1 – *Male vs Female 2 – *Dominance vs Submission 3 – Intelligence = Rate of Adaptation
BEFORE BIAS 3 – Agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. challenging/callous) 4 – Extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved)
DURING BIAS 6 – Openness-Adaptivity (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious) 7 – *Systematizing (intertemporal and Political) vs Empathizing (temporal and Interpersonal)
AFTER BIAS 8 – Conscientiousness-Patience (efficient/organized vs. extravagant/careless) 9 – Neuroticism-Fear (sensitive/nervous vs. resilient/confident)
@RadioFreeNorthwest Have done. Will do more. Once you realize (((They))) are cognitiviely feminine. Then you realize what they do is deterministic, and inescapable. So the problem is whether or not it’s fixable. Given taht they’re more aggressive than we are, and that they’re cognitively feminine, and feminine cognition is nearly impossible to ‘train’ into realism, naturalism, and the laws of nature – especially truth telling – I’m on the fence as to whether it’s possible.
@scottishbking Ther are a lot of severe bugs that are rediculous like this. SOLUTION: Copy text, hard refresh page, compose, paste tesxt, submit. My product is 1000x as complicated as this one and we do it by just fking CHECKING all the time.
REGARDING: https://t.co/H2hAbnEEnR
1 ) Simple version and fuller states it in the article above: Have I correctly identified the conflict between the left’s false promise of freedom from physical, logical, behavioral, cooperative, and evolutionary laws, and the rights’ (Aristotelian) promise that only by conformity to (rather than denying, ignoring, or lying about) those laws do we prosper.? Yes.
2) Have I correctly Identified that every culture has produced a counter-revolution against the anglo empirical restoration: the french (Moralism of Rousseau et al), then the germans (Rationalism of Kant et al), then the Jews (pseudoscience of boas, freud marx frankfurt postmodern anti-male feminism, pc-woke). Yes. Do any of these groups have the faintest idea what they’re doing? There are a tiny minority among the Jews who do. The English(anglosphere), French, and Germans don’t. They’re just following cultural indoctrination which they intuit as ‘good’ – but it’s just their group evolutionary strategy.
3) Is anything I argue false? No. It’s just uncomfortable because it demands you and all of us, pay the costs of truth (realism, naturalism, identity, consistency, operational possibility,
4) Are my proposed solutions irreciprocal? No. They are the greatest economic reforms since the Roman Reforms, and would rapidly repair the economic inequality that is a natural (Piketty) consequence of capitalism when unlimited by the constraint imposed by reciprocity. They are for everyone. (At the expense of eradicating lying – especially the social construction of lies).
5) Is P-Law fascist? (We humorously say so, because it’s intolerant – of lying). Only in the sense that like all scientific truths it is an anti-left (anti lying) because the left’s organizing strategy is lying about the laws of the universe. My work is an extension of the law of fraud from the commercial to the political sphere of discourse. It’s just Jeffersonian rule of law by natural law and the English and American Constitutions updated for the current century – accounting for the industrialization of lying made possible by the failure of western thought leadership in the 19th century, the vacuum created by their failure, and the success of Jewish thought leadership in reforming the Abrahamic religions from theology to pseudoscience. No cultural elites understand their group strategy they just intuit it and apply it. This is why civilizations never change without reformation.
I am no more fascist than Jefferson, or the universe. I’m just stating the truth so we stop the natural consequence of the left – everywhere it’s been able to capture political power: civilizational destruction from which it is nearly impossible to recover without the tyranny (ie: China, Russia).
6) Yes, I specifically ‘call out’ abrahamists (use of the female method of undermining, baiting into hazard, and social construction) whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim or whether Marxist, pomo, or pc-woke. Because I want them to REFORM as Europeans reformed – and in doing so dragged mankind out of superstition and deceit. You can’t cause a reformation without incentives, and inescapable blame for dark ages, 100M dead in the 20th, and the destruction of advanced civilization from within, is a good incentive. You all don’t seem to mind that Christians and nazis hate me far more than you do for this reason.
7) You (collectively) want to sell ‘harmony’ not the truth. I want to sell truth so that we can achieve harmony despite the fact that truth is painful, and only ‘Christian Love’ makes the tragedy of the natural laws tolerable. This is the secret of western civilization. A military elite class, practicing military epistemology, bound by the only law possible for an elite military class: reciprocity – was unlimited by the dependence upon kin agrarian labor. So the west’s first institution after the military was natural law (tort). Every other civilization ‘failed’ because they tried to accommodate the underclasses, creating either religion or state as their first institution. In the west, we failed at religion, but Christianity provided a means of tolerating military, and juridical epistemology. Fundamentalist Christians today deny causes(anthropomorphism) but they DON”T deny the laws of the universe. The left denies the laws of the universe and claims man is god and can either ignore, deny, or evade them.
8) So in your ignorance you pitch gossip and harmony because you are unwilling to pay the high costs of the civilization that made your privilege – to deny those laws so that you don’t pay the cost of disharmony – possible.
Why do you want to do that? Because you are biologically evolved to put temporal harmony ahead of intertemporal consequence. And I am naturally evolved to put temporal consequence ahead of temporal harmony. (See Haidt). In the Big 5, you have high demand for agreeableness and gain your information and valuation from others. I have low demand for agreeableness and gain my information independent of the valuation of others.
You are at the high end of those who are predisposed to obtain mindfulness (reduction of uncertainty), and seek association, cooperation, by the exhaustion of the signal of non-aggression. (submission). I don’t know your Big 5/6 but you probably have higher levels of neuroticism (a poorly named psychological trait). (I don’t have any at all.) So I put myself at all forms of risk and have taken vast losses to save my people, my civilization, and mankind. But I do so because I am able to.
There is a reason that ‘foks like me’, despite the high personal costs, drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature, and people like you become essayists, “reporters”, priests, shamans, that sell comforting lies that circumvent the universe, deny reality, to create social construction of falsehoods so that you and others can deny those laws of the universe, and maintain superstition, sophistry, pseudoscience, and deceit by social construction.
9) So, which of us is more honest, truthful, ethical, moral, seeking the most good for the most of mankind?
I know the answer. And I pay the price. And you don’t.
The painful truth is that the most effective means of achieving good the most good for all is the reduction of the size of the underclass that is determined purely empirically, by market forces, continuing natural selection. You may not understand that this is just physics. It’s just a law of the universe. There is nothing we can do about it. So returning to ‘soft eugenics’ (one child policy) and insuring (taking care) of those who ‘have the birth defect’, is the only possible method (and it will get worse in the near future) by which we can produce relative equality of condition despite the natural hierarchy of competence, preserving the freedom and incentives necessary for the preservation of democracy, while at the same time maximizing redistribution.
If you disagree then you are either wrong, ignorant, a zealot for a religion of pseudoscience, or a liar, and a threat to the peace, prosperity, and evolution of mankind. And you are not, as you imagine, ‘a good person’. Just the opposite. You are a well-meaning fool, unfit for the severity of the subject matter upon which you opine out of ‘feelings’ rather than knowledge: ignorance.
REGARDING: https://t.co/H2hAbnEEnR
1 ) Simple version and fuller states it in the article above: Have I correctly identified the conflict between the left’s false promise of freedom from physical, logical, behavioral, cooperative, and evolutionary laws, and the rights’ (Aristotelian) promise that only by conformity to (rather than denying, ignoring, or lying about) those laws do we prosper.? Yes.
2) Have I correctly Identified that every culture has produced a counter-revolution against the anglo empirical restoration: the french (Moralism of Rousseau et al), then the germans (Rationalism of Kant et al), then the Jews (pseudoscience of boas, freud marx frankfurt postmodern anti-male feminism, pc-woke). Yes. Do any of these groups have the faintest idea what they’re doing? There are a tiny minority among the Jews who do. The English(anglosphere), French, and Germans don’t. They’re just following cultural indoctrination which they intuit as ‘good’ – but it’s just their group evolutionary strategy.
3) Is anything I argue false? No. It’s just uncomfortable because it demands you and all of us, pay the costs of truth (realism, naturalism, identity, consistency, operational possibility,
4) Are my proposed solutions irreciprocal? No. They are the greatest economic reforms since the Roman Reforms, and would rapidly repair the economic inequality that is a natural (Piketty) consequence of capitalism when unlimited by the constraint imposed by reciprocity. They are for everyone. (At the expense of eradicating lying – especially the social construction of lies).
5) Is P-Law fascist? (We humorously say so, because it’s intolerant – of lying). Only in the sense that like all scientific truths it is an anti-left (anti lying) because the left’s organizing strategy is lying about the laws of the universe. My work is an extension of the law of fraud from the commercial to the political sphere of discourse. It’s just Jeffersonian rule of law by natural law and the English and American Constitutions updated for the current century – accounting for the industrialization of lying made possible by the failure of western thought leadership in the 19th century, the vacuum created by their failure, and the success of Jewish thought leadership in reforming the Abrahamic religions from theology to pseudoscience. No cultural elites understand their group strategy they just intuit it and apply it. This is why civilizations never change without reformation.
I am no more fascist than Jefferson, or the universe. I’m just stating the truth so we stop the natural consequence of the left – everywhere it’s been able to capture political power: civilizational destruction from which it is nearly impossible to recover without the tyranny (ie: China, Russia).
6) Yes, I specifically ‘call out’ abrahamists (use of the female method of undermining, baiting into hazard, and social construction) whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim or whether Marxist, pomo, or pc-woke. Because I want them to REFORM as Europeans reformed – and in doing so dragged mankind out of superstition and deceit. You can’t cause a reformation without incentives, and inescapable blame for dark ages, 100M dead in the 20th, and the destruction of advanced civilization from within, is a good incentive. You all don’t seem to mind that Christians and nazis hate me far more than you do for this reason.
7) You (collectively) want to sell ‘harmony’ not the truth. I want to sell truth so that we can achieve harmony despite the fact that truth is painful, and only ‘Christian Love’ makes the tragedy of the natural laws tolerable. This is the secret of western civilization. A military elite class, practicing military epistemology, bound by the only law possible for an elite military class: reciprocity – was unlimited by the dependence upon kin agrarian labor. So the west’s first institution after the military was natural law (tort). Every other civilization ‘failed’ because they tried to accommodate the underclasses, creating either religion or state as their first institution. In the west, we failed at religion, but Christianity provided a means of tolerating military, and juridical epistemology. Fundamentalist Christians today deny causes(anthropomorphism) but they DON”T deny the laws of the universe. The left denies the laws of the universe and claims man is god and can either ignore, deny, or evade them.
8) So in your ignorance you pitch gossip and harmony because you are unwilling to pay the high costs of the civilization that made your privilege – to deny those laws so that you don’t pay the cost of disharmony – possible.
Why do you want to do that? Because you are biologically evolved to put temporal harmony ahead of intertemporal consequence. And I am naturally evolved to put temporal consequence ahead of temporal harmony. (See Haidt). In the Big 5, you have high demand for agreeableness and gain your information and valuation from others. I have low demand for agreeableness and gain my information independent of the valuation of others.
You are at the high end of those who are predisposed to obtain mindfulness (reduction of uncertainty), and seek association, cooperation, by the exhaustion of the signal of non-aggression. (submission). I don’t know your Big 5/6 but you probably have higher levels of neuroticism (a poorly named psychological trait). (I don’t have any at all.) So I put myself at all forms of risk and have taken vast losses to save my people, my civilization, and mankind. But I do so because I am able to.
There is a reason that ‘foks like me’, despite the high personal costs, drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature, and people like you become essayists, “reporters”, priests, shamans, that sell comforting lies that circumvent the universe, deny reality, to create social construction of falsehoods so that you and others can deny those laws of the universe, and maintain superstition, sophistry, pseudoscience, and deceit by social construction.
9) So, which of us is more honest, truthful, ethical, moral, seeking the most good for the most of mankind?
I know the answer. And I pay the price. And you don’t.
The painful truth is that the most effective means of achieving good the most good for all is the reduction of the size of the underclass that is determined purely empirically, by market forces, continuing natural selection. You may not understand that this is just physics. It’s just a law of the universe. There is nothing we can do about it. So returning to ‘soft eugenics’ (one child policy) and insuring (taking care) of those who ‘have the birth defect’, is the only possible method (and it will get worse in the near future) by which we can produce relative equality of condition despite the natural hierarchy of competence, preserving the freedom and incentives necessary for the preservation of democracy, while at the same time maximizing redistribution.
If you disagree then you are either wrong, ignorant, a zealot for a religion of pseudoscience, or a liar, and a threat to the peace, prosperity, and evolution of mankind. And you are not, as you imagine, ‘a good person’. Just the opposite. You are a well-meaning fool, unfit for the severity of the subject matter upon which you opine out of ‘feelings’ rather than knowledge: ignorance.
Editor’s Note: If the reason is impossible then negotiation is impossible, and then compromise are impossible, so then what are the choices? Well, bribery, or violence. So we have to educate the left to avoid bribery or violence.Sense-Making is very different from Truth-Seeking. Because truth-seeking produces a single, parsimonious, convergent, consistent, correspondent, paradigm, vocabulary, and logic, that is consistent with the formal, physical, cooperative, and evolutionary laws. And the vast majority of Sense-Making is an attempt to find opportunities that are unconstrained by the formal, physical, cooperative, and evolutionary laws. ;). That what ‘you all’ are doing. Trying to find a cunning way of circumventing the formal (logical, truthful),
Propertarianism (The Formal Logic of Natural Law of Tort) is a formal logic, in particular, a formal logic of law (conflict-avoidance and settlement, preserving cooperation) and more generally the rest of the behavioral sciences. The formal, physical, behavioral, cooperative, and evolutionary sciences are not kind to man. Given that all of those laws are all but hostile to man – in that they impose a cost on us.
America is only a failed experiment because of the end of integration into western civilization. The end of western civilization was by design, construction, and brought to the USA, adapting and advancing the model used in Russia,. And we have a long history of the literature to prove it. We know who said it, who wrote it, who spread it, how they spread it, what organizations institutionalize, and why ‘you folks’ gobble it up – it’s genetic you can’t help it without training. (Jon Haidt explains why.)
The coming civil war is deterministic. The question is whether we can avoid it or control it. Our goal doe `8 months was to capture the dissident right, to create the promise of a threat, in order to obtain media attention, so that we could force a negotiation on a settlement, or at least start the honest discourse on the settlement of our differences. This failed because we were cancelled by the right for NOT using violence.
Our primary goal is to force the political sphere back into trades between the classes. The most common trade would be redistribution for constructive rather than destructive behavior. But everyone wants to ride for free except the middle class (American definition of middle class). Our method of doing so is to correct the holes in the anglo system of law (natural law of tort) such that the law cannot be abused, and we are forced into exchanges in the market for commons ew call government. THERE IS NO MORE MORAL OBJECTIVE POSSIBLE FOR MAN. We know this and we can easily demonstrate that every alternative is just theft fraud and deceit. If you think we are pursuing the immoral because we use painful truth – you err. We are seeking to deprive everyone and all of the license to lie to circumvent the use of polities for the production of commons by voluntary exchange thereby continuing human adaptive evolution and preventing the collapse that all other civilizations have become subject to.
We care about ending the Left’s institutionalization of lying. We don’t care about race, we care about the uniqueness of western civilization (the only civilization to discover, adapt to, and apply the tragedy of the laws of the universe, and Christianity to tolerate it), preserving our civilization, and the costs of doing so. The difference between races is only (substantively) in (a) universal human kin preference (b) vast difference in size of underclasses (c) differences in rates and depth of maturity (neoteny) and therefore aggression, (d) this generates different demand for norms, traditions, commons, institutions – therefore different polities. Will some people sort by race? Well, that’s likely. However, the reality is that we will continue to sort by tradition, class, and temperament. So the feminine (feels-empathy) left (See Haidt) and the masculine (reals-systematizing) right, can separate and speciate. And over time we will find compromises because we are no longer.
We have a lot of enemies. Darwin had enemies. The Anglo Empirical Revolution had enemies (Rousseau, Kant, Marx, et al.). Galileo had enemies. Aristotle and Socrates had enemies and Socrates was killed and Aristotle nearly. Throughout history, every single time we increase the suppression of irreciprocity those who benefit from it object. Throughout history whenever we increase the falsification of false promises (religion in particular) people who profit from those false promises (irreciprocities) object.
We are trying to recruit the few people who are capable of it. We use the adversarial, king of the hill method. This baits demonstrated behavior rather than reported behavior (that’s science). That’s why we have replicability and psychology, sociology, and political science have a reproducibility crisis.
Reciprocity requires Reciprocity in Display, Word, and Deed. Reciprocity consists of Voluntary, Productive, Exhaustively Informed, Warrantied, Transfer, Free of Externality that imposes costs upon the demonstrated interests.
Truth requires Testifiabliity: Realism, Naturalism, Identity, Consistency, Operational Possibility, Correspondence, Rational Choice, Reciprocity, Limits, Completeness, Warranty, and Liability.
Arguments are true or not. Statements are true or not. Whether or not they are offensive, desirable, likable.
When we are limited to the truth and reciprocity the only choice is peaceful exchange. While the market solves the problem of different personal wants and needs in CONSUMPTION. Only a market for polities solves the problem of groups have different wants and needs in the production of COMMONS.
We can measure at all times the reciprocity of all statements. That’s science. Science is not ideology. It consists of systemic acts of due diligence and warranty that one has eliminated ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, and can testify to the conclusions. Science is just the application of natural law outside of the courtroom. To claim we are practicing ideology is a lie. Science (Testimony) vs Denial->Deceit(Lying), Sophistry(Evasion), Ideology(Agitation), Philosophy(Persuasion), Theology(Command).
The left program has always consisted of freedom from Formal Laws (truth: postmodernism), physical laws (scarcity: marxism), behavioral laws (acquisitiveness, amorality, reciprocity, kin selection), social laws (woke-pc: human differences and the competing interests of sexes, classes, civilizations, races), Evolutionary Laws ( mutation, accumulated load, natural selection, neoteny, intelligence, the red queen).
If you find my formal logic of the behavioral sciences offensive, then that is your attempt to deny a painful truth that would force you to pay costs of reciprocity rather than sell false promise of freedom from the laws of the universe, that allows you to virtue signal, consume capital, and engage in theft and parasitism while claiming you’re moral or virtuous or of good character.
This is why we are offensive. We don’t just say you’re mistaken or you’re wrong, or we differ in preference – we correctly call you thieves. Because we aren’t practicing theology (escape), philosophy (accommodation), or ideology (power), but the science of law: decidability of the reciprocity of relations between individuals, groups, nations, civilizations and yes, races. No one likes the court. We’re practicing law: the formal logic of decidabilty in matters of conflict. Everyone leaves a courtroom dissatisfied. But because of it the polity survives.
If you can’t grasp this then you are unfit for the severity of the conversation that is required to determine our future peacefully rather than by the outcome of a war that is all but certain to occur, and a power vacuum that will drive the world into a catastrophe greater than the last, and another dark age of pseudoscientific ignorance that is less recoverable than the last dark age of superstition.
( Humor: BTW: Brandon doesn’t gossip. Why? We operate by incentives. We use value-neutral languages. So we just judge whether people are honest, truthful, and reciprocal, – or not. And most of the time we judge that we are all bots, running on genetic impulse, and fragmentary information, and desperately in search of truth, reciprocity, and security. )
