Source: Facebook

  • REGULATION CORRESPONDS TO ALL OTHER REGULATION: FEAR OF CORRUPTION AND FRAUD DRI

    https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=675084119021000008105023125118069122024006056079005030120082087022112105009097072123124060121106033007109026005122102031064113107006090023002100029123106099097011040043080069105097094023119094121092126007117028010000096013066030095076126076013106021&EXT=pdfLANGUAGE REGULATION CORRESPONDS TO ALL OTHER REGULATION: FEAR OF CORRUPTION AND FRAUD DRIVES REGULATION.

    @[525087895:2048:James Santagata] just shared an excellent paper, which illustrates the relationship between common law and continental law, language regulation, and economic regulation.

    Well, the conclusions should be pretty obvious (prior restraint vs post resolution) and that all countries pay a trade off between the utility of some regulation to prevent frauds of all sorts, lots of regulation to prevent malinvestment or tax evasion, and post-hoc litigation to encourage experimentation.

    https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=675084119021000008105023125118069122024006056079005030120082087022112105009097072123124060121106033007109026005122102031064113107006090023002100029123106099097011040043080069105097094023119094121092126007117028010000096013066030095076126076013106021&EXT=pdf


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 09:09:00 UTC

  • REGULATION CORRESPONDS TO ALL OTHER REGULATION: FEAR OF CORRUPTION AND FRAUD DRI

    https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=675084119021000008105023125118069122024006056079005030120082087022112105009097072123124060121106033007109026005122102031064113107006090023002100029123106099097011040043080069105097094023119094121092126007117028010000096013066030095076126076013106021&EXT=pdfLANGUAGE REGULATION CORRESPONDS TO ALL OTHER REGULATION: FEAR OF CORRUPTION AND FRAUD DRIVES REGULATION.

    James Santagata just shared an excellent paper, which illustrates the relationship between common law and continental law, language regulation, and economic regulation.

    Well, the conclusions should be pretty obvious (prior restraint vs post resolution) and that all countries pay a trade off between the utility of some regulation to prevent frauds of all sorts, lots of regulation to prevent malinvestment or tax evasion, and post-hoc litigation to encourage experimentation.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 09:09:00 UTC

  • GOD EMPEROR TRUMP COMMENT OF THE DAY “……and then he was late for Trudeau’s f

    GOD EMPEROR TRUMP COMMENT OF THE DAY

    “……and then he was late for Trudeau’s feminist breakfast, and missed their climate change meeting to denuclearize NK, and punked them on Twitter while he was on the plane. He’s got them by nuts.”—- Jim Leis

    If Posturing and signaling is part of your game, Trump will own you. He does it all the time…. Why? “Make a fair deal.”


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 08:45:00 UTC

  • “THE GRID” axiomatic,….theoretic,………….and analogistic. deductive, …i

    “THE GRID”

    axiomatic,….theoretic,………….and analogistic.

    deductive, …inductive, ………..and abductive.

    proof, ……….truth, ………………and meaningful.

    ideal,…………real,………………..and imaginary.

    consistent….correspondent,…and coherent


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 05:38:00 UTC

  • By Bill Joslin Truth is an adjective not a noun. The subtle difference between t

    By Bill Joslin

    Truth is an adjective not a noun.

    The subtle difference between truth as semantic axioms and truth as an asymptotic correspondence resolves the above.

    The ability to test a statement against a criteria (correspondence, coherence , utility, meaning or any combination thereof) makes “true” possible (the only time “true” us relevant) – thus “true” exists as a property of speech and thought (not a prooerty of the world or reality).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-09 21:32:00 UTC

  • “The Clinton Foundation isn’t a charity, it’s a scam.”—Drew Baye That’s my per

    —“The Clinton Foundation isn’t a charity, it’s a scam.”—Drew Baye

    That’s my personal experience with them… crooks.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-09 20:33:00 UTC

  • “Curt do you believe in the notion of a universally verifiable truth?”—Mark Jo

    —“Curt do you believe in the notion of a universally verifiable truth?”—Mark Joyner

    (FWIW apparently this post was interpreted by mark as offensive. I didn’t mean it to be.)

    Um. You probably can’t comprehend how …. sophomoric that question is, because it’s so common a sophomoric question that like belief in flying donkeys it’s a given.

    1) A person may speak truthfully… if you know what that means:

    For every phenomenon there exists a most parsimonious description possible in a language that can be uttered by man.

    To state the most parsimonious description of possible one needs perfect knowledge.

    We are rarely if ever possessed of perfect knowledge. When we are, it is all but certain we speak of a tautology or a triviality (reductio) – and meaningless.

    So even if we speak the most parsimonious description possible we may not know we do, and as such must assume our description is forever contingent.

    Ergo all *testimony* (truth claim) of any substance is forever contingent.

    2) We can speak in at least three categories: axiomatic, theoretic, and fictional(analogistic).

    We can verify the internal consistency of an axiomatic statement, and we can attempt to construct of proof of such an axiomatic statement – assuming that the axioms themselves are internally consistent. We can declare axioms. We call internally consistent tests ‘true’ but they are merely proofs, not truths. Mathematics is axiomatic. They are only contingent upon the declared axioms.

    We can only try to falsify the theoretical, and see if it survives falsification. We cannot declare laws, only discover them. We call theories (descriptions) true if they are consistent, correspondent, possible, complete, and coherent. This is a far higher standard that the must ‘simpler’ axiomatic. Real world phenomenon are theoretic.

    We do not recognize the need to test the internal consistency or external correspondence (operational possibility) or coherence of fictions (analogies). Imaginary phenomenon only need be meaningful, nothing else.

    One can verify the existence of evidence. But this tells us only that the evidence exists and therefore claims are not false. It does not tell us that the theory is true.

    So, one does not ‘verify’ a truth proposition, only a test of internal consistency of axioms. One tests the survivability of a theory. Because it is forever contingent.

    Hence why we have juries.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-09 20:28:00 UTC

  • DUGIN’S BOOK SAYS: The book declares that “the battle for the world rule of [eth

    DUGIN’S BOOK SAYS:

    The book declares that “the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians” has not ended and Russia remains “the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution”. The Eurasian Empire will be constructed “on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us.”[9]

    Military operations play relatively little role. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia’s gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.[9]

    The book states that “the maximum task [of the future] is the ‘Finlandization’ of all of Europe”.[9]

    In Europe:

    Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term “Moscow–Berlin axis”.[9]

    France should be encouraged to form a “Franco–German bloc” with Germany. Both countries have a “firm anti-Atlanticist tradition”.[9]

    The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.[9]

    Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be “donated to Murmansk Oblast”.[9]

    Estonia should be given to Germany’s sphere of influence.[9]

    Latvia and Lithuania should be given a “special status” in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.[9]

    Poland should be granted a “special status” in the Eurasian sphere.[9]

    Romania, Macedonia, “Serbian Bosnia” and Greece – “Orthodox collectivist East” – will unite with “Moscow the Third Rome” and reject the “rational-individualistic West”.[9]

    Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because “Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics”. Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[9]

    In the Middle East and Central Asia:

    The book stresses the “continental Russian–Islamic alliance” which lies “at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy”. The alliance is based on the “traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization”.

    Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term “Moscow–Tehran axis”.[9]

    Armenia has a special role: It will serve as a “strategic base,” and it is necessary to create “the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Erevan-Teheran”. Armenians “are an Aryan people … [like] the Iranians and the Kurds”.[9]

    Azerbaijan could be “split up” or given to Iran.[9]

    Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and “United Ossetia” (which includes Georgia’s South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia’s independent policies are unacceptable.[9]

    Russia needs to create “geopolitical shocks” within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[9]

    The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including “the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)” and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan).[9]

    In Asia:

    China, which represents a danger to Russia, “must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled”. Dugin suggests that Russia start by taking Tibet–Xinjiang–Mongolia–Manchuria as a security belt.[1] Russia should offer China help “in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia” as geopolitical compensation.[9]

    Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[9]

    Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.[9]

    The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: “the main ‘scapegoat’ will be precisely the U.S.”

    In the United States:

    Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke “Afro-American racists”. Russia should “introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics”.[9]

    The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America.[9]


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-09 20:02:00 UTC

  • THE NEEDS OF THE WEAK, THE WILL OF THE STRONG Moritz brings up yet again that ma

    THE NEEDS OF THE WEAK, THE WILL OF THE STRONG

    Moritz brings up yet again that many young men want a new religion. And their criteria for a philosophy, is simply an inspirational theology. And I’m fully aware of this criticism. Propertarianism is structured as a philosophy out of utility – the utility of falsifying rationalist philosophy. But what I’m writing is LAW. Uniting science (physics, economics, sociology, psychology, metaphysics), and law into a single commensurable language across all disciplines providing a means by which we can suppress falsehoods, and particularly the abrahamic falsehoods (pilpul/critique) and the modern versions of them (postmodernism/marxism).

    And with that law providing a constitution that makes it possible to restore the specific uniqueness of the west, and our ability to drag ourselves, and humanity, kicking and screaming into transcendence: evolutionary progress.

    There is no reason for you to like the law. On the explanatory power and commensurability and decidability it provides.

    It slaughters all your sacred cows.

    But then again, why do you need falsehoods?

    My position is that the weak of body, spirit, and mind, need them and the strong of body, spirit, and mind do not.

    Those who are weak will never judge, never govern, never rule. They are only important in that they will fight for the material incentives provided by defeat of the parasites and the rescue of our civilization – or not.

    Very few of us our needed.

    The weak can stay home.

    Meaning – if you need a cult, you and your genes are a part of the problem, and of no value to the solution.

    The meek won’t inherit the earth. They will only live with the permissions give to them by those that do.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-09 19:22:00 UTC

  • I would prefer outlawing all charities that did not convey 100% of donations to

    I would prefer outlawing all charities that did not convey 100% of donations to the target. and I would demand warranty of that fact. This forces volunteers to produce goods through direct action and eliminates the profit incentive for virtue signaling.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-09 17:51:00 UTC