization possible. In this way I seek to modify (amend, rewrite) our constitutions such that they make explicit these first principles in formal logic, and their objective and purpose as a via negativa commensurable system of decidability, across all competing grammars, as a defense against another abrahamic dark age that inverted those values, and the marxist-postmoder-feminist age that seeks through immigration, takeover of the academy, the media, and the state, to replace that system once again- and deliver us and mankind into another dark age like the jewish-christian-islamic, and the loss of another thousand years, and the suffering that is produced, by the inversion of the first principles of western (aryan) civilization. The cost of this defense against the second abrahamic dark age is the criminalization of literatures that violate truth(scientific truth), sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, and markets. In other words, we will be able to suppress invasion by fraudulent systems of measurement that seek to create monopolies by which we undermine and replace markets. And the cost of persisting that prosperity is the upward redistribution of reproduction and the downward redistribution of compensation, in order to maintain a polity that is far more invulnerable to desirable monopoly frauds. And the reversal of underclass immigration and forced integration the purpose of which is to achieve through culture-cide and genocide that which could not be achieved by the veracity of their ideas.

  • NEW RELIGION Leaving behind abrahamic deception requires replacing it with anyth

    NEW RELIGION

    Leaving behind abrahamic deception requires replacing it with anything other than oath, ritual, feast, and festival. None of which require any falsehoods, and all of which are easily produced.

    TED, Football Games, and Concerts are just Church. Why do you think stadium rock relied upon anthems? Why is TED popular with the left (Scientific Miracles). Why are team sports so popular with the working and underclasses (pack experience and the hunt). Why are concert experiences so popular with the middle and working classes (they’re spiritual). All that is necessary to produce the effect we get from religion is proximity, shared experience, oath, and some corresponding physical repetition. Why is Government so attractive a sports team, and democracy so attractive a savior, and economics so attractive a heaven?

    There is no reason why the experience must be conflated with law, pseudohistory, or the supernatural. THAT’S THE EVIDENCE.

    We know why religions work. I can disassemble any of them into component parts (although hinduism is still confusing to me).

    The fact that so many substitutes for religion exist, but none have been canonized is merely a failure to do what the nazis, fascists, and communists did: create a secular religion.

    I mean, too bad the nazi thing went sideways because the aesthetics were genius. Soviet aesthetics were genius as well. Rock aesthetics were genius.

    The problem is that markets are the optimum, and homogeneity is the optimum, and everyone just got only one part right or the other.

    Doesn’t mean it can’t be done right.

    No one is going to revert to abrahamic primitivism except those who are already primitive.

    And those who are primitive by that choice and their deferral of agency are self selecting themselves into the RULED and out of those who RULE.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 16:33:00 UTC

  • Demonstrating the NAXALT Bias

    Do you know what the cognitive bias called NAXALT is, and how you can identify that a woman, or a male lacking a father is speaking by the use of this cognitive bias? Men cognitively perceive distributions and speak in distributions. Women fear distributions and speak in equality or indifferences. So you merely demonstrate the fact that we are different in cognitive function (which the science says anyway – men and women have different brain structures), just as we are in anti-social behavior, with men biasing toward physical crime and women biasing toward emotional and psychological crime (psychosis). So, no the statement is simply true. Which is one of the primary causes for the relative absence of women in powerful positions in high risk and competitive organizations, versus the relative dominance of women in parasitic monopolistic bureaucracies like the government and education. We are paid in no small part by our loyalty.

  • Demonstrating the NAXALT Bias

    Do you know what the cognitive bias called NAXALT is, and how you can identify that a woman, or a male lacking a father is speaking by the use of this cognitive bias? Men cognitively perceive distributions and speak in distributions. Women fear distributions and speak in equality or indifferences. So you merely demonstrate the fact that we are different in cognitive function (which the science says anyway – men and women have different brain structures), just as we are in anti-social behavior, with men biasing toward physical crime and women biasing toward emotional and psychological crime (psychosis). So, no the statement is simply true. Which is one of the primary causes for the relative absence of women in powerful positions in high risk and competitive organizations, versus the relative dominance of women in parasitic monopolistic bureaucracies like the government and education. We are paid in no small part by our loyalty.

  • We Are All Compatible, Precisely Because Truth Is Truth Regardless of Our Differences

    WE ARE ALL COMPATIBLE, PRECISELY BECAUSE TRUTH IS TRUTH REGARDLESS OF OUR DIFFERENCES My specialty is in not erring. I don’t err often. For the simple reason that I work harder at not being wrong than almost anyone else. It’s my job. My emotional condition has no bearing on whether I speak the truth. Your technique of trying to say it does is just lying. Right? You’re engaging in deception? By trying to say the truth is other than the truth? By saying a normal distribution (bell curve) doesn’t exist whenever we describe the properties of any set of people? Again. It’s a cognitive bias (the lack of reason) that you’re demonstrating not reason. This is why men like me don’t debate with all but a minority of women like you. Because all but a minority of women like you are cognitively biases such that you cannot tell the difference between the TRUE, the GOOD, and the PREFERABLE. Because you are not in fact reasoning, but intuiting (feeling). Evolution made you the way you are so that you will defend your children no matter how bad they are for the family and tribe. It’s not an act of reason, but an instinct. What’s true is true whether you like it or not or whether it’s in your interests or not. I criticize arationality regardless of gender. That’s equality. No deceit allowed is equality. We are all compatible even if we are all different and unequal. it’s by advocating, cooperating and criticizing an conflicting that we calculate an evolutionary path through a universe largely hostile to life.

  • We Are All Compatible, Precisely Because Truth Is Truth Regardless of Our Differences

    WE ARE ALL COMPATIBLE, PRECISELY BECAUSE TRUTH IS TRUTH REGARDLESS OF OUR DIFFERENCES My specialty is in not erring. I don’t err often. For the simple reason that I work harder at not being wrong than almost anyone else. It’s my job. My emotional condition has no bearing on whether I speak the truth. Your technique of trying to say it does is just lying. Right? You’re engaging in deception? By trying to say the truth is other than the truth? By saying a normal distribution (bell curve) doesn’t exist whenever we describe the properties of any set of people? Again. It’s a cognitive bias (the lack of reason) that you’re demonstrating not reason. This is why men like me don’t debate with all but a minority of women like you. Because all but a minority of women like you are cognitively biases such that you cannot tell the difference between the TRUE, the GOOD, and the PREFERABLE. Because you are not in fact reasoning, but intuiting (feeling). Evolution made you the way you are so that you will defend your children no matter how bad they are for the family and tribe. It’s not an act of reason, but an instinct. What’s true is true whether you like it or not or whether it’s in your interests or not. I criticize arationality regardless of gender. That’s equality. No deceit allowed is equality. We are all compatible even if we are all different and unequal. it’s by advocating, cooperating and criticizing an conflicting that we calculate an evolutionary path through a universe largely hostile to life.

  • WE ARE ALL COMPATIBLE, PRECISELY BECAUSE TRUTH IS TRUTH REGARDLESS OF OUR DIFFER

    WE ARE ALL COMPATIBLE, PRECISELY BECAUSE TRUTH IS TRUTH REGARDLESS OF OUR DIFFERENCES

    My specialty is in not erring. I don’t err often. For the simple reason that I work harder at not being wrong than almost anyone else. It’s my job.

    My emotional condition has no bearing on whether I speak the truth. Your technique of trying to say it does is just lying. Right? You’re engaging in deception? By trying to say the truth is other than the truth? By saying a normal distribution (bell curve) doesn’t exist whenever we describe the properties of any set of people?

    Again. It’s a cognitive bias (the lack of reason) that you’re demonstrating not reason. This is why men like me don’t debate with all but a minority of women like you. Because all but a minority of women like you are cognitively biases such that you cannot tell the difference between the TRUE, the GOOD, and the PREFERABLE. Because you are not in fact reasoning, but intuiting (feeling). Evolution made you the way you are so that you will defend your children no matter how bad they are for the family and tribe. It’s not an act of reason, but an instinct.

    What’s true is true whether you like it or not or whether it’s in your interests or not. I criticize arationality regardless of gender. That’s equality. No deceit allowed is equality.

    We are all compatible even if we are all different and unequal. it’s by advocating, cooperating and criticizing an conflicting that we calculate an evolutionary path through a universe largely hostile to life.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 12:32:00 UTC

  • THE TWO FOLD MORALITY OF ACHILLES by Adam Voight The morality of Achilles is two

    THE TWO FOLD MORALITY OF ACHILLES

    by Adam Voight

    The morality of Achilles is two fold:

    1) Freedom – Rulers do not own the ruled; rulers owe their power to attracting good subjects who will fight for them and serve them. This is revealed in Achilles’ dealings with Agamemnon and Menelaos.

    2) Universal Honor code – Just because you are fighting a war against some nation, does not mean that you hate those people or deal with them dishonorably. All just war is just insofar as it is fought for honor and fought with honor. The fact that Achilles recognizes the honor of the Trojans when he returns Hector’s body and when he dies accepting the Trojan’s word that it was the Greeks who broke the cease-fire.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 10:34:00 UTC