—“….as the energy efficiency of engines increases, markets [identify increased opportunities for their use, resulting in] increased overall energy use.”— Jevons Paradox
longer version
—-“Engines, both literally and figuratively, power the modern era. Engines matter because they convert otherwise useless forms of energy into useful work. And as the energy efficiency of engines increases, markets use more of them in more varied ways, which throughout history has resulted in increased overall energy use – a.k.a. the Jevons Paradox.”—
—“Today, humanity fabricates 1,000 times more transistors annually than the entire world grows grains of wheat and rice combined. Collectively, all those transistors consume more electricity than the state of California.”— Mark P. Mills
Longer Version
—“The invention of the transistor-based logic engine, the integrated circuit, turned 60 this year. Today, humanity fabricates 1,000 times more transistors annually than the entire world grows grains of wheat and rice combined. Collectively, all those transistors consume more electricity than the state of California. The rise of transistors as “engines of innovation” emerged from Moore’s Law. And we’re still in its early days: paraphrasing Mark Twain, recent reports of the death of that Law are greatly exaggerated.”— Mark P. Mills
The only hard ones are the physical because it is very hard to ‘authenticate’ talent that isn’t already part of our ‘fitness’ circle on one hand an our ‘combat sports’ circle on the other.
it’s just an IQ thing, I know. But it’s harder to find that than you think.
Anyway, we will start with Art, History, Law, and War and build out from there.
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/51133950_10156949625707264_1273282031727411200_n_10156949625697264.jpg Nick DahlheimDamn, Bill Joslin is the King of radical disambiguationJan 29, 2019, 11:14 PMOsman KuğudağI read a statement that the Celts could not defeat the Romans until they adopted some of the Roman ways. If that is true, is it really that bad to learn from your enemy if it makes you superior?Jan 30, 2019, 3:42 AMAdam DavidThat quote is a really good condensed explanation for the tactics used by the right. At least since i’ve become politically aware. It takes a real understanding to condense information like that.Jan 30, 2019, 3:43 AMChristopher HallPlease don’t tell me propertarianism is horse shoe theory posting about tactics. Confounding tactics with intent is childish. Projecting force and inflicting loss on the enemy is how victory is achieved, there are just scales of how force is used.Jan 30, 2019, 9:06 AMCurt DoolittleWTF does that mean? Horseshoe theory suggests far right and far left are similar (authoritarian). I don’t make that argument at all. I make the argument rule of law and necessary truth, vs rule by discretion and necessary lies. And that right intolerance is eugenic, and left intolerance dysgenic. The fact that the far right has adopted the tactics of the marxist and postmodernists is simply a function of the evidence. The only answer is the organized application of violence to impose, under rule of law, our traditional order.Jan 30, 2019, 9:12 AMChristopher HallAnd I agree with how that force should be used to impose those virtues and rules. We are learning what tools we can put in our bag right now and how we can use them asymmetrically. The left has been doing this far longer so yes, the right is learning from their enemies. If you don’t know how, copy them
Imposing rule of law and traditional order is, I would say, not in the cards right now and the force needed to impose order is an escalation we don’t have the total means of yet. At this stage agitation and other means are being used to build and counter the narrative. Many of these tactics have originated from the left in the modern sense, but a new type of hammer is still just a hammer.
As far as the mix up is concerned, I read the first sentence as a premise for the rest which is how it flows, however previous conversations with normie types take immense issue with acting “principled” and not using any tactics to insure their own victory. The tactics we know how to use are the ones that have “immediate time horizons” and our tool bag doesn’t have many others that are long time horizons. Those that we use include networking, training and content creation for the most part.
No offense meant Mr. Dootlittle, just don’t want to see the same moral pitfalls.Jan 30, 2019, 9:29 AMCurt Doolittleso you agree with bill then….Jan 30, 2019, 9:37 AMChristopher HallFor the most part, except I don’t agree with using another one’s means to achieve their ends as compromising our goals. Necessity dictates immediate response sometimes and if you can’t reply with a better means you use what’s available. When faced with doxing, dox the guy doing it. Censorship from big tech, boycott. Etc.
Another big step for our side would be making our own tools for our own tool bag to achieve our ends.Jan 30, 2019, 9:43 AMBenjamin IrelandThis is basically what I was alluding to yesterday about conservatives talking out of both sides of their mouths regarding the Civil War. The truth is already on our side. We don’t need to be intellectually dishonest in order to win debates. Acquire the truth, and help spread it.Jan 30, 2019, 11:56 AMDylan KnowlesThe argument that the right hasnt been doing it right and needs to learn from the Enemy because they evolve rapidly is outright wrong. The right has known for hundreds of years how to remove enemies. The issue isnt the application of force or the tactics involved. Its the balls to act in the correct way. We suffer from either inaction or over action. People who want to sit around all day and hash and rehash and do nothing or people who lash out in all directions and only accomplish getting their name on a federal watchlist and local police radars. Utilizing left wing tactics doesnt give us any ground, it only dilutes any attempts at meaningful change.Jan 30, 2019, 6:28 PMCurt Doolittle^Failure to act as a group.Jan 30, 2019, 6:34 PMDylan KnowlesCurt Doolittle Id even go so far as to say most of these new “Right Groups” and the alt right are making learned mistakes. But god forbid you point out inaccuracies because then its “Punching Right”.Jan 30, 2019, 6:35 PMStephen ThomasThe only real method to defeat the left is to utterly (violently) destroy them. Our tolerance is their greatest ally.
Skull PileJan 30, 2019, 6:52 PMNick Dahlheim100 millionJan 30, 2019, 6:54 PMPat RyanThe left doesn’t own monopoly on certain kinds of tactics. They just rely on them heavily.
If an enemy charged at me with an axe, and they kept using that axe over and over again, I could say, “Those damn axes are overpowered, nerf plz”, or I could look at the axe as a weakness, study it, use it, and figure out the weakpoint.
Spearman and swordsmen and salesmen bicker about means. It’s best to be victorymen.Jan 30, 2019, 8:07 PMDylan KnowlesTheres a difference, lets say for purpose of thought the left wing are using axes. But you own a gun. Instead of using the gun you own you think to yourself “Man, maybe I should get a axe if all these people are using them.” When you already have the means to solve the problem you dont adapt to the enemies tactics, you remove the enemy. Point blank. If I get stranded on an island of a lost tribe and I have my gun, and my 30 round magazine. And they are using bows and arrows or throwing spears at me. Im not gonna sling my weapon and pick up a spear and go toe to toe with a dozen members of the lost tribe. Im gonna flick off my safety and remove the problem. And in all reality, thats about the equivalent of our situation. The only issue we have is too many people want to pick up the proverbial spear and fight the tribe head on when we already have solutions that far outweigh the enemies means to overpower us.Jan 30, 2019, 8:12 PMChris CantrellI agree, but I am also learning that the truth is not enough. This is a reply I got for spreading truth last week…
“No, what you are is one of these people who fishes for people to give you all kinds of “arguments” and “proof” just to wear us out. There is even a specific term for it.
It is plain as day that Trump and his supporters are racist, that these “kids” are racist, and YOU are in denial.
Good day, sir.”Jan 31, 2019, 6:56 AMBenjamin IrelandChris Cantrell yeah, those kind of people depress the hell out of me.Jan 31, 2019, 10:46 AMCurt DoolittleWrong Logic Chris.
Truth is an excuse for moral men to prosecute (or punish or eliminate) those who engage in genocide, fraud and deceit.
It is not a means of convincing those who are immoral.
There is only one means of persuasion: the organize application of violence to deny other than truth the opportunity to survive.Jan 31, 2019, 10:50 AMDan WarrenReason for the reasonable, violence for the rest.Feb 1, 2019, 11:13 AM
REGARDING: NEWS: “VA WOMEN SEEK TO PERMIT ABORTION DURING BIRTH”
(NAXALT WARNING: whenever we use a universal category like men or women, men and women exist in a distribution of ability. bias. experience. and knowledge, but we can still quite easily make ‘general rules of general precision regarding the cumulative behavior of those distributions’ – No More NAXALT Deceits!)
(SENSITIVE TOPIC WARNING: Sorry but this is science. No more lies.)
MEN
Men defend the herd (women and children) by instinct. Everything men do attempts to preserve sufficient loyalty among super-predators, for the male pack to maintain the resource of the female herd in competition against other packs who compete for resources – including our female herd.
WOMEN
Women conduct “sh-t tests” by instinct. Or better stated, women look for opportunities to undermine.
This is how they create and maintain equality: undermining.
Women eliminate competitors by undermining.
They control the fitness of their males in competition with other males by undermining.
They control access to their reproductive facility by undermining.
They control each other through undermining.
And where men simply end the threat to the pack, women seek to destroy competition completely.
Women undermine. They feel ‘good’ and ‘relaxed’ whenever they undermine any and everyone.
Western men are the victims of permissiveness in letting women undermine.
There is no end to woman’s want of nesting.
There is no end to woman’s want of attention.
There is no end to woman’s want of undermining.
Women in Europe took out their anger on the church.
Women in Anglodom took out their anger on the monarchy.
Women in America took out their anger on men.
They undermined the church, they undermined, the monarchy, and they undermine their men, and the undermine all that has made their lives of relative luxury possible – and they will never, ever, stop.
Despite the fact that it was heroism, loyalty, sovereignty, property, marriage, and paternalism that raised us out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, suffering, disease, child mortality, early death, the perils of the seasons and the vicissitudes of nature in a universe hostile to life.
We are but riders on the elephants of our evolutionary heritage embodied in our genes, and expressed in our physiology, and demonstrated in our behavior. Our though and speech is nothing more than a means of negotiating on behalf of those genes.
By extraordinary effort we can develop the agency to reason – and not be controlled by the elephant, rather than intuit and feel – and be controlled by the elephant.
The elephant does not tell us what is good. It tells us only how to compete in small bands of hunter gatherers.
—“CURT: QUESTION: THE ECONOMICS OF THE PERCEPTION OF ART?”—
Could you recommend any works on Art Theory? I have been looking a bit into Rand’s Romantic Manifesto.
(CD: honestly – and this will surprise people – as far as I know (and I know) there aren’t any better. My work is an extension of the RM. And honestly it’s the best most important piece she wrote and in my opinion the only piece with long term value. It influenced me greatly. If you add Gary Becker’s economic analysis of art I think you get the rest of it.)
It seems the absence of art (silence, non-action) achieves non-imposition of costs whereas the act of art always imposes costs.
(CD: I would say is broken into two statements.
1- Markets require attention seeking – that is how we reduce opportunity costs: density of opportunity and density of attention opportunities.
2- Some commons offer aesthetic attention seeking as an alternative to ‘unordered’, wild or unmaintained, commons. A well manicured park with statues of men of arts and letters is a pretty good place to be.
3- Not all commons are available for attention seeking, or attention-drawing, – and in fact that is what ‘sacred’ means.
4- Not all people possess the ability and training to respect sacred spaces, and they must be protected from such people.)
Are all actions of an individual considered art?
– No.
(CD: I would say that art consists of that which the actor intends to invest in obtaining attention by the expenditure of resources for the provision of aesthetic returns. in other words, we choose to invest in the aesthetics of any given craft (making) for the purpose of attention to the decoration of mind, time and space in all that term’s possible meanings.)
Who defines what is art and what is not?
– Consumers, viewers, participants.
(CD: Um, I would say no, that art is what it is across the spectrum of childish to amateurish, to professional, to iconic, to revolutionary. I would say that craft, design, editorial, and art are very different things. i would say some people engage in fraud that takes advantage of consumer ignorance, and that the value of art is determined by long term market forces (what survives the competition between fashion and ignorance).
(CD: many goods are brought to market, those that survive in the market survive, those that don’t do not. What is an attempt at art is defined above. what succeeds at art is determined by a series of markets, the most common of which is REFERENCE BY OTHER ARTIST: by imitation.
Art is worthy of perception.
– Perception costs are time and energy.
(CD: the market determines whether it is worthy of perception, most art is not worthy of perception just like most products are not worthy of consumption. The difference is that it is easier to find a sucker for bad art than it is to find a sucker for a bad car, and far harder to find a sucker for a poorly tailored bit of clothing.)
Are all actions of an individual considered art?
– No. Who defines what is art and what is not? Consumers, viewers, participants. Art is worthy of perception. Perception costs are time and labor.
(CD: We would use a slighting different set of terms I suggest you adopt: Art competes for attention. Attention is a resource, consisting of time and energy. The returns on attention are either there, or they are not. Given that the returns vary from the free association the art causes for the individual, for people who see his possession of it, for public use, and for public ceremonial use, the chances of providing that return are highly dependent upon the craft, design, content, scale, of the piece. What you put in your bathroom, your guest bath, your living room, your office, a court building, and a church hold different standards.)
Viewers perceive, recognize and set value on something. Perception and recognition cost time and labor. Similar to how consumers set prices. An act of art doesn’t exist because its up to it is a viewer value judgement.
(CD: Hmmmm. Art is a product like any other. Books are a product like any other. tools are products like any other. You must undrestand the language and context of the book to buy and use it for returns. You must understand the possible operations and context of use of a tool to buy and use it for returns. )
(CD: the problem in your reasoning is as usual one of grammar. People create products. Those products serve a function or not (satisfy a market demand). Those products serve sufficient market demands to sell or not (provide marginal value necessary for incentive to exchange). Those exchanges(investments) survive the market for aesthetic competition over time, for the intended market whether individual, group, polity, world).
Here is what you might be searching for: Public art of any kind is dependent on shares strategy, values, knowledge, and experience. Lacking those shared properties it is no longer possible to produce art that does not impose a cost instead of provide a return.
Everything is open to economic analysis under propertarianism.)
