THE SCIENCE OF RELIGIONS >>1) Will Jesus be successful in saving everyone he intends to save? The individual we refer to as jesus might have existed, however almost everything other than his disruption of the temple, and his crucifiction is fiction created by Paul. Paul created Christianity, not Jesus. The reason we know that is that all the ‘jesus stories’ were originally babylonian or a derivative thereof. Just as the old testament is merely plagiarism from the babylonian record. >>2) Has anyone, or WILL anyone, actually go to hell? There is no heaven or hell, they are just babylonian fictions that metaphorically assist us in judging one another’s characters, and by character we mean contribution to, or harm to, the polity. At best we can consider heaven and hell the memories of those whose lives you affected, and the record of their actions in response to your display word and deed. >>3) Therefore THE OATH OF TRANSCENDENT MAN; A PAGAN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT I am a pagan if 1) I accept the laws of nature as binding on all of existence; and 2) if I treat nature as sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and 3) I treat the world as something to transform closer to an Eden in whatever ways I can before I die; and 4) if I deny the existence of a supreme being with dominion over the physical laws, and treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors as characters with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 5) if I participate with others of my society in repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of the above to my offspring. And 6) if I leave open that synchronicity appears to exist now and then, and that it may be possible that there is a scientific explanation for it, other than just humans subject to similar stimuli producing similar intuitions and therefore similar ends. As far as I know this is all that is required of me to be a Pagan. I am a christian if I have adopted the teaching of christianity: 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin. 3) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Christian. I am an Aryan if 1) I proudly display my excellences so that others seek to achieve or exceed them; 2) I seek competition to constantly test and improve myself so I do not weaken; 3) I swear to speak no insult and demand it; 4) I speak the truth and demand it; 5) I take nothing not paid for and demand it; 6) I grant sovereignty to my kin and demand it; 7) I insure my people regardless of condition, and demand it; and in doing so leave nothing but voluntary markets of cooperation between sovereign men; and to discipline, enserf, enslave, ostracize or kill those who do otherwise; 8) to not show fear or cowardice, abandon my brothers, or retreat, and 9) to die a good death in the service of my kin, my clan, my tribe and my people. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be an Aryan. I am a warrior in that 1) we will prepare for war so perfectly that none dare enter it against us. 2) Once we go to war, we do so with *joy*, with eagerness, and with passion, and without mercy, without constraint, and without remorse; And 3) before ending war, we shall defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of our enemy, and the memory of the slaughter lives a hundred generations. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Warrior. As far as I know, if I succeed as a Pagan, as a Christian, as an Aryan, as a Warrior, then I have transcended the animal man, and earned my place among the saints, heroes, demigods, gods, in the memories, histories, and legends of man. And that is the objective of heroes. We leave the rest for ordinary men.
Form: Mini Essay
-
UM. I AM NOT PRO AMERICAN, PRO ANGLO AT ALL Um. Don’t leap to the conclusion tha
UM. I AM NOT PRO AMERICAN, PRO ANGLO AT ALL
Um. Don’t leap to the conclusion that I’m pro american. I’m pretty anti-anglo all around. I’m pro american post-hoc law and entrepreneurialism, and pro-american and russian militarism. I’m pro anglo empiricism. I’m pro german almost everything else. And I’m pro dutch and scandinavian genetics. And I’m pro the source of western civilization’s exceptionalism: aggressive self domestication (Paternalism), individual sovereignty, rule of natural law of reciprocity, and markets in everything.I’m not pro anglo, or pro-american, as much as pro western civilization’s ability to rapidly evolve compared to all other civilizations.
I’m anti ignorance, error, bias, wishful-thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, propaganda, and deceit, because they impede the west’s ability to drag humanity kicking and screaming into godhood.
In the choice between middle eastern dysgenic globalism, and east asian and western eugenic nationalism, the choice is very clear.
Diversity is a bad because it does not force families, clans, tribes and nations to pay the cost of their domestication, and instead exteralizes that cost and devolves host populations permanently through genetic cultural and institutional damages.
I am not a white nationalist in the sense that I am perfectly happy to cut our population to the bone to rid ourselves of the undomesticated of our own. And putting those feeble genes to work improving those further behind.
Let a thousand nations bloom. Small homogenous states with professional warriors, citizen militias and a few nukes are all but invulnerable.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-27 11:30:00 UTC
-
THE GREAT AMERICAN LIE by Bill Joslin and Curt Doolittle by Bill Joslin: Jeffers
THE GREAT AMERICAN LIE
by Bill Joslin and Curt Doolittle
by Bill Joslin:
Jefferson lied.
The American sentiment of democracy and it’s failure to ensure it’s value is passed down stems from good and true ideas being propted-up by lies.
Stop lying!
You are ruled (democracy is NOT the will of the.people) and voting prevents the necessity for violent revolution to purify power.
A generation before, in England, the noble franchise was expanded to all land holders for one reason only – one last peaceful step before violent revolution.
American founding fathers were the grandchildren of UK parliamentarians who lost their moral footing due to Cromwell.
The founding fathers didn’t innovate these ideas as much as refined the argumentation for granddaddy’s wisdom. And they appealed to.morality and religion to do so.
Now it is failing. Not because the ideas were wrong, but rather because the argumentation was baseless.
Fix this.
(Curt has. so advocate for his work to correct your way of life)
——-
by Curt Doolittle
This argument has been stated as:
1) The value of democracy is limited to the the via-negativa: throwing the corrupt out (disbanding parliament) by peaceful means of transition.
2) A republic can choose priorities among a people with common interests, but only markets can choose preferences between people with dissimilar interests.
3) Majoritarian democracy serves as a monopoly that only increases frustrations between people with dissimilar intersets, as the majority gradually oppresses the minority.
4) The English “aristocracy of everyone” was merely an excuse for seizing political power from the aristocracy by forcing a supermajority, rather than constructing an exchange, and adding even lower houses of parliament. they created a monopoly from a market between the classes.
5) The americans created a constitution of natural law by using a house of equal regional aristocracy(senate), and proportional regional property owners (middle class house), only exacerbating the problem. This experiment was a ‘third way’ that sought to restore anglo saxon rule of law (contractualism) among the militia.
6) The americans iteratively bypassed the state aristocracies by direct voting for the senate, and extended enfranchisement rather than creating a single house. in this sense they attempted to create a monopoly (homogeneous) democracy with the senate mediating differences between states. This served to transfer power to the federal government and away from the states. had this power been limited to exclude all normative, traditional, familial behavior that would have enabled insurer of last resort functions, but instead large immigrant states dominated the others, creating the past and current conflicts.
7) All of these factors violate the anglo < germanic < aryan reason for european historical successes, which were dependent upon the preservation of individual sovereignty under natural law of tort (property), and individual warranty through service and economic liability, and the use of markets in everything for the purpose of decidability.
8) The family does scale. There is no limit to Militia <- Military <-King-> judiciary -> parliament(thang) -> people, as long as voluntary association, disassociation are available.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-27 10:18:00 UTC
-
YES, STUPID PEOPLE CREATE MORE CRIME People commit crimes across the spectrum. S
YES, STUPID PEOPLE CREATE MORE CRIME
People commit crimes across the spectrum.
State and Local IQ corresponds to crime rates.
Stupid people get caught more often.
Stupid people tend to pursue low risk low reward crimes. (those requiring little planning and high opportunism)
When it comes to murder a surprisingly high percentage of murderers are caught.
I use the term evil 80’s but the average criminal has an IQ of 93, which only serves to confirm my position that while the median of the distribution is 100, the medium of the distribution needs to be above 106, and closer to 110, leaving a full standard deviation between the median and the border of criminality 95 to preserve a high trust society.
But in general the evil 80’s (probably up to 95) demographic (a) is universally outcast, (b) undesirable even to each other, (c) cannot trust information, particularly from each other, (d) personalizes it to ‘oppression’ rather than “avoidance”, (e) justifies his behavior as retaliation for that treatment (f) is still smart enough to profit from immorality if not smart enough to profit from morality. (g) this includes the ability to practice all forms of criminal behavior and develop skill at avoiding being caught.
Not surprisingly (which is worth noting) criminals consistently measure with lower verbal ability. Hence my arguments that I’m not sure that the primary evolution out of africa is almost entirely verbal.
—“Lower verbal ability is due to the structure of the brain. The recognition of feeling occurs in the left hemisphere while the ability to speak is governed in the right. When there is a little cross over between the hemispheres alexithymia is common. Common in the people who demonstrate alexithymia are executive function defects.”— Liam Eddy
So just as you see greater verbal ability in ashkenazi, greater spatial in east asians, a balance in whites, you see deficiencies in every other group. But out of these deficiencies, (a) personality defects (b) cultural reinforcement of those defects, and (c) lower verbal IQ – exaggerate the problem.
Worse, the ‘multiplier’ is aggression. Meaning that the higher the aggression in the personality the more expressed is the criminality of low IQ. Again, this is why I’m a critic of adding peoples who have not undergone the manorial transformation (filter) to the european gene pool, and social and political orders. They bring with them permanently defective genes.
We forget that the primary difference between whites and ashkenazi of same ability is aggression, and that this aggression is as much or more responsible for their ability to carry intellectual workloads as well as make use of their intelligence competitively.
African americans are highly pro social (extroverted), but very negatively distributed, and even in that distribution they are negatively biased in verbal ability, AND they mature much earlier, faster, and deeper.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-27 07:25:00 UTC
-
A WORLD WITHOUT MONEY? —“What would happen if there were no money on earth?”–
A WORLD WITHOUT MONEY?
—“What would happen if there were no money on earth?”–
(Repost) Answered May 1, 2013
Believe it or not, this subject has been given quite a bit of treatment in the literature – mostly during the early part of the last century in response to the communist, socialist and fascist movements.
REALITY:
Almost everyone, on the planet, except for perhaps ~500M subsistence farmers would die in the first 30-90 days. Yes. Really. Seriously.
MONEY
Money makes planning of complex things possible.
Humans literally cannot ‘think’ as we understand the term, without numbers, money, property, contracts, credit and interest. Just as drawings and written words help us remember things, numbers help us remember things we could not remember, think about, or compare without them. Money makes numbers possible to apply to things that are DIFFERENT. Whereas numbers without money can only be used for things that are the SAME. As such, we say that money makes it possible to compare objects that are otherwise incommensurable. Money renders the world commensurable: open to planning and the use of mathematics (measurement and forecasting).
In practical terms, money and prices form an information system that tells us all what to do in real time in response to what others want and need. It is how we tell each other how to cooperate. It is the human social system. And the use of that social system, plus the capture of fossile fuel, has taken us out of ignorance and poverty.
CONVERSELY
What money and credit have also done is make it possible to breed again up to new malthusian levels. While Malthus was only half right, he was half right. Group selection accomplishes what malthus did not account for. THe general belief of ‘progressives’ is that technology will ‘save us again’ just like agrarianism, and then pastoralism saved us in the past. But the truth is we just breed up to these levels again, and reduce ourselves back to poverty.
The problem then is that we must control our breeding. And that has been, except for a brief period in china, or the middle ages in England under Manorialism impossible to achieve. Partly because it is so profitable to sell things to people who bear children, and those children as they too mature.
EXAMPLES
THe US economy is primarily driven by housing, and the high rate of return on lending for housing, and the large supply of labor jobs for the production of housing. From this perspective, the exceptional nature of the american economy is not the product of ‘democracy’ or innovation, but the product of selling off a continent to waves of immigrants and their offspring, and using the profits from the sale of the (conquered) continent to invest in increasingly complex technologies.
THe Chinese for example have figured this out and are doing the same thing but moving people from the ‘poor’ village farm to cities where they *hope* the population will be more productive than they were at subsistence farming. China can do this bcause it adopted consumer capitalism (money, prices and interest) and abandoned communism (no money, no prices, and no interest).
The problem other countries face (India and say, Ukraine) is india is so pervasively corrupt that it’s not possible to create infrastructure without privatization of the investment through corruption, and the population is still expanding unsustainably in a dirty and hot environment. THe problem Ukraine faces, is that it cannot play ‘china’ because the lower levels of government are so corrupt and the country sees no demand for its currency, so the government cannot issue credit, and therefore the people remain poor.
IN CLOSING
When you say ‘money went away’ what you must also understand is that with money and prices will go the ability to communicate, and think. Literally. Humans would not be able to cooperate, communicate, plan and think without money. Worse, they would have no incentive to do so, because to have an incentive one must be able to think of something to do. And you couldn’t think of anything to do that you couldn’t do with your own two hands.
THere is about 4 days worth of energy, and 14 days worth of food in the pipeline. If you made money vanish, you would need to make 6B people vanish along with it.
You may find a more thorough, or a more simplistic answer elsewhere. But this is the answer, and there isn’t any alternative.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-26 21:35:00 UTC
-
There isn’t any shortcut.
THERE ISN’T ANY SHORTCUT TO WISDOM There isn’t any shortcut. You are either going to read enough basic history, and then learn the operational deconstruction of incentives from me, or you aren’t. There isn’t any shortcut. There isn’t one book. There is however a series of books that are the minimum you’ll need. But that’s not easy. My book will teach you the science and logic of natural law, and all that it entails. But it will simply explain how to make all the knowledge of all the disciplines, commensurable – into a single universal language. That said, history provides the storytelling. And it’s the stories we remember. Stories serve as search algorithms. Logic serves as recipes.Science insures we don’t err. We have had enough of us working to gether now that very smart people with a scientific education and knowledge of computer science, and a bit of history can grasp the ideas within a year. For most people it takes two to understand, and another one or two to master the use of. Which is like any other STEM discipline. ‘Cause it’s like any other STEM discipline….. —“You’ve made a comment elsewhere which I’ll try to paraphrase. Once you get the importance to operationalism, obstacles to demonstrated intelligence are removed. From there, the way forward is just by acquiring more knowledge. There is no way around it. If you don’t have the data (information), operational arguments amount to well articulated opinions and nothing more.”— Bill Joslin
-
There isn’t any shortcut.
THERE ISN’T ANY SHORTCUT TO WISDOM There isn’t any shortcut. You are either going to read enough basic history, and then learn the operational deconstruction of incentives from me, or you aren’t. There isn’t any shortcut. There isn’t one book. There is however a series of books that are the minimum you’ll need. But that’s not easy. My book will teach you the science and logic of natural law, and all that it entails. But it will simply explain how to make all the knowledge of all the disciplines, commensurable – into a single universal language. That said, history provides the storytelling. And it’s the stories we remember. Stories serve as search algorithms. Logic serves as recipes.Science insures we don’t err. We have had enough of us working to gether now that very smart people with a scientific education and knowledge of computer science, and a bit of history can grasp the ideas within a year. For most people it takes two to understand, and another one or two to master the use of. Which is like any other STEM discipline. ‘Cause it’s like any other STEM discipline….. —“You’ve made a comment elsewhere which I’ll try to paraphrase. Once you get the importance to operationalism, obstacles to demonstrated intelligence are removed. From there, the way forward is just by acquiring more knowledge. There is no way around it. If you don’t have the data (information), operational arguments amount to well articulated opinions and nothing more.”— Bill Joslin
-
The British Are United In Mutual Defense
by Oliver Westcott Genes -> Culture -> Politics -> Law The UK is made up of many more than 4 distinct cultures. BUT the British are mostly united in the very least on mutual defence. This has been invested into over the centuries and is one of our greatest commons as Britons. (Culture is downstream of genes, and we share largely very similar and distinctive genes, even the Scotts are on average over 30% anglo-saxon, the source of our common law) We have other commons, language, science… and we have not only maintained these commons but strengthened these commons, it has been an increasingly harmonious arrangement. It has been the lubrication on the wheels of contracts and the market. Our common trust. There are differences and to the extent that there are, as much as possible authority might ought be decentralised as locally as possible.
-
The British Are United In Mutual Defense
by Oliver Westcott Genes -> Culture -> Politics -> Law The UK is made up of many more than 4 distinct cultures. BUT the British are mostly united in the very least on mutual defence. This has been invested into over the centuries and is one of our greatest commons as Britons. (Culture is downstream of genes, and we share largely very similar and distinctive genes, even the Scotts are on average over 30% anglo-saxon, the source of our common law) We have other commons, language, science… and we have not only maintained these commons but strengthened these commons, it has been an increasingly harmonious arrangement. It has been the lubrication on the wheels of contracts and the market. Our common trust. There are differences and to the extent that there are, as much as possible authority might ought be decentralised as locally as possible.
-
The Mythos of General Plan Ost
THE MYTHOS OF NAZI GENERAL PLAN OST All general staffs develop war plans. The war plan to use asymmetric warfare against ukraine was produced somewhere between 2010 and 2012. Every single general staff in the world has hundreds of such plans. They vary from the trivial, to the devious, to the genocidal. That is what general staffs do. Yet these plans are rarely if ever used. The american Plan Red was to conquer canada so that the british couldn’t for example (I know this because they bought my great-grandparents farm to use as an airport in case they needed to put the plan into action. The plans that are currently in the russian (and soviet) archives are horrific, and include nuclear saturation of the west, and rapid movement of artillery and armor through that territory. There are plans to take finland, to take sweden, to defend from china, to take back constantinople. These are not likely to happen, but they are the research and development plans that all general staffs occupy their time with so that they are NEVER in a position of lacking a plan for any possible contingency. Generalplan Ost existed in six only in preliminary versions from January 1940 to the last one dated 23. Dec. 1942 named “Generalsiedlungsplan”. The plan was subject to a continuous ongoing development, and no version of it was ever approved. Further development of the plan was abandoned in 1943. The 2′nd, 3′rd and 4′th versions of the plan have never been found. Their existence and content is only known from other secondary documentary references. In other words, this is more propaganda. As far as I know the general solution was to resettle people in order to prevent communist expansion from the soviets into european spaces where it could threaten germans. Fascism was a reaction to soviet communism. That’s all. Just as russians today want to defend their ‘resettled’ people in eastern europe, (despite the fact that they are despised in every country), the germans wanted to defend their settled peoples, because they had been incrementally civilizing europe through commerce since the beginning of the Hansa league. I never believe anyone’s history. I look at the economics, and the demographics, and search for incentives. People just make excuses to justify seizure of opportunities. And history is nothing but such excuses. The only measure of a people is trust and the technical, and economic velocity that results from it. The measure of any philosophy or ideology is the long term condition of those who practice it.