“Meaning us an underclass preoccupation. The rest of us worry about facts and actions.@
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-16 02:15:00 UTC
“Meaning us an underclass preoccupation. The rest of us worry about facts and actions.@
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-16 02:15:00 UTC
CANADIAN PRIVILEGE
(reposted) (fun)
AN ANSWER THAT YOU WON’T LIKE: PRIVILEGE NOT CHOICE
Humans justify. Justification is necessary for adaptation, and we are very good at justification.
Canada is the world’s most privileged country, so Canadians can justify unprecedented luxuries.
Imagine, anywhere else in the world, a country of that size, with so few people, with that many natural resources, that did not have to defend that territory and resources from constant incursion by neighboring powers.
Ukraine and Siberia are two modern examples. Ukraine has roughly the same population, is rich in resources, and has been the victim of perpetual struggle for self determination from Mongols, Poland, Austria, Russia, the USSR, and now Russia again. Siberia is currently being occupied by Chinese intent on doing exactly what Russia did to Ukraine: fill it with people then justify taking it by force.
Canadians have the best of all worlds: a benevolent global empire on their border that cannot tolerate any instability in, or invasion of, Canada; oceans for all other borders; and therefore near immunity from the high cost of self defense, and the necessity of nationalism.
Canada and Australia, like the UK are for all strategic intents and purposes, islands, that like the UK, rely upon island-people-ethics: no fear of outsiders. Little fear of conquest. Little conflict over territory. No conflict over sovereignty.
Having never experienced the divisiveness of slavery, Canadians have never experienced the problem of internal race conflict. Slavery is the defining issue of american history and race and culture conflict remain unresolved and un-resolvable. The immateriality of french divisiveness versus american urban and rural divisiveness, causes less conflict in Canada but is equally as damaging, since it again causes multiculturalism that harms the center and west.
The data says that Canada is more conservative than the states, and that the only thing that forces Canadian policy differences is the french voting block. The french immigrants to Quebec were, unlike the Anglo immigrants to the other provinces, from the lower classes. So those class, religion, culture, family structure, and language differences, of course skew the country a bit as well. Unlike Canada, USA’s demographic blocks are not isolated but intermingled as horizontal bands reflecting the cultures that immigrated at different latitudes of the east coast. (See the “Nine Nations Of North America”.)
Now, Canadians tend to look at this strategic privilege as a product of their high mindedness, but nothing could be further from the truth. Cultural differences and Political policy in all countries reflect that which people are ABLE TO implement as policy, and ABLE adopt as cultural preference. People prefer luxuries that they CAN possess. They CAN possess them for strategic, not cultural or political reasons.
But as soon as Canada reaches the level of cultural competition that is present in the states, North and South Italy, France, Germany, and the UK, west and east Ukraine, West and east Russia, Tibet, Mongolia and china, conflict over cultural competition will increase there as well, and the long run of Canadian privilege to treat multiculturalism as a ‘good’ rather than as a profitable luxury in small doses, will end as it is ending in the rest of the world.
Islands have the highest trust cultures for a reason. They can afford to. They are able to. Because homogeneity allows for political and cultural homogeneity. And homogeneity reduces political, economic, cultural conflict, and turns class differences into virtues because tolerance for redistribution increases with homogeneity of kinship.
Canada is importing to its ‘island’ the promise of low-trust, high conflict, authoritarian polities, and thereby ending its island luxury.
(So that is why we americans tend to see cultural self-congratulation of Canadians as the prancing and preening of spoiled children whose safety and luxury Americans pay for.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-15 06:45:00 UTC
Dear Critic of Capitalism,
Yes. Capitalism objectively demonstrates your status among humans. Thus proving that your mommy lied to you. And that you are not special. You have no intrinsic value and you are not demonstrably valuable to others. Your existence is irrelevant as other than a consumer of resources, a producer of waste, and an existential threat that your offspring will be the same or worse. And so you are a dead weight upon your neighbors, society, man and earth. And as dead weight, the best that you can do is to not cause others too much burden or the earth too much damage. Now, without capitalism, the carrying capacity of the earth is one eighth of what it is today. So while capitalism makes your worthless dysgenic existence possible, please use every means at your disposal to eliminate it, so that we can return the earth to its agrarian carrying capacity without you.
Sincerely,
Mother Nature
Planet Earth, Sol System, Milky way.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-13 08:37:00 UTC
CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS
One thing I love about my life here is having ‘servants’. Full time cook, housekeeper etc. I have no car, and it costs less than a cheap car payment. But they are never really comfortable around you. I just treat them like family. But they’re always nervous. Very strange culture here. In the states, it’s more like it was in our medieval history: you know, you send your kids to work for the cousins across town who need help with the kids or with the farm or something. And you’re sort of family who gets paid a bit plus room and board (mostly just you get fed). Not the same here. Serfdom.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-10 07:35:00 UTC
http://adage.com/article/agency-news/women-aim-increase-creative-ranks-3-conference/295744/?utm_source=agency_email&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=adage&ttl=1415988872FEMINIST NONSENSE – CREATIVE DIRECTORS
If we look at the middle of any business women compete exceptionally and often displace men, if for no other reason than women integrate into organizations more easily. If we look at the margins, both at the most troublesome and most exceptional, the ratio of men to women rapidly increases. We have known why that is the case for many, many years, and there is zero chance of altering it. As far as we know, saturation in the workplace has been achieved. There are not enough women at the upper or lower ends, to compete with men at those ends..Women are not held back. It’s just how evolution made us: men in the top percentiles in every field, and in the bottom percentiles in every field, rapidly exceed ten to one, and at some points achieve 40 or 50 to one. That’s pretty hard science and there isn’t any material chance of changing it.
There are great women creative directors, but the ratio will always remain fairly constant. Its’ a function of distributions not of ability or bias. The best we can do is make the best of each other as individuals – we have spent too much time making gender irrelevant to make female gender any particular consequence.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 16:54:00 UTC
WHY DO WE SEE POLAR OPPOSITION TODAY?
APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE
I’m sorry to intrude on your poetic speech with my painful, oft turgid, analytic, alternative, but I thought this might provide you and others with another way of looking at the issue as if there are two sides.
EXPLANATION
In all multi polar systems, just as in all majority democracies, we see a major party (dominant alliance of interests) and a contesting party (resistance to the dominant alliance of interests) and all other parties(alliances) are statistically irrelevant.
There is nowhere in life that this is not true. (I think there is a term for this effect, but it escapes me at the moment.)
In most of history the military (aristocracy) as been the primary influence, and various religious organizations constitute the opposing force.
But once we developed industry the economic power of business, industry and finance produced greater influence than the church and state could muster.
Once the church was eliminated by Darwin, Science, The Academy, long subservient to the church, took over the church’s role as myth-maker. (Unfortunately just as the cosmopolitans and women were freed from cultural constraints under universal suffrage, ).
The craftsmen (labor) attempted to ally with the Academy and State but Industry rebelled taking jobs away. But for some time the academy controlled the state via labor.
The socialists and feminists were successful in forming an alliance with the academy to take over the government and push the military aristocracy from power. They were able to do this mostly because of the combination of media and postwar consumption, combined with the geographic expansion of the united states western territories as nearly free land. Plus the cost of fighting communism gave the academy and their desire as a vehicle for expansion of their power.
In all these organizations oligarchies do form. But there always will exist four organizations: craft (without power), priesthood/academy(gossip as a moral weapon of power – especially in the west where altruism is the high chivalric virtue), the organization of production (remunerative incentives), and the martial aristocracy.
What we see is a conflict between the four powers to control institutions.
We live in a malevolent theocracy of academy and state reliant mostly on numerological pseudoscience to justify selling off consumption of the commons, in exchange for dysgenic expansion that increases their supporters.
Theocracies, like corporations do not care about families, they are about power.
Aristocracy is a family business.
Families matter.
SO WHAT?
So there are always four dominant forces (alliances) reflecting the four possible means of coercion (none, gossip, trade, and force), and these forces battle over whatever institutions exist in any civilization in order to expand their power. But as always, because each follows the best use of power, the end result is always a dominant and resistance group, with the reset nearly invisible because they are immaterial.
I think what I try to bring to the table is the fact that these four strategies (if the first ‘none’ can be considered a strategy), reflect reproductive strategies, and that the masculine (tribal) feminine (universal) and the commercial (selfish or neutral), battle for control of institutions that give preference to their methods and biases, and therefore their genetic preferences.
So Red has evolved into the aristocratic meritocratic, slowly reproducing, high investment, nuclear and absolute nuclear family of the northern europeans that reflects the male reproductive strategy where insurance is denied in order to force productivity: a eugenic tribe. And Blue has evolved into the equalitarian, rapid reproduction, low investment, traditional and single parent family, where insurance is provided by the state, in order to ensure as many offspring survive as possible. And each has collected the allies available to pursue it’s ends. This is why women dtermine elections: they are the only gruop that is not balanced. women and minorities vote for dysgenia, and men and married women vote for eugenia (keeping their own production.) And really there isn’t more to it than that.
Democracy failed the moment it changed from one FAMILY ONE VOTE to one INDIVIDUAL one vote. Because the familiy – particular the nuclar family – is by virtue of mate selection under monogamy, a compromise of reproductive strategies within which the majorty of us are relatively equal. But by converting to an individualist society rather than familial, we removed our compromise between competing reproductive strategies from the family, and elevated it into the state, where it is just a competition between the male eugenic and the female dysgenic and nothing else. There is no reason to be had since the only possible compromise can be constructed outside of government.
I could write volumes more on this but it’s enough to get the point across:L
1) Judicial Law must apply to individuals because individuals act.
2) Governmental “Law” (contracts for the production of commons) must represent families or insufficient common interests exists for any such institution to choose solutions that satisfy a common interest.
For these reasons universal democracy must always end in socialist tyranny where women can bear their offspring and place the burden of their upkeep on the state (men). This has to do with simple numbers, and simple genetic interests. A minority of males and a majority of females are better off constructing the greatest rents possible to feed dysgenic reproduction and the minority of productive people who they (and evolution) would prefer to choose eugenic (meritocratic) reproduction are merely farmed by the unproductive.
Uncomfortable truth but truth none the less.
(Note: I don’t mean that ALL our behavior is entirely in our genes as much as our class (reproductive value) is evidenced by in our genes and we gravitate to the strategies that suit our genes. )
Curt Doolittle
http://www.popehat.com/2014/10/21/gamer-gate-three-stages-to-obit/#comment-1283725
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-03 10:05:00 UTC
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicansTHREE THOUGHTS: ARE MEMBERS BIASED AGAINST THE ENTRY OF CONSERVATIVES; and second, is there a bias toward support of left conclusions in research by those members; and third, are members with a bias drawn to the discipline of psychology?
It’s a specialization. The military is a specialization.
Psychology, if not for its complete abandonment of freudianism, and adoption of Operationism would have perished as a pseudoscience, as has social science, if it had not reformed. As it has reformed, it has moved more to the center. In practical terms Haidt appears to function as a classical liberal libertarian today (not a libertine libertarian), despite his left sentiments.
But its merely a specialization. If we took military strategy and tactics, and put it into the university system, instead of in the war colleges, you would see that most were conservative. (in fact that’s a pretty good idea).
Moral biases lead us to specializations where we can exercise our moral biases.
As I became self aware, I realized that I write the particular brand of philosophy I do because my highest moral priority is conflict prevention. I am very, very good at conflict, but that is partly because I dislike it so much, that I want it to end.
It so happens that in order to write something reasonably scientific about the subject of philosophy – particularly ethics and politics – that my cognitive bias is terribly useful. Because law is the philosophy of conflict resolution.
So its logical that psychology will move to left of center, as the scientific evidence forces center bias, while the people drawn to the subject continue to demonstrate left bias.
I am fairly sure that if we required operational speech in all disciplines we would see the same motion as we have in psychology: toward a reformation and drive back to the classical liberal center.
But I doubt that we would change the preference for those with progressive (female reproductive strategy) bias to the field.
My preference would be to teach War, Politics, Law, Economics, Finance, and Propertarian philosophy as a curriculum in all universities so that the Cathedral possessed internal competition. And it would restore male female balance to the Academy’s numbers of graduates.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-03 04:23:00 UTC
QUESTION: “Curt, please explain how you mean “their own houses of government””
ANSWER: People with similar economic interests: the monarchy (ownership of the formal institutions of government – ie: law), landed nobility (responsibility for local economies), commons (responsible for business and finance), church – the house of proletarians (responsibility for production of insurance – insurer of last resort – and all commons: care-taking).
We had it right all along. If you cannot demonstrate sufficient interests for a higher house then you only have the interests of a lower house.
If we conducted contractual exchanges between houses (as we did in the past) and that these contracts were constructed under common law (in the ancient sense as organic application of property rights), then we would have a vehicle for cooperation rather than government as a vehicle for conflict.
And exchange is always welcome. an imposition or theft is not.
The market cannot solve the provision of all goods, because the purpose of some goods is not produced through competition, nor are all goods produced producible if consumable.
We are living a lie, and that is why government must be a venue for conflict; it is presumed to be a lie: that we are equal and of equal interest, and that as such a Pareto optimum can be found. Instead, the only known way of producing an optimum is through voluntary exchange – a Nash equilibrium.
Like infinity, a Pareto optimum does not nor can it, exist. Something approaching Pareto optimums may evolve because we pursue Nash equilibria, but like unicorns and infinity, these are just loose ideas, to use for analogistic purposes.
NO PROPOSITIONS ARE DECIDABLE BY PARETO OPTIMUM. Only evidence of the success or failure of our achievement of a Nash equilibrium.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 07:48:00 UTC
CLASS SPECTRUM: *IMPULSIVITY, FRUSTRATION TOLERANCE, AND LOW TIME PREFERENCE*
Preference is a choice. Demonstrated time preference (useful for the economic concept of interest but not scientific in that it’s not causally descriptive) appears to be largely genetic, and is determined by what we consider the ‘frustration budget’:our ability to suppress the urge for gratification.
So the terms, Impulsivity, frustration budget (tolerance), and time preference, represent three portions of the impulsivity spectrum. Where the lower our impulsivity, the higher our tolerance for frustration, and the greater our willingness to persist a desire for a long term goal, each represent our social classes.
As such to discuss time preference outside of the impulsivity scale is to attribute to choice that which is no more available to choice than rational thought is to the solipsist, empathy is to the autistic, or operational calculation using abstract rules of deduction is to the imbecile.
The language of libertinism is rife with upper middle class economic loading and framing: attributing to choice that which is not, in order to perpetuate the fallacy that liberty is a rational preference and choice, rather than the reproductive strategy of an elite minority and the social outcasts that follow them in hopes of status seeking.
Instead, science: empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and performative truth attempts to explain all phenomenon in least loaded and framed (if not least obscurant) terms. It is for this reason that the language of science is the language of the spoken and written truth, and rationalism must always be suspect, because the majority of outright lies, pseudo-rationalism and pseudo-science have been told in rational language.
So while rationalists say that something is possible or may be possible, science merely demonstrates that rationalism is de facto the optimum means of lying invented by man. And the 20th century as Hayek proposed, was merely the high point of cosmopolitan pseudoscience, precisely because those with lesser abilities relied upon rationalism rather than science. And they did so because it was profitable to lie: see various quotes by and about Marx and Keynes.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-31 12:26:00 UTC
FEMINISM: MERITOCRACY OR ORGANIZED CRIME?
I am not sure how you get to be more of a ‘feminist’ than via aristocracy – meaning meritocracy. But then I view feminism as making a better world, by making stronger women, not subsidizing weak women and making weaker men, and making stronger women who compete meritocratically with men. If feminism means ‘the political pursuit of female reproductive interests, rather than the political pursuit of family interests, and if feminism is just a ruse for rent seeking and legal privilege so that women do not have to compete meritocratically with men in the service of mankind, then that’s something else: organized crime.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-31 03:31:00 UTC