—“The West’s egalitarianism and loss of noblesse oblige: Atheists amongst the elite will attack the concept of religion on a whim, because they don’t need it, not considering they have a duty to society by virtue of their position, and different people have different needs to function optimally.”—Graham Davies my only comment is that once you open up democracy you are forced into the problem of the different needs of the classes. The necessary law of the aristocracy, the fanciful philosophy of the middle, and the supernatural religion of the bottom all must somehow compete – but they cannot be made commensurable.
Source: Original Site Post
-
They cannot be made commensurable.
—“The West’s egalitarianism and loss of noblesse oblige: Atheists amongst the elite will attack the concept of religion on a whim, because they don’t need it, not considering they have a duty to society by virtue of their position, and different people have different needs to function optimally.”—Graham Davies my only comment is that once you open up democracy you are forced into the problem of the different needs of the classes. The necessary law of the aristocracy, the fanciful philosophy of the middle, and the supernatural religion of the bottom all must somehow compete – but they cannot be made commensurable.
-
Legal Differences
Ashkenazi Volition independent of externalities. -vs- Western Reciprocity inclusive of externalities.
-
Legal Differences
Ashkenazi Volition independent of externalities. -vs- Western Reciprocity inclusive of externalities.
-
Operationalism was sitting there and they had all the pieces…
It’s a book length treatment. But you know, hayek, popper, turing all came out at about the same time. Mises, brouwer, and bridgman about the same time. With chomsky then mandelbrot and minsky following. I am not sure who understood the work of whom. But in retrospect I can see the convergence. Operationalism was sitting there and they had all the pieces, but no one put it together. In retrospect the isolation of the disciplines and their different languages was clearly a cause. The war was clearly a cause because of the academic shift in focus from truth (rule of law) to pragmatism (aggregates and keynesianism, marxism and postmodernism). My current position is that pragmatism/utilitarianism and the end of truth and reciprocity (law) as a means of decidability in favor of disciplinary utilitarianism (pseudoscience) prevented the synthesis. I know that when I listened to hoppe is saw the underlying issue, and when I read the calculation debate I understood mises versus hayek. I remember it very clearly. I remember where I was standing at the Mises Institute. It just took me a long time to unravel the puzzle. I think the only other person that came close to it was Rafe Champion. I remember reading a half finished paper of Rafe’s back in maybe the 90’s or early 00’s and thinking “you know this is about right”. But combining the work of all these thinkers (standing on their shoulders) should have (in my opinion) occurred in the 60’s if not for the civil unrest caused by the left’s takeover of the academy and discourse. The things that have helped me are the genetics/hbd movement, as well as the cog-sci movement, and the change post 2000 due to the conversion of psychology from a pseudoscience to physical science due to imaging. That said once you learn the two primary programming language paradigms, and the two or thee primary software paradigms, and the three primary database paradigms, and practice reducing reality to combination, and then apply these ideas to cognition and cooperation and law you see hayek was very close.
-
Operationalism was sitting there and they had all the pieces…
It’s a book length treatment. But you know, hayek, popper, turing all came out at about the same time. Mises, brouwer, and bridgman about the same time. With chomsky then mandelbrot and minsky following. I am not sure who understood the work of whom. But in retrospect I can see the convergence. Operationalism was sitting there and they had all the pieces, but no one put it together. In retrospect the isolation of the disciplines and their different languages was clearly a cause. The war was clearly a cause because of the academic shift in focus from truth (rule of law) to pragmatism (aggregates and keynesianism, marxism and postmodernism). My current position is that pragmatism/utilitarianism and the end of truth and reciprocity (law) as a means of decidability in favor of disciplinary utilitarianism (pseudoscience) prevented the synthesis. I know that when I listened to hoppe is saw the underlying issue, and when I read the calculation debate I understood mises versus hayek. I remember it very clearly. I remember where I was standing at the Mises Institute. It just took me a long time to unravel the puzzle. I think the only other person that came close to it was Rafe Champion. I remember reading a half finished paper of Rafe’s back in maybe the 90’s or early 00’s and thinking “you know this is about right”. But combining the work of all these thinkers (standing on their shoulders) should have (in my opinion) occurred in the 60’s if not for the civil unrest caused by the left’s takeover of the academy and discourse. The things that have helped me are the genetics/hbd movement, as well as the cog-sci movement, and the change post 2000 due to the conversion of psychology from a pseudoscience to physical science due to imaging. That said once you learn the two primary programming language paradigms, and the two or thee primary software paradigms, and the three primary database paradigms, and practice reducing reality to combination, and then apply these ideas to cognition and cooperation and law you see hayek was very close.
-
The Saudi – Us – Iran Relationship
Washington is Saudi Arabia’s mercenary force by Aaron Kahland —“Iran is run by Shia fundamentalists. Shia Islam arose and was influenced by the moderating force that was Zoroastrianism. Iran’s Islamic revolution was a national-liberation struggle against the puppet-like regime of the Shah – who was installed by the CIA – as we now know for certain. The remainder of the Arabic Middle East is dominated by both secular and religious Sunni regimes. These regimes sell their oil to US (and British) companies that profit from value-added activites such as refining. In exchange for the license to purchase this crude oil, the US (and Britain) agree to support Sunni expansionism in the Middle East. This is why when Saudi Arabia invades Bahrain (majority Shia) or Northern Yemen or backs insurrections in Shia-ruled Syria – Washington immediately imposes sanctions on those object of Sunni expansion and begins to supply weapons to Saudi-Arabian backed protagonists. This is why Romanian made Kalashnikovs purchased by Washington ended up in the hands of ISIS. It is also why Muslim Bosnians were armed with weapons licensed by the US and manufactured in Egypt – and much of the reason why US bombs fell on those fighting Muslims in the Balkans. To put it accurately, Washington is Saudi Arabia’s mercenary force in the Middle East. That is what explains the US’ seventy-odd years of pursuing geo-political goals that are directly in conflict with its own strategic interests. The US is, to put it frankly, Sunni-Islam’s bitch.”— Aaron Kahland
-
The Saudi – Us – Iran Relationship
Washington is Saudi Arabia’s mercenary force by Aaron Kahland —“Iran is run by Shia fundamentalists. Shia Islam arose and was influenced by the moderating force that was Zoroastrianism. Iran’s Islamic revolution was a national-liberation struggle against the puppet-like regime of the Shah – who was installed by the CIA – as we now know for certain. The remainder of the Arabic Middle East is dominated by both secular and religious Sunni regimes. These regimes sell their oil to US (and British) companies that profit from value-added activites such as refining. In exchange for the license to purchase this crude oil, the US (and Britain) agree to support Sunni expansionism in the Middle East. This is why when Saudi Arabia invades Bahrain (majority Shia) or Northern Yemen or backs insurrections in Shia-ruled Syria – Washington immediately imposes sanctions on those object of Sunni expansion and begins to supply weapons to Saudi-Arabian backed protagonists. This is why Romanian made Kalashnikovs purchased by Washington ended up in the hands of ISIS. It is also why Muslim Bosnians were armed with weapons licensed by the US and manufactured in Egypt – and much of the reason why US bombs fell on those fighting Muslims in the Balkans. To put it accurately, Washington is Saudi Arabia’s mercenary force in the Middle East. That is what explains the US’ seventy-odd years of pursuing geo-political goals that are directly in conflict with its own strategic interests. The US is, to put it frankly, Sunni-Islam’s bitch.”— Aaron Kahland
-
The Last Word on Equality
We are no different from any other domesticated animal. We control domesticated animal’s reproduction and evolve them for cooperation with us (use by us). We control human animal’s reproduction and evolve them for cooperation or not. The difference between groups is mostly sexual dimorphism, sexual maturity, and size of the underclass in relation to the upper middle class. In other words, our upper middle and upper classes do not differ because they converge on neoteny, dimorphism, intelligence and temperament and are less dependent upon peers for knowledge and decisions. Our working and lower classes diverge in lower neoteny, biased dimorphism, lower intelligence and less civil temperament. Like anna karinnena’s families, and like the range of domesticated animals, to produce a ‘human’ requires many genetic things to go right, and if any one of them goes wrong then we are less human and more animal. As such we have domesticated one another and ourselves over millennia of demand for increasingly complex forms of cooperation. We consider humans to be defined by communication using language, but this is just a complex form of signaling. instead, the definition of human vs animal is AGENCY. Equality does not exist. Even when we claim it’s a necessity under dispute resolution in the law of torts, it is our property that is treated equally – not us. As such it is the equality of our property that exists under rule of law. Everything else is both dishonest, pseudoscientific, and dysgenic. And advocacy of dysgenia is just a means of warfare and conquest on a longer time line. We are either producing agency (humans) or reducing agency (animals).
-
The Last Word on Equality
We are no different from any other domesticated animal. We control domesticated animal’s reproduction and evolve them for cooperation with us (use by us). We control human animal’s reproduction and evolve them for cooperation or not. The difference between groups is mostly sexual dimorphism, sexual maturity, and size of the underclass in relation to the upper middle class. In other words, our upper middle and upper classes do not differ because they converge on neoteny, dimorphism, intelligence and temperament and are less dependent upon peers for knowledge and decisions. Our working and lower classes diverge in lower neoteny, biased dimorphism, lower intelligence and less civil temperament. Like anna karinnena’s families, and like the range of domesticated animals, to produce a ‘human’ requires many genetic things to go right, and if any one of them goes wrong then we are less human and more animal. As such we have domesticated one another and ourselves over millennia of demand for increasingly complex forms of cooperation. We consider humans to be defined by communication using language, but this is just a complex form of signaling. instead, the definition of human vs animal is AGENCY. Equality does not exist. Even when we claim it’s a necessity under dispute resolution in the law of torts, it is our property that is treated equally – not us. As such it is the equality of our property that exists under rule of law. Everything else is both dishonest, pseudoscientific, and dysgenic. And advocacy of dysgenia is just a means of warfare and conquest on a longer time line. We are either producing agency (humans) or reducing agency (animals).