Form: Mini Essay

  • THE VALUE OF FEDERAL, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. The only value in a feder

    THE VALUE OF FEDERAL, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

    The only value in a federal government is:

    1) Efficiency of the cost and necessity of coordination of defense of territorial borders.

    2) Insurer of last resort for regional ‘order’ (government).

    3) Treasury of last resort for regions (central bank services)

    4) Necessary resolution of disputes of TORTS between regions.

    The only value in a regional government:

    1) Efficiency in the financing, coordination, and cost of production of transportation and communication infrastructure.

    2) Insurer of last resort for natural disasters and local ‘order’.

    3) Registry of property of last resort.

    4) Necessary Resolution of disputes of torts between locales.

    The responsibility and value in local government is:

    1) Efficiency and Decidability in the cost of production of commons.

    2) Insurer against incapacity (illness, employment, age)

    3) Treasury

    4) Registry of property titles

    The responsibility and value in family (familial ‘government)

    1) insurance against unearned offspring,and the production, raising, education, training of earned offspring.

    2) insurance against the vicissitudes of age.

    3) efficiency in the production of that commons we call ‘household’


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-28 11:34:00 UTC

  • EUROPEAN (GERMAN/FRENCH/ITALIAN) MILITARY COSTS WILL BE, LIKE THE USA’S, THE PRE

    EUROPEAN (GERMAN/FRENCH/ITALIAN) MILITARY COSTS WILL BE, LIKE THE USA’S, THE PREVENTION OF CARTELS AND INVASION

    European social goods are possible because of a lack of european defense spending, and while it may be true that europe lacks territorial enemies other than perhaps russia militarily and islam via immigration and conversion, the vast costs of policing the world that are borne by the USA have been Jewish/Communist expansion via russia. THe adoption of jewish/commuist expasion by china. The adoption of jewish communist expansion by the arabs. And the simple fact that while Russia and China conducted that war militariliy and politically, the muslim nations do so economically by oil. So america pays for maintaining the market price of oil and preventing cartels from forming. This is the reason for the great western military expenditure over the past century: the expansion of the market and the prevention of cartels. THis is extremely expensive, and no, europe does not pay its part.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-28 11:18:00 UTC

  • Is The ‘white Race’ Genetically Superior Or Just Happened To Be In The Right Place At The Right Time?

    Um. It’s that, like East Asians, the European white subrace is DEMOGRAPHICALLY superior, and because it is demographically superior, it is institutionally and culturally superior, which is why it’s economically technologically and militarily superior. That’s because the single best thing you can do to advance your population is shrink your working, lower, and underclass populations such that the median ability of individuals per calorie of production per capita allows the highest investment in individuals while preserving the rate of return. (a mouthful but it’s not that complicated.)

    Whether White Europeans are genetically superior is questionable. Of the SUBRACES, only Han/Korean/Japanese, and White Europeans, have succeeded in (a) reducing the size of the underclass, and (b) reduced the rate and depth of sexual maturity. The Ashkenazi have in addition, (c) reversed sexual dimorphism which has proven an interesting and novel strategy.

    But this domestication of the human animal has had consequences. The east asians have been the most successful at limiting sexual maturity, and may in fact, have surpassed the benefit of doing so, but they have gained longer lifespans and somewhat superior health because of it. They appear to have superior memories in addition which accounts for their academic performance. Unfortunately they have culturally selected for intolerance for challenges to the status hierarchy (preferring stagnation).

    The Europeans have transferred female morphological traits to males, but maintained high sexual dimorphism despite lower levels of testosterone than all but east asians.

    The Ashkenazi have transferred female superiority in verbal expression to males, at the expense of the consequences of transferring other normatively female traits to males such as a much higher incidence of homosexuality. They have selected for disruption of the host population’s dominance hierarchy while retaining use of the female preference for internal equality. Effectively the Ashkenazi have adopted the female reproductive strategy and it appears they have genetically adapted to it as well. (Studying their use of this strategy has been interesting in that it illustrates the range of what is possible through selective expression of gender traits.)

    The rest of the world populations have been unable to reduce the scale of their working, lower, and underclasses sufficiently to lower demographic resistance to improving their institutions both formal and informal – particularly improving their higher incidences of corruption. Moreover, some information systems and some ideas prohibit the improvement of knowledge just as the lower and working classes inhibits the improvement of formal and informal institutions. So once we have analyzed the successes of the european, ashkenazi, and east asian populations we are left with the same problem for everyone else: demographic distribution is so heavy on the bottom that the top cannot develop a means of organizing society using incentives (cheap) rather than force (expensive) to produce goods, services, and information necessary to raise them out of ignorance, superstition, and poverty.

    The reason for EUROPEAN white sub-race’s success in the ancient and modern world was made possible by rather obvious factors:

    1 – the location between the steppe which provided the horse, europe which provided the wheel, and the armenians who provided bronze technology. The mobility provided by the combination of these technologies made it possible to replace the european population almost entirely as it moved westward. And to conquer the older peoples as they moved eastward and southward. Encountering the older peoples, they preferred to rule then integrate with them, and have largely disappeared as other than genetic contributors.

    2 – Farming on the european plain is reasonably fruitful given the growing season but ruling it more difficult than the concentration of production in river valley and it’s longer growing seasons. Even if less difficult than the near impossibility of ruling the steppe and desert pastoral people for whom fixed capital is nearly impossible to hold, and therefore threaten, rule, and tax. So where the fertile crescent, North Indian, and Chinese river valley civilizations could develop through central control of production, and extraction of rents. And where they could count on trade routes across the warmer parts of the globe, europeans could not so easily concentrate capital without seafaring. And steppe and desert people could not do so at all. This is why these civilizations developed in order.

    3 – The european winters that are harsh enough that those lacking sufficient physical, emotional, intellectual, and reproductive desirability cannot survive the vicissitudes of nature. And conversely, whereas people in warm climates benefit from rapid maturity in order to survive disease gradients, people in cold climates benefit from slower maturity in order to invest in higher discipline and industriousness. So for all intents and purposes those people who lack industriousness in northern climes could not survive, and those people in equatorial climes required early maturity to survive.

    4 – Both East Asians (han, korean, chinese) and europeans (Atlantics, Celts, Germanics, Scandinavians, Baltics, Slavs, Southern slavs, ) were successful because of lack of neighboring competitors. Everyone left in Europe after the Aryan migration was kin or near kin. The chinese had their civil wars early and solidified control of the strip of green along the pacific. This condition selected for lower clannishness.

    However, in the middle east, european forest, river, and sea people, levantine sea and desert people, indo-iranian and their MANY offshoots across the middle east, central asia and north africa, and the semitic people’s of inland and peninsula as well as sub-saharan africans all competed and developed extraordinary clannishness.

    And worse, since the steppe and desert people, always behind, always lacking capital, always mobile, and always the world’s terrorist underclass, disrupted the east, west, and south until the byzantines and the persians had exhausted themselves, and they were caught by the desert expansion of the arabs from the south.

    5 – This clannishness or lack of it, number of non-kin neighbors, rate and depth of sexual maturity, balance of sexual dimorphism, and scale of the underclass, as well as the traditions necessary to form political orders in the concentrated river (great/Fertile Crescent), distributed forest and rivers(good/east and west) , and fragmentary steppe and desert (bad/north and south), or the inability to participate in eurasian trade routes (sub-saharan africa, southeast asia, and the americas) describes the primary reason for empirical consequences of racial differences, caused largely by demographic adaptation to regional demands.

    6 – However, east, center, and west, developed three very different intellectual traditions.

    The east developed ritualism, observation and reason. Not religion as we understand it. Not science, logic, or rationalism as we understand it, not necessarily philosophy as we understand it, but observation, reason, accounting, and many technologies. They developed a society largely a literature of reason.

    The aristocratic center developed zoroastrianism, which we can call religious literary tradition, and relied upon that as their philosophical framework. This decision was to have profound consequences. They developed the conflation of supernatural religion and philosophy as their literature.

    The slaves (jews) conflated supernatural and philosophical literature, with their law and history, and developed authoritarian supernatural mysticism – beginning with abrahamism which split into judaism ( middle class administrative), christianity (working class levantine and roman), and islam (underclass steppe and desert). religions. This decision was to have profound consequences. Because between islam for the past 1400 years, and judaism in the form of Marxism/Communism, Abrahamism has been second only to the black plague black plague in accumulated deaths throughout all of history. (really).

    The west retained paganism, rather than ritualism, or monotheism, and partly for this reason they practiced deflation in every discipline. Meaning that religion, holidays, festivals, philosophy, politics and law, were separate disciplines. And meaning that governments were merely collections of noble families negotiating their common interests, with a leader generally chosen as headman, chieftain, or king.

    So in the west, quite by accident, the debate between equals, evolved into common law, the method of argument in to reason, and reason into philosophy and philosophy into science. And the reason this was possible was because the military aristocracy cooperated contractually – voluntarily – for the common good, and enfranchised men into the military to increase their numbers, and indoctrinating them into the westren way of war.

    The western way of war required maneuver, and contract, between nobility and their followers. And soldiers learned to ‘report’ or ‘testify’ – reporting empirically without color, loading, of framing – or men die. In other words, westerners discovered what we call empirical (meaning observable) truth and institutionalized it. And instead of ‘truth’ being a threat to the existing *arbitrary* dominance hierarchy, truth was a respectable means of climbing the dominance hierarchy. So between deflationary institutions, argumentative reason, contractualism, common law, jury, testimony, and the value of truthful speech, the west was able to adapt, innovate, faster than the rest of the surrounding civilizations despite inferior numbers, being poorer, and being on the remote edge of the far more mature bronze age civilizations.

    The Justinian Plague and the Arab Conquest of the mediterranean, and generations of piracy, raids, and slave trading of europe by the muslims caused the dark ages, more so than the germanics who wanted to join the empire. But despite the failures of the merovingians and the franks, by the 700’s the north sea peoples had started to develop a sufficient trade system to create enough wealth to lose their dependence upon overland trade with the mediterranean. So by 700’s we see bipartite manorialism which results in the near total replacement of the underclass by downwardly mobile members of the genetic middle class. By the high middle ages we see the development of academies and consistent trade routes. Then the import of greek and roman thought as persecuted intellectuals fled the arab conquest of the byzantines. And by the late middle ages the hansa (germanic north sea) civilization would develop, above the Hajnal line, creating what we call ‘the puritan ethic’ and the ‘absolute nuclear family’ and ‘government by rule of law’; rule without rulers.

    That’s really the answer. Westerners discovered deflationary truth, which allowed them to adapt to change faster, and they succeeded as did the chinese in aggressive killing off of the underclass through manorialism, hanging 1% of the population per year, plagues, winter starvation, and war. In other words, it’s not that the western peoples are better. It’s that the people who were not good in the west are nearly gone.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-the-white-race-genetically-superior-or-just-happened-to-be-in-the-right-place-at-the-right-time

  • WHY ARE WOMEN CRAZY? TO SOME DEGREE, THEY NEED TO BE. MOSTLY BECAUSE OF FEMINISM

    WHY ARE WOMEN CRAZY? TO SOME DEGREE, THEY NEED TO BE. MOSTLY BECAUSE OF FEMINISM

    –“I’ll bet a lot of women act crazy after Curt talks at them.”—Erika Walker

    Statistically speaking, because of the much higher incidence of mental illness in women it’s more likely that they were crazy in the first place. Men develop antisocial behaviors but women mental illness. look it up. women are also much more likely to practice denial. sorry. just is what it is. women are also more likely to display cognitive biases such as ‘NAXALT’. Rather than denying it why don’t we explain why? INSUFFICIENT SOCIALIZATION.)

    THE WORKING THEORY: DESOCIALIZATION

    The best working argument in the literature is that women need and lack the social pressure of a lot of women, plus the freedom of emotional expression of high socialization especially when young, and will do better if they have younger siblings or their own children in their teens. Extending childhood, using schooling as a means of infantilization, and depriving girls from heavy socialization with older generations of women, allows women to develop extremes of behavior instead of focusing hypersensitivity on the maintenance of young.

    LETS REVERSE IT

    if women weren’t ‘crazy’ so to speak, they wouldn’t tolerate the cost of such expensive offspring for such extended periods of time. Women evolved to work together to raise generations, and even then, half of their offspring died before the first cycle of maturity (age seven), and half of those before maturity. Women feel a sense of emotional ‘panic’ much earlier. Because children die so much more easily than adults. And men feel a sense of emotional panic so much less easily, because we are, frankly, by comparison, except for our top 1/3, relatively expendable.

    MODERNITY IS BAD FOR US

    Modernity has made men sad and suicidal, and women crazy or at least crazier than is normal. All so that we could increase taxes and increase the rates of reproduction of the underclasses, extend childhood to the detriment of our offspring, and put people into total retirement rather than using them for easy work that keeps them fit and socialized.

    (Do you see how I use criticism as opportunity for education?)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-27 18:40:00 UTC

  • CONTEMPLATING RELIGION AND METHODS Once you comprehend a god, a demigod, a hero,

    CONTEMPLATING RELIGION AND METHODS

    Once you comprehend a god, a demigod, a hero, or a saint, you can pray to him, or her and be surprised at the result. The technique works if you practice it whether you necessarily believe these gods exist as other than literary, social, and psychological constructs. There are evolutionary reasons for the success of physical rituals, mental rituals, unanswered prayer, and contemplation of conversations with gods, demigods, heroes and saints who you cannot lie to. It is precisely this inability to lie to them that performs the necessary function.

    Whether there is some extra-physical consequence is something else – my perception of these matters is that synchronicity is not rare, but the rule. But whether this is the result of exposure to similar stimuli or the result of consequences of another’s excitement of some unknown fabric of the universe is something I do not know but do not need to.

    The net result is whether gods, demigods, heroes and saits exists as literature, norm, and memory, and that events that seem supernatural are the result of patterns in wishful thinking, or synchronicity due to social similarity, or the result of excitement of some subatomic structure of the universe, does not matter.

    The reason being that the the value of reading about heroies and literary figures, talking to gods demigods, heroes and saints in mental-voice, talking to ancestors in mental voice, imagining talking to people we know or have known in mental voice, and talking to people in fact with both mental and spoken voice, all serve similar purposes, with the interesting benefit that w can only lie to real people and ourselves. It is in talking to the gods that we cannot lie to them, and in doing so cannot lie to one another.

    Moreover, this discourse, these rituals, are extremely effective at helping us both work through the problems of life using the knowledge of people we know, respect, admire, or ‘worship’.

    We know that the submission response provides a chemical reward to the mind by activating the ‘surrender to the pack’ response, that allows us to abandon our reason, and return to the experience of our middle, animal, brain.

    We know that the combination of practicing such spirituality (submission to the trust of the pack) and ‘letting go’ or “surrender it up to god’ provides relief for active minds unable or lacking the information to find solutions, or lacking the control to do so.

    I prefer that we all practice the stoic method, rather than the ritual method, rather than the buddhist method, rather than the prayer method, rather than the drug induced or dream state methods. The stoic acts us to ACT and THINK with discipline in daily life, rather than imaginary or supernatural, or by withdrawing from life.

    But it may in fact be that the stoic method is beyond the lesser able – Although, I do not see how it’s just harder to learn than the alternatives. BUt we teach reading, grammar, and math and that’s harder than stoicism.

    It may be that recitational prayer is the ‘dumbest and most effective’ method of producing rituals at the lowest cost with the least effort, in the shortest time. Other rituals are more expensive and harder to learn. recitation produces the resulting mental state without much demand of the individual.

    But even if we emphasize the stoic method, and gain the mindfulness we all require in a world far more complex than the pack, literary, mythical, supernormal, heroic, saintly characters whom we can conduct imaginary conversations will do perform the near equivalent of providing us with answers if we know enough about the minds of the characters. The reasons for this is that these characters evolve precisely because they provide this effect.

    For these reasons I have become less concerned with the method of achieving this state than the externalities caused by a large number of people making use of this state. And so far as I can tell, we can combine these different disciplines into a single religoin as the abrahamists have done by various forms of conflation and deceit.

    Or we can adopt the scientific ones of the stoics, heroic and saintly literature, and temples to various ‘characters’ the conversation and ‘sacrifice’ or ‘exchange’ to which, the discipline, synchronicity, or as yet undiscovered vibrations of the fabric of the universe, produce rather impressive results.

    Personally If I could visit temples around the world as I have visited churches, and say prayers to many gods for my children, wife, sisters, mother and my grandmother as I have, I would find it personally rewarding, and personally enlightening. Not because I believe these gods ‘exist’ in any particular way that is meaningful. But because of the actions that are required of me to perform those ritual, change ME, change my people, and change the world as a consequence, all of which are changed for the better.

    There is a a problem with the superficial Island 120 population (the church of ted) that must be defeated. Whether we defeat them through the form of literary contemplation I am recommending, or through the form of natural law that I am contemplating, or through the form of restoring the teachingn of virtues, vocabulary, grammar, logic, testimony, and rhetoric, or whehter we do some alternative, I do not much care.

    What I care about is ending the system of lies and conflation invented by Zoroaster and weaponized by the abrahamists of jewish, christian, and islamic and all variations thereof.

    It is a cancer upon this earth.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 21:17:00 UTC

  • STEPHAN: WOULD YOU HOST THIS DISCUSSION BETWEEN ME AND JORDAN PETERSON – Not a d

    STEPHAN: WOULD YOU HOST THIS DISCUSSION BETWEEN ME AND JORDAN PETERSON – Not a debate but an important discussion

    Whether pedagogy and argument by…

    – supernatural idealism (Abrahamism) or

    – supernatural analogy (our ancient supernormal religions),or

    – idealism (platonism/existential overloading, philosophy/reason overloading), or

    – parables (hyperbolic reality), or

    – description (selected stories from history)

    …produces the least bad externalities, and the most good general rules of human behavior.

    Peterson is an advocate of the use of middle eastern ‘Fictionalism’ – conflationary ‘truisms’, in pedagogy, and I’m an advocate of the european tradition of deflationary truth in pedagogy, where we do NOT conflate religion, philosophy, history, law, and, science, but apply these different means of argument as increasing degrees of precision.

    At this moment, Peterson is a popular reactionary voice because he combines science and ‘fictional’ literature. I work on deflating philosophy so that psychology, philosophy, sociology, law, and science are unified into a single language and system. Nassim Taleb is trying to discover the limits to statistical claims (which I don’t think we will be able to do without).

    But I am fairly certain that while fictionalism sells (literature), that it requires indoctrination. But science (natural law) requires only simple legislation and letting the market bring about deterministic ends.

    Reciprocity can be legislated. With Reciprocity, Operationalism and Reciprocity we can complete the scientific method and require it’s use as a means of warranty of due diligence in matters of public speech (legislation).

    If we can prevent fraud in commercial speech (irreciprocity) then we can prevent fraud in political speech (irreciprocity).

    The legal strict constructionist were almost right. Hayek was almost right. They just needed another 50 years of thought.

    (I am aware this is a lot of dense information, which is why I would prefer the three of us have this discussion. )

    Thanks.

    —BACKGROUND—

    THE RANGE OF WESTERN DEFLATIONARY METHODS OF ARGUMENT (in order)

    (gossip/priestly class)

    – Supernatural Religion,

    – myth as wisdom literature,

    – literature as wisdom literature,

    ( martial, judicial and commercial class)

    – history as wisdom literature,

    – law as a record of conflict resolutions – an empirical record of wisdom.,

    – legislation as a record of commons produced within a polity,

    ( intellectual class)

    – morality as a portfolio of rights and obligations within a polity given their group competitive strategy,

    – science as the measurement of phenomenon.

    – philosophy as the means of producing decidability [identity, utility, preference, good, truth] within contexts.

    – Truth as the means of producing decidability INDEPENDENT of contexts.

    CHINESE NON-CONFLATIONARY WISDOM LITERATURE AND ARGUMENT (in order)

    – Sun Tzu (aristocracy)

    – Confucian (Bureaucracy/Middle Class)

    – Lao Tzu (Working/Laboring class )

    – Buddhism ( mental discipline: eastern version of Stoicism )

    THE RANGE OF WORLD CONFLATIONARY MEANS OF WISDOM LITERATURE AND ARGUMENT (in order)

    – Monotheistic Religion/Pseudo-Mythology (myth, law, philosophy)

    – Rousseauian/Kantian Pseudo-rationaism and Postmodernism (Secular Religion, Philosophy, Politics, Law)

    – Cosmopolitan (Jewish) Pseudoscience (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, and the frankfurt school)

    ANALYSIS:

    There does appear to be some relation between that which is closer to dream state (free association) and that which is closer to acting state (description) in each culture. But this difference can almost universally be explained by the median ability of the population relying upon the mythos.

    I understand that stories are good. But the method, the content, and the consequence of those stories are different things. And my job is to end the problem of *externalities* produced by many small errors made many times, culminating in vast influences – many of which are catastrophic.

    THE CONVERSION FROM JUSTIFICATION(Excuse) TO CRITICISM (survival from criticism) AND THE REASONS WHY;

    We ended the era of human scale over 150 years ago, and we are today, in our works, unlike the past, not limited in ideas, or opportunities, but principally involved in the elimination of error, and saturated with methods of communicating meaning so that we can reduce our costs. And in each culture and even each class, we wish to communicate meaning using different ‘methods’ for purely habitual reasons. Yet the method we convey meaning with, functions itself, as a means of educating people in how meaning is conveyed and constructed.

    We can communicate meaning by various devices, but then once we have achieved conveyance of meaning, we must reduce error that is a byproduct of the use of analogy to experience that we use to create meaning. Meaning followed by criticism leaving leaving what we intended to convey behind.

    The problem is, we can leave artifacts of the method, behind. Leaving artifacts of history and science behind is one thing. Leaving artifacts of literature is another thing. Leaving the example of hyperbole that is so endemic to conservative thought is yet another thing. But leaving platonism and authoritarian supernaturalism is, as far as I can see, in all walks of life, disastrous for a people precisely because it it is, like alcohol, drugs, and gossip, so damaging to people and their societies.

    Now some communication struggles to leave no artifacts behind: testimony, and science. Some seeks to leave good behind: parable. But western civilization was defeated in the ancient world and in the recent modern world, by the use of wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, and overloading, the ordinary mind with information it cannot test. And in the past 150 years we have seen the use of media to use suggestion, loading, framing,and overloading to leave behind that which is not directly said. We have spent a century allowing ‘freedom of speech’ during the era of the industrialization and institutionalization of lying on a scope that neither Constantine nor Justinian could have dreamed of. They had to force the closure of the stoic schools. Other than the Italians and the Germans, Western governments put up very little resistance to the industrialization of lying.

    I’m not against literature, I’m for it. I’m just against lying: platonism and abrahamism, because they are not obviously ‘stories’, and the stories that they tell you are stories for slaves.

    I mean, why would you listen to supernatural lies, rather than hyperbolic parables? Or great events and heroes of history?

    I mean… why would you do that? Why would you need lies when the truth is sitting there?

    Why leave debilitating intellectual poisons behind – the literature of the enslaved, when we seek to create a free society?

    Why not instead, prohibit such things in pedagogy, just as we prohibit all other forms of fraud in all aspects of life: commercial, judicial, and political?

    Why do we need lies? Are we so incompetent that we cannot convey ideas through ordinary literature of extraordinary people? I don’t think so. Any number of tomes have been produced to do just that.

    I am against carrying on the damaging myths of equality and the good of democracy, rather than the goods of truth, duty, and meritocracy. But that is a whole different topic.

    The question remains, why pollute the informational commons and leave waste behind in the minds of our people, when every single sense of meaning can be conveyed by a literary device other than the platonic ideal and the authoritarian supernatural?

    Especially when the uniquenss of western civilization is that we both discovered and practice DEFLATIONARY truth and NO OTHER PEOPLE HAS.

    That’s the conversation that needs to be had.

    Because you cannot half open pandora’s box of lies. And zoroaster half opened it. And abraham broke it wide open. And islam has carried it across the world, and caused almost as much death as the black plague, bue even worse devolution of the great civilizations.

    The cosmopolitan pseudoscientific revolution, and the french pseudo-rational revolution both succeed in reforming abrahamism (loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion), and marxism caused a hundred million deaths. And if we lose western civilization to it, then what? What group still practices deflationary truth, high trust, and continuous innovation regardless of its impact on the dominance hierarch we call ‘order’?

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 17:28:00 UTC

  • CIVILIZATIONS MAKE EXCUSES AND LABEL THEM ‘GOOD’ OMFG. Here. I’ll say it differe

    CIVILIZATIONS MAKE EXCUSES AND LABEL THEM ‘GOOD’

    OMFG. Here. I’ll say it differently. Here is half of history reduced for you in to a few paragraphs.

    In the west the aristocracy used markets and law, and the promise of freedom to domesticate people. This created a lot of room for men to obtain dominance signals in family, military, property, commerce, and intellectual pursuits. They aggressively killed off their underclasses in large numbers.

    In the middle east, they used slavery to domesticate people, and the promise of equality under ‘god’ are they were happy with that structure, since by retaining tribal boundaries they left a lot of room for males to obtain dominance signals within their micro-tribes. Because subsistence costs were low, the maintained their underclasses in large numbers.

    In the far east they used bureaucracy and markets to domesticate people, without promise of freedom, but with promise of access to the bureaucracy. they aggressively killed off their underclasses in ast numbers.

    It’s not complicated really.

    We have been taught a history of BELIEF, rather than the history of JUSTIFICATIONS (excuses) people made to cast necessity as ‘good’.

    I mean, here. I’ll make it IDIOT-SIMPLE: Basic problem: Human males of the four macro races, are all super-predators. Some of them smart and some of them stupid, and some of them a little less stupid. Every society is organized in a way that keeps the super-predators at least somewhat happy, since it takes only a VERY FUCKING SMALL NUMBER OF THEM to return to their natural super-predator occupation, and destroy everything in sight.

    THAT IS THE PROBLEM CIVILIZATIONS FACE: how do you make enough super-predator males reasonably happy that they prefer to be cage-fed, rather than chase down prey? That’s it.

    After that, it’s all luxury goods.

    Now, the best way to do that? Cull the stupid ones until there are only less stupid and smart one’s left, who prefer to conduct their predation in markets, which produces a whole lot of productivity that drags mankind out of ignorance and poverty.

    Now, do I have to bitch-slap the entire fucking world to make this kindergarden level bit of scientific evidence get through your fucking thick skulls????? Huh?

    Enough of this nice ‘common good’ stuff. WE ARE SUPER PREDATORS and personally, I’d rather prey than labor. So if you wanna NOT have me and mine and those like me, prey upon you we agree to do so as long as we all work in markets.

    But the last thing a super predator is going to do is let some parasite prey on him without doing something about it.

    And we’re getting REALLY READY to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

    Curt Doolittle

    (too many invectives to attach this post to the institute)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 12:36:00 UTC

  • HOW MANY ETHINC GROUPS ARE THERE IN THE WORLD? I’ll give you the best answer I c

    HOW MANY ETHINC GROUPS ARE THERE IN THE WORLD?

    I’ll give you the best answer I can, having spent some time on this question myself.

    Nation states and empires attempt to crush local identities, or deny them. (china and mongols the most obvious). Governments have incentives to be dishonest. All government data is suspect. Unfortunately the Academy is a co conspirator to government because it is cheaper to use government data than to conduct genetic and cultural research.

    During the time of nation states, most europeans lost their local identities, although our ‘tribes’ at last at the macro level are still ascertainable in many cases. Even today, despite the fact that northeastern, northern, central, and southern descendants in the united states all come from different regions and tribes, and still practice those cultural differences, the government suppresses those differences.

    So when we say ‘ethnicity’ are we saying nation state, or race, sub-race, tribe, and clan, using the identity with which they identify themselves? For example, the french speak french, but and parisians are culturally parisian, but the french countryside is identifiably germanic and has retained those cultural tendencies. American whites are primarily german, but speak english. Southern italians are ethnically greek, and northern ethnically german. They know this, but data just groups them together.

    For these politicized reasons, I tend to think the only honest means of judging ethnicity is genetic, cultural, and linguistic in that order, which is how people tend to describe themselves if they have an ethnic identity that is important to them. For those that it isn’t there is usually a reason to avoid it and choose some else less ‘truthful’.

    Using that method of categorization, As far as I know there are four major races(with austrailasians earning their own category), nine or so subraces (separating out the various indo europeans in particular), over 100 minor races and a vast number tribes and unmeasurable number of clans.

    But the truth is that genetics is going to solve this for us within the next few decades and governments will no longer be able to play their games with us.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 21:55:00 UTC

  • come into proximity with one another to decrease opportunity costs (concentrate

    https://www.quora.com/Why-and-how-do-free-markets-work/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=658c5d7fPeople come into proximity with one another to decrease opportunity costs (concentrate opportunities and decrease the cost of each opportunity). This is the reason productivity increases with population density: we save time and expense, increase the division of knowledge and labor, and increase the velocity of trades, so we make the cost of pursuing opportunities cheaper.

    But when we come into proximity and decrease the costs of opportunities, we also increase the number of competitors both for consumption of goods, services, and information, and for the production of goods, services, and information.

    So the only means of pursuing those opportunities is to reduce the cost or improve the product, service, or information. Innovators force all other producers to improve the cost and quality and diversity of their products. Unfortunately it is usually much harder to improve the quality of labor, than it is to improve goods, services, and information.

    This cycle of competition and innovation keeps prices down and quality up, at the cost of forcing everyone to work harder, think harder, and spend more time working, leaving some people by the wayside because they cannot adapt themselves or their goods, services, or information fast enough to serve the interests of buyers given the available competition.

    A free market refers to the territorial, political, and juridical conditions under which anyone can engage in the negotiation and voluntary trade of attention, effort, labor, goods, services, information, promises and obligations, assuming that which he trades was obtained by him by the same means.

    Where one of the following sets of conditions applies:

    The government does not interfere with prices or conditions of the transaction and only enforces common laws of contract and tort. (this is an ok thing)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices conditions of the transactions, but forces all parties to warranty for performance, and against fraud. (This is better thing)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices conditions of the transactions, but forces all parties to warranty for performance, for fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive (This is an even better thing)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices, conditions of the transactions, forces involuntary warranties for performance and fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive, but prevents externalization of costs to the commons by the socialization of losses, the privatization of commons, or the consumption of a common resource without compensation to the polity. (an even better thing.)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices, conditions of the transactions, forces involuntary warranties for performance and fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive, but prevents externalization of costs to the commons by the socialization of losses, the privatization of commons, or the consumption of a common resource without compensation to the polity, and that no conspiracy exists to create an artificial shortage in order to increase prices without increasing the content of the product, service, or good (an even better thing.)

    A free market, may describe any of those different conditions. But only the last of those, I have listed is in fact a MORAL free market.

    Free markets are too often used as an excuse to conduct parasitism rather than productivity, under the ruse of moral pretense.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 21:07:00 UTC

  • IT’S ALL VERY SIMPLE REALLY. LOOK… OK… So if you can control the means of pr

    IT’S ALL VERY SIMPLE REALLY. LOOK…

    OK…

    So if you can control the means of production you can create a hierarchy and tax it cheaply: fertile crescent rivers, the indus river valley’s hrappan’s, and the yellow river valley’s han.

    if you have a distributed means of production that cannot be centralized and taxation is expensive you develop european sentiments.

    if you are a pastoral people, migrating, tribal, and cannot hold territory, you make up lies.

    It’s that damned simple really.

    To carry it further…

    If you have harsh winters and decentralized production your underclasses will die off and your mean ability will increase.

    If you have warm climates it takes little to survive and your underclasses will continuously increase.

    you must develop norms, laws, traditions, and institutions that tolerate the mean.

    Ergo, shitty middle easterners, more advanced easterners, and much more advanced westerners

    Furthermore,

    you cannot ‘rearrange’ the entire conceptual methods of people easily as Akhenaton found out, as the Romans found out, as the Marxists found out, … and as we are finding out today in the west.

    The weak love their lies.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 18:07:00 UTC