COLONIZATION WAS AN ALTERNATIVE TO BEING CONQUERED BY ISLAM
by Scott De Warren
Actually, exploration & colonisation was our best alternative to conquest and enslavement by the Ottoman Empire.
Development of the New World was, in part, a fallback plan in case Europe fell to Islam (I know the Hapsburgs thought of it in those terms).
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 11:38:00 UTC
COLONIZATION WAS A STRATEGY TO ESCAPE ISLAM
by Scott De Warren
Actually, exploration & colonisation was our best alternative to conquest and enslavement by the Ottoman Empire.
Development of the New World was, in part, a fallback plan in case Europe fell to Islam (I know the Hapsburgs thought of it in those terms).
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 11:38:00 UTC
MONOGAMY AS COMPETITIVE NORMATIVE COMMONS
by Alain Dwight
Sex transactions outside of monogamous, familial structures can constitute a damage against monogamy, stable families, and investment in children as social norms, which is the optimum strategy for some groups.
Arguably, it’s the best overall strategy since the groups who have done this, have become the dominant force on the planet – and to the degree that status is challenged, we are slipping into a dark age.
It’s still possible other strategies could work. In any case, imposing a cost on normative commons will be met with retaliation, our choice is if that retaliation is at a disorganized street level or in an organized institutional level. I suggest both, as I prefer to have people bear their own costs as opposed to free riding on commons that they choose to undermine.
These normative commons provide such a competitive advantage that it’s questionable if any groups that fail to offer sufficient defense/retaliation will even continue to exist or forward any of their values they claim to champion.
It might be worth it to allow some elite members to operate outside monogamy but without maintaining monogamy as a norm, competitive advantage is often or always compromised.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 11:35:00 UTC
—“Operational logic requires demonstrated knowledge and everyone relies on their own available vocabulary. Which reveals something about the speaker, but is why it’s so hard for people without a whole lot of REAL knowledge or the precise means measurements to use (their vocabulary). But once it clicks…you can do it. Just a matter of differing speeds of success. It’s really hard for me. Takes me a while to produce.”— Adam
It’s hard for everyone. But that’s why it’s such a good test.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 11:17:00 UTC
—“P’s Operationalism is a lot harder than math. Math is so clear because it’s trivial. P requires much more.”— Adam
Well you’re the first person to fully understand that. This is why I’m getting sort of awed lately – something is happening because people are progressive much faster now.
Well as for your observation, math can construct a degree of precision outside of human scales of perception at the very large and very small. But as we have seen in testimony, law, and economics, in human action, the operations available and the grammar to create fully formed, grammatically complete, fully disambiguated statements in P is a lot harder than it is in math.
So I see: first-order-logic (categorical logic) > math( positional logic)) > computable logic (programming) > operational logic( p-testimony), as the hierarchy of logics today. And in retrospect all the logics make so much more sense now.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 11:14:00 UTC
CIVILIZATIONS
it’s not really logical to criticize people who have yet had the opportunity to choose, than it is to criticize people who had the opportunity to choose and chose badly. the bad choices were abrahamism, with each iteration getting worse, with the final iteration of islam just tipping over the threshold.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 11:07:00 UTC
AWESOME P-HUMOR 😉
by Stephen Wells
To be or not to be.
That is the question.
Whether tis nobler in the mind
to suffer the slings and arrows of Leftist false grammar
or take arms against a sea of operational struggles
and by opposing, end them?
Actor: Lawrence Olivier, Object grammar of P in Hamlet setting Subject: nerdy levity
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 11:03:00 UTC
I think I need to start a separate closed P-group for african and african american Propertarians and Libertarians so I can work on their confidence with them without white counter-signaling. I had a very interesting chat with an amazing young woman over the past two days, and she clearly has leadership talent. They just don’t have the framework for understanding ‘there is nothing wrong with us’. And when I explain the trade offs in neoteny between africans and whites it gives them context. I know some of my friends don’t participate here because even when they agree they get counter-signaled for no apparent reason.
I probably should do the same for my arabic speaking friends too. It’s fine if we all cross over to the main feed, but there are discussions that have to be held in each cultural (and genetic) context that are too challenging when emotions and frustrations have to be moderated. I need those emotions and frustrations to comprehend and then frame their ideas, then reframe them in propertarian value neutral language.
I have pretty much gotten to where I know what to do with Christianity over the next five years or so. Although it’s definitely the hardest problem.
I wish I didn’t have the time pressure from the demographic collapse and civil war, and could simply work our people through this. But the only way to do that is to exit enough people from the voting pool and shut down immigration and force assimilation so that we all as a people have time to work on our next thousand years.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 10:58:00 UTC
Really smart stuff coming out of propertarians at all levels lately. I have no idea what’s going on but it’s freaking inspiring as hell. Four different people contributing four improvements in explanation in the past two days. Brandon and I are going to have trouble keeping up soon.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 10:49:00 UTC
IN OPERATIONAL GRAMMAR, SUBJECT = SUBJECT OF TESTIMONY
—“I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors.”— Adam Jacob Robert Walker
Well done!!!!!
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 10:43:00 UTC