Does not require much money. In fact, if you can purchase time in exchange for decreasing ownership of property that’s better for you. It requires only that you are extremely judicious in your expenditures. It requires only that you ‘be a man’: in control of yourself.
Be fit enough to fight no matter your age.
Eat well enough to stay fit enough to fight.
Own nothing not both Excellent, Beautiful, and Useful.
Be well dressed and well groomed enough to demonstrate your discipline and taste.
Accumulate cash, investments, manners, worthy friends, knowledge, and experiences.
Accumulate competitive knowledge.
Accumulate wealth. Three or more men living in a single residence, will accumulate enough wealth. If you are all of similar economic strategy, you will merely improve one another. Remember that a pack of men is only as strong as its weakest member. So be intolerant.
Do not ‘try’ to get rich. Getting rich is a simple as (a) avoiding all credit, (b) not having a starter marriage, (c) saving half of what you earn (d) buying a house, only for cash, only to have enough children, or only for investment and renting out.
Yes, we want women. Women peak at 19-22. But don’t ‘lose the crazy’ until 33-35. Men peak between 35 and 55. Find a women 7-15 years your junior – if not twenty, have five or six children from a position of power. Try to get at least two if not three sons, by frequent sex during peak ovulation. Sons who you have time for are an asset.
Women are more plentiful the better shape you are in, the better groomed you are, and the wealthier you are. Girlfriends are cheapest, but must be rotated every year. Women can be rented by online dating, and rented for sex. There is no reason to own one until you have the assets to afford one.
Yes, as a man who finds life without a woman as my best friend difficult if not impossible, I understand. But I also understand how much I have lost in my divorces. And I understand that the state, like the church, is organized to prey upon men.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Aristocracy, Snobbery, Virtue
Does not require much money. In fact, if you can purchase time in exchange for decreasing ownership of property that’s better for you. It requires only that you are extremely judicious in your expenditures. It requires only that you ‘be a man’: in control of yourself. Be fit enough to fight no matter your age. Eat well enough to stay fit enough to fight. Own nothing not both Excellent, Beautiful, and Useful. Be well dressed and well groomed enough to demonstrate your discipline and taste. Accumulate cash, investments, manners, worthy friends, knowledge, and experiences. Accumulate competitive knowledge. Accumulate wealth. Three or more men living in a single residence, will accumulate enough wealth. If you are all of similar economic strategy, you will merely improve one another. Remember that a pack of men is only as strong as its weakest member. So be intolerant. Do not ‘try’ to get rich. Getting rich is a simple as (a) avoiding all credit, (b) not having a starter marriage, (c) saving half of what you earn (d) buying a house, only for cash, only to have enough children, or only for investment and renting out. Yes, we want women. Women peak at 19-22. But don’t ‘lose the crazy’ until 33-35. Men peak between 35 and 55. Find a women 7-15 years your junior – if not twenty, have five or six children from a position of power. Try to get at least two if not three sons, by frequent sex during peak ovulation. Sons who you have time for are an asset. Women are more plentiful the better shape you are in, the better groomed you are, and the wealthier you are. Girlfriends are cheapest, but must be rotated every year. Women can be rented by online dating, and rented for sex. There is no reason to own one until you have the assets to afford one. Yes, as a man who finds life without a woman as my best friend difficult if not impossible, I understand. But I also understand how much I have lost in my divorces. And I understand that the state, like the church, is organized to prey upon men. -
THE COSTS OF KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER The transfer of knowledge is dependent upon at l
THE COSTS OF KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
The transfer of knowledge is dependent upon at least ten “supply demand” curves. Such that the contract (exchange) of knowledge is a function of the costs involved in an exchange. In other words, some communication is low cost and some is worthwhile, and some is very costly, and some is prohibitively costly, and some is simply impossible no matter what is done. So transfer of knowledge is one of the most complex human endeavors in no small part because of high causal density with diverse means of increasing costs.
|METHOD| Suggest > Communicate(illustrate) > Explain > Teach > Train(Repetition) > Saturate(Immersion)
ie: Cost—>+
|LEARNING| Learns through inference (145+) < Learns through Suggestion(135+) < Learns through Illustration (125+) < Learns through Explanation (115+) < Learns through Teaching (105+) < Learns through Training (95+) < Learns through Immersion (85+) < Learning challenged (85-)
ie: Cost—>+
|ABILITY| Same Sigma > .5 Sigma > 1 Sigma(helpful) > 1.5 Sigma > 2 Sigma (Difficult)> 2.5 Sigma > 3 Sigma(~Impossible) > 3.5 Sigma > 4 Sigma(~Inconceivable)
ie: Cost—>+
|CONTEXT| Enemies(resisting cooperation) > Negotiation (exploring cooperation) > Discovery (cooperation) > Pedagogy (education) > Court/Jury(dispute resolution)
ie: Cost (Consequence) —>+
|MODEL| Impulsive(emotive) > Intuitionistic(sympathetic) > Reasonable(verbal)* > Logical-Rational(internally consistent)* > Scientific(Externally consistent) > Ratio-Scientific (Internal and external) > Testimonial (Complete)
ie: Cost—>+
|PRIORS| Prior Technical Knowledge < Prior Specific Knowledge* < Prior General Knowledge < Limited General Knowledge
ie: Cost—>+
|CONTENT| Identical < Near Identical < Analogistic < Novel < Counter Intuitive < Counter Investment < Counter Status(signal) Investment
ie: Cost—>+
|TRUST| Suggestibility(False Positive) > Honest-Reasonable(Exchange Positive) > “Dunning Kruger(False Negative)”
ie: Cost—>+
|STRATEGY| Seeking to Understand > Seeking to Disagree > Seeking to Falsify > Seeking to Deny* > Denial.
ie: Cost—>+
|HONESTY| Intellectual honesty > Intellectual skepticism > Intellectual Dishonesty*.
ie: Cost—>+
This (large) set of causal relations, illustrates the difficulty in the range of communication problems Suggesting > Communicating(illustrate) > Explaining > Teaching > Training(Repetition). And illustrates why it’s simply false to say that if one cannot understand it, one cannot explain it. Instead, it is, that all other causal axis being equal, one should be able to explain a phenomenon to a peer. But as the difference in peerage increases the problem of communication even if all participants are intellectually honest.
Please notice the technique used, involves extensive use of deflation (reduction to first causes), use of operational (not ideal) definitions, in series(further deflating), with cost attributions. So that while we may not compute cardinality, we can calculate ordinality by triangulation. This is one of the many methods we use to limit the ability to engage in ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, and deceit.
While I am one of the most accessible people working today, I find that the vast majority of the time, the inability to communicate ideas is almost always a function of cost of doing so. And limited knowledge, signal-anchoring, intellectual dishonesty, and dunning kruger effects, are most obvious. Why? Because either you can comprehend and refute an argument, or you can say “I do not comprehend it, and can levy no opinion.”
There is a very great difference between the sophism of rationalism and the requirements for empirical science(external correspondence), and the requirements for ratio empirical science (add internal coherence), and the requirement for complete science (add operational, reasonable-choice, moral-reciprocal, scope completeness and limits).
There is a reason why Rationalism is used in hermeneutic interpretation LEGISLATION and SCRIPTURE and why Ratio-empiricism is used in physical science, and why Testimony (although often poorly unarticulated in the study of law) requires operational testimony, test of the rational man, test of reciprocity, and test of full accounting and limits. Not the least of which is that words carry little decidability but property carries with it conflict and decidability.
Why? Because the courts determine the facts (testimony and truthfulness), and then apply tests of reasonableness, reciprocity, externality, and then test them against the legislation – which is not meant to be, or practiced, as true or just, but simply the ‘rules’ of decidability in matters of conflict.
And from this we can learn a great deal about the difference between argument in court where our frauds and deceptions will provide us with punishment, and the jury decides whether we err or deceive, and debate, where the jury decides whether we err or deceive, and petty argument where we seek to learn(test), or fraud(win), or educate(help).
There are very few intellectually honest people in the world. There are fewer that can learn and make use of multi-dimensional (causally dense) methods of thought. And fewer who are willing to pay the high cost of attempting to articulate and teach those causally dense methods of thought that are counter to signal, norm, intuition and discipline.
But the influence of reason(falsification), of natural law(reciprocity), of mathematics (the science of measurement), of science(empiricism-correspondence), and (hopefully, in the near future, Testimonialism) has been profound – and responsible for the great leaps in human mastery of the self, of nature, and of the universe.
|TRUTH| {Generation 1: Heroism > Oath ‘Reporting’ > Property} > {Generation 2: Falsification > Natural Law > Mathematics} > {Generation 3: The Abrahamic Dark Age of Conflation} > {Generation 4: Empiricism > Economics > Testimonialism}
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 10:38:00 UTC
-
The Costs Of Knowledge Transfer
The transfer of knowledge is dependent upon at least ten “supply demand” curves. Such that the contract (exchange) of knowledge is a function of the costs involved in an exchange. In other words, some communication is low cost and some is worthwhile, and some is very costly, and some is prohibitively costly, and some is simply impossible no matter what is done. So transfer of knowledge is one of the most complex human endeavors in no small part because of high causal density with diverse means of increasing costs. |METHOD| Suggest > Communicate(illustrate) > Explain > Teach > Train(Repetition) > Saturate(Immersion) ie: Cost—>+ |LEARNING| Learns through inference (145+) < Learns through Suggestion(135+) < Learns through Illustration (125+) < Learns through Explanation (115+) < Learns through Teaching (105+) < Learns through Training (95+) < Learns through Immersion (85+) < Learning challenged (85-) ie: Cost—>+ |ABILITY| Same Sigma > .5 Sigma > 1 Sigma(helpful) > 1.5 Sigma > 2 Sigma (Difficult)> 2.5 Sigma > 3 Sigma(~Impossible) > 3.5 Sigma > 4 Sigma(~Inconceivable) ie: Cost—>+ |CONTEXT| Enemies(resisting cooperation) > Negotiation (exploring cooperation) > Discovery (cooperation) > Pedagogy (education) > Court/Jury(dispute resolution) ie: Cost (Consequence) —>+ |MODEL| Impulsive(emotive) > Intuitionistic(sympathetic) > Reasonable(verbal)* > Logical-Rational(internally consistent)* > Scientific(Externally consistent) > Ratio-Scientific (Internal and external) > Testimonial (Complete) ie: Cost—>+ |PRIORS| Prior Technical Knowledge < Prior Specific Knowledge* < Prior General Knowledge < Limited General Knowledge ie: Cost—>+ |CONTENT| Identical < Near Identical < Analogistic < Novel < Counter Intuitive < Counter Investment < Counter Status(signal) Investment ie: Cost—>+ |TRUST| Suggestibility(False Positive) > Honest-Reasonable(Exchange Positive) > “Dunning Kruger(False Negative)” ie: Cost—>+ |STRATEGY| Seeking to Understand > Seeking to Disagree > Seeking to Falsify > Seeking to Deny* > Denial. ie: Cost—>+ |HONESTY| Intellectual honesty > Intellectual skepticism > Intellectual Dishonesty*. ie: Cost—>+ This (large) set of causal relations, illustrates the difficulty in the range of communication problems Suggesting > Communicating(illustrate) > Explaining > Teaching > Training(Repetition). And illustrates why it’s simply false to say that if one cannot understand it, one cannot explain it. Instead, it is, that all other causal axis being equal, one should be able to explain a phenomenon to a peer. But as the difference in peerage increases the problem of communication even if all participants are intellectually honest. Please notice the technique used, involves extensive use of deflation (reduction to first causes), use of operational (not ideal) definitions, in series(further deflating), with cost attributions. So that while we may not compute cardinality, we can calculate ordinality by triangulation. This is one of the many methods we use to limit the ability to engage in ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, and deceit. While I am one of the most accessible people working today, I find that the vast majority of the time, the inability to communicate ideas is almost always a function of cost of doing so. And limited knowledge, signal-anchoring, intellectual dishonesty, and dunning kruger effects, are most obvious. Why? Because either you can comprehend and refute an argument, or you can say “I do not comprehend it, and can levy no opinion.” There is a very great difference between the sophism of rationalism and the requirements for empirical science(external correspondence), and the requirements for ratio empirical science (add internal coherence), and the requirement for complete science (add operational, reasonable-choice, moral-reciprocal, scope completeness and limits). There is a reason why Rationalism is used in hermeneutic interpretation LEGISLATION and SCRIPTURE and why Ratio-empiricism is used in physical science, and why Testimony (although often poorly unarticulated in the study of law) requires operational testimony, test of the rational man, test of reciprocity, and test of full accounting and limits. Not the least of which is that words carry little decidability but property carries with it conflict and decidability. Why? Because the courts determine the facts (testimony and truthfulness), and then apply tests of reasonableness, reciprocity, externality, and then test them against the legislation – which is not meant to be, or practiced, as true or just, but simply the ‘rules’ of decidability in matters of conflict. And from this we can learn a great deal about the difference between argument in court where our frauds and deceptions will provide us with punishment, and the jury decides whether we err or deceive, and debate, where the jury decides whether we err or deceive, and petty argument where we seek to learn(test), or fraud(win), or educate(help). There are very few intellectually honest people in the world. There are fewer that can learn and make use of multi-dimensional (causally dense) methods of thought. And fewer who are willing to pay the high cost of attempting to articulate and teach those causally dense methods of thought that are counter to signal, norm, intuition and discipline. But the influence of reason(falsification), of natural law(reciprocity), of mathematics (the science of measurement), of science(empiricism-correspondence), and (hopefully, in the near future, Testimonialism) has been profound – and responsible for the great leaps in human mastery of the self, of nature, and of the universe. |TRUTH| {Generation 1: Heroism > Oath ‘Reporting’ > Property} > {Generation 2: Falsification > Natural Law > Mathematics} > {Generation 3: The Abrahamic Dark Age of Conflation} > {Generation 4: Empiricism > Economics > Testimonialism} Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
The Costs Of Knowledge Transfer
The transfer of knowledge is dependent upon at least ten “supply demand” curves. Such that the contract (exchange) of knowledge is a function of the costs involved in an exchange. In other words, some communication is low cost and some is worthwhile, and some is very costly, and some is prohibitively costly, and some is simply impossible no matter what is done. So transfer of knowledge is one of the most complex human endeavors in no small part because of high causal density with diverse means of increasing costs. |METHOD| Suggest > Communicate(illustrate) > Explain > Teach > Train(Repetition) > Saturate(Immersion) ie: Cost—>+ |LEARNING| Learns through inference (145+) < Learns through Suggestion(135+) < Learns through Illustration (125+) < Learns through Explanation (115+) < Learns through Teaching (105+) < Learns through Training (95+) < Learns through Immersion (85+) < Learning challenged (85-) ie: Cost—>+ |ABILITY| Same Sigma > .5 Sigma > 1 Sigma(helpful) > 1.5 Sigma > 2 Sigma (Difficult)> 2.5 Sigma > 3 Sigma(~Impossible) > 3.5 Sigma > 4 Sigma(~Inconceivable) ie: Cost—>+ |CONTEXT| Enemies(resisting cooperation) > Negotiation (exploring cooperation) > Discovery (cooperation) > Pedagogy (education) > Court/Jury(dispute resolution) ie: Cost (Consequence) —>+ |MODEL| Impulsive(emotive) > Intuitionistic(sympathetic) > Reasonable(verbal)* > Logical-Rational(internally consistent)* > Scientific(Externally consistent) > Ratio-Scientific (Internal and external) > Testimonial (Complete) ie: Cost—>+ |PRIORS| Prior Technical Knowledge < Prior Specific Knowledge* < Prior General Knowledge < Limited General Knowledge ie: Cost—>+ |CONTENT| Identical < Near Identical < Analogistic < Novel < Counter Intuitive < Counter Investment < Counter Status(signal) Investment ie: Cost—>+ |TRUST| Suggestibility(False Positive) > Honest-Reasonable(Exchange Positive) > “Dunning Kruger(False Negative)” ie: Cost—>+ |STRATEGY| Seeking to Understand > Seeking to Disagree > Seeking to Falsify > Seeking to Deny* > Denial. ie: Cost—>+ |HONESTY| Intellectual honesty > Intellectual skepticism > Intellectual Dishonesty*. ie: Cost—>+ This (large) set of causal relations, illustrates the difficulty in the range of communication problems Suggesting > Communicating(illustrate) > Explaining > Teaching > Training(Repetition). And illustrates why it’s simply false to say that if one cannot understand it, one cannot explain it. Instead, it is, that all other causal axis being equal, one should be able to explain a phenomenon to a peer. But as the difference in peerage increases the problem of communication even if all participants are intellectually honest. Please notice the technique used, involves extensive use of deflation (reduction to first causes), use of operational (not ideal) definitions, in series(further deflating), with cost attributions. So that while we may not compute cardinality, we can calculate ordinality by triangulation. This is one of the many methods we use to limit the ability to engage in ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, and deceit. While I am one of the most accessible people working today, I find that the vast majority of the time, the inability to communicate ideas is almost always a function of cost of doing so. And limited knowledge, signal-anchoring, intellectual dishonesty, and dunning kruger effects, are most obvious. Why? Because either you can comprehend and refute an argument, or you can say “I do not comprehend it, and can levy no opinion.” There is a very great difference between the sophism of rationalism and the requirements for empirical science(external correspondence), and the requirements for ratio empirical science (add internal coherence), and the requirement for complete science (add operational, reasonable-choice, moral-reciprocal, scope completeness and limits). There is a reason why Rationalism is used in hermeneutic interpretation LEGISLATION and SCRIPTURE and why Ratio-empiricism is used in physical science, and why Testimony (although often poorly unarticulated in the study of law) requires operational testimony, test of the rational man, test of reciprocity, and test of full accounting and limits. Not the least of which is that words carry little decidability but property carries with it conflict and decidability. Why? Because the courts determine the facts (testimony and truthfulness), and then apply tests of reasonableness, reciprocity, externality, and then test them against the legislation – which is not meant to be, or practiced, as true or just, but simply the ‘rules’ of decidability in matters of conflict. And from this we can learn a great deal about the difference between argument in court where our frauds and deceptions will provide us with punishment, and the jury decides whether we err or deceive, and debate, where the jury decides whether we err or deceive, and petty argument where we seek to learn(test), or fraud(win), or educate(help). There are very few intellectually honest people in the world. There are fewer that can learn and make use of multi-dimensional (causally dense) methods of thought. And fewer who are willing to pay the high cost of attempting to articulate and teach those causally dense methods of thought that are counter to signal, norm, intuition and discipline. But the influence of reason(falsification), of natural law(reciprocity), of mathematics (the science of measurement), of science(empiricism-correspondence), and (hopefully, in the near future, Testimonialism) has been profound – and responsible for the great leaps in human mastery of the self, of nature, and of the universe. |TRUTH| {Generation 1: Heroism > Oath ‘Reporting’ > Property} > {Generation 2: Falsification > Natural Law > Mathematics} > {Generation 3: The Abrahamic Dark Age of Conflation} > {Generation 4: Empiricism > Economics > Testimonialism} Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Btw: Teaching Moment
Logic versus Science. There are three rules of the logic of internal consistency: 1) Identity, 2) Non Contradiction, and 3) Excluded Middle. Unfortunately, these rules refer to binary truth (identity) wherein all statements are true or false. But that presumption is false. All statements are true, false, or undecidable (null, meaningless, or unknown). But since undecidable statements cannot be used as premises in syllogism or deduction, they must be *treated* as false. So in deductive logic we treat undecidable statements as false, even if they are merely unknown. We use internally consistent, deductive truth in the discipline (science) of measurement that we call mathematics, We use internally consistent deductive truth in the interpretation of Justificationary language: Law and Scripture (logic). We refer to collections of these proofs of internal consistency as axiomatic systems. They refer to ideals. But in science, all operational statements are either false, surviving(not false: theoretical), or unknown(untested, or untestable). We refer to collections of these statements as theoretic systems (models not proofs), They refer to reality, not ideals. So, whereas you can compose the liar’s paradox in ideal axiomatic language, you cannot do so in scientific language since a person would only compose the liar’s paradox as an accident, a trick or deception, and therefore we fault the speaker not the speech. -
Btw: Teaching Moment
Logic versus Science. There are three rules of the logic of internal consistency: 1) Identity, 2) Non Contradiction, and 3) Excluded Middle. Unfortunately, these rules refer to binary truth (identity) wherein all statements are true or false. But that presumption is false. All statements are true, false, or undecidable (null, meaningless, or unknown). But since undecidable statements cannot be used as premises in syllogism or deduction, they must be *treated* as false. So in deductive logic we treat undecidable statements as false, even if they are merely unknown. We use internally consistent, deductive truth in the discipline (science) of measurement that we call mathematics, We use internally consistent deductive truth in the interpretation of Justificationary language: Law and Scripture (logic). We refer to collections of these proofs of internal consistency as axiomatic systems. They refer to ideals. But in science, all operational statements are either false, surviving(not false: theoretical), or unknown(untested, or untestable). We refer to collections of these statements as theoretic systems (models not proofs), They refer to reality, not ideals. So, whereas you can compose the liar’s paradox in ideal axiomatic language, you cannot do so in scientific language since a person would only compose the liar’s paradox as an accident, a trick or deception, and therefore we fault the speaker not the speech. -
BTW: TEACHING MOMENT Logic versus Science. There are three rules of the logic of
BTW: TEACHING MOMENT
Logic versus Science.
There are three rules of the logic of internal consistency:
1) Identity, 2) Non Contradiction, and 3) Excluded Middle.
Unfortunately, these rules refer to binary truth (identity) wherein all statements are true or false. But that presumption is false. All statements are true, false, or undecidable (null, meaningless, or unknown). But since undecidable statements cannot be used as premises in syllogism or deduction, they must be *treated* as false.
So in deductive logic we treat undecidable statements as false, even if they are merely unknown.
We use internally consistent, deductive truth in the discipline (science) of measurement that we call mathematics,
We use internally consistent deductive truth in the interpretation of Justificationary language: Law and Scripture (logic). We refer to collections of these proofs of internal consistency as axiomatic systems. They refer to ideals.
But in science, all operational statements are either false, surviving(not false: theoretical), or unknown(untested, or untestable). We refer to collections of these statements as theoretic systems (models not proofs), They refer to reality, not ideals.
So, whereas you can compose the liar’s paradox in ideal axiomatic language, you cannot do so in scientific language since a person would only compose the liar’s paradox as an accident, a trick or deception, and therefore we fault the speaker not the speech.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-08 10:55:00 UTC
-
There are certain Genies that can’t be rebottled(magics), certain Pandoras that
There are certain Genies that can’t be rebottled(magics), certain Pandoras that cannot be re-boxed(evils), certain events than cannot be undone(accidents), and certain technologies that cannot be unmade(inventions), and much knowledge that cannot be un-known.
(a) patterns of sustainable specialization and trade adapt faster and faster with greater divisions of labor and knowledge, and there is no evidence that this will cease.
(b) women are more adaptable to social circumstances. Men are specialists and less adaptable to social circumstances. There is no evidence that this will (or can) cease.
(c) women have longer working lives in those circumstances. Men have shorter working lives in most circumstances. Men absorb and accumulate cellular damage on behalf of women and children both because of direct the effects of testosterone and the consequences of their drives *caused* by it. There is no evidence that this will or can end.
(d) Men have invented the end of physical labor. Men will soon invent the end of warfare labor. And soon after invent the end of calculative labor.
(e) The only labor that will remain will be service – with very low returns; organizing people – with low returns, sales – with slightly higher returns; and organization of network; and organizing networks of people to take risks – with higher returns.
(f) women are superior in the workplace at all but the high risk innovation of higher returns.
(g) there is little evidence that two thirds of men are necessary in the work force, or even desirable mates for women. There is evidence that women require or desire the financial support of men *if it means the cost of caring for them.*
(h) A surplus of men always leads to civil war. A shortage of men always leads to conquest. The west is being conquered at present.
(i) Vast numbers of men have left the workforce. With a minimum survivable wage, far more men will leave the work force. Other than men’s higher food requirements, men are far less costly to maintain than women. With men leaving the workforce more women will enter it. Albeit in work with decreasing returns.
I can see various equilibrations playing out. But in the end, I see basically this: wome return to the clerical equivalent of doing all work in the agrarian era. A few men have access to most of the women and wealth. And the vast majority of other men laze around a lot and enjoy life, and do nothing other than prevent encroachment upon their ‘herd’ of working women.
* the principal means of preventing revolt at present is income requirements. *
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-03 14:03:00 UTC
-
FOR NEW FRIENDS I don’t care about your race, ethnicity, language or culture. Bu
FOR NEW FRIENDS
I don’t care about your race, ethnicity, language or culture.
But I am a prosecutor of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit. In particular I prosecute pseudoscience, philosophy and religion. And in particular I prosecute abrahamic religions as the worst crime of human history (judaism, christianity, and islam).
My opinion, which I think is about as well informed as is possible, is that science is a universal language of truthful speech; reciprocity is a universal ethic; nationalism is an extension of the family and the optimum social order;
My opinion is that the only meaningful differences between the races, subraces, and tribes, is the size of our underclasses, our degree of neoteny, and our degree of sexual dimorphism.
And that we can all transcend into the gods we imagine if we practice truth, reciprocity, nationalism, and a gentle reduction of the size of our underclasses.
But to do so we must rebel against, disempower, and replace all leadership that uses the top and the bottom against the middle, instead of the middle to constrain the top and the bottom.
Any man who will fight with me shall be my brother.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-01 13:55:00 UTC