Form: Reply

  • Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline

    Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-09 11:55:00 UTC

  • From Curt Doolittle on VK.com Oliver Westcott Asks: —“Is Propertarianism a pre

    From Curt Doolittle on VK.com Oliver Westcott Asks: —“Is Propertarianism a preference for liberty (property and markets in everything) under a system of natural law? (in which case it seems most of what you do is argue for natural law. Not Propertarianism per se.) Or, is Propertarianism the only way to sustain an order of natural law? Or both? Because it struck me Propertarianism is an ideology (nothing wrong with that necessarily, and in my view if it were an ideology, and if ideologies are necessary, then it’s the one I’d choose). Where as natural law is just science.”— The suite of ideas we call Propertarianism out of habit consist of The completion of the scientific method: Action (Metaphysics) Acqusitionism(Psychology), Propertarianism(ethics of cooperation), Compatibilism (sociology), Communication (grammars of negotiation), Testimonialism (Epistemology) Algorithmic Natural Law (Law) Market Commons (Politics) Group Evolutionary Strategy (Cooperativism) War (post cooperative strategy) Aesthetics (beauty) Of these, the principle insight is Testimonialism, which explains and completes the scientific method. I then applied the scientific method to every discipline from metaphysics to war and aesthetics. With this system one can create ANY political order one wishes, doing so truthfully. Any one of them. Anywhere on the spectrum. But truthfully. I (we) then use this understanding to advocate for western high trust, high velocity, transcendent, order, simply because it is the very best of those orders, because it consistently and rapidly defeats the red queen (competition from man and nature) and because only ethnic Europeans appear to be able to produce it. That order of western civilization I refer to as either the ‘Aryan’ or the Aristocratic (meritocratic) Egalitarianism (open to constant expansion of new members). Both terms meaning the same thing: meritocratic rotation in constant pursuit of greater numbers. I know it is almost impossible for followers of propertarianism to distinguish between the simple scientific method that makes our traditions, their intuitions and our instincts into rational and scientific arguments that we can use: Propertarianism – and the group evolutionary strategy that we use – aristocracy: markets of meritocracy in everything: Aryanism, or Aristocratic Egalitarianism. But it is hard and we must distinguish them. An ideology provides an emotional incentive to act in favor of political change under democracy. A philosophy provides a means of system of decidability in a domain of interest. A science provides a means of decidability regardless of interest or preference (Philosophy or Ideology). 1) Propertarianism is a Science. 2) Aristocratic Egalitarianism is a Philosophy. 3) Aryanism is a group evolutionary strategy. And they are all perfectly compatible. Cheers Curt Doolittle
  • Curt Doolittle on VK.com Oliver Westcott Asks: —“Is Propertarianism a preferen

    https://vk.com/curtd?w=wall204954514_26From Curt Doolittle on VK.com http://VK.com

    Oliver Westcott Asks:

    —“Is Propertarianism a preference for liberty (property and markets in everything) under a system of natural law? (in which case it seems most of what you do is argue for natural law. Not Propertarianism per se.)

    Or, is Propertarianism the only way to sustain an order of natural law? Or both?

    Because it struck me Propertarianism is an ideology (nothing wrong with that necessarily, and in my view if it were an ideology, and if ideologies are necessary, then it’s the one I’d choose). Where as natural law is just science.”—

    The suite of ideas we call Propertarianism out of habit consist of

    The completion of the scientific method:

    Action (Metaphysics)

    Acqusitionism(Psychology),

    Propertarianism(ethics of cooperation),

    Compatibilism (sociology),

    Communication (grammars of negotiation),

    Testimonialism (Epistemology)

    Algorithmic Natural Law (Law)

    Market Commons (Politics)

    Group Evolutionary Strategy (Cooperativism)

    War (post cooperative strategy)

    Aesthetics (beauty)

    Of these, the principle insight is Testimonialism, which explains and completes the scientific method. I then applied the scientific method to every discipline from metaphysics to war and aesthetics.

    With this system one can create ANY political order one wishes, doing so truthfully. Any one of them. Anywhere on the spectrum. But truthfully.

    I (we) then use this understanding to advocate for western high trust, high velocity, transcendent, order, simply because it is the very best of those orders, because it consistently and rapidly defeats the red queen (competition from man and nature) and because only ethnic Europeans appear to be able to produce it. That order of western civilization I refer to as either the ‘Aryan’ or the Aristocratic (meritocratic) Egalitarianism (open to constant expansion of new members). Both terms meaning the same thing: meritocratic rotation in constant pursuit of greater numbers.

    I know it is almost impossible for followers of propertarianism to distinguish between the simple scientific method that makes our traditions, their intuitions and our instincts into rational and scientific arguments that we can use: Propertarianism – and the group evolutionary strategy that we use – aristocracy: markets of meritocracy in everything: Aryanism, or Aristocratic Egalitarianism.

    But it is hard and we must distinguish them.

    An ideology provides an emotional incentive to act in favor of political change under democracy.

    A philosophy provides a means of system of decidability in a domain of interest.

    A science provides a means of decidability regardless of interest or preference (Philosophy or Ideology).

    1) Propertarianism is a Science.

    2) Aristocratic Egalitarianism is a Philosophy.

    3) Aryanism is a group evolutionary strategy.

    And they are all perfectly compatible.

    Cheers

    Curt DoolittleUpdated Oct 3, 2017, 12:45 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-03 12:45:00 UTC

  • From Curt Doolittle on VK.com Oliver Westcott Asks: —“Is Propertarianism a pre

    From Curt Doolittle on VK.com Oliver Westcott Asks: —“Is Propertarianism a preference for liberty (property and markets in everything) under a system of natural law? (in which case it seems most of what you do is argue for natural law. Not Propertarianism per se.) Or, is Propertarianism the only way to sustain an order of natural law? Or both? Because it struck me Propertarianism is an ideology (nothing wrong with that necessarily, and in my view if it were an ideology, and if ideologies are necessary, then it’s the one I’d choose). Where as natural law is just science.”— The suite of ideas we call Propertarianism out of habit consist of The completion of the scientific method: Action (Metaphysics) Acqusitionism(Psychology), Propertarianism(ethics of cooperation), Compatibilism (sociology), Communication (grammars of negotiation), Testimonialism (Epistemology) Algorithmic Natural Law (Law) Market Commons (Politics) Group Evolutionary Strategy (Cooperativism) War (post cooperative strategy) Aesthetics (beauty) Of these, the principle insight is Testimonialism, which explains and completes the scientific method. I then applied the scientific method to every discipline from metaphysics to war and aesthetics. With this system one can create ANY political order one wishes, doing so truthfully. Any one of them. Anywhere on the spectrum. But truthfully. I (we) then use this understanding to advocate for western high trust, high velocity, transcendent, order, simply because it is the very best of those orders, because it consistently and rapidly defeats the red queen (competition from man and nature) and because only ethnic Europeans appear to be able to produce it. That order of western civilization I refer to as either the ‘Aryan’ or the Aristocratic (meritocratic) Egalitarianism (open to constant expansion of new members). Both terms meaning the same thing: meritocratic rotation in constant pursuit of greater numbers. I know it is almost impossible for followers of propertarianism to distinguish between the simple scientific method that makes our traditions, their intuitions and our instincts into rational and scientific arguments that we can use: Propertarianism – and the group evolutionary strategy that we use – aristocracy: markets of meritocracy in everything: Aryanism, or Aristocratic Egalitarianism. But it is hard and we must distinguish them. An ideology provides an emotional incentive to act in favor of political change under democracy. A philosophy provides a means of system of decidability in a domain of interest. A science provides a means of decidability regardless of interest or preference (Philosophy or Ideology). 1) Propertarianism is a Science. 2) Aristocratic Egalitarianism is a Philosophy. 3) Aryanism is a group evolutionary strategy. And they are all perfectly compatible. Cheers Curt Doolittle
  • “I’m a bit surprised to see you answer that journalist the way you did. I would

    —“I’m a bit surprised to see you answer that journalist the way you did. I would have expected you to be highly sparse with information, particularly pertaining to the purpose, economics, and success of the event. But what most surprised me is that you would post it on social media.”— A Friend

    This is a great conversation to have among libertarians and the right. It is a great illustration of the value of Propertarianism. And it is a great illustration of why the alt right and the right in general fail.

    You remember the Tiger woods debacle? What would have happened if he had said, “Yes, I’m tiger woods, I’m great a t what I do, I am an athlete, and I’m proud to be an athelte. Women like athletes. Women all but throw themselves at me. And I love them all, I want to be with them all, and I probably shouldn’t have gotten married because after all, this is who I am. I am an athlete and that is all.” And then made a series of television commercials showing him trying to play golf or whatever and being constantly distracted by attractive women. The strategy is this: take everything off the table by saying it yourself.

    A journalist, like a lawyer, prosecutor,or judge, is looking for information hiding, conspiracy, deception and fraud. They are not looking to understand. Their technique is to ask a lot of people similar questions, triangulate, and construct a narrative of immoral conspiracy. You cannot control a narrative. One crack and you’ve simply provided what the prosecutor seeks: incentives.

    The way you defeat opponents in life, commerce, media, and court, is (a) to have moral objectives and to state them, (b) to speak as much of the truth as you can manage. (c) to repeat your message over and over again.

    Well what is true? The event was a success. The people had fun. The panel was pleased with us. It advanced our strategic interests. It proved we can fill a room. It proved that Megan can run a conference if we want to scale. And it taught us about the costs and unpredictability of volunteers vs commercial interests, and paid speakers. I succeeded in getting the panel to answer the meaningful questions – although I couldn’t summarize it completely, and we needed a longer Q&A period. Eli learned that you need to prepare a presentation. Megan learned that a successful event is a non-event, and that you don’t need to run a show, just create an environment for conversation, bonding, and friendship development. I knew absolutely nothing about the venue, money, or anything else other than the few tidbits that Megan told me in the weeks before the event.

    Conservatives and libertarians are just as big a set of liars as progressives. Hence why truth is the best weapon. But that is in part because most conservatives and libertarians don’t know they’re lying – or justify it.

    Conservatism is a purely eugenic movement using a meritocratic hierarchy of self self-support (work), commons support (militia), family support, business support, region or corporation support (nobility), and political support (leadership). White privilege is a psychologism of white superiority. Multiculturalism is an attack on aristocratic civilization by those lacking merit. Left consensus is driven largely by fear of being left behind, and prohibiting alphas from getting ahead. Masculine aristocratic, feminine communist – there is no mystery to our intuitions: they are simply reproductive strategies.

    And so I see conservatives and alt righters as trying to get away with something by using ridicule of others and group bodning rather than advocating for separatism. In other words, I see the alt right as effeminate and infantile, rather than adult and serious. Serious people make serious arguments. A serious argument is one that is operationally possible.

    My ambition is to restore a constitution of natural law, to legislate truthfulness in the commons, and to devolve the government such that tribes of all sorts can produce commons in their individual interests. I believe this can only be accomplished – not because of the population’s unwillingess to adopt a different government – but because of the state and deep state, media, and academy that defends that deep state and totalitarian universalism.

    This will allow western civilization to continue and in no small part by separating natural aristocracy (conservatives) from the remaining peoples who cannot compete in a natural meritocratic aristocracy: bad people, bad families, bad businesses, bad government, and bad militia. But the price will be secession of territory – at least, until the leftist governments fail – which they all will, because they all must.

    What I see among the alt right, and libertarians is a bunch of childish LARPing, by using the internet as a massively multiplayer online game. I saw the alt-right go down in flames out of the same childish larping: the loneliness and desire for community by people who want keg parties and have no military or political objective, and no possible solution to offer the world. I play into the LARPing as a means of testing messages. In the full knowledge that the relationship between religion and the right is long time horizons (low time preference). And that such calculations have hereto for been matters of intuition not reason and calculation.

    But that is what my work provides: a language of the long term: capital, not experience. yet I am fully aware of the deep desire for intuitionism among the right and libertarians – the desire for infantile emotion instead of mature, rational and scientific incentives and actions.

    So how about we just state the truth. And make a revolution, instead of a fraternity. And leave the romantics out of the picture. And search for people who will conduct that revolution.

    And how about we use journalists’ attacks as means of staying on message: Separate or revolt and separate. It’s a simply choice. Monopoly is just conquest by left of right. And if it is conquest then the only answer is to fight.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-03 10:04:00 UTC

  • “Curt, I’m a bit surprised to see you answer that journalist the way you did. I

    —“Curt, I’m a bit surprised to see you answer that journalist the way you did. I would have expected you to be highly sparse with information, particularly pertaining to the purpose, economics, and success of the event. But what most surprised me is that you would post it on social media.”— A Friend This is a great conversation to have among libertarians and the right. It is a great illustration of the value of Propertarianism. And it is a great illustration of why the alt right and the right in general fail. You remember the Tiger woods debacle? What would have happened if he had said, “Yes, I’m tiger woods, I’m great a t what I do, I am an athlete, and I’m proud to be an athelte. Women like athletes. Women all but throw themselves at me. And I love them all, I want to be with them all, and I probably shouldn’t have gotten married because after all, this is who I am. I am an athlete and that is all.” And then made a series of television commercials showing him trying to play golf or whatever and being constantly distracted by attractive women. The strategy is this: take everything off the table by saying it yourself. A journalist, like a lawyer, prosecutor,or judge, is looking for information hiding, conspiracy, deception and fraud. They are not looking to understand. Their technique is to ask a lot of people similar questions, triangulate, and construct a narrative of immoral conspiracy. You cannot control a narrative. One crack and you’ve simply provided what the prosecutor seeks: incentives. The way you defeat opponents in life, commerce, media, and court, is (a) to have moral objectives and to state them, (b) to speak as much of the truth as you can manage. (c) to repeat your message over and over again. Well what is true? The event was a success. The people had fun. The panel was pleased with us. It advanced our strategic interests. It proved we can fill a room. It proved that Megan can run a conference if we want to scale. And it taught us about the costs and unpredictability of volunteers vs commercial interests, and paid speakers. I succeeded in getting the panel to answer the meaningful questions – although I couldn’t summarize it completely, and we needed a longer Q&A period. Eli learned that you need to prepare a presentation. Megan learned that a successful event is a non-event, and that you don’t need to run a show, just create an environment for conversation, bonding, and friendship development. I knew absolutely nothing about the venue, money, or anything else other than the few tidbits that Megan told me in the weeks before the event. Conservatives and libertarians are just as big a set of liars as progressives. Hence why truth is the best weapon. But that is in part because most conservatives and libertarians don’t know they’re lying – or justify it. Conservatism is a purely eugenic movement using a meritocratic hierarchy of self self-support (work), commons support (militia), family support, business support, region or corporation support (nobility), and political support (leadership). White privilege is a psychologism of white superiority. Multiculturalism is an attack on aristocratic civilization by those lacking merit. Left consensus is driven largely by fear of being left behind, and prohibiting alphas from getting ahead. Masculine aristocratic, feminine communist – there is no mystery to our intuitions: they are simply reproductive strategies. And so I see conservatives and alt righters as trying to get away with something by using ridicule of others and group bodning rather than advocating for separatism. In other words, I see the alt right as effeminate and infantile, rather than adult and serious. Serious people make serious arguments. A serious argument is one that is operationally possible. My ambition is to restore a constitution of natural law, to legislate truthfulness in the commons, and to devolve the government such that tribes of all sorts can produce commons in their individual interests. I believe this can only be accomplished – not because of the population’s unwillingess to adopt a different government – but because of the state and deep state, media, and academy that defends that deep state and totalitarian universalism. This will allow western civilization to continue and in no small part by separating natural aristocracy (conservatives) from the remaining peoples who cannot compete in a natural meritocratic aristocracy: bad people, bad families, bad businesses, bad government, and bad militia. But the price will be secession of territory – at least, until the leftist governments fail – which they all will, because they all must. What I see among the alt right, and libertarians is a bunch of childish LARPing, by using the internet as a massively multiplayer online game. I saw the alt-right go down in flames out of the same childish larping: the loneliness and desire for community by people who want keg parties and have no military or political objective, and no possible solution to offer the world. I play into the LARPing as a means of testing messages. In the full knowledge that the relationship between religion and the right is long time horizons (low time preference). And that such calculations have hereto for been matters of intuition not reason and calculation. But that is what my work provides: a language of the long term: capital, not experience. yet I am fully aware of the deep desire for intuitionism among the right and libertarians. So how about we just state the truth. And make a revolution, instead of a fraternity. And leave the romantics out of the picture. And search for people who will conduct that revolution. And how about we use journalist’s attacks as means of staying on message: Separate or revolt and separate. It’s a simply choice. Monopoly is just conquest by left of right. And if it is conquest then the only answer is to fight.
  • “Curt, I’m a bit surprised to see you answer that journalist the way you did. I

    —“Curt, I’m a bit surprised to see you answer that journalist the way you did. I would have expected you to be highly sparse with information, particularly pertaining to the purpose, economics, and success of the event. But what most surprised me is that you would post it on social media.”— A Friend

    This is a great conversation to have among libertarians and the right. It is a great illustration of the value of Propertarianism. And it is a great illustration of why the alt right and the right in general fail.

    You remember the Tiger woods debacle? What would have happened if he had said, “Yes, I’m tiger woods, I’m great a t what I do, I am an athlete, and I’m proud to be an athelte. Women like athletes. Women all but throw themselves at me. And I love them all, I want to be with them all, and I probably shouldn’t have gotten married because after all, this is who I am. I am an athlete and that is all.” And then made a series of television commercials showing him trying to play golf or whatever and being constantly distracted by attractive women. The strategy is this: take everything off the table by saying it yourself.

    A journalist, like a lawyer, prosecutor,or judge, is looking for information hiding, conspiracy, deception and fraud. They are not looking to understand. Their technique is to ask a lot of people similar questions, triangulate, and construct a narrative of immoral conspiracy. You cannot control a narrative. One crack and you’ve simply provided what the prosecutor seeks: incentives.

    The way you defeat opponents in life, commerce, media, and court, is (a) to have moral objectives and to state them, (b) to speak as much of the truth as you can manage. (c) to repeat your message over and over again.

    Well what is true? The event was a success. The people had fun. The panel was pleased with us. It advanced our strategic interests. It proved we can fill a room. It proved that Megan can run a conference if we want to scale. And it taught us about the costs and unpredictability of volunteers vs commercial interests, and paid speakers. I succeeded in getting the panel to answer the meaningful questions – although I couldn’t summarize it completely, and we needed a longer Q&A period. Eli learned that you need to prepare a presentation. Megan learned that a successful event is a non-event, and that you don’t need to run a show, just create an environment for conversation, bonding, and friendship development. I knew absolutely nothing about the venue, money, or anything else other than the few tidbits that Megan told me in the weeks before the event.

    Conservatives and libertarians are just as big a set of liars as progressives. Hence why truth is the best weapon. But that is in part because most conservatives and libertarians don’t know they’re lying – or justify it.

    Conservatism is a purely eugenic movement using a meritocratic hierarchy of self self-support (work), commons support (militia), family support, business support, region or corporation support (nobility), and political support (leadership). White privilege is a psychologism of white superiority. Multiculturalism is an attack on aristocratic civilization by those lacking merit. Left consensus is driven largely by fear of being left behind, and prohibiting alphas from getting ahead. Masculine aristocratic, feminine communist – there is no mystery to our intuitions: they are simply reproductive strategies.

    And so I see conservatives and alt righters as trying to get away with something by using ridicule of others and group bodning rather than advocating for separatism. In other words, I see the alt right as effeminate and infantile, rather than adult and serious. Serious people make serious arguments. A serious argument is one that is operationally possible.

    My ambition is to restore a constitution of natural law, to legislate truthfulness in the commons, and to devolve the government such that tribes of all sorts can produce commons in their individual interests. I believe this can only be accomplished – not because of the population’s unwillingess to adopt a different government – but because of the state and deep state, media, and academy that defends that deep state and totalitarian universalism.

    This will allow western civilization to continue and in no small part by separating natural aristocracy (conservatives) from the remaining peoples who cannot compete in a natural meritocratic aristocracy: bad people, bad families, bad businesses, bad government, and bad militia. But the price will be secession of territory – at least, until the leftist governments fail – which they all will, because they all must.

    What I see among the alt right, and libertarians is a bunch of childish LARPing, by using the internet as a massively multiplayer online game. I saw the alt-right go down in flames out of the same childish larping: the loneliness and desire for community by people who want keg parties and have no military or political objective, and no possible solution to offer the world. I play into the LARPing as a means of testing messages. In the full knowledge that the relationship between religion and the right is long time horizons (low time preference). And that such calculations have hereto for been matters of intuition not reason and calculation.

    But that is what my work provides: a language of the long term: capital, not experience. yet I am fully aware of the deep desire for intuitionism among the right and libertarians.

    So how about we just state the truth. And make a revolution, instead of a fraternity. And leave the romantics out of the picture. And search for people who will conduct that revolution.

    And how about we use journalist’s attacks as means of staying on message: Separate or revolt and separate. It’s a simply choice. Monopoly is just conquest by left of right. And if it is conquest then the only answer is to fight.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-03 09:57:00 UTC

  • “Curt, I’m a bit surprised to see you answer that journalist the way you did. I

    —“Curt, I’m a bit surprised to see you answer that journalist the way you did. I would have expected you to be highly sparse with information, particularly pertaining to the purpose, economics, and success of the event. But what most surprised me is that you would post it on social media.”— A Friend This is a great conversation to have among libertarians and the right. It is a great illustration of the value of Propertarianism. And it is a great illustration of why the alt right and the right in general fail. You remember the Tiger woods debacle? What would have happened if he had said, “Yes, I’m tiger woods, I’m great a t what I do, I am an athlete, and I’m proud to be an athelte. Women like athletes. Women all but throw themselves at me. And I love them all, I want to be with them all, and I probably shouldn’t have gotten married because after all, this is who I am. I am an athlete and that is all.” And then made a series of television commercials showing him trying to play golf or whatever and being constantly distracted by attractive women. The strategy is this: take everything off the table by saying it yourself. A journalist, like a lawyer, prosecutor,or judge, is looking for information hiding, conspiracy, deception and fraud. They are not looking to understand. Their technique is to ask a lot of people similar questions, triangulate, and construct a narrative of immoral conspiracy. You cannot control a narrative. One crack and you’ve simply provided what the prosecutor seeks: incentives. The way you defeat opponents in life, commerce, media, and court, is (a) to have moral objectives and to state them, (b) to speak as much of the truth as you can manage. (c) to repeat your message over and over again. Well what is true? The event was a success. The people had fun. The panel was pleased with us. It advanced our strategic interests. It proved we can fill a room. It proved that Megan can run a conference if we want to scale. And it taught us about the costs and unpredictability of volunteers vs commercial interests, and paid speakers. I succeeded in getting the panel to answer the meaningful questions – although I couldn’t summarize it completely, and we needed a longer Q&A period. Eli learned that you need to prepare a presentation. Megan learned that a successful event is a non-event, and that you don’t need to run a show, just create an environment for conversation, bonding, and friendship development. I knew absolutely nothing about the venue, money, or anything else other than the few tidbits that Megan told me in the weeks before the event. Conservatives and libertarians are just as big a set of liars as progressives. Hence why truth is the best weapon. But that is in part because most conservatives and libertarians don’t know they’re lying – or justify it. Conservatism is a purely eugenic movement using a meritocratic hierarchy of self self-support (work), commons support (militia), family support, business support, region or corporation support (nobility), and political support (leadership). White privilege is a psychologism of white superiority. Multiculturalism is an attack on aristocratic civilization by those lacking merit. Left consensus is driven largely by fear of being left behind, and prohibiting alphas from getting ahead. Masculine aristocratic, feminine communist – there is no mystery to our intuitions: they are simply reproductive strategies. And so I see conservatives and alt righters as trying to get away with something by using ridicule of others and group bodning rather than advocating for separatism. In other words, I see the alt right as effeminate and infantile, rather than adult and serious. Serious people make serious arguments. A serious argument is one that is operationally possible. My ambition is to restore a constitution of natural law, to legislate truthfulness in the commons, and to devolve the government such that tribes of all sorts can produce commons in their individual interests. I believe this can only be accomplished – not because of the population’s unwillingess to adopt a different government – but because of the state and deep state, media, and academy that defends that deep state and totalitarian universalism. This will allow western civilization to continue and in no small part by separating natural aristocracy (conservatives) from the remaining peoples who cannot compete in a natural meritocratic aristocracy: bad people, bad families, bad businesses, bad government, and bad militia. But the price will be secession of territory – at least, until the leftist governments fail – which they all will, because they all must. What I see among the alt right, and libertarians is a bunch of childish LARPing, by using the internet as a massively multiplayer online game. I saw the alt-right go down in flames out of the same childish larping: the loneliness and desire for community by people who want keg parties and have no military or political objective, and no possible solution to offer the world. I play into the LARPing as a means of testing messages. In the full knowledge that the relationship between religion and the right is long time horizons (low time preference). And that such calculations have hereto for been matters of intuition not reason and calculation. But that is what my work provides: a language of the long term: capital, not experience. yet I am fully aware of the deep desire for intuitionism among the right and libertarians. So how about we just state the truth. And make a revolution, instead of a fraternity. And leave the romantics out of the picture. And search for people who will conduct that revolution. And how about we use journalist’s attacks as means of staying on message: Separate or revolt and separate. It’s a simply choice. Monopoly is just conquest by left of right. And if it is conquest then the only answer is to fight.
  • Differences Between Human and Animal “Language”.

    —“What do believe is the qualitative difference between human and animal language?”—Bob Robertson As far as I know animals do not possess language, it only exists within humans. All other creatures merely manage to communicate. Charles Hockett (1967) introduced a generally accepted check list for language, a set of features that all human languages possess. His seven key properties are: 1 – productivity (the ability to create and understand new utterances): system which makes it possible to construct an unlimited number of sentences from a limited set of rules. 2 – arbitrariness (when signs/words do not resemble the things they represent), 3 – displacement (the ability to refer to the past and to things not present), and 4 – duality of pattern (the combination of a phonological system and a grammatical system), 5 – interchangeability (the ability to transmit and to receive messages by exchanging roles), 6 – specialization (when the only function of speech is communication and the speaker does not act out his message), 7 – cultural transmission (the ability to teach/learn from other individuals, e.g. by imitation). As far as I know the reason humans can speak is simply brain size and complexity (long chains). But I won’t go into all of it here. But the ability to imagine futures, imagine stories, ‘self-observe’ and describe those stories in a series of symbols, using a series of rules’ takes a great deal of processing power. While we can see elements of these patterns in parrots, corvids, dolphins, and the apes, we must teach them, and they say very simple things – because they only think very simple things. Assuming we selected and trained enough chimpanzees to use sign language to build a self sustaining community of them, and assuming we could leave them on an island for a few centuries, it’s possible that sign language would persist. I suspect the problem is that it’s hard to produce a community of chimps with the intelligence necessary for perpetuation.

  • Differences Between Human and Animal “Language”.

    —“What do believe is the qualitative difference between human and animal language?”—Bob Robertson As far as I know animals do not possess language, it only exists within humans. All other creatures merely manage to communicate. Charles Hockett (1967) introduced a generally accepted check list for language, a set of features that all human languages possess. His seven key properties are: 1 – productivity (the ability to create and understand new utterances): system which makes it possible to construct an unlimited number of sentences from a limited set of rules. 2 – arbitrariness (when signs/words do not resemble the things they represent), 3 – displacement (the ability to refer to the past and to things not present), and 4 – duality of pattern (the combination of a phonological system and a grammatical system), 5 – interchangeability (the ability to transmit and to receive messages by exchanging roles), 6 – specialization (when the only function of speech is communication and the speaker does not act out his message), 7 – cultural transmission (the ability to teach/learn from other individuals, e.g. by imitation). As far as I know the reason humans can speak is simply brain size and complexity (long chains). But I won’t go into all of it here. But the ability to imagine futures, imagine stories, ‘self-observe’ and describe those stories in a series of symbols, using a series of rules’ takes a great deal of processing power. While we can see elements of these patterns in parrots, corvids, dolphins, and the apes, we must teach them, and they say very simple things – because they only think very simple things. Assuming we selected and trained enough chimpanzees to use sign language to build a self sustaining community of them, and assuming we could leave them on an island for a few centuries, it’s possible that sign language would persist. I suspect the problem is that it’s hard to produce a community of chimps with the intelligence necessary for perpetuation.