Dec 19, 2019, 7:25 PM Emotions are measures of changes in state of property. by Martin Štěpán ( Brandon Hayes)
Emotions are measures of changes in state of property. When they tell you hate or any other emotion is a crime, they’re trying to convince you your measurements are erroneous and to get you to stop measuring so that they can change the state of your property without obstacle.
Dec 19, 2019, 7:25 PM Emotions are measures of changes in state of property. by Martin Štěpán ( Brandon Hayes)
Emotions are measures of changes in state of property. When they tell you hate or any other emotion is a crime, they’re trying to convince you your measurements are erroneous and to get you to stop measuring so that they can change the state of your property without obstacle.
Dec 19, 2019, 7:30 PM I don’t know what ‘liberalism’ means any longer. It used to mean constraining government. But it meant that under parliamentary control. I think the western experiment in ‘aristocracy of everyone’ by continuous expansion of the franchise in order to justify taking political power(organization of the production of private and common) from the monarchy and the church, and to justify the expansion of taxation for the purposes of redistribution – is a clear failure. I don’t think you can get away from 1) rule of law and markets for adaptive velocity 2) state-private investment in increasingly complex and expensive investment in competitive innovation, 3) the need for ‘decider of last resort’, whether despot, monarchy, 4) money isn’t real any longer, so it’s just a tool of positive incentive (coercion?) and we will (shortly) see the end of the private global capitalists, and the universal adoption of the chinese method of state money and interest management. The liberal order was made possible by the European Colonial Expansion, and the relative weakness of (small) european governments compared to the strength of the emerging middle class, and the vast pool of middle class genetic reserves built up in europe over more than a thousand years. We have been in the post modern order since marx, freud, boas, cantor, adorno, friedan, rothbard/rand, trotsky/neocons sequentially tried to undermine men (marxism), culture (frankfurt), truth (derrida), women (feminism), and the western identity. We have been in the post liberal order since the bolsheviks started the revolt against it, and now the muslims are revolting against it – last century the jewish revolt, an this century the muslim revolt. The chinese and russians and now indians have been through their experiment and are returning to world norms. The west is more malinvested in the falsehood because of the jewish postwar influence in the academy to suppress all eugenics (study of human behavior)was successful at displacing the germanic martial aristocratic tradition, by rallying women and minorities using media, academy, democracy, immigration to destroy western civilization with false promise of freedom from darwinian necessity that made western excellences possible. Our constitution (Rule of Law of sovereignty and reciprocity ) is not rigid enough (like a scriptural document) to limit our conquest by democratic and propaganda means. ANd we did not understand our traditions we only practiced them. So we were easily sold false promise by sophism, pseudoscience in the modern world like our women and lower classes were sold false promise by sophism and supernaturalism in the ancient world – and this ‘second great failure’ is the end of the possibility of democratic majoritarianism – unless we can prohibit false promise of freedom from natural law from the informational commons. As far as I know there is no optimum social political and economic order, only a sliding scale of what is possible given a genetic distribution and the relative state of development. If it is possible to develop many small monarchies under the same rule of law of sovereignty and reciprocity that is the optimum social and political order, as long as the ‘bottom’ is prohibited from reproduction as it was in the ancient world by nature, the middle world by manorialism, ad the present and future world by eugenic policy. Every other order declines in competitive utility from there.
Dec 19, 2019, 7:30 PM I don’t know what ‘liberalism’ means any longer. It used to mean constraining government. But it meant that under parliamentary control. I think the western experiment in ‘aristocracy of everyone’ by continuous expansion of the franchise in order to justify taking political power(organization of the production of private and common) from the monarchy and the church, and to justify the expansion of taxation for the purposes of redistribution – is a clear failure. I don’t think you can get away from 1) rule of law and markets for adaptive velocity 2) state-private investment in increasingly complex and expensive investment in competitive innovation, 3) the need for ‘decider of last resort’, whether despot, monarchy, 4) money isn’t real any longer, so it’s just a tool of positive incentive (coercion?) and we will (shortly) see the end of the private global capitalists, and the universal adoption of the chinese method of state money and interest management. The liberal order was made possible by the European Colonial Expansion, and the relative weakness of (small) european governments compared to the strength of the emerging middle class, and the vast pool of middle class genetic reserves built up in europe over more than a thousand years. We have been in the post modern order since marx, freud, boas, cantor, adorno, friedan, rothbard/rand, trotsky/neocons sequentially tried to undermine men (marxism), culture (frankfurt), truth (derrida), women (feminism), and the western identity. We have been in the post liberal order since the bolsheviks started the revolt against it, and now the muslims are revolting against it – last century the jewish revolt, an this century the muslim revolt. The chinese and russians and now indians have been through their experiment and are returning to world norms. The west is more malinvested in the falsehood because of the jewish postwar influence in the academy to suppress all eugenics (study of human behavior)was successful at displacing the germanic martial aristocratic tradition, by rallying women and minorities using media, academy, democracy, immigration to destroy western civilization with false promise of freedom from darwinian necessity that made western excellences possible. Our constitution (Rule of Law of sovereignty and reciprocity ) is not rigid enough (like a scriptural document) to limit our conquest by democratic and propaganda means. ANd we did not understand our traditions we only practiced them. So we were easily sold false promise by sophism, pseudoscience in the modern world like our women and lower classes were sold false promise by sophism and supernaturalism in the ancient world – and this ‘second great failure’ is the end of the possibility of democratic majoritarianism – unless we can prohibit false promise of freedom from natural law from the informational commons. As far as I know there is no optimum social political and economic order, only a sliding scale of what is possible given a genetic distribution and the relative state of development. If it is possible to develop many small monarchies under the same rule of law of sovereignty and reciprocity that is the optimum social and political order, as long as the ‘bottom’ is prohibited from reproduction as it was in the ancient world by nature, the middle world by manorialism, ad the present and future world by eugenic policy. Every other order declines in competitive utility from there.
LETS USE MINIMUM DETAIL “Propertarianism is the completion of (the complete) scientific method.” That’s it. Period. But it’s a profound thing. Very. Now what do we do with that completed scientific method? This scientific method is value neutral, and commensurable regardless of discipline, and universal in application. We use that scientific method to produce a value neutral fully commensurable language across all disciplines. We use that logic and language to produce a universally commensurable value neutral system of law. We used that value neutral system of law to produce a constitution. That constitution’s principle innovation is to incrementally suppress the means by which western civlization in the ancient and modern world was undermined by crimes of plausible deniability (which I won’t explain right here), but that’s what you think of when you think of leftism. One can create an infinite number of constitutions of infinite variety using that law, as long as one constructs them truthfully and reciprocally – which is a problem for the left. The constitution we propose restores the american constitution to its original intent as military and treasury that allows for the concentration of military power sufficient for defense of the continent, devolves all other powers to the states, makes everyone liable for the truth and reciprocity of speech in public to the public about matters public (outlaws leftism), and reforms every single aspect of life so that we restore our civilization from the ((())) harms done to it this past century. That constitution is on line and in progress and is a lot to swallow, but then so are the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, Federalist Papers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, The Amendements, History of Supreme Court Rulings, Federal Code, and Individual State constitutions and codes. Propertarianism is the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to the totality of human knowledge, creating a universally commensurable value neutral language; its embodiment in the natural common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of [all deceit] from the informational commons. See? LETS ADD A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. Propertarianism completes the scientific method. The culmination of the philosophical program of the 20th century was that there is no via positiva scientific method. Instead, The scientific method is a via negativa method: falsificationary. There are only so many dimensions humans can cognitively imagine and cognitively falsify by tests of consistency: categorical, logical, operational, empirical, rational, reciprocal, complete in scope with defined limits, and consistent and therefore coherent across those dimensions, where one warranties such due diligence, and is liable for the consequence of his displays words and deeds resulting from such statements. By using this method we can create a universally commensurable, value neutral, operational language and as such a universally commensurable logic, across all fields: a system of measurement for the truthfulness of speech. We can then use this language and this method to restate the constitution, and our law, in scientific, and operational language, closed to interpretation (legislation from the bench). Moreover we can use this law to outlaw the primary innovation in organized crime that was used to undermine western civilization: false promise; baiting into hazard, using pilpul (sophism) and critique(undermining, straw manning) under cover of plausible deniability to profit from the imposition of harms upon others by financialization (innumeracy), pseudoscience, sophism, supernaturalism, denialism, including the false promises, pseudo-mathematics, pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial of marx, boas, freud, Cantor, Adorno et al, Gramsci et al, Derrida et al, Friedan et al, rand/rothbard, and the neocons. And yes, we can even use it to reform and obtain insight into the failures of Bohr ad Einstein that hilbert predicted, and we can explain the 20th century of mysticism and deceit that hayek warned us of. In other words we can end the jewish-muslim, marxist-postmodernis-feminist program of lying by false promise, and explain why it’s a crime. So, hopefully you can understand why this brief passage here is not something I would stick on the front page for marketing purposes WHAT IS A SYSTEM OF THOUGHT? (A GRAMMAR) What’s the difference between aristotelianism, platonism, and abrahamism? What’s the difference between reason, logic, rationalism? What’s the difference between Aristotelian, enlightenment(empirical) and scientific, revolutions? Whats the difference between math, logic, programming, recipes, and protocols? So what is the difference between aristotelianism, empiricism, science, and testimonialism (propertarianism)? Well, the difference is from the rational to the empirical to the operational. What does operational mean? It means the difference between logic (Sets) and programming (operations). It means the difference between logic (language), empiricism (observation), and operations (actions). And if you can’t comprehend it – it doesn’t matter. You probably don’t know calculus, analysis, algebraic geometry, relativity, quantum mechanics, or the difference between hierarchical, relational, functional, object oriented, and bayesian programming, or the design patterns in each. Or the fundamental problems of mathematical economics, categories, use of symmetries as intermediary systems of economic measurement. Or even the problem of protein folding or why all of those questions are related by the problem a lack of an operational logic of geometries that replaces the operational logic of lines and curves using positional names that we call mathematics.
LETS USE MINIMUM DETAIL “Propertarianism is the completion of (the complete) scientific method.” That’s it. Period. But it’s a profound thing. Very. Now what do we do with that completed scientific method? This scientific method is value neutral, and commensurable regardless of discipline, and universal in application. We use that scientific method to produce a value neutral fully commensurable language across all disciplines. We use that logic and language to produce a universally commensurable value neutral system of law. We used that value neutral system of law to produce a constitution. That constitution’s principle innovation is to incrementally suppress the means by which western civlization in the ancient and modern world was undermined by crimes of plausible deniability (which I won’t explain right here), but that’s what you think of when you think of leftism. One can create an infinite number of constitutions of infinite variety using that law, as long as one constructs them truthfully and reciprocally – which is a problem for the left. The constitution we propose restores the american constitution to its original intent as military and treasury that allows for the concentration of military power sufficient for defense of the continent, devolves all other powers to the states, makes everyone liable for the truth and reciprocity of speech in public to the public about matters public (outlaws leftism), and reforms every single aspect of life so that we restore our civilization from the ((())) harms done to it this past century. That constitution is on line and in progress and is a lot to swallow, but then so are the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, Federalist Papers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, The Amendements, History of Supreme Court Rulings, Federal Code, and Individual State constitutions and codes. Propertarianism is the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to the totality of human knowledge, creating a universally commensurable value neutral language; its embodiment in the natural common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of [all deceit] from the informational commons. See? LETS ADD A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. Propertarianism completes the scientific method. The culmination of the philosophical program of the 20th century was that there is no via positiva scientific method. Instead, The scientific method is a via negativa method: falsificationary. There are only so many dimensions humans can cognitively imagine and cognitively falsify by tests of consistency: categorical, logical, operational, empirical, rational, reciprocal, complete in scope with defined limits, and consistent and therefore coherent across those dimensions, where one warranties such due diligence, and is liable for the consequence of his displays words and deeds resulting from such statements. By using this method we can create a universally commensurable, value neutral, operational language and as such a universally commensurable logic, across all fields: a system of measurement for the truthfulness of speech. We can then use this language and this method to restate the constitution, and our law, in scientific, and operational language, closed to interpretation (legislation from the bench). Moreover we can use this law to outlaw the primary innovation in organized crime that was used to undermine western civilization: false promise; baiting into hazard, using pilpul (sophism) and critique(undermining, straw manning) under cover of plausible deniability to profit from the imposition of harms upon others by financialization (innumeracy), pseudoscience, sophism, supernaturalism, denialism, including the false promises, pseudo-mathematics, pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial of marx, boas, freud, Cantor, Adorno et al, Gramsci et al, Derrida et al, Friedan et al, rand/rothbard, and the neocons. And yes, we can even use it to reform and obtain insight into the failures of Bohr ad Einstein that hilbert predicted, and we can explain the 20th century of mysticism and deceit that hayek warned us of. In other words we can end the jewish-muslim, marxist-postmodernis-feminist program of lying by false promise, and explain why it’s a crime. So, hopefully you can understand why this brief passage here is not something I would stick on the front page for marketing purposes WHAT IS A SYSTEM OF THOUGHT? (A GRAMMAR) What’s the difference between aristotelianism, platonism, and abrahamism? What’s the difference between reason, logic, rationalism? What’s the difference between Aristotelian, enlightenment(empirical) and scientific, revolutions? Whats the difference between math, logic, programming, recipes, and protocols? So what is the difference between aristotelianism, empiricism, science, and testimonialism (propertarianism)? Well, the difference is from the rational to the empirical to the operational. What does operational mean? It means the difference between logic (Sets) and programming (operations). It means the difference between logic (language), empiricism (observation), and operations (actions). And if you can’t comprehend it – it doesn’t matter. You probably don’t know calculus, analysis, algebraic geometry, relativity, quantum mechanics, or the difference between hierarchical, relational, functional, object oriented, and bayesian programming, or the design patterns in each. Or the fundamental problems of mathematical economics, categories, use of symmetries as intermediary systems of economic measurement. Or even the problem of protein folding or why all of those questions are related by the problem a lack of an operational logic of geometries that replaces the operational logic of lines and curves using positional names that we call mathematics.
Dec 24, 2019, 3:33 PM DRAFT – WORK IN PROGRESS (Core) What is the difference between morals, ethics and manners? CORRECT ANSWER: It’s not complicated – if we explain it in economic rather than ‘moral’ language. Western civilization is a commercial civilization (middle class), and that is the reason for our wealth, cleanliness, orderliness, customer service, and tolerance. The west was more successful than all but the Japanese at suppression of selfish public behavior, and for this reason was able to produce commons that people did not impose costs upon, providing incentive (lacking disincentive) to produce commons, and therefore creating the high returns on the commons. (Effectively, westerners treat the commons – common spaces and everything in them – as sacred). Engage only in completely voluntary exchanges. That means do not impose costs upon others whether attention (mental), disgust(emotion), or action (body), on their demonstrated interests (things, family, business), and the “commons” anything the public may make use of. Instead, pay the cost of controlling yourself, by maintaining ‘situational awareness of others’ (consideration), especially by managing your children. The public space is not something you may make use of as you desire. it is not your home.
MANNERS Manners advertise fitness for reciprocity. The more costly the manners, the higher the suppression of impulse, the greater the demonstration of agency and training, the better the promise and better the predictor of fitness for reciprocity. Respect consists of using manners to demonstrate reciprocity and presumption of reciprocity regardless of differences between parties, including differences in the status spectrum, differences in wants and needs, differences in opinion, and differences in preferences. Disrespect consists of irreciprocity presumption of irreciprocity given differences between parties, including differences in the status spectrum, differences in wants and needs, differences in knowledge, habit, and opinion, and differences in preferences. Insult consists of (…) Resistance consist of (…) Defection consists of (…) || Spectrum: genetic > sexual > social > economic > political > military Display * Hygiene * Dress * MovementWord * SpeechDeed * Action
Manners are your ‘advertising’ for worthiness of respect. Lack of manners are your ‘advertising’ for unworthiness of respect: meaning, not giving your attention, consideration, or resources (time, energy). And poor manners require others actively disrespect you (‘punish you’) for imposing costs upon others. ETHICS (…) MORALS (…)
Dec 24, 2019, 3:33 PM DRAFT – WORK IN PROGRESS (Core) What is the difference between morals, ethics and manners? CORRECT ANSWER: It’s not complicated – if we explain it in economic rather than ‘moral’ language. Western civilization is a commercial civilization (middle class), and that is the reason for our wealth, cleanliness, orderliness, customer service, and tolerance. The west was more successful than all but the Japanese at suppression of selfish public behavior, and for this reason was able to produce commons that people did not impose costs upon, providing incentive (lacking disincentive) to produce commons, and therefore creating the high returns on the commons. (Effectively, westerners treat the commons – common spaces and everything in them – as sacred). Engage only in completely voluntary exchanges. That means do not impose costs upon others whether attention (mental), disgust(emotion), or action (body), on their demonstrated interests (things, family, business), and the “commons” anything the public may make use of. Instead, pay the cost of controlling yourself, by maintaining ‘situational awareness of others’ (consideration), especially by managing your children. The public space is not something you may make use of as you desire. it is not your home.
MANNERS Manners advertise fitness for reciprocity. The more costly the manners, the higher the suppression of impulse, the greater the demonstration of agency and training, the better the promise and better the predictor of fitness for reciprocity. Respect consists of using manners to demonstrate reciprocity and presumption of reciprocity regardless of differences between parties, including differences in the status spectrum, differences in wants and needs, differences in opinion, and differences in preferences. Disrespect consists of irreciprocity presumption of irreciprocity given differences between parties, including differences in the status spectrum, differences in wants and needs, differences in knowledge, habit, and opinion, and differences in preferences. Insult consists of (…) Resistance consist of (…) Defection consists of (…) || Spectrum: genetic > sexual > social > economic > political > military Display * Hygiene * Dress * MovementWord * SpeechDeed * Action
Manners are your ‘advertising’ for worthiness of respect. Lack of manners are your ‘advertising’ for unworthiness of respect: meaning, not giving your attention, consideration, or resources (time, energy). And poor manners require others actively disrespect you (‘punish you’) for imposing costs upon others. ETHICS (…) MORALS (…)
Dec 25, 2019, 2:41 PM Millennials quoting Millennials studying Curt Doolittle. All will be well. Heimdallr Aldafaðir I believe one of the ways America and the West have lost their way. We started to prioritize “profits” over Commons. Jobs over communities. Nomadic capitalism over ” generational roots”. The Socialists aren’t wrong about the dangers of Capitalism. Their solution is mostly moronic. But the danger exists. From what I gather of History and Economics. The only or best way to safeguard the Commons (society, families, countries, people, etc.) is to temper the profit motive with a strong incentive to invest in the Commons. Which is one of the things America (especially) has lost over the centuries. Corporate Charters should return to mortality. They should also require investment in the Commons directly or face termination entirely. Only by showing a direct causal link to the betterment of the Commons should they be allowed to maintain legality and operation. Prove to US how you benefit US. Endless (or functionally endless) Charters are parasitic and enable almost exclusively free riders. No. More. Free. Rides.
Dec 25, 2019, 2:41 PM Millennials quoting Millennials studying Curt Doolittle. All will be well. Heimdallr Aldafaðir I believe one of the ways America and the West have lost their way. We started to prioritize “profits” over Commons. Jobs over communities. Nomadic capitalism over ” generational roots”. The Socialists aren’t wrong about the dangers of Capitalism. Their solution is mostly moronic. But the danger exists. From what I gather of History and Economics. The only or best way to safeguard the Commons (society, families, countries, people, etc.) is to temper the profit motive with a strong incentive to invest in the Commons. Which is one of the things America (especially) has lost over the centuries. Corporate Charters should return to mortality. They should also require investment in the Commons directly or face termination entirely. Only by showing a direct causal link to the betterment of the Commons should they be allowed to maintain legality and operation. Prove to US how you benefit US. Endless (or functionally endless) Charters are parasitic and enable almost exclusively free riders. No. More. Free. Rides.