Form: Quote Commentary

  • Untitled

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/18/anti-intellectualism-us-book-banning?CMP=share_btn_fb


    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-21 07:07:00 UTC

  • ten posts of the year by the leading blogger on the effect of marital patterns.

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/top-ten-list-2014/Top ten posts of the year by the leading blogger on the effect of marital patterns.

    (Fellow autistic if the female persuasion


    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-18 08:59:00 UTC

  • MICHAEL PHILLIP ON THE INCENTIVES OF MONARCHY Though subject to normal human fai

    MICHAEL PHILLIP ON THE INCENTIVES OF MONARCHY

    Though subject to normal human failings, the long time horizons of monarchy is one of its distinct advantages. As economist Mancur Olson pointed out that, the longer the time horizon of the ruler, the more their interests tended to converge with those of their subjects. One tends to be somewhat more careful and accommodating the longer you and your children are going to be living with the consequences of your decisions. Of the three major Axis powers, the two monarchies (the Kingdom of Italy and the Empire of Japan) found it easier to exit from fighting precisely because they were monarchies; there was someone with sufficient authority to say enough. Nazi Germany had to wait until Hitler was dead (and assassination proved to be a less reliable alternative).


    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-18 02:04:00 UTC

  • ON RUSSIA AND UKRAINE (MUST READ) George’s Observations from Meeting with their

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/viewing-russia-inside#axzz3M40hvzjmSTRATFOR ON RUSSIA AND UKRAINE (MUST READ)

    George’s Observations from Meeting with their Intelligence Community:

    – (a) Sanctions will not affect Russia significantly Why? See (b).

    – (b) Russians have an extremely high pain tolerance – the highest on earth, and pressures that will topple western governments will not affect Russian government.

    – (c) Russians cannot conceptualize american idealism. They are a brutal and pragmatic people that cannot even comprehend that we have longer term ideological interests, and they interpret everything through their practical short and medium term lens. no on in Russia has good intentions, and they can’t imagine that American’s do either. In fact, most of the world cannot imagine how ideological we are. It has taken me two years living in eastern europe just to begin to see it.

    – (d) George agrees that the USA is fearful of a merger of german technology and Russian resources which would result in russian hegemony.

    My ARGUMENT on (d)

    I have been traditionally in favor of a unified Russo-german people and a withdrawal of american forces from eurasia to a more isolationist and northern american, or perhaps anglo-sphere alliance, with england functioning as switzerland, and america as germany. So I sit opposite of George on this position.

    MY ARGUMENT on (c)

    Russians’ don’t understand american ideology and I question whether George does either – He speaks in state deparatment language which reflects an implementation of the American ideology, not the source of it. Instead:

    Americans have been pursuing a postwar policy of:

    (i) borders are inviolable rigid corporate property rights and abridgment of them threatens both US domestic central authority, threatens the wealth of developed countries that depend on a fluid international economy, and threatens another global war which everyone seeks to avoid. The USA is a benevolently intentioned paranoid sheriff that tends to break things when he’s around – and fear of having him around is enough to keep the peace.

    (ii) states, meaning governments, are accountable for human rights

    (iii) People have a right to self rule, and democracy is the optimum form of rule.

    BUT….

    (iv) The USA will punish self rulers that perform badly regarding either i, or ii.

    (v) The USA foolishly advocates democracy which is a luxury good for high trust western societies and which other societies are incapable of using. Government must reflect the trust levels of the constituencies with more authoritarian for more tribal and familial and more distributed for more outbred and commercial. The question is only whether governments violate human rights and borders, not how they accomplish doing so. Democracy is equally destructive at home as it has been in the rest of the world.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev,

    #ukraine #tlot #tcot


    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-16 07:58:00 UTC

  • Michael Phillip on Postmodernism –“Postmodernism (Pomo) is an intellectual blig

    Michael Phillip on Postmodernism

    –“Postmodernism (Pomo) is an intellectual blight, and a moral one. For, as Norman Geras has pointed out, if there is no truth, there is no justice. If there is no truth, there is also no heritage. Creating, in reaction to progressivist post-modernism, PoMo conservatives who are so unaware of the heritage they are supposed to be preserving that they actively undermine it. PoMo conservatism is another manifestation of the destructive intellectual and moral emptiness postmodernism’s attack on truth creates. A conservatism that is not founded in some strong sense of truth, heritage and consequence—but is mere attitude—is not merely pointless, it is vicious and destructive.”–


    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-14 17:28:00 UTC

  • ARE MANKIND’S WARRIOR ANTS “We applied a machinelearning method to fMRI data to

    http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdfExtended/S0960-9822(14)01213-5CONSERVATIVES ARE MANKIND’S WARRIOR ANTS

    “We applied a machinelearning method to fMRI data to test the hypotheses that brain responses to emotionally evocative images predict individual scores on a standard political ideology assay. Disgusting images, especially those related to animal reminder

    disgust (e.g., mutilated body), generate neural responses that are highly predictive of political orientation even though these neural predictors do not agree with participants’ conscious rating of the stimuli. Images from other affective categories do not support such predictions. Remarkably, brain responses to a single disgusting stimulus were sufficient to make accurate predictions about an individual subject’s political ideology.”


    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-14 06:18:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN AGGRESSION VERSUS LIBERTINE AGGRESSION (worth repeating) –“In poli

    PROPERTARIAN AGGRESSION VERSUS LIBERTINE AGGRESSION

    (worth repeating)

    –“In political philosophy we separate the use of proactive force (aggression) from reactive force (defense). So force can be put to positive (defensive) or negative (aggressive) uses. But then this approach requires that we define what we can aggress against, in order to know what we can defend against. In libertinism they refer to intersubjectively-verifiable property (physical things) whereas in propertarianism I refer to property-en-toto, meaning all things that humans seek to defend that they have obtained by voluntary exchange or homesteading (transforming). ergo: I cannot force your you to give me your attention – that is theft, which allows violence. Conversely I can use violence to defend against your attempt to get my attention. However, if I hear that you advocate theft, then I can defend against your advocacy of theft – and visa versa.”–


    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-14 05:30:00 UTC

  • (worth repeating) –“I would say, that I cannot force anyone to hear anything, o

    (worth repeating)

    –“I would say, that I cannot force anyone to hear anything, or to listen, or even to pay attention. What I can do is to punish them for lie and error in words just as we punish them for lie and error in deeds, when those words, like those deeds cause loss of property-en-toto.”–


    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-14 03:28:00 UTC

  • It’s All So That We Can Act As Specialists – Not As Equals

    (worth repeating)


    –“The whole anglo philosophical and political fantasy of equality has been a disaster for mankind. We must be equal in property rights and equal under the law, but that’s so that we may coordinate our actions as specialists, and succeed as specialists – not so that we can act as equals.”–

  • It’s All So That We Can Act As Specialists – Not As Equals

    (worth repeating)


    –“The whole anglo philosophical and political fantasy of equality has been a disaster for mankind. We must be equal in property rights and equal under the law, but that’s so that we may coordinate our actions as specialists, and succeed as specialists – not so that we can act as equals.”–