Source: Facebook

  • Venezuela is just going from desperate to terrifying. Brazil isn’t all that far

    Venezuela is just going from desperate to terrifying.

    Brazil isn’t all that far behind.

    No one has any idea what to do.

    Modernity cannot compensate for asymmetric classes.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-14 12:37:00 UTC

  • Globalism Dies. Socialism Dies. Feminism Dies

    Globalism Dies.

    Socialism Dies.

    Feminism Dies.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-14 12:30:00 UTC

  • Do you hear that gurgling sound? That’s the death of globalism from choking on i

    Do you hear that gurgling sound? That’s the death of globalism from choking on its own vomit.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-14 12:29:00 UTC

  • When I say that westerners invented ‘truth’ in the scientific sense, and that th

    When I say that westerners invented ‘truth’ in the scientific sense, and that the aristcracy of peers, the martial class, the militia, and the jury system persisted it, that is not the same as saying that people engage in truthful speech. It merely means that they know how to – with each other (internally / ingroup). It means that the benefits of scientific thought can evolve out of those practices.

    I don’t think westerners are particularly honest. I think that they’re currently more trustworthy, and that trustworthiness is a luxury good produced as a commons.

    But it’s not that I think we are all high and mighty or something.

    We just have the ABILITY to be so.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-14 12:23:00 UTC

  • THE SCOPE OF CRITICAL EPISTEMOLOGY (testimonialism, propertarianism, nomocracy,

    THE SCOPE OF CRITICAL EPISTEMOLOGY

    (testimonialism, propertarianism, nomocracy, and aristocratic egalitarianism, in a nutshell)

    Truth:

    We can never know we speak the truth, only if we speak truthfully, and then only by performing due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit.

    Epistemology:

    We can freely associate and develop an hypothesis. The method by which we arrive at the hypothesis does not influence the truth of our guess. Those hypotheses that survive our due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit, may be warrantied to one another as theories. Those theories that survive criticism against error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit, are truth candidates. Those that survive enduringly we call ‘laws’. All knowledge follows this evolution: Free association, hypothesis, theory, law.

    Ethics:

    We cannot know what is a good action, only what is a bad action. A bad action is one that imposes costs. The only way not to impose costs is to limit one’s actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of the external imposition of costs upon others.

    Law:

    Create negative law empirically by the resolution of disputes, and incrementally evolve the suppression of parasitism, leaving only new innovations in parasitism, and the remaining positive actions available.

    Liberty:

    Suppress corruption and involuntary transfer and only liberty remains.

    Rule:

    We cannot know good rule except in distant retrospect, we can only know bad rule. The best rule then is that no man rule, and we rule by law. Law does not ask us to be good. It demands only that we are not bad.

    Politics:

    We cannot know what is good, only what we are willing to pay for. The majority cannot know what is good, only what is bad. Ego: Transform democratic majority assent into legal (suit) minority dissent in producing commons. Anything that is both willingly paid for and survives the test of badness or falseness, is the only possible good.

    Religion:

    We cannot know what religions are good, only those that are bad. Those that are bad are not compatible with natural and physical law. Those that are compatible are the only religions that remain.

    Universal:

    The only way to know what to do unto one’s neighbor is to not do that which you would not want done unto you.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-14 10:12:00 UTC

  • If you immigrate to conquer by majoritarianism, then why can’t we conquer and ru

    If you immigrate to conquer by majoritarianism, then why can’t we conquer and rule? Why can’t we separate and alienate? Why can’t we vote by tribe?


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-14 05:14:00 UTC

  • Been too stressed to thank all my friends lately. But thank all of you for helpi

    Been too stressed to thank all my friends lately. But thank all of you for helping me on this journey.

    The past year has not been one of technical insights, because religion and history have been my main focus. It’s actually much harder than the work I did on truth, because it’s so intangible.

    I could not have made this progress without all your help.

    Over the past year, I have been unfortunately too caught up in the Trump phenomenon, and too caught up in the alt-right. And this has affected my work. I’ve tried to distance myself from the negativity over the past two months. And that’s helping a little. But I have to keep my eye on the long game and not get all wound up in current events.

    While we all desire attention and most of us validation from popularity, it can also be a distraction – a malincentive.

    So I am going to try to continue to focus on getting the book out. Given the size of it, I still might take roman’s advice and put out a summary paper first. I didn’t because I’m afraid it might anchor me one way or the other, the same way talking about books anchors all other authors.

    As the fallacy of the 20th century falls apart thanks to Obama’s disorganized contraction of US Power, the reassertion of both russia and the east, and the rapid falls of the middle east and south american promises, the chaos has increased demand for certainty and therefore authority.

    I am at heart, a libertarian in the tradition of aryanism both good and bad. and I am not fond of authority. Just the opposite. I’m an advocate for destroying authority so that only demonstrated excellence prevails.

    Anyway, that said, again, thank all of you for helping me work through these issues. Thanks for good criticism especially. But also thank you for support when I sort of lose my juice.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-14 04:23:00 UTC

  • THE CONVERSION OF ANGLO CIVILIZATION FROM PRODUCTIVE AND MORAL TO COMMERCIAL AND

    THE CONVERSION OF ANGLO CIVILIZATION FROM PRODUCTIVE AND MORAL TO COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL

    Think of how hard it is to convert a hunter gatherer people to an agrarian economy. From where you know everyone to where you don’t.

    Think of how hard it is to convert an agrarian economy to a mixed-craft merchant economy. You don’t need much trust but you need to at least be able to secure your territory and capital. Where you don’t know who produces what or where it came from. And where organization of production becomes invisible to you.

    Think of how hard it is to convert your economy to consumer capitalism because your trust is high enough that you can create long term contracts. Where cooperation is achieved through the pooling of capital in large amounts so that it can be concentrated to produce lots of goods and services cheaply.

    Think of how hard it is to convert your economy to a financial economy, where you make money from the process of credit alone. Where you are in fact assisting in organizing the production of goods and services as your primary method of production.

    In each of these cases you are making wealth because you’ve produced the commons we call TRUST : reciprocal insurance, and evolved from a laborer, to a craftsman, to an entrepreneur, to a financier. And you’ve moved your entire economy through that same evolution.

    But as your people evolve through this hierarchy, you produce institutions that assist you in producing records, in resolving disputes, and in developing habits that make resolution of disputes unnecessary.

    What you LOSE is the ability to observe externalities.

    Financialization has produced profound externalities that we have no learned how to RECORD, and ACCOUNT for.

    The cumulative effect of our financialization, which in itself may not be a bad thing but an heroic thing, is that we do not account for the externalities produced under the various transactions.

    Why? well off the gold standard we have no method of measurement. And secondly, the progressives have ‘gambled’ upon the fallacy that technology and growth would persist forever – which it hasn’t, won’t, and can’t.

    We departed the empirical society. We became a society of ‘hope’ or ‘wishful thinking’ or ‘fanciful thinking’, instead. The germans remained an empirical people. We became a moral (british) and utopian(american) rather than empirical people.

    It’s fixable. But it won’t be pretty. a 30 year bear market is a pretty understandable thing.

    (h/t: Benjamin Steigmann)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-13 07:25:00 UTC

  • SMALL THINGS MATTER We make many hundreds if not thousands of decisions every da

    SMALL THINGS MATTER

    We make many hundreds if not thousands of decisions every day, and the cumulative effect of those many small decisions is usually more influential than the effect of our larger decisions.

    this is the central problem with running increasingly large organizations: providing a means of decidability for the many little decisions that people make every day.

    In Good To Great, the author reduces this problem to having a ‘strategy’ that is very simple. It provides a method of decidability to everyone in the company so that many zillions of little decisions accumulate in the production of the organizations competitive strategy in the market.

    Unfortunately, a disproportionate number of our decisions are made in theoretical rather than empirical context. In particular, those that require we influence others (customers and co workers). This influence requires local knowlege that is not really open to generalization.

    One of the cool features of software is that if you organize your business process into workflows you can control a lot of those small decisions.

    The opposite problem occurs when the local phenomenon (the interpersonal actions) more more significant in influencing a decision by peer, manager or customer than are the facts.

    Why? because the marginal difference between suppliers (merchants) forces prices to neurality, leaving non-price matters the reason for decisions. Ergo, talent and customer service and knowledge of particular businesses tends to be more influential in business relations and product signaling value more influential in consumer relations.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-13 06:17:00 UTC

  • ECONOMIC METHODOLOGIES AS EXPRESSIONS OF CLASS PHILOSOPHIES

    ECONOMIC METHODOLOGIES AS EXPRESSIONS OF CLASS PHILOSOPHIES

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/11/08/economic-methodologies-as-expressions-of-class-philosophy-and-reproductive-strategy/


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-12 13:11:00 UTC