Theme: Civilization

  • “If such a trajectory ends in the near destruction of the human species and the

    —“If such a trajectory ends in the near destruction of the human species and the planet, what lessons should the survivors inherit? It seems you’re largely in agreement with many the historical/factual claims of left/feminist scholarship. You simply advocate the power and privilege they despise.”— Skye Stewart

    (a) What trajectory? Markets in Everything?

    (b) What have the other trajectories achieved? By civilization. Comparatively? What about the difference between the modern age, the middle christian age, and the ancient age? And how did we exit the christian age?

    (c) Power and privilege? You mean, the power to prevent parasitism and require trade? The Power to PREVENT over-reproduction?

    I don’t disagree with marxists or the feminists on fact so much as value and institutions. As far as I can tell it’s just an r/k argument over dysgenic expansion and regression or eugenic expansion and progress.

    Certainly at present, all challenges to the human race are the product of over-reproduction of the sub 100’s.

    I mean, it’s roughly mathematical: what population can consume continued increasing percentages of the energy capacity of the planet (using say, solar terms)?

    Or said differently, how can we keep increasing individual consumption of energy while preserving the carrying capacity of the planet – especially given that we are in a ‘quiet period’ of astro-geological activity – and at what point do we reach equilibration (limits).

    I’ll suggest that I’m not the first person to think this through, and that the number of that population is a lot closer to one billion than it is to ten billion – a fact that will become obvious with the next economic-generational cycle.

    So whose strategy is more likely to end the world: the r-strategy of dysgenic reproduction of the k-strategy of eugenic reproduction? What problems do we currently face that are not problems of overpopulation? Why should we invest energy in more bodies (greater consumption) than in fewer bodies and greater innovation and production?

    There is only one extant problem facing man: the ratio of rates of population to rates of depletion of energy reserves.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 14:17:00 UTC

  • The world is logical once you know its first causes. The world is no longer good

    The world is logical once you know its first causes.

    The world is no longer good or preferable once you know it’s first causes.

    The reason the west outpaced the east is precisely because we did not live in harmony with the vicissitudes of nature, but sought always, like our gods, to overthrow gods and nature.

    We did not start from the presumption of an existential eden.

    We started from the presumption that we can create one regardless of nature and the gods.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 09:54:00 UTC

  • english revolution > american war of colonial independence (not revolution) > fr

    english revolution > american war of colonial independence (not revolution) > french revolution > Napoleon destroys old europe > germany forms > germany just about has the second enlightenment and second industrial revolution > Jewish evolution > russian revolution > germany is baited by russia and britain > world wars truncate german revolution. > Old europe dies / america takes over british empire > war against communism > china and russia collapse/reform > Islamic revolution > ????


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 18:56:00 UTC

  • “The Western identity, in broadest terms, is the inheritance of the Roman/Imperi

    —“The Western identity, in broadest terms, is the inheritance of the Roman/Imperium and our European (aryan) intuitions. Transcendence refers to many things: Aryan doctrines, Stoicism, the Divine—anything that resists the temptation to fall into unconsciousness and entropy.”— Josh Jeppson


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 13:01:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle Paternal: De Dolietta (normandy) > Surrey > Northumberland > Lanc

    Curt Doolittle

    Paternal: De Dolietta (normandy) > Surrey > Northumberland > Lancashire (and London) > New Haven > Wallingford > Middletown. “Very Severe Puritans” Literate, Political *and* military.

    Maternal: Sirois/Theriault/Oulette (Loire Valley) > Acadia > Maine > Connecticut. Family almost destroyed by the depression really. Catastrophic for them. Interesting how inverted the family conditions became during the pre and postwar period. Some rise so me fall.

    Both ‘middle class’ families with a mix of farming and professions. Both great grandfathers ‘political’ personalities. French catholic democrat, Anglo puritan republican. just what you would expect. Farmers, Lawyers and teachers on maternal side, officers, businessmen and authors on paternal side. But mostly middle class.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 11:10:00 UTC

  • ( I’m sorry but it’s just not true. I can’t create a proof of it. There are just

    ( I’m sorry but it’s just not true. I can’t create a proof of it. There are just too many variations. There are people without a past tense. There are people of history. People of literature. People of myth. the value is in pack formation. And that is the reason we still possess the ‘feeling’. But why isn’t it just another kind of addiction? )


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 18:55:00 UTC

  • GOOD FOR MANKIND? What’s good for mankind? What’s good for mankind? Just the opp

    GOOD FOR MANKIND?

    What’s good for mankind? What’s good for mankind? Just the opposite of what we do for the commercial short term good: exterminate everyone in every civlization under 106. That’s what’s good for mankind. And it isn’t even open to possible criticism. Because it’s very hard to imagine any meaningful problems remain if we do that. We can do mankind even better, and take it up to 112 or 115, at which point the young and old are fully employable in productive capacity from birth to death. Or up to 125 where mysticism is no longer in demand. You know we will be able to engineer super-humans fairly soon. But it doesn’t help if a minority of super humans (>135) are held down by a plurality of ordinary humans, (>90) and a dearth of subhumans (<90). Now. I’m not recommending that we do what’s objectively good for mankind. I’m simply saying live and let live. But that means, those of us who WANT to live without the burdens of the dead weight of sub-humans and near-humans, have a choice of separating and living and let live – or we have a choice of exterminating, letting us live and others not. Or we have a choice of being overwhelmed by the subhumans. … Now, I”m perfectly happy being accused of casting people as subhuman as long as people are happy casting people as equal. When all the evidence is that the opposite is true.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-08 15:42:00 UTC

  • SO GENETICS AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS MATTER? The difference between regional groups

    SO GENETICS AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS MATTER?

    The difference between regional groups, even territories in europe, is produced by the duration under (a) agrarianism, and (b) manorialism in particular, and (c) the form of crops. These three factors determine the current i) iq/personality distributions of various ethnic subgroups, ii) the size of the underclass because of that difference in distributions, iii) the family type used by that group, iv) the moral bias of that group v) the voting patterns of that group.

    In other words, the greatest improvement in the standard of living that you can provide for your people, is a reduction in the rate of reproduction of those in the lower and underclasses. Period. Nothing else comes close. It determines everything from norms to trust, to institutions that are possible, to the size of companies that you can form, and the ability to form sustainable patterns of specialization and trade.

    In other words, the reason the east and west were so successful is that (a) homogenous kin – the least diverse people on earth, (b) the use of manorialism to starve out the underclasses or reduce their numbers, and (c) aggressive culling of the underclass in the west by hanging up to 1% of the population per year after 1000ad, and by very aggressive use of the axe (head chopping) in east asia for thousands of years (the symbol of authority in china was the axe).

    The chinese are the oldest civilization and have succeeded in neotonic selection more so than any people on earth – to the point where it has become problematic. Europeans slightly less so, and from a later branch of homo sapiens sapiens. The rest of the world has NOT done this. And has neither the cold winters or agrarianism long enough to reduce the underclasses, and give opportunity for neotonic selection.

    We can easily demonstrate this by the testosterone levels and endocrine differences between the populations. at present we can demonstrate it in the ten subtypes of personality traits below the big five personality traits, but the universal test of neoteny is IQ, which is a fairly accurate predictor of the reduction and intensity of sexual maturity produced by neotonic selection.

    This is the most parsimonious explanation of the variation in racial (latitudinal), sub racial (generation), and tribal and class difference in the world. It means, that just as Belyaev’s Foxes, we can speciate extremely quickly, within a few generations if we select only for neotonic (calmness). Which turns out is producible by as simple a thing as reducing testosterone. Possibly even accounting for eye and hair color variation – although that is still an open question.

    So,

    (a) left, socialist, communist, equalitarian produces r-selection and r-selection moral intuitions (what we call beta or feminine or child-driven) and (b) right, aristocratic, meritocratic, egalitarian, k-selection (alpha or male, or tribe-driven) evolutionary strategies are all we are ever arguing about.

    All our prattle is just negotiation on behalf of our genes.

    So, just as the copernican revolution was profoundly humiliating the current revolution in biology and social sciences is profoundly humiliating.

    The world is a very simple thing: reduce underclasses and then the middle to upper classes will work together just fine. But because below about 105, people start becoming a burden, the primary problem we face, and the world faces, is not global warming, or pollution, but finding some way to morally cull populations under 105 (current measure) by a one-child policy for long enough that we equilibrate the vast underclasses with the advanced civilizations. Otehrwise the problem of india is going to be the world;s problem -everywhere.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 16:00:00 UTC

  • SUBMISSION OR SOVEREIGNTY? You see, Kant was restating Abrahamism: rebellion aga

    SUBMISSION OR SOVEREIGNTY?

    You see, Kant was restating Abrahamism: rebellion against the aristocracy.

    Now let’s look at the Genghis Khan reasoning:

    The only way I will let you live is if it is more profitable than killing you.

    The only way I will ally with you rather than fight you or preying upon you is if it is more profitable than not allying with you.

    The only way we can profit together most, is by conquest, rule, and tax.

    The best way to conquer rule and tax is to force everyone into productive labor.

    The best way to force everyone into exclusively productive labor is to impose a law of non imposition.

    This monopolizes the extractions for us at the cost of all other attempts to extract rents.

    The side effect is that we have discounted all local transaction costs, and increased trust among the peoples who were previously mistrustful and rent seeking, and parasitic upon one another. So that we have them maximized our returns by minimizing our inefficiencies.

    SUBMISSION VS SOVEREIGNTY

    What are the consequences of ‘submission’ rather than empirical evidence of the superiority of outcomes?

    **What would be the consequence of maximizing the categorical imperative vs maximizing the returns on investment?**

    Do you see where that leads?

    You see, this is the origin of order.

    The King’s Peace. The king’s peace was enforced. Markets were MADE – by force: by denying people the shorter term opportunity for profiting from the labor of others.

    Kant was just making an excuse for it by claiming we have a choice, and we should choose the kings peace. He assumes the majority prefer the kings peace.

    When what we see in reality is that this is a consequence of kinship. Whereas, in heterogeneous areas, it’s been impossible to construct a kantian imperative, because it’s evolutionarily contrary to demand.

    The chinese did it right. not because they are an empire. But because like us (originally) they are a family, not a state, or federation, or an empire.

    Hence my … uncomfortable with the ‘equality’ nonsense. it’s a rebellion and a degenerative one.

    People didn’t CHOOSE to work in greater numbers.

    People were FORCED to work in greater numbers.

    And they were forced to, because it meant giving up rents.

    Everything from near-universal-common-property on up.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-05 08:54:00 UTC

  • TRUTH: OUR 4000 YEAR TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE Truth. It is our civilization’s pri

    TRUTH: OUR 4000 YEAR TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE

    Truth. It is our civilization’s primary technological advantage and one that none other can duplicate – assuming we preserve our separatism.

    The lesson of history is that Truth cannot survive conflation. Whether in meaning, in disciplines, in institutions, or in Populations.

    Ergo, the choice is truth and paganism, truth and specialization, truth and markets, truth and separatism.

    And that is not something that I would have expected when I started out on my journey.

    Ely Harman / Eli Harman


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 18:09:00 UTC