There is nothing really to debate other than nationalism vs universalism. Kin vs corporation. And the degree to which our options are limited by that choice.
Unless you agree on that premise, then the rest is pointless.
Communism was a universal religion and fascism a nationalist one, and that’s … really all there is to be said. The difference is that communism spread by the underclasses and the talking classes, and fascism spread as defense against them by more developed countries.
For those reasons, communism has a vast pseudo-intellectual pseudoscientific and speudorational base behind it and fascism a romantic one.
In practical terms my work is absolutely positively in accord with fascism, but as rigorous as marxism. It’s just fascism for every subrace and tribe, ours or not.
The …. disease of abrahamism has infected nearly everyone in the west, so its hard for people of ‘weakness’ so to speak, to act as do the japanese any longer. Which is how it’s necessary to act: the polity bears costs of the intertemporal preservation of the polity.
If your people are not enough of a religion then why are you a f—king fascist in the first place?????
The truth is anyone intellectually capable would not make the national socialist argument because it is by definition so inarticulately stated, without institutional prescriptions, without any economic or legal ‘rules’.
It is a sentimental and aesthetic religion by which authority is given to a figurehead to create benefits in times of stress, conflict, competition, and war. I mean the reason no one argues for natsoc other than by analogy is there is no such thought that is not merely romanticism.
Autarkic economy for defense of the kin group by handing power to a General in times of threat, and justifying it with propaganda…. is just …. tediously boring. It’s what anyone and everyone does, and always has done.
Its just the only … example anyone can draw from other than kicking the muslims out of spain, and resisting the muslims in vienna, and resisting the muslims in general. We have been so relatively successful that we haven’t had to have too many such movements as the natsoc.
I want to add to the capitalism vs communism debate by saying it’s a (((Fake))) argument, when the debate is and always will be rule of law that results in markets and arbitrary rule that results in central control.
I think the only argument to have is one of rule of law, and the method by which we take the proceeds of our production of a rule-of-law order, and decide who does what with them.
As far as I can tell kings are far, far, better than anyone else at doing it at their level and civic orders and private orders better at doing it at their levels. Thats absolutely positively impossible to argue with.
Now, we can say that in order to scale the production of commons as the cost of producing commons that produce returns increases, that we must produce a market for the production of commons just as we produce a market for private goods, services, and information.
But the idea that this market should produce monopolies as we do under majoritarian democracy, r ather than produce whatever contracts can be negotiated, by direct economic contribution (even if mandatory), is rather nonsensical – since that is the source of our conflicts.
In other words, I see these discussions as … a bit …. like victorian parlor games. Political models are so imprecise as to be fictional accounts. Either one can describe the means by which commons decided upon and are produced, or one can’t.
And if one can’t then he’s just telling fairy stories.
Form: Mini Essay
-
There Is Nothing To A Debate Over National Socialism
There is nothing really to debate other than nationalism vs universalism. Kin vs corporation. And the degree to which our options are limited by that choice. Unless you agree on that premise, then the rest is pointless. Communism was a universal religion and fascism a nationalist one, and that’s … really all there is to be said. The difference is that communism spread by the underclasses and the talking classes, and fascism spread as defense against them by more developed countries. For those reasons, communism has a vast pseudo-intellectual pseudoscientific and speudorational base behind it and fascism a romantic one. In practical terms my work is absolutely positively in accord with fascism, but as rigorous as marxism. It’s just fascism for every subrace and tribe, ours or not. The …. disease of abrahamism has infected nearly everyone in the west, so its hard for people of ‘weakness’ so to speak, to act as do the japanese any longer. Which is how it’s necessary to act: the polity bears costs of the intertemporal preservation of the polity. If your people are not enough of a religion then why are you a f—king fascist in the first place????? The truth is anyone intellectually capable would not make the national socialist argument because it is by definition so inarticulately stated, without institutional prescriptions, without any economic or legal ‘rules’. It is a sentimental and aesthetic religion by which authority is given to a figurehead to create benefits in times of stress, conflict, competition, and war. I mean the reason no one argues for natsoc other than by analogy is there is no such thought that is not merely romanticism. Autarkic economy for defense of the kin group by handing power to a General in times of threat, and justifying it with propaganda…. is just …. tediously boring. It’s what anyone and everyone does, and always has done. Its just the only … example anyone can draw from other than kicking the muslims out of spain, and resisting the muslims in vienna, and resisting the muslims in general. We have been so relatively successful that we haven’t had to have too many such movements as the natsoc. I want to add to the capitalism vs communism debate by saying it’s a (((Fake))) argument, when the debate is and always will be rule of law that results in markets and arbitrary rule that results in central control. I think the only argument to have is one of rule of law, and the method by which we take the proceeds of our production of a rule-of-law order, and decide who does what with them. As far as I can tell kings are far, far, better than anyone else at doing it at their level and civic orders and private orders better at doing it at their levels. Thats absolutely positively impossible to argue with. Now, we can say that in order to scale the production of commons as the cost of producing commons that produce returns increases, that we must produce a market for the production of commons just as we produce a market for private goods, services, and information. But the idea that this market should produce monopolies as we do under majoritarian democracy, r ather than produce whatever contracts can be negotiated, by direct economic contribution (even if mandatory), is rather nonsensical – since that is the source of our conflicts. In other words, I see these discussions as … a bit …. like victorian parlor games. Political models are so imprecise as to be fictional accounts. Either one can describe the means by which commons decided upon and are produced, or one can’t. And if one can’t then he’s just telling fairy stories. -
The Ignorances Of The Genders
You know, it’s common knowledge that women communicate in a language with semantics unavailable to men, and that the female mind is impenetrable to man. But it is not common knowledge that Did you ever notice that when a woman talks to a man she has to change her language? I don’t know if they consider it dumbing down, but they speak like they do Did you ever notice that when a man talks to a woman he interprets it as ‘dumbing down’? Did you ever notice that when a man walks into a room of women talking, they immediately change body language, behavior, and speech? Did you ever notice that when a woman walks into a room of men talking they immediately change their body language, behavior and speech? Always and everywhere. Despite a relationship with what I consider one of the smarter or smartest women in technology, I have never met a woman I could talk to who possessed the what I would call the spatial-theoretical (predictive or modeling) capacity of man. I have met gay men who can largely interpret the language of women. And sometimes I think gay men have the advantage if they have the intelligence, of understanding both sides, and gay women understanding neither. The only way I know how to test this is interpersonally by continuously expanding the scope of an idea that the person is familiar with to their limits. Men have much higher limits – OR they are unafraid to transgress their limits. I am not sure which, but I think that might be the answer, and I have no way of testing that – although it should be testable. We are both ignorant of the minds of the others. Women are shallower than the aspie men, and aspies tend to be nearly unlimited theoretically, and I am relatively sure that the same cognition that prevents women from violating NAXALT and violating groupthink, keeps them out of theory. Which is why women contribute almost nothing to theory that is true (feminism is a great example) but that women DO produce empirical work of high quality – especially about humans or the physical world. In other words, women are limited at great scale by their integration. And we are limited at local scale by our lack of it. -
The Ignorances Of The Genders
You know, it’s common knowledge that women communicate in a language with semantics unavailable to men, and that the female mind is impenetrable to man. But it is not common knowledge that Did you ever notice that when a woman talks to a man she has to change her language? I don’t know if they consider it dumbing down, but they speak like they do Did you ever notice that when a man talks to a woman he interprets it as ‘dumbing down’? Did you ever notice that when a man walks into a room of women talking, they immediately change body language, behavior, and speech? Did you ever notice that when a woman walks into a room of men talking they immediately change their body language, behavior and speech? Always and everywhere. Despite a relationship with what I consider one of the smarter or smartest women in technology, I have never met a woman I could talk to who possessed the what I would call the spatial-theoretical (predictive or modeling) capacity of man. I have met gay men who can largely interpret the language of women. And sometimes I think gay men have the advantage if they have the intelligence, of understanding both sides, and gay women understanding neither. The only way I know how to test this is interpersonally by continuously expanding the scope of an idea that the person is familiar with to their limits. Men have much higher limits – OR they are unafraid to transgress their limits. I am not sure which, but I think that might be the answer, and I have no way of testing that – although it should be testable. We are both ignorant of the minds of the others. Women are shallower than the aspie men, and aspies tend to be nearly unlimited theoretically, and I am relatively sure that the same cognition that prevents women from violating NAXALT and violating groupthink, keeps them out of theory. Which is why women contribute almost nothing to theory that is true (feminism is a great example) but that women DO produce empirical work of high quality – especially about humans or the physical world. In other words, women are limited at great scale by their integration. And we are limited at local scale by our lack of it. -
THE IGNORANCES OF THE GENDERS You know, it’s common knowledge that women communi
THE IGNORANCES OF THE GENDERS
You know, it’s common knowledge that women communicate in a language with semantics unavailable to men, and that the female mind is impenetrable to man.
But it is not common knowledge that
Did you ever notice that when a woman talks to a man she has to change her language? I don’t know if they consider it dumbing down, but they speak like they do
Did you ever notice that when a man talks to a woman he interprets it as ‘dumbing down’?
Did you ever notice that when a man walks into a room of women talking, they immediately change body language, behavior, and speech?
Did you ever notice that when a woman walks into a room of men talking they immediately change their body language, behavior and speech?
Always and everywhere.
Despite a relationship with what I consider one of the smarter or smartest women in technology, I have never met a woman I could talk to who possessed the what I would call the spatial-theoretical (predictive or modeling) capacity of man. I have met gay men who can largely interpret the language of women. And sometimes I think gay men have the advantage if they have the intelligence, of understanding both sides, and gay women understanding neither.
The only way I know how to test this is interpersonally by continuously expanding the scope of an idea that the person is familiar with to their limits. Men have much higher limits – OR they are unafraid to transgress their limits. I am not sure which, but I think that might be the answer, and I have no way of testing that – although it should be testable.
We are both ignorant of the minds of the others.
Women are shallower than the aspie men, and aspies tend to be nearly unlimited theoretically, and I am relatively sure that the same cognition that prevents women from violating NAXALT and violating groupthink, keeps them out of theory. Which is why women contribute almost nothing to theory that is true (feminism is a great example) but that women DO produce empirical work of high quality – especially about humans or the physical world.
In other words, women are limited at great scale by their integration. And we are limited at local scale by our lack of it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-20 11:28:00 UTC
-
The Incentives For Secession In Rational Terms
The unification of north and south in the declaration and constitution was always contentious. We had our first attempt at secession just after the war of 1812. Our next in the civil war. vast immigration and the depression that followed, disunity. The world wars created unity. The marxist/postmodern insurgency restored the original demands for secession. The reason for the original failure was fear of re-conquest by europe. The reason for the civil war failure was the profitability of the westward expansion and the threat that the industrialized north would be reduced to a marginalized minority and the west and the south the majority – and slavery is merely the primary driver by which that economic and political reality was perpetuated. The 1960s repeated the process. ANd today we are going thru it again. The difference today is we are no longer fighting over the profitability of westward expansion, but the profitability of homogeneous territorial peoples and heterogeneous. Or stated differently “the profits from immigration as a vehicle for selling off a conquered conteintent, and the profits of selling them consumer goods, is now neutralized by the world having caught up to western technology and institutions. What the world cannot catch up to is western demographics and culture. Becuase as far as I know no other people are capable of it. The means of future competition are (a) eugneics (b) artificial intelligence (c) demographic distribution and population Now, technology ALWAYS EVENTUALLY AND QUCKLY EQUILIBRATES. GENES DO NOT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? You cannot clean ‘polluted genes’. You can only separate good genes from bad Genes. -
The Incentives For Secession In Rational Terms
The unification of north and south in the declaration and constitution was always contentious. We had our first attempt at secession just after the war of 1812. Our next in the civil war. vast immigration and the depression that followed, disunity. The world wars created unity. The marxist/postmodern insurgency restored the original demands for secession. The reason for the original failure was fear of re-conquest by europe. The reason for the civil war failure was the profitability of the westward expansion and the threat that the industrialized north would be reduced to a marginalized minority and the west and the south the majority – and slavery is merely the primary driver by which that economic and political reality was perpetuated. The 1960s repeated the process. ANd today we are going thru it again. The difference today is we are no longer fighting over the profitability of westward expansion, but the profitability of homogeneous territorial peoples and heterogeneous. Or stated differently “the profits from immigration as a vehicle for selling off a conquered conteintent, and the profits of selling them consumer goods, is now neutralized by the world having caught up to western technology and institutions. What the world cannot catch up to is western demographics and culture. Becuase as far as I know no other people are capable of it. The means of future competition are (a) eugneics (b) artificial intelligence (c) demographic distribution and population Now, technology ALWAYS EVENTUALLY AND QUCKLY EQUILIBRATES. GENES DO NOT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? You cannot clean ‘polluted genes’. You can only separate good genes from bad Genes. -
THE INCENTIVES FOR SECESSION IN RATIONAL TERMS The unification of north and sout
THE INCENTIVES FOR SECESSION IN RATIONAL TERMS
The unification of north and south in the declaration and constitution was always contentious. We had our first attempt at secession just after the war of 1812. Our next in the civil war. vast immigration and the depression that followed, disunity. The world wars created unity. The marxist/postmodern insurgency restored the original demands for secession. The reason for the original failure was fear of re-conquest by europe. The reason for the civil war failure was the profitability of the westward expansion and the threat that the industrialized north would be reduced to a marginalized minority and the west and the south the majority – and slavery is merely the primary driver by which that economic and political reality was perpetuated. The 1960s repeated the process. ANd today we are going thru it again.
The difference today is we are no longer fighting over the profitability of westward expansion, but the profitability of homogeneous territorial peoples and heterogeneous. Or stated differently “the profits from immigration as a vehicle for selling off a conquered conteintent, and the profits of selling them consumer goods, is now neutralized by the world having caught up to western technology and institutions. What the world cannot catch up to is western demographics and culture. Becuase as far as I know no other people are capable of it.
The means of future competition are
(a) eugneics
(b) artificial intelligence
(c) demographic distribution and population
Now, technology ALWAYS EVENTUALLY AND QUCKLY EQUILIBRATES.
GENES DO NOT.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
You cannot clean ‘polluted genes’. You can only separate good genes from bad Genes.
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-20 11:15:00 UTC
-
Yes You Can Judge. Everything. And Its Easy
–‘snide’– I know. I know. But then, those who are capable don’t fear competition, but cherish it, and those who aren’t capable, admonish it. It’s purely logical to disapprove, shame, ridicule, gossip, and rally when on is inferior and fearful of competition. In fact, Good competition is rare. If you disapprove, shame, ridicule, gossip and rally against superiority that’s admission of inferiority. And, yes it is quite simply to judge superiority vs inferiority, as greater time, calories, content, symmetry, and precision – just as fine art is distinguishable from petty – by the time, calories, content, symmetry, discipline, innovation, and precision therein – just as all man’s thoughts, displays, words, deeds and achievements are distinguishable and their differences in quality decidable by the time, calories, content, symmetry, discipline, innovation, and precision therein. Just as we, as organic creatures are measurable by the time, calories, content, symmetry, discipline, innovation, and precision therein – in genes, body, behavior, and knowledge. And therein lies the difference between criticism of the lack of time, lack of calories, lack of content, lack of symmetry, discipline, innovation, and precision therein – and criticism of the judgement of others on the relative presence or lack of time, calories, content, symmetry, discipline, innovation, and precision. Either one can build himself or herself – or not. Either one can build a craft, skill, or art himself or herself – or not. Either one can build works, tha produce returns – or not. Either one can build a family that produces generations but imposes no costs now or future on others, between himself, and herself – or not. Either one can build a company that produces positive returns – or not. Either one can build a polity that produces positive returns without the need for immigration – or not. Either one can build a nation that produces positive returns without the need for parasitism and conquest – or not. These are facts to those who achieve them, and uncomfortable truths to those that fail, and heinous demands by those who will not try, and oppression by those who prefer parasitism. -
Yes You Can Judge. Everything. And Its Easy
–‘snide’– I know. I know. But then, those who are capable don’t fear competition, but cherish it, and those who aren’t capable, admonish it. It’s purely logical to disapprove, shame, ridicule, gossip, and rally when on is inferior and fearful of competition. In fact, Good competition is rare. If you disapprove, shame, ridicule, gossip and rally against superiority that’s admission of inferiority. And, yes it is quite simply to judge superiority vs inferiority, as greater time, calories, content, symmetry, and precision – just as fine art is distinguishable from petty – by the time, calories, content, symmetry, discipline, innovation, and precision therein – just as all man’s thoughts, displays, words, deeds and achievements are distinguishable and their differences in quality decidable by the time, calories, content, symmetry, discipline, innovation, and precision therein. Just as we, as organic creatures are measurable by the time, calories, content, symmetry, discipline, innovation, and precision therein – in genes, body, behavior, and knowledge. And therein lies the difference between criticism of the lack of time, lack of calories, lack of content, lack of symmetry, discipline, innovation, and precision therein – and criticism of the judgement of others on the relative presence or lack of time, calories, content, symmetry, discipline, innovation, and precision. Either one can build himself or herself – or not. Either one can build a craft, skill, or art himself or herself – or not. Either one can build works, tha produce returns – or not. Either one can build a family that produces generations but imposes no costs now or future on others, between himself, and herself – or not. Either one can build a company that produces positive returns – or not. Either one can build a polity that produces positive returns without the need for immigration – or not. Either one can build a nation that produces positive returns without the need for parasitism and conquest – or not. These are facts to those who achieve them, and uncomfortable truths to those that fail, and heinous demands by those who will not try, and oppression by those who prefer parasitism.