THE SIMPLE ANSWER:
Religion: what we can get away with? (mysticism),
Philosophy: what I can get away with? (sophism),
-vs-
Science: What we can’t get away with (warranty).
Law: What you can’t get away with (liability).
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 12:10:00 UTC
—“People cherry-pick data according to the narrative their instinct causes them to embrace.) It just so happens that the right-wing instinct builds civilization and the left instinct destroys it.”— John Mark
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 12:07:00 UTC
—“Invention of mass media led to explosion of sophism. Add in social media so you can see what everybody is thinking, and it becomes clear – most people are just operating on instinct. Even most right-wingers. (What Haidt points out is readily observable. People cherry-pick data according to the narrative their instinct causes them to embrace.) It just so happens that the right-wing instinct builds civilization and the left instinct destroys it. Point is, this modern explosion of sophism (leftists overloading the discourse via mass media) hasn’t actually changed the underlying dynamic, which is the same as in the previous battles between the two instincts.”— —John Mark
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 12:06:00 UTC
—“Our task is to do what no one on “our side” has yet done in history: build a system that produces and manages prosperity without allowing these bubbles to build.”–John Mark
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 12:03:00 UTC
NO. ROME HAD NO ‘PRIESTS’ AS WE UNDERSTAND IT
1) “Priests” had no doctrine only obligatory rituals (the japanese ritual model). The monarchy originally performed the rituals, then appointed patricians, but the duty was separated under the republic because of scale. All that I know of were a variation on sacrifice (contract).
2) To equate “the performance of ritual”, when it was not required they even understand the words they spoke, only that they performed the ritual precisely, with ‘priesthood’ as ‘a competitor to the state’ or means of state sponsored deception, is more than a mischaracterization.
3) A professional priesthood in the sense I use it (education in doctrine under pretense of divine authority) as a competitor to the state (see Huntington’s history mesopotamia) rather than archetypes and anthropomorphic instantiations of nature, was an import.
4) Alexander should be heralded for his techniques and cursed for his introduction of semitism and supernaturalism to old europe. Thankfully the romans were as skeptical of those religions as they were of greek sophisms.
5) once you start looking at history as the battle between western truth and law for aristocracy and it’s domestication of animal man, and semitic occultism and sophism for the expansion of production by the underclasses, the cycles of history are much more obvious.
6) Masculine western truth, duty, reciprocity, and empirical law, eastern masculine hierarchical and empirical bureaucracy, and semitic feminine fictional rule of flood river production. Everything comes back to geography, climate, means of production, and degree of neoteny.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 12:00:00 UTC
Whites CAN create commons so they prefer to create commons and live off them. Commons are difficult to produce but they are cheap given the returns. Producing a high trust civic polity does not require high income. it just requires truth, duty, trust, and reciprocity.
Quality of life is not expensive. It just requires choice of commons rather than choice of material consumption.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 11:13:00 UTC
CAPITALIST POLICE?
—“If police investigations were run by capitalist philosophy, would the poor get adequate justice?”—
THE CORRECT ANSWER
Police investigations already are capitalistic. They balance the market for tolerance with crime rates with the market for taxes to pay for the suppression, prosecution, and punishment of crimes. The cost of the externalities of physical crimes are far smaller than the cost of the externalities of clerical and informational crime. The distrust produced by physical crime is greater than the distrust created by clerical and informational crime.
The problem for the poor is that they have worse ABILITIES and worse PERSONALITIES, and even worse HABITS than their working, middle, and upper class peers, and therefore low sexual, social, economic, and political value to other people. Hence, they are poor. They have nothing to trade. And worse, even interacting with them forces others to bear the cost of doing so.
We ended the period of stagnant human capital by the middle of the last century. That is why IQ’s are declining. We are now reversing gains of modernity by increasing the rates of reproduction of the underclasses by suppressing the rates of reproduction of the middle classes through tax extraction.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 11:05:00 UTC
BRITISH VS AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEMS
I think the open question is between the british model of professional litigators of the court, and professional advocates for the individual, and the american model without the intermediary position.
It is much harder to ‘pull bullshit’ in court in the british model. It is much easier to ‘pull bullshit’ in legislation in the british model. I am not yet sure if the house of lords is superior to the supreme court or not, but there is good reason to think it might be. Or, that the lords AND a supreme court would be superior to either condition.
American constitution is better given the fact that our founding documents (declaration, constitution, bill of rights) are written, and consistent, if not as consistent as we could make them today – and aside from the fact that one requires all three documents to make sense of the constitution or the bill of rights becuase the natural law of reciprocity is not stated, and instead states men are equal rather than must be equal for the law of reciprocity (natural law) to fulfill it’s purpose of harmony.
Conversely, the american model is far more common law (meaning permissive – less regulation) than the british model (meaning impermissive – more regulation).
So this means that while americans have a superior juridical presumption (optimistic leading to more innovation, but more court disputes to resolve) while the british have less litigation to resolve because of higher regulation. I think the impact on the cultures is vast and the regulation culture in the uk has led to the feminization of the british male in less than eighty years.
The optimum is probably the mixture of the two systems, with near zero regulation in america, and adding the intermediary between the lawyer and the court so that less nonsense occurs in court.
It can be embarrasing to listen to young lawyers speak for their clients in court, rather than tell them “there is no fking way this is goonna fly so I won’t take your money”.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 10:51:00 UTC
—“Incentive matters, and so does signalling.”—
by William L. Benge
Pompei fled to regroup, and to afterward take over by conquest the empire we know as Rome. When the internal war was settled, those hardened on Pompei’s side were made examples of… it was a first when the decision on the field was to raise them on pikes all along the route back to Rome. This became an adopted standard for execution.
Any action beyond permissive by an authority is deemed harsh by a criminal.
Crime requires disincentives be in place. Incentive matters, and so does signalling.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 10:41:00 UTC
COLLAPSE: A SYNCHRONICITY OF ACCUMULATED BUBBLES
by Martin Štěpán
I understand the cycle of civilizations is that the decadence/decline phase is characterized by inflating various bubbles such as misandry bubble (feminism), underclass bubble (subsidy of the reproduction of the unemployed), immigration bubble and so on and due to their interconnectedness, they all pop at the same time which is when civilization ends.
This could be avoided if we manage to pay the costs upfront (such as letting the unemployed die out and giving up potential economic benefits of immigration).
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 10:03:00 UTC