“CURT: IS EXEC TALENT DECLINING IN QUALITY?”
I think that there is an excess of capital available for ‘failure’ because boomers haven’t yet extracted their savings from the investment pool – and so this is driving business opportunity down into the limits of competence. Yes
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-23 20:27:00 UTC
Revolution is always suspect in prospect but deterministic in retrospect.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-23 20:15:00 UTC
THE FUTURE OF “MARRIAGE”
Pairing off was driven by reduction of violence. Length of Pairing off was driven by neoteny. Marriage was driven by economic necessity (property). Universal marriage by farming. And the future is open for interpretation.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-23 20:13:00 UTC
If I was gonna have a cult, I’d do one that appealed to leftists, promised free stuff, indiscipline, free virtue signals, and threw parties – they get the easy chicks.
(Oh…. wait. That’s Burning Man with political ambitions)
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-23 20:09:00 UTC
SOLUTION VS INSPIRATION
We keep moving forward because we have a solution. A solution that satisfies MOST of everything our people want across the spectrum – without delivering anyone a monopoly – and ending the radical left’s ability entirely.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-23 20:04:00 UTC
IT’S NOT DOG WHISTLING – IT’S DETERMINISM
by Bill Joslin
For those dubious of impending interviewer violence (4GW) consider the rise of nation states and Westphalia peace constrained violence to state actors lone i.e. elimination of private war and intra-border violence.
The rise of globalism requires the erosion of national borders and with it the constraints on war to inter-border actors (nations) which reintroduces intra-border violence i.e. non-state actors engaging in war.
Domestic violence (war with in borders) rises as Westphalia peace eroded. What we call terrorism today.
Those that would call us warmongers or dog whistling are ignoring much more complex relations to sport out “m’uh provocateur! Rheeee!!”
Choice is – acknowledge the full array of probabilities and prepare, or stay ignorant of probabilities and succumb.
We are facing:
1) low birth rates (urgent)
2) demographic replacement (urgent)
3) erosion of institutions which minimized intra-border violence (low trust commons)
4) re-incentivizing non-state actors to engage in war either via proxies or directly.
We must consider and calculate ALL of these issues, not just the ones we’re comfortable with.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-23 20:01:00 UTC
(Today in absurd video. Russian cops making some woman do nipple prints in addition to finger prints. Seriously. You just can’t make this stuff up.)
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-23 15:27:00 UTC
I just read the Manafort thing and … it’s garden variety nonsense, none of which is material, and the most severe of which might in a million years be worthy of some fines.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-23 15:01:00 UTC
R.E. CHRISTIANITY SPECIFICALLY:
by John Mark
Christians need us. They cannot and will not save themselves. (In the sense of producing sufficient resistance to the Left.) And they know the Left seeks to destroy them.
This gives us leverage and the ability to garner their support: “We are the only ones who can save you. You will not have a “Christian-run nation” until Jesus comes back. You don’t have the power to make it happen. BUT together we can ensure you and our shared (family/conservative) values survive. On the other hand, if we don’t work together (if you don’t support our rule-of-law that punishes evil as the Bible commands), then Christianity as you practice it will be outlawed & you will lose everything you value. Work with us (support our solution), you survive, and our shared family/conservative values survive. Refuse to support us, and you lose everything.”
We say this knowing that after the shakeout their religion will continue to die and will be the “crazy uncle” of the Right in the meantime. And the negative effects of their universalism will be nipped in the bud by Propertarian law.
We can communicate this in a palatable manner: “We have many shared values. You can’t win on your own. Too many people will rebel against a “Christian nation”. However, a sufficient number of people will accept a “Propertarian nation” with no consumer interest, no corrupt politicians, no special interests controlling politics, rule of law enforcing reciprocity, many social policies determined more locally, etc.
Your support is valuable to us in making this a reality and doing Romans 8 “punishing evil” better.
Let’s do this.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-23 13:23:00 UTC
ON TRUTH (Complete)
(core)
GIVEN DEMAND FOR DECIDABILITY:
a) In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the “system”(ie: grammar).
b) In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary).
Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm).
GIVEN THESE DIMENSIONS:
1. Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable).
2. Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable )
3. Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable)
4. Population (Self, Others, All, Universal)
YIELDS THE SERIES:
1. Indistinguishable(perception) >
2. Distinguishable(cognition) >
3. Memorable(categorical-referrable) >
4. Possible(material) >
5. Actionable(physical) >
6. Choosable(for use) >
7. Preferable(Personal) >
8. Good(interpersonal) >
9. Decidable(political) >
10. True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) >
11. Analytic >
12. Tautological.
WHERE TRUTHFUL SPEECH THAT SATISFIES THE DEMAND FOR INCREASING INFALLIBILITY OF DECIDABILITY YIELDS THE SERIES:
1. Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
2. Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.
3. Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.
4. Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.
5. Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
6. Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values.
7. Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (‘True’)
8. Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity
9. Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.
WHERE TRUTH CONSISTS IN THE SERIES
1. Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
2. Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
3. Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
4. Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
4. Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
WHERE THE CRITERIA FOR TRUTHFUL SPEECH IS COHERENCE ACROSS THE DIMENSIONS TESTIFIABLE BY MAN, IN THE SERIES:
1. Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)
2. Internally Consistent (Logical)
3. Externally Correspondent (Empirical)
4. Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)
5. Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame)
6. Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)
7. With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation)
8. Warrantied
… (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;
… (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;
… (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.
AS A DEFENSE AGAINST THE SERIES:
1. Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;
2. Error and failure of Due Diligence;
3. Bias and Wishful Thinking;
4. And the many Deceits of:
… (a) Loading and Framing;
… (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda;
… (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;
… (d) and outright Fabrications.
IN DEFENSE OR ADVOCACY OF:
1. Any transfer that is not:
… (a) productive
… (b) fully informed
… (c) warrantied
… (d) voluntary
… (e) free of externality of the same criteria
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE SERIES OF THOSE CATEGORIES OF:
1. murder,
2. harm, damage, theft,
3. fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,
4. free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons,
5. rent seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism,
6. conversion(religion/pseudoscience),
7. displacement(immigration/overbreeding),
8. conquest (war).
(End)
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-23 13:04:00 UTC