Source: Facebook

  • THE RESTORATION OF THE DUEL: MORE HONEST AND POLITE SOCIETY I have lived in Ukra

    THE RESTORATION OF THE DUEL: MORE HONEST AND POLITE SOCIETY

    I have lived in Ukraine and spent time in russia, where a punch in the face is quick, expected, not uncommon, respected, and use of it keeps men fit. And it is a much more civil society. It is one of the principle reasons I prefer their society. For all our rule of law, without punching in the face, it is just a license for degeneracy.

    I remember when we still had a lot of punching in the face. I did quite a bit of it and received quite a bit of it. Because it was part of becoming a man: be careful with your word and deed because other men will not tolerate you. And I was small. So I get good at the ground game.

    Lessons of history are this:

    – An armed society is a safe society.

    – A punch-in-the-face society is a polite society.

    – A dueling society is an honest society.

    The duel works well because it (a) imposes constant caution in one’s words, allows for (b) immediate fights (rapid suppression), (c) immediate apologies (rapid de-escalation), (d) immediate silence, but demand for court trial instead. (e) satisfaction in a court trial. (f) far lower cost of settlement of differences and less malincentive to try to get away with impolite or dishonest words and deeds simply because the opposing party can’t resist you.

    The failure to innovate with ‘judicial dueling’ was that (a) pistols equalized the difference between swordsman or size (good), (b) but they were more deadly, where in swordfighting or knife-fighting, ‘one could collect an honorable scar’, and then surrender and apologize. (c) the combination of practice of substitutes, and the increase in size of the middle class with less ‘cultured’ (intelligent) histories and access to better weapons, was what ended it, not the practice of duelling itself. Everyone had always criticized it. But for sovereign men there is no substitute.

    This is particularly useful if not necessary for controlling the gossip, ridicule, shaming, and rallying by betas and women. Since women have no possible chance unless very highly trained, men must warranty them, and therefore take responsibility for teaching them discipline.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 09:16:00 UTC

  • (Remembering in the very early 90’s, a big pitch at Microsoft, and Len Pacheco p

    (Remembering in the very early 90’s, a big pitch at Microsoft, and Len Pacheco pushing me into (a) an 8:00am pitch – a bad idea, and (b) a project I thought we would fail at delivering, (c) a project – as was common – Microsoft wanted to pursue, but In my opinion was not in the company’s interest. And I am not and never have been enough of a whore to take money from a customer, and work long hours, for the sake of making money alone. So I was honest during the pitch, and not happy about being there, and clear about it, and we lost the sale, and the project was killed. And the rest of the management team was furious with me. And I simply didn’t care. It’s not like we were in ‘eating bugs’ mode. And why lose a 50M client, or even take the risk of it, and burn our staff, when it’s not in the customer’s interest? Hell, I told MSFT people that ideas were bad on a regular fucking basis. They don’t like it at the time. But you know. The ones who do like it eventually are the only customers you want to have. And they are the people whose careers you can advance. I realize there are bug eaters out there. But I want to always be the guy with the highest prices and the best reputation for success. And I am not sure I care whether people like me or not. I’m simply not that likable. My job is and always has been, to be right. Being likable is a commodity. Being right is a scarcity. You can charge for both, but you will end up being likable and cheap and right and expensive, and I would rather be expensive. High investment in customers. High investment in spouses. High investment in children. High investment in yourself. )


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 08:54:00 UTC

  • WORLD HISTORY: THE UNDERCLASS SUPERSTITIOUS SOUTH AGAINST THE UPPER CLASS SCIENT

    WORLD HISTORY: THE UNDERCLASS SUPERSTITIOUS SOUTH AGAINST THE UPPER CLASS SCIENTIFIC NORTH

    While I realize less developed cultures and states (those with less influence of commerce and law and greater influence norm and religion) cannot imagine that it is possible to create a high-roman or high-anglo-saxon order in the absence of falsehood the fact of the matter is that the only controlling factors are (a) demographic: elimination of the underclass, and (b) the scope of suppression of falsehood under the law. All else follows.

    If you have a judiciary that is incentivized to practice the Natural Law of Reciprocity and a military (police/sheriff/militia) that will do as it is commanded by the judiciary then the judiciary in fact serves as a cult of truth and the various religions serve as cults of lies. It is this competition between meritocratic and hierarchical law and non-meritocratic equalitarian deception (religion) that describes the past 2500 years or more.

    Abrahamism was invented to resist the aristocracy (judaism), to undermine the aristocracy (christianity), and to attack the aristocracy (islam). It is the weaponization of lying by the underclasses using Falsehood, Fiction, and Command, against the Aristocracy’s invention of Truth, Science, and Law.

    It is just the northern more domesticated upper classes against the southern less domesticated underclasses. Nothing more.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 08:35:00 UTC

  • NO, DECEPTION ISN’T NECESSARY @ Mea Culba I do make sense of what you are trying

    NO, DECEPTION ISN’T NECESSARY

    @ Mea Culba

    I do make sense of what you are trying to say, but all I see is that you defend a prior intuition that you understand not that you describe a good or a necessity, and it is not clear at all you can make a rational choice without choosing between the alternatives.

    A man does not study comparative theology, philosophy or literature without studying that which conflicts with it. I have taken it upon myself to eradicate all falsehood no matter how comforting and to question whether all goods can be produced without falsehood. And since they can, there is no need for falsehood.

    And while I realize less developed cultures and states (those with less influence of commerce and law and greater influence norm and religion) cannot imagine that it is possible to create a high-roman or high-anglo-saxon order in the absence of falsehood the fact of the matter is that the only controlling factors are (a) demographic: elimination of the underclass, and (b) the scope of suppression of falsehood under the law. All else follows.

    If you have a judiciary and a military (police/sheriff/militia) that will do as it is commanded by the judiciary then the judiciary in fact serves as a cult of truth and the various religions serve as cults of lies. It is this competition between meritocratic and hierarchical law and non-meritocratic equalitarian deception (religion) that describes the past 2500 years or more.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 08:27:00 UTC

  • AN EXPLANATION OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE 20th CENTURY (we are all scientists now)

    AN EXPLANATION OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE 20th CENTURY

    (we are all scientists now)

    In retrospect, the first wave of the enlightenment failed by not articulating transcendence but merely ‘good’. Darwin, Spencer and Nietzsche provided existential transcendence: evolution. Maxwell and Poincare (and later Einstein) provided evidence of our possibility of physical transcendence. The social scientists (Menger, Weber, Pareto, Durkheim) and the legalists (Jefferson, Hayek) came very close to providing the rule of ethical, social and political transcendence: Reciprocity. And despite Popper’s stumbling upon falsification and Mises’, Brouwer/Poincare/Hilbert, Bridgman, and Turing stumbling upon Operationalism in all its forms, in all their fields, I think it was the failed pursuit of logic as a science in its own as a defense of philosophy against science that begins with Wittgenstein, Russell, and Whitehead that opened the door for the attack on western civilization through the masses, using Abrahamism (deception using suggestion through narrative conflation and overloading), just as Abrahamic Marxism had been used immediately prior, and just as Abrahamic religion had been used as a means of uniting the dysgenic underclasses through deception against the eugenic aristocracy and their use of Deflationary Truth in the ancient world.

    Their (typical) victorian vanity, as if philosophy was not the pursuit of law but a puzzle from a detective novel with which one could display one’s wit, produced a catastrophic failure for our civilization. Linguistic philosophy was a failed program largely because there is nothing in it that cannot be produced in mathematics alone. Mathematics, even if practiced deductively, is always reducible to operations, with the single exception of the law of the excluded middle – an exception which is only necessary for scale independence. And for language to function meaningfully requires action, sequence, and time – leaving linguistic philosophy the only non-operational and therefore ideal (if not magical) discipline.

    So the operational revolution that was needed in both linguistic philosophy, law, and economics, was produced in computer science under Turing. Unfortunately, this failure of the philosophers not only made room for, but assisted in the replacement of Marxist pseudoscience with Postmodern pseudo-rationalism in the 60’s – itself the most novel innovation in the art of lying since the invention of Abrahamism.

    So, my generation, raised with computer science, computability, algorithmic operations, object oriented analysis, the representation of existential reality using relational database design (vs set ideal set theory of language as a false bridge between mathematics and algorithms), has developed an intuitive antagonistic reaction to both linguistic idealism, postmodern pseudo-rationalism, marxist (boazian, freudian, cantorian) pseudoscience. Hence the libertarianism of the technology sector – at least until recent massive asian immigration.

    So for this reason, philosophy is being reformed by people like myself, who have been raised in the discipline of computability and algorithms, well outside of philosophy departments, and who solved the problem that 20th century philosophy failed to: the deflation of the logic of language into only mathematics (sets), and only algorithms(language). And by doing so, all the disciplines: the logic of identity, the logic of mathematics, the logic of sets, the logic of operations, the logic of rational choice, and the logic of reciprocity, each correspond to a single dimension of existential and actionable reality. Thereby removing all mystery behind the logics.

    Next, by overthrowing the ancient conflation of moral and legal justification, including Kant’s apriorism (all via-positiva), and replacing it with science’s criticism (all via-negativa), we are able to unite law, morality, philosophy, and science into a single discipline: the discipline of providing warranty of due diligence by tests of consistency in each dimension of actionable reality applicable to the testimony (speech) we publish (speak in the commons).

    Everyone is a scientist now. Or else he is a mystic. The middle ground – the ideal – is gone. Plato is dead. Abraham is dead. Buddha limps along. Confucius survives. And Aristotle thrives.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 08:09:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN REVOLUTION IS AS HUMILIATING AS THE DARWINIAN When the general phil

    PROPERTARIAN REVOLUTION IS AS HUMILIATING AS THE DARWINIAN

    When the general philosophical, social scientific, and legal communities figure out that I’ve ended the debate on the ‘nature’ of man. That our nature is entirely acquisitive, and tediously mechanical. And that consciousness is not required at all for that acquisition. And the degree to which our conscious minds exist is almost entirely for the purpose of negotiation with other humans. And that all our storytelling is for the purpose of negotiation. And that all communication produces just another competitive market. And that through this market we collectively ‘calculate’ our evolutionary path without ‘consciousness’. And that because we are capable of deceit, and deceit is a discount, then this market contains true and eugenic as well as false and dysgenic marketing and advertising information. And that all our subsequent markets for association, reproduction, production, and polities are but an extension of this single system of negotiation between genders and ages and abilities – in that order. And that we can quite easily reduce our speech to description and truth, or promotion and suggestion, or advocacy and deceit. And moreover that by use of ordinary law we can limit all political speech in the market for commons and polities, just as we limit all commercial speech in the market for reproduction and production. And that we can do so relatively easily. Then it will make the humility of the Copernican, Darwinian, and Einsteinian revolutions pale by comparison. But thankfully, it will have as great an effect on increasing the velocity of our cooperation by the reduction of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit as did the development of empiricism. Because as humiliating as it is to realize our consciousness – which we experience as a conflation of sensations, memories, and emotions – is entirely unnecessary. It’s largely a cost we bear in order to create and identify pretenses and falsehoods as a means of cheating our way up the evolutionary ladder.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 07:13:00 UTC

  • ( Looks like McCain’s impediment is going to come to an end. )

    ( Looks like McCain’s impediment is going to come to an end. )


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 20:20:00 UTC

  • The only Sovereign’s answer to ridicule, shaming, rallying, gossiping, fictional

    The only Sovereign’s answer to ridicule, shaming, rallying, gossiping, fictionalism and deceit, is violence: the duel.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 20:17:00 UTC

  • OK ‘means’ adequate, sufficient, good enough, good, that will work, done, stop,

    OK ‘means’ adequate, sufficient, good enough, good, that will work, done, stop, next, I am ready, I am fine, I agree. or more directly ‘current context or task is complete, move on to the next’


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 18:54:00 UTC

  • “Activism is a euphemism for nagging.” — Megan K. Usui

    “Activism is a euphemism

    for nagging.”

    — Megan K. Usui


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 18:46:00 UTC