Source: Facebook

  • (constitutional humor) I think any liberal who has spoken, taught, or published

    (constitutional humor)

    I think any liberal who has spoken, taught, or published in any form must pass the P-foundations and P-law classes in order to avoid paying an additional 30% taxes, but he/she is still prohibited from receiving liquidity distributions, public speech, owning property, or public office. In other words, what muslims have done for over a thousand years – and that’s why people ‘converted’. I’m hoping the rest of the world is as happy to open their borders to liberals as liberals were to them….


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:00:00 UTC

  • YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS – CHRISTIANS DO NOT PROFESS P-LAW A Christian does not pro

    YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS – CHRISTIANS DO NOT PROFESS P-LAW

    A Christian does not profess P. A christian professes Christianity, and assists the implementation of a P-constitution, Because p is compatible with christianity, and will preserve Christianity in theological, philosophical, traditional, rational, and scientific terms. If christians want a theological monopoly they can wait until the islamists eradicate the rest of them – and carry the blame for letting it happen.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 11:59:00 UTC

  • NO, P-LAW IS NOT ‘SUPERIOR’ TO CHRISTIAN FAITH P-Law is not ‘superior’ to Christ

    NO, P-LAW IS NOT ‘SUPERIOR’ TO CHRISTIAN FAITH

    P-Law is not ‘superior’ to Christian Faith – we have no say over such things. P-Law is compatible with Christian ethics and morality, and superior in the material – science, economics, law, politics and war, and likewise christianity is compatible with P-law, and is outside of the material – science, economics, law, politics, and war.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 11:59:00 UTC

  • Your faith is a poor weapon of power. It is only a power of political resistance

    Your faith is a poor weapon of power. It is only a power of political resistance, social resistance, and psychological resistance. We can only trade.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 11:59:00 UTC

  • You do: – approval or rejection (feminine) – desirable or undesirable (feminine)

    You do:

    – approval or rejection (feminine)

    – desirable or undesirable (feminine)

    – proportional or disproportional. (feminine lef)

    – moral or immoral (christian right)

    – right or wrong. (masculine right)

    – true or false (everyone)

    And we do;

    – reciprocal (productive) vs irreciprocal ( parasitic)

    – testifiable vs untestifiable

    – truthful and untruthful


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 11:58:00 UTC

  • I DON”T DO MGTOW, I FIX THE PROBLEM While I understand the sentiment, and unders

    I DON”T DO MGTOW, I FIX THE PROBLEM

    While I understand the sentiment, and understand the need to restore masculinity, I don’t MGTOW – I only do truth, reciprocity, compatibilism, markets, and anti-feminism, anti-marxism, anti-postmodernism, and re-masculinization through restoration of bonding through competition and achievement, and re-militarization to preserve hierarchy in role, equality in value, self sacrifice for the common good.

    You do not see me in MGTOW circles. MGTOW is an expression of withdrawal, in the christian and buddhist models, not an expression of achievement or restoration. The movement exists because men feel they can only achieve individually improvement, instead collective improvement of in civic groups. This again was the product of feminism in eduction, both undermining male boding by competition, and male bonding by military conflict, and male bonding in commercial endeavors, and male bonding in civic improvement.

    MGTOW is the incorrect strategy. Instead it is restoration of male social orders that create male tribal spaces, leaving women to their nesting spaces. We must restore the destruction of male civc organizations by the feminists using the court system, to deprive men of the equivalent of the female brood and her gossip circle of friends.

    We must eliminate the dysgenia of the state incentives to redistribute disproportionate male contribution to state revenues, to disproportionate female consumption of state services, without reciprocal exchange. End common property, alimony, child support, and women must fund ‘women’s issues’ with their revenues. Just as men musts fund ‘mens issues’ with their revenues. Unless they exchange in trades.

    We must restore reciprocity and compatibility. And to do that we must threaten retribution and restitution, by equal and opposite means. Which is how I argue the return to compromise: “We can easily reverse asymmetric female benefit from asymmetric male contribution, so that male asymmetric contribution remains male asymmetric benefit. Or we can compromise and return to exchanges that is the very reason why western women had standing to abuse any asymmetric benefit.

    1. MGTOW to restore male self-care – reconstructive education and therapy.

    2. Teach Stoic Method, Masculine Aryan Virtues-Feminine Christian Values, Epicurean Means

    3. Restore voluntary association and disassociation in law.

    4. Restore men’s sport, military, trade, commercial, and civilc organizations.

    5. De-Financialize the economy, and end consumer interest, to restore working and middle class reproduction, and restore rates of reproduction.

    6. Restore the “church” under secular, traditional, christian-feminine, and pagan-masculine options instead of the academy-state as the central organ of education, family, and family finance, creating the most advanced system of family support ever existing in human history.

    7. Reform academy by limiting it to the teaching of courses in calculative and operationally constructible methods; cause all colleges and universities to warranty their services; cause all colleges and universities to carry any and all student debt – payable within six years; restore the division of grades 8+ to trades, clerical, managerial, professional, entrepreneurial, financial, and scientific specialization. And have children in education overlap ages in this classroom to compensate for different rates of development, or separate into classrooms again by degree of development that masks the fact that the principle difference between us is the tradeoff between rate of physical maturity and rate of leaning increasingly complex content.(and ending stigmas that wrongly stick thru life). Yes we are all in the end different in cognitive complexity we are not different in achievement within our degree of cognitive complexity. This is the issue. We can learn conscientiousness to some degree even if we cannot learn to learn complexity faster.

    8. Restore all production of commons to the sphere of influence and responsibility over the commons, but limiting the federal to it’s functions, state and city-state to its functions, county to its functions, locality to its functions, neighborhood to its functions, and family to its functions and individual to his functions.

    This will restore mutual consideration and care, the civic society only europeans developed, and the high trust civilization upon which all of our privileges both western and across all mankind derived.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 11:58:00 UTC

  • WOMEN EVOLVED to make use of the market for sovereignty, particularly sovereignt

    WOMEN EVOLVED to make use of the market for sovereignty, particularly sovereignty from males seeking to limit their choice of reproduction and limits to their consumption.

    Conversely, men in collections of brothers, evolved to kill off rival collections of brothers, in order to obtain their property and their females. And men evolved cooperation using tools to constrain alphas in order to redistribute access to females for sex, and care. (reproduction is not in male minds until property evolves)

    —“Women initiate more divorces because we’re more easily persuaded by the modern-day mantra of “Whatever makes you happy”. It is entirely due to our capacity to prioritise feelings over truth.’—Lisa Outhwaite

    Lisa is insightful. But i’ll clarify a bit that that women have always and everywhere been hypergamic, and men willing to kill more so over women than any other reason by orders of magnitude, which is the origin of our ‘pairing off’ prior to our institution of marriage. When we evolved a division of labor, specialized tools, equipment, and constructions, animal property, and territorial property, we evolved marriage, but the property division was a women and her children and a man and his assets – which is a necessary division of the means of survival.

    So in contemporary economic productivity, there is no cost to women’s exercise of disassociation, and there are, as she says above, many incentives from the feminist movement, the postmodernist movement, and the anti-white male, anti-western civilization movement, and women always conform to whatever higher status women conform to, no matter what those women conform to.

    I’ll state “Whatever Makes You Happy” scientifically: the organization of the female brain, it’s developmental differences in connectivity and size, and it’s bias in hormones to cause that differences (brains are grown), creates a far more numerous, for more intense, far more urgent, stimulation of independent networks creating far more demand for her attention, and attention that causes her to bear costs (effort) to maintain in stable state (control). This is a purely physical process she has ver little control over and evolution prohibited her from having control over. Men by contrast ‘use less of our brains’ which is better said as men’s brains evolved for the opposite function, and they are organized to “compartmentalize information” so that it is limited to the physical world and physical body, so that we will bear physical costs on behalf of one another, of women, and of children they raise.

    Between work on the constitution, work on completing religion, work on migrating to the mainstream, work on the institute, work on Michael’s collection of my essays, and not working on the main book I need to publish, I am trying to make time to finish the Foundations course, and the explanation of the brain and behavior in operational terms, so that we are no longer attribute to petty psychologizing that which is a physical difference instructions of our brains, that evolution discovered was necessary for us to rise to the top of the planetary food chain. Once that is done, we will see the relationship between the structure of the brain, operational language, testimonial speech, psychological acquisitionism, ethical and moral propertarianism, and social compatibilism, that is only optimized by extending the structure of the brain into our institutions: markets in everything.

    The brain evolved to function as a market for attention, with differences in the cost of attention, by region, module, and sub-organ, determining differences in costs of providing attention to that region, module, and sub-organ.

    Even this description describes compatibilism.

    I only do compatibilism, for the purpose of maximum quality of life while in pursuit of maximum eugenic evolution, with maximum speed, for the maximum achievement of mankind, in the shortest possible time, given the hostility of the planet and the universe to the development of intelligent life forms, that require long periods of stability and short periods of stress to incrementally evolve.

    In other words, I always and everywhere take a question to its last criteria of decidability using what we call in computer science ‘exhaustive search’.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 11:57:00 UTC

  • “I think our moral license will last forever.”—Matt Fahnestock

    —“I think our moral license will last forever.”—Matt Fahnestock


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 11:57:00 UTC

  • THERE IS NO FERMI PARADOX As in all things there is no paradox, just an open que

    THERE IS NO FERMI PARADOX

    As in all things there is no paradox, just an open question, no paradoxes exist.

    One can falsify the fermi question. It is falsifiable.We have failed to falsify it.

    One cannot disprove, only fail to provide a proof of possibility in an axiomatic system like mathematics, and reality is a theoretic system, not axiomatic.

    At present it is falsifiable, un-falsified, and undecidable, and therefore all we can say is that “we don’t know yet”.

    The most obvious reasons are:

    1 – Technological (EMR is a primitive technology)

    2 – Differences are such that we would be of no trading (cooperative) value; interfering would only create a competitor; and it is too early for a colonization effort to have reached us given the recent development of EMR broadcasting.

    3 – Time and distance window of opportunity

    4 – We are in a calm location between arms, in a calm (dying) galaxy, and have had long enough period of growth to ‘bake’ in necessary conditions

    5 – I am concerned that the spinning liquid iron core of our planet that creates its defensive field is rarer than we imagine, and as such it is much harder for life to have time to bake. taken to the extreme, the question may be, now many planets can survive four to five billion years, in a safe rural area of a galaxy, in the habitable (water) zone, while maintaining a spinning liquid iron core?


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 11:57:00 UTC

  • NO YOU’RE WRONG HISTORY IS HISTORY PERIOD There is only one most parsimonious gr

    NO YOU’RE WRONG HISTORY IS HISTORY PERIOD

    There is only one most parsimonious grammar of physical reality, and that’s the physics. There is only one most parsimonious grammar of life, and that’s conservation of energy; There is only one most parsimonious grammar of sentient life: and thats economics. There is only one most parsimonious grammar of ‘the grammars themselves’. There is only one most parsimonious grammar of history of human life: that’s the use of the grammars for the production of economics. There is no interpretation of history any more than there is interpretation of entropy, the conservation of energy, productivity, reciprocity, or testimony.

    in other words, all human history can be expressed as success or failure to defeat the red queen by using the grammars to organize production and cooperation we call economy.

    There is one science, one biochemistry, one set of grammars, and one economics, and one history written in them.

    There is history proper or lying.

    Period.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 11:56:00 UTC