I wrote a piece on manners, ethics, morals. James reacted to it with additional info. I can’t find it in the FB activity stream, and it seems like I can’t find anything for all of december.
Anyone know if this is copied anywhere?
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-06 11:13:00 UTC
https://youtu.be/7EnrXkWpKtkHOW IT IS DONE
Sharing this for the M o r o n s (for some reason, largely christians) that said I was delusional.
You know, some of us read what think tanks write, not what nitwits say on youtube, twitter, and discussion forums.
Understand. The government cannot protect the electrical grid. It’s not possible. Or the roads. Or rail. Or telecom lines. Or gas pipelines. Concentrated areas like ports and airports yes. Distributed technology, no.
If power is lost it will take a year to get it back.
That’s how war is conducted today.
Not by street protests.Updated Jan 6, 2020, 8:57 AM
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-06 08:57:00 UTC
(working on this )
The Germanic War for Integration into Roman Civilization
The Germanic wars for Restoration of Roman Civilization
1562 – 1598 The French War to preserve church and state corruption, and general ignorance, against the Protestant Huguenots and their restoration of ancient knowledge by slaughtering them. Catholic mobs killed between 5,000 and 30,000 Protestants over a period of weeks throughout the entire kingdom. But the war endured for decades, as the monarchy an church conspired to keep the people ignorant, and submissive.
1618 – 1648 The Thirty Years War: Theoretically over the conflict between catholic and protestant holy roman empire (Germania), was, an remains a conflict over control of europe between France–and the Habsburgs (Germans – the finest ruling class in history). As always, France was in the wrong.
The war cost 8M, or 25% of europe’s population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
*1750 – Rousseau (“the pervert”) and the French revolt against British empiricism, law, and science.
1756 – 1763 The (Real) First World War: The Seven Years War : 1M dead. Starts with the French and Indian War and Escalates into a world war. Resulting in UK Demand for Taxes to pay for it, and the USA declaring independence to escape paying for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War
1792-1802 The French Revolution against The Modern World
1800-1815 Napoleonic War: The Third French Attempt to dominate europe.
1812: British and Indian War to maintain American control of the continent.
1846-1848 Mexican American War to maintain American control of the continent
Jewish Revolt against the Modern World – Marx’ Revolt against the Modern World. He had three main goals: organizing European workers for “class struggle”; opposing the authoritarian regime of William II; and advocating Communist revolution in Russia.
1864 – Civil War: The War to Maintain Northern Control of the Continent
1914-1918 WW1 – The War of Franco-Russian-Anglo Aggression against the germans who had united defensively because of napoleon’s and Russia’s aggressions.
1917 – The Jewish Bolshevik Conquest of Russia and The Jewish Holocaust against the Russian and Ukrainian people.
*1934 – The Jewish Invasion of America and the Combination of Marx and Freud to Undermine western civilization.
1939 – The german positive action to prevent the french, jewish, and russian undermining and conquest of western civilization.
1964 – The Jewish success at undermining america through (a) immigration, (b) feminism, ( c) postmodernism (Lying) (d) baiting into hazard. (e) propaganda. (f) media.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-05 21:43:00 UTC
WHAT DOES TRUTH MEAN?
Existence refers to persistence.
The universe exists, and the matter in it exists, because it persists – we can identify that it exists because we posses memory.
We can identify patterns of constant relations in that persist in that universe – that universe is deterministic at any scale at which we can identify patterns of constant relations.
We can generalize those patterns of constant relations.
We can identify unique instances of those patterns of constant relations.
We can name them.
We name states(nouns), substitutes for states (pronouns), and properties of states (adjectives), operations (verbs), and properties of operations (adverbs) and we can agree or disagree (yes/no, agree disagree, approve reject)
We can form and speak(display word and deed) transactions(phrases) and transaction sets (sentences), and sets of transaction sets (stories)
We can agree with those transactions, transaction sets, and sets of transaction sets (true/false)
We can speak in promise, suggestion, question, agreement, opposition, or silence.
When we claim we speak truthfully we speak promissorily.
One can speak truthfully or untruthfully.
When we speak truthfully we speak coherently with categorically, internally (logically), externally (empirically), operationally(sequence of actions) consistency, and use due diligence to disambiguate any possibility of misinterpretation.
We can speak untruthfully because of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and denial.
We are forever ignorant so while we have discovered how to gradually iterate to the most parsimonious hierarchy of consistent and commensurable paradigms (networks of continuous relations at given scales, and in given contexts), in that set of Grammars we call “science”.
Truth can and only can consist of language in some grammar or other, reducible to analogy to experience, testable by human logical facility.
So while patterns of cosntant relations exist in the universe, and we can name those patterns, that thing we call truth consists of langauge humans discover, organize and iteratively refine through a process of continuous recursive disambiguation as information increases.
The human mind works by using sequences of stimuli (patterns) to produce predictions of fragments, object, models, spaces(places), borders, locations, and episodes.
The mind then recursively predicts possibilities from those predictions using auto association.
We then use attention to choose which auto associations to permute upon.
This is how we imagine, and control what we imagine.
Because we can imagine, we imagine that truth exists, when only phenomenon exists ,and truth consists of the formula by which we describe it.
Man discovers constant relations and creates truthful descriptions of those constant relations.
Truthful statements are made by man because only man (so far) speaks.
When we say honest we say the speaker promises his words are free of suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit and denial.
When we say truthful, we mean, that operational name (description) which is not false, and satisfies market demand for decidability in the given context, given the present knowledge, and free of bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, where the individual uttering it has performed due diligence against ignorance and error.
When we claim a statement is true we promise that it satisfies market demand for decidability given the context. When we agree that a statement ‘is true’ that means that we AGREE that it satisfies market demand for decidability given the context.
When we say ‘the truth’ we mean either a parsimonious operational name for the constant relations we refer to, or the MOST parsimonious name for the constant relations we refer to.
Of the various civilizations which has produced the only method of due diligence with which to speak the most parsimonious categorically consistent, internally consistent, externally correspondent, operational, complete, and fully accounted operational names?
Of the various civilizations which has paid the high cost of normalizing truth before face regardless of cost to self, competence, dominance hierarchy?
Only man speaks, only man describes, only man describes in operational names, only operational names are complete and commensurable, only complete and commensurable operational names are parsimonious, only parsimony provides minimum difference between the most parsimonious possible and the current state of knowledge.
I could work on this further but you get the point.
That truth must be discovered, named, and uttered (in some form).
Truth is made. Truth is uttered, Truth is promised, Truth satisfies the market demand for decidability. We consent to that decidability by equal means -or we do not.
The universe merely exists.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-05 19:31:00 UTC
The United States Congress has not formally declared war since World War II. There have only been 11 instances of declaring war, almost all of which are during WW2. The President can MAKE war but cannot DECLARE war. “The president has the power to initiate hostilities without consulting Congress.” There are limits to these conflicts. Presidents can and have engaged in plenty of conflicts. They don’t include the civil war, korea, vietnam, grenada, panama, the balkans, the gulf, … any. Engaging in conflict is different from war, because war powers convey DOMESTIC powers to the president.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-05 18:26:00 UTC
OVERPLAYING THEIR HAND
by Alexander Brown
(OMG Alexander Brown is back!! )
Two things are clear to me over Qassem. Major General Qassem Soleimani served his master Khomenie, was loyal, did some very disgusting things while at it, and overplayed his hand with regards to the Trump administration. For all that violations against foreign powers ( mainly the United States and regional allies Israel + Saudi Arabia ), Qassem deserved to die and was duly marked for death. The when, why, and how that execution, was simply a matter of time. So that, his miscalculation over US territory in Iraq while spearheading Iranian foreign policy in same country, spelt his doom as would be expected by watchers of these events. He was foolish to not realise that he could have been FOUND, FIXED and FINISHED so accurately, there need to be no soldier on the ground to do it directly. Question is, in reciprocity, could Iran do same to ANY US/Israeli/Saudi general? Why not?
Capability issues? Operational challenges? Dreading the cyclical retaliation?
Two. The Iranian regime as it is today, is not necessarily serving the interest of Iran; the Iranian people; the region; and is not acting as a respectful member of the existing international structure, systems, and or order. It may be argued that the existing world architecture is in itself distasteful, and require reform +/- an overthrow amd replacement. But if this provides the standard to which all including the US are being held to, WHY must Iran continue to be the rogue under such an establisment and not be expected to be retaliated against or held responsible for its actions that violate existing norms, rules, laws?
Attacking the US Mission in Iraq was stupid, regardless of whether it was done indirectly by proxies or not. It was to be retaliated against in proportion or more for the DETERRENCE value and to eliminate the significant chest piece ( Qassem ) who was also such a powerful regional security figure. Such a personage should not be anti American interest. And IF or as he were, he deserved what came to him in the scheme of things. Post his death, the response from Tehran is even revealing.
Supreme leader Ayatollah A. Khamenie is at his abusive best, ‘singling’ out Trump for invectives while threatening US interests and assets in the Strait of Hormuz. And, he would not hesitate to violate the already defective and paralyzed JCPOA that favoured Iran to the exclusion of its regional rivals, and global security interests. In another miscalculation, he announced a withdrawal from the agreement. What does that say about the Iranian leadership?
It may not be suicidal, but it isnt that very smart.
Khamenie could be fixed any day by US drones. And so could his replacement for Qassem, the brigadier general Ghaani. Any wise actor then would recognise this reality and approach this whole situation or challenge, rather differently. But to pacify the Iranian street, Khamenie went even more lunatic. While at it, he claimed “death to America” is for the US leadership, and NOT Americans. And insists that Qassem would be avenged. Is this actor, a fellow we should cry for?
Gaddafi was delusional as well. When he had lucid moments, he made the fatal error of trusting rats like Tony Blair, Sarkozy and Obama and paid dearly for it with his goddamed life after some hard sodomy without lubrication. Saddam was foolish too. He played to the Iraqi street to his ignominious hanging. Can Khamenie NOT learn from those and from Qassem?
If he would not, why cry for him and keep scrutiny of the unhinged US killing machine?
Thing is that, Israel rules via Trump in that region. Israel want this regime in Iran gone for a leadership favorable to interests in Jerusalem / Tel Aviv. This ayatollah and Qassem should have known this and act better, than to keep pushing the shia crescent agenda to Israeli doorsteps while violating US sovereignty and in such an ineffective way, that they risk leadership DECAPITATION and military humiliation!
Any way. The 42% or so Persians may be waiting to to help form a new Government in Tehran, post the Azerbaijani Khamenie. Khamenie’s legacy is aboit being obliterated because he miscalculated multiply, just as Qassem just did to his untimely death!
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-05 17:40:00 UTC
WHY ARE CONTRACTS A MESS?
0) Reality: all contracts are just form letters with names and dates in them. All that changes is the list of assets, and the rights and obligations of both parties – and mostly, it’s the obligations for both parties, ’cause rights only exist if the contract fails. The courts have spent decades since the rise of text databases in the 80’s making sure that there is settled law for almost everything you can bring before it – so much so that the only job left in court is who either (a) lied, or (b) failed due diligence (c ) sought an unearned premium at the other’s expense.
1)Surprisingly lawyers are taught contract law, not how to write contracts. And they will write for other lawyers most of the time, sometimes for in-house counsel, other times for skilled people, and otherwise for ordinary citizens. So absent this they learn to write contracts by the cut-and-paste method of contract development. So contracts accumulate ‘waste’ so to speak in most offices. They don’t accumulate solutions to problems.
The courts (federal, state, local) do not put out standard contract formats that force what’s called “transactional” work into standard form. When in reality, the law does not grant much flexibility in these matters.
Terms of art are largely bullshit claims. Judges are not stupid. Jurors are not stupid.
The reality is that contracts are not complicated. My particular ‘thing’ is shareholder agreements. They don’t have to be complicated. They have to hit al the points in simple language. All contracts are like this, if (a) definitions are put on a separate page, (b) the before-and-after diagrams are displayed in visual form, ( c) a project-plan for signing the agreements in the appropriate sequence and the purpose of each one is stated in that plan (document), that states the title or interest change it enacts. (think of it as an accounting transaction with ledger entries). (d) each section includes a whereas “this is what we seek to accomplish” and therefore the terms of the contract in legal prose. (lawyers will resist this because it prevents people from pulling shit out of thin air, but that’s exactly why to do it.
And this is the most simple – just capture the bullet list of concerns from everyone involved and make sure you’ve resolved them satisfactorily for all parties.
And this is the most uncomfortable: Those engaging the contract do not inform the lawyers of the full suite of advantages that may arise from the deal, and the lawyers do not list all the reasons that they think the contract (arrangement) will fail.
Truth: I generally have to tell lawyers to let me manage risk (that’s my job as a business person) and you create the level of contract suitable to my target risk. This is how you ‘Price’ a contract so to speak. By risk reward and resource expenditure *your time*.
2) Current legal training is antithetical to business, because it begins as teaching the adversarial method – it does not teach means of reaching compromise, settlement, or methods of cooperation that must adapt to changing circumstances. This leads people in defense to ‘double down’ on conflict rather than double down on compromise. This is not how business people resolve conflicts. So really there are two stages. the ones exterior to the contract, and the terms that will fight before the court if the contract fails. My understanding is that this is a problem of failing to require via positiva statements of intent for every via-negativa bit of blame. In other words contracts do not spend time on the via positiva means of settling error, failure of due diligence, change in circumstance.
3) The legal teams try to add unnecessary value to justify jobs (this is endemic). I see this all over the place. The problem is malincentives in legal fees: especially hourly. The problem is revenue constraints. In other words we have too many lawyers, working too hard, to drive up fees, and a court that doesn’t stop it, and a population that has no choice.
4) Courts work too often by win/lose instead of proportional settlements. This is partly by design to force settlement prior to court, and then turning the courtroom into a lottery of uncertainty, where the outcome is worse than settlement – it is not what the framers or common law judges in history intended.
5) Irreciprocal competency and scale of legal teams means they compete for providing opportunities for advantage rather than due diligence in preventing advantage.
6) systemic abandonment of moral norms has led to the need to articulate what was normative in law.
7) the law is lagging behind the rate of evolution of the complexity of contracts.
8) The law does not prevent entrapments as it used to, because it defers to the wisdom of business people (good) but not to baiting into hazard.
9) Law does not punish (as it used to) abuses of the court, the law, the contract so it is worthwhile for full time legal teams or lawyers to bill by the hour to use the economics to drive a settlement or court decision.
That’s just the surface.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-05 17:23:00 UTC
HAMSTER WHEEL OF URBAN ECONOMICS
Proximity decreases opportunity costs (time).
Decreases in opportunity costs increase transactions.
Increases in transactions increase monetary velocity.
Monetary velocity increases possibility of consumption.
Increases in consumption increase possibility of taxation.
Increase in taxation increase possibility of commons.
Increases in commons produce increases in demand for use (if not consumption)
Increase in use of commons creates demand for government
Increase in demand for government create increases in opportunities for rent.
Increase in opportunity for rent increase rents.
Increases in rents decrease opportunity for commons and consumption
and… you see where this goes.
There is greater incentive and control in accessing rents than in creating or using commons or production.
As in all cases rents accumulate until maintenance of commons is impossible
Incomes decline.
Rents and debt remain.
Top margin leaves.
Leaving only extractors (financial sector), and rent extractors (dependence and the state).
Finally the major industries leave.
And that’s it.
Urban death follows.
The only possibility is external wealth, such as byzantium could extract as trade moved through the narrow straights.
This is why the middle east is a disaster.
It evolved to specialize in parasitism not production.
When the trade route fell because of the age of sail it was dark ages for them, just as the muslim destruction of mediterranean trade caused the economic dark ages in europe.
The Hamster Wheel of economics.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-05 17:20:00 UTC
As far as I know Trump manages just like I do, and it’s the optimum method of getting the truth out of people. He brings in the staff, he puts the person reporting to one side, and senior staff sits on the couches behind. He fosters debate. He instigates debate. He even instigates conflict.
Now, what happens when you read reports instead? What happens if you listen to briefings instead? You are captured (as was obama) by the frame.
Trump falsifies. (I do the same fking thing)
Then he stays on mission: what will advance america’s interests first *now that peace and harmony are no longer in american interests, but each country’s taking full responsibility is on our interests.*
King of the hill.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-05 17:05:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/81849894_179172566814238_4369062787595370496_o_179172563480905.jpg Yes I am in favor of this war – for purely strategic reasons. And no I’m not wrong. It is to our advantage in every way possible – and very likely to Iran’s as well.
Yeah, sorry. I think things thru.
Iran has lots of ballistic missiles, conducts war through proxies (terrorist militias), has access to the saudi fields via the south, and the ability to disrupt world oil prices in the gulf. Wants to take over Iraq and Syria and have access to both gulf and Mediterranean. From their they will take the Saudis and the princedoms if the Turks, Saudis, Egyptians and Israelis don’t resist them. So they will have a corridor from the mediterranean to the Caucuses to Afghanistan and the indian ocean.
However, Iran has an antiquated military. And we are far beyond their ability to project power.
And you’re missing the point that global peace is no longer in our domestic interests either strategically or economically.
I hate quoting fiction other than the occasional Herbert, but “Chaos is a Ladder” of opportunity.
We want chaos this year and as much of it as possible.
Revolution comes.
—
Legend:
99th = World Military Rank
Country Name
Population / GDPYes I am in favor of this war – for purely strategic reasons. And no I’m not wrong. It is to our advantage in every way possible – and very likely to Iran’s as well.
Yeah, sorry. I think things thru.
Iran has lots of ballistic missiles, conducts war through proxies (terrorist militias), has access to the saudi fields via the south, and the ability to disrupt world oil prices in the gulf. Wants to take over Iraq and Syria and have access to both gulf and Mediterranean. From their they will take the Saudis and the princedoms if the Turks, Saudis, Egyptians and Israelis don’t resist them. So they will have a corridor from the mediterranean to the Caucuses to Afghanistan and the indian ocean.
However, Iran has an antiquated military. And we are far beyond their ability to project power.
And you’re missing the point that global peace is no longer in our domestic interests either strategically or economically.
I hate quoting fiction other than the occasional Herbert, but “Chaos is a Ladder” of opportunity.
We want chaos this year and as much of it as possible.
Revolution comes.
—
Legend:
99th = World Military Rank
Country Name
Population / GDP
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-05 16:54:00 UTC