—“There’s no debate between packs, debates are futile. What you see is negotiation about tools, wealth, status,
and women.”— Johannes Jost Meixner
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 17:13:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053695614045839360
SCRIPTING: PACKS ARE SILOED, HERDS ARE CENTRALIZED
—“Plenty of right wingers are NPC as fuck. The point is we can’t centralize the scripting because they are siloed.”—Jennifer Dean
(smart)
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 16:41:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053687783435448321
—“There is a distinction between endocrinological & neurological conservatives, driven mostly by disgust, which tend to be within a SD left of the mean, and market driven (agency) conservatives who recognize cost on longer time-horizons & are able to organize a body law which facilitates the cooperation & trust, necessary for the functioning of enterprise. The former group are right for the ‘wrong’ reasons & the latter group are right as a matter of agency & incentive.”—Ferdinand Pizarro
Well Done!!!!
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 14:08:00 UTC
—“There’s no debate between packs, debates are futile. What you see is negotiation about tools, wealth, status,
and women.”— Johannes Jost Meixner
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 13:12:00 UTC
UNDERSTANDING MINDFULNESS, CLASS, COSTS
Wealthy Intergenerational Families Learn and Perpetuate Mindfulness.
Etiquette and Habits are simply SIGNALS of MINDFULNESS.
Meaning you are trustworthy.
Because etiquette and Habits ARE COSTLY.
It is the WILLINGNESS TO PAY COSTS that the signal communicates.
It is the UNWILLINGNESS TO PAY COSTS that classlessness communicates.
Classical protestant families are stoic.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 10:58:00 UTC
ART? MATTERS OF TASTE? OR MATTERS OF EDUCATION AND SKILL?
Taste is a consequence of ability, bias, knowledge, and skill. Some people have bad taste. Some classes have bad taste. Some cultures have bad taste. It’s not a matter of opinion.
So just as MORAL intuitions vary due to genetics, gender, class, culture, and education, TASTE intuitions vary due to the same. They are both intuitionistic responses. But all intuitions can be trained with the limits of one’s abilities.
Color blindness, tone deafness, face-blindness, weak pattern recognition, and general inability to learn by observation do influence you.
Familiarity with and associations between patterns and symbols and recognition of the difference between content/value/narrative, fashion/style, movement/period, and technique/materials will anchor you in your traditional frames.
However, it is possible to learn to understand all of them and distinguish between them, and separate premium, good, weak, and bad examples.
The principle weakness in developing taste is composition (sets) vs objects (items). One can collect similar items, or one can make a composition consisting of items. Most people capable of learning can be trained to produce compositions instead of selecting (impulsive) items.
For example, we can appreciate Fletes Cruz, a Botero and a Wei, just as easily as a monet and degas, just as easily as a Rubens and Durer, and to recognize the vast difference between Rodin and Michelangelo and nearly every other sculptor that ever lived. Or the self made prisons that Giacometti’s and Picasso’s styles made for them.
Once you look at works, and tie them to periods, movements, and the economic and political environments you can see the arts as just another technological reflection of the period, and enjoy all of it.
I can be just as happy in colonial, edwardian, victorian, craftsman, and mid century modern, and I prefer the romantics but in my hope I would hang a Rothko, and modern.
The problem is, ‘what is your favorite’ is the absolute WORST question you can ask someone, and it is the worst way to develop taste. Instead, compositions can be beautiful or not. Preferable or not. And preferable for intended purpose or not.
Bad work is very easy to identify because of craftsmanship and design. But bad style and content requires understanding context.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 09:46:00 UTC
RT @jordanbpeterson: With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneou…
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 00:49:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053447970111307776
RT @DegenRolf: Widely touted psychology study, finding, in essence, that the rich are jerks, fails to replicate. https://www.collabra.org/articles/10.1525/collabra.166/ h…
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 00:47:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053447694813970432
—“One of the great successes of the new right has been destroying the intellectual legitimacy of libertarianism which, heretofore, looked pretty indestructible as a model.”— Michael Churchill
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-19 19:39:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053370077477781504
October 19th, 2018 9:44 AM IS THE ALT RIGHT SOCIALIST? (A Response to Jeff Tucker) 1) The alt right chooses nationalism (the optimum group evolutionary strategy) over globalism (the worst possible group evolutionary strategy for sovereign peoples). 2) The alt right claims (correctly) that (under nationalism) the debate is not between capitalism and socialism since all extant and all SURVIVABLE polities are and must be mixed economies â but between (a) rule of law, vs. arbitrary rule, and (b) unlimited trade that allows costs imposed upon the polity by externality, vs limits to trade that prohibits costs upon the polity by externality. This is because lower prices that are obtained in exchange for the spectrum of losses to capital including human capital are not in fact lower prices, but involuntary transfers by indirection. 3) The alt right claims (correctly) that the returns on Commons (capital accumulation) are higher than the returns on consumption for the purpose of signaling. Libertarians must choose if they are Globalists and Dysgenicists and Destroyers of capital in exchange for consumption, or Nationalists and Eugenicists, and creators of capital by investment in commons. Libertarianism is unmasked: Jewish (rothbardian) Diasporic Globalist Dysgenic Capitalism (capital accumulation in separatists), or European Nationalist Eugenic, Mixed Economy (capital accumulation in commons). The west outpaced the rest by the simple but profoundly expensive strategy of producing commons, including the commons of trust, truth, rule of law, reciprocity, and the suppression of ir-reciprocity by externality, thereby creating a condition of âmoralityâ. There is a reason why large companies are in protestant (Hajnal Line) states: trust. There is a reason low trust polities do not produce large companies.