—“These boomer critics don’t even know what the alt right aesthetics are. Not that I mind their confusion lasting up until the very moment they become the subjects of some pyrotechnic performance art.”— Carlos Clark
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 19:42:00 UTC
—“We need a coalition of competence at the provincial level, and they need to get a spatula and clean the incompetence out of ottowa.’–O’neil
Canada: you are f–ked. Told ‘ya. Game over.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-29 17:40:00 UTC
THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF OUR ENSLAVEMENT
–“In 61 AD, Suetonius Paulinus led his army across the Menai Strait and massacred the druids and burnt their sacred groves.”–
They exterminated one of the worlds oldest religions: ancestor worship.
Why? Because the druids controlled the gold trade in Britain and Ireland.
—“On Friday, October 13th, 1307, King Philip IV of France, in league with Pope Clement V ordered all Templars to be rounded up and thrown in prison.”—
They exterminated our second independent financial order.
Why? Because Philip was in debt to the Templars, and the pope was his relative. Unfortunately, neither Philip nor Clement understood banking. There were no reserves in the bank of the Templars, and no money gained by their destruction – only their lands.
In 1694, by granting the construction of a private ‘bank of england’ the crown effectively privatized the income from the expansion of the economy, creating rule-by-credit without the juridical or market defenses of the people. In 1913, the American government did the same.
Why? A fraud made possible by a misunderstanding of the properties and function of fiat money: fiat money consists of fractional shares in the economy. It is not money. We use it as a money substitute in all walks of life. But fiat money is a form of stock that we use as money, not a form of commodity money (real money) whatsoever. It costs nothing to produce it, yet it is easily used to extract money from the population without returning to the population the profits generated from he sale of these new shares of stock (interest).
In the archaic past hard money (real money, commodity money, and bank notes) required transportation. Digital money and credit money (account registrations of promises of future payments) requires no transportation.
HOW DO WE ‘FIX’ THIS?
Distribute liquidity directly to the people by debit cards.
Dilute and undilute the money supply for fiscal policy (infrastructure investments).
Preserve the fed as insurer of last resort, and regulator of overnight interest rates.
Manage interest rates against ‘real’ productivity increases (not immigration increases) through monetary policy.
Manage employment through fiscal policy.
Sieze all ill appropriated proceeds back to 1694 in the UK, and 1913 in the USA. (Including Soros’s violation of the requirement for productivity.)
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-29 09:29:00 UTC
—“my [antidote for] all Platonism has always been Thucydides. Thucydides and, perhaps, Machiavelli’s [The Prince] are most closely related to me by the unconditional will not to delude oneself, but to see reason in reality — not in “reason,” still less in “morality.” — Nietzsche
—‘The unconditional will not to delude oneself’—
Priceless.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-28 09:53:00 UTC
BERENS ON PROPERTARIANISM AND THE RED QUEEN
by James Augustus Berens
(flawless)(insightful)(definitions)
The Red Queen Hypothesis in the Natural History of Human Kind: competing human groups seeking to profit via the production of asymmetries in information and violence
Thusly, from an evolutionary perspective, we see the development of human institutions as an evolutionary arm-race between competing, and co-evolving human social groups. However, the co-evolution has been asymmetrical due to differing geographies, historical particularities (path-dependent pressures), and class distributions leading to differential investments in institutional portfolios or what we call group-evolutionary strategies.
Propertarianism seeks to solve the problem of history (the evolutionary-arms race in seeking profit through asymmetrical violence and information) through the moral application of organized violence and testimony, prohibiting theft, fraud, parasitism and predation, leaving man no choice but meritocratic competition in markets for association, reproduction, production, (moral) violence and (warrantied) information.
That is, in more general terms, propertarians seek the transcendence of man through the incremental suppression of parasitism and predation in all social domains.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-28 00:15:00 UTC
—“Observation — journalists and other intellectuals freaking out over the outcome of the election reveal that they were never really “students” of society, or even “social critics”, but were instead partisan cheerleaders. Also, it appears that many are completely incapable of asking themselves whether it might be possible that the consensus of the progressive elite in public policy is perhaps neither as accurately descriptive of how the world works or as normatively appealing as they sincerely believe. Rather than critical self-reflection we see outrage, blame, and emotional expression of pain.There are many reasons to be concerned, but the responsible response from intellectuals is to think through rationally, to ask what I was wrong about, try to force yourself to pass an ideological Turning Test, and to recognize that if there are institutional problems the answer requires institutional solutions.Liberal democratic traditions do not work based on the “good” and the “wise” being in power, but were designed so that “bad men can do least harm”. Let’s hope those liberal democratic institutions are still in operation after so many years of sustained critique by progressive intellectuals.Democratic governance (liberalism) is a different beast from bureaucratic governance (progressivism). Bureaucratic governance requires trained experts immune from democratic checks and balances, democratic governance requires responsible citizens and institutions that empower as well as constrain.”– Peter Boettke (NOTE: I would say they are all engaged in customer seeking – a long form of rent seeking. The interesting question not discussed is that because we humans make use of law, religion, and market, but we choose a dominant bias with which to employ them in our social orders, yielding: (1)kin/law, (2)cult/religion, or (3)state/corporatism; Depending upon homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population; to overcome resistance to the creation and preservation of commons – so that why is it that one bias in the order is always better off than the others? And why does not social-criticism and intellectual-decidability limit itself to the order desired by the population? of course, we know the answer is genetic in both desire for construct, and in the expression of that desire for construct as a will to power. I frequently ask the same question: why do economists vary in bias of decidability? for the same reason: austrian-social-science and rule of law preserving sovereignty, freshwater limits of rule of law as a commons against harm, and saltwater abandonment of rule of law in favor of preferential discretion in order to acquire customers for the state. If it isn’t clear to you, then the answer is this: anything other than kin/law is nothing more than an act of war by slower means. – CD )
—“Observation — journalists and other intellectuals freaking out over the outcome of the election reveal that they were never really “students” of society, or even “social critics”, but were instead partisan cheerleaders. Also, it appears that many are completely incapable of asking themselves whether it might be possible that the consensus of the progressive elite in public policy is perhaps neither as accurately descriptive of how the world works or as normatively appealing as they sincerely believe. Rather than critical self-reflection we see outrage, blame, and emotional expression of pain.There are many reasons to be concerned, but the responsible response from intellectuals is to think through rationally, to ask what I was wrong about, try to force yourself to pass an ideological Turning Test, and to recognize that if there are institutional problems the answer requires institutional solutions.Liberal democratic traditions do not work based on the “good” and the “wise” being in power, but were designed so that “bad men can do least harm”. Let’s hope those liberal democratic institutions are still in operation after so many years of sustained critique by progressive intellectuals.Democratic governance (liberalism) is a different beast from bureaucratic governance (progressivism). Bureaucratic governance requires trained experts immune from democratic checks and balances, democratic governance requires responsible citizens and institutions that empower as well as constrain.”– Peter Boettke (NOTE: I would say they are all engaged in customer seeking – a long form of rent seeking. The interesting question not discussed is that because we humans make use of law, religion, and market, but we choose a dominant bias with which to employ them in our social orders, yielding: (1)kin/law, (2)cult/religion, or (3)state/corporatism; Depending upon homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population; to overcome resistance to the creation and preservation of commons – so that why is it that one bias in the order is always better off than the others? And why does not social-criticism and intellectual-decidability limit itself to the order desired by the population? of course, we know the answer is genetic in both desire for construct, and in the expression of that desire for construct as a will to power. I frequently ask the same question: why do economists vary in bias of decidability? for the same reason: austrian-social-science and rule of law preserving sovereignty, freshwater limits of rule of law as a commons against harm, and saltwater abandonment of rule of law in favor of preferential discretion in order to acquire customers for the state. If it isn’t clear to you, then the answer is this: anything other than kin/law is nothing more than an act of war by slower means. – CD )
Retweeted Sanguine (@SanguineEmpiric):
We exchanged transcendence for signalling over sets of commodities with the assistance of volatility.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-27 05:01:00 UTC
https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/802480714960818176/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=802809694133821440Retweeted Stefan Molyneux (@StefanMolyneux):
Two terrorists. https://t.co/4a9Bv1KSPe
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-27 04:42:00 UTC
November 16,2016 —“If people trusted their senses it would be obvious to everyone that almost every big American city is not an aristocrats garden, but more like a labor camp.”—Brian Barr —“If our main driving force is our identity as individuals and our entitlement to life via these identities, than we are nothing but the gilt on the facade of a gas chamber.” — Benjamin Thurston If the we regulated the informational commons by requiring we warranty our speech, then the NYT and Academy, would be organized crime orgs.