October 11th, 2018 8:45 PM
[A]ccording to this graph, the IQ for university degree is 120+. Which means roughly 10% of the population is capable of a university degree in a calculable field.
The rest is not education. It’s pseudoscience, sophims, and religion.
October 11th, 2018 8:04 PM
DRAGGING MANKIND OUT OF IGNORANCE AND POVERTY AGAINST THEIR WILL AND THANKLESSLY
[T]his is a diagram showing how long it took the west in time, blood, and treasure, to drag the rest of humanity – whining, kicking, screaming, fighting, and objecting all the while – out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, disease, filth, hard labor, infant mortality, early death, natural catastrophes, and the vicissitudes of nature hostile to life. Oh, and apparently westerners are ‘bad’ and ‘evil’ for not completing it with colonial rule, and leaving so many peoples to experiment with communism, socialism, postmodernism, islamism, and the occasional bit of superstitious magic until they got in line and followed suit. Hmmm…. it’s ok. No man is a hero to his debtors.
The problem here is that it’s crucially important what values you’re acting (or fighting, or kicking teeth) FOR.
There is no virtue in combat for the sake of combat. That’s for Fight Club and everyone knows what the first rule of Fight Club is.
So, everyone fights. Everyone has a degree of blood lust. Everyone wants to kick in the teeth, bash heads and…
“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.” â H. L. Mencken
But for what? Let’s be somewhat explicit in dialectic fashion: thesis âÂÂ> Antithesis âÂÂ> Synthesis.
REPUBLICAN THESIS (loosely, not all-inclusive)
– Traditional American Dream
– Traditional American Values including core familial values
– Traditional forms of child learning, typically including light religious indoctrination
– Raising sons and daughters to embrace traditional familial male and female roles
– Know-How, Do It Yourself Self sufficiency, including pride as a virtue to be reluctance to ask for help
– Business, productivity, entrepreneurship, wealth building
– Minimal government interference
– Tough on true crime (murder, kidnapping, rape, theft, fraud, etc.)
– Charity and missionaryism
– Closed borders; be selective and cherry pick immigrants
DEMOCRAT ANTITHESIS
– The American Dream leaves too many poor, uneducated, and genetically IQ handicapped behind and you should feel ashamed of that
– Traditional family values hold down girls and women from reaching their true potential intellectually, academically, and independent financially
– Traditional child rearing tends to empower male children and handicap female children such that they are dependent on males
– Self sufficiency, know-how, and self dealing, etc. in the trades disadvantages the poor, uneducated, IQ handicapped and so collective bargaining through unions on the private and public levels are necessary, as is affirmative action to award the less fortunate at the expense of penalizing the naturally selected
– Capitalism in general places the means of production and prosperity in the hands of entrepreneurs who may not be market driven but politically driven, so fascism is necessary (quibbles I’m sure, but state control through vast regulation of quasi-private enterprise IS what fascism IS)
– Maximum governmental regulation (fascism) is necessary and the best means of producing that outcome is through political rent-seeking behavior, turning market entrepreneurs into political entrepreneurs
– Criminal prosecution is a tool used by the right to control the underclasses
– Grassroots charity comes with ideological strings attached, usually religious and so, this too ought to be a secular and state team effort with corporate charity and United Nations oversight rather than individuals and small groups seeing a need and assuaging it to their abilities
– Open borders; lift the poor and underprivileged
…Not all-inclusive, such as, strong feminist activism, queer agenda, transgender stuff, etc.
In terms of the dialectic synthesis, that’s libertarianism. Strong on markets, self-sufficiency, entrepreneurship, minimal government interference, private charity…but also live and let live on the social issues.
The question is, without the Republican and Democrat labels, the memes, the Media, entertainment, and Hollywood narrative crafting either way, which set of values do you more viscerally identify with that the other?
Hey, Curt Doolittle, your stream of consciousness and/or sweat and tears lists are always more comprehensive than mine. Anything to add, retract, nuance, etc?
October 11th, 2018 3:31 PM
COUNTERING RIGHT CRITICISM OF CULTURAL MARXISM
( In response to: https://www.facebook.com/pepe.escobar.77377/posts/10156644462266678 )
So you didn’t actually make an argument I can counter, other than “Misinterpreted” – when the universal criticism of the left is that while the right can understand the left (rationally) the left cannot comprehend the right (intuitionistically) and resorts to psychologisms (Critique). What outcomes, arguments, propositions, assumptions were misinterpreted?
THE UNDERLYING ARGUMENT
Pilpul consists of a technique using sophisms (“justificationism”). Critique consists of a technique by which straw-man criticism without providing an alternative construction, for the opposition to criticize, substitutes for argument. And Feminine Competitive Instinct relies on disapproval, shaming, ridicule, rallying, gossip, straw manning, and reputation destruction instead of competing with (answering) the objections put forth in the argument. Feminine group strategy relies on prosecution of reciprocity in support of advancing proportionality indirectly. These are all methods of sophomoric rhetorical fraud. They are instinctual. And they appear to have evolved to control alphas (reproductive choice).
Whereas Aristotelianism, Empiricism, Scientific method, Economics, and Rule of law require Operational Language (Testimony), warranty, demonstrated due diligence, and active suppression against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalisms, and deceit as means of demanding reciprocity.
Conversely, Abrahamism (pilpul, critique, false history, supernaturalism), reformed into Marxism-Boasianism-Freudianism-(even Cantorian sets)-Adorno/Frankfurt practice of pseudoscience that advances the feminine reproductive and competitive strategy and the feminine method of speech, to undermine reciprocity and testability in order to prevent full accounting of merit. And when the pseudoscientific(marxist analysis) and pseudo-rational (dialectic) argument failed, the French postmodernists reformed into (resorted to) outright Denialism (iq, race, gender, culture, class, causality, truth, un- decidability etc). Which is what the Right Refers to as “Cultural Marxism” and the Academy, Media, State complex make use of these narratives (propaganda, cult mythology) in combination with the downward expansion of college and university education, to fund teaching of, research into, and the production of literature, and the creation multiple generations of new ‘cultists’.â¨â¨This activism resulted in the successful displacement of the aristocracy (military) from political rule, and the replacement of the church with the academy/media/state complex. And resulted in the incremental (quite intentional) selection of cases brought before the Supreme Court in order to undermine the constitution (via legislation from the bench) due to the weakness of the constitution not providing a vehicle for return of undecidable propositions to the legislature.
The right has consistently resisted, and held onto the moral argument sufficiently to deny political power, (albeit in archaic enlightenment prose), but the left achieved through single motherhood expansion and underclass immigration, and involuntary transfer of reproduction to the lower classes through taxation, that which they could not achieve by ideas. This has resulted in a Racial Polity, and the racialization of both parties with single white women and vulnerable underclasses as the only race-defectors.
So, the Right argument (Aristocratic-hierarchical, Meritocratic, Market, Rule of Law, Reciprocity, Truth, and Duty, and Eugenic), is not that there is some vast left conspiracy – because the right doesn’t believe the left (Feminine, Herd, Dysgenic) mind possesses any agency whatsoever (hence the evolution of the Useful Idiot label into the NPC Meme). But instead that the cult of supernaturalism was replaced first by a cult of pseudoscience, and having failed at pseudoscience, replaced by a cult of outright denialism. The fact that these sophomoric arguments (pilpul) were all produced using Critique, in support of the feminine reproductive strategy (proportionality of the herd), in order to circumvent rule of law by reciprocity (ancient customary law of tort), and to enforce discretionary rule instead,(despite that the country was designed as a ‘third way’ between authoritarian discretion of the aristocracy, and authoritarian socialism of the church.)
Democracy is (majoritarian monopoly) little more than the search for power external to the market. The right attempts to preserve the market (meritocracy and reciprocity of the pack) while the left attempts to circumvent the market (equality and proportionality of the herd.)
Yes there are the Soros’ of the world that do this by intent. By by and large the left is just lacking the right’s Agency, which is what separates right and left: Agency.
[Left: Female Reproductive Strategy]: Consumption : Equality Devotion Proportionality
[Libertarian: Unfranchised Male Reproductive Strategy]: Production: Reciprocity, Liberty
[Conservative: Franchised (established) Male Reproductive Strategy]: Conservation: Reciprocity Hierarchy/Loyalty, Purity.â¨â¨
Arguably only libertarians only have any agency since they are the only faction with sufficient understanding of both economics and rule of law to possess it, but as a minority they are ineffective outside of think tanks and policy influence. The conservatives however remain dedicated to the individual as the central object of the law of tort; the family as the central unit of policy; and the civic order as the central unit of commons production; and the state limited to service as the insurer of last resort.
Since this combination is a prescription for a eugenic social order, and that eugenic order (“manorialism”) was successful in both the far east and far west in sufficiently eugenic limitations on reproduction to produce a nearly completely middle class polity, this social order is both the origin of east and west prosperity, but in conflict with the expansion of single mothers, and third worlder underclasses without such genetic cultural traditional, and institutional histories.
We provide agency through science: the use of correspondence with reality, using operational language to produce consistency between existence, action, perception, and intuition. And we use the scientific method to insure that the frauds sophisms, fictionalism, and outright deceits so common outside of the west, are incrementally suppressed. Unfortunately the continentals and the mesopotamians retain their sophisms, pseudosciences, and supernaturalisms, and their desperate followers try to bring moral FICTIONS into reality by the act of chanting them.
“Thus endeth the lesson.”
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
—“Hi Curt, it looks like you were quoted in the NY Post.”– John Mark
https://nypost.com/2018/10/09/wheres-the-outrage-over-hillarys-call-for-a-civil-war/
CONTENT HERE:
Two events from the last two days stand out. The first came Monday night with President Trumpâs forceful yet compassionate speech at the swearing in of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
The president opened with an extraordinary apology on behalf of the country to KavÂanaugh and his familyâfor the terrible pain and sufferingâ they endured during the historically brutal confirmation process. He said the unfounded allegations violated fairness and âthe presumption of innocence.â
Trump also tenderly addressed Kavanaughâs young daughters, telling them âyour father is a great man, a man of decency, character, kindness and courage.â
The event was something of a spike-the-football moment in front of a cheering White House audience and as such was a clever piece of stagecraft, where Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell, Charles Grassley, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins were saluted.
But the ceremony was much more than mere boosterism. With the eight other Supremes sitting in the front row, Trump aimed to restore dignity to the judiciary at a time when the dirtiest tricks of politics have buried the court in a mountain of mud.
The president is right to worry that the character-assassination attempt on Kavanaughmay turn out to be a seminal moment in American political and cultural history. The ideas that the court is just another political branch and that the presumption of innocence no longer applies if you are on the other team represent a seismic shift in how we look at each other and the nation as a whole.
If those ideas stick, we are in more trouble than we can imagine.
And while Trump has at times unnecessarily contributed to the rancor, he was terrific Monday in trying to repair what Senate Democrats and their media handmaidens tried to destroy.
Which brings me to the second event of note: Hillary Clintonâs statement Tuesday that Democrats âcannot be civilâ as long as Republicans hold the White House and Congress.
âYou cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,â Clinton told CNN. âThatâs why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, thatâs when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.â
There you have it â a declaration of war and a license for violence. Where is the media outrage?
Clinton knows we are already in the danger zone when it comes to the political temperature. Her comments, then, are as reckless as bringing a can of gasoline to a bonfire.
Sheâs stoking trouble to gain a foothold in the 2020 race â and damn the consequences.
Her claim that civility can return when Dems have power is an admission that the ends justify the means.
Then again, she never fails to disappoint. As I wrote Sunday, she has spent the last two years casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Trump presidency because the election didnât go her way. That makes her guilty of the very thing she found âhorrifyingâ when Trump suggested he might not abide by the results if he thought they were rigged.
âHe is denigrating â he is talking down our democracy. And I am appalled that someone who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that position,â she said in their final debate, in October 2016.
She added, âThat is not the way our democracy works.â
But it does work exactly that way when Democrats are denied what they feel entitled to. They should be careful what they wish for.
For if the Kavanaugh experience revealed anything, it is that Trumpâs GOP knows how to fight back and win. It is hard to imagine that Kavanaugh would have survived such an onslaught under any other Ârecent Republican candidate or president.
There were so many reasons, and so much media pressure, that it would not have been surprising if a bloc of senators called the allegations a âdistractionâ and waved a white flag. They didnât because Trump and Kavanaugh didnât back down.
Still, there is danger when two sides both think they can outlast the other. Responding to my concern that America might be sleepwalking into a second civil war, a number of readers agreed. Some said they welcomed it.
Curt Doolittle wrote this: âWe arenât sleepwalking into it, we know exactly what weâre doing and why. The hard right and hard left are planning on it, ready for it, and looking for an opportunity.â
He said the pressure has been building and that âthe only reason it hasnât turned hot is the outlier of Trumpâs election. If Clinton had won, weâd already be there.â
City Hall in the X-treme
The City Hall press release was overflowing with superlatives. The action was âhistoric,â a âlandmarkâ and âgroundbreaking.â
Did Mayor Putz find a cure for homelessness? Did he solve the problem of failing schools? Did he fix public housing or the subways?
Nah, the small stuff is beneath him. His âstop the pressesâ accomplishment was signing legislation putting a third gender on city birth certificates.
As his office described it, âIn addition to the âmaleâ and âfemaleâ designations, birth certificates will also show an âX,â allowing gender non-binary people who identify neither as men nor women to have a birth certificate that more accurately reflects their identities.â
The law takes effect Jan. 1 and removes the requirement that a medical or mental health professional affirm an individualâs gender to change the certificate.
The effect is that anyone can simply demand a new birth certificate and choose a new gender. Itâs not clear if there are age requirements or limits to the number of times an individual can make changes.
To the roster of activist groups hailing the action, the change is something of a Holy Grail. First lady Chirlane McCray suggested it was just a first step, saying, âWe will not stop there â we strive to extend that dignity to every aspect of life.â
I donât doubt that gender identity is a serious, complex issue for some people. But I do wonder about the impact of this dramatic change on society, including gender roles in everything from sports to toilets, and about the priorities of the mayor and City Council.
Do they have the same passion for public safety and good schools? Do they care as much about the unfairness of the tax system?
My fear is that they donât, and that their intensity about narrow issues is a fig leaf hiding their surrender on broad ones. There are superlatives for that, too.
Disgraceful, cowardice and shameful come to mind.
October 11th, 2018 9:46 PM
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x
The Power of Personality: The Comparative Validity of Personality Traits, Socioeconomic Status, and Cognitive Ability for Predicting Important Life Outcomes
Brent W. Roberts, Nathan R. Kuncel, Rebecca Shiner, …
First Published December 1, 2007 Research Article
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x
Abstract
The ability of personality traits to predict important life outcomes has traditionally been questioned because of the putative small effects of personality. In this article, we compare the predictive validity of personality traits with that of socioeconomic status (SES) and cognitive ability to test the relative contribution of personality traits to predictions of three critical outcomes: mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. Only evidence from prospective longitudinal studies was considered. In addition, an attempt was made to limit the review to studies that controlled for important background factors. Results showed that the magnitude of the effects of personality traits on mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment was indistinguishable from the effects of SES and cognitive ability on these outcomes. These results demonstrate the influence of personality traits on important life outcomes, highlight the need to more routinely incorporate measures of personality into quality of life surveys, and encourage further research about the developmental origins of personality traits and the processes by which these traits influence diverse life outcomes.
