The Origin of the West: The Militia Constitution is nothing but a contract. A contract is nothing without insurance. That insurance is nothing but the militia. That militia nothing but moral men bearing arms. It’s time to return to rule. We must accept that our experiment failed. There is no industry more profitable than rule. And there is no industry at which we better excel. Why do we tolerate being taxed, rather than taxing?
Source: Original Site Post
-
“History is Largely Genocide and Rape”
via outsideness. Despite Reich’s occasional need to stop his otherwise lucid narrative to spew irrational rage against his fellow race-science heretics, the genome expert conclusively demolishes the post-Boasian anthropologists’ conventional wisdom. Reich’s laboratory has found that the old Robert E. Howard version is actually pretty much what happened: —“After 1066, the island race enjoyed a long halcyon era without new invaders raping and pillaging. But all good things evidently have to come to an end.”— History is basically genocide and rape, with a little additional surface detailing. What you are in its biological fundamentals is whoever raped over you last.
-
“History is Largely Genocide and Rape”
via outsideness. Despite Reich’s occasional need to stop his otherwise lucid narrative to spew irrational rage against his fellow race-science heretics, the genome expert conclusively demolishes the post-Boasian anthropologists’ conventional wisdom. Reich’s laboratory has found that the old Robert E. Howard version is actually pretty much what happened: —“After 1066, the island race enjoyed a long halcyon era without new invaders raping and pillaging. But all good things evidently have to come to an end.”— History is basically genocide and rape, with a little additional surface detailing. What you are in its biological fundamentals is whoever raped over you last.
-
—“What do conservatives mean when they say “liberal elite?”—
—-”What do conservatives mean when they say “liberal elite?””—-
- Virtue signaling class vs virtue demonstrating class
- Talking class vs Productive Class
- Others Pay For It class vs Pay Your Own Way class.
- Cosmopolitan Class (territorial communism) vs Nationalist Class (territorial nationalism)
Technically speaking, the “Cathedral Complex” consisting of the alliance of the talking class and the underclass: The Academy, The State, The Media (News, Info-tainment, Entertainment, Advertising, Marketing), The Financial Sector. We use the term ‘Cathedral Complex’ to refer to the replacement of the aristocratic, rule of law, commercial, military and industrial complex (The people who do) with the propaganda complex (the people who talk.) When the church failed to reform, the academy replaced the church. It’s not complicated. We don’t have a separation of church and state any longer. We have a state sponsored church of democratic socialist secular humanism spread by marxist pseudoscience and postmodern pseudorationalism, and outright denial of science.
-
—“What do conservatives mean when they say “liberal elite?”—
—-”What do conservatives mean when they say “liberal elite?””—-
- Virtue signaling class vs virtue demonstrating class
- Talking class vs Productive Class
- Others Pay For It class vs Pay Your Own Way class.
- Cosmopolitan Class (territorial communism) vs Nationalist Class (territorial nationalism)
Technically speaking, the “Cathedral Complex” consisting of the alliance of the talking class and the underclass: The Academy, The State, The Media (News, Info-tainment, Entertainment, Advertising, Marketing), The Financial Sector. We use the term ‘Cathedral Complex’ to refer to the replacement of the aristocratic, rule of law, commercial, military and industrial complex (The people who do) with the propaganda complex (the people who talk.) When the church failed to reform, the academy replaced the church. It’s not complicated. We don’t have a separation of church and state any longer. We have a state sponsored church of democratic socialist secular humanism spread by marxist pseudoscience and postmodern pseudorationalism, and outright denial of science.
-
Definitions: Science, Scientism, Pseudoscience, Pseudo-rationalism, and Literature.
THE DEFINITIONS i) SCIENCE: a warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. ii) SCIENTISM : overstating empiricism (correlation), without completing the applicable scope of due diligences, or attempting to apply tests of truth in matters of preference or good. iii) PSEUDOSCIENCE: Testifying to the truth of statements without having performed due diligence against ignorance error, bias, and deceit. iv) PSEUDO-RATIONALISM: Attempts to claim closure where closure does not exist in the logics without appeal to the next higher dimension (empiricism). In other words sophisms, no matter how skilled. Contradictions proposed rarely exist, and almost all questions of philosophy are non-existent bits of fraud due to the use of poor grammar and incomplete sentences. (For example, the liar’s paradox is not operationally possible.) THE ARGUMENT (1) The sciences consist of logical and physical means of falsification in each dimension of possible human action (categorically consistent, internally consistent(logical), externally correspondent(empirical), operationally possible(existential), rational choice(voluntary), reciprocal rational choice(moral), scope-completeness/limits-defined/surviving-parsimony.) (2) the sciences can therefore tell us what is false, and what at present appears to be true (meaning the science allow us to testify to having performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.) (3) For some reason, we still conflate the logics (tests of constant relations between two or more states, in a set of dimensions), including mathematics (tests of constant positional relations given scale independence) and the deducibility (‘inference’) of relations given the inviolability of those constant relations. Very little of meaning can be said of logic other than it is extremely useful in the falsification of the logical – which is how we use it. Proofs appear to have very little value since given enough time nearly anything can be justified by verbal ‘proof’). (4) Philosophy at present is limited to the exploration and determination of preference (personal), and good (collective). But philosophy has a tragic reputation for nearly universal falsehood outside of those choices. In fact, current philosophy consists largely of self help on one side and a catalog of human errors in intuition on the other. (5) Literature consists of envisioning possible and impossible worlds, for the purpose of exploration, advocacy, and criticism. (6) We tend to conflate literature and logic (philosophy), and conflate History (myth), law (norm), literature (parable), and pseudoscience into theology, just as we inflate literature and reason into philosophy. (7) So while there is value in via positive imaginings (theology, philosophy, mythology) there exists only decidability (conflict resolution) via mathematics, science, history, and reciprocity (law). Ergo, if we must disagree, we must resort only to decidability independent of good or preference. If we seek possibilities, we must resort to literature, myth, and philosophy. Truth can only be produced via-negativa, and choice only by via positiva. Sorry. That’s all there is to the scope of human knowledge. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Definitions: Science, Scientism, Pseudoscience, Pseudo-rationalism, and Literature.
THE DEFINITIONS i) SCIENCE: a warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. ii) SCIENTISM : overstating empiricism (correlation), without completing the applicable scope of due diligences, or attempting to apply tests of truth in matters of preference or good. iii) PSEUDOSCIENCE: Testifying to the truth of statements without having performed due diligence against ignorance error, bias, and deceit. iv) PSEUDO-RATIONALISM: Attempts to claim closure where closure does not exist in the logics without appeal to the next higher dimension (empiricism). In other words sophisms, no matter how skilled. Contradictions proposed rarely exist, and almost all questions of philosophy are non-existent bits of fraud due to the use of poor grammar and incomplete sentences. (For example, the liar’s paradox is not operationally possible.) THE ARGUMENT (1) The sciences consist of logical and physical means of falsification in each dimension of possible human action (categorically consistent, internally consistent(logical), externally correspondent(empirical), operationally possible(existential), rational choice(voluntary), reciprocal rational choice(moral), scope-completeness/limits-defined/surviving-parsimony.) (2) the sciences can therefore tell us what is false, and what at present appears to be true (meaning the science allow us to testify to having performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.) (3) For some reason, we still conflate the logics (tests of constant relations between two or more states, in a set of dimensions), including mathematics (tests of constant positional relations given scale independence) and the deducibility (‘inference’) of relations given the inviolability of those constant relations. Very little of meaning can be said of logic other than it is extremely useful in the falsification of the logical – which is how we use it. Proofs appear to have very little value since given enough time nearly anything can be justified by verbal ‘proof’). (4) Philosophy at present is limited to the exploration and determination of preference (personal), and good (collective). But philosophy has a tragic reputation for nearly universal falsehood outside of those choices. In fact, current philosophy consists largely of self help on one side and a catalog of human errors in intuition on the other. (5) Literature consists of envisioning possible and impossible worlds, for the purpose of exploration, advocacy, and criticism. (6) We tend to conflate literature and logic (philosophy), and conflate History (myth), law (norm), literature (parable), and pseudoscience into theology, just as we inflate literature and reason into philosophy. (7) So while there is value in via positive imaginings (theology, philosophy, mythology) there exists only decidability (conflict resolution) via mathematics, science, history, and reciprocity (law). Ergo, if we must disagree, we must resort only to decidability independent of good or preference. If we seek possibilities, we must resort to literature, myth, and philosophy. Truth can only be produced via-negativa, and choice only by via positiva. Sorry. That’s all there is to the scope of human knowledge. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Generous Tit For Tat – The Optimum Strategy. (The Classical Liberal Ethic)
—“Generous Tit for Tat is the name of the biologically most successful strategy for playing the prisoner’s dilemma.”— Generous Tit For Tat_ A Winning Strategy
-
Generous Tit For Tat – The Optimum Strategy. (The Classical Liberal Ethic)
—“Generous Tit for Tat is the name of the biologically most successful strategy for playing the prisoner’s dilemma.”— Generous Tit For Tat_ A Winning Strategy
-
The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation
Mandatory Reading. The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation (local Copy) Abstract Recent agent-based computer simulations suggest that ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. From a random start, ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) based on cooperation or non-cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation. By tracking evolution across time, we find individual differences between evolving worlds in terms of early humanitarian competition with ethnocentrism, including early stages of humanitarian dominance. Our evidence indicates that such variation, in terms of differences between humanitarian and ethnocentric agents, is normally distributed and due to early, rather than later, stochastic differences in immigrant strategies. Keywords: Ethnocentrism, Evolution of Cooperation, Evolutionary Game Theory, Minimal Cognition, Prisoner’s Dilemma Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 16 (3) 7 <http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html> DOI: 10.18564/jasss.2176 Published: 30-Jun-2013