Source: Facebook

  • CURE POSTMODERNISM (interesting) DIMMI: “But that will make people feel bad, can

    CURE POSTMODERNISM

    (interesting)

    DIMMI: “But that will make people feel bad, can we say it some other way?”

    NOBILITY: “If the truth makes people feel bad, then they need to learn how to feel differently about the truth. So telling them the truth apologetically and criticizing ‘shaming and rallying’ is how we teach them to feel differently about the truth.”

    Tell the truth.

    Agree to debate the truth. Agree not to use violence, ridicule, rallying or shaming, if they agree not to use violence, ridicule, rallying or shaming.

    Because violence is honest but not helpful, and ridicule, rallying, and shaming are a form of deception – lying. Not truth. Because whether people like something or not has nothing to do with what is true or not.

    If they do not agree to debate without ridicule, rallying and shaming, then you do not agree to abandon violence.

    We should never take violence as an intrinsically bad thing. Violence is the only warranted response to fraud, deception, lying, omission, distraction – because the reason we enter into debate, and forgo our violence, is so that we may pursue the truth.

    If we enter into debate and only forgo our opportunity for violence, the greatest liar wins.

    If we enter into debate and agree that we must forgo both violence, and deception, then the greatest truth wins.

    So the proper response to postmodern argument in debate, which is the most obscurant and elaborate form of lying yet developed by man, is violence.

    “The purpose of debate is the pursuit of truth. The purpose of conflict is to win. If we are in conflict I will use violence and deception. If we are in debate then we are cooperating, and I will not use violence or deception. Therefore I will debate you as long as you do not engage in violence, or deception – where deception includes lying, fraud, deception, omission, obscurantism, ridicule, rallying and shaming. If you engage in any of those, then I will engage in violence.”

    This statement alone with win most arguments.

    ***The only moral questions are those that can be answered via voluntary exchange; and the only immoral actions those that can be solve by exchange but are not.***


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-15 17:08:00 UTC

  • UPDATE: REMAINING PROTESTERS RELEASED

    http://news.kievukraine.info/2014/02/ukraine-frees-all-protesters-detained.htmlUKRAINE UPDATE: REMAINING PROTESTERS RELEASED


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-15 16:43:00 UTC

  • I’m going to correct Hans a bit here by saying that human cooperation is the res

    I’m going to correct Hans a bit here by saying that human cooperation is the result of these properties:

    1) the differences in abilities among men.

    2) the geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production.

    3) the local structure of production: the division of knowledge and labor.

    4) the local structure of the family and inheritance rights.

    5) the distribution of property rights between the individual, family, group and the commons.

    6) the degree of suppression of, and intolerance for, free riding both in and out of family.

    7) calculative, cooperative technology available for economic signaling and coordination. (objective truth, numbers, money, prices, interest, writing, contract, and accounting).

    8) The use of formal institutions to perpetuate these constraints.

    9) The competition from groups with alternate structures of production, family, inheritance, property rights, free riding, cooperative technologies, and formal institutions.

    10) The recognition of these facts. (I question whether this last one is true.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-15 11:40:00 UTC

  • Strange thought. But can I use ethical realism to break the conflict between whi

    Strange thought. But can I use ethical realism to break the conflict between whites and jews? Because that’s a pretty amazingly competitive polity. If we can take away the ability to violate high trust norms, can we unite the whites and the jews – as we almost did prior to the wars?


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-15 06:18:00 UTC

  • WHY ARE WHITE PEOPLE STUPID? Trust. Trust is actually in our genes. For a homoge

    WHY ARE WHITE PEOPLE STUPID?

    Trust.

    Trust is actually in our genes.

    For a homogenous population that’s a good thing.

    In a diverse population, it’s genetically maladaptive.

    White people are willing to fall head over heels for every pseudoscientific nonsense that any one throws at them. Peter and Paul, Augustine, Rousseau, Kant, Marx, Freud, Cantor, and the whole lot of academic postmodernists.

    We have the high trust society because we are both less impulsive and more willing to trust than any other genetic group on earth. We even used to be smarter than the rest of them. But no longer.

    Stupid white people. Unfortunately, I love my people. Even if they are stupid. Gullible, trusting, victims of every empty verbalistic pseudoscience anyone comes up with.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-15 06:00:00 UTC

  • AS ADAPTATION TO CHANGES IN THE STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION I wanted to respond to J

    http://johnquiggin.com/2014/02/15/the-tooth-fairy-and-the-traditionality-of-modernityMYTHOLOGY AS ADAPTATION TO CHANGES IN THE STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION

    I wanted to respond to John Quiggin’s wonderful post on the ‘traditionality’ of modernity.

    –“The traditionality of modernity: It’s striking, if you’re not aware of it already, to observe that Christmas, as we now know it, was invented in the 20 years or so between 1840 and 1860, However, what is even more striking that it’s barely altered in the succeeding 150 years. Even the complaints haven’t changed in decades.

    And what’s true of Christmas is true of most of the favourite examples of invented tradition. Clan tartans were invented out of whole cloth (as it were), as soon as the actual clans had been destroyed by the Clearances, but this process was pretty much complete by 1850, and the system is now as inflexible as if the Scots wha’ wi’ Wallace bled had done so in defence of a dress code. Moreover, at 150 years or more of age, these traditions really can claim to be ancient (at least in the eyes of a non-indigenous Australian).

    A variety of cultural niches, once subject to the cycles of fashion, seem now to have been filled once and for all. Elvis, Marilyn Monroe and James Dean have all been dead for decades, but all are more instantly recognisable than any putative successor.

    More significant institutions show the same kind of stability. Political systems and national boundaries are becoming more stable over time, not less. The collapse of the Soviet Empire led to the breakup of some federal states, but nothing like the wholesale resurgence of irredentist claims predicted by many.

    One obvious factor assisting all this is technology. Just as printing has fixed languages once and for all, radio, TV and recorded music and video have a powerful effect in fixing cultural traditions of all kinds. Of course, this is the opposite of the usual story in which technology drives us to a postmodern condition of constant change. But that’s enough for me. It’s time to see what’s on at the (75-year-old) Commonwealth Games.”–

    MY RESPONSE

    1) The Structure of Production (Industrial Revolution) determines demand for mythos, morals, ethics.

    2) The high point of English civilization (Victorian) looked to the past for a new identity and found it’s pagan origins (starting with the collection of ancient fairy tales)

    3) The Germans as well tried to create a new mythos (example is Nietzsche and Wagner).

    4) These two efforts almost succeeded in reversing the christianization of Europe. And would have, had the communists, socialists and marxists not produced a greater incentive to build a new mythos around the state.

    5) Christmas evolved and was commericalized with santa clause because people celebrated their new ability to consume cheap industrial goods. Christmas will likely persist as long as this does not change, because all the incentives for it to persist remain.

    5) Elvis etc: These characters have no durability, and will not survive past the 100 year marker (the roman Saeculum). However, the mythos that they represented, again was an alteration in the structure of production: the addition of the middle and upper proletariat into the consumer class in the postwar era.

    6) My long term bet is that your last comment on boundaries is wrong. Those boundaries were made possible by the finances of the nation state, during a period of rapid change in world power structures, and the invention of industrialized total war. I am pretty sure the englightenment and socialist programs are coming close to an end, becuase the experiments with democracy and social democracy conflict with heterogeneous populations. If, as northern europeans had outbred,our large corporate-states (to distinguish them from nation states) outbred, then that would mean these boundaries will persist. However, it appears that not only do populations fail to integrate, but that the friction overwhelms the democratic political process wherever we try to use it. (We failed to understand that europeans have been a genetially homogenous people for thousands of years, and our ‘differences’ marginally indifferent so to speak.)

    So my rough guess, is that starting between 2020 and 2025, (or, it’s starting now) we will see rapid alteration of borders and governments for a period of as long as one hundred years.

    AT that point the incentives that were created by the industrial revolution, and the relative wealth of that made less social friction possible, will have been exhausted by the near elimination of the value of labor, and pervasive demand for the restructuring of status signals, politics, and the legal structure that supports production in that new context.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-15 05:46:00 UTC

  • ENGLISH ARE NOT A DIVERSE PEOPLE – JUST THE OPPOSITE. The north sea was a “lake”

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/02/human-admixture-common-in-human-history.htmlTHE ENGLISH ARE NOT A DIVERSE PEOPLE – JUST THE OPPOSITE.

    The north sea was a “lake” whose shores were inhabited by related families.



    “The case of Northwestern Europe appears especially striking as none of the populations from the region show evidence of admixture.”

    “England is diverse only in the minds of pretentious historians.”

    We really are ‘different’. ‘Cause we’re all the same. Whooda’ thunk it. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-14 15:30:00 UTC

  • ENGLISH ARE NOT A DIVERSE PEOPLE – JUST THE OPPOSITE. The north sea was a “lake”

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/02/human-admixture-common-in-human-history.htmlTHE ENGLISH ARE NOT A DIVERSE PEOPLE – JUST THE OPPOSITE.

    The north sea was a “lake” whose shores were inhabited by related families.



    “The case of Northwestern Europe appears especially striking as none of the populations from the region show evidence of admixture.”

    “England is diverse only in the minds of pretentious historians.”

    We really are ‘different’. ‘Cause we’re all the same. Whooda’ thunk it. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-14 15:29:00 UTC

  • VOTING MORALLY EVEN IF ITS EXPENSIVE, IS VOTING RATIONALLY (minor criticism of t

    VOTING MORALLY EVEN IF ITS EXPENSIVE, IS VOTING RATIONALLY

    (minor criticism of the myth of the rational voter)

    People do vote rationally. Its rational to vote morally even at high personal cost.

    I dont have time to refute the part Kaplan got wrong. But it should be obvious that he got it wrong.

    The failure of economic thought is currently one of insufficient tribalism and insufficient nationalism.

    Any group that votes immorally will be exterminated by groups that vote morally.

    That is why the anglo world is dying: its immoral (reproductively destructive).


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-14 11:22:00 UTC

  • If you eliminate free riding in all its forms: violence, theft fraud, omission,

    If you eliminate free riding in all its forms: violence, theft fraud, omission, obscurantism, externalization, socialization, privatization, corruption, conspiracy and conquest – then the only action remaining available to man is the voluntary exchange of private property.

    Cooperation is only possible if we suppress all free riding. Thats what cooperating means.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-14 09:43:00 UTC