(FB 1541426321 Timestamp) I told ya. Religion was the hardest problem in social science. The rest was trivial by comparison. But once you understand religion as a science, you are no longer bound by the limits of your experience.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Thoughts…
[W]e all use the tools available to us to attempt express our will to power (demand for agency). I have built a bunch of companies now, and am building a body of work. I’ve studied every field that I can study without getting my hands too dirty. I amuse myself teaching men of various agencies, as a way testing my work and improving my ability to communicate novel ideas. My ‘availability’ for ‘the students’ is simply necessary for my work (and somewhat entertaining since I have either been in a foreign country with limited circle, or here in the states with limited circle since I started working publicly) and my work relationships have always provided my social circle. I have had a thousand or more conversations with men and women from all walks of life who think using different words to change meaning is the same thing as acting to cause change in reality. And every individual does the same thing – try to make a story where the world fits his or her needs rather than adapting to the world such that one can seize the opportunity in it. So, we are not above a story we tell ourselves (yourselves) because selling a story is the only offering we have to attract attention with. If you have no capital, no organization, no income stream, no power relationships, are not politically engaged or engageable, not strong, athletic, or martial, then you have nothing to sell but stories. And if that is the case, then you probably are not willing or able to work hard enough to acquire any of the above. You can spend your prime years attempting to tell stories, and sell them. You do what you can with the rather good mind you (y’all) have. And with enough practice over six or ten years, you will either abandon it or find some use for it. But you could be working in craft, commerce, entertainment, education, or politics instead – and while you have probably lost seven to ten years of life to maleducation, you can spend another six to ten selling a story until your consequent failure is sufficient evidence for people your age to dismiss you. I’m a scientist, and those of you who sell stories, well, you need, want to be, and admire the priesthood- or rather the secular version of it – just as do all members of the academy. If you are on the libertarian or right end of the spectrum, you are just on the outside of the mainstream, and cannot employ it in the academy and are not knowledgeable enough yet to employ it in the media (might happen). . I understand this. But I have an approach to the problem of the present era, and that is to move the world forward, IN THE TERMS OF THOSE WHO HAVE AND MAINTAIN, POWER. Those people with whom I have understanding and experience. So, you know, if you want to tell yourself stories or create an english speaking version of the european new right, then I think you will need to work pretty hard at it. I will just move forward with ‘if it isn’t true, then how to I satisfy market demand truthfully’. And provide a solution that is in the material economic and kinship interests of enough of my people to cause them to demand that implementation by force. Cheers
-
Why? Why Are We Winning? We Are No Longer Hopeful that The Rest Can Be Made Honorable
1) Their advantage was lie and cheat and deceive– and we weren’t aware 2) Then their advantage was lie and cheat and deceive– and we we didn’t stop and punish them 3) Then their advantage was lie and cheat and deceive– and we didn’t deceive them back. 4) Now we are – and they are crumbling Winning is fun. We are no longer converting, but conquering.
-
Thoughts…
[W]e all use the tools available to us to attempt express our will to power (demand for agency). I have built a bunch of companies now, and am building a body of work. I’ve studied every field that I can study without getting my hands too dirty. I amuse myself teaching men of various agencies, as a way testing my work and improving my ability to communicate novel ideas. My ‘availability’ for ‘the students’ is simply necessary for my work (and somewhat entertaining since I have either been in a foreign country with limited circle, or here in the states with limited circle since I started working publicly) and my work relationships have always provided my social circle. I have had a thousand or more conversations with men and women from all walks of life who think using different words to change meaning is the same thing as acting to cause change in reality. And every individual does the same thing – try to make a story where the world fits his or her needs rather than adapting to the world such that one can seize the opportunity in it. So, we are not above a story we tell ourselves (yourselves) because selling a story is the only offering we have to attract attention with. If you have no capital, no organization, no income stream, no power relationships, are not politically engaged or engageable, not strong, athletic, or martial, then you have nothing to sell but stories. And if that is the case, then you probably are not willing or able to work hard enough to acquire any of the above. You can spend your prime years attempting to tell stories, and sell them. You do what you can with the rather good mind you (y’all) have. And with enough practice over six or ten years, you will either abandon it or find some use for it. But you could be working in craft, commerce, entertainment, education, or politics instead – and while you have probably lost seven to ten years of life to maleducation, you can spend another six to ten selling a story until your consequent failure is sufficient evidence for people your age to dismiss you. I’m a scientist, and those of you who sell stories, well, you need, want to be, and admire the priesthood- or rather the secular version of it – just as do all members of the academy. If you are on the libertarian or right end of the spectrum, you are just on the outside of the mainstream, and cannot employ it in the academy and are not knowledgeable enough yet to employ it in the media (might happen). . I understand this. But I have an approach to the problem of the present era, and that is to move the world forward, IN THE TERMS OF THOSE WHO HAVE AND MAINTAIN, POWER. Those people with whom I have understanding and experience. So, you know, if you want to tell yourself stories or create an english speaking version of the european new right, then I think you will need to work pretty hard at it. I will just move forward with ‘if it isn’t true, then how to I satisfy market demand truthfully’. And provide a solution that is in the material economic and kinship interests of enough of my people to cause them to demand that implementation by force. Cheers
-
James on “honor (gloating) in Deceit”
[R]egarding “honor-in-deceit”, let’s tease this out because it is beyond that. If you remember Japanese, say during WWII, only cowards surrender. I true warrior would rather die in battle or by suicide (not agreeing with that, just observing). So here we have not just “honor-in-deceit” but “mocking, and gloating”, so that if you TRUST and show HONOR and get cheated — you got punked like a farm animal and are shat upon. Then if you simply close the doors and say never again they come back, please please or you are racist! to let them in. Then you will get punked again and they laugh and mock you. Let’s Repeat That:
—“It’s not just honor-in-deceit, but a mocking, and gloating, that if you TRUST and show HONOR and get cheated — you got punked like a farm animal and are shat upon.”—
They POISON the MORAL WELL, and leave only the option for physical retaliation. Which is precisely what HONOR REQUIRES (duty, cost of maintaining the commons). If we argue and disagree we can separate. If we argue and insult we must punish. That is the only way to preserve the moral and informational commons.
-
Why? Why Are We Winning? We Are No Longer Hopeful that The Rest Can Be Made Honorable
1) Their advantage was lie and cheat and deceive– and we weren’t aware 2) Then their advantage was lie and cheat and deceive– and we we didn’t stop and punish them 3) Then their advantage was lie and cheat and deceive– and we didn’t deceive them back. 4) Now we are – and they are crumbling Winning is fun. We are no longer converting, but conquering.
-
Their Method of Argument…
[I] have (((Their))) Method of Argument down in form. James has it down in stages of argument and counter-argument. We just need to educate everyone on it. Then we need to educate everyone that the only reason to NOT engage in ‘warfare’ and instead in debate, is if we are actually debating in order to determine a trade when we don’t agree, or a good, when we do. Then we need to engage in ‘War’ often enough that we suppress the ‘poisoning of the well’.
-
James on “honor (gloating) in Deceit”
[R]egarding “honor-in-deceit”, let’s tease this out because it is beyond that. If you remember Japanese, say during WWII, only cowards surrender. I true warrior would rather die in battle or by suicide (not agreeing with that, just observing). So here we have not just “honor-in-deceit” but “mocking, and gloating”, so that if you TRUST and show HONOR and get cheated — you got punked like a farm animal and are shat upon. Then if you simply close the doors and say never again they come back, please please or you are racist! to let them in. Then you will get punked again and they laugh and mock you. Let’s Repeat That:
—“It’s not just honor-in-deceit, but a mocking, and gloating, that if you TRUST and show HONOR and get cheated — you got punked like a farm animal and are shat upon.”—
They POISON the MORAL WELL, and leave only the option for physical retaliation. Which is precisely what HONOR REQUIRES (duty, cost of maintaining the commons). If we argue and disagree we can separate. If we argue and insult we must punish. That is the only way to preserve the moral and informational commons.
-
SCI-FI of the cold war era.
[I]t was different reading SCI-FI in the 60’s and 70’s than it is today. Memories of the world war, the vietnam era, the cold war and space race provided context for them. The promise of a star trek future more so. Watergate, Vietnam Exit, and The oil crisis was a death blow. And so these things made us look for options. Which is why we threw ourselves at technology. when princess leah said “you are our only hope” that reflected our perception of the age of computers. So we had star wars, alien, Reagan Revolution, and the age of computers to run to. When I found neuromancer (1981 or 82) and then Snow Crash that was the future most of us went out to build. Why? unlike the cold war which was out of our control, building the world of Neuromancer was WITHIN our control… so we live it today. What I notice most is that the time for contemplation (demand for self entertainment when bored) is gone, and we pay the price for it. Good trade maybe. But the ‘pace’ of the world is insane by those standards, and even then, the adults thought the pace of the world compared to the war era was insane. My grandmother had a red-x painted on the door, and neighbors dropped off deliveries at the end of the property, and people hitched up horses to go to town for what they needed. A generation before that was without electricity or running water.
-
Their Method of Argument…
[I] have (((Their))) Method of Argument down in form. James has it down in stages of argument and counter-argument. We just need to educate everyone on it. Then we need to educate everyone that the only reason to NOT engage in ‘warfare’ and instead in debate, is if we are actually debating in order to determine a trade when we don’t agree, or a good, when we do. Then we need to engage in ‘War’ often enough that we suppress the ‘poisoning of the well’.