Form: Outline

  • The Science of Religions

    THE SCIENCE OF RELIGIONS >>1) Will Jesus be successful in saving everyone he intends to save? The individual we refer to as jesus might have existed, however almost everything other than his disruption of the temple, and his crucifiction is fiction created by Paul. Paul created Christianity, not Jesus. The reason we know that is that all the ‘jesus stories’ were originally babylonian or a derivative thereof. Just as the old testament is merely plagiarism from the babylonian record. >>2) Has anyone, or WILL anyone, actually go to hell? There is no heaven or hell, they are just babylonian fictions that metaphorically assist us in judging one another’s characters, and by character we mean contribution to, or harm to, the polity. At best we can consider heaven and hell the memories of those whose lives you affected, and the record of their actions in response to your display word and deed. >>3) Therefore THE OATH OF TRANSCENDENT MAN; A PAGAN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT I am a pagan if 1) I accept the laws of nature as binding on all of existence; and 2) if I treat nature as sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and 3) I treat the world as something to transform closer to an Eden in whatever ways I can before I die; and 4) if I deny the existence of a supreme being with dominion over the physical laws, and treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors as characters with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 5) if I participate with others of my society in repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of the above to my offspring. And 6) if I leave open that synchronicity appears to exist now and then, and that it may be possible that there is a scientific explanation for it, other than just humans subject to similar stimuli producing similar intuitions and therefore similar ends. As far as I know this is all that is required of me to be a Pagan. I am a christian if I have adopted the teaching of christianity: 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin. 3) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Christian. I am an Aryan if 1) I proudly display my excellences so that others seek to achieve or exceed them; 2) I seek competition to constantly test and improve myself so I do not weaken; 3) I swear to speak no insult and demand it; 4) I speak the truth and demand it; 5) I take nothing not paid for and demand it; 6) I grant sovereignty to my kin and demand it; 7) I insure my people regardless of condition, and demand it; and in doing so leave nothing but voluntary markets of cooperation between sovereign men; and to discipline, enserf, enslave, ostracize or kill those who do otherwise; 8) to not show fear or cowardice, abandon my brothers, or retreat, and 9) to die a good death in the service of my kin, my clan, my tribe and my people. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be an Aryan. I am a warrior in that 1) we will prepare for war so perfectly that none dare enter it against us. 2) Once we go to war, we do so with *joy*, with eagerness, and with passion, and without mercy, without constraint, and without remorse; And 3) before ending war, we shall defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of our enemy, and the memory of the slaughter lives a hundred generations. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Warrior. As far as I know, if I succeed as a Pagan, as a Christian, as an Aryan, as a Warrior, then I have transcended the animal man, and earned my place among the saints, heroes, demigods, gods, in the memories, histories, and legends of man. And that is the objective of heroes. We leave the rest for ordinary men.

  • Feelings and Group Strategies

    THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT OF HOW PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL, OR THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL? 1) while I must understand how people came to their group strategies (habitual, normative, traditional, intellectual, institutional, and technological), I must also understand the outcomes (externalities) produced by those strategies. 2) if the world dislikes you and your people and their behaviors and their externalities, they must have a reason for it. 3) So the question is, if you and your people have failed in every social, economic, political, and technological, possible dimension except malthusian reproduction, and the world dislikes you, do they have a reason to? 4) People invent excuses for employing their group strategies. Otherwise those strategies would cause mental and emotional labor, and openness to failure of that strategy. We all just negotiate on behalf of our personal, gender, class, and group strategies. 5) Our feelings then are mere reflections of success with or failure of our actions in correspondence with our justifications(habits). So the excuses (justifications) we use are a measure only of correspondence with our strategies, but that tells us nothing about the good/bad, morality/immorality of our actions and our strategies. Or more simply put, our emotions are reflections of the competitiveness of our strategies. 6) So as westerners we tend to consider the individual and his emotions, yet his emotions are just a reflection of the success or failure of his strategies. As such, what are those strategies and are they good/moral/constructive, or bad/immoral/destructive? 7) War and Genocide have an illustriously successful history. And islam and judaism have been more destructive than all other forces combined other than the great plagues and diseases. You have to get to the black plague even if not malaria before you’ve killed enough people to match the death, destruction, and dark ages created by islam, judaism(communism), and christianity(anti-aristocracy). Communism has been murderous under the pretense of ‘good’, and Islam has been nearly ten times as murderous under the pretense of ‘good’. Christianity was spread as a means of undermining the western empire from within by the syrians and byzantines, and ‘old europeans’. Islam was spread by force, and resulted in the destruction of the great civilizations: egypt, north african, levantine, mesopotamian, persian, roman, and eventually byzantine. 8) Despite its beginnings in the 600’s, islam had conquered and exhausted the assets of the great civilizations of the ancient world by 1200, and declined rapidly thereafter, brought only into survival by the migration of the turks and their adoption of islam. 9) At present we are fighting judaism(communism, libertarianism, neo-conservatism), postmodernism(French catholicism), and islamic fundamentalism, all of which originate with rabbinical judaism. (Christianity is a Jewish heresy and Islam a Christian heresy). So by the logic of caring ‘what people feel or think’ instead of “what is the result of what people feel and think” we should allow our civilization to be overrun as were all other great civilizations, and leave only the chinese, japanese, and koreans holding back the tide of dysgenia, ignorance and violence? Islam has been at war with the west for 1400 years and if you do nothing more than review an animated history of islamic raids and conquests in europe and the number of deaths they perpetrated, and the change in standard of living under those conquests, and the absolute destruction of all knowledge after 1200, then our conquest of the americas pales by comparison – if for no other reason than we used the wealth generated by it to drag humanity kicking and screaming out of the ignorance produced by judaism, christianity, and islam. We were able to resist islam only because of our advanced technology, and because the turkish empire had exhausted itself under islam as well – and could not develop a european network under rule of law, or an asian network under rule of professional bureaucracy, or an indian network under rule by cast and religion. Instead, islam created iteratively dysgenic ignorance and tribalism. Islam, south america, india and africa, all have the same problems: by adopting political systems favoring the increase in the size of the underclass, those underclasses are such a heavy burden that they cannot participate in the modern world economy. If we stack countries by IQ we find their economic performance. If we stack people by economic, and social class, we find IQ, personality, and physical attractiveness largely rise and fall in concert, with the upper middle class the peak, and the upper class consisting of random outliers. Cheers

  • Feelings and Group Strategies

    THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT OF HOW PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL, OR THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL? 1) while I must understand how people came to their group strategies (habitual, normative, traditional, intellectual, institutional, and technological), I must also understand the outcomes (externalities) produced by those strategies. 2) if the world dislikes you and your people and their behaviors and their externalities, they must have a reason for it. 3) So the question is, if you and your people have failed in every social, economic, political, and technological, possible dimension except malthusian reproduction, and the world dislikes you, do they have a reason to? 4) People invent excuses for employing their group strategies. Otherwise those strategies would cause mental and emotional labor, and openness to failure of that strategy. We all just negotiate on behalf of our personal, gender, class, and group strategies. 5) Our feelings then are mere reflections of success with or failure of our actions in correspondence with our justifications(habits). So the excuses (justifications) we use are a measure only of correspondence with our strategies, but that tells us nothing about the good/bad, morality/immorality of our actions and our strategies. Or more simply put, our emotions are reflections of the competitiveness of our strategies. 6) So as westerners we tend to consider the individual and his emotions, yet his emotions are just a reflection of the success or failure of his strategies. As such, what are those strategies and are they good/moral/constructive, or bad/immoral/destructive? 7) War and Genocide have an illustriously successful history. And islam and judaism have been more destructive than all other forces combined other than the great plagues and diseases. You have to get to the black plague even if not malaria before you’ve killed enough people to match the death, destruction, and dark ages created by islam, judaism(communism), and christianity(anti-aristocracy). Communism has been murderous under the pretense of ‘good’, and Islam has been nearly ten times as murderous under the pretense of ‘good’. Christianity was spread as a means of undermining the western empire from within by the syrians and byzantines, and ‘old europeans’. Islam was spread by force, and resulted in the destruction of the great civilizations: egypt, north african, levantine, mesopotamian, persian, roman, and eventually byzantine. 8) Despite its beginnings in the 600’s, islam had conquered and exhausted the assets of the great civilizations of the ancient world by 1200, and declined rapidly thereafter, brought only into survival by the migration of the turks and their adoption of islam. 9) At present we are fighting judaism(communism, libertarianism, neo-conservatism), postmodernism(French catholicism), and islamic fundamentalism, all of which originate with rabbinical judaism. (Christianity is a Jewish heresy and Islam a Christian heresy). So by the logic of caring ‘what people feel or think’ instead of “what is the result of what people feel and think” we should allow our civilization to be overrun as were all other great civilizations, and leave only the chinese, japanese, and koreans holding back the tide of dysgenia, ignorance and violence? Islam has been at war with the west for 1400 years and if you do nothing more than review an animated history of islamic raids and conquests in europe and the number of deaths they perpetrated, and the change in standard of living under those conquests, and the absolute destruction of all knowledge after 1200, then our conquest of the americas pales by comparison – if for no other reason than we used the wealth generated by it to drag humanity kicking and screaming out of the ignorance produced by judaism, christianity, and islam. We were able to resist islam only because of our advanced technology, and because the turkish empire had exhausted itself under islam as well – and could not develop a european network under rule of law, or an asian network under rule of professional bureaucracy, or an indian network under rule by cast and religion. Instead, islam created iteratively dysgenic ignorance and tribalism. Islam, south america, india and africa, all have the same problems: by adopting political systems favoring the increase in the size of the underclass, those underclasses are such a heavy burden that they cannot participate in the modern world economy. If we stack countries by IQ we find their economic performance. If we stack people by economic, and social class, we find IQ, personality, and physical attractiveness largely rise and fall in concert, with the upper middle class the peak, and the upper class consisting of random outliers. Cheers

  • THREE MEANS OF COERCION 1 – Violence(established male, conservative) competition

    THREE MEANS OF COERCION

    1 – Violence(established male, conservative) competition of the group (of brothers). Conserve Capital.

    2 – Remuneration (ascendant male/libertarian) Produce Capital.

    3 – Gossip (female, socialist) competition of her offspring. Consume Capital.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-21 14:49:00 UTC

  • DECIDABILITY 10 Law, 20 History 30 Science 40 Philosophy 50 Mythology (Literatur

    DECIDABILITY

    10 Law,

    20 History

    30 Science

    40 Philosophy

    50 Mythology (Literature)

    60 Religion

    70 GOTO: 10


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-20 10:18:00 UTC

  • IT BEGINS WITH THE OATH Oath(Contract) > Reciprocity > Sovereignty > Natural Law

    IT BEGINS WITH THE OATH

    Oath(Contract) > Reciprocity > Sovereignty > Natural Law > Violence > Markets > Non Parasitic Order.

    You must make an oath to produce reciprocity; if you produce reciprocity you will as a consequence produce sovereignty; if you produce sovereignty, decisions are only decidable by natural law, and only enforceable by violence – the sum total of which results in markets, and because of markets, the result is a non-parasitic order.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 10:37:00 UTC

  • FORMS OF DECIDABILITY (GOVERNMENT) AT DIFFERENT SCALES Capitalism should be appl

    FORMS OF DECIDABILITY (GOVERNMENT) AT DIFFERENT SCALES

    Capitalism should be applied to strangers on a macro scale. (Market Relations)

    Socialism should be applied on normative organizational scale. (Normative Relations)

    Communalism should be applied with “family” on a micro scale. (Kin Relations)

    And Fascism should be applied to all in times of war.

    (Because only those methods of decision are available at each scale.)

    Pure capitalists get it wrong because they betray their immediate in-groups.

    Pure communists get it wrong because one in-group is impossible, and force others to betray in-groups.

    (original version by Justin Odiogn)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 08:49:00 UTC

  • THE FLYNN EFFECT EXPLAINED 0) We don’t have IQ tests from 1830 (the beginning of

    THE FLYNN EFFECT EXPLAINED

    0) We don’t have IQ tests from 1830 (the beginning of the revolution). Only response tests from later in the 1800’s.

    1) the response tests have dropped. (I am still fussing about this one), and response time is pretty much a proxy for iq (which in an age of neural networks we should understand is obvious).

    2) The flynn effect has stopped and now reversed.

    3) All the gains were at the bottom of the distribution, and the top has remained the same or decreased. (age confirms it)

    4) The differences are not in g-loaded parts of the tests, and g-loaded parts are unchanged.

    5) Relative positioning remains constant:

    —“While the secular gains are on g-loaded tests (such as the Wechsler), they are negatively correlated with the most g-loaded components of those tests. Also, the tests lose their g loadedness over time with training, retesting, and familiarity. In an analysis of mathematics and reading scores from tests such as the NAEP and Coleman Report over the last 54 years, we show that there has been no narrowing of the gap in either IQ scores or in educational achievement. From 1954 to 2008, Black 17-year-olds have consistently scored at about the level of White 14-year-olds, yielding IQ equivale”—-

    6) We do in fact get a bit better with practice. Not a lot better but better enough to reduce volatility, which would not improve test coverage, but reduce error in tests performed. In other words we aren’t smarter we reduce errors.

    7) General knowledge ‘saturation’ produces patterns involuntarily that has to be learned intentionally (or by reading) as in the past.

    HOWERVER

    As I understand it, people are ‘smarter in general’ for the simple reason that by ‘thinking scientifically’ we in fact are training ourselves to apply general rules. In other words, people at the turn of the century were more likely to think in instance-rules and commands, than general rules, and we have in fact gotten better at the use of general rules. Hence why I am an advocate for the German and English Languages, and in particular operational language, because I am certain that the same gains will be produced as were produced by scientific thought (general rules).

    Ergo, this is much scarier: that means some ideas not only make us dumber, they imprison us in dumbness.

    MORE LATER.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-17 23:01:00 UTC

  • THE LAW OF SPEECH 1 – the only rational reason to cooperate is because it is mor

    THE LAW OF SPEECH

    1 – the only rational reason to cooperate is because it is more rewarding than both non-cooperation AND predation.

    2 – the only rational terms of cooperation that are more rewarding than non-cooperation and predation are those of reciprocity.

    3 – Reciprocity is only possible because of truthful (fully informed), productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of externality.

    4 – The only grammars of truthful speech are the operational.

    5 – If You do not speak in operational grammars then you do not speak truthfully, with warranty, particularly of warranty against externality.

    6 – If you did not speak then we could merely avoid one another.

    7 – And ergo, if you speak in critique (deceit, fraud, hazard) there is no reason to refrain from predation, since you have both voided boycott and cooperation.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-17 10:39:00 UTC

  • 1) Geographic escape of the regression to the mean. 2) Duration of planning and

    1) Geographic escape of the regression to the mean.

    2) Duration of planning and voluntary organization required to preserve cooperation (see also inuit peoples and amerindians)

    3) Utility of people in scarcity vs disutility of others in density,

    4) Geographic (horizontal) range of trade (information transfer) on the eurasian continent.

    5) Temperate gradients that can only be defeated by tools, vs disease and tribal gradients that are defeated by reproduction and early maturity.

    6) Negative pressure on the less able (shorter term) in winter climes. I mean, winters are the best agents of darwin.

    7) The difference between central management of irrigation and therefore centralization of capital (fertile crescent, indus river, yellow river), and the lack of such need (or utility) in both europe and the plain and the black and caspian seas. (Our farmland is bigger and better and more distributed meaning capital and defense had to be distributed).

    8) Combining the european wheel, with the anatolian bronze, with the steppe horse, and therefore freeing man from his bodily limits and creating a civilization that mastered ‘ooda loops’ (maneuver, markets) at every level.

    9) Hence we are rarey first, but we are always fastest, because there is no faster way to adapt a society to constant change than ‘markets in everything’ adjudicated by the common law of tort (property).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 11:52:00 UTC