by James Dmitro Makienko [R]ule of law fixes all male-cognitives (regardless of the present level of their civilization or their background). Which enables them to fix female-cognitives through patriarchy. By giving them a framework to direct their female cognition toward raising children, stay faithful to their husbands and keeping a family unit and healthy community (gives male-cognitives something worthy of defending, fighting and if necessary dying for). This is why traditional religion can work as this framework – as it gives female cognitives a weekly ritual with someone continuously telling them how to behave (like an orthodox priest – the one in my church actually loves studying aristotle and plato, you can have a good philosophy discussion with him after service). As long as male-cognitives keep a close watch over the weekly ritual to ensure it is not used for undermining of commons by female-cognitives, and law, logic and reason remain superior. === 1) James is very talented, developing fast, and this is great stuff. 2) I am increasingly convinced that Orthodoxy works precisely because it didn’t try to fake a bridge. It’s like: … i) Orthodox = God, without interference in the state. … ii) Catholicsm = Churchanity: god and jesus plus interference in the state. … iii) Evangelical=Jesus and ignoring the state. … iv) Secular Christians = Ritual Loyalty to Christians and maybe ‘deism’
Source: Original Site Post
-
RULE OF LAW’S CHAIN OF COGNITIVE CONSEQUENCES
by James Dmitro Makienko [R]ule of law fixes all male-cognitives (regardless of the present level of their civilization or their background). Which enables them to fix female-cognitives through patriarchy. By giving them a framework to direct their female cognition toward raising children, stay faithful to their husbands and keeping a family unit and healthy community (gives male-cognitives something worthy of defending, fighting and if necessary dying for). This is why traditional religion can work as this framework – as it gives female cognitives a weekly ritual with someone continuously telling them how to behave (like an orthodox priest – the one in my church actually loves studying aristotle and plato, you can have a good philosophy discussion with him after service). As long as male-cognitives keep a close watch over the weekly ritual to ensure it is not used for undermining of commons by female-cognitives, and law, logic and reason remain superior. === 1) James is very talented, developing fast, and this is great stuff. 2) I am increasingly convinced that Orthodoxy works precisely because it didn’t try to fake a bridge. It’s like: … i) Orthodox = God, without interference in the state. … ii) Catholicsm = Churchanity: god and jesus plus interference in the state. … iii) Evangelical=Jesus and ignoring the state. … iv) Secular Christians = Ritual Loyalty to Christians and maybe ‘deism’
-
RELIGION AND WOMEN – AND A VECTOR OF SOLUTION
RELIGION AND WOMEN – AND A VECTOR OF SOLUTION by Maria Al Masani Makienko ( FROM CURT: Learn Please. I will delete all counter-signaling.) As a Muslim woman, I have to make a comment about ex Muslim women. My issue is when they leave the faith, they cut their hair short, become rad feminists, sleep with every man they can, then they get into their 30s and want to settle down and men are not interested. My issue with ex Muslim men is they enable this behavior, encourage it, but don’t marry them. I think religion is an excellent tool to manage women and prevent them from eating each other and destroying their marriage marketplace value and policing weak beta males who put them on a pedestal and become their slaves when they know better. Female cognition is highly emotional, made to care for infants – something autistic women such as myself are terrible at. Female cognitives and their emotion-based thinking must be managed not to destroy themselves and society. I think for male cognitive with an IQ 115 and above that are not slaves to women, P is excellent. In a way, P creates a cognitive aristocracy and a traditional masculine religion is the only effective tool for cognitive commoner management. The utility of religion is domesticating the slaves of emotion-based thinking. The aristocracy should use philosophy, logic, and reason for decision making. In leading Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim seminaries, Aristotle is studied a lot – as my husband said, why can’t that be updated with P? — by CurtD: It can be updated with P. But I didn’t think through the universal application of aristotle in doing so until you just mentioned it. (FYI: @adam … wth is Adam’s alias now?) — by Maria Al Masani Makienko They as in ex Muslim women, the men who enable them? As for they can be… my favorite response is Dr Johanthan Haidt on decay. The issue with 6 pronged conservative values is they prevent decay. Every generation of secular women is more degenerate than the next and eats each other. I am a sufi, a moderate who used to go after religious conservatives and moved to Canada .. but then in 15 years I saw the decay of each subsequent generation. Women from when I came to Canada are Audrey Hepburn compared to the blue and green hair tattooed feminist monsters coming out of the schools. And then at 30, they are tired and spent. And the religious immigrant girls who don’t integrate from a patriarchal faith have their pick of men here. If the woman has male cognition and is an ex Muslim autist, she would agree with me about what happens to female cognitive ex Muslim women over time. Female cognition is a problem: if you give them power they ruin everything! And the way you control them is not the way you think for yourself. When one is motivated by logic and reason, they first go to Aristotle for their thinking, Marcus Aurellius … but its so nice to have something modern and even more relevant like P. P for the aristocracy – a traditional religion for the underclass — by CurtD: Smart. Very smart. WOMEN Agreed, but In our culture we must state this differently: “We have had centuries to develop many institutional means of controlling men’s bad behavior when they have gained social, economic, and political freedom, but we have not had time to create institutions to control women’s bad behavior when they have social economic and political freedom – and women, just like men, clearly have many bad behaviors we need institutions to control.” ARISTOCRACY: Agreed .. But in our culture, where the majority is in the middle, not the bottom, we use tri-partism and tri-functionalism, so we must have three: “Law for the aristocracy who have power to limit its use, philosophy for the middle have some to use it well, and theology for the bottom, that have least, so that they are not used by others. Limits for the top and bottom and choices for the middle.” ARISTOTLE I have so many projects I would like to finish: 1) to rewrite all of Aristotle in propertarian prose. 2) to write a tripartite theology for western peoples 3) to try write one book that tries to reform christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism – if not hinduism (i don’t think I can understand it) so that they are rational as well as spiritual, but not in conflict with the natural law. But I think you have given me the right wisdom: that if I start with aristotle then all will follow. @adam (Don Miguel) suggested this last year I just didn’t piece it together until you said it here. I will not live long enough to do all these things. But I’ll do the best I can.
-
RELIGION AND WOMEN – AND A VECTOR OF SOLUTION
RELIGION AND WOMEN – AND A VECTOR OF SOLUTION by Maria Al Masani Makienko ( FROM CURT: Learn Please. I will delete all counter-signaling.) As a Muslim woman, I have to make a comment about ex Muslim women. My issue is when they leave the faith, they cut their hair short, become rad feminists, sleep with every man they can, then they get into their 30s and want to settle down and men are not interested. My issue with ex Muslim men is they enable this behavior, encourage it, but don’t marry them. I think religion is an excellent tool to manage women and prevent them from eating each other and destroying their marriage marketplace value and policing weak beta males who put them on a pedestal and become their slaves when they know better. Female cognition is highly emotional, made to care for infants – something autistic women such as myself are terrible at. Female cognitives and their emotion-based thinking must be managed not to destroy themselves and society. I think for male cognitive with an IQ 115 and above that are not slaves to women, P is excellent. In a way, P creates a cognitive aristocracy and a traditional masculine religion is the only effective tool for cognitive commoner management. The utility of religion is domesticating the slaves of emotion-based thinking. The aristocracy should use philosophy, logic, and reason for decision making. In leading Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim seminaries, Aristotle is studied a lot – as my husband said, why can’t that be updated with P? — by CurtD: It can be updated with P. But I didn’t think through the universal application of aristotle in doing so until you just mentioned it. (FYI: @adam … wth is Adam’s alias now?) — by Maria Al Masani Makienko They as in ex Muslim women, the men who enable them? As for they can be… my favorite response is Dr Johanthan Haidt on decay. The issue with 6 pronged conservative values is they prevent decay. Every generation of secular women is more degenerate than the next and eats each other. I am a sufi, a moderate who used to go after religious conservatives and moved to Canada .. but then in 15 years I saw the decay of each subsequent generation. Women from when I came to Canada are Audrey Hepburn compared to the blue and green hair tattooed feminist monsters coming out of the schools. And then at 30, they are tired and spent. And the religious immigrant girls who don’t integrate from a patriarchal faith have their pick of men here. If the woman has male cognition and is an ex Muslim autist, she would agree with me about what happens to female cognitive ex Muslim women over time. Female cognition is a problem: if you give them power they ruin everything! And the way you control them is not the way you think for yourself. When one is motivated by logic and reason, they first go to Aristotle for their thinking, Marcus Aurellius … but its so nice to have something modern and even more relevant like P. P for the aristocracy – a traditional religion for the underclass — by CurtD: Smart. Very smart. WOMEN Agreed, but In our culture we must state this differently: “We have had centuries to develop many institutional means of controlling men’s bad behavior when they have gained social, economic, and political freedom, but we have not had time to create institutions to control women’s bad behavior when they have social economic and political freedom – and women, just like men, clearly have many bad behaviors we need institutions to control.” ARISTOCRACY: Agreed .. But in our culture, where the majority is in the middle, not the bottom, we use tri-partism and tri-functionalism, so we must have three: “Law for the aristocracy who have power to limit its use, philosophy for the middle have some to use it well, and theology for the bottom, that have least, so that they are not used by others. Limits for the top and bottom and choices for the middle.” ARISTOTLE I have so many projects I would like to finish: 1) to rewrite all of Aristotle in propertarian prose. 2) to write a tripartite theology for western peoples 3) to try write one book that tries to reform christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism – if not hinduism (i don’t think I can understand it) so that they are rational as well as spiritual, but not in conflict with the natural law. But I think you have given me the right wisdom: that if I start with aristotle then all will follow. @adam (Don Miguel) suggested this last year I just didn’t piece it together until you said it here. I will not live long enough to do all these things. But I’ll do the best I can.
-
P Creates “Intellectual Conservatism”
P CREATES CONSERVATIVE INTELLECTUALISM The problem of course is that while the founders were intellectuals, while Burke and Tocqueville were intellectuals, the postwar conservatives were not intellectuals – for reasons we can understand today, as the incompatibility of (a) meritless franchise, (b) the natural eugenics of western aristocratic and egalitarianism, rule of law, and markets in everything; (c) and the darwinian revolution that explained the success of western civilization, and (d) the prewar and postwar, primarily catholic, and later jewish revolt against all of the above, culminating it its overthrow during the sixties revolt against darwinian civilization. Conservative=Capitalizing Tribe long term, Libertarian=Producing Self middle term., Progressive=Hyperconsumptive short term.
-
P Creates “Intellectual Conservatism”
P CREATES CONSERVATIVE INTELLECTUALISM The problem of course is that while the founders were intellectuals, while Burke and Tocqueville were intellectuals, the postwar conservatives were not intellectuals – for reasons we can understand today, as the incompatibility of (a) meritless franchise, (b) the natural eugenics of western aristocratic and egalitarianism, rule of law, and markets in everything; (c) and the darwinian revolution that explained the success of western civilization, and (d) the prewar and postwar, primarily catholic, and later jewish revolt against all of the above, culminating it its overthrow during the sixties revolt against darwinian civilization. Conservative=Capitalizing Tribe long term, Libertarian=Producing Self middle term., Progressive=Hyperconsumptive short term.
-
“Is Vaush Stupid or Intentionally Lying?”
[I] think it’s either lying (intellectual dishonesty), rallying useful idiots around a lie to obtain power (ideology), or socially constructing a mythology for useful idiots to obtain power (theology). It’s not intellectually coherent enough to be a philosophy, and there is nothing scientific about it. The positive feedback loop for lying to satisfy intellectual dishonesty (self image), ideology (status by offense), theology(status by defense), is intense, which is why it works. It could be that like all the rest of the left he is incapable of producing a solution to prosperous evolution by cooperative competition in market meritocratic eugenics and so his only possible technique to mask the big lie of parasitism, is that I mean, his technique is to:
(a) recite a common falsehood quickly and with authority despite it’s falsehood, and move on. (b) state a falsehood and move on to another before the counter argument can be made, and move on. (c) state a falsification is irrelevant to him, unbelievable, or undesirable, as if approval or preference has any bearing on truth or falsehood. (d) rapidly spew unrelated emotionally satisfying sophisms so that it’s impossible to construct a coherent argument falsifying an argument that isn’t coherent. (e) shouting down or talking over counter arguments, to take advantage of the fact that emotive, incoherent, false, and dishonest arguments are more expensive and time consuming to correct with truth. I’m going to be charitable and assume he’s a genetically predetermined leftist(dysgenic, herd) expressing genetically determined female conflict strategy (undermining undesirable truths), but with male dominance, and male tolerance for disagreement, and is only subtly aware that what he’s saying and how he’s arguing is good enough to achieve his ends. I mean, you can look at him and see that he certainly has low sexual, social, cooperative, political, and military market value, but he definitely demonstrates disagreeableness and dominance expression, on top of the female cognitive strategy of undermining. And that is how females reward dominance expression in other females who engage in conflict on their behalf – with attention and undue praise. I mean, Ryan and Stefan have done their work. I think what I’d like to discover is which of those things he’s doing. But given y’all have asked me to debate him I guess I’m wiling even though it conflicts with my rule of ‘Don’t argue with the cognitively female, they aren’t capable of intellectual honesty so it’s pointless”.
-
“Is Vaush Stupid or Intentionally Lying?”
[I] think it’s either lying (intellectual dishonesty), rallying useful idiots around a lie to obtain power (ideology), or socially constructing a mythology for useful idiots to obtain power (theology). It’s not intellectually coherent enough to be a philosophy, and there is nothing scientific about it. The positive feedback loop for lying to satisfy intellectual dishonesty (self image), ideology (status by offense), theology(status by defense), is intense, which is why it works. It could be that like all the rest of the left he is incapable of producing a solution to prosperous evolution by cooperative competition in market meritocratic eugenics and so his only possible technique to mask the big lie of parasitism, is that I mean, his technique is to:
(a) recite a common falsehood quickly and with authority despite it’s falsehood, and move on. (b) state a falsehood and move on to another before the counter argument can be made, and move on. (c) state a falsification is irrelevant to him, unbelievable, or undesirable, as if approval or preference has any bearing on truth or falsehood. (d) rapidly spew unrelated emotionally satisfying sophisms so that it’s impossible to construct a coherent argument falsifying an argument that isn’t coherent. (e) shouting down or talking over counter arguments, to take advantage of the fact that emotive, incoherent, false, and dishonest arguments are more expensive and time consuming to correct with truth. I’m going to be charitable and assume he’s a genetically predetermined leftist(dysgenic, herd) expressing genetically determined female conflict strategy (undermining undesirable truths), but with male dominance, and male tolerance for disagreement, and is only subtly aware that what he’s saying and how he’s arguing is good enough to achieve his ends. I mean, you can look at him and see that he certainly has low sexual, social, cooperative, political, and military market value, but he definitely demonstrates disagreeableness and dominance expression, on top of the female cognitive strategy of undermining. And that is how females reward dominance expression in other females who engage in conflict on their behalf – with attention and undue praise. I mean, Ryan and Stefan have done their work. I think what I’d like to discover is which of those things he’s doing. But given y’all have asked me to debate him I guess I’m wiling even though it conflicts with my rule of ‘Don’t argue with the cognitively female, they aren’t capable of intellectual honesty so it’s pointless”.
-
Explaining Anti-Abrahamism
EXPLAINING ANTI-ABRAHAMISM (controversial post warning) (explanation of social bias) 1) P-Law and its Logic are universally decidable, because testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence) are universally decidable. (Let that sink in a moment.) 2) Any people can eventually enjoy the benefits of a high trust civlization like europeans if they adopt P-Law, Logic, and Constitution – including market (via-negativa) soft eugenics. 3) While ethnocentrism is the optimum strategy at the local, state and civilizational level – because it decreases genetic, kinship, social, economic and political competition and decreases resistance to trust, reciprocity, and mutual insurance and care; so is heterogeneity polities, producing a market of commons because it allows moral and cognitive biases to play out at the cost, and to the benefit, of those who do it. 4) But groups whose competitive strategy requires successful practice of deceit, irreciprocity, and devolution(demographic decline), must convert from predatory and parasitic means of survival and competition to productive means of survival and competition. And groups that practice any and every strategy habituate, specialize in, and transfer between generations, the strategy, mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits, means of education, and especially means of communication, collaboration and argument that advances that strategy. 5) As such groups need incentives to adapt from destructive, predatory, and parasitic means of survival and competition to productive means. To do so requires reformation of mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits , means of education, communication, collaboration, and argument, to suit new the new productive strategy. 6) To produce those incentives we can outlaw the expression of those strategies, and use social, economic, and political alienation to cause deprivation of opportunity – and cause them to adapt their mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits , means of education, communication, collaboration, and argument. 7) The Purpose of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish religious monopoly monotheism and religious identitarianism; and of Boasianism-and-Freudianism ( pseudo-sociology and psychology), marxism(pseudo-economics), neo-marxism (cultural marxism, undermining), postmodernism (relativism), feminism (undermining the family), and human biodiversity denialism (science denial), were constructed by design to deny and undermine the universal decidability of testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence).
—“In response to the post of the Institute regarding Jewish participants [in the Propertarian Movement], I understand the desire to have universal appeal across all groups, but… A feminine argumentative strategy paired with a parasitic evolutionary strategy knowingly employed to the detriment of European-descended peoples is the Jewish Group strategy, to which anti-Semitism is therefore a logical and natural reaction. The frame of anti-Semitism in my judgement provides the greatest immunity from resistance to, reversal of, and prevention of, the threats mentioned in the post, all of which originate primarily from those of Jewish descent.”— Reece Haynes via Facebook
Correct. Complaints of anti-semitism, whether that semitism is in jewish, christian, or muslim group strategies, are expressions of the attempt to prevent the use of testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence), in universal decidability, and to preserve the competitive strategy requires successful practice of deceit, irreciprocity, and devolution(demographic decline), against people who practice testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence), and the high trust, productive, evolutionarily successful nations that they parasitically depend upon. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Thus Endeth The Lesson
-
Explaining Anti-Abrahamism
EXPLAINING ANTI-ABRAHAMISM (controversial post warning) (explanation of social bias) 1) P-Law and its Logic are universally decidable, because testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence) are universally decidable. (Let that sink in a moment.) 2) Any people can eventually enjoy the benefits of a high trust civlization like europeans if they adopt P-Law, Logic, and Constitution – including market (via-negativa) soft eugenics. 3) While ethnocentrism is the optimum strategy at the local, state and civilizational level – because it decreases genetic, kinship, social, economic and political competition and decreases resistance to trust, reciprocity, and mutual insurance and care; so is heterogeneity polities, producing a market of commons because it allows moral and cognitive biases to play out at the cost, and to the benefit, of those who do it. 4) But groups whose competitive strategy requires successful practice of deceit, irreciprocity, and devolution(demographic decline), must convert from predatory and parasitic means of survival and competition to productive means of survival and competition. And groups that practice any and every strategy habituate, specialize in, and transfer between generations, the strategy, mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits, means of education, and especially means of communication, collaboration and argument that advances that strategy. 5) As such groups need incentives to adapt from destructive, predatory, and parasitic means of survival and competition to productive means. To do so requires reformation of mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits , means of education, communication, collaboration, and argument, to suit new the new productive strategy. 6) To produce those incentives we can outlaw the expression of those strategies, and use social, economic, and political alienation to cause deprivation of opportunity – and cause them to adapt their mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits , means of education, communication, collaboration, and argument. 7) The Purpose of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish religious monopoly monotheism and religious identitarianism; and of Boasianism-and-Freudianism ( pseudo-sociology and psychology), marxism(pseudo-economics), neo-marxism (cultural marxism, undermining), postmodernism (relativism), feminism (undermining the family), and human biodiversity denialism (science denial), were constructed by design to deny and undermine the universal decidability of testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence).
—“In response to the post of the Institute regarding Jewish participants [in the Propertarian Movement], I understand the desire to have universal appeal across all groups, but… A feminine argumentative strategy paired with a parasitic evolutionary strategy knowingly employed to the detriment of European-descended peoples is the Jewish Group strategy, to which anti-Semitism is therefore a logical and natural reaction. The frame of anti-Semitism in my judgement provides the greatest immunity from resistance to, reversal of, and prevention of, the threats mentioned in the post, all of which originate primarily from those of Jewish descent.”— Reece Haynes via Facebook
Correct. Complaints of anti-semitism, whether that semitism is in jewish, christian, or muslim group strategies, are expressions of the attempt to prevent the use of testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence), in universal decidability, and to preserve the competitive strategy requires successful practice of deceit, irreciprocity, and devolution(demographic decline), against people who practice testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence), and the high trust, productive, evolutionarily successful nations that they parasitically depend upon. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Thus Endeth The Lesson