Source: Original Site Post

  • Truth: No Man Is An Island. No Logical Argument Is Either.

    My definition of Truth under Scientific Realism, is that any notion of Truth can only exist if we say it is a) Performative, consisting of b) Correspondence and c) Coherence (internal consistency). And that all other statements are analogies to some subset of these properties. And that d) formal theories of truth (the ‘logics’) are each subsets of Coherence, which test certain properties of any “True” and therefore Performative, Correspondent and Coherent statement. And that e) property and involuntary transfer constitute a missing logic of cooperation, that renders all transfers open to analysis and criticism. And that f) praxeology constitutes a missing logic of the rationality of decisions and incentives, that renders all actions open to subjective testing. But because humans are marginally indifferent in their rationality and incentives, such subjective, SYMPATHETIC testing functions as an objective test of the rationality of incentives. And that: g) Constructive (meaning socially constructive, including Consensus theories) and Pragmatic theories of truth are failed attempts at obscurant coercion (theft) by adherents to enlightenment democratic equalitarianism, socialists, postmodernists, and totalitarian humanists. Just as the Rawlsian veil is yet another attempt at obscuring involuntary transfers, while relying on the impossibility of human judgement to make such decisions as would be required to achieve the abstract concept of ‘justice’. As such I view truth as Performative (attestation) constrained by and consisting of { i) Correspondent (with reality); ii) Cohesive (internally consistent and formal); iii) Identitarian (categories, properties and names) iv) Propertarian (cooperative moral action); v) Praxeological (rational action) } properties – each subset set of properties requiring separate logics for the isolation and analysis of each subset. Conversely, no ‘complete attest-able truth’ can be constructed in any subset without consideration of all. It may be (as in the case of any of the formal logics) that no external dependency is present (although I cannot think of one). But I am unaware of any formal logic without external dependency. This is a non contradictory, fully explanatory theory of the criteria for truth. And so far I am unable to formalize a criticism of CR, because for all intents and purposes that I can imagine, the CR definition of truth is platonic and non existent, and impossible. Since the only truth that can exist is attestation: the constant reduction in our own errors as we try to describe the properties of the universe. We can know what is false. That is our only certainty. But we can never know a platonic truth other than a tautology, because only tautological statements are complete. A complete statement is not open to attestation. If any statement is not tautological, and therefore incomplete, it is open to attestation. But how can we say an attestation is meaningful if it’s tautological? We are, with the concept of truth, improving our attestations about the universe. This is what we improve. That is the purpose and function of truth. Since only by improving our attestations and constantly testing them can we improve our actions, and by our actions, continue to increasingly outwit the deterministic processes in the universe by constructing minor alterations to that universe such that we can make use of the universe as we will. If I am to defend the claim that obscurantism must be prohibited from political speech (argument), then I cannot make this claim on irrefutable terms, without at least addressing the relationship between the logical disciplines, and the very nature of philosophy, as a moral endeavor. No man is an island. No argument in any sub discipline is either.

  • Why Do So Many People In The Usa Have Guns?

    I own guns for the single purpose of resisting the government when necessary. I believe, without question, that it is a moral responsibility of every man to do the same.  I view those who do not do so, as free riders on the labor of others who make such moral commitments.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-people-in-the-USA-have-guns

  • Do Libertarians Believe There Should Be Federally Funded Interstate Highways?

    • That it was invented for war. (It was)
    • That it led to the decline of rail (it did)
    • That it led to the rise of trucks (it did)
    • That it led to the expansion of automotive use. (It did)
    • That it eliminated demand for public transportation (it did)
    • That it contributed to sprawl (it did)

    https://www.quora.com/Do-libertarians-believe-there-should-be-federally-funded-interstate-highways

  • Why Do So Many People In The Usa Have Guns?

    I own guns for the single purpose of resisting the government when necessary. I believe, without question, that it is a moral responsibility of every man to do the same.  I view those who do not do so, as free riders on the labor of others who make such moral commitments.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-people-in-the-USA-have-guns

  • Do Libertarians Believe There Should Be Federally Funded Interstate Highways?

    • That it was invented for war. (It was)
    • That it led to the decline of rail (it did)
    • That it led to the rise of trucks (it did)
    • That it led to the expansion of automotive use. (It did)
    • That it eliminated demand for public transportation (it did)
    • That it contributed to sprawl (it did)

    https://www.quora.com/Do-libertarians-believe-there-should-be-federally-funded-interstate-highways

  • Which One Do You Prefer, A Socialist Or Capitalist Economy?

    I WILL DO MY BEST. BUT YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THE ANSWER.

    The question poses a false dichotomy. 

    A socialist economy is logically impossible, and demonstrably impossible since the socialist method of production provides neither incentives, nor the pricing system necessary for the competitive satisfaction of wants and needs. We don’t have a choice of a socialist economy.

    Instead, the question is, given that a MIXED economy appears to be necessary to satisfy:
    (a) the requirement for providing people with incentives to participate in needed work regardless of their preference for work;
    AND
    (b )the means of economic calculation and planning in real time provided by money and prices;
    AND
    (c) to provide sufficient redistribution to satisfy the demand for state intervention, and to prevent the lower classes from rebellion, and to reduce the cost of their suppression;
    THEREFORE
    which BIAS do you prefer: i) greater retention of profits in the hands of those who produce it, OR ii) greater distribution of profits to those who do not produce it.  With the understanding that labor is of declining and near zero value, and that ORGANIZING PRODUCTION dynamically in real time under constant risk is the challenging part of the economy, not the labor involved in production which is at best a commodity that is easily replaced.

    The problem does not appear to be which mixed economy, but the intergenerational transfer of wealth dependent upon constant economic growth, while at the same time such redistributive wealth suppresses breeding rates of the most productive individuals.  As such societies must ‘feed the ponzi scheme’ by immigrating a permanent underclass as the native population shrinks.

    The germans have probably developed the superior model: make sure your working class is the worlds best working class, and the upper classes will take care of the rest. The American model looks like a failure since trying to get everyone to join the middle class (of independent professionals) is not possible because not enough people possess the genetic talents to fulfill those positions without training via repetition that is greater in cost than the benefit produced. 

    That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.

    So since I cannot prefer a socialist, and there is no capitalist economy extant, and the only economies that do exist other than the very impoverished countries, are mixed, I prefer a mixed economy, since it is the only choice available. But I prefer one that does not depend on a genetic ponzi scheme.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-one-do-you-prefer-a-socialist-or-capitalist-economy

  • Which One Do You Prefer, A Socialist Or Capitalist Economy?

    I WILL DO MY BEST. BUT YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THE ANSWER.

    The question poses a false dichotomy. 

    A socialist economy is logically impossible, and demonstrably impossible since the socialist method of production provides neither incentives, nor the pricing system necessary for the competitive satisfaction of wants and needs. We don’t have a choice of a socialist economy.

    Instead, the question is, given that a MIXED economy appears to be necessary to satisfy:
    (a) the requirement for providing people with incentives to participate in needed work regardless of their preference for work;
    AND
    (b )the means of economic calculation and planning in real time provided by money and prices;
    AND
    (c) to provide sufficient redistribution to satisfy the demand for state intervention, and to prevent the lower classes from rebellion, and to reduce the cost of their suppression;
    THEREFORE
    which BIAS do you prefer: i) greater retention of profits in the hands of those who produce it, OR ii) greater distribution of profits to those who do not produce it.  With the understanding that labor is of declining and near zero value, and that ORGANIZING PRODUCTION dynamically in real time under constant risk is the challenging part of the economy, not the labor involved in production which is at best a commodity that is easily replaced.

    The problem does not appear to be which mixed economy, but the intergenerational transfer of wealth dependent upon constant economic growth, while at the same time such redistributive wealth suppresses breeding rates of the most productive individuals.  As such societies must ‘feed the ponzi scheme’ by immigrating a permanent underclass as the native population shrinks.

    The germans have probably developed the superior model: make sure your working class is the worlds best working class, and the upper classes will take care of the rest. The American model looks like a failure since trying to get everyone to join the middle class (of independent professionals) is not possible because not enough people possess the genetic talents to fulfill those positions without training via repetition that is greater in cost than the benefit produced. 

    That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.

    So since I cannot prefer a socialist, and there is no capitalist economy extant, and the only economies that do exist other than the very impoverished countries, are mixed, I prefer a mixed economy, since it is the only choice available. But I prefer one that does not depend on a genetic ponzi scheme.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-one-do-you-prefer-a-socialist-or-capitalist-economy

  • Why Does The 1.7% Jewish Population In Usa Have So Much Political Power?

    HERE IS THE REASON
    (WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE STICKS AND STONES IT WILL GENERATE)

    I’m going to give the answer that is impolitic and true.  Mostly because I’m kind of curious how people  interpret it.  Just a draft.

    MONEY, MEDIA AND WHITE GUILT FOR WW2
    That’s the answer.  But why?

    GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY
    If your gene pool does not have an evolutionary strategy that it can compete with against other groups, then it will fail.  Europeans were poor people on the edge of the bronze age who had to rely on small numbers to hold land.  To do this they favored technology and a novel kind of cooperation that we call the individualistic and heroic mythos.  Jews by contrast were not a landed people, but a migratory one, right at the center of the bronze age explosion, and unsuccessful at holding land. 

    Landholder ethics are very different from transitory ethics. Land means you can invest in fixed assets, craftsmanship, and industry. You can raise crops, and domesticated animals.  You have to defend them, and that requires a great personal sacrifice on the part of most members.

    JEWISH GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY
    0) Empirically measurable verbal advantage in Ashkenazim due to eugenic mating.
    1) High investment parenting.
    3) High investment in in-group success (ethnocentrism).
    4) In-Group Cooperation and Out Group predation.
    5) Lower ethical requirements in out-group predation.

    The first three properties are beneficial and are helpful to host countries. We get specialists in the skills that ORGANIZE production and trade. In a culture that specializes in organizing war (landholding) and property rights, and production.

    However, the last two are damaging to host countries and populations and the USA is no exception. So it is a 50/50 proposition when one has a large Jewish population because of these factors. The good comes with the bad, and in general, historically speaking, this strategy was effective enough that host peoples eventually rebelled against it.

    Any group sufficiently separate within a host country cannot break the US and THEM barrier that is required for the extension of trust to the state. So the jewish model cannot succeed in any legitimate state – rather any state considered legitimate by its people.

    Jewish ethics are more limited than protestant ethics, and jews have, in every host country they have ever been in, gravitated by intention, to those roles that were, and are extractive, because of this lower standard of ethics.
    (For the best scholarly treatment see Kevin McDonald’s _The Culture of Critique_. Three volumes on his study of the Jewish cultural survival strategy.)

    THE NORTHERN EUROPEAN GROUP STRATEGY
    0) Use small numbers, technology, mobile tactics, professional warriors, and egalitarian enfranchisement in property rights to hold land and animals against competitors.
    1) Suppress all free riding, so that everyone produces, leaves, or dies.
    2) Break property (land and animals) into family divisions to eliminate free riding
    3) Prevent the centralization of power, so that members retain their property.
    4) Outbreed so that relations and trust are widespread, and conflict is minimized.
    5) Conquer if you can. Raid if you can. Trade if you cannot.
    This system is weak unless there is high criteria for entry. The enlightenment weakened that limit on entry, and universal democratic enfranchisement eliminated it.

    To cooperate in their environments, different cultures suppress different levels of ‘theft’ from the direct, to the indirect. And the reason for the High Trust West and our “Protestant Ethic” is that westerners have suppressed more kinds of theft and cheating than any other people on earth. This suppression was also eugenic for similar reasons that helped the Jews compete – if forces out non-conformists.

    Our suppression of all types of criminality, theft and immorality, and very rigid moral and ethical requirements literally suppress nearly all options EXCEPT participation in the market. This is largely because in northern Europe above the Hanjal line, the church outlawed cousin marriage, and the large land owners only would rent land to married couples who could be trusted to produce.

    These to factors led to the absolute nuclear family that is unique to northern europe, and the culture of hard work as a status symbol.  The extension of property rights to women broke up the ability for large families to compete with the church for land. The result was that almost every form of ‘free riding’ was suppressed both practically and eventually normatively. And the prohibition on cousin marriage created an enormous extended family and the ethic that comes with an extended family.  We call this ethic christian universalism. But it is not present in southern europe or anywhere outside of the Hanjal line. 

    Furthermore, the absolute nuclear family and its requirement for self sufficiency does not exist outside of those cultures. And it was that family structure that the founders brought to the north american colonies, and the rule of law and the nuclear family persisted in america without the overhead of aristocracy until the 1970’s.  (Now 40% of children are born to single mothers, and in real terms, after redistribution, only about a quarter of households are self sufficient and pay taxes.)

    SUPPRESSION OF THEFTS :
    (In economic terms ‘Discounts’)
    So lets look at what we can suppress from the most simple to the most complex.
    –CRIME–
    Murder
    Violence
    Theft                   
    –ETHICS–  
    Blackmail
    Usury
    Fraud                           
    Fraud by omission   
    Fraud by obfuscation
    –MORALITY—
    Profiting from suffering
    Profiting from disadvantage
    Profit without contribution
    Profit from Interference in the acts of others
    Externalization of costs
    Privatization of the commons
    Socialization of losses into the commons
    Free riding
    –POLITICAL MORALITY–
    Rent seeking
    Corruption
    Extortion
    Conspiracy
    Monopoly (government is technically a monopoly)
    –POLITICAL CONQUEST–
    Ostracization and Displacement
    Conquest through Overbreeding
    Conquest through Immigration
    Conquest through religious conversion
    Conquest through Enslavement
    Conquest through war.

    Westerners managed to suppress all the moral prohibitions. Even within families, where, almost universally, free riding is not only expected but encouraged.

    CONTRASTING WITH JEWISH ETHICS
    But jewish ethics in most of history stop at THEFT, and in the 20th century at fraud. And a disproportionate percentage of Jews actively participated in, if not specialized in, what in the west was traditionally considered unethical and immoral industries. Which would include the mass media, advertising, entertainment, pornography, credit, banking, finance, law.

    The jewish ethic can be captured in the statement “it only takes two people to agree to a trade”.  Unfortunately, that may be true, but the consequences of any trade affect all members of the community. It is this set of consequences, which economists call ‘externalities’ that allow the ‘cheater’ to use a single interaction to effectively extract wealth involuntarily from people outside of the transaction.  This prohibition on externalities is the practical meaning of the term ‘immoral’.  Just as the prohibition on taking advantage of asymmetry of information is the definition of ‘unethical’.

    So the problem is not so much that jews do this or that as it is the over representation of jews in industries that are enticingly profitable, but which are moral hazards, and westerners by their emphasis on  production and craft, and prohibition on ‘cunning’ (cheating), controlled not by law, but by morals. 

    This is why Jews excel everywhere but best in the west: our high trust society gives their particular lack of moral standard outgroup requirement, extraordinary opportunity for success, and their scientific intellectuals greater freedom to work.

    If you specialize in what the host nation considers unethical and immoral behavior, and can get away with it, then it is very profitable.  The problem is, almost no other civilizations prohibit as much of the moral and ethical spectrum as northern europeans. So northern european countries and the anglosphere provide greater opportunity for profiting from unethical and immoral action.

    HISTORY
    The jews have been disliked almost everywhere that they’ve been successful, and it is their historical preference for cheating, by verbal means where possible, and profiting from unethical and immoral cheating where possible, that has generally led to their prosecution.

    Cheating, especially through various credit schemes (creating a hazard) is extremely profitable. Jewish ingroup bias was particularly useful in creating trust relationships for financing during the hard currency eras. 

    If you study the Ethics of Gypsies they are very close to jewish ethics, but they lack the intelligence and discipline to move from profit by crime to profit by unethical and immoral actions.

    But what is most interesting is that despite being the most literate people in europe jews produced no significant science or literature, while starting in 1200 in England the opposite happened.  It appears that only with the structure of western high trust society and the acceptance of jews into western society have the jews been able to contribute to world knowledge. Even if, some of that knowledge (Marx, Freud and Cantor, just like Kant and Rousseau) was pseudoscientific and very damaging to the west.

    SIDEBAR: AN INTERESTING HISTORICAL THOUGHT
    –And jewish banking became especially useful after the extermination of the Templars. Competing financiers would have provided the states with competitors to jewish bankers and assisted in controlling rates.  But the templars made a mistake in trying to obtain land as well as retain their banking and that was too much of a risk for the governments.–

    CONTEMPORARY CIRCUMSTANCES
    Prior to the war era immigration of eastern european jews, American Jews had become indistinguishable from conservative Scots who dominated business in american institutions. To the point of being accepted into elite institutions.  At this point jewish identity has merged with the american model fairly deeply and intermarriage is eroding the prior social structure.  So what has happened to the English appears to be happening to the jews.

    Now, again, assuming that indoctrination and assimilation will leave jews like the english, scots and germans, an advantaged minority population,

    Israel has demonstrated that it may in fact be possible for the jews to hold land develop land holder ethics, and build a state, but at the cost of suppressing the rampant free riding in their more religious members. It may also occur that once again, jewish culture and ethics are insufficient to hold a territory. And given that israel is the most technically advanced society in the region, even if dependent on american handouts, that the loss would be tragic.

    MY GOAL IS TO ARTICULATE WESTERN HIGH TRUST ETHICS
    I write about ethics in order to explain the economic consequences of different ethical models, as well as why the western ethical model created the high performing high trust society and others did not. This high trust model, wherever it survives, provides a dramatic difference in economic performance that no other civilization has matched.

    No other philosopher has successfully articulated the cause and consequence of western high trust ethics. All groups need an evolutionary strategy.  But not only do northern Europeans need the high trust society to compete, but given what the high trust society produces in terms of innovation and exchange, the world also needs the high trust society to prevail. 

    Westerners do not understand their history or why they succeeded despite being a poor illiterate people, small in number, far from the origin of civilization, because their history is articulated in moral and allegorical language not in ratio scientific terms. They cannot defend their social system because they do not understand it. The enlightenment project was a scheme for the seizure of political power from the landed aristocracy by the new middle class. And the mythos of democracy was used to suppress the Aristocratic origins of western civilization. As it turns out the purpose of large democratic states appears largely to be, ever since Napoleon, the export of war and conquest.

    The purpose of my work is to make it possible for westerners to rationally debate their values against the encroachment of other value systems so that we can preserve the high trust society – for themselves, and everyone else.

    CLOSING
    I hope this was useful. This is a draft of a longer argument and I might revise and extend it later.  Of course, I expect all sorts of childish nonsense but this is how it is.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-1-7-Jewish-population-in-USA-have-so-much-political-power

  • Why Does The 1.7% Jewish Population In Usa Have So Much Political Power?

    HERE IS THE REASON
    (WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE STICKS AND STONES IT WILL GENERATE)

    I’m going to give the answer that is impolitic and true.  Mostly because I’m kind of curious how people  interpret it.  Just a draft.

    MONEY, MEDIA AND WHITE GUILT FOR WW2
    That’s the answer.  But why?

    GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY
    If your gene pool does not have an evolutionary strategy that it can compete with against other groups, then it will fail.  Europeans were poor people on the edge of the bronze age who had to rely on small numbers to hold land.  To do this they favored technology and a novel kind of cooperation that we call the individualistic and heroic mythos.  Jews by contrast were not a landed people, but a migratory one, right at the center of the bronze age explosion, and unsuccessful at holding land. 

    Landholder ethics are very different from transitory ethics. Land means you can invest in fixed assets, craftsmanship, and industry. You can raise crops, and domesticated animals.  You have to defend them, and that requires a great personal sacrifice on the part of most members.

    JEWISH GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY
    0) Empirically measurable verbal advantage in Ashkenazim due to eugenic mating.
    1) High investment parenting.
    3) High investment in in-group success (ethnocentrism).
    4) In-Group Cooperation and Out Group predation.
    5) Lower ethical requirements in out-group predation.

    The first three properties are beneficial and are helpful to host countries. We get specialists in the skills that ORGANIZE production and trade. In a culture that specializes in organizing war (landholding) and property rights, and production.

    However, the last two are damaging to host countries and populations and the USA is no exception. So it is a 50/50 proposition when one has a large Jewish population because of these factors. The good comes with the bad, and in general, historically speaking, this strategy was effective enough that host peoples eventually rebelled against it.

    Any group sufficiently separate within a host country cannot break the US and THEM barrier that is required for the extension of trust to the state. So the jewish model cannot succeed in any legitimate state – rather any state considered legitimate by its people.

    Jewish ethics are more limited than protestant ethics, and jews have, in every host country they have ever been in, gravitated by intention, to those roles that were, and are extractive, because of this lower standard of ethics.
    (For the best scholarly treatment see Kevin McDonald’s _The Culture of Critique_. Three volumes on his study of the Jewish cultural survival strategy.)

    THE NORTHERN EUROPEAN GROUP STRATEGY
    0) Use small numbers, technology, mobile tactics, professional warriors, and egalitarian enfranchisement in property rights to hold land and animals against competitors.
    1) Suppress all free riding, so that everyone produces, leaves, or dies.
    2) Break property (land and animals) into family divisions to eliminate free riding
    3) Prevent the centralization of power, so that members retain their property.
    4) Outbreed so that relations and trust are widespread, and conflict is minimized.
    5) Conquer if you can. Raid if you can. Trade if you cannot.
    This system is weak unless there is high criteria for entry. The enlightenment weakened that limit on entry, and universal democratic enfranchisement eliminated it.

    To cooperate in their environments, different cultures suppress different levels of ‘theft’ from the direct, to the indirect. And the reason for the High Trust West and our “Protestant Ethic” is that westerners have suppressed more kinds of theft and cheating than any other people on earth. This suppression was also eugenic for similar reasons that helped the Jews compete – if forces out non-conformists.

    Our suppression of all types of criminality, theft and immorality, and very rigid moral and ethical requirements literally suppress nearly all options EXCEPT participation in the market. This is largely because in northern Europe above the Hanjal line, the church outlawed cousin marriage, and the large land owners only would rent land to married couples who could be trusted to produce.

    These to factors led to the absolute nuclear family that is unique to northern europe, and the culture of hard work as a status symbol.  The extension of property rights to women broke up the ability for large families to compete with the church for land. The result was that almost every form of ‘free riding’ was suppressed both practically and eventually normatively. And the prohibition on cousin marriage created an enormous extended family and the ethic that comes with an extended family.  We call this ethic christian universalism. But it is not present in southern europe or anywhere outside of the Hanjal line. 

    Furthermore, the absolute nuclear family and its requirement for self sufficiency does not exist outside of those cultures. And it was that family structure that the founders brought to the north american colonies, and the rule of law and the nuclear family persisted in america without the overhead of aristocracy until the 1970’s.  (Now 40% of children are born to single mothers, and in real terms, after redistribution, only about a quarter of households are self sufficient and pay taxes.)

    SUPPRESSION OF THEFTS :
    (In economic terms ‘Discounts’)
    So lets look at what we can suppress from the most simple to the most complex.
    –CRIME–
    Murder
    Violence
    Theft                   
    –ETHICS–  
    Blackmail
    Usury
    Fraud                           
    Fraud by omission   
    Fraud by obfuscation
    –MORALITY—
    Profiting from suffering
    Profiting from disadvantage
    Profit without contribution
    Profit from Interference in the acts of others
    Externalization of costs
    Privatization of the commons
    Socialization of losses into the commons
    Free riding
    –POLITICAL MORALITY–
    Rent seeking
    Corruption
    Extortion
    Conspiracy
    Monopoly (government is technically a monopoly)
    –POLITICAL CONQUEST–
    Ostracization and Displacement
    Conquest through Overbreeding
    Conquest through Immigration
    Conquest through religious conversion
    Conquest through Enslavement
    Conquest through war.

    Westerners managed to suppress all the moral prohibitions. Even within families, where, almost universally, free riding is not only expected but encouraged.

    CONTRASTING WITH JEWISH ETHICS
    But jewish ethics in most of history stop at THEFT, and in the 20th century at fraud. And a disproportionate percentage of Jews actively participated in, if not specialized in, what in the west was traditionally considered unethical and immoral industries. Which would include the mass media, advertising, entertainment, pornography, credit, banking, finance, law.

    The jewish ethic can be captured in the statement “it only takes two people to agree to a trade”.  Unfortunately, that may be true, but the consequences of any trade affect all members of the community. It is this set of consequences, which economists call ‘externalities’ that allow the ‘cheater’ to use a single interaction to effectively extract wealth involuntarily from people outside of the transaction.  This prohibition on externalities is the practical meaning of the term ‘immoral’.  Just as the prohibition on taking advantage of asymmetry of information is the definition of ‘unethical’.

    So the problem is not so much that jews do this or that as it is the over representation of jews in industries that are enticingly profitable, but which are moral hazards, and westerners by their emphasis on  production and craft, and prohibition on ‘cunning’ (cheating), controlled not by law, but by morals. 

    This is why Jews excel everywhere but best in the west: our high trust society gives their particular lack of moral standard outgroup requirement, extraordinary opportunity for success, and their scientific intellectuals greater freedom to work.

    If you specialize in what the host nation considers unethical and immoral behavior, and can get away with it, then it is very profitable.  The problem is, almost no other civilizations prohibit as much of the moral and ethical spectrum as northern europeans. So northern european countries and the anglosphere provide greater opportunity for profiting from unethical and immoral action.

    HISTORY
    The jews have been disliked almost everywhere that they’ve been successful, and it is their historical preference for cheating, by verbal means where possible, and profiting from unethical and immoral cheating where possible, that has generally led to their prosecution.

    Cheating, especially through various credit schemes (creating a hazard) is extremely profitable. Jewish ingroup bias was particularly useful in creating trust relationships for financing during the hard currency eras. 

    If you study the Ethics of Gypsies they are very close to jewish ethics, but they lack the intelligence and discipline to move from profit by crime to profit by unethical and immoral actions.

    But what is most interesting is that despite being the most literate people in europe jews produced no significant science or literature, while starting in 1200 in England the opposite happened.  It appears that only with the structure of western high trust society and the acceptance of jews into western society have the jews been able to contribute to world knowledge. Even if, some of that knowledge (Marx, Freud and Cantor, just like Kant and Rousseau) was pseudoscientific and very damaging to the west.

    SIDEBAR: AN INTERESTING HISTORICAL THOUGHT
    –And jewish banking became especially useful after the extermination of the Templars. Competing financiers would have provided the states with competitors to jewish bankers and assisted in controlling rates.  But the templars made a mistake in trying to obtain land as well as retain their banking and that was too much of a risk for the governments.–

    CONTEMPORARY CIRCUMSTANCES
    Prior to the war era immigration of eastern european jews, American Jews had become indistinguishable from conservative Scots who dominated business in american institutions. To the point of being accepted into elite institutions.  At this point jewish identity has merged with the american model fairly deeply and intermarriage is eroding the prior social structure.  So what has happened to the English appears to be happening to the jews.

    Now, again, assuming that indoctrination and assimilation will leave jews like the english, scots and germans, an advantaged minority population,

    Israel has demonstrated that it may in fact be possible for the jews to hold land develop land holder ethics, and build a state, but at the cost of suppressing the rampant free riding in their more religious members. It may also occur that once again, jewish culture and ethics are insufficient to hold a territory. And given that israel is the most technically advanced society in the region, even if dependent on american handouts, that the loss would be tragic.

    MY GOAL IS TO ARTICULATE WESTERN HIGH TRUST ETHICS
    I write about ethics in order to explain the economic consequences of different ethical models, as well as why the western ethical model created the high performing high trust society and others did not. This high trust model, wherever it survives, provides a dramatic difference in economic performance that no other civilization has matched.

    No other philosopher has successfully articulated the cause and consequence of western high trust ethics. All groups need an evolutionary strategy.  But not only do northern Europeans need the high trust society to compete, but given what the high trust society produces in terms of innovation and exchange, the world also needs the high trust society to prevail. 

    Westerners do not understand their history or why they succeeded despite being a poor illiterate people, small in number, far from the origin of civilization, because their history is articulated in moral and allegorical language not in ratio scientific terms. They cannot defend their social system because they do not understand it. The enlightenment project was a scheme for the seizure of political power from the landed aristocracy by the new middle class. And the mythos of democracy was used to suppress the Aristocratic origins of western civilization. As it turns out the purpose of large democratic states appears largely to be, ever since Napoleon, the export of war and conquest.

    The purpose of my work is to make it possible for westerners to rationally debate their values against the encroachment of other value systems so that we can preserve the high trust society – for themselves, and everyone else.

    CLOSING
    I hope this was useful. This is a draft of a longer argument and I might revise and extend it later.  Of course, I expect all sorts of childish nonsense but this is how it is.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-1-7-Jewish-population-in-USA-have-so-much-political-power

  • Does The Separation Between Mathematical Truth And Mathematical Proof Necessarily Imply A Platonist View Of Mathematics?

    Here is the debate as I understand it:

    (And forgive me if I mix language from multiple domains please.)

    The Intuitionists argue that all mathematics can be stated operationally, and as such, for all intents and purposes, all mathematical symbols other than the glyphs we use to name the natural numbers, are nothing more than names for functions (sets of operations).

    However, the intuitionist (‘recursive’) solution causes a problem in that the excluded middle is impermissible – but without it, much of mathematics because much more difficult, and harder to prove. So with that constraint on the excluded middle, the higher truth requirement of computational and constructivist, intuitionist logic has been deemed not useful for departmental mathematicians.

    So under the ZFC+AC and ‘spontaneous platonic imaginary’ creation of sets, we obtain the ability to do mathematics that include both double negation and the excluded middle. 

    This ‘trick’ separates Pure math in one discipline and  Scientific math, Computational mathematics, and philosophical realism into different discipline, each with different standards of truth. In fact, technically speaking, mathematics is absent truth (correspondence) and relies entirely on proof. ie: there are no true statements in pure mathematics.

    IF ANYONE  KNOWS —>> It does not appear that Brouwer or any of his followers understood why their method failed and the set method succeeded.  But even if they failed, I am trying to figure out if the Formalists understood their ‘hack’ and why it worked. 

    And lastly, if anyone at all understood how Intuitionist, constructivist, and computational logic could be improved to solve the problem of retaining correspondence (truth) while also retaining the excluded middle (even if it was burdensome). 

    Someone smarter than I am has got to have addressed this problem already although for the life of me I can’t find anyone who has.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-the-separation-between-mathematical-truth-and-mathematical-proof-necessarily-imply-a-Platonist-view-of-mathematics