—“The relative inequality that causes violence is much more likely a deep seated sense of unfairness (manifesting in the world as inequality) but actually the result of policy being unfair [unjust is the issue, not unequal; or unjust application]. Unduly favoring certain people over others within the same geographic space [most likely differences in enforcement due to class].”— Brandon Hayes
IMO Violence = Proximity + Inequality = Signal Deprivation.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-22 11:55:00 UTC
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0082WHY PEOPLE PREFER UNEQUAL SOCIETIES
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0082
–“When people are asked about the ideal distribution of wealth in their country, they actually prefer unequal societies. We suggest that these two phenomena can be reconciled by noticing that, despite appearances to the contrary, there is no evidence that people are bothered by economic inequality itself. Rather, they are bothered by something that is often confounded with inequality: economic unfairness.”—
People do not seek equality, but reciprocity and proportionality.
(via @[11019687:2048:Brandon Hayes] )
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-22 11:48:00 UTC
—“We live under discretionary law disguised as legislature (rule by law) oppose to rule of law (iterative and incremental approaching asymptotic perfect reciprocity)”— Bill Joslin
(perfect ♥ )
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-22 10:35:00 UTC
WOTAN GIVES US A HARD HEART
“‘Wotan placed a hard heart in my breast,’ is what an old Scandinavian saga says: the poet who said this caught correctly what springs straight from the soul of a proud Viking. Such a type of man is proud of the very fact that he has not been made for compassion: which is why the hero of the saga adds in warning, ‘If a man does not have a hard heart when young, it will never harden’. The noble and the brave who think like this are the furthest from that morality that sees the badge of morality precisely in compassion or in doing things for others or in désintéressement; one’s faith in one’s self, one’s pride in one’s self, a basic animosity and irony towards ‘selflessness’ belongs just as definitely to noble morality as a mild contempt and wariness towards compassionate feelings and the ‘warm heart’”— Nietzsche, from the Genealogy of Morals.
<thanks to Freyr Björnsson>
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-22 10:34:00 UTC
–“Good people” (who are otherwise seen to be law-abiding, decent, etc.) have been too romanticized. “Good people,” because they have no moral underpinnings, are good only because of the ecology. The ecology is set by the “fight” between good-fighters and evil. Political correctness and comforts of wealth has castrated or reduced the number good-fighters in the West, the reason the culture has shifted in favor of the evil.”– Jayant Bhandari
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-22 07:52:00 UTC
—“I find the left’s view our relative lack of obsession with empathy/feelings for dysfunctional groups as the primary decisive factor in forming an opinion, as psychopathy.”— John Mark
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-21 22:43:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054141175333052419
—“Tolerance is just a societal virtue signal that we are rich enough to afford a multicultural and diverse array of waste and still survive.”—@[11804727:2048:Steve Pender]
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-21 19:44:00 UTC
—“I find the left’s view our relative lack of obsession with empathy/feelings for dysfunctional groups as the primary decisive factor in forming an opinion, as psychopathy.”— John Mark
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-21 18:43:00 UTC
October 21st, 2018 12:00 AM (ht: @[100002214207885:2048:Giego Caleiro] for pointer) RE: https://debateolavodugin.blogspot.com/2011/03/olavo-de-carvalho-introduction.html [O]lavo is wonderful. Really. And that particular essay, in eloquent rose, positions the conflict of civilizations (at least as of the late 00’s) correctly. I came to the same analysis except I state that there are only three weapons of coercion (force/law/government, trade/gain/reciprocity, ostracization/inclusion/words/religion) and civilizations have of necessity evolved to specialize in them. I see four propositions where duggin sees three, with the anglo model being nationalism and law, and the globalist problem being semitic. He seems to think some reconciliation is possible. I don’t. The american solution was to mature everyone into commerce in pursuit of world peace. This was partly possible but did not stop each civilizational strategy from pursuing its interests – they have no other choice. The problem for ‘market civilization’ is that the high trust polities will defeat the low trust state and religious(ignorant) polities and as such defeat is intolerable to the others. I am quite certain the anglo model cannot scale and this is the mistake of the anglos from the imperial program through the postwar period. the potential of each (anglo-law jewish finance, russo-sinic state-military, and islamic-terror-cult simply reflects the dominant class structures of each civilization given its stage of development as it entered the modern era. However, of these, the regressive state-islamic, static state-military, parasitic (and soon to be lost) short-lived-universalist-financial, and inter-state-law models: the most intolerant, with the lowest standard of living, with the highest rates of reproduction, will win – because it is the cheapest strategy. My opinion is that the united states and europe’s attempt to imitate her structure, is counter to the european success, and that a return of nation states eliminates the threat of each. in other words: good fences (walls) make good neighbors. My work will end the semitic/financial forever. Once that is done, the islamic is the principle problem, because I see the Anglo-european-russian-chinese civilizations as a division of risk-labor (time) between high risk, risk averse, paranoid, and riskless states. It’s islam that is the enemy of eurasia – the people-of-the-cult (middle easterners) have always and everywhere been the enemy of the great civilizations – ever since they invented the institutionalization of deceit.
October 21st, 2018 12:00 AM (ht: @[100002214207885:2048:Giego Caleiro] for pointer) RE: https://debateolavodugin.blogspot.com/2011/03/olavo-de-carvalho-introduction.html [O]lavo is wonderful. Really. And that particular essay, in eloquent rose, positions the conflict of civilizations (at least as of the late 00’s) correctly. I came to the same analysis except I state that there are only three weapons of coercion (force/law/government, trade/gain/reciprocity, ostracization/inclusion/words/religion) and civilizations have of necessity evolved to specialize in them. I see four propositions where duggin sees three, with the anglo model being nationalism and law, and the globalist problem being semitic. He seems to think some reconciliation is possible. I don’t. The american solution was to mature everyone into commerce in pursuit of world peace. This was partly possible but did not stop each civilizational strategy from pursuing its interests – they have no other choice. The problem for ‘market civilization’ is that the high trust polities will defeat the low trust state and religious(ignorant) polities and as such defeat is intolerable to the others. I am quite certain the anglo model cannot scale and this is the mistake of the anglos from the imperial program through the postwar period. the potential of each (anglo-law jewish finance, russo-sinic state-military, and islamic-terror-cult simply reflects the dominant class structures of each civilization given its stage of development as it entered the modern era. However, of these, the regressive state-islamic, static state-military, parasitic (and soon to be lost) short-lived-universalist-financial, and inter-state-law models: the most intolerant, with the lowest standard of living, with the highest rates of reproduction, will win – because it is the cheapest strategy. My opinion is that the united states and europe’s attempt to imitate her structure, is counter to the european success, and that a return of nation states eliminates the threat of each. in other words: good fences (walls) make good neighbors. My work will end the semitic/financial forever. Once that is done, the islamic is the principle problem, because I see the Anglo-european-russian-chinese civilizations as a division of risk-labor (time) between high risk, risk averse, paranoid, and riskless states. It’s islam that is the enemy of eurasia – the people-of-the-cult (middle easterners) have always and everywhere been the enemy of the great civilizations – ever since they invented the institutionalization of deceit.