Source: Facebook

  • 12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are n

    12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect”

    terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant,

    abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of

    whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from

    privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold

    among university professors, who have secure employment with

    comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white

    males from middle-class families.

    13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of

    groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American

    Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists

    themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit

    it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely

    because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with

    their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE

    inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).

    14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as

    strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women

    may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

    15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong,

    good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western

    civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The

    reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not

    correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West

    because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so

    forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in

    primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he

    GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points

    out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in

    Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the

    leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates

    America and the West because they are strong and successful.

    16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative”,

    “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc. play little role in the liberal and

    leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic,

    pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s needs for them,

    take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense

    of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy

    his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of

    competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

    17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to

    focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an

    orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope

    of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that

    was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

    18. Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science,

    objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally

    relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the

    foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the

    concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that

    modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians

    systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply

    involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack

    these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one

    thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent

    that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More

    importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they

    classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and

    other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings

    of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification

    of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or

    inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the

    concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are

    antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior

    because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or

    inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or

    blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is

    “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been

    brought up properly.

    19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of

    inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter,

    a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith

    in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but

    he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong,

    and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant

    behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings

    of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as

    individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the

    leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization

    or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

    20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists

    protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke

    police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be

    effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but

    because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist

    trait.

    21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion

    or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the

    leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle

    cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too

    prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.

    Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of

    benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help.

    For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black

    people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or

    dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a

    diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal

    and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative

    action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take

    such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.

    Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems

    serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and

    frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black

    people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white

    majority tends to intensify race hatred.

    22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would

    have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse

    for making a fuss.

    23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate

    description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only

    a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 13:42:00 UTC

  • (Yes, as you’ve noticed I’m going to take on the counter-signaling free riders t

    (Yes, as you’ve noticed I’m going to take on the counter-signaling free riders that won’t fight a revolution so that they have no virtue signals to hide behind. A civilization is owned by those who fight for it. Those who can defend a thing, own a thing. Period.)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 13:06:00 UTC

  • THE VALUE IS ALL IN ORGANIZING, NOT IN LABORING —“This is profound. How about

    THE VALUE IS ALL IN ORGANIZING, NOT IN LABORING

    —“This is profound. How about expanding it and making it into its own post? Who organizes violence? Who organizes reproduction? Etc.”—Ben Smith

    THE ECONOMICS OF TIME

    our only existential commodity is time. It is very scarce. when we divide labor we produce multiples of returns on time that are not achievable by any other means. In this sense we are not wealthier than cave men, we have simply made all things cheaper.

    When we come together in groups we have the choice of flight, cooperation, or conflict. If we cooperate that means at the very least we do not prey upon each other. At best it means that we engage in a division of labor. But most importantly, we reduce opportunity costs – the time necessary to find an opportunity.

    So while our second commons is cooperation, (property), our first commons is opportunities. When we cooperate we do not allow one another to seize opportunities. Instead, we only allow one another to homestead opportunities. This is why competition succeeds: we compete for opportunities created by proximity and property. And we empirically test our hypotheses by our success or failure in seizing those opportunities via the market.

    Now, we hold this set of opportunities (territory) by defending them from others. We defend them from others who would take them without homesteading. We defend them from others who would reallocate that property and those opportunities.

    The military ‘owns’ the territory. All of it. Everyone else is merely a customer. That’s simply an operational fact.

    So the military organizes the territory. Within it, the government organizes the commons. Within the commons the capitalists organized production; the bourgeoise organize production distribution and trade. Within the commons the people organize families. And Labor (important distinction) organizes physical things as needed by transforming them from one state to the next. So nearly all work is using incentives to organize people, while labor organizes that which is not human.

    Now we come together into markets (cities) where opportunity costs are low, but territorial costs are high, and commons are cheap. Others distribute to suburbia and rural areas where opportunity costs are higher, territorial costs are lower, and commons are terribly expensive.

    Some countries intelligently solve this problem (french concentration in cities, and protectionism in the rural areas; or german mandatory family sized apartments in cities) or really poorly (british homes are tiny, dark, expensive, hovels by comparison), new york is moving the way of tokyo, and much of asia is returning to pre-civilized eras where one rents a cubicle for sleeping and lives outside of that area the rest of the day.

    The costs of commons differ by density. If we were to vote on commons then votes should consist of the inverse of population density, since the cost of commons in rural areas is absurd, and this is what accounts for the differences in urban and rural behavior: accurate perception of differences in costs of commons.

    Landlordism (manorialism) has proven an exceptional method for allocating territory to those who are most productive with it, and pushing out those who are unproductive. In America we already have Georgist taxation on land. It hasn’t changed anything. Property rents vary by location but mostly by the built capital upon that location. So it doesn’t make any difference. The russians tried the opposite and it led to shitty life everywhere.

    If you said that the resources are a commons, then yes, that makes sense. If you said that taxes on rental properties are not empirically matched to total service costs I would say that was easy to test and it’s unlikely to be true.

    So unless you can make a fairly strong portfolio case then it’s hard to argue.

    Landlords organize density the way investors organize industry, the way entrepreneurs organize talents, the way managers organize labor.

    All the value is in organizing people. The labor isn’t worth shit.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 13:00:00 UTC

  • IF YOU COUNTER SIGNAL A REVOLUTION YOU’RE JUST AS BAD AS THE LEFT: A FREE RIDER

    IF YOU COUNTER SIGNAL A REVOLUTION YOU’RE JUST AS BAD AS THE LEFT:

    A FREE RIDER.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 12:38:00 UTC

  • WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THE GULLIBILITY OF GERMANS? (seriously) —“Germany is th

    WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THE GULLIBILITY OF GERMANS?

    (seriously)

    —“Germany is the hegemon of Europe: all its decisions end up affecting the rest of the continent. It is a delicate geopolitical position that would require at the helm a proper aristocratic elite: confident, pragmatic and well versed in human psychology. Unfortunately, the German population suffers from a deep psychological trauma which hinders any progress in this area (“from National-Socialism to National-Masochism” describes best the situation). The former elite was annihilated between 1933 and 1950 (In any case, I doubt they would have been up to the task, had Germany achieved in 1914 or 1939 its aspirations: Prussia was too priestly and martial). And lastly, the national character doesn’t help: prone to neuroticism, introverted and very conscientious, it lacks adaptability, it is too rigid. In the last few years, Germany has committed – out of politically correct reasons and contrary to its interests – two catastrophic errors: the” nuclear power phase-out” and “Wir schaffen das” (opening the gates to the immigration tsunami). If Europe has a future, those two decisions have to be reverted soon and I don’t see anybody in Germany pointing in that direction.”— Daniel Gurpide


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 11:50:00 UTC

  • (Silas, what is the significance of the white flower in the lower corner that I’

    (Silas, what is the significance of the white flower in the lower corner that I’m seeing here and there?)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 10:59:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a memory

    Curt Doolittle shared a memory.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 10:33:00 UTC

  • (Seriously. The only reason a man needs much money is to pay for women or status

    (Seriously. The only reason a man needs much money is to pay for women or status signals. If you get a small apartment, or a house a couple of other guys, and hire a housekeeper, its pretty easy to live well, stay fit, travel, invest, and enjoy life, fool around on occasion. Then own your own home, and pick up some hottie with a prenup after she’s had her ‘omg this is reality’ marriage and kids, so she doesn’t learn about reality on your dime. Don’t think you’re gonna be happier without a woman in your life. Just keep in mind that because of progressivism and feminism, men and women have been infantilized, and we need an extra ten years in reality to make up for the loss of 15-25 due to infantilization. The problem is that 10 years is really costly for most. So just avoid the cost of that wasted 10 years. )


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 10:15:00 UTC

  • OF ANCIENT LEGAL CODES

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_legal_codesLIST OF ANCIENT LEGAL CODES


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 09:23:00 UTC

  • DAVID FRIEDMAN’S BOOK ON LIBERTINE LEGAL SYSTEMS ALL (Feedback) (Joseph Valerius

    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lega…/LegalSystemsContents.htmON DAVID FRIEDMAN’S BOOK ON LIBERTINE LEGAL SYSTEMS

    ALL (Feedback) (Joseph Valerius thanks for inviting me to respond.)

    Just read through these chapters quickly – I know this material already. As usual David’s work is readable and enjoyable. My central criticism is that ‘different from ours’ plus the choice of legal system’s included, implies an arbitrary equality (difference) rather than an honest statement of intent by which these particular legal systems are chosen according to their shared properties.

    1) The list is interesting because it includes so many failed peoples, and does not include many successful peoples. By successful, I mean, those that can hold territory, create their own institutions, and defend them against competitors. Why is it that most of these legal systems could not produce sufficient productivity and as a consequence sufficient investment in the commons to hold territory against competitors?

    2) Why NOT include these systems of law:

    Hammurabi’s Code

    Early Roman Law

    Late (Stoic) Roman Law

    Frankish Law (Saliq Law)

    Germanic and Anglo Saxon Law

    Continental (Napoleonic) Law

    Soviet Law

    International law

    (FWIW: in intelligence gathering and in propaganda production, what is mentioned tells us more about the speaker than what is mentioned. Just as in straw man arguments, we learn more about the speaker from what he avoids speaking of than we do of what he speaks. Just as in marxist propaganda and postmodern propaganda we learn that heaping of undue praise, and straw man arguments as excuses for criticism serve as the principal means of deception by suggestion.) So I don’t like the selection without qualification of its purpose: what did so many legal codes fail, and why did others succeed?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_legal_codes

    3) The list is even more interesting if we look at which produced high trust societies – where high trust is the most expensive commons, which is why no one outside of the Hajnal Line produces it. Societies that progressed through the agrarian phase and succeeded in holding territory emerged with superior demographics through the reduction of the scale of the underclass. Societies that did not progress through holding territory and the agrarian phase either failed to develop truth, reason, technology, science, formal institutions, and particularly institutions of competitive law.

    4) The Han are the largest homogenous ethnic group, that other than northern europeans, has held the same territory, for the longest period of time. There is a reason that history of only two peoples is worthy of study: the Han and the European: the han could not produce trust but they held territory, produced reason and technology. The Europeans held territory less effectively (particularly against islamic invasion), produced reason, trust, technology and science.

    5) Laws express a group’s evolutionary strategy both in-group and out-group. And it is trivially easy to judge a set of laws by their survival from competition – their evolutionary success or failure.

    6) There is only one universal criteria of decidability in matters of conflict: non imposition of costs against that which others have born costs to obtain an interest: reciprocity. And that is how international law functions today.

    The origin of all legal codes that I know of is the need to suppress retaliation cycles (feuds) in eras where property was largely insured by kin (brothers, uncles, cousins), and where crimes and punishments (or restitutions) were asymmetric, which led to exacerbation of retaliation cycles. So if we look at early legal codes, they emphasize not rules, but standardization of punishments.

    As legal codes mature, they include standardization of crimes, not just punishments. in fact, the word ‘liberty’ refers to the permission to retain local law and custom independent from the ruling law (territorial defense and taxation).

    As legal codes mature further, they include weights and measures (prohibitions against metric fraud). And further as they mature they include prohibitions against verbal fraud. At present for example, we lack prohibitions on a great deal of verbal fraud using pseudoscience (we call this set of frauds economics and financialization). But nearly all the social sciences consist largely of pseudoscientific frauds yet to be prohibited.

    As legal codes mature further they include prohibitions on externalities. And if we go through david’s list, it’s easy to see which of these legal codes prohibits externalities, and which LICENSE or actually encourage externalities. (poly-logical, poly-ethical) legal codes in particular. (Jewish and Islamic ethics in particular).

    The most interesting is the chinese structure for families (it’s a crime to report on your parents) vs the soviet (it’s a requirement to report on them). Or the class based systems where punishments are progressive as are taxes today. Or the egalitarian systems that prohibit differences by class or group.

    In large part these different ethics tell us a great deal about social orders, and the group’s evolutionary strategy. (Western market model is to profit from domestication. Han model is just a large extended family with identical interests. )

    7) We can judge (measure) the difference between legal systems by the methods of parasitism (ir-reciprocity) that they preserve. What kinds of parasitism do each of the listed legal systems preserve? Why did they preserve it. So it is possible to objectively compare the morality or immorality of different cultural systems by their judicial method and content.

    8) Diversity is bad – particularly ethnic diversity. High trust is good. Empirical law is good. Empirical law requires a method of decidability. The only universal method of decidability is perfect reciprocity. Perfect reciprocity is only possible under non-imposition of costs upon that which others have born costs to obtain an interest.

    9) The roman failure is reducible to the underinvestment in the Great Wall Against The Steppe and Desert Peoples that the chinese had managed to construct, and attempts to integrate undomesticated (inferior) peoples into the empire. Or better said: empires leave behind monuments, but cause the death of their originators. As such, as the Han and Medieval Europeans demonstrated, the optimum strategy is nationalism.

    10) Our lesson is that while conquest is profitable in the short term, the cost of colonialism is always higher in the long term than the benefit. And that the success of the only people who rely on fully on markets (europeans), was possibly only where they eradicated prior peoples. The fact that this is obvious from any study of evolutionary biology should not surprise us.

    Worse, wherever europeans (light haired european, dark haired iranian) expanded, wherever they integrated with the locals they were destroyed. They survived only in Europe and Persia. And were (it appears) eradicated by the arab conquest. Those that made it to india are simply outbred and gone.

    Our lessons are the trust of the europeans by use of militia and reason, and the security of the Chinese through isolation and reason.

    11) At present the only matters of contention in legal theory are:

    a) whether democratic polities should be permitted to construct legislation that circumvents reciprocity, or merely agree upon binding contracts within the limits of reciprocity.

    b) whether to contain the law to strict construction, textualism, and original intent (all of which may mean the same thing), or whether to allow judges discretionary control over the law.

    c) when the law is unclear whether to demand clarity from the legislature, or whether judges decide and compensate for weaknesses of the legislature.

    d) whether or not to rely on the common law’s argument to first principles and judicial review, or whether to rely on the continental law establishing intermediary first principles, regardless of judicial review.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 09:18:00 UTC