( Minor and unnecessary (and eventually fruitless) legal matter making me furious the past few days. It’s the only time I self medicate: to stop the anger. Dear ancestors: thank you for scotch and water. Here’s to all of you. š )
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-23 14:43:00 UTC
‘cmon Bibi. Do it up. Get it rolling. The whole world is looking for it. Draw everyone into it. Lets complete the enlightenment. lol
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-23 14:38:00 UTC
( Whining: The conversation in this coffee shop is making everyone including me, ‘stupider’ by the moment. (laboring class sicilian, italian, greek, turkic clientele. Flip side: everyone is happy in their “stupiderness” – they have lots of friends equally enjoying their stupidness. Stupid and happy is fine as long as they can’t vote. It’s this whole voting thing. )
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-23 14:31:00 UTC
Asylums were good for the rest of us.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-23 13:54:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-23 13:41:00 UTC
via Brandon Hayes and Rosenborg Predmetsky
This is super interesting
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842692/
“Cultureāgene coevolutionary theory posits that cultural values have evolved, are adaptive and influence the social and physical environments under which genetic selection operates. Here, we examined the association between cultural values of individualismācollectivism and allelic frequency of the serotonin transporter functional polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) as well as the role this cultureāgene association may play in explaining global variability in prevalence of pathogens and affective disorders. We found evidence that collectivistic cultures were significantly more likely to comprise individuals carrying the short (S) allele of the 5-HTTLPR across 29 nations.
Results further show that historical pathogen prevalence predicts cultural variability in individualismācollectivism owing to genetic selection of the S allele. Additionally, cultural values and frequency of S allele carriers negatively predict global prevalence of anxiety and mood disorder. Finally, mediation analyses further indicate that increased frequency of S allele carriers predicted decreased anxiety and mood disorder prevalence owing to increased collectivistic cultural values.
Taken together, our findings suggest cultureāgene coevolution between allelic frequency of 5-HTTLPR and cultural values of individualismācollectivism and support the notion that cultural values buffer genetically susceptible populations from increased prevalence of affective disorders.
Implications of the current findings for understanding cultureāgene coevolution of human brain and behaviour as well as how this coevolutionary process may contribute to global variation in pathogen prevalence and epidemiology of affective disorders, such as anxiety and depression, are discussed.”
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-23 13:41:00 UTC
—“My understanding is that you are knowledgable on race. Would you happen to know the race of Kurds and Arabs?”—
Kurds are west asians, and part of the Iranic (caucasian) branch.
Kurdish people are closely related to the Azeri, Armenian, Georgian peoples, descending from some common ancestors in the northern Near East region. ie: west eurasians.
Southern italians < greeks < anatolians > caucasians > iranians > Turks.
Arabs are afro asiatics from the ethiopian/red sea/yemen area that migrated north and consist of north and south branches.
East africans > South arabs > north arabs > palestinians
south africans < East Africans > West africans
Because of the degree of conquest in the middle east the genomes of west eurasians in the greater mesopotamia and levant area appear to have a lot of overlap – particularly in the Kurds who are sort of ‘in the middle’ of it all. It’s helpful to think of jews, palestinians, and kurds as peoples who were unable to survive as nation states throughout the persian, greek, roman, and arab conquests.
Europeans for example are the european branch of the west asians but it appears that they are a result of some conflict between the north and south urheimat peoples.
Atlantics > germanics > nordics, > slavics > finns are europeans (glacial survivors of the european plain.)
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-23 13:24:00 UTC
WHY WE FAILED
So you see, the reasons the west could not defeat the rise of pseudoscience (marxism) and sophism (postmodernism) and denialism (feminism) is because of:
(1) we spoke in religious, philosophical, and moral middle class language, and;
(2) because our group strategy and reason for success is eugenic,;
(3) our organizing principle is actually our law (martial and judicial class) and tripartism, not our philosophy(middle class) universal or religion (administrative class) universal;
(4) we lacked understanding of our organizing principle and its difference from other civilizations; had no practice in using it against administrative and middle class moralisms, sophims, supernaturalisms, and pseudosciences, and;
(5) universal enfranchisement in a single house majoritarian democracy is logically and empirically counter to the tradition of our law (sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty), our group strategy (sovereignty, tripartism, commons and eugenic evolution).
In retrospect it isn’t complicated but in the process it was chaos.
But now we know. Truth is enough.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-23 13:07:00 UTC
—“Much of leftism is about projection and subversion. Leftist beta soyboys are very much lacking in the sack, and their women know it. Also, women tend to badmouth one’s sexual status and performance when disagreed with, especially if they can deceive themselves about it (over the internet, everyone is an incel). The other reason is that it’s a cheap shot, literally below the belt, which makes a right-winger pause with shock in what ought be a serious discussion of policy.”— Nikola Dzhilvidzhiev
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-23 11:50:00 UTC
Let us try this again:
—“So in the distribution between intent, failure of due diligence, carrier of lies, and a cognitive tradition of lying by sophism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience, and the biological drive of the female-biased mind to use gossip and undermining to undermine the hierarchy, … what is the distribution of rothbard’s guilt? With him, his culture, or his genome?”—
What is difficult about this question?
Spectrum of Lying:
1. Intent to lie.
2. Intent to deceive.
3. Failure of due diligence against lying
4. Carrier of lies.
5. Carrier of tradition and culture of lies.
6. A genetic predisposition to lie.
Where truthful speech consists of:
1. categorically consistent (identity)
2. internally consistent (logic)
3. externally correspondent (empirical)
4. operationally consistent (existentially possible)
5. rationally consistent (rational choice)
6. reciprocally consistent (reciprocal rational choice)
7. consistent within scope, limits, and fully accounting (complete)
8. consistent across all those seven dimensions (coherent)
And where:
9. limited to actions for which restitution(restoration) is possible.
10. warrantied by sufficient resources to perform restitution.
That is the list of conceivable dimensions available to man, the means of due diligence by which we test them, and constitutes a ‘complete, deflated, dimensional’ definition of truthful speech – a speech that will survive in a court of law.
Rothbard’s ethic uses the first premise of volition – the ethics of the ghetto, the pale, and the low trust middle east. This ethic is consistent across afro-asiatic peoples: can I get away with it? Just as face ethic is consistent across asiatic peoples, and just as truth over face is consistent over northern european peoples (not russian).
Western ethics uses the first premise of reciprocity – the ethics of the high trust homogeneous europeans (exclusively). It says ‘will their be repercussions over time?’ The west competes by its commons, the middle east by predation upon them.
So, what are Mises and Rothbard NOT accounting for (Cherrypicking) in their arguments?
Mises didn’t practice ‘austrian’ economics. He was from L’viv (near where I live). He practiced the economics of the ghetto, pale, and middle east, and restated it with Menger’s subjectivity. He found another application of pilpul with which to justify his priors. Hence why there is ‘austrian economics’ of menger and hayek fully incorporated into the mainstream, and ‘ukrainian ghetto economics’ of mises and rothbard (and eastern ashkenazim in general) that have not been incorporated into the mainstream.
All peoples (states, civilizations) so far have attempted to take the british scientific revolution and exit the medieval world of supernatural sophisms while retaining (a) their traditional method of argument, and (b) the traditional underlying ethics, in order to (c) persist their group competitive strategy. No people has done otherwise: the french, germans, italians, russians and ashkenazi, the chinese, and now the muslims.
We have just about ended the jewish century of resistance to truth and science (marx, boas, freud, cantor, mises, rand/rothbard, strauss) and are entering into the muslim century of resistance to truth and science. It is the last civilization we have yet to drag out of ignorance, and the most primitive, most resistant, with the worst demographics. Our ancestral attempt in the roman era resulted in a dark age.
I understand this subject better than anyone else living. Mostly because I have spent the better part of a decade understanding the differences between anglo, continental, jewish/arab(Semitic), Hindu, and asian methods of law, argument, philosophy, religion, economics, and family structure, and produced a value independent, fully commensurable, logic of law, ethics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy for these purposes.
Of the existing grammars we call math, logic, science, algorithms, law-testimony, descriptive speech, ordinary speech, narrative speech, fiction, fictionalisms(sophisms-idealism/philosophy, supernaturalisms-theology, and pseudoscience/magic), and deceit, I practice *Law*. Why?
Because of those grammars, it is the only one that is both both complete, complete, and free of fictions, and the means of suggestion by which to circumvent our reason.
So the question is, why would anyone not write about social science in law – the language of reciprocity – unless to circumvent that law of reciprocity?
…..Which answers a question of the ages.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-23 11:49:00 UTC