Source: Facebook

  • “Marxism is the tooth fairy of political beliefs. You can’t make a credible clai

    —“Marxism is the tooth fairy of political beliefs. You can’t make a credible claim to being an adult and still believe in that nonsense.”–Noah J Revoy

    —“Surplus value cannot exist. It’s the greatest lie to ever ensnare humans.”—Andrew M Gilmour

    —“Even if something like surplus value hypothetically could exist, I think the more important point is that there is no way of verifying or falsifying such a claim. He just insists that it does exist and that it can be calculated in terms of socially necessary labor time per hour. He’s just describing the attributes of a mythical tooth fairy without providing any way of verifying it.”—Predmetsky Rosenborg

    The question is this, why should I, having collected the savings fo dozens of families, invest in more than one companies, when only one will turn a profit, without expecting a return from the one company, that will profit enough to invest in any company, despite all but one losing money?

    Or more differently, given that all industrial capitalization, organization, marketing, sales, production, and receipt of payment is speculative, would the common laborers equally risk their income by investing labor and then waiting to see if the income would be returned?


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 14:54:00 UTC

  • I DON”T SPEND TIME REFUTING MARXISM. BUT IT”S TRIVIALLY EASY —“Is there an art

    I DON”T SPEND TIME REFUTING MARXISM. BUT IT”S TRIVIALLY EASY

    —“Is there an article in which you relate these claims to the specific Marxist tenets, like surplus value, the labor theory of value, historical materialism, alienated labour, and so on? … I noticed you didn’t mention any of these in your comment here, so I’m not sure we’re really talking about the same thing.​”—Morus Alba

    It is not necessary to refute marx since it’s been done for decades. Just the fallacy of the labor theory of value eradicates most of the work; the claim on profits without claim on risk and loss; the claim that the primary beneficiary of industrialization is not the working classes and the poor; the claim of equality and oppression rather than natural sortition by genetic ability individual and family; the claim of society as corporal over family and polity for family; the claim of oppression rather than continuation of natural selection; The means of argument and it’s monopoly proposition to undermine trifuncationalism, markets, and rule of law.

    I mean, I don’t think I need to do anything other than state correctly that it’s a pseudoscientific authoritarian religion that repeats the false promise of the supernatural authoritarian religion of judaism, christianity, and islam and sold to the poor in the modern world as freedom from physical law, just as freedom from physical law was sold to the underclases in the ancient world – and that gave us the dark ages of ignorance by judaism, christianity, and islam.

    That’s why we don’t teach marx in economics, only non-science.

    So if you want me to refute a given marxist proposition I will because it’s trivially easy. If you want me to refute ashkenazi capitalism I’ll refute that just as easily. If you want me to refute neoconservatism I’ll do that easily. If you want me to refute postmodernism or feminism I’ll do those just as easily.

    My goal of course is to expand the law so that false promise of freedom from physical, natural and evolutionary law, by baiting people into hazard is as illegal in political fraud as the same strategy is in commercial fraud.

    So most of my work is in exposing the strategy of abrahamic deception – which is as sophisticated a means of deceit as aristotelianism is a means of truth production – and writing laws that not only reverse it’s harms, but which prevent its future use … thereby restoring us to trifuncationalism, sovereignty, reciprocity, the natural law and jury, and markets in all aspects of life, including the suppression of the reproduction of the unproductive classes so that they do not return man to middle eastern ignorance and poverty as did christianity and islam, nor tolerate survival by parasitism as we have seen with judaism’s profiting from baiting host peoples into hazard with tax collection, usury, gambling, prostitution, drug and alcohol sales on credit, organized crime. propaganda, and rent seeking.

    BY ANALOGY

    We humans are just monkeys running software with more memory and cpu power.

    I’m removing ‘memory leak’ from the human software. And law ist he means by which we program humans via negativa, without needing to program them via-positiva, and therefore leaving them open to competition in adversarial markets continuing our rapid evolution during this brief geological respite between crisis that threaten mankind.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 13:37:00 UTC

  • THE DIFFERENCE by Scott De Warren Right wing – ensure productivity outpaces repr

    THE DIFFERENCE

    by Scott De Warren

    Right wing – ensure productivity outpaces reproductivity, ensuring prosperity (demand for capitalization). (Male)

    Left wing – ensure reproductivity outpaces productivity, ensuring poverty. (demand for redistribution). (Female)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 13:08:00 UTC

  • DO YOU HAVE YOUR DEFINITION OF MINDFULNESS? —“I’m sure I’ve read this somewher

    https://propertarianism.com/?s=mindfulnessCURT DO YOU HAVE YOUR DEFINITION OF MINDFULNESS?

    —“I’m sure I’ve read this somewhere, but could you define ‘mindfulness’ as you use it here (and in most or all things related to P)? Is it simply being aware of al possible outcomes before acting on instinct? Or something else?”—Mathew Smith

    See the first result in this search. Then scan some others and read a few if you want more depth. -hugs

    https://propertarianism.com/?s=mindfulnessUpdated Apr 18, 2020, 12:56 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 12:56:00 UTC

  • QUESTION– Curt; in the paragraph: —Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), p

    –QUESTION–

    Curt; in the paragraph:

    —Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denialism, are all attempts at deception by: (a) claiming european self determination (sovereignty, reciprocity), tripartism (military, legal-commercial), and religious(family-faithful), mediated by law, and limiting us to markets, so that we preserve natural selection by demonstrated behavior, and devoting the proceeds to the production of commons, thereby maintaining the health,prosperity, and wealth of the people, and their competitive advantage is oppression, when all other peoples that did not do so were mired in poverty and suffering.’—

    Here, under (a), it says that Marxism is an attempt at deception by claiming European self-determination, tripartism and religious… (etc)

    Should that not read ‘undermining’, rather than claiming. They don’t claim those things, they undermine them.

    I don’t know if I’m missing something, here?

    It also says their competitive advantage is oppression? Technically aren’t the competitive advantages of the left AND right oppression? The left oppress the objectively strong, the right suppress (oppress) the objectively weak.

    I just want a little clarification here, that’s all. Thanks.

    –RESPONSE–

    Well you know, i) i write long complex sentences, including parentheticals and series, ii) I leave out what I consider extra words. And, that’s sometimes a burden. This comes from writing programming code, and it’s the combination of law, economics, programming, and the foundations of mathematics that let me develop P-law. So there is a high correlation between my sentence structure and programming code. In the four paragraphs below I’ve broken up the single paragraph into its constituent phrases and added back what I consider unnecessary terms in brackets [ ], resulting in

    “…Claiming that (all this stuff) is oppression (by these people).”

    “{(a) claiming [that] }



    {european self determination (sovereignty, reciprocity), tripartism (military, legal-commercial), and religious(family-faithful), mediated by law, [that limits] us to markets, so that we preserve natural selection [ in markets that existed before them,] by individually demonstrated behavior, }



    {and devoting the proceeds [of surpluses] to the production of commons, [instead of funding reproduction of additional non-contributors] thereby maintaining the health,prosperity, and wealth of the people [who are contributors], and their competitive advantage [against competing peoples]}



    {is oppression [by the middle and ruling classes], when all other peoples that did not do so [preserve natural selection using markets] were mired in poverty and suffering.}’”

    in other words, productivity must stay ahead of reproduction.

    What I could have said is that:

    “Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denialism, are all attempts at deception by: (a) claiming they’re oppressed by ….”

    Or some variation thereof.

    -Cheers

    —“Right wing – ensure productivity outpaces reproductivity, ensuring prosperity. Left wing – ensure reproductivity outpaces productivity, ensuring poverty (demand for redistribution).”—Scott De Warren


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 12:34:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/93475503_260363585361802_79204532490

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/93475503_260363585361802_7920453249021247488_o_260363582028469.jpg


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 05:24:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/93970393_259968195401341_77733361966

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/93970393_259968195401341_777333619663306752_o_259968192068008.jpg Told ya so. “As long as he thinks he can win he will try to govern. If he thinks he can’t win he will try to rule. We only need to answer his opportunity”

    Escalation from here I assume?Told ya so. “As long as he thinks he can win he will try to govern. If he thinks he can’t win he will try to rule. We only need to answer his opportunity”

    Escalation from here I assume?


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-17 18:57:00 UTC

  • You tagged Thomas Alt Beesley photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/939703

    You tagged Thomas Alt Beesley photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/93970393_259968195401341_777333619663306752_o_259968192068008.jpg Told ya so. “As long as he thinks he can win he will try to govern. If he thinks he can’t win he will try to rule. We only need to answer his opportunity”

    Escalation from here I assume?Told ya so. “As long as he thinks he can win he will try to govern. If he thinks he can’t win he will try to rule. We only need to answer his opportunity”

    Escalation from here I assume?


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-17 18:57:00 UTC

  • A JOURNEY: A REFLECTION: I STARTED ON WHAT WOULD BECOME P IN 1990 – JUST A FEW Y

    A JOURNEY: A REFLECTION: I STARTED ON WHAT WOULD BECOME P IN 1990 – JUST A FEW YEARS AFTER GIVING UP ON AI.

    Interesting. Memory was off. Thought it was 92. But notes. I started working on a universal language of ethics and politics in the summer of 1990 as the prelude to the iraq war. I was frustrated by the inability of conservatives and libertarians to speak in rational and scientific rather than moral language. During the next few years the democratic party fully abandoned pretense and resorted to using an Alinsky technique of just getting on the television and repeating talking points without ever answering questions. This is what generated demand for fox news to evolve into a full time opponent to full time left wing media. This is how Bill O’Reilly made his reputation. He wouldn’t put up with it and the entire news media edifice followed his strategy.

    This afternoon I was trying to figure out when I gave up on AI, and it was in 86/87. I’d sold a biz. Was taking classes trying to figure out what I wanted to do next. And so I spent the next few years on my new relationship, moving us, and working on a legal research automation startup that consumed all my time. But I didn’t realize how quickly I’d gone back to researching in my part time. What I realized later is that I succeeded in business because it was my emotional substitute for warfare, and to pay for a wife, our travel, and my intellectual pursuits.

    So in retrospect, I can see the logical progression of my thought from study of military weapons, to study of the american revolution and constitution (very young), to science fiction, to study of military history, to writing conservative propaganda, to writing games and game ai, to ai solving the problem of ai in general, to legal automation, to wanting to solve the problem of conservative and libertarian thought, to economics, to the ‘aha’ moment when I heard hoppe reduce social science to property rights, and from there to constitutions, to solving the problem of lying in public and law, to solving the question of truth, to re-solving the question of the foundations of mathematics, and then to all the rest, including the failure of the operational movement, to psychology as acquisition, sociology as the combination of reciprocity and tripartism, the grammars, and finally markets in everything, group strategy, market government, trifunctionalism and finally religion.

    Some people do understand what I’ve done, which is the formal operational logic of human sciences: metaphysicas, psychology, sociology, group strategy, and politics. Most have no idea what i’ve done here. Or what it means for man. That’s ok. I’m pretty confident that in the future students will learn P just like they learn every other science.

    It’s an interesting project that’s consumed most of my life, or put differently, has been the somewhat deterministic totally involuntary process of combining an accident of being born in a time period of invasion by hostiles, a very unpleasant childhood, a touch of autism, a touch of ocd-thinking from autism, a bit too much dominance expression, resulting love of competition and working hard, and the relentless desire to create.

    I can’t figure out if I should have forgotten the pursuits of women and success and just focused on my intuitions, but I would not have accumulated the life experiences necessary to understand the vast differences in humans across the spectrum of ability from ordinary workers, to adequate professionals, to fortune ceo’s to politicians, to intellectuals, to the financial puppet masters that are the most evil demons of all.

    I just know that sitting in church at the age of twelve I had two ideas: first that I must remember into adulthood that at such an age children are able to have their own ideas and must be listened to even if it is effort. And second that if god would help me create the wealth necessary, I would build him a church. And as a proper autistic I set that as my mission in life and never varied. It wasn’t until late adulthood I understood that while I’d envisioned a building, it was a very different god, who wanted a very different church, in a very different religion, that united all our people, whether scientific, rational, or spiritual, and that ‘religion’ would amount to little more than truth in the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws, and the debt to nature, ancestors, heroes who got us here.

    When we ask whether we have free will, the question is rather ridiculous. The question is how much choice do we have given our genes, our family condition, or local circumstances, our civilizational age, and the indoctrination, education, and skills we ‘suffer’ as we navigate with a few pounds of gelatinous mass in our skulls through a few productive decades of life, before that time is lost to us, our faculties are lost to us and we add ourselves to the creditors we call ancestors, civilization, and history.

    The answer to our degree of choice? I’m not sure. It’s more than none, more than some, but less than we wish. And the answer as in all things is to choose what is compatible with physical natural and evolutionary law, and to make as few bad choices as possible, because we rarely know the good once until late.

    Note to self: Be cautious what deal you make with gods. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-17 17:52:00 UTC

  • Brandon Hayes sorry to bother you with this but do you have a collection that ag

    Brandon Hayes sorry to bother you with this but do you have a collection that aggregates my anti-philoosphy or anti-theology posts? (Doing that one. Doing Math. Doing AI.)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-17 11:50:00 UTC