Why did we lose North Africa? North Africa (Carthage) Colonized by Phoenicians, who, as I understand it, (maybe) were South-Caucasian (South East Black Sea) > Iranian > Semitic > ~Bahrain? Yemen? (jews/yemeni origin?) In other words, they were cousins of then-North africans (theselves of the Iranian distribution) Carthage, like Sicily, and Crete before it, was in an exceptionally good trading position and far from the high costs of defense in the fertile crescent. Carthage was an advanced civilization superior to Rome, and culturally similar to what we imagine in greece. If Athens and Sparta were analogous to London and Germany, then Carthage was analogous to Paris. Due to trade conflicts (that were probably unnecessary), Rome destroyed Carthage (justifiably in my opinion), weakening north Africa west of the Nile. (exaggeration maybe). The primary damage to rome was the combination of population dilution (over-immigration), inadequate institutions for the scale (failure to develop fiat money in particular), the failure to convert from a slave to a serf and to freemen economy (largely again because an inability to develop soft money), the destruction of celtic civilization resulting in the german invasions, and therefore an inability to resist the germanic hordes. However the substantial crisis (in my view) was the Justinian Plague (the first visitation of the plague upon europe). The second was the conquest by Constantine. And the final blow was the exhaustion of the byzantines against the Persians that weakened the ancient civilizations such that the Turks (who had been kicked out of northern china), and the Arabs (who were no different from the Germans in effect) could occupy and incrementally destroy the advanced civilizations, from which neither Persia, Byzantium, The Levant, and North Africa can recover. And from which the peoples of the steppe may never progress. In my view the semites, both Jewish and Arab are perhaps an innovation upon earlier versions of man simply by virtue of aggression. WHile the jews adopted the feminine strategy, the arabs adopted the masculine, and these two extremes seem to be extremely effective against the moderate peoples of China/Japan/Korea/India, and the north iranians (persians), and the north (europeans of all delineation). We will, within a century, decode the genes for low IQ and high aggression, but hopefully we will domesticate (by force) the semitic peoples before either extreme is able to do further damage to mankind.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Terms: Reduction vs Deflation
Q&A: “CURT, WHY DONT YOU USE THE TERM REDUCTION?” —“I am surprised I haven’t heard you mention or talk about reduction in any of your work. Because when I think of Propertarianism ( and I use this to refer to all of your work) I see how you have reduced complex ideas into smaller statements and/or terms(definitions). So I suppose what I think I’m asking is, has reduction played a specific part in your work and if so would it be beneficial for others to understand the process of complexity and reduction?Thanks,”— A Friend Um. I use the terms “Deconflation, Deflationary, Deflate, Parsimony, Parsimonious, and Analytic, and Operational” and I should but don’t use Reduction or Reductonism primarily because (a) I’m not sure what people hear, and (b) i like to emphasize the problem of deconflation rather than simplifications. In other words, it is one thing to reduce things and another to describe how one reduces things. I reduce things largely by a process of deconflation. I achieve that deconflation through the use of a series of techniques: (a) Operational grammar thereby deflating POV. (b) Operational descriptions thereby deflating loading framing, etc (c) Descriptions in Series,(Spectrums, lists, grids, truth tables) thereby deflating the use of terms to describe multiple states. (d) Equilibrial forces between series. (e) The evolutionary result of competition between sets of equilibrial forces. Deconflation and Deflation are in fact, methods of Reductionism. And Reductionism, now that you made me think of it, at least ‘sounds like’ a good term of common understanding for marketing the value of Propertarianism. And I will test it a bit and see if I can make that point now and then. So thank you for the suggestion. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Terms: Reduction vs Deflation
Q&A: “CURT, WHY DONT YOU USE THE TERM REDUCTION?” —“I am surprised I haven’t heard you mention or talk about reduction in any of your work. Because when I think of Propertarianism ( and I use this to refer to all of your work) I see how you have reduced complex ideas into smaller statements and/or terms(definitions). So I suppose what I think I’m asking is, has reduction played a specific part in your work and if so would it be beneficial for others to understand the process of complexity and reduction?Thanks,”— A Friend Um. I use the terms “Deconflation, Deflationary, Deflate, Parsimony, Parsimonious, and Analytic, and Operational” and I should but don’t use Reduction or Reductonism primarily because (a) I’m not sure what people hear, and (b) i like to emphasize the problem of deconflation rather than simplifications. In other words, it is one thing to reduce things and another to describe how one reduces things. I reduce things largely by a process of deconflation. I achieve that deconflation through the use of a series of techniques: (a) Operational grammar thereby deflating POV. (b) Operational descriptions thereby deflating loading framing, etc (c) Descriptions in Series,(Spectrums, lists, grids, truth tables) thereby deflating the use of terms to describe multiple states. (d) Equilibrial forces between series. (e) The evolutionary result of competition between sets of equilibrial forces. Deconflation and Deflation are in fact, methods of Reductionism. And Reductionism, now that you made me think of it, at least ‘sounds like’ a good term of common understanding for marketing the value of Propertarianism. And I will test it a bit and see if I can make that point now and then. So thank you for the suggestion. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
The Sci Fi Take on Propertarianism: A Reformation of Sci Fi and AI.
Apr 10, 2017 8:48am THE SCI-FI TAKE ON PROPERTARIANISM: A REFORMATION OF SCI-FI? —“If we were able to produce neural networks that were built using the frame and parameters of propertarianism (natural law) to filter information, merged with humans, this, in all of it’s glorified science fiction, could produce meta-agency. Basically having a self-learning program implanted into humans that help filter information in order to produce agency. Sounds pretty cool! This kind of agent based programming is something another follower of yours showed interest in.”— A Friend Nit – neural networks are exceptional at turning stimuli into symbols. I am not sure that they are a very good solution to any problems once we possess symbols. Nature build on what she had, but once you have symbols the neural network model becomes an inhibitor not useful search function. I suppose I should explain that at some point, but it’s just what it is. Neural networks are very stable at preserving ‘general relations’ amidst fragmentary damage but they are subject to deformation (dilution), and become very expensive when you are trying to store reconstructable and traceable data. symbolic data and search algorithms defeat neural networks because the information density of symbols sort of like the information density of a book vs a memory of reading or writing a book, is much higher and more stable. But the ideas that you could: 1) create a propertarian ‘conscience’ for any AI. 2) create a propertarian ‘conscience and advisor’ with which to augment a human being. Are pretty fascinating concepts to work with in science fiction. In fact, I think this is what a ‘Runcible’ ( individual education computer) should do for you. REVISIONIST SCIENCE FICTION Now, instead of what has been written in the past, given that it is possible to create a machine MORE MORAL than man, how would that change science fiction?
-
The Sci Fi Take on Propertarianism: A Reformation of Sci Fi and AI.
Apr 10, 2017 8:48am THE SCI-FI TAKE ON PROPERTARIANISM: A REFORMATION OF SCI-FI? —“If we were able to produce neural networks that were built using the frame and parameters of propertarianism (natural law) to filter information, merged with humans, this, in all of it’s glorified science fiction, could produce meta-agency. Basically having a self-learning program implanted into humans that help filter information in order to produce agency. Sounds pretty cool! This kind of agent based programming is something another follower of yours showed interest in.”— A Friend Nit – neural networks are exceptional at turning stimuli into symbols. I am not sure that they are a very good solution to any problems once we possess symbols. Nature build on what she had, but once you have symbols the neural network model becomes an inhibitor not useful search function. I suppose I should explain that at some point, but it’s just what it is. Neural networks are very stable at preserving ‘general relations’ amidst fragmentary damage but they are subject to deformation (dilution), and become very expensive when you are trying to store reconstructable and traceable data. symbolic data and search algorithms defeat neural networks because the information density of symbols sort of like the information density of a book vs a memory of reading or writing a book, is much higher and more stable. But the ideas that you could: 1) create a propertarian ‘conscience’ for any AI. 2) create a propertarian ‘conscience and advisor’ with which to augment a human being. Are pretty fascinating concepts to work with in science fiction. In fact, I think this is what a ‘Runcible’ ( individual education computer) should do for you. REVISIONIST SCIENCE FICTION Now, instead of what has been written in the past, given that it is possible to create a machine MORE MORAL than man, how would that change science fiction?
-
Points of Demarcation – Analog and Sets.
Apr 10, 2017 9:50am (very advanced stuff) —“The former are concerned with impossibility, whilst the latter are concerned with impermissibility”— 1) Are they possible? In other words, are you creating a point of demarcation (the error of sets and digital/binary thinking) rather than continuous/analog causes and effect? (yes) 2) physical reality provides decidability (possibility), but does not human behavior provide decidability (possibility), with the distinction that humans can ‘recall’ as well as ‘forecast’ and therefore we can take on debts and make investments in cooperation. But can we in fact, state that humans will tolerate free riding, parasitism, predation and genocide? and if so where is some evidence of that? (there isn’t any, because it isn’t possible, it’s just SLOWer than physical phenomenon because of the ‘capacitance’ and ‘resistance’ provided by our ability to remember and forecast.) ( Tip: you’ve studied enough philosophy to fall into the trap of 20th century thought inherited from mathematics: set theory, and non contradiction. This is rationalism and includes only a subset of information about reality. Once you include the additional – missing – dimensions of reality you will no longer be able to make use of ‘the error of rationalism’: sets. … which is a very long discussion outside of the context of this topic.) —“Could you unpack this a bit? My statement is directed more towards the limits of empiricism, so I am unclear as to what you mean by unlimited and insufficient.”— 3 – The positivism/empiricism debate, especially those who were unfortunately poisoned by first Kantian, and second Jewish (so called austrian, but not austrian) thought, as well as all cosmopolitan thought (freud, marx, boaz, cantor, frankfurt) is, like all late 19th and 20th century philosophy, a failed program. So, to deflate this set of fallacies, let’s start over with the dimensions of reality: a) identity (categorical consistency) ie: point b) logic (internal consistency) ie: line c) empiricism (external consistency / external correspondence) ie: space d) operationalism (existential consistency ) ie: time (change) f) morality (reciprocal consistency / reciprocity ) ie: cooperation (volition) g) limits (full-accounting, limits, and parsimony) ie: consequence. And to speak of reality we can also use terms that correspond to those dimensions, and thereby avoid errors of the past. a) Operational Definitions, therefore deflating experience, intention, assumption, and analogy. (identity, point) b) Operational Definitions in a series, therefore deflating the natural conflation of ideal types, by describing any concept on a scale – usually a scale of quantity (or population) on one axis, and time on the other axis. (identity, logic, line) c) Supply Demand Curves (competition) (identity, logic, line, space) d) Multiple Supply Demand Curves (equilibria) (identity, logic, line, space, time ) e) Models consisting of all discernably causal equilibrating forces (identity, logic, line, space, competition) SUMMARY So like we cannot predict the location of a molecule of gas released in a vacuum, and we cannot predict subatomic phenomenon, because we cannot measure the states without affecting them; and like we cannot measure certain economic phenomenon at the individual level for the same reason, (we simply lack the information on the one hand, and attempting to obtain it would change the state), and just as we cannot determine the future competition between civilizations, that does not meant that there are not universal and necessary rules to these phenomenon whehther conditionaly invariant (physical), heuristically variant (interpersonal), or exogenously invariant (civilizational). The reason being that there are limits to human perception, cognition, retention, forecast, trust, ethics/morality, and action. Man is his own measure.
-
Points of Demarcation – Analog and Sets.
Apr 10, 2017 9:50am (very advanced stuff) —“The former are concerned with impossibility, whilst the latter are concerned with impermissibility”— 1) Are they possible? In other words, are you creating a point of demarcation (the error of sets and digital/binary thinking) rather than continuous/analog causes and effect? (yes) 2) physical reality provides decidability (possibility), but does not human behavior provide decidability (possibility), with the distinction that humans can ‘recall’ as well as ‘forecast’ and therefore we can take on debts and make investments in cooperation. But can we in fact, state that humans will tolerate free riding, parasitism, predation and genocide? and if so where is some evidence of that? (there isn’t any, because it isn’t possible, it’s just SLOWer than physical phenomenon because of the ‘capacitance’ and ‘resistance’ provided by our ability to remember and forecast.) ( Tip: you’ve studied enough philosophy to fall into the trap of 20th century thought inherited from mathematics: set theory, and non contradiction. This is rationalism and includes only a subset of information about reality. Once you include the additional – missing – dimensions of reality you will no longer be able to make use of ‘the error of rationalism’: sets. … which is a very long discussion outside of the context of this topic.) —“Could you unpack this a bit? My statement is directed more towards the limits of empiricism, so I am unclear as to what you mean by unlimited and insufficient.”— 3 – The positivism/empiricism debate, especially those who were unfortunately poisoned by first Kantian, and second Jewish (so called austrian, but not austrian) thought, as well as all cosmopolitan thought (freud, marx, boaz, cantor, frankfurt) is, like all late 19th and 20th century philosophy, a failed program. So, to deflate this set of fallacies, let’s start over with the dimensions of reality: a) identity (categorical consistency) ie: point b) logic (internal consistency) ie: line c) empiricism (external consistency / external correspondence) ie: space d) operationalism (existential consistency ) ie: time (change) f) morality (reciprocal consistency / reciprocity ) ie: cooperation (volition) g) limits (full-accounting, limits, and parsimony) ie: consequence. And to speak of reality we can also use terms that correspond to those dimensions, and thereby avoid errors of the past. a) Operational Definitions, therefore deflating experience, intention, assumption, and analogy. (identity, point) b) Operational Definitions in a series, therefore deflating the natural conflation of ideal types, by describing any concept on a scale – usually a scale of quantity (or population) on one axis, and time on the other axis. (identity, logic, line) c) Supply Demand Curves (competition) (identity, logic, line, space) d) Multiple Supply Demand Curves (equilibria) (identity, logic, line, space, time ) e) Models consisting of all discernably causal equilibrating forces (identity, logic, line, space, competition) SUMMARY So like we cannot predict the location of a molecule of gas released in a vacuum, and we cannot predict subatomic phenomenon, because we cannot measure the states without affecting them; and like we cannot measure certain economic phenomenon at the individual level for the same reason, (we simply lack the information on the one hand, and attempting to obtain it would change the state), and just as we cannot determine the future competition between civilizations, that does not meant that there are not universal and necessary rules to these phenomenon whehther conditionaly invariant (physical), heuristically variant (interpersonal), or exogenously invariant (civilizational). The reason being that there are limits to human perception, cognition, retention, forecast, trust, ethics/morality, and action. Man is his own measure.
-
Natural Law Was Hard Work
People have no idea how hard it was to solve this series of philosophical problems. Today I can look back, especially back to 2009-2010, and in retrospect see the progress as remarkable. And my confidence in my ability to communicate these ideas, and debate them, at least with other philosophers (not teachers of philosophy, but practicing philosophers). I worked my ….. off. Most people cannot even imagine working on the same problem with interest from the age of perhaps twelve; with dedication from the age of 30, with every free moment from the age of 40, and full time at the exclusion of all else from the age of 50, with willingness to give up everything material in order to solve it. Yet, while solving the original series of problems was something I felt was challenging – it was the art of developing the language with which to communicate such ideas in terms accessible at least to the very bright, and well read that was the most difficult. Articulating, communicating, and defending these ideas has been more work than solving them. Why? Because there is so much antique assumption, language and technique in the inventory of man’s minds, and it is an inventory that people do not want to “write off” – loss aversion reigns. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Natural Law Was Hard Work
People have no idea how hard it was to solve this series of philosophical problems. Today I can look back, especially back to 2009-2010, and in retrospect see the progress as remarkable. And my confidence in my ability to communicate these ideas, and debate them, at least with other philosophers (not teachers of philosophy, but practicing philosophers). I worked my ….. off. Most people cannot even imagine working on the same problem with interest from the age of perhaps twelve; with dedication from the age of 30, with every free moment from the age of 40, and full time at the exclusion of all else from the age of 50, with willingness to give up everything material in order to solve it. Yet, while solving the original series of problems was something I felt was challenging – it was the art of developing the language with which to communicate such ideas in terms accessible at least to the very bright, and well read that was the most difficult. Articulating, communicating, and defending these ideas has been more work than solving them. Why? Because there is so much antique assumption, language and technique in the inventory of man’s minds, and it is an inventory that people do not want to “write off” – loss aversion reigns. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Islamist Social Order vs European Social Order (important)
ISLAMICIST SOCIAL ORDER VS EUROPEAN SOCIAL ORDER Isis(Islamism) seeks to controls mind, word, deed, regardless of property allocation, and they favor (try to enforce) a libertarian-theological-judicial social order over centralized state. In other words, they want to preserve ‘headman’ of the tribe status for as many ‘headmen’ as possible, right down to the father of the family. Between: WEST/NORTH/COLD/SPARSE: The European model (Genetic European), consisting of (Aryan) martial (aristocratic) Sovereignty, and Burgher (middle class) Liberalism(Contractualism), under aristocratic rule of empirical law; AND SOUTH/MIDDLE/HOT/DENSE The Semitic model (Jewish, Arab, Muslim), (Genetic Afro-Asiatic) consisting of underclass rule of religious law. The SIMILARITY is obvious: Preserve head-man rule (King/Ruler, Judicial Priesthood (tribal and Clan headman), and Strong Father (family Headman) of extended family. The DIFFERNCES are: Aristocratic, Evolutionary, Eugenic, Small Numbers, Technological, Weaponized Professional Warriors, Trust, Economy, and Technology, high consumption living and reproduction. Tactics: concentration of capital and adaptability – solve problems quickly so that opportunities cannot be seized when we are otherwise weak or occupied.) -vs- Priestly, Devolutionary, Dysgenic, mandated ignorance, subsistence living and reproduction. Weaponized raiding, distrust, deception, and reproduction. Tactics: concentration of numbers – wear down the opponent over long periods of time) Curt DOolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine