—“the American Enterprise Institute noted the wide gap in marriage rates by income. About a quarter of “poor” adults aged 18 to 55 are currently married, while 39 percent of working-class adults and 56 percent of middle- and upper-class adults are married.”–
Source: Original Site Post
-
Losing Empires
ST LOUIS. The people who lost their empire next most quickly, were the people least willing to kill to maintain it (british). The people who lost them next most quickly were those who tried to maintain them cheaply(french).
The people who lost them next most quickly were those who ran them poorly (russians, mongols). The people who lost their next most quickly, were those who over extended them (roman). The people who held their empires, were those that didn’t overextend them, didn’t run them poorly, didn’t run them cheaply, and who were willing to kill to maintain them (China, Egypt). “Kill them until they stop coming. Then kill all those who you can find. Then kill all their relatives you can find. Then take their best things and burn the rest to the ground – erasing all trace of their existence.” -
Losing Empires
ST LOUIS. The people who lost their empire next most quickly, were the people least willing to kill to maintain it (british). The people who lost them next most quickly were those who tried to maintain them cheaply(french).
The people who lost them next most quickly were those who ran them poorly (russians, mongols). The people who lost their next most quickly, were those who over extended them (roman). The people who held their empires, were those that didn’t overextend them, didn’t run them poorly, didn’t run them cheaply, and who were willing to kill to maintain them (China, Egypt). “Kill them until they stop coming. Then kill all those who you can find. Then kill all their relatives you can find. Then take their best things and burn the rest to the ground – erasing all trace of their existence.” -
The Function of Technology
–“Technology is a way of organizing the universe, so that man doesn’t have to experience it.”– Max Frisch Let me correct the poet: *Technology is a means of controlling the universe so that man doesn’t have to be a victim of it.* The weak speak as the weak do: submission is everywhere.
-
The Function of Technology
–“Technology is a way of organizing the universe, so that man doesn’t have to experience it.”– Max Frisch Let me correct the poet: *Technology is a means of controlling the universe so that man doesn’t have to be a victim of it.* The weak speak as the weak do: submission is everywhere.
-
Um. I Don’t Have Technical Critics…
—“People like Curt are the problem and not part of the solution.”— A Critic All: I don’t really have any technical critics. I kind of doubt I will ever see those any more than Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hume, Darwin, Menger, and Hayek saw technical critics. I have that I know of only non-technical critics. Most fall into the following camps: a) (Possible) They question whether, if my proposals were enacted that people would, compete the nationalist program and return to many, small, european nation states. b) (Practical) They prefer a faster, more ‘collectivist’ strategy in which they feel they have social (verbal) influence – or they feel that it is impractical to raise a revolution and enact constitutional changes. c) (Political) They are trying to rally through some sort of framing and my solution prevents emotional rallying by falsifying their framing and replaces it with one that is d) (Philosophical) They feel out of control and are seeking a means of control through some sort of framing that I have falsified. e) (Psychological) They feel out of control and are seeking a means of control and they cannot understand the algorithmic (operational) method that I’ve produced, and this makes them feel out of control again. FWIW: I can obviously understand and empathize with each of these criticisms. However, my intellectual contribution to mankind will survive and probably have influence regardless of those criticisms. So I have a list of objectives and the top of that list is producing that work. I know I can complete that work. I know a revolutionary change is possible because I know how easily that the American government can be collapsed. Whether I am able to produce a revolution and cause that collapse and institute such a constitutions *as I plan* is certainly a question. If I was ten years younger I wouldn’t really have any doubts. But my energy levels have decreased rapidly over the past decade and a half – possible just due to my illnesses, and possibly due to age. But that does not mean others who are younger, or more suited, or have more energy, will not succeed if I don’t. That it is possible to do a thing, and the labor and organization to do a thing are something different.
-
Um. I Don’t Have Technical Critics…
—“People like Curt are the problem and not part of the solution.”— A Critic All: I don’t really have any technical critics. I kind of doubt I will ever see those any more than Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hume, Darwin, Menger, and Hayek saw technical critics. I have that I know of only non-technical critics. Most fall into the following camps: a) (Possible) They question whether, if my proposals were enacted that people would, compete the nationalist program and return to many, small, european nation states. b) (Practical) They prefer a faster, more ‘collectivist’ strategy in which they feel they have social (verbal) influence – or they feel that it is impractical to raise a revolution and enact constitutional changes. c) (Political) They are trying to rally through some sort of framing and my solution prevents emotional rallying by falsifying their framing and replaces it with one that is d) (Philosophical) They feel out of control and are seeking a means of control through some sort of framing that I have falsified. e) (Psychological) They feel out of control and are seeking a means of control and they cannot understand the algorithmic (operational) method that I’ve produced, and this makes them feel out of control again. FWIW: I can obviously understand and empathize with each of these criticisms. However, my intellectual contribution to mankind will survive and probably have influence regardless of those criticisms. So I have a list of objectives and the top of that list is producing that work. I know I can complete that work. I know a revolutionary change is possible because I know how easily that the American government can be collapsed. Whether I am able to produce a revolution and cause that collapse and institute such a constitutions *as I plan* is certainly a question. If I was ten years younger I wouldn’t really have any doubts. But my energy levels have decreased rapidly over the past decade and a half – possible just due to my illnesses, and possibly due to age. But that does not mean others who are younger, or more suited, or have more energy, will not succeed if I don’t. That it is possible to do a thing, and the labor and organization to do a thing are something different.
-
Socialism vs Communism
NATIONAL (MIDDLE CLASS) SOCIALISM, VS INTERNATIONAL (UNDERCLASS) COMMUNISM National Socialism (Tribalism) Pro Western vs. International Communism (Classism) Anti-Western. National Socialism: Defensive Strategy: Monopoly High Culture, Industrialized production of commons, Public limits on and cooperation with Industry, Private commerce, Not autarkic but highly nationalist trade biases. With the purpose of policy the intergenerational family, and the suppression of the underclasses. Right of Exit. (Middle Class and Working Class Bias) International Communism: Offensive Strategy: Monopoly Low Culture, Industrialized production of commons, Public control of industry, public control of commerce, Not Autarkic but Expansionist. The purpose of policy the ‘individual’, and the expansion and ‘uplifting’ of the underclasses. (Laboring Class and Underclass Bias) You know the ancient world origins of judaism, christianity, and islam are in the underclass revolution against the (white) aristocracy, by replacing tragedy, sacrifice, and the trials of Achilles (the wealthy farmers), with the tragedy, sacrifice, and the trials of Jews, Jesus, Muhammed (the poor pastoralists). Why do you think that National Socialism (Nationalist Middle Class, Economic warfare) versus International Communism (Universalist Underclass Economic Warfare) is any different in our era than the battle between the high trust middle class agrarian traders, and the low trust lower class pastoralist laborers? What is the difference between postmodernism and christianity? None. They’re both for the purpose of making false promises to the underclasses so that they use their numbers to destroy the aristocracy and create a dark age.
-
Socialism vs Communism
NATIONAL (MIDDLE CLASS) SOCIALISM, VS INTERNATIONAL (UNDERCLASS) COMMUNISM National Socialism (Tribalism) Pro Western vs. International Communism (Classism) Anti-Western. National Socialism: Defensive Strategy: Monopoly High Culture, Industrialized production of commons, Public limits on and cooperation with Industry, Private commerce, Not autarkic but highly nationalist trade biases. With the purpose of policy the intergenerational family, and the suppression of the underclasses. Right of Exit. (Middle Class and Working Class Bias) International Communism: Offensive Strategy: Monopoly Low Culture, Industrialized production of commons, Public control of industry, public control of commerce, Not Autarkic but Expansionist. The purpose of policy the ‘individual’, and the expansion and ‘uplifting’ of the underclasses. (Laboring Class and Underclass Bias) You know the ancient world origins of judaism, christianity, and islam are in the underclass revolution against the (white) aristocracy, by replacing tragedy, sacrifice, and the trials of Achilles (the wealthy farmers), with the tragedy, sacrifice, and the trials of Jews, Jesus, Muhammed (the poor pastoralists). Why do you think that National Socialism (Nationalist Middle Class, Economic warfare) versus International Communism (Universalist Underclass Economic Warfare) is any different in our era than the battle between the high trust middle class agrarian traders, and the low trust lower class pastoralist laborers? What is the difference between postmodernism and christianity? None. They’re both for the purpose of making false promises to the underclasses so that they use their numbers to destroy the aristocracy and create a dark age.
-
Difference Between Class(Hierarchy) and Category (List) – is just that.
—“My question concerns technical and scientific language rather than colloquial language: I would like to ask if there is any inclination in English to give the words class and category more or less different meanings or shades of meaning, or are they completely interchangeable in all kinds of use?”— From Elsewhere You CLASSIFY things that exist (Science – referents that exist into a hierarchy) whose organization doesn’t change, and you CATEGORIZE ideas (Philosophy – referents that have meaning into a list) because they can change. So classify(things, hierarchy or order, relatively invariant), vs. categorize(concepts, terms, that might be categorized differently in different contexts). So just as english words have origins in german(commoners, farmers, craftsmen), french(nobility, ruling class, wealthy), Latin and Greek(scholarly or educated classes), English (like all european languages) uses specialized vocabulary for mathematical, philosophical, political/Legal, and scientific classes of vocabulary. English is very ‘precise’ in its use of sets of terms the same way that german is precise in its precisely descriptive terms. Now, do uneducated people conflate terms? All the time. In fact educated people do all the time as well. My favorite examples being the conflation of mathematic (axiomatic), philosophical(rational), and scientific (theoretic), terminology. It’s not uncommon to hear someone make an argument with terms from math, philosophy, and science without having the faintest idea that the terms in each limit the possible properties of argument. For example, True in math and logic is binary(Deductive and Necessary). In philosophy it can be binary(non contradictory), in law it’s ternary(True false and undecidable), in and in science it’s multivalued with False being the only certainty, and truth being little more than an ordinality by triangulation). If someone disagrees with you on usage you can correct them. 😉