THE MIND AS A PROPERTY CALCULATOR
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-07 02:24:00 UTC
Source: Facebook
-
REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY
REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-07 02:23:00 UTC
-
INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION
INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-07 02:23:00 UTC
-
ANSWER TO ARAB VIOLENCE – IN ALL IT’S UNPLEASANT TRUTH HOW DO YOU REDUCE CONFLIC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Td-7bl9jp8THE ANSWER TO ARAB VIOLENCE – IN ALL IT’S UNPLEASANT TRUTH
HOW DO YOU REDUCE CONFLICT IN THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLD?
1) City States (markets for cooperation)
2) Forced Reformation
3) Segregation
PROBLEMS
1) Evolutionary Bias (Genetic) favoring clannishness (yes)
2) Reproductive practices that exacerbate clannishness and lower intelligence. (cousin marriage)
3) A religion (Islam) that exacerbates the genetic bias, lower intelligence, by persisting ignorance, persisting tolerance for emotionalism and ignorance. Resulting in the inability to produce an intellectual class.
4) The dependence for masculine status on destructive rather than constructive status signals. Resulting in the inability to form high trust organizations required for the production of complex institutions, norms, services, and products.
5) Resulting inability to form a middle class, managerial class, executive class.
6) Flight of the professional class.
THE RESULT?
Persistent intellectual primitivism, organizational primitivism, technological primitivism, and biological primitivism.
THE CAUSAL PROBLEM IS NOT *JUST* BORDERS
The problem that faces the Muslim world (as well as the south American, and the sub-Saharan African) is that unlike civilizations above 40 degrees north latitude, it has been nearly impossible for warm climates to limit the reproduction and conduct aggressive domestication of the underclasses.
The Islamic world is ruled by methods necessary for ruling peoples with sub-90 median intelligence, exaggerated aggression and impulsivity, and the consequential illiteracy, ignorance, unavailability of positive male status-signals, familism and tribalism. The Muslims could never form a professional bureaucracy, never form any kind of complex production, and never produce complex thought outside of the Persian consolidation of the empire’s literature, and never form complex multi-part tools or their manufacture.
AEI REMAINS A HAVEN FOR IDEOLOGICAL PURITANISM
We have had enough pseudoscience between Hobbes and Adorno. There is no philosophical substitute for the underlying cause of western history, and it’s excellence: the systematic use of the market for dispute resolution: Truth, Testimony, Jury, Natural Common Judge-Discovered Law; the combination of family manorialism, local Manorialism, regional-manorialism (Monarchy), and civilizational manorialism: the domestication of mankind by the systematic suppression of the underclasses through the use of markets for (a) Market for consumption and production, (b) market for reproduction, (c) market for enfranchisement (military service), (d) market for the production of commons (class-based houses of government), (e) and the market for rule (monarchy).
THE WEST SUCCEEDED FASTER THAN THE REST, NOT FIRST
1) because market institutions calculate optimums faster than discretionary institutions.
2) because markets and aggressive use of rule of law (hanging) cull the lower classes sufficiently to eliminate the great damage of the underclasses.
Why is that so important?Because under the voluntary organization of production (markets), (a) the people that organize social order, commons order, production order, and family order, must possess sufficient capital to cause the voluntary organization of production (b) the productivity that is created by the voluntary organization of production must supply them with that sufficient capital, and (c) the underclasses are more damaging to trust (velocity), organization, productivity, invention, than the most talented are beneficial to trust, organization, productivity, and invention. In other words, the underclasses create greater drag than the middle, upper middle, and upper classes can organize for productive ends.
WE ARE THE NEW RIGHT
The difference between the old libertarian and old conservative puritans? That we no longer hold out either (a) the belief that all men were oppressed and desire liberty in creating a utopian aristocracy of everyone – but instead that most men were forcibly domesticated by limiting reproduction and aggressive hanging of 1 in 100 people per year, and those that need further domestication resent it. (b) That majoritarian democracy was predicated on the assumption that men were oppressed and yearning to be free, rather than parasitic and yearning for rents. And that because we no longer hold hope for (a) and (b) that we seek return to the eugenic market order that allowed western man to drag humanity out of ignorance, poverty, mysticism, and disease in both the ancient greco-roman, and the modern anglo-german.
“Markets in everything” It is the New Right that seeks markets in everything. It’s the old right that destroyed them through utopian optimism in the fight against the recidivism of the dysgenic left.
Time To Speak The Truth at AEI
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-07 01:55:00 UTC
-
As far as I understand a concept refers to a general rule or theory, that consis
As far as I understand a concept refers to a general rule or theory, that consists of a set of properties that together correspond to a set of referents, the properties of which vary from existential, to experiential, to imaginary.
And this definition survives physical correspondence in the brain, verbal description using language, and what we can imagine in real time.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 12:38:00 UTC
-
UNDERSTANDING ART Art is best intellectually understood as a technology no diffe
UNDERSTANDING ART
Art is best intellectually understood as a technology no different from any other. That technology uses three basic axis:
1) craftsmanship,
2) design (aesthetics)
3) content
Art can be an innovation in materials and techniques, it can be an innovation in aesthetic appeal, and it can be used to advance the binding myths of a people. If all three of these are met we generally refer to this ‘high information density” as “high art” or just “art”. at the other end of the spectrum is utilitarian goods. In between is everything else.
We tend to organize by high art (monuments), editorial or commentary art (essays so to speak), decorative art, designed and decorated objects, designed objects, crafted objects, and commodity crafts. But this reflects all produced goods not just art.
Art evolves with crafting and materials technology. For example there are only so many properties to fashion: Stiffness, Texture, Cut, Pattern, Color, and combinations thereof – culminating in ‘information density’. And what we see in history is the evolution of styles to signal status with the evolutions in technology to produce stiffness, texture, cut, pattern, color and combinations thereof to produce status signals.
Art evolves with aesthetics – the most obvious being the medieval invention of the grid system, and Vermeer’s use of mirrors and prisms, and the 20th centuries use of negatives, photos, and projectors. And the 21st century’s use of digital imagery and animation. (Hollywood is a horrifically powerful magnet since with copyright laws, it’s possible to profit from proletarian art.) We have dramatically increased our sensory stimulation in various ways. Although monumental scale still seems to hold the high ground in aesthetics.
Art evolves with meaning. And this is where you’re going to find something interesting to discuss in your paper on Australia. Because a lot of things happened to art in the 19th and 20th centuries. We had the industrial revolution and this dramatically increased the demand for artistic signals as people entered the middle and consumer classes. Photography put a bullet in the income of painters and sculptors, and printing became even cheaper. We saw the same effect in the 1980’s with the expansion of the printing capability – producing high-quality posters. Although that died rather quickly.
So generally you can look at any era, and ask “what is changing in the market for decoration, symbolism, and status?” If you can answer those questions (and I know you can) then you can pick a single or set of pieces and discuss how they reflect the state of Australian crafts, economics, status signaling, and political and editorial ambitions, and attempts to make monuments.
Or you can type a lot of postmodern bullshit that has filled the pages of top twenty new york based art magazines since the second world war. lol
Curt
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 11:53:00 UTC
-
We are all attracted to what we understand. We SHOULD learn to be attracted to w
We are all attracted to what we understand. We SHOULD learn to be attracted to what is GOOD for us. But this depends upon whether what is good for us is (a) available, and (b) obtainable. If not then what is emotionally and sexually good for us may be the best that is both available, and possible to obtain.
I mean, I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE a Victoria’s Secret Angel would be good for me. But they are neither available or obtainable with the assets I have to trade.
lol
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 11:28:00 UTC
-
Q&A: “CURT: IS THE TERM ‘FREE MARKET’ A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS?”” (interesting)
Q&A: “CURT: IS THE TERM ‘FREE MARKET’ A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS?””
(interesting)
—“Hey Curt: Is the term “free market” not a contradiction in terms? Is a market as a norm facilitating fully-informed voluntary (etc.) interactions not in and of itself a restriction imposed on those who want to conduct unfair, unbalanced, involuntary interactions? Can such a thing even be called free?”—
Well you know, I love this question because you’re right of course.
It depends upon what we consider the cost of entry into that market. If the cost is non imposition of costs, then yes, it’s been imposed upon us and that seems to be a good arrangement. But how are the people who impose the prohibition on costs compensated? Usually through taxes (commissions).
So when we say ‘free trade’ independent of fees, that’s hard to defend as anything other than free riding. If we’re saying free trade with only those required fees, then that’s easy to defend as both an imputable cost, and one that’s free of imposition. And if we’re saying unfree trade is that which imposes costs for other purposes (external use) then that’s probably incorrect if we agree with the external use. And if we’re saying unfree trade is that which imposes costs for other purposes (external use) that we disagree with, then that’s probably a bad thing.
In most of our history you had to pay two costs: 1 – forgo the opportunity to benefit from the imposition of costs upon others, and 2- pay a commission on the proceeds of profiting from the market in order to pay for the imposition of the non-imposition of costs.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 11:24:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle I tend to view western aristocratic egalitarianism as demanding r
Curt Doolittle
I tend to view western aristocratic egalitarianism as demanding respect for property in exchange for the franchise of Liberty.
David Mondrus
“aristocratic egalitarianism” vs “pathological altruism”. The demand of respect for property in exchange for liberty is the difference.
Curt Doolittle
Let me think about that because it is insightful. Hmmm. Is that the origin? Yes?
Damn. Yes.
David Mondrus
The altruism demands nothing in return. It supplicates to the needy saying in essence “love us, we’ll give you whatever you want”. The ultimate female strategy.
Curt Doolittle
Yes. And now you’ve synthesized the female by free-riding upon the male. Nice.
David Mondrus
But that is in essence female. Free riding males is their survival strategy. After all, rape is better than death, esp if it’s couched in socially acceptable terms like “stealing the bride” (the “-stans” now), or dowry (selling the bride) India.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 10:52:00 UTC
-
Q&A: JUSTLY ACUIRED PROPERTY —“So I guess my real question is this: do you dra
Q&A: JUSTLY ACUIRED PROPERTY
—“So I guess my real question is this: do you draw a distinction between justly acquired property and unjustly acquired property? If not, aren’t you just making a convoluted defense of the “might makes right” argument?”— NATHANIEL
I’m going to try to answer two questions.
(a) might-makes-right
(b) justly acquired property
(a) might does not make right, but one cannot make right without might. What makes right is voluntary cooperation. Voluntary cooperation requires non-imposition of costs against that which one has acquired without the imposition of costs.
(b) we impose no costs when we acquire property by discovery(homesteading), transformation, or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, limited to externalities of the same constraint upon the imposition of costs.
(c) What separates high trust propertarianism from low trust libertarianism, is the scope of property is not artificial in Propertarianism. It’s what’s necessary for a voluntary polity to form and persist.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 09:30:00 UTC