Form: Mini Essay

  • The Mirror and Reciprocity

    (important post) (propertarian core) —“So any criticism leveled at another group only serves to illuminate our own failure to perform successfully in intra-group competition.”— Bill Joslin ( CD: Or as I have been saying “The problem is in the mirror.”) by Bill Joslin Group Identity, being a common-property shared by group members, when redefined by another group (for example: whiteness, or inferior races) commits a vandalous act – damages that property. (correct) To maintain a condition of boycott, those under attack must abandon the property to the vandals (thieves) – if not, then the only alternative is to double-down to defend it – which then devolves into retaliatory vandalism… (at least unless escalated to political, economic, or military conflict.) So the stance I’ve heard you take on racism, which has a short list of justifications [we have crap people in our group also; any group can advance; etc.] I think has a deeper operational and moral footing” i.e. reciprocity between groups, as it pertains to identity, isn’t possible – to go there violates our own law of reciprocity. And near-group breeding and cooperation might present the limit at which intra-group reciprocity can occur within domains of identity – some common ground- some exchange which doesn’t result in erosion of damages to identity. So any criticism leveled at another group only illuminates our own failure to perform within intra-group competition. Focussing on fixing our failures preserves integrity to natural law which is the basis of out identity… And prevents retaliation spirals and intertemporal transfer of costs for breaking our law) Was that coherent? – Bill Joslin (CD: Yes, bill that was about as coherent as it can be stated. 😉 ) Apr 17, 2018 11:06am

  • The Only Solution Is Rule of Law (A Priesthood Of Judges)

    Also: The problem for sub saharan africa (and for most of the world) is (a) the tradition of stealing on behalf of your family tribe and clan, and (b) the expression of this tradition in *corruption*. The only fix for corruption is not to demand good people (they don’t exist) but to create good judges. If you demand uncorrupt judges (and kill them if they are not uncorrupt), the judges will prosecute politicians. Until you have an army or police force, and a judiciary that is paid enough that corruption is not ‘valuable’, then it does not matter what government you have. step 1. soldiers who protect the people. step 2. judges who are not corrupt step 3. police (or soldiers) who will enforce the judge’s rule. It is cheaper to create highly paid police and judges than to create a highly paid military. The world is very simple if we stop trying to find good men, and instead, punish people who are bad – leaving only good people able to work in government. Ukraine has the same problem. Every poor country has the same problem. Westerners do not have this problem because we were always a militia – meaning all men fight. This is the secret to western successes. It all begins with our militia.

  • The Only Solution Is Rule of Law (A Priesthood Of Judges)

    Also: The problem for sub saharan africa (and for most of the world) is (a) the tradition of stealing on behalf of your family tribe and clan, and (b) the expression of this tradition in *corruption*. The only fix for corruption is not to demand good people (they don’t exist) but to create good judges. If you demand uncorrupt judges (and kill them if they are not uncorrupt), the judges will prosecute politicians. Until you have an army or police force, and a judiciary that is paid enough that corruption is not ‘valuable’, then it does not matter what government you have. step 1. soldiers who protect the people. step 2. judges who are not corrupt step 3. police (or soldiers) who will enforce the judge’s rule. It is cheaper to create highly paid police and judges than to create a highly paid military. The world is very simple if we stop trying to find good men, and instead, punish people who are bad – leaving only good people able to work in government. Ukraine has the same problem. Every poor country has the same problem. Westerners do not have this problem because we were always a militia – meaning all men fight. This is the secret to western successes. It all begins with our militia.

  • Provide the Necessary Services of Religions in A Manner Not Constituted by Lies

    (a) as ability declines demand for intuitionistic fictions increases, and conversely as ability increases demand for rationally decidable criteria increases. Meaning those of lesser ability require we appeal to intuitions, and those of greater ability require we appeal to reason. This is because those of lower ability have not been sufficiently domesticated (produced agency) by those of greater ability. (b) literary analogy using archetypes and archetypal story lines (we can list both archetypes and story lines) can be decomposed into rational terms and tested. Literary analogy allows loading and framing so that individuals can learn by intuition rather than reason (ie: by suggestion). But if we cannot decompose these analogies to scientific statements we do not know if they are false, or harmful or ‘evil’ as abrahamism has been. (d) people require a means of calculating (reasoning, thinking) in the broadest sense, and the most simple units of measure are anthropological. In the absence of tribal feedback they need what we call mindfulness but is better thought of a means of selecting and ignoring impulses (some of us call this agency). and in the absence of tribal community and dependence we need festivals and feasts. And to establish the limits we need an oath. All civilizations address this spectrum of mindfulness to oath, to feast, to festival to compensate for the competition produced by production, and the hierarchy that evolves form that division of knowledge, labor, and advocacy involved in the production of private, commercial, and public goods. This is because too few of us are evolved enough to survive without institutions that provide help to our remaining animal intuitions. We teach certain skills but what we do not teach is ‘sacredness of the commons’ that churches did, and we do not teach mindfulness or norms in a rational fashion. Religion is dying everywhere. ANd it is being replaced with things that are almost as bad. The question is how we provide the necessary services of religions in a manner not constituted by lies that do not decompose in to scientifically testable, and therefore indisputable prose.

  • Provide the Necessary Services of Religions in A Manner Not Constituted by Lies

    (a) as ability declines demand for intuitionistic fictions increases, and conversely as ability increases demand for rationally decidable criteria increases. Meaning those of lesser ability require we appeal to intuitions, and those of greater ability require we appeal to reason. This is because those of lower ability have not been sufficiently domesticated (produced agency) by those of greater ability. (b) literary analogy using archetypes and archetypal story lines (we can list both archetypes and story lines) can be decomposed into rational terms and tested. Literary analogy allows loading and framing so that individuals can learn by intuition rather than reason (ie: by suggestion). But if we cannot decompose these analogies to scientific statements we do not know if they are false, or harmful or ‘evil’ as abrahamism has been. (d) people require a means of calculating (reasoning, thinking) in the broadest sense, and the most simple units of measure are anthropological. In the absence of tribal feedback they need what we call mindfulness but is better thought of a means of selecting and ignoring impulses (some of us call this agency). and in the absence of tribal community and dependence we need festivals and feasts. And to establish the limits we need an oath. All civilizations address this spectrum of mindfulness to oath, to feast, to festival to compensate for the competition produced by production, and the hierarchy that evolves form that division of knowledge, labor, and advocacy involved in the production of private, commercial, and public goods. This is because too few of us are evolved enough to survive without institutions that provide help to our remaining animal intuitions. We teach certain skills but what we do not teach is ‘sacredness of the commons’ that churches did, and we do not teach mindfulness or norms in a rational fashion. Religion is dying everywhere. ANd it is being replaced with things that are almost as bad. The question is how we provide the necessary services of religions in a manner not constituted by lies that do not decompose in to scientifically testable, and therefore indisputable prose.

  • THE MIRROR AND RECIPROCITY (important post) (propertarian core) —“So any criti

    THE MIRROR AND RECIPROCITY

    (important post) (propertarian core)

    —“So any criticism leveled at another group only serves to illuminate our own failure to perform successfully in intra-group competition.”— Bill Joslin

    ( CD: Or as I have been saying “The problem is in the mirror.”)

    by Bill Joslin

    Group Identity, being a common-property shared by group members, when redefined by another group (for example: whiteness, or inferior races) commits a vandalous act – damages that property.

    (correct)

    To maintain a condition of boycott, those under attack must abandon the property to the vandals (thieves) – if not, then the only alternative is to double-down to defend it – which then devolves into retaliatory vandalism… (at least unless escalated to political, economic, or military conflict.)

    So the stance I’ve heard you take on racism, which has a short list of justifications [we have crap people in our group also; any group can advance; etc.] I think has a deeper operational and moral footing”

    i.e. reciprocity between groups, as it pertains to identity, isn’t possible – to go there violates our own law of reciprocity.

    And near-group breeding and cooperation might present the limit at which intra-group reciprocity can occur within domains of identity – some common ground- some exchange which doesn’t result in erosion of damages to identity.

    So any criticism leveled at another group only illuminates our own failure to perform within intra-group competition.

    Focussing on fixing our failures preserves integrity to natural law which is the basis of out identity… And prevents retaliation spirals and intertemporal transfer of costs for breaking our law)

    Was that coherent?

    – Bill Joslin

    (CD: Yes, bill that was about as coherent as it can be stated. 😉 )


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-17 11:06:00 UTC

  • Lessons on Genders

    I have only a few “I wish I had, if I’d known” regrets of life in general. I wish I’d moved to philosophy, and I wish I’d saved my marriage, and I wish I’d been more demanding of the medical profession. But otherwise I’ve accomplished my goals in life – not that there isn’t more work to do. I have many “I feel bad that I accidentally caused or contributed to” regrets – like most of us, this is what people remember of us. Most of my enemies (in business) attribute to me malice I did not have, and underestimate the advantages I could exploit if I desired. Those that I hold malice against deserve it in multiples. There are very evil people in this world, and they commit by financial and legal predation that which in old was done by violence. But there is no difference in the losses incurred. I have a very few “I hurt people significantly because I wasn’t diligent enough”, and just a few “I … hurt people because I was young, smart, and ruthless”. Those ruthless things were in business against men of greater age and experience than I who did not know the cunning autism of the monster they were dealing with. They were, by and large, good people, too entrenched in the past to understand the wave of technology that was changing the world. One of them died from the grief. Others withered away. I was so burdened (and still am) by these consequences that I changed my life dramatically having done them, and instead pursued (((people))) who advocated these (((crimes))) by abusing the trust of our people – and our civilization of noblesse oblige. Yet that concern did not help me in three similar matters with women. And this is the lesson I took and I want other men to take. In my generation we were raised to treat women as equals – and it worked on me. Moreover, I’d made quite a bit of money advancing women that were against a glass ceiling at larger companies. But you can sit around a table of men, even men you hate, and through that hate they will eventually tell you the truth – their incentives. You can sit with a table of men who are intimidated, and expose your vulnerabilities and incentives and they will eventually meet you with theirs if it is in their interest. In other words, we avoid the impulse to violence by incremental exposure of our interests – and therefore these interests are impersonal. But in my dealings with women of equal or greater abilities to their male peers, I consistently overestimated their abilities, and overestimated their confidence, and overestimated their transparency. And this has largely to do with my lack of understanding, as foolish as it was, that these women had built relationships independent of their ability to execute while men generally build relationships only because of their ability to execute. And the world of technology was shifting very quickly such that the value of servicing a customer expensively was offset by the quality and number of people in the field. (In other words, tech was, as predicted, becoming a butt-crack industry, like plumbing, hvac, and electrical). And because the world market for creative, marketing, and technical talent given the internet and internet delivered technologies, destroyed all value of locality to customers. Tech has become, much like the construction trade, a hierarchy similar to general contractors (structural steel vs top services firms), through specialists in some niche technology, through ordinary alliances of tradesmen, to the equivalent of unionized workers working through websites. So i was falsely biased in favor of women, then frustrated with their lack of transparency and performance in a business where we specialized in execution – even at higher cost than all competitors. The problem is, that these women assume I had taken advantage of them when the fact was, that I was a product of my generation. But if I could reverse those three events I would have. They were costly, and they were harmful to everyone involved. Women can rarely afford to be as honest as men, even if they desire to or are able to – at least until they have a few centuries to adapt. They are more fearful than men especially of conflict. Less able to resolve conflict BY INCENTIVES. Because womens incentives are less empirical and more positional than men. They are less loyal than men – meaning less willing to incur harm for the group, saving that for family. They are the weaker sex not the less able sex. There are many things better done by one gender or the other – on average. And those things are stereotypically distributed. Distributed that is, not partitioned. So my regrets are no only my fault, but the fault of the falsehoods that the boomer generation taught me. Like everything that (((boomer))) generation taught. Apr 15, 2018 2:51pm

  • Lessons on Genders

    I have only a few “I wish I had, if I’d known” regrets of life in general. I wish I’d moved to philosophy, and I wish I’d saved my marriage, and I wish I’d been more demanding of the medical profession. But otherwise I’ve accomplished my goals in life – not that there isn’t more work to do. I have many “I feel bad that I accidentally caused or contributed to” regrets – like most of us, this is what people remember of us. Most of my enemies (in business) attribute to me malice I did not have, and underestimate the advantages I could exploit if I desired. Those that I hold malice against deserve it in multiples. There are very evil people in this world, and they commit by financial and legal predation that which in old was done by violence. But there is no difference in the losses incurred. I have a very few “I hurt people significantly because I wasn’t diligent enough”, and just a few “I … hurt people because I was young, smart, and ruthless”. Those ruthless things were in business against men of greater age and experience than I who did not know the cunning autism of the monster they were dealing with. They were, by and large, good people, too entrenched in the past to understand the wave of technology that was changing the world. One of them died from the grief. Others withered away. I was so burdened (and still am) by these consequences that I changed my life dramatically having done them, and instead pursued (((people))) who advocated these (((crimes))) by abusing the trust of our people – and our civilization of noblesse oblige. Yet that concern did not help me in three similar matters with women. And this is the lesson I took and I want other men to take. In my generation we were raised to treat women as equals – and it worked on me. Moreover, I’d made quite a bit of money advancing women that were against a glass ceiling at larger companies. But you can sit around a table of men, even men you hate, and through that hate they will eventually tell you the truth – their incentives. You can sit with a table of men who are intimidated, and expose your vulnerabilities and incentives and they will eventually meet you with theirs if it is in their interest. In other words, we avoid the impulse to violence by incremental exposure of our interests – and therefore these interests are impersonal. But in my dealings with women of equal or greater abilities to their male peers, I consistently overestimated their abilities, and overestimated their confidence, and overestimated their transparency. And this has largely to do with my lack of understanding, as foolish as it was, that these women had built relationships independent of their ability to execute while men generally build relationships only because of their ability to execute. And the world of technology was shifting very quickly such that the value of servicing a customer expensively was offset by the quality and number of people in the field. (In other words, tech was, as predicted, becoming a butt-crack industry, like plumbing, hvac, and electrical). And because the world market for creative, marketing, and technical talent given the internet and internet delivered technologies, destroyed all value of locality to customers. Tech has become, much like the construction trade, a hierarchy similar to general contractors (structural steel vs top services firms), through specialists in some niche technology, through ordinary alliances of tradesmen, to the equivalent of unionized workers working through websites. So i was falsely biased in favor of women, then frustrated with their lack of transparency and performance in a business where we specialized in execution – even at higher cost than all competitors. The problem is, that these women assume I had taken advantage of them when the fact was, that I was a product of my generation. But if I could reverse those three events I would have. They were costly, and they were harmful to everyone involved. Women can rarely afford to be as honest as men, even if they desire to or are able to – at least until they have a few centuries to adapt. They are more fearful than men especially of conflict. Less able to resolve conflict BY INCENTIVES. Because womens incentives are less empirical and more positional than men. They are less loyal than men – meaning less willing to incur harm for the group, saving that for family. They are the weaker sex not the less able sex. There are many things better done by one gender or the other – on average. And those things are stereotypically distributed. Distributed that is, not partitioned. So my regrets are no only my fault, but the fault of the falsehoods that the boomer generation taught me. Like everything that (((boomer))) generation taught. Apr 15, 2018 2:51pm

  • LESSONS ON GENDERS I have only a few “I wish I had, if I’d known” regrets of lif

    LESSONS ON GENDERS

    I have only a few “I wish I had, if I’d known” regrets of life in general. I wish I’d moved to philosophy, and I wish I’d saved my marriage, and I wish I’d been more demanding of the medical profession. But otherwise I’ve accomplished my goals in life – not that there isn’t more work to do.

    I have many “I feel bad that I accidentally caused or contributed to” regrets – like most of us, this is what people remember of us. Most of my enemies (in business) attribute to me malice I did not have, and underestimate the advantages I could exploit if I desired. Those that I hold malice against deserve it in multiples. There are very evil people in this world, and they commit by financial and legal predation that which in old was done by violence. But there is no difference in the losses incurred.

    I have a very few “I hurt people significantly because I wasn’t diligent enough”, and just a few “I … hurt people because I was young, smart, and ruthless”.

    Those ruthless things were in business against men of greater age and experience than I who did not know the cunning autism of the monster they were dealing with. They were, by and large, good people, too entrenched in the past to understand the wave of technology that was changing the world. One of them died from the grief. Others withered away.

    I was so burdened (and still am) by these consequences that I changed my life dramatically having done them, and instead pursued (((people))) who advocated these (((crimes))) by abusing the trust of our people – and our civilization of noblesse oblige.

    Yet that concern did not help me in three similar matters with women. And this is the lesson I took and I want other men to take.

    In my generation we were raised to treat women as equals – and it worked on me. Moreover, I’d made quite a bit of money advancing women that were against a glass ceiling at larger companies.

    But you can sit around a table of men, even men you hate, and through that hate they will eventually tell you the truth – their incentives. You can sit with a table of men who are intimidated, and expose your vulnerabilities and incentives and they will eventually meet you with theirs if it is in their interest. In other words, we avoid the impulse to violence by incremental exposure of our interests – and therefore these interests are impersonal.

    But in my dealings with women of equal or greater abilities to their male peers, I consistently overestimated their abilities, and overestimated their confidence, and overestimated their transparency. And this has largely to do with my lack of understanding, as foolish as it was, that these women had built relationships independent of their ability to execute while men generally build relationships only because of their ability to execute.

    And the world of technology was shifting very quickly such that the value of servicing a customer expensively was offset by the quality and number of people in the field. (In other words, tech was, as predicted, becoming a butt-crack industry, like plumbing, hvac, and electrical). And because the world market for creative, marketing, and technical talent given the internet and internet delivered technologies, destroyed all value of locality to customers. Tech has become, much like the construction trade, a hierarchy similar to general contractors (structural steel vs top services firms), through specialists in some niche technology, through ordinary alliances of tradesmen, to the equivalent of unionized workers working through websites.

    So i was falsely biased in favor of women, then frustrated with their lack of transparency and performance in a business where we specialized in execution – even at higher cost than all competitors.

    The problem is, that these women assume I had taken advantage of them when the fact was, that I was a product of my generation. But if I could reverse those three events I would have. They were costly, and they were harmful to everyone involved.

    Women can rarely afford to be as honest as men, even if they desire to or are able to – at least until they have a few centuries to adapt. They are more fearful than men especially of conflict. Less able to resolve conflict BY INCENTIVES. Because womens incentives are less empirical and more positional than men. They are less loyal than men – meaning less willing to incur harm for the group, saving that for family. They are the weaker sex not the less able sex. There are many things better done by one gender or the other – on average. And those things are stereotypically distributed. Distributed that is, not partitioned.

    So my regrets are no only my fault, but the fault of the falsehoods that the boomer generation taught me. Like everything that (((boomer))) generation taught.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 14:51:00 UTC

  • Russia has chosen Orthodoxy to end (((their))) influence – because they never su

    Russia has chosen Orthodoxy to end (((their))) influence – because they never succeeded in developing the militia order – and therefore, never rule of law. As a member of northern european civilization, I prefer to end (((their))) influence with the militia order, rule of law, and a religion of man, nature, and history. Because of the fervency of the protestant members of the church, this can only be done by persisting the church in some form, by retaining it’s assets, but expanding it’s myths, the oath, and the feast, back into the ‘grove’ where failures of diligence in the garden are immediate and obvious.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 10:28:00 UTC