Jan 5, 2020, 9:43 PM (working on this ) The Germanic War for Integration into Roman Civilization The Germanic wars for Restoration of Roman Civilization 1562 – 1598 The French War to preserve church and state corruption, and general ignorance, against the Protestant Huguenots and their restoration of ancient knowledge by slaughtering them. Catholic mobs killed between 5,000 and 30,000 Protestants over a period of weeks throughout the entire kingdom. But the war endured for decades, as the monarchy an church conspired to keep the people ignorant, and submissive. 1618 – 1648 The Thirty Years War: Theoretically over the conflict between catholic and protestant holy roman empire (Germania), was, an remains a conflict over control of europe between France–and the Habsburgs (Germans – the finest ruling class in history). As always, France was in the wrong. The war cost 8M, or 25% of europe’s population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War *1750 – Rousseau (“the pervert”) and the French revolt against British empiricism, law, and science. 1756 – 1763 The (Real) First World War: The Seven Years War : 1M dead. Starts with the French and Indian War and Escalates into a world war. Resulting in UK Demand for Taxes to pay for it, and the USA declaring independence to escape paying for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War 1792-1802 The French Revolution against The Modern World 1800-1815 Napoleonic War: The Third French Attempt to dominate europe. 1812: British and Indian War to maintain American control of the continent. 1846-1848 Mexican American War to maintain American control of the continent Jewish Revolt against the Modern World – Marx’ Revolt against the Modern World. He had three main goals: organizing European workers for “class struggle”; opposing the authoritarian regime of William II; and advocating Communist revolution in Russia. 1864 – Civil War: The War to Maintain Northern Control of the Continent 1914-1918 WW1 – The War of Franco-Russian-Anglo Aggression against the germans who had united defensively because of napoleon’s and Russia’s aggressions. 1917 – The Jewish Bolshevik Conquest of Russia and The Jewish Holocaust against the Russian and Ukrainian people. *1934 – The Jewish Invasion of America and the Combination of Marx and Freud to Undermine western civilization. 1939 – The german positive action to prevent the french, jewish, and russian undermining and conquest of western civilization. 1964 – The Jewish success at undermining america through (a) immigration, (b) feminism, ( c) postmodernism (Lying) (d) baiting into hazard. (e) propaganda. (f) media.
Form: Outline
-
It”s Not Just Reciprocity: The Method
Jan 26, 2020, 4:41 PM IT”S NOT JUST RECIPROCITY: THE METHOD When you’re testing for reciprocity ask: 1 – Is it productive? Do we both have more capital under subjective value after the transfer or not? 2 – Is it fully informed? Meaning, truthful and complete. 3 – Is it voluntary a voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests? 4 – Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? 5 – Is the other party warrantying that it is productive, fully informed, voluntary, and free of externality? 6 – Is it restitutable if it is warrantied? Meaning is is possible to perform restitution, and is the other party capable of paying restitution? For example: WHEREAS; Party A wants to deny party B the right to bear arms. WHERE; 1. Is it productive? Well no. It’s an attempt to reduce some harm at the cost of enabling another harm, but there is a difference in preference over the choice of bearing those harms. 2. Is it fully informed? Well no. It’s an attempt to circumvent accounting for the tradeoff in risks, under the pretense that a preference is equal to a truth. 3. Is it voluntary. Well no, it is involuntary or the question would not arise. 4. Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? Well, no, not limiting the right to bear arms imposes costs (risk) upon those who might be harmed by those with arms, and limiting it imposes costs (risk) upon those who defend self family commons and government from usurpation. 5. Is it warrantied and warrantable. No. Neither side can warrantee the other. 6. Is it restitutable. No life is not restitutable wither in defense of rights or in defense of self. 7. Can an alternate solution be made? Of course. Pay the cost of protecting your interests rather than depriving others of the right to protect their interests. THEREFORE 9. The alternative solution is (a)to have those people who wish to bear the risk of a disarmed public pay for their defense, or (b) for those who wish change to finance and move to a separate geography with different limits. This is a cursory treatment but you get the idea.
-
It”s Not Just Reciprocity: The Method
Jan 26, 2020, 4:41 PM IT”S NOT JUST RECIPROCITY: THE METHOD When you’re testing for reciprocity ask: 1 – Is it productive? Do we both have more capital under subjective value after the transfer or not? 2 – Is it fully informed? Meaning, truthful and complete. 3 – Is it voluntary a voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests? 4 – Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? 5 – Is the other party warrantying that it is productive, fully informed, voluntary, and free of externality? 6 – Is it restitutable if it is warrantied? Meaning is is possible to perform restitution, and is the other party capable of paying restitution? For example: WHEREAS; Party A wants to deny party B the right to bear arms. WHERE; 1. Is it productive? Well no. It’s an attempt to reduce some harm at the cost of enabling another harm, but there is a difference in preference over the choice of bearing those harms. 2. Is it fully informed? Well no. It’s an attempt to circumvent accounting for the tradeoff in risks, under the pretense that a preference is equal to a truth. 3. Is it voluntary. Well no, it is involuntary or the question would not arise. 4. Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? Well, no, not limiting the right to bear arms imposes costs (risk) upon those who might be harmed by those with arms, and limiting it imposes costs (risk) upon those who defend self family commons and government from usurpation. 5. Is it warrantied and warrantable. No. Neither side can warrantee the other. 6. Is it restitutable. No life is not restitutable wither in defense of rights or in defense of self. 7. Can an alternate solution be made? Of course. Pay the cost of protecting your interests rather than depriving others of the right to protect their interests. THEREFORE 9. The alternative solution is (a)to have those people who wish to bear the risk of a disarmed public pay for their defense, or (b) for those who wish change to finance and move to a separate geography with different limits. This is a cursory treatment but you get the idea.
-
Problems the Police Face
Jan 27, 2020, 7:19 AM (1) police are expensive and patrol large territories in expensive vehicles with expensive equipment. (2) because police are expensive they do not travel in groups, and do not practice european policing of de-escalation- europe is small and densely populated. (3) Therefore officers rely on manipulation, deception, intimidation, and force, to subdue an individual and ‘drag him into the system’. Whereas you or I only need to break contact, they have to bring people into the system. The reason is that they don’t have discretionary power (as do sheriffs and judges.) This is because they can get sued if they are forgiving but you do something stupid. So their only defense is to get you into the system. (4) Revenue for a police department and justice system is funded by taxes, tickets and fines, and worst of all, property seizures. This has produced the malincentives we predicted. (5) Police are in a position of high risk, high responsibility, and under multiple conflicting incentives for which they can lose job and pension for any normal human error. This is a no-win situation for them. So they tend to develop procedures that are the safest for them and their careers, by choosing processes that put the officer in the position of making THE FEWEST DECISIONS. This is the problem. (6) The police do not control the bad laws that they operate under. Their job is to bring people into the system and let the system and system processes do the work – thereby (mostly) using time and isolation for heated afraid or excited people to calm down. (7) The data is what it is and the cops know the data: Black americans are disproportionately impulsively violent and will run, drug users are disproportionately unpredictable and dangerous even with bodily fluids or needles, and hispanic americans are disproportionately involved in gangs and dangerous, and white americans are disproportionately cunning and dangerous. (8) Police will not stay in the job if they have IQ’s over 105, so they hire average people for the job, because frankly it’s a lot of paperwork, and a lot of putting up with unpleasant people, and a lot of very high stress followed by very boring procedure. So for an average guy it’s a high income high status job – with decision making above his pay grade. (9) Some police forces are run well and others not, and there is no requirement that police come from the area nor stay in an area and learn the ‘crook book’ for the area. Instead, better police forces hire and train better officers, who then take positions that pay more money in less ‘prime’ territories. So there are just a lot of things going on. Where instead, we should probably have three classes of officers, at three pay grades, the top being criminal lawyers (proto-judges), the middle being today’s armed officers, and the bottom being de-escalation officers, and we should try to use numbers rather than concentration of force to deescalate and bring people in.
-
Problems the Police Face
Jan 27, 2020, 7:19 AM (1) police are expensive and patrol large territories in expensive vehicles with expensive equipment. (2) because police are expensive they do not travel in groups, and do not practice european policing of de-escalation- europe is small and densely populated. (3) Therefore officers rely on manipulation, deception, intimidation, and force, to subdue an individual and ‘drag him into the system’. Whereas you or I only need to break contact, they have to bring people into the system. The reason is that they don’t have discretionary power (as do sheriffs and judges.) This is because they can get sued if they are forgiving but you do something stupid. So their only defense is to get you into the system. (4) Revenue for a police department and justice system is funded by taxes, tickets and fines, and worst of all, property seizures. This has produced the malincentives we predicted. (5) Police are in a position of high risk, high responsibility, and under multiple conflicting incentives for which they can lose job and pension for any normal human error. This is a no-win situation for them. So they tend to develop procedures that are the safest for them and their careers, by choosing processes that put the officer in the position of making THE FEWEST DECISIONS. This is the problem. (6) The police do not control the bad laws that they operate under. Their job is to bring people into the system and let the system and system processes do the work – thereby (mostly) using time and isolation for heated afraid or excited people to calm down. (7) The data is what it is and the cops know the data: Black americans are disproportionately impulsively violent and will run, drug users are disproportionately unpredictable and dangerous even with bodily fluids or needles, and hispanic americans are disproportionately involved in gangs and dangerous, and white americans are disproportionately cunning and dangerous. (8) Police will not stay in the job if they have IQ’s over 105, so they hire average people for the job, because frankly it’s a lot of paperwork, and a lot of putting up with unpleasant people, and a lot of very high stress followed by very boring procedure. So for an average guy it’s a high income high status job – with decision making above his pay grade. (9) Some police forces are run well and others not, and there is no requirement that police come from the area nor stay in an area and learn the ‘crook book’ for the area. Instead, better police forces hire and train better officers, who then take positions that pay more money in less ‘prime’ territories. So there are just a lot of things going on. Where instead, we should probably have three classes of officers, at three pay grades, the top being criminal lawyers (proto-judges), the middle being today’s armed officers, and the bottom being de-escalation officers, and we should try to use numbers rather than concentration of force to deescalate and bring people in.
-
What Does “Go” Mean (revolution, civil war)
Jan 29, 2020, 6:50 PM
- A moral license – it has to be explained (the declaration)
- A set of demands – they have to be published and made. (a constitution)
- A plan of transition – ( what it sounds like)
- A means of altering the status quo (incremental pressure to drive the parties to the table)
I have a clear understanding of the means of political acceleration. I have a very clear understanding of the boogaloo strategy and have for years. The point is to make it so vividly certain it isn’t necessary – but you can’t fake it. The threat has to be a promise for it to work. If I have to, I”ll work at sounding very scary when the time comes. “And that is why you will agree to these terms in our mutual interest. Otherwise if we must fight to win, we will win, and our terms of settlement will worsen everyday”. And if we must, then we must, and if men are not willing to do what they must – they are not men worth having.
-
What Does “Go” Mean (revolution, civil war)
Jan 29, 2020, 6:50 PM
- A moral license – it has to be explained (the declaration)
- A set of demands – they have to be published and made. (a constitution)
- A plan of transition – ( what it sounds like)
- A means of altering the status quo (incremental pressure to drive the parties to the table)
I have a clear understanding of the means of political acceleration. I have a very clear understanding of the boogaloo strategy and have for years. The point is to make it so vividly certain it isn’t necessary – but you can’t fake it. The threat has to be a promise for it to work. If I have to, I”ll work at sounding very scary when the time comes. “And that is why you will agree to these terms in our mutual interest. Otherwise if we must fight to win, we will win, and our terms of settlement will worsen everyday”. And if we must, then we must, and if men are not willing to do what they must – they are not men worth having.
-
Chapter on “Cooperation (Morality)”
SUBJECT HEADINGS: 1. Time 2. Division 3. Rationality 4. Reciprocity 5. Immorality 6. Morality 7. Forbearance 8. Trust 9. Virtue
Elegant.
-
Chapter on “Cooperation (Morality)”
SUBJECT HEADINGS: 1. Time 2. Division 3. Rationality 4. Reciprocity 5. Immorality 6. Morality 7. Forbearance 8. Trust 9. Virtue
Elegant.
-
I Will Not Let Rome Fall Twice.
Feb 2, 2020, 8:44 AM
I will not let Rome fall twice.
THE LEFT RIGHT DIVIDE IN SIMPLE TERMS
...............Right....Left .........evidentiary....experiential ........capitalizing....consumptive ......inter-temporal....temporal ..........reciprocal....proportional ........meritocratic....equalitarian ....falsificationary....justificationary .............eugenic....dysgenic ...............truth....approval ................male....female ...............trade....seduction .........deprivation....ostracization ...............force....undermining ................pack....herd .............Markets....Monopolies .........Nationalism....Globalism
Cognitively left dysgenic female herd vs cognitively right eugenic male pack. We have no agency. We we are gene machines pursuing our reproductive strategies adapting them only to our class (status). And all speech and most importantly, all political speech is either truthful, reciprocal, meritocratic (hierarchical male right) or untruthful, irreciprocal, proportional (equalitarian female left). Right trade and truth and Left Seduction disapproval. And all consciousness of the self is just to facilitate the problem of balancing our incentives with the incentives of others. The only solutions to the present conflict are :
1. Markets for Commons, 2. Separation and Specialization 3. Civil War and Winner Take All I prefer the latter, I will morally compromise on either of the former. I will not let Rome fall twice.