Framing, from false dichotomies through the addition of subsequent dimensions, to entire narratives dependent upon them, serve as a means of deception by suggestion. We use the term paradigm for networks of theories.We use the suite of scientific paradigms to provide commensurability between unscientific paradigms. For the simple reason that the scientific (deflationary) paradigms consist of constant relations independent of ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. For the simple reason that the function of scientific investigation is the elimination of ignorance error bias wishful thinking and deceit from our speech by isolation and measurement of constant relations.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Experiment With Monopoly Economies Has Failed
Not that I want to degrade one of my heroes (Spengler), but he is a German and Germans, including even so great a thinker as Weber, do not write about human orders with any degree of scientific constraint – they desire the recreation of the church in secular prose. You are better reading italians than germans. That said, in the current vernacular, in operational language, socialism refers to central control of the means of production, and central distribution of proceeds of production, with disputes settled by discretionary bureaucracy. This in opposition to capitalism, with distributed control of the means of production and distributed proceeds from production, with disputes solved under common law of torts (competition). An empirical analysis is that all peoples swing between central control and private control depending upon what is possible for them given their resources, demographics, degree of development, degree of normative development, and available institutions. As far as I know, the debate is over, and the findings of the 20th century are that small homogenous highly capitalist, but highly redistributive states produce the quality of life most demonstrably preferred by peoples. And that going forward we will produce states along some spectrum of centralized (low trust) to distributed (high trust), with mixed economies. and that it is most likely in my opinion that progress if tehre is any, will be toward layered economies with socialism at the bottom and capitalism in the middle, and aristocracy at the top. which is, as far as I know, a restoration of the historical pattern of cooperation. The experiment with monopoly economies has failed. -
The Experiment With Monopoly Economies Has Failed
Not that I want to degrade one of my heroes (Spengler), but he is a German and Germans, including even so great a thinker as Weber, do not write about human orders with any degree of scientific constraint – they desire the recreation of the church in secular prose. You are better reading italians than germans. That said, in the current vernacular, in operational language, socialism refers to central control of the means of production, and central distribution of proceeds of production, with disputes settled by discretionary bureaucracy. This in opposition to capitalism, with distributed control of the means of production and distributed proceeds from production, with disputes solved under common law of torts (competition). An empirical analysis is that all peoples swing between central control and private control depending upon what is possible for them given their resources, demographics, degree of development, degree of normative development, and available institutions. As far as I know, the debate is over, and the findings of the 20th century are that small homogenous highly capitalist, but highly redistributive states produce the quality of life most demonstrably preferred by peoples. And that going forward we will produce states along some spectrum of centralized (low trust) to distributed (high trust), with mixed economies. and that it is most likely in my opinion that progress if tehre is any, will be toward layered economies with socialism at the bottom and capitalism in the middle, and aristocracy at the top. which is, as far as I know, a restoration of the historical pattern of cooperation. The experiment with monopoly economies has failed. -
HITLER SIMPLY CO-OPTED THE TERM “SOCIALISM”. NATSOC HAD NOTHING IN COMMON WITH I
HITLER SIMPLY CO-OPTED THE TERM “SOCIALISM”. NATSOC HAD NOTHING IN COMMON WITH IT. Hitler used the term for a marketing measure, just as the communist party in china uses ‘socialism with chinese characteristics’. The soviets and the early chinese practiced socialism. NatSoc combined nationalism, an aesthetic nationalist religion, something approximating economic autarky, and a total prohibition on criticism. All governments shift between direction of the economy in war (Total War under Napoleon) and relatively free markets. Germany was attempting to fight off international communism – particularly Russia and Hitler mobilized an economy for total war under the Napoleonic model. I tend to use the term Fascism for this purpose. But technically speaking, we have no technical definition of fascism. I am still not convinced that the combination state-private industry, and otherwise private property, with strict constraints on the retention of profits within the polity, and total suppression of opposition isn’t a good thing. The difference is that I would write a constitution of natural law so that it could not be abused. In fact, in most of my work I advocate what I call market fascism for the simple reason that I do not think opposition to rule of law and nationalism should be tolerated. If the courts exist then that is sufficient means of protection of the individual. The court of public opinion, as the 20th century has demonstrated, consists almost entirely of gossip, pseudoscience, and lies. -
HITLER SIMPLY CO-OPTED THE TERM “SOCIALISM”. NATSOC HAD NOTHING IN COMMON WITH I
HITLER SIMPLY CO-OPTED THE TERM “SOCIALISM”. NATSOC HAD NOTHING IN COMMON WITH IT. Hitler used the term for a marketing measure, just as the communist party in china uses ‘socialism with chinese characteristics’. The soviets and the early chinese practiced socialism. NatSoc combined nationalism, an aesthetic nationalist religion, something approximating economic autarky, and a total prohibition on criticism. All governments shift between direction of the economy in war (Total War under Napoleon) and relatively free markets. Germany was attempting to fight off international communism – particularly Russia and Hitler mobilized an economy for total war under the Napoleonic model. I tend to use the term Fascism for this purpose. But technically speaking, we have no technical definition of fascism. I am still not convinced that the combination state-private industry, and otherwise private property, with strict constraints on the retention of profits within the polity, and total suppression of opposition isn’t a good thing. The difference is that I would write a constitution of natural law so that it could not be abused. In fact, in most of my work I advocate what I call market fascism for the simple reason that I do not think opposition to rule of law and nationalism should be tolerated. If the courts exist then that is sufficient means of protection of the individual. The court of public opinion, as the 20th century has demonstrated, consists almost entirely of gossip, pseudoscience, and lies. -
“The traditional, historical, fetters, (legal and social sanctions) placed upon
“The traditional, historical, fetters, (legal and social sanctions) placed upon feminine coercion (rallying, shaming, nagging, scolding, gossip, mockery and ridicule) have been abolished and placed, instead, on masculine coercion (violence.) The effects are still working themselves out, but one is a persistent tendency towards feminization of all institutions as women use feminine coercion to gain entry to and then begin incrementally subordinating institutions to their whims, imperatives, and sensibilities, so far, without effective counter or check. These changes, I believe, precede the onset of large scale hormonal and dietary disruptions.”- Ely Harman -
“The traditional, historical, fetters, (legal and social sanctions) placed upon
“The traditional, historical, fetters, (legal and social sanctions) placed upon feminine coercion (rallying, shaming, nagging, scolding, gossip, mockery and ridicule) have been abolished and placed, instead, on masculine coercion (violence.) The effects are still working themselves out, but one is a persistent tendency towards feminization of all institutions as women use feminine coercion to gain entry to and then begin incrementally subordinating institutions to their whims, imperatives, and sensibilities, so far, without effective counter or check. These changes, I believe, precede the onset of large scale hormonal and dietary disruptions.”- Ely Harman -
By Bill Joslin The spectrum of autonomy. Autonomy – agency unimposed upon by ano
By Bill Joslin The spectrum of autonomy. Autonomy – agency unimposed upon by another (left alone, the liberty of living on an island with no enemies etc. It’s not liberty, nor sovereignty, but rather autonomy) Sovereignty – Autonomy insured by force (impositions by another rendered unlikely or impossible) Liberty – the benefit of Sovereignty (autonomy) extended to those not able to secure autonomy for themselves (autonomy by permission and insurance from a sovereign). Freedom – accepted limits upon ones liberty (autonomy by permission) in exchange for insurance of autonomy (we agree to obey laws, a limitation on autonomy, to have autonomy insured by a sovereign) – Or “Free within the Domain” Domain or dominion – you are free as long as you remain within the domain of agreed behaviour and within the territory of the sovereign. Autonomy [proper] -> Autonomy secured [sovereignty]-> Autonomy extended [liberty]->Autonomy Limited [freedom] -
By Bill Joslin The spectrum of autonomy. Autonomy – agency unimposed upon by ano
By Bill Joslin The spectrum of autonomy. Autonomy – agency unimposed upon by another (left alone, the liberty of living on an island with no enemies etc. It’s not liberty, nor sovereignty, but rather autonomy) Sovereignty – Autonomy insured by force (impositions by another rendered unlikely or impossible) Liberty – the benefit of Sovereignty (autonomy) extended to those not able to secure autonomy for themselves (autonomy by permission and insurance from a sovereign). Freedom – accepted limits upon ones liberty (autonomy by permission) in exchange for insurance of autonomy (we agree to obey laws, a limitation on autonomy, to have autonomy insured by a sovereign) – Or “Free within the Domain” Domain or dominion – you are free as long as you remain within the domain of agreed behaviour and within the territory of the sovereign. Autonomy [proper] -> Autonomy secured [sovereignty]-> Autonomy extended [liberty]->Autonomy Limited [freedom] -
Answering annoying questions from women and children with absurd, detailed, expl
Answering annoying questions from women and children with absurd, detailed, explanations and waiting for the eye roll. (My wife Allora was incredibly gullible when she was young. I taught my son to be suspicious from birth. lol. )