Source: Original Site Post

Jan 15, 2020, 3:42 PM You know, they called what we do today “Jewish economics” in the pre-war period because it favored investors at the expense of the middle classes (which in those days just meant ‘families’). Keynes was reading MARX, and just removed all references from his book (the general theory) before publishing. Keynes used mathematics (he was first and foremost a mathematician specializing in probability) to give us his elegant simplification of the economy, but he put no measures in place to control it’s abuse – and of course, and Hayek didn’t refute him, and no one produced a limit, so the government just took ‘presumption of growth from presumption of consumption’ as license to convert Keynes’ explanation of how to get out of postwar crisis with how to maximize spending by pushing risk downstream and consuming all institutional, behavioral, normative, physical, and human capital. That limit was a balance sheet, and full accounting of investments and returns. In other words, to maintain the MEASUREMENT that both the GOLD STANDARD and RULE OF LAW had made possible at the cost of inability to react to shocks. This isn’t to dismiss his aggregate theory which is, like all economics, hydraulic. And it isn’t to defend the classical theory, which presumes rational actors, rather than bounded rationality within the limits of our frustration budgets. (We used commercial consumption to sedate ourselves during what has been a long period of social disintegration all of which decrease mindfulness and increase stress, create dysfunctional infantilized ‘woke’ children, reduce our commons into barbarism, loneliness and horrors in old age.) We spent thousands of years incrementally building rule of law leaving only a markets, and in a century we have destroyed rule of law, markets, and our social, institutional, and worst of all, genetic capital. You can’t imagine how much advertising and that evil box in your living room has contributed to destruction of our civilization. But THOUSANDS of thinkers predicted it. The British were right with their BBC – which horrifies the libertarian remnant in me.. But it’s because the left (cognitively female) always and everywhere seeks to create consensus to undermine because it cannot produce and innovate itself. As such the parasite pursues ‘the pulpit’ from whence it conducts it’s false promise, baiting into hazard, as a means of undermining the order and the capital structure of the people who DO produce. Now, I have no problem with censorship in the Russian and Chinese and Turkish models, if it’s censorship of GSRRM, baiting into hazard, and advocacy of capital consumption or underclass reproduction or limiting upper class reproduction – all things that affect the balance sheet (capital). But the court must be there to defend the truth, and the law has to tolerate truth regardless of cost. In other words, it has to be ILLEGAL to suppress truthful statements if it’s Illegal to undermine. This kind of test wasn’t possible until Propertarianism. But it’s possible now. And you can’t imagine (I can and it overwhelms me) how different a world would be if we ended all the f—king lying – including the lying of false promise baiting into hazard, and advocacy of consuming capital.

Jan 15, 2020, 3:42 PM You know, they called what we do today “Jewish economics” in the pre-war period because it favored investors at the expense of the middle classes (which in those days just meant ‘families’). Keynes was reading MARX, and just removed all references from his book (the general theory) before publishing. Keynes used mathematics (he was first and foremost a mathematician specializing in probability) to give us his elegant simplification of the economy, but he put no measures in place to control it’s abuse – and of course, and Hayek didn’t refute him, and no one produced a limit, so the government just took ‘presumption of growth from presumption of consumption’ as license to convert Keynes’ explanation of how to get out of postwar crisis with how to maximize spending by pushing risk downstream and consuming all institutional, behavioral, normative, physical, and human capital. That limit was a balance sheet, and full accounting of investments and returns. In other words, to maintain the MEASUREMENT that both the GOLD STANDARD and RULE OF LAW had made possible at the cost of inability to react to shocks. This isn’t to dismiss his aggregate theory which is, like all economics, hydraulic. And it isn’t to defend the classical theory, which presumes rational actors, rather than bounded rationality within the limits of our frustration budgets. (We used commercial consumption to sedate ourselves during what has been a long period of social disintegration all of which decrease mindfulness and increase stress, create dysfunctional infantilized ‘woke’ children, reduce our commons into barbarism, loneliness and horrors in old age.) We spent thousands of years incrementally building rule of law leaving only a markets, and in a century we have destroyed rule of law, markets, and our social, institutional, and worst of all, genetic capital. You can’t imagine how much advertising and that evil box in your living room has contributed to destruction of our civilization. But THOUSANDS of thinkers predicted it. The British were right with their BBC – which horrifies the libertarian remnant in me.. But it’s because the left (cognitively female) always and everywhere seeks to create consensus to undermine because it cannot produce and innovate itself. As such the parasite pursues ‘the pulpit’ from whence it conducts it’s false promise, baiting into hazard, as a means of undermining the order and the capital structure of the people who DO produce. Now, I have no problem with censorship in the Russian and Chinese and Turkish models, if it’s censorship of GSRRM, baiting into hazard, and advocacy of capital consumption or underclass reproduction or limiting upper class reproduction – all things that affect the balance sheet (capital). But the court must be there to defend the truth, and the law has to tolerate truth regardless of cost. In other words, it has to be ILLEGAL to suppress truthful statements if it’s Illegal to undermine. This kind of test wasn’t possible until Propertarianism. But it’s possible now. And you can’t imagine (I can and it overwhelms me) how different a world would be if we ended all the f—king lying – including the lying of false promise baiting into hazard, and advocacy of consuming capital.