Source: Facebook

  • John Mark Question: Given the higher rates of success and reach of video and aud

    John Mark

    Question: Given the higher rates of success and reach of video and audio, and the ‘costs’ of social media such as FB etc, is (my) continued interpersonal engagement valuable? For example, (a) social platforms as purely (a) publication platforms for me (b) leadership education of new people (they are certainly capable of it) (c) Forums organized by topic for Q&A only. In other words, does online debate (now that the project is effectively done) serve any purpose? The reason I ask is that your reach is more effective than mine. And it may be that my continued online participation discounts the material. (just thinking)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-01 09:58:00 UTC

  • Data check: U.S. government share of basic research funding falls below 50% By J

    Data check: U.S. government share of basic research funding falls below 50%

    By Jeffrey Mervis

    For the first time in the post–World War II era, the federal government no longer funds a majority of the basic research carried out in the United States. Data from ongoing surveys by the National Science Foundation (NSF) show that federal agencies provided only 44% of the $86 billion spent on basic research in 2015. The federal share, which topped 70% throughout the 1960s and ’70s, stood at 61% as recently as 2004 before falling below 50% in 2013.

    The sharp drop in recent years is the result of two contrasting trends—a flattening of federal spending on basic research over the past decade and a significant rise in corporate funding of fundamental science since 2012. The first is a familiar story to most academic scientists, who face stiffening competition for federal grants.

    But the second trend will probably surprise them. It certainly flies in the face of conventional wisdom, which paints U.S. companies as so focused on short-term profits that they have all but abandoned the pursuit of fundamental knowledge, an endeavor that may take decades to pay off. (This month, for example, Duke University’s Center for Innovation Policy will hold a conference entitled “The Decline in Corporate Research: Should We Worry?”)

    NSF defines basic research as “activity aimed at acquiring new knowledge or understanding without specific immediate commercial application or use.” In contrast, it says applied research is “aimed at solving a specific problem or meeting a specific commercial objective.”

    The U.S. pharmaceutical industry is the major driver behind the recent jump in corporate basic research, according to NSF’s annual Business Research and Development and Innovation Survey (BRDIS), which tracks the research activities of 46,000 companies. Drug company investment in basic research soared from $3 billion in 2008 to $8.1 billion in 2014, according to the most recent NSF data by business sector. Spending on basic research by all U.S. businesses nearly doubled over that same period, from $13.9 billion to $24.5 billion.

    Basic research comprises only about one-sixth of the country’s spending on all types of R&D, which totaled $499 billion in 2015. Applied makes up another one-sixth, whereas the majority, some $316 billion, is development. Almost all of that is funded by industry and done inhouse, as companies try to convert basic research into new drugs, products, and technologies that they hope will generate profits. (The pharmaceutical and biotech industry, for example, spent a total of $102 billion on research and development in 2015, according to Research!America, an Arlington, Virginia–based advocacy group.)

    Those private sector efforts are now the dominant form of research activity in the United States, with business spending $3 on research for every $1 invested by the U.S. government. In the 1960s the federal government outspent industry by a two-to-one margin, but the balance tipped in 1980.

    Although eye-opening, the NSF business data are not as definitive as agency officials might like. About 30% of the companies that receive the BRDIS don’t respond; in comparison, nearly every university fills out NSF’s survey on research in higher education. And even companies that do return the business survey often ignore the question asking them to divide the company’s overall research investment into basic and applied pots, notes John Jankowski, head of R&D statistics within NSF’s National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics in Arlington.

    The NSF data capture another notable trend: a slow but steady rise in spending on basic research by universities and private foundations. Their combined $22 billion investment in 2015 represents a 25% share of the U.S. total, up from 21% in 2010 and 17% in 1995.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-01 09:42:00 UTC

  • THE METHOD TO THE APPEARANCE OF MADNESS (An Opus for the Newbies and Normies) Fe

    THE METHOD TO THE APPEARANCE OF MADNESS

    (An Opus for the Newbies and Normies)

    February 11th, 2019

    0) I work through the combination of aristotelian, logical, scientific, social scientific, pedagorical-religious, and cognitive-linguistic fields with a discipline that most cannot imagine. And at any time I’m attempting to solve a handful of problems. If the audience understands what problem I am solving it does not help me with their reactions so I tend to mix them up to prevent it.

    1) I ‘riff’ off arguments wherever i find them in order to create controversy in order to draw attention in order to educate those who are educable, and filter out those who are not.

    2) I never resist the opportunity for a fight for this reason: it is exceptional, relatively free advertising, that lets us search for people that have potential for contribution to the development of an intellectual movement sufficient to counter second era abrahamism: destruction of advanced civilizations by islamism, judaism, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism, and outright lying that baits the ignorant and foolish into moral hazard, and civilizational collapse.

    3) I teach by conducting a continuous the king of the hill game, which consists of making an argument or assertion which generates either defense of a prior assumption, offense against a presumption, or conflict between assumptions. This is how men must be taught. There is no penalty for failure except one’s learning. The only reward is attention, respect, quoting, and republication of good arguments. One does not need to be ‘right’ in this game, one needs only continuously strive to improve his abilities at discourse, debate, argument, and prosecution.

    4) The principle methods we teach are actually quite simple:

    (a) deflate, operationalize, disambiguate, serialize, define limits and completeness and express as a supply demand curve. This produces ‘better definitions, redefinitinos, and new definitions which are not possible to use in decet by the incomplete sentences, inflation, conflation, sophism, or the fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience.

    (b) All human behavior can be reduced to attempts to obtain, maintain, or defend expenditures of investment, whether physical, emotional, or intellectual. … As a consequence we can enumerate everything that humans attempt to acquire as some form of property. … As a consequence we can test whether attempts at obtaining property are reciprocal and if reciprocal within the limits of proportionality – thus maintaining the incentive to cooperate …. or they are not. if they are not then they are violations of reciprocity and proportionality, and as such simply ‘violence by other means’. Violence by any means, invites reciprocity by retaliation by violence by any means. Therefore the only reason for those who are able, to cooperate rather than exterminate, enslave, enserf, en-tax, or en-debt, is reciprocity within the limits of proportionality.

    (c) humans divide not only labor, but time-frame, perception, cognition, memory, paradigm, opportunities for predation and conditions of(fear of being) prey, demands, advocacy, negotiation, cooperation, rejection, conflict, and warfare.

    (d) there are a limited means of dividing that cognition and advocacy and those are primarily driven by gender differences in cognition and intuition, the bias of male or female brain structure and resulting behavior in the group, very minor differences in personality trait within the group (stages of the prey drive or reward system), the degree of neoteny in a group, and the success of the group in upward redistribution of reproduction thereby limiting the dead weight of the unproductive or costly.

    (e) Within groups there are only three means of persuasion i) force, ii)remuneration, iii) ostracization. These three strategies reflect the masculine conservative(defensive), ascendent male (opportunistic), and female(consumptive) biases in cognitive strategy. We see this in extreme conflict behavior between the genders as men fight only to preserve hierarchy then end the conflict. Ascendent men (libertarians) rarely fight but move to other opportunities. Females undermine by reputation destruction and do not stop until the enemy is destroyed. We also see this same effect in three personality type clusters. In other words all human groups cluster around three sets of personality types (big5/6) that reflect the masculine, libertarian, and feminine reproductive and social competitive strategy. This strategy is modified slightly by the sexual, social, economic, political, and military genetic, cultural, and knowledge value that the individual demonstrates by his display word and deed. and if we modify by the increasing adaptation provided by intelligence we see that there are a finite number of means by which individuals and groups compete. Therefore, all group strategies can be understood as genetic expression of group evolutionary demands.

    (f) Societies form elites in each of the means of coercion: i)force, government, and law, ii) finance, production, and trade, iii)education, gossip, propaganda, moralism, religion and these elites compete to make use of their strategy on behalf of their followers. They ally with one another. Traditionally religion and state. At the present it is religion and the middle class and the military (the middle) against the immigrants, minorities (non whites), underclasses (disenfranchised), and media, academy, state complex. In other words the new ‘religion’ of the academy and state is in competition with the old religion of the church, law, and people – it’s the top and bottom against the middle classes.

    (g) Since this new ‘religion’ is imposed upon our people by the same technique as the abrahamic religions (false promise, baiting into moral hazard, sophism, pilpul(excuse making), and critique (undermining), by a process of environmental overloading (informational saturation by repetition), that takes advantage of our genetic and cultural high trust (vulnerability to moral deception by moral hazard), and particularly because this is the natural intuition of the female biased mind out of evolutionary necessity, the increase in females in the work place, in voting, in consumption, and in particular in education in pseudosciences (social science and psychology and literature) which are simply vehicles for deceit by baiting the female mind into moral hazard, we can make use of the law to suppress falsehood, fraud, and high-fraud: baiting into moral hazard, in commerce, finance, economics, law, politics, and pedagogy (the academy), and let the natural competition between offenders and defenders incrementally suppress these frauds through the court system. and this will produce the most rapid change possible, and the costs of prosecution will, as in most things, drive the bad out of our society by negative market pressure (the law) alone, using natural self interest of even a minority of ordinary people.

    (h) It is quite possible using ‘testimonialism’ to define what is truthful speech (really, it is, surprisingly, and without that much difficulty) and teo extend the same involuntary (forced) warranty of due diligence against harm (falsehood, fraud, high fraud: baiting into moral hazard).

    (g) We have in the west relied on a unique, counter-intuitive human evolutionary strategy, evolved by our early military origins as charioteers, raiders, pirates, vikings, conquerors when we combined horse, wheel, bronze, language, and developed sky worshiping and paternalism as means of expressing our new found dominance over others and nature. However, this military order required personal investment by families in expensive equipment (arms, men) necessary to conduct raids and wars, and conquest. This order required putting TRUTH BEFORE FACE REGARDLESS OF COST TO THE HIERARCHY. Including the self. And it required relatively ‘democratic’ rights among those raiders (warriors, vikings, conquerors), who fought by choice not command. With the headman (chieftain) being the judge of last resort, and the people as the jury. As a result we produced heroism (risk) for the franchise (equality), and resulting sovereignty, reciprocity, common law, meaning the law of tort (property), and as a consequence, markets for voluntary cooperation in association, reproduction (marriage), production(economy), commons (‘society’), polity (government), and war (defense and offense), where war is another business venture like any other. And this tradition and this tradition alone – our sovereignty by earning it, our law, our militia, our jury, is all that separates us from the rest of the world that did not develop these traits. And the east asians were insulated from the barbarians by their territory, more so than we were by the Urals, black sea, caspian, bosphorus and mediterranean. So they not only had a longer time to develop, fewer genetically different neighbors, a larger population, and and the flood river alleys to feed themselves. They never developed truth over face, and because of that were not able to organize as fast and invent as fast as europeans in the ancient and modern worlds. The middle of the earth was destroyed by the semites over the past few thousand years, and their destruction and reduction of man to ignorance dysgenia, and poverty, is universal. They have destroyed and consumed the genetic, informational, normative, political, administrative, fixed, environmental capital of every great civilization of the ancient world reducing them to ashes of superstition. WHen rome discovered it must build a wall they did not choose the bosporus the caucuses, and the urals – and they should have. Because beyond there. nothing but Mordor waits. We are the people of science and law, the east are the people of reason and family, and the middle are the people of cancer upon the world that we must all defend against.

    (j) There are enemies among us that are not europeans and do not have our genetic and cultural dispositions, that exist (survive competition) ENTIRELY BY BAITING IN TO MORAL HAZARD and preying upon our people. We do not need to war against these people. Only outlaw their behavior in self defense. If we do so those people will have a choice of conforming, leaving, or prosecution and if necessary, execution. These people specialize in Advertising, Finance, Media, Entertainment, Propaganda, Activism, Law, Government, Prostitution, Gambling, Pornograpy, and white collar crime. And they do so by immigration, undermining, baiting into moral hazard, profiting from it, investing in the privatization of commons (rent seeking), and sponsoring further immigration, conversion, and destruction of all we have spent 4000 years developing.

    We can end the 2000 year war against our people very easily.

    A moral license (predation upon us, extermination of us)

    A set of demands (new constitution and policies)

    A plan of transition (how to reorganize peacefully)

    A means of altering the status quo. (uprising to delegitimize the state.)

    It is hard for people to argue with definancialization, de politicization, de propagandism, de population replacement, and the total criminalization of lying, fraud, and high fraud against our people in matters commercial, financial, political, economic, and military.

    We must choose. At least. The answer is about two million of us must choose. And we must choose to pay the price of defense of our people from the current attacks on our civilization.

    We can easily win.

    It’s just a choice.

    5) I am, we are, creating a movement the size and scope of marxism and postmodernism precisely to counter the use of semitic abrahamism version two, against our people in the forms of the great deceits of baiting into moral hazard: boazianism, freudianism, marxism, socialism, keynesianism, postmodernism, denialism, and outright lying; the destruction of our rule of law, of our constitution of natural law, and our civilization nearly devoid of burdensome underclasses that must of necessity parasitically depend upon us just as the utility of unskilled labor, skilled labor, clerks, craftsmen, are being eliminated from the economic pool. I’m searching for the members of our equivalent of the ‘frankfurt school’ – the development of our arguments of Restoration.

    All I care about from the Libertarians, Traditionalists, Constitutionalists , and Religious, is to i) not impede our work ii) be willing if the time comes to raise the few million we need to bring this entire country to a halt in short order, such that once published, our demands are met without bloodshed. ii) BEcause while you don’t understand, and I do, the ability to starve tens of millions of our enemies and turn their island cities to ruin is about as difficult as having a sandwich and beer.

    Thanks for your time and attention.The gods, all of them, are with us. Because only a devil would leave behind so many dead gods, and so many dead people, a genetic wasteland, and the attempted reversal of human history back into the stone ages.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Winning is easy once you know how to win and what to do once you’ve won.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-01 08:58:00 UTC

  • Decentralization, Separatism, Nationalism, definancialization, depoliticization,

    Decentralization, Separatism, Nationalism, definancialization, depoliticization, voluntary disassociation, restoration of our high trust polity, and all done by simply creating a market for profiting from the prosecution of falsehood and reciprocity in courts.

    Continuous superiority, by continuous velocity, by continuous agency, by the combination of sovereignty and reciprocity, truth and duty, law and jury, and markets in association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, and polities.

    Restoration of our group evolutionary strategy: maneuver.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-01 08:55:00 UTC

  • THE SUPREME COURT’S 2A RULING. 1. There are ten 2A cases before the supreme cour

    THE SUPREME COURT’S 2A RULING.

    1. There are ten 2A cases before the supreme court (SCOTUS)

    2. The NY case was effectively dropped by the SCOTUS because the law was withdrawn, because they were afraid the court would rule against it.

    3. The court dropped it because they didn’t want to cloud the controversial subject with an unnecessary ruling when there are more cases before it.

    4. In the court’s notes they stated that it was clear that NY did not pay sufficient attention to the courts recent rulings on 2A

    5. The court will follow with the upcoming cases, which cover the gamut of attempts to undermine the 2A.

    6. Unless something changes there is about zero chance the court will change course – and it is extremely likely that they will strike down most threats to 2A.

    7. It is irrational for us to wait until the court decides these cases.

    8. It’s necessary to state our demands, and unify 2A groups around a specific set of demands, that fully express our rights.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-30 19:54:00 UTC

  • I dunno guys. Michigan right now. Raleigh next. The 2A guys are in the lead. And

    I dunno guys. Michigan right now. Raleigh next. The 2A guys are in the lead. And it’s looking pretty good. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-30 16:57:00 UTC

  • OUR THREE SACRED FAITHS Western Civilization and Our Trifunctionalism. Our Three

    OUR THREE SACRED FAITHS

    Western Civilization and Our Trifunctionalism.

    Our Three Sacred Faiths:

    1) The MILITIA of every able bodied man – we are an army,

    2) The LAW, our jury, and our rights – we are unruled because we tolerate only rule of law

    3) Our RELIGION whether Christian (familial), Pagan (martial and historical) or heathen (ancestors and nature).

    No man, no organization, no state, no enemy, may violate these faiths.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-30 16:56:00 UTC

  • ONE AUTHOR ISN’T ENOUGH. BUT THAT’S WHERE MANY PEOPLE STOP. (worth repeating) It

    ONE AUTHOR ISN’T ENOUGH. BUT THAT’S WHERE MANY PEOPLE STOP.

    (worth repeating)

    It’s Nietzche, THEN Jung, Frazer, Campbell, Dumezil, Vonnegut, THEN cognitive Science, THEN Haidt, Doolittle.

    Jung is easily misdirected without nietzsche’s ‘the birth of tragedy’. Campbell misdirected without Dumezil and Vonnegut.

    Both groups without the grammars, reciprocity, and haidt’s moral intuitions.

    And western civ lost without all four generations of religion.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-30 16:37:00 UTC

  • The only way to start a revolution is via the second amendment battle over carry

    The only way to start a revolution is via the second amendment battle over carrying arms, and our militia of every possible male, as the foundation of our civilization, and it is as sacred as is our law, and our religion.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-30 16:08:00 UTC

  • I mean, humans have three sets of faculties: The physical(existential), the ‘rat

    I mean, humans have three sets of faculties: The physical(existential), the ‘rational-reciprocal'(value), and the logical(possible).

    So of course we need to perform falsification in all those dimensions:

    LOGICAL

    Categorical consistency (identity)

    Internal Consistency (logical)

    RATIONAL

    Rational Choice

    Reciprocal Rational Choice

    PHYSICAL

    Operationally possible

    Empirically consistent

    SCOPE (COMPLETNESS)

    Limits (have I stated the limits)

    Fully accounting (have i fully accounted for all)

    LIABILITY (OTHERS)

    Warranty (is it warrantable)

    Liability (is it within the limits of possible restitution)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-30 13:07:00 UTC