Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • What Kinds Of Job Opportunities Are Available For People With A Phd In Political Economy?

    Just as the American and British Economies experienced purges of middle management built up between the period 1920–1980 because of the influence of ‘managerialism’ (socialism), the entire world is about to go through a set of severe employment contractions between now and at least 2025.

    1 – political management – on a vast scale.
    2 – much more of lower middle management – on a vast scale.
    3 – a little more labor due to automation – perhaps on a perceptible scale.
    and (possibly)
    4 – much, much, much, of the financial sector on a frightening scale.

    In my (rather informed I think) opinion, if you do not possess a STEM degree for employment purposes, and perhaps a philosophy/law minor (so you think clearly), you have very little chances of employability other than “gee I have a degree”.

    Like most things, it’s more (a) who you know, and (b) what industry you can get into early, and (c) how much you can save of your income and invest before you are 30.

    Why? Because the west has held a 500 year military, technical, legal, financial, cultural, literacy, and knowledge advantage over the world, and Because Americans inherited the British empire’s institutions of world finance, trade, and oil. It is quite possible that Americans will descend to european standards of living (which are much lower unfortunately), and even more possible that europeans will descend as well.

    We no longer hold those advantages, and what we have seen since about 1992, a brief boom as we collected the post-cold-war (world communism) dividend, but by 2006 it was fairly evident that ‘the great leveling’ in the world economy would occur at the same time as ‘the great sort’ was occurring in the US population.

    ie: minimum bar for a college degree with any employability is a STEM degree. College degree only tells employers you can follow direction. It is the same bar as a high school diploma used to be before they discounted the high school diploma by lowering the standards. The same has occurred in colleges and universities. This is because while only about 15% of the work force has the IQ necessary to obtain a ‘legit’ college degree, about 50% of our people go to college. Ergo, 2/3 of the people who hold college degrees are meaningless. And of the remaining 1/3, only those with a STEM degree are employable.

    Worse, a PhD is a liability not an asset when seeking employment outside of research or STEM classes.

    Employers need to know you have a degree worth having from a school worth issuing it. The degree itself is now just a permission slip to seek work. Not a criteria for creating demand.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    https://www.quora.com/What-kinds-of-job-opportunities-are-available-for-people-with-a-PhD-in-political-economy

  • What Kinds Of Job Opportunities Are Available For People With A Phd In Political Economy?

    Just as the American and British Economies experienced purges of middle management built up between the period 1920–1980 because of the influence of ‘managerialism’ (socialism), the entire world is about to go through a set of severe employment contractions between now and at least 2025.

    1 – political management – on a vast scale.
    2 – much more of lower middle management – on a vast scale.
    3 – a little more labor due to automation – perhaps on a perceptible scale.
    and (possibly)
    4 – much, much, much, of the financial sector on a frightening scale.

    In my (rather informed I think) opinion, if you do not possess a STEM degree for employment purposes, and perhaps a philosophy/law minor (so you think clearly), you have very little chances of employability other than “gee I have a degree”.

    Like most things, it’s more (a) who you know, and (b) what industry you can get into early, and (c) how much you can save of your income and invest before you are 30.

    Why? Because the west has held a 500 year military, technical, legal, financial, cultural, literacy, and knowledge advantage over the world, and Because Americans inherited the British empire’s institutions of world finance, trade, and oil. It is quite possible that Americans will descend to european standards of living (which are much lower unfortunately), and even more possible that europeans will descend as well.

    We no longer hold those advantages, and what we have seen since about 1992, a brief boom as we collected the post-cold-war (world communism) dividend, but by 2006 it was fairly evident that ‘the great leveling’ in the world economy would occur at the same time as ‘the great sort’ was occurring in the US population.

    ie: minimum bar for a college degree with any employability is a STEM degree. College degree only tells employers you can follow direction. It is the same bar as a high school diploma used to be before they discounted the high school diploma by lowering the standards. The same has occurred in colleges and universities. This is because while only about 15% of the work force has the IQ necessary to obtain a ‘legit’ college degree, about 50% of our people go to college. Ergo, 2/3 of the people who hold college degrees are meaningless. And of the remaining 1/3, only those with a STEM degree are employable.

    Worse, a PhD is a liability not an asset when seeking employment outside of research or STEM classes.

    Employers need to know you have a degree worth having from a school worth issuing it. The degree itself is now just a permission slip to seek work. Not a criteria for creating demand.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    https://www.quora.com/What-kinds-of-job-opportunities-are-available-for-people-with-a-PhD-in-political-economy

  • We must act. But our actions are LIMITED. It’s informationally less expensive to

    We must act. But our actions are LIMITED. It’s informationally less expensive to remember the minority of what works than the majority of what doesn’t. Just as it’s informaitonally less expensive to remember bits and pieces of relations than to store a full record of stimuli. Our brains had to develop with the rate of electro chemical processing possible in wet systems. I mean we take about 90-100 watts to operate, and that’s pretty cheap really given how expensive brains are.

    limits exist. The fact that we categorize ‘that which is not limited but actionable” is just a discounted means of storing the information we need to act with.

    So limits to actions exist. The world exists as limits to actions. We categorize these limits to action as positives (connections) because positive connections are actionable, and we associate emotions with them so that we are excited to pursue what is actionable and beneficial.

    This is a very simple system in practice. We just use billions of very cheap neurons to do it.

    so when one say x doesn’t exist (without saying how it exists) that’s false. limits exist. if the limits exist the inverse exists. a unicorn exists the way jesus exists: as a memory of a common narrative that can be verified by reciprocal agreement on the symbol we communicate when we use the term.

    Unicorns exist like words exist, like stories exist, like jesus and aristotole exist. Except that the limits we place on unicorns are different from the limits we place on aristotle and jesus.

    I can believe that jesus and aristotle existed, and that aristotle composed the ethics, and jesus gave the sermon on the mount.

    but I cannot believe that unicorns exist given my current understanding of the meaning of the term.

    nature exists. man can bring objects into existence. men can bring ideas for objects into existence. men can bring ideas in to existence by recreating them each time he desires to. The question is merley a verbalism. Do we bring a unicorn into existence as the imaginry experience? Or do we bring about an imaginary experience by the reconstruction of the symbol we call ‘unicorn’?

    The answer is that the experience exists, not the unicorn.

    The word unicorn exists. The imaginary memory exist. The experience of activating that memory exists. Does the unicorn exist?

    IT exists the same way that the square root of two exists: as a verbal convenience. Neitehr the squre of two or the unicorn exists.

    The difference is we might some day be able to technologically bring a unicorn into existence (actually, we can already make the horns exist by planting horn buds). But as yet, they do not exist in that THEY CANNOT PERSIST WITHOUT MAN’S IMAGINATION TO EXPERIENCE THEM

    Conflation of existence (persistence) with existence (memory) is either error or deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 11:22:00 UTC

  • BREXIT FUTURES (from the uk mirror) The USA+UK collectively preserve the interna

    BREXIT FUTURES

    (from the uk mirror)

    The USA+UK collectively preserve the international system of defense, law, finance, and trade that was created over 500 years by the British Empire.

    In retrospect, Britain’s attempt to suppress german expansion on the continent rather than to cede the continent to Germany, and retain the international system of finance and trade all seems to have been a mistake.

    And that the Continued ANGLO civilization, the restoration of empire by military and financial and trade means (rather than direct rule) is a superior solution for all english speaking countries.

    The UK/US combination still constitutes the majority military, legal, and financial (and even scientific and empirical) function in the world economy. And that is why the stock (usa) and bond (uk) markets favor both countries.

    In the long term our interests are more aligned than the UK’s with Europe.

    Together we have ruled Europe for a century and all it has done is create world wars and allow Europe to commit demographic, economic, and political suicide.

    So its perhaps time to recognize the errors of our past. And for the naval powers (UK/USA) and the island cultures (USA/CANADA/AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND) to let the continental go their way.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 10:28:00 UTC

  • (for super-geeks)(math vs science)(unification of disciplines)(universal epistem

    (for super-geeks)(math vs science)(unification of disciplines)(universal epistemological method) (human scale)

    (read the comments with Davin and I.)

    MATH VS SCIENCE?

    Mathematics is not a science (theoretic system of external correspondence) but a logic (axiomatic system of internal consistency).

    We are, almost universally, fooled by the fact that we cannot imagine all consequences of our axiomatic declarations, and equate this to the same phenomenon of our inability to imagine all consequences of our observations of reality. But axiomatic systems are declared (models) and theoretic systems are observed (reality). When our models and reality appear to correspond, we say that the model appears good or true.

    For this reason mathematical (axiomatic systems) do not produce truths (ultimately parsimonious and completely correspondent descriptions of reality) , but proofs of internal consistency. Theories = True correspondence. Axioms = Proof of internal consistency. Both of which require that we are describing constant relations.

    Until we discover the set of possible operations in the universe (causality or causal particulars) we must content ourselves with descriptions of the consequences of those operations (mathematics), by creating models with which we declare descriptive axioms as a general expression of the unknown causal operations.

    Ergo we can use mathematics to create models of theoretic systems (reality) because axioms express constant relations and the universe operates deterministically (according to a set of rules that produce observably constant relations).

    Science != to Empiricism (that the error of positivism). Instead, identity, logics, empiricism, operations, and morality when tested by limits, full accounting, and parsimony, assist us in removing error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, and deception from our thoughts, words, and deeds.

    This is why mathematics generally succeeds in representing highly deterministic systems (constant relations of constant categories) but why mathematics fails us in slightly deterministic systems – in particular, heuristic systems (inconstant relations of inconstant categories.)

    Mathematics is an abstraction of operations. A generalization for the expression of observations about which we do not know the operations.

    Science on the other hand ensures that we use categories, sets, mathematical descriptions, empirical correspondence, causal operations, moral reciprocity (in matters of cooperation: social science) and then define limits, test for full accounting, and test for parsimony.

    This process of ensuring is what we call falsification. if a description (theory) can survive all those tests, we can warranty that we have performed due diligence and speak truthfully.

    In other words science provides us with a universal epistemology.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-16 09:45:00 UTC

  • Evolution makes sense. Evolutionary narrowness can make sense (specialization) E

    Evolution makes sense.

    Evolutionary narrowness can make sense (specialization)

    Evolutionary fragility doesn’t make sense(overspecialization).

    Complex systems (all life) benefit from stress, and develop fragility without stress. Because Lack of stress causes misallocation of resources. (Just try to think of some evolutionary system where this isn’t true).

    Humans can EXPRESS traits (specialize) by selection. We can specialize by selection without mutation or epigenetic variation. We can do so simply by increasing the reproduction of some part of any one or more of our distributions at the expense of some other part of any one or more of our distributions. And as long as the distribution(reproductive inventory) exists, we can change or reverse it.

    But reproductive expression is a slow process, and leaves us vulnerable to shocks (rapid changes) during which we might experience large losses. (fragility).

    Ergo a distribution not optimized for only the market order, but optimized for all possible orders is in fact ‘optimum’. And all attempts to create a single optimum are actually attacks on specialization and adaptation.

    All we can say at this point is that it appears that there is a point at which we succeed at sufficient sexual dimorphism and (maturity) pedomorphism, that further attempts produce negatives (the asian problems at the extreme and the african problem at the other extreme).

    So you might say “for people in my gene pool and in my social class who have these ambitions, at present these might be good pedagogical objectives” What you can’t say is that there exists some perfect, universal, individual ideal. Or at least, you can’t say it except in ignorance.

    We can see a range of social classes (in fact).

    we can see at least three main ruling classes (priestly/public intellectual, remunerative/commercial, and warrior/legal, and reactive/technical, on top of the familial.) And we can see a range of family structures needed for the abilities of different classes. And we see moral codes reflecting the needs of those different classes. We see a range of cognitive abilities that at about every ten points dramatically alters the cost and rate of learning good (>105) or bad (<95). We see depth of sexual maturity and rate of sexual maturity that causes variation in group needs. We see that different groups have been more (whites/asians) successful than others (everyone in the middle) and much more successful than others (equatorial peoples), at culling the size and rates of reproduction of their underclasses. And we can see that these differences accumulate in vastly different quality of life, because they permit vastly different forms of institutions. Hiqh quality high trust institutions are dependent upon reducing the cost of institutional enforcement – the underclasses, if for no other reason than it it is not possible to create a voluntary organization of production (market economy) if the market value of the goods producible by the polity are insufficient to pay for the incentives necessary to organize production voluntarily through a hierarchy of marginal differences in compensation.

    Every institution matters. Like Anna Karinnena’s limited humber of healthy families, or the the planet’s limited number of domesticatable animals, many things must function at once to produce positive ends – and the falure of any one leads to negative ends. Hence the uniqueness of western civilization in ancient and modern worlds. For ancient reasons we ourselves did not grasp, we made a subconsious choice in prehistory that caused us to produce many good things in concert quite my accident (or rather, without intent).

    MONOPOLY IS THE ANTITHESIS OF THAT SUBCONSCIOUS CHOICE. UNIVERSALISM IS A SEMITIC AND IRANIAN VALUE IN REACTION TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

    The west has always practiced the estates of the realm and provided different values for each estate. It is only under the lies of the enlightenment (or perhaps counter-enlightenments) that we used democracy and universalism to destroy that ancient bias.

    Sovereignty.Markets in everything.

    War and law for the aristocracy

    Philosophy and literature for the middle class

    Religion for the workers and the slaves.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 16:00:00 UTC

  • THE TRAGEDY OF THE “UNMANAGED COMMONS” ONLY. (important concept) (minor discussi

    http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmonsITS THE TRAGEDY OF THE “UNMANAGED COMMONS” ONLY.

    (important concept) (minor discussion of big box retailer phenom.)

    Philip Saunders : —“Read “Governing the Commons” by Elinor Ostrom. Very good explanation of the logical/game theoretic issues around managing common pool resources. Also refutes Garett Hardin’s “tragedy of the commons” argument.”—

    8 Principles for Managing a Commons

    1. Define clear group boundaries.

    2. Match rules governing use of common goods to local needs and conditions.

    3. Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.

    4. Make sure the rule-making rights of community members are respected by outside authorities.

    5. Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behavior.

    6. Use graduated sanctions for rule violators.

    7. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution.

    8. Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the lowest level up to the entire interconnected system.

    In economics, a common-pool resource (CPR), also called a common property resource, is a type of good consisting of a natural or human-made resource system (e.g. an irrigation system or fishing grounds), whose size or characteristics makes it costly, but not impossible, to exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from its use.

    Unlike pure public goods, common pool resources face problems of congestion or overuse, because they are subtractable. A common-pool resource typically consists of a core resource (e.g. water or fish), which defines the stock variable, while providing a limited quantity of extractable fringe units, which defines the flow variable. While the core resource is to be protected or entertained in order to allow for its continuous exploitation, the fringe units can be harvested or consumed.

    The Tragedy of the Commons refers to a scenario in which commonly held land is inevitably degraded because everyone in a community is allowed to graze livestock there.

    This parable was popularized by wildlife biologist Garrett Hardin in the late 1960s, and was embraced as a principle by the emerging environmental movement.

    But Ostrom’s research refutes this abstract concept once-and-for-all with the real life experience from places like Nepal, Kenya and Guatemala.

    “When local users of a forest have a long-term perspective, they are more likely to monitor each other’s use of the land, developing rules for behavior,” she cites as an example. “It is an area that standard market theory does not touch.”

    (Garrett Hardin himself later revised his own view, noting that what he described was actually the Tragedy of the

    Unmanaged Commons.)

    Hardin explicitly stated that we should exorcise the “dominant tendency of thought that has… interfered with positive action based on rational analysis, namely, the tendency to assume that decisions reached individually will, in fact, be the best decisions for an entire society” (Hardin, 1968). The Tragedy of the Commons argument

    was a reaction against – not for – the contemporary laissez-faire interpretation of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand of the marketplace”!

    —-

    CURT’S EXPANSION ON THE MATTER:

    ie: proposing the choice of anarchic commons vs private property is just another a deception by framing: a false dichotomy.

    The problem is created when the shareholder agreement is unenforcible, or because no shareholder agreement is in place, or (which Ostrom Does Not Address) when credit (or fiat money) can be used to sufficiently compensate the existing users (shareholders) so that they will permit exhaustion of the resource under their management.

    This last example is what the ‘big box retailer’ phenomenon does that local communities object to. By destroying the local micro-economy, then growing until they bust the big box retailer created fragility to which the local economy could not recover.

    This scenario violates the natural law requirement that one cannot take any action that in the event of one’s failure, one cannot perform restitution for. If that were the case, all ‘ugly commercial architecture’ would have to be insured such that in the event of a collapse it was returned to natural state (clean land).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 11:55:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM: A DESCRIPTIVE, SCIENTIFIC, ETHICS (important piece) —“Propert

    PROPERTARIANISM: A DESCRIPTIVE, SCIENTIFIC, ETHICS

    (important piece)

    —“Propertarianism is a descriptive framework. A Propertarian would be someone who uses that descriptive framework, and then most of us who are Propertarians are also aristocratic republicans or monarchists (our particular political advocacy).”— Josh Jeppson

    Yes, and I think this gets lost. (As usual it’s my fault.) I conflate the methodology with explanation with the preference.

    1) REFORMATION OF SCIENCE:

    What we call “Propertarianism”, or the combination of Testimonialism (epistemology), Acquisitionism(psychology), Propertarianism (ethics / sociology [cooperation]), and Propertarian Group Evolutionary Strategy(group competition – which still needs a name), creates an internally consistent language and methodology for the truthful, value-free description, comparison, and judgement of human action (and speech).

    As far as I know this framework completes the scientific method, and replaces philosophy, psychology, social science, and reforms law, political science, and economics. I call this framework “The Law of Nature”, which includes “Natural Law (cooperation and competition)” and “Testimonial Law (law of information)” as extensions of Laws of Nature (physical laws).

    The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”

    …. 1 – Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY

    …. …. Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics

    …. 2 – Law of Man (properties of man) (Action) – THE POSSIBLE

    …. Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology

    …. 3 – Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD

    …. Ethics, morality, law, economics

    …. 4 – Law of Testimony – THE TRUE

    …. Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric

    …. 5 – Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL

    …. Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness

    2) EXPLANATION OF WESTERN EXCELLENCE:

    The combination of Transcendence, Heroism, Sovereignty, Aristocracy, and the institutional necessity of Markets in Everything as a consequence; Aryan Expansionism (attempt to obtain the status of the gods), and the consequential evolution of non-conflation / deconflation / deflationary truth, reason, rationalism, science; independent judiciary and empirical law; testimony, jury, and senate; property, contract, and competition; the domestication of man from animal, to slave, to serf, to freeman, to sovereign; and the estates of the realm: labor(neutral), burgher(organization/”remuneration”), priesthood(education/’gossip’), aristocracy (rule/force) – all explain the rapid rise of western civilization in the ancient and modern worlds as producing *faster* experimental and therefore adaptive velocity in all aspects of human existence. In other words, it explains the rise of the west in the ancient and modern worlds, and the weakness of the west in the medieval (christian) interim.

    3) EXPLANATION OF THE FALL OF THE WEST

    How the enlightenment was only successful in science, and entirely wrong in everything else – and how the enlightenment was unique to the British, and that all other civilizations reacted *against it*, in a counter-enlightenment, culminating in the Pseudoscientific era (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Frankfurt) the same way that all other civilizations reacted against Greek reason and Roman law in the ancient world(christianity, rabbinical judaism, islamism, confucianism), and the same way that all other civilizations reacted against European Aryanism: ‘heroism, truth, sovereignty, contractualism, competition, and ‘domesticationism’ in the dawn of civilization by producing organized religion (the indo-iranian branch of indo europeans)

    4) RESTORATION OF THE WEST:

    How to restore western civilization to its previous rates of success by completing the scientific Enlightenment and restoring markets in everything: defense/emergency/care, reproduction, production, commons, polities. And in particular, the extension of involuntary warranty on goods and services brought to market, to *information* that is brought to market (published). And the restoration of multiple houses for the purpose of restoring a market for trades between the classes.

    CLOSING

    Propertarianism technically refers to the descriptive ethics alone. But we bundle all of these ideas under the same ‘banner’ (term) for the sake of expediency. But one can advocate for a communist, socialist, democratic humanist, classical liberal, republican, monarchic, fascist, or dicatorship polity using testimonialism, acquisitionism, and propertarianism, and create a constitution for one under strictly (formal operational logic) constructed natural law. But one must do so truthfully and honestly.

    Someone who values each of those governments may or may not have a harder time truthfully defending his preferences. But we can then create compromises between such different political orders, rather than attempt to impose such a political order upon everyone.

    It is very easy to propose sovereignty, classical multi-house monarchy, markets in everything and to do so truthfully and honestly – because that order provided the origin and evolution of the technology of truthful speech we call ‘science’. But to do so we must admit also that the outcome of such a political order is eugenic. Conversely it is harder to propose a democratic humanist order, because it is dysgenic. in the short term it is easier to tolerate a dysgenic order. In the long term it is devolutionary and will destroy the ability to produce either a democratic humanist OR a classical monarchic. For the simple reason that every person at the bottom is more damaging to the political, social, and economic order than every person at the time is advantageous. The uncomfortable history of man is that a minority of men have domesticated men, the way men domesticated all our domesticated animals. And more uncomfortable, that men domesticated women before that. And that’s the origin of our intuitionary skill at domestication.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 10:47:00 UTC

  • THE OUTGOING AND INCOMING PRESIDENCIES – PREDICTION? Prediction is a fool’s erra

    THE OUTGOING AND INCOMING PRESIDENCIES – PREDICTION?

    Prediction is a fool’s errand since a presidency is largely the result of world events and the character of the president.

    OBAMA’s MISTAKES

    Obama’s biggest mistake was the whole fraudulent health care episode(scam) over the wishes of the population. second was his attempt to remove america from world affairs by creating a vacuum to be filled opportunistically, rather than an alliance to fill it predictably. Third was his embracing of anti-white immigration policies. Fourth was his failure to grasp that with the end of world communism and the universal adoption of consumer capitalism, as well as the international rejection of western universal representative democracy in favor of state corporatism, and the rise of islam as the successor to communism as the competition to consumer capitalism, all brought a sympathetic end to globalism, a return to nationalism.

    TRUMP’S NEED FOR POWER AND ITS SOURCES

    Trump has been given a mandate by his SUPPORTERS to end the status quo (globalism). Right intellectuals (myself included) are most concerned about ending the Cathedral Complex (Academy, State, Media), that replaced the Military Industrial Complex during the 1960’s. He has given himself the mandate to end american self sacrifice on the behalf of an ungrateful world. And to attempt to make the future (coming) hyper-contraction of the world economy as the BRICS end their rapid expansion, more survivable.

    I expect that he cannot accumulate enough power to fulfill his charter without a significant house cleaning. And so what I expect is a house cleaning. This will likely come in the form of an attack on the bureaucracy as well as the news media, and an emphasis on consumers, jobs, and advantageous trade policy – which will force the bureaucracy into a competition with him that will fail.

    So what i will watch is how he communicates directly to the american people, in his progress and how the court cooperates. If he is able to fill the court and overturn the power of the central bureaucracy, then he will be able to do it.

    The thing he must preserve is his base. They will only turn on him (the right eats its betrayers while the left does not), if he fails to pursue immigration and trade reforms.

    THE COUNTER-REACTION

    The media – which is already suffering from loss of its narrow distribution channel may survive if they try hard but my suspicion is that the media is now in the same position as the think tanks, and will require financial support even more so to survive.

    I like the ‘fake news’ movement because the solution is to make commercial and political speech liable just as product and service claims are liable. That would end the news media forever as a mechanism of propaganda.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-13 14:28:00 UTC

  • MY THOUGHTS ON : John-Paul Wright / Stefan Molyneux THE LEFT – People on the lef

    MY THOUGHTS ON : John-Paul Wright / Stefan Molyneux

    THE LEFT

    – People on the left score lower than people on the right in self control.

    – Self control (impulsivity) along with IQ, is an ubiquitous predictor of life outcomes.

    – People on the left score higher on aggression than people on the right.

    – Leftists assume through self experience that agency is limited.

    – Criminals overwhelmingly tend to be leftists.

    – Justify and glamorize anti-social violence (rebels, criminals, political deceit)

    – Moral Specialization (motherhood)

    – Left academia is engaged in ADVOCACY not in CRITICISM. (lying)

    THE RIGHT

    – The right is more conscientious, less impulsive, less aggressive, has greater assumption of agency, and far lower criminality.

    – Justify and glamorize pro-social violence (war, police, sheriff, heroism).

    – Moral Generalization(‘tribal-hood’)

    – Right academia is engaged in criticism, not advocacy.

    TIME PREFERENCES

    – The right is empirical(skeptical) ‘show me, so that we know the consequences first.’

    – The right self corrects and prosecutes its own members.

    – The left is rational(optimistic) ‘just do it and figure out the consequences later’

    – The left ‘forgets’ rather than self-corrects, and ‘reframes’ its own members.

    INARGUABLE CORRELATIONS

    There are two of the strongest correlations in social science:

    1) impulsivity and aggression

    2) stereotypes.

    The left lies about these two factors consistently.

    ORIGINS

    – Women need to be impulsive since the cost of child rearing is irrationally high.

    – Women must invest heavily in children so they advance them regardless of their merit (denial).

    – Women who are married with children develop conservative political positions.

    – Women who are married with more than two children develop most conservative political positions because they are unable to fantasize given the evidence before them.

    CONSEQUENCES

    1. the left produces a kleptocratic order (female strategy)

    2. it’s necessary for women to employ a kleptocratic (parasitic) strategy given the asymmetry of costs of reproduction.

    3. gender biases can cross genders, and do, so men demonstrate the same parasitic strategy when they cannot compete without doing so.

    4. some individuals adopt these biases for signaling purposes.

    5. the only method of improving a society is to reduce the number of the impulsive (leftists). A leftist society will always degenerate.

    6. the method of decreasing the possibility of leftist action is rule of natural law.

    7. the method of decreasing the number of leftist actors is by limiting the reproduction of leftist actors.

    8. the method of increasing the number of rightist actors is by retention of the results of their productivity when allocated to reproduction, and subsidy of their reproduction if possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 09:24:00 UTC