Just as french write informal universalist secular theology of the feminine, and germans write formal universalist philosophy that is secular theology of harmony, the russians write masculine very informal nationalist propaganda as a secular theology of the masculine. These are the result of geographic location and cultural history. While yes my implementation of rule of law is pretty intolerant, and I jokingly refer to my work as either rule of law fascism or market fascism, and while I advocate for nationalism, and restoration of the anglosphere – remains of the british empire – to create the scale necessary for preservation of the defense of the sea trade between our continents – my work is also in large part dispassionate. So where duggin has his ambitions, writes, speaks, and argues passionately and romantically in what I consider nonsense-propaganda, I write in pretty rigorous analytic argument dispassionately and unromantically. And this lack of romance and passion – my anglo empiricism – is not what the passionate market wants me wo write. What the young passionate male mind wants is an heroic and often esoteric secular-religious vision. Yet I’m just updating the founding fathers, with their formality and martial reserve. So in that sense whether french feminine passive aggressive essay, german rational inspirational harmony, russian low trust machismo, and anglo high trust empirical, and chinese face-before-truth authoritarian, or jewish feminine undermining using magical thinking to bait into hazard, we are all arguing for our futures in a world returning to normal after a century of jewish intellectual pseudoscience and sophistry in marxism, syndicalism, postmodernism, feminism, libertarianism, neoconservatism – a sequence of attempts by the jewish counter-revolution against the empirical revolution and it’s darwinian consequences. They sought to capture europa for their ends just as the french, germans, and russians sought to capture it for their ends. They have failed. Or it will be evident shortly that they failed. So I see the world differently, that we are all turning to the masculine defense of our peoples and cultures after the undermining and destruction of the leftist feminine attempts to use european wealth, and christian tolerance, to turn the world into another middle eastern equalitarian desert under totalitarian feminine presumption that knitting-circle consensus and harmony is possible, or that continued knitting circle gossip and undermining among usurers of our civilization is possible. It isn’t. It’s Magical thinking.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Paternal Rebuke of The Infantilized
PATERNAL REBUKE OF THE INFANTILIZED (worth repeating) (rebuke) We are not equal. We can engage in reciprocity. In doing so we can engage in reciprocal loyalty and insurance. But the weak are not equal to the strong, the woman to the man, the child to the adult. That is why we must have reciprocity to cooperate despite our differences. The purpose of what you [theology, philosophy, ideology] and those like you desire is to use saturation in falsehood to socially construct emotional cognitive political and military arrested development. And to drag mankind down to your level of infantile primitivism. Where the aristocracy took the opposite position: can we drag mankind kicking and screaming from easily manipulable female infantilism to maintain her ability to cheaply manipulate, into young adulthood to question her with philosophy, to agency with which we can rule with evidence and action, over the infants, infantile, young, limited, and those of arrested development. And yes I realize that indoctrination, choice, and truth constitute of spectrum of child, young adult, mature adult. And I recognize that there is value in theology for children, reason for young adults, and truth for adults – because mirrors the possible intellectual development of the mind. I also know that I am working in the language of adults, not young adults and women, or child. If you can calculate it’s science, if you can’t it’s philosophy. I do operational law. It’s calculable. Just as mathematics is the formal logic of the physical, operational law is the formal logic of sentient life. The only reason I use the framework of philosophy is, by design, to destroy philosophy with operationalism, as our ancestors destroyed theology empiricism. The only thing for philosophy now is choice within the limits of truth. The only thing left for theology is indoctrination into mindfulness within the group strategy independent of choice or truth. As far as I know philosophy is done. What remains as philosophy is but the history of the development of secular theology. If you understand that paragraph you will understand what I have done. Are these statements arrogant as if between equals, or truth from parent to youth, or teacher to student? One is only arrogant if he both errs and is equal. One is merely disciplining if one is parent and unequal. -Quod Erat Demonstrandum
-
Paternal Rebuke of The Infantilized
PATERNAL REBUKE OF THE INFANTILIZED (worth repeating) (rebuke) We are not equal. We can engage in reciprocity. In doing so we can engage in reciprocal loyalty and insurance. But the weak are not equal to the strong, the woman to the man, the child to the adult. That is why we must have reciprocity to cooperate despite our differences. The purpose of what you [theology, philosophy, ideology] and those like you desire is to use saturation in falsehood to socially construct emotional cognitive political and military arrested development. And to drag mankind down to your level of infantile primitivism. Where the aristocracy took the opposite position: can we drag mankind kicking and screaming from easily manipulable female infantilism to maintain her ability to cheaply manipulate, into young adulthood to question her with philosophy, to agency with which we can rule with evidence and action, over the infants, infantile, young, limited, and those of arrested development. And yes I realize that indoctrination, choice, and truth constitute of spectrum of child, young adult, mature adult. And I recognize that there is value in theology for children, reason for young adults, and truth for adults – because mirrors the possible intellectual development of the mind. I also know that I am working in the language of adults, not young adults and women, or child. If you can calculate it’s science, if you can’t it’s philosophy. I do operational law. It’s calculable. Just as mathematics is the formal logic of the physical, operational law is the formal logic of sentient life. The only reason I use the framework of philosophy is, by design, to destroy philosophy with operationalism, as our ancestors destroyed theology empiricism. The only thing for philosophy now is choice within the limits of truth. The only thing left for theology is indoctrination into mindfulness within the group strategy independent of choice or truth. As far as I know philosophy is done. What remains as philosophy is but the history of the development of secular theology. If you understand that paragraph you will understand what I have done. Are these statements arrogant as if between equals, or truth from parent to youth, or teacher to student? One is only arrogant if he both errs and is equal. One is merely disciplining if one is parent and unequal. -Quod Erat Demonstrandum
-
A Journey: A Reflection:
Apr 17, 2020, 5:52 PM 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.
-
A Journey: A Reflection:
Apr 17, 2020, 5:52 PM 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.
-
The Big Lie Is Ultimately Just Social Constructivism?
THE INCENTIVE FOR SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION
—Social construction requires a false promise. The only viable false promises that scale for social construction are those that violate physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Violating those laws baits the victims into hazard by violating those laws.—
IS THE BIG LIE ULTIMATELY JUST SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM? Pretty much. Social construction is how the big lies are created. But let’s go a little deeper and understand why.
—-“Among the most intriguing ideas for improving fairness in our economy–and creating capitalism that earns popular support–is “universal basic capital.” Spread the equity, give all a stake. “—Jonathan Haidt @JonHaidt
https://berggruen.org/the-worldpost/articles/sharing-the-wealth-as-we-recover-health/ Consensus, getting heads together, leadership, these are all village-thinking. The female intuition doesn’t scale. We have institutions and rule of law of tort for a reason – it scales, at the cost of suppressing the reproduction of the underclasses, keeping natural selection. It wasn’t europeans that developed global religion, global marxism, global socialism, global cosmopolitanism, global postmodernism, global hbd-denialism, or europeans that undermined rule of law. It was feminine intuition, and people of it, that cannot scale.
—” is the big lie ultimately just social constructivism? So they try to do social engineering that achieves nothing except psychologically abusing people.”—
Social construction yes. Social construction requires a false promise. The only viable false promises that scale are those that violate physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Violating those laws baits the victims into hazard. Female social construction > ((())) > The Left. Female Social Construction to Manage behavioral growth of children, using her seduction > The ((())) group strategy (undermining host peoples, while riding on their commons) > The Anti Evolutionary (domestication) Canon: Freud, Boas, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Derrida, Trotsky-Kristol. So if ((())) war on western-sensemaking, our realism, naturalism, operationalism, sovereignty, reciprocity, testimony, commons, and eugenics, is a continuation of their ancient world rebellion against the masculine empires, and an involuntary rebellion against evolution-eugenics. This means if it’s genetic, as it is in our women,it’s irreparable, and separation is the only possibility. If it’s purely cultural (doesn’t appear to be) then it’s a matter of separating from their culture. Either way we have to outlaw it by requiring truthful reciprocal speech. Which is the purpose of my work on the law: to end the repeatedly successful use of abrahamic technique at destroying civilizations from within by false promise, baiting into hazard, selling to vulnerable women and the underclasses, and reversing east and west eugenics. We don’t need to increase ‘fairness’ or ‘social justice’ neither of which are either definable or measureable, but we need to return to suppression of the reproduction of those that cannot compete in the suite of market tests at whatever level of development that we’re in.
-
The Big Lie Is Ultimately Just Social Constructivism?
THE INCENTIVE FOR SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION
—Social construction requires a false promise. The only viable false promises that scale for social construction are those that violate physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Violating those laws baits the victims into hazard by violating those laws.—
IS THE BIG LIE ULTIMATELY JUST SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM? Pretty much. Social construction is how the big lies are created. But let’s go a little deeper and understand why.
—-“Among the most intriguing ideas for improving fairness in our economy–and creating capitalism that earns popular support–is “universal basic capital.” Spread the equity, give all a stake. “—Jonathan Haidt @JonHaidt
https://berggruen.org/the-worldpost/articles/sharing-the-wealth-as-we-recover-health/ Consensus, getting heads together, leadership, these are all village-thinking. The female intuition doesn’t scale. We have institutions and rule of law of tort for a reason – it scales, at the cost of suppressing the reproduction of the underclasses, keeping natural selection. It wasn’t europeans that developed global religion, global marxism, global socialism, global cosmopolitanism, global postmodernism, global hbd-denialism, or europeans that undermined rule of law. It was feminine intuition, and people of it, that cannot scale.
—” is the big lie ultimately just social constructivism? So they try to do social engineering that achieves nothing except psychologically abusing people.”—
Social construction yes. Social construction requires a false promise. The only viable false promises that scale are those that violate physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Violating those laws baits the victims into hazard. Female social construction > ((())) > The Left. Female Social Construction to Manage behavioral growth of children, using her seduction > The ((())) group strategy (undermining host peoples, while riding on their commons) > The Anti Evolutionary (domestication) Canon: Freud, Boas, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Derrida, Trotsky-Kristol. So if ((())) war on western-sensemaking, our realism, naturalism, operationalism, sovereignty, reciprocity, testimony, commons, and eugenics, is a continuation of their ancient world rebellion against the masculine empires, and an involuntary rebellion against evolution-eugenics. This means if it’s genetic, as it is in our women,it’s irreparable, and separation is the only possibility. If it’s purely cultural (doesn’t appear to be) then it’s a matter of separating from their culture. Either way we have to outlaw it by requiring truthful reciprocal speech. Which is the purpose of my work on the law: to end the repeatedly successful use of abrahamic technique at destroying civilizations from within by false promise, baiting into hazard, selling to vulnerable women and the underclasses, and reversing east and west eugenics. We don’t need to increase ‘fairness’ or ‘social justice’ neither of which are either definable or measureable, but we need to return to suppression of the reproduction of those that cannot compete in the suite of market tests at whatever level of development that we’re in.
-
The P Program and Our Purposes
Bill Joslin has always been as interested in the application of P to personal philosophy, as I have been interested in religion (mindfulness), politics, and law. This division of labor has helped expand our collective reach – and bill’s role as “the Professor” led to the production of our best people. Likewise, Luke Weinhagen is exploring another avenue, and we have had people spin off into all sorts of other interests -although it’s humorous at how deterministic their attempts to alternative personal and political agendas have been. P is a METHOD. That method completes the spectrum of the sciences because P is to sentient sciences as Math is to Physical sciences: the means of calculation, of constant relations from which we can produce subsequent deduction, inference, abduction, and creativity. Using human logical facility, mathematics, and P we we can articulate the social order that’s least divergent from physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. The least divergent from physical, natural and evolutionary laws, the more advantage we have in maintaining the optimum quality of life as we continue to calculate by market discovery using continuous trial and error, the means of maintaining our advantage, in our race with the red queen and her evolutionary competition in this brief period of geological and astronomical peace. The P-Constitution is constructed by the application of that method, because a universal militia, using sovereignty, reciprocity, rule of law by the common law of tort, and the markets in everything that result, and the production of commons from the surpluses, that was incrementally discovered by accident by our ancestors is the optimum human social order for continuous calculation. Although it comes at a price: increasing demand for mindfulness, increasing demand for intolerance, increasing responsibility for commons, and the suppression of those who cannot maintain cadence with our evolution by success in those markets. We have to know the reasons for western success in the ancient and modern worlds. Knowing them, we have to use them to defeat the second abrahamic attack on our civilization, and renew our resistance to eastern tyranny, as well as our own vulnerability because of our tolerance. And we have to restore our institutions so that we continue our transcendence into the gods we imagine – and be mindful, fit, and prosperous during our ascent.
-
The P Program and Our Purposes
Bill Joslin has always been as interested in the application of P to personal philosophy, as I have been interested in religion (mindfulness), politics, and law. This division of labor has helped expand our collective reach – and bill’s role as “the Professor” led to the production of our best people. Likewise, Luke Weinhagen is exploring another avenue, and we have had people spin off into all sorts of other interests -although it’s humorous at how deterministic their attempts to alternative personal and political agendas have been. P is a METHOD. That method completes the spectrum of the sciences because P is to sentient sciences as Math is to Physical sciences: the means of calculation, of constant relations from which we can produce subsequent deduction, inference, abduction, and creativity. Using human logical facility, mathematics, and P we we can articulate the social order that’s least divergent from physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. The least divergent from physical, natural and evolutionary laws, the more advantage we have in maintaining the optimum quality of life as we continue to calculate by market discovery using continuous trial and error, the means of maintaining our advantage, in our race with the red queen and her evolutionary competition in this brief period of geological and astronomical peace. The P-Constitution is constructed by the application of that method, because a universal militia, using sovereignty, reciprocity, rule of law by the common law of tort, and the markets in everything that result, and the production of commons from the surpluses, that was incrementally discovered by accident by our ancestors is the optimum human social order for continuous calculation. Although it comes at a price: increasing demand for mindfulness, increasing demand for intolerance, increasing responsibility for commons, and the suppression of those who cannot maintain cadence with our evolution by success in those markets. We have to know the reasons for western success in the ancient and modern worlds. Knowing them, we have to use them to defeat the second abrahamic attack on our civilization, and renew our resistance to eastern tyranny, as well as our own vulnerability because of our tolerance. And we have to restore our institutions so that we continue our transcendence into the gods we imagine – and be mindful, fit, and prosperous during our ascent.
-
The Economists Loss of Confidence
[E]conomists talked in bold, confident, nonsense up until 2008. They don’t any longer. For good reason. You can produce and economy as an extension of producing rule of law of reciprocity but you cannot produce an economy directly. You can insure some of an economy by partnership between state and strategic industry. But an economy is an endless competition – war – at slow speed, and there is no way to outwit chaos.