I think if you just reduce all political analysis to “all people, all groups of people, create narratives to justify their evolutionary strategy, and that while truth is in everyone’s economic, technological, and medical interest, truthful speech is in a minority’s reproductive and political interest. It’s just that simple. We all just argue in favor of our reproductive interests. And the purpose of left wing thought and argument merely reflects their strategy: “meritocracy leaves us behind”.
Source: Original Site Post
-
There Is No Love Like A Band Of Brothers.
Jesus’s insight was that it was possible to extend the brotherly love of the legionaries to the weak and the powerless if he constructed an army of poor pastoralists against the romans, just as the romans had constructed an army of farmers, metalworkers, and traders against the poor pastoralists – forcing them to confront their weakness, the folly of their gods, the folly of their way of life, and the folly of their tribalism. But we must never mistake that christianity was originated, licensed, and imposed as a means of destroying western aristocracy, western myths, morals, ethics, and truth. and that we escaped it. So, is there anything to be gained then from the single seed of christianity? If christianity is just a hodge-podge collection of ideas the purpose of which was to produce a mythos to compete with the cult of homer(Achilles), the cult of the Emperor(Sol Invictus/Sky Father), or the cult of Mithras(Sky Father)? Well, yes. Because it produced a religion for women to balance the religion of men. A religion of submission to compete with a religion of dominance. For the first time he created a religion for all: the brotherhood of christian kin. So is there anything in christianity for our men? Well, we can produce the cult of warriors for the family and the polity that includes our women and children. And we can mature into the cult of warriors. And we can mature into the cult of statesmen. Women are all equal in their motherhood and keep one another ‘down’. Men are unequal, and form tribes in each caste, just as we form infantry, cavalry, artillery, engineers, and generals in life. What can unite the masculine and the feminine without the extremes (failure) of each? A judge of last resort (king), a jury of last resort (judiciary), a market for commons divided by interests (responsibility/ownership), and the natural law of sovereign warriors as the rules of cooperation. And the brotherhood of warriors and kinship of christianity – limited to kin relations. -
There Is No Love Like A Band Of Brothers.
Jesus’s insight was that it was possible to extend the brotherly love of the legionaries to the weak and the powerless if he constructed an army of poor pastoralists against the romans, just as the romans had constructed an army of farmers, metalworkers, and traders against the poor pastoralists – forcing them to confront their weakness, the folly of their gods, the folly of their way of life, and the folly of their tribalism. But we must never mistake that christianity was originated, licensed, and imposed as a means of destroying western aristocracy, western myths, morals, ethics, and truth. and that we escaped it. So, is there anything to be gained then from the single seed of christianity? If christianity is just a hodge-podge collection of ideas the purpose of which was to produce a mythos to compete with the cult of homer(Achilles), the cult of the Emperor(Sol Invictus/Sky Father), or the cult of Mithras(Sky Father)? Well, yes. Because it produced a religion for women to balance the religion of men. A religion of submission to compete with a religion of dominance. For the first time he created a religion for all: the brotherhood of christian kin. So is there anything in christianity for our men? Well, we can produce the cult of warriors for the family and the polity that includes our women and children. And we can mature into the cult of warriors. And we can mature into the cult of statesmen. Women are all equal in their motherhood and keep one another ‘down’. Men are unequal, and form tribes in each caste, just as we form infantry, cavalry, artillery, engineers, and generals in life. What can unite the masculine and the feminine without the extremes (failure) of each? A judge of last resort (king), a jury of last resort (judiciary), a market for commons divided by interests (responsibility/ownership), and the natural law of sovereign warriors as the rules of cooperation. And the brotherhood of warriors and kinship of christianity – limited to kin relations. -
The Equilibrium Of Church And State
The beauty of Christianity. It’s all nothing but nonsense but the single grain of truth inside it, is enough to create the goods that result from it. Unfortunately, one cannot politicize christian ethics, morality, and mythology without producing a suicidal social order (as we have seen in the west). We too often forget that the church arose as a peer to the martial aristocracy and that the competition between the two – the more feminine church, over family, charity, and mythology, and the more masculine aristocracy, over property, and rule of law. When law interferes with the church, or church interferes with law, both fail to preserve the equilibrium: they each provide LIMITS to the other. The limit of christianity is that which we can individually act upon. The limit of politics is that which we collectively must act upon. For christianity to survive at all – which looks currently bleak – requires we restore the equilibrium between the feminine church and the masculine aristocracy, so that both provide the necessary goods, but each is limited from producing it’s bads – by limiting christianity to the personal, and limiting the state to the collective. -
The Equilibrium Of Church And State
The beauty of Christianity. It’s all nothing but nonsense but the single grain of truth inside it, is enough to create the goods that result from it. Unfortunately, one cannot politicize christian ethics, morality, and mythology without producing a suicidal social order (as we have seen in the west). We too often forget that the church arose as a peer to the martial aristocracy and that the competition between the two – the more feminine church, over family, charity, and mythology, and the more masculine aristocracy, over property, and rule of law. When law interferes with the church, or church interferes with law, both fail to preserve the equilibrium: they each provide LIMITS to the other. The limit of christianity is that which we can individually act upon. The limit of politics is that which we collectively must act upon. For christianity to survive at all – which looks currently bleak – requires we restore the equilibrium between the feminine church and the masculine aristocracy, so that both provide the necessary goods, but each is limited from producing it’s bads – by limiting christianity to the personal, and limiting the state to the collective. -
One of the mistakes our people make – or rather, the men among our people make,
One of the mistakes our people make – or rather, the men among our people make, is in visualizing an ideal man rather than the various men required in a division of specialization in an army, hunting party, or production line. When we worked in armies (militias) we all knew this. When we work on sports teams we know this. When we hunt we know this. When we work under the influence of christianity, classical liberalism, liberalism, marxism, and postmodernism in the industrial and post industrial age – we consider ourselves individuals. All monopoly is bad. it’s intellectual laziness. We must only know the optimum role we can play on the team. -
One of the mistakes our people make – or rather, the men among our people make,
One of the mistakes our people make – or rather, the men among our people make, is in visualizing an ideal man rather than the various men required in a division of specialization in an army, hunting party, or production line. When we worked in armies (militias) we all knew this. When we work on sports teams we know this. When we hunt we know this. When we work under the influence of christianity, classical liberalism, liberalism, marxism, and postmodernism in the industrial and post industrial age – we consider ourselves individuals. All monopoly is bad. it’s intellectual laziness. We must only know the optimum role we can play on the team. -
( My mother is amazing. She’s 80 years old, got her training in alcohol, drug, a
( My mother is amazing. She’s 80 years old, got her training in alcohol, drug, and dependency counseling decades ago, and she still spends literally hours a day helping a network of women. It’s basically a part time job. The women in my family – at least on the french side, are absolutely amazing. ) -
( My mother is amazing. She’s 80 years old, got her training in alcohol, drug, a
( My mother is amazing. She’s 80 years old, got her training in alcohol, drug, and dependency counseling decades ago, and she still spends literally hours a day helping a network of women. It’s basically a part time job. The women in my family – at least on the french side, are absolutely amazing. ) -
We Are Speciating
(important post) —“My point is that a philosophy that puts emphasis on truth telling is distinct from a philosophy that views truth or deceit as just tools for social manipulation. Are we living in reality, the world, which exists independent of human perception and is indifferent to it, to which we need to adapt ourselves in order to survive – or are we living in a socially constructed world that depends on a group consensus which is manufactured with specific social goals in mind. In the former, truth matters more because it gives us an advantage in perceiving reality, in the latter it doesn’t because only social “truths” matter. Violence is an honest approach which an accurate perception of reality facilitates, deceit is an indirect overcoming of immediate weakness, an adaptation that a weaker (in terms of violence) competitor would employ. Deceit as a political strategy of the left would then be an adaptation to the success of truth. Or, lacking a material way to compete, deceit would be used to trick the superior into believing they occupy an inferior position, etc.”— A Friend Truth and violence – truth requires violence. Deceit may or may not require violence. Hence we must master violence. Well, you’re again, trapped in your own frame, but you’re insightful and you are arguing to incentives rather than norms so you’ve progressed farther than most ever will. But, Instead (a) a science consists in a coherent, consistent, and correspondent, method of decidability independent of goals. (b) a philosophy consists of coherent and consistent method of decision making in pursuit of some anticipated goals. (c) a religion consists of a normative contract to adhere to a method of decision making, in pursuit of some anticipated goals, regardless of correspondence, and with the minimum coherence and consistency. (d) an ideology consists of a set of narratives without constraint of correspondence, coherence, or consistency, for the purpose of achieving a political end under majoritarianism (democracy). So when you say: —“Are we living in reality, the world, which exists independent of human perception and is indifferent to it to which we need to adapt ourselves in order to survive”— Meaning, “Do we make our decisions scientifically.” —“or are we living in a socially constructed world that depends on a group consensus which is manufactured with specific social goals in mind”— Meaning “Do we make our decisions according to an ideology or a religion?” (I have never found a philosophy practiced in politics except via cherry picking among some set of them.) Well, we make our decisions by science, philosophy, religion and ideology, (a spectrum of declining truth), given their utility to us. So each of us cherry picks a portfolio of decidability from that list. We are living in an objective reality. We act in that reality according to our interests. We justify those interests with narratives (excuses). For some of us truth(Science) is an advantage (eugenic meritocracy), and for some of us truth is a disadvantage (dysgenic equality), and fiction (‘fictionalisms’) is an advantage. In Propertarianism I merged philosophy, logic, and science into a single vocabulary, grammar, and syntax. Now, with that science, logic, and philosophy you can *describe* every single political order truthfully, because as a science, propertarianism provides commensurability (perfect commensurability). (The question is whether I can make it into a religion. That may be what is required for our people. Adherence by contract to the truth may be better than pressing each individual into mastering it – for costs alone.) Now, one can use science to develop a plan, philosophy, religion, or ideology to advance your interests, or you can use a fictionalism to develop a plan, an ideology, and a religion. Does that science, logic, and philosophy mean that the left can construct their ideology and religion truthfully? Well, yes. Does that mean they need to? No. They can function by creating fictionalisms – they HAVE TO because truth means they must admit inferiority. Does it mean we need to construct our science, logic, philosophy, and law scientifically? Yes. Because that is our group evolutionary strategy – and it is the optimum group evolutionary strategy. The only reason we are in the current position was our failure to state our group evolutionary strategy honestly. Truth is our advantage, and always has been. So the advice I would give to all of us given my studies, is that our reproductive differences were equilibrated as hunter gatherers. They were disequilibrated by the necessity of property leading to a new compromise between the genders that we call ‘marriage’. And that in the present era, we are now wealthy enough to express our reproductive strategies in non-universal means. As such *WE ARE SPECIATING* according to our differences in reproductive strategies – just as all species speciate according to differences in reproductive strategy and advantage. And as such we have only two choices: being defeated so they win, defeating the others so we win, or separating and creating a market in which either or both many win. And I think this question is the question of our time. the era of monopoly is over. Universalism is dead. It was all a convenience of wars of religion under agrarianism. If you grasp this it is profound.