Feb 24, 2020, 4:29 PM In order to suppress controversy you’re overstating your case. You’re representing sources, because under the defensive protection of the scientific method, we don’t hypothesize without evidence. Meanwhile I think Dumezil and the rest of us are interested in the evolution of european natural religion over time. To claim we can’t use etymology which is about as close to genetic evidence that we come, is rather unscientific, and to claim we can’t apply the same method of analysis to mythology is also. And to claim the popularity of the farmer’s god over the ruling class’ god in a tripartite hierarchical society given the difference in those demographics isn’t scientific either. Every mythos we know of evolved like every political and legal technology and every narrative technology by rules similar to language. Every mythic tradition is subject to the same forensics. So you’re creating conflict where there isn’t any. It is very hard to argue that Odin didn’t rise to prominence some time between the IE expansion and first testimony (roman). That would mean that european natural religion had a deus ex machina moment and Odin came out of nowhere in contrast to the entire cross civilizational IE pantheon. In the context of all those european mythologies, Odin is a pretty clear rotation into prominence. And Odin is the ‘odd man out’ in european religion. Of the european iranic and indo-iranic branches, each group evolved deities to fulfill the needs of a survival narrative given geographic and cultural competition. Europeans gods are are interesting because conquering (and replacing) early neolithic farmers was easier than the more advanced civilizations of the indus and mesopotamian regions. They were under less adaptive pressure. Yet still we have Odin. Why? That’s the interesting question. How did he rotate into prominence and why? So to say Odin is the primary germanic god – well of course he is by the thirteenth century record. That doesn’t tell us anything interesting. It doesn’t provide explanatory power. It doesn’t tell us why and where he came from. What change or pressure or advantage caused the germanic branch of the european expansion to rotate a psychopomp into the primary god (all father) to replace sky father? What drove the germanic adaptation (rotation) of a psychopomp into the god of the aristocracy?
Source: Original Site Post
-
An Oath for All of Us
Feb 24, 2020, 6:35 PM
—“The revelation: As a man I have a duty to and necessarily a loyalty to men. The world needs men, and it takes men to make men. And I will not dodge that responsibility again.”— A Friend
-
An Oath for All of Us
Feb 24, 2020, 6:35 PM
—“The revelation: As a man I have a duty to and necessarily a loyalty to men. The world needs men, and it takes men to make men. And I will not dodge that responsibility again.”— A Friend
-
We Need a New Order
Feb 24, 2020, 7:38 PM
—“So by the end of this century, as little as 1/5 of the population of the presently-industrialized world could be responsible for perhaps (my number) 85% of productivity, living in physical comfort but shunted into an ever-tighter technical labor market requiring career dedication to stay ahead in (hence out of the underclass), while also keeping its boot on the neck of the other Westerners that (literally) couldn’t learn to code, and an eye on the roiling Third World population at the same time?”—Stan De Santis
Correct. The consumption led capitalist order cannot persist. The redistributive socialist order cannot persist. We need a new order. That’s what I’m suggesting. Shifting from single to multiple economies.
-
We Need a New Order
Feb 24, 2020, 7:38 PM
—“So by the end of this century, as little as 1/5 of the population of the presently-industrialized world could be responsible for perhaps (my number) 85% of productivity, living in physical comfort but shunted into an ever-tighter technical labor market requiring career dedication to stay ahead in (hence out of the underclass), while also keeping its boot on the neck of the other Westerners that (literally) couldn’t learn to code, and an eye on the roiling Third World population at the same time?”—Stan De Santis
Correct. The consumption led capitalist order cannot persist. The redistributive socialist order cannot persist. We need a new order. That’s what I’m suggesting. Shifting from single to multiple economies.
-
Re: “I Never Err”
Feb 24, 2020, 9:14 PM I don’t’ think you understand what I mean by that statement. I mean that if I write a constructivist proof that I don’t err. The reason is that it’s so fking difficult to err if you write one. The phrasing is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text. All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site. These statements offend you on a regular basis, for emotional reasons – probably because you can’t empathize with my methods. It’s because you attribute to my words the emotional intuition that you put into yours. It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have. I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences. And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.
-
Re: “I Never Err”
Feb 24, 2020, 9:14 PM I don’t’ think you understand what I mean by that statement. I mean that if I write a constructivist proof that I don’t err. The reason is that it’s so fking difficult to err if you write one. The phrasing is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text. All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site. These statements offend you on a regular basis, for emotional reasons – probably because you can’t empathize with my methods. It’s because you attribute to my words the emotional intuition that you put into yours. It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have. I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences. And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.
-
Cultural Differences in Negotiation Given Differences in Time Frame, Risk, Trust and Dominance Hierarchy
I follow Cheney (specialists) for international negotiation, and then keep up with the research, but nothing has changed since I first started in the80’s other than indian and chinese awareness of american markets and styles. IMPORTANT: The west uses the OODA loop. that is our group strategy. Always has been. Initiative and manuever and speed. This is completely antithetical to every other civilization. Why? Because it requires a lot of trust, trustworthiness, weakens the hierarchy and localizes credit for success in the individual. We are the only people who see time as a risk. It took me a long time to ‘develop patience’ in negotiations. It took me longer to learn to build relationships rather than incentives – because it’s irrational. (to me) lol.
-
Libertarianism Is Evolving Into Propertarianism (Sovereigntarianism)
Mar 26, 2020, 12:30 PM “Freedom and Liberty are had by permission, sovereignty is a fact.”
—“Libertarianism ain’t gonna survive this crisis. It will be seen as, not just foolish, but shockingly immoral when this is over.”—Spencer —“It’s going to evolve into Propertarianism. You two should debate about this, I’m serious.”—Dark Horse
The structure and development of the human brain forces three classes of people, demanding different means of understanding and incentive: empathic (religious, secular religious – demand), balanced (pragmatic – follow ), and intellectual (executive – operational). The faithful use the feminine theological demand, Richard uses the masculine secular-theological demand, Greg uses the pragmatic intuitive, the civnats the pragmatic, and the executive use the empirical military and law. These are rough class diffs reflecting power structures. The failure of the theological and secular theological programs are obvious. We are in the process of seeing the failure of the civnat belief system. So that leaves the provision of material incentives and an operational means of achieving them by non-majoritarian means. What’s necessary for action is for the theological, secular theological, and pragmatic leaderships to recognize that they can only act on the ACTIONABLE rather than the intuitive and inspirational – and those incentives are material, familial, social, and political. I cannot, have no interest in, and no time to, inspire the theological, or secular theological (meaning emotional) with sophistry. There is only one way out of our condition and only three choices: conquest, separatism, or defeat. That choice is determined by numbers leaders recruit. In the last revolution I was ‘involved’ in, the feminine religious mass in the face of the government, the civnats supply them, and fight. And the hard liners take on the strong points. The executive make demands. They do it TOGETHER. There is only one operational solution to our condition because the world runs on the military, economy to fund it, bureaucracy to operate it, and laws to manage it. There is only one permanent way of ending the strategy of the enemy both within our people and without: the law. Libertarianism was always a cowardly pacifism. There is only one source of liberty: sovereignty created by men who fight to construct it – and to construct it with rules: Law. The rest is just toggling between distributive, market, martial government as needed in circumstance Libertarians are beggars – boys begging men to fight for them.
-
Libertarianism Is Evolving Into Propertarianism (Sovereigntarianism)
Mar 26, 2020, 12:30 PM “Freedom and Liberty are had by permission, sovereignty is a fact.”
—“Libertarianism ain’t gonna survive this crisis. It will be seen as, not just foolish, but shockingly immoral when this is over.”—Spencer —“It’s going to evolve into Propertarianism. You two should debate about this, I’m serious.”—Dark Horse
The structure and development of the human brain forces three classes of people, demanding different means of understanding and incentive: empathic (religious, secular religious – demand), balanced (pragmatic – follow ), and intellectual (executive – operational). The faithful use the feminine theological demand, Richard uses the masculine secular-theological demand, Greg uses the pragmatic intuitive, the civnats the pragmatic, and the executive use the empirical military and law. These are rough class diffs reflecting power structures. The failure of the theological and secular theological programs are obvious. We are in the process of seeing the failure of the civnat belief system. So that leaves the provision of material incentives and an operational means of achieving them by non-majoritarian means. What’s necessary for action is for the theological, secular theological, and pragmatic leaderships to recognize that they can only act on the ACTIONABLE rather than the intuitive and inspirational – and those incentives are material, familial, social, and political. I cannot, have no interest in, and no time to, inspire the theological, or secular theological (meaning emotional) with sophistry. There is only one way out of our condition and only three choices: conquest, separatism, or defeat. That choice is determined by numbers leaders recruit. In the last revolution I was ‘involved’ in, the feminine religious mass in the face of the government, the civnats supply them, and fight. And the hard liners take on the strong points. The executive make demands. They do it TOGETHER. There is only one operational solution to our condition because the world runs on the military, economy to fund it, bureaucracy to operate it, and laws to manage it. There is only one permanent way of ending the strategy of the enemy both within our people and without: the law. Libertarianism was always a cowardly pacifism. There is only one source of liberty: sovereignty created by men who fight to construct it – and to construct it with rules: Law. The rest is just toggling between distributive, market, martial government as needed in circumstance Libertarians are beggars – boys begging men to fight for them.