—“Would you classify your views on human beings and cooperation as pessimistic?”— Roy Van de Weteringh
That would require me to believe in a fallacy that humans had a bias other than rational. So I view humans as rational machines that can be configured by experience to act optimistically or pessimistically.
🙂
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-11 13:27:00 UTC
Ethics of cooperative and sentient creatures capable of choosing between opportunities, must develop both objective morality (ethics of ‘natural law’) and group competitive ethics (moral norms), and individual competitive ethics (personal moral judgements). The principle conflicts in the study of manners, ethics, morality, and group evolutionary strategy (law of cooperation), are caused by (a) differences in male and female reproductive strategy, (b) differences in the desirability of the classes (associative, reproductive, economic, political, and military), and (c) differences in distributions of abilities between groups (tribes), and (d) necessities of territorial adaptation. Ergo while ethics(and morals) are objectively decidable across any group, because objectively decidable ethics exist, individuals, groups, and very large groups each construct portfolios of more complex normative and personal ethics(morals) so that they can successfully compete against other peers, genders, classes, tribes, nations, and civilizations. This does not mean that we cannot say one civilization’s nation’s, tribe’s, class’, gender’s person’s are decidability more moral than another’s. But then, these things we call ethics (morals) are tools of evolution. And both prey, parasite, and predator exist between organisms in nature, and prey, parasite and predator exist within organisms as well.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-04 17:37:00 UTC
ITS HARDER FOR WOMEN TO FIND MEN TO TRUST
I think we can look at the problem of developing high trust social orders with high economic velocity, as an even worse problem for women.
I mean, women have a smaller number of closer friends who are less divergent in sentiments. Men have a larger number of less close friends who vary more greatly.
Men speak in ‘facts’ and women speak in experiences. We convey different information. Women speak in synthesis and men speak in compartments. Women’s information is related, and men’s information is isolated.
Women cannot trust many men easily. (Hence the value of gay men to all women). And they tend to empathically understand only that category of men they are familiar with. And they tend to respond genetically to attraction rather than rationally. JUst as they respond genetically to their offspring rather than to the merits of their offspring.
Women’s minds are interrupt driven with lots of sensation. Men’s minds are relatively quiet and goal driven with few sensations.
Women think about dozens or hundreds of different things, and men think of just a few related to their goals – and almost nothing else.
Men lie to women all the time to increase their chances of getting access to sex with the women or her network of associates.
If men are weak they cannot build trust with women. if women are weak they cannot be honest with men. The only men a woman can usually trust are those that have no reproductive interest in her: her father and her brothers.
Men have a much easier time, since if we can trust our mothers, and physically retaliate against our sisters, we simply need women to help us understand other people’s interests.
And frankly women aren’t that hard. If they are interested in you and not trying just to use you as an ATM just love them, listen to them, and help them when they ask.
Women will love you back, and more so if you give them lots of small signals that you are ‘thinking of them and their concerns’.
I have no problem returning to a world where women are our slaves. I have no problem with my sons ruling that world. I have a problem with my daughters returning to that world, and living in it.
Men need to be taught to love women and limit the damage they can do but not attempt to ‘correct’ how they think. They need to think as they do or they cannot raise families of impulsive unpredictable children.
Women must be taught that men do not think as they do, should not thing as they do, and if they did, they will be useless to them. (I usually say ‘you need girlfriends for that, not me. I am a man.’).
If mothers fail to raise a man capable of being a good husband it is their fault. If a father fails to raise a woman capable of being a good wife, it is his fault. These are the only gender-relations we can trust.
We spend all this time training social nonsense, and pseudoscience, and none of it on how to be a husband, a wife, a brother, a sister, a father, and a mother, and even less on being a homemaker, a craftsman, a businessman, and a financier.
We educated our generations to be nothing more than tax slaves. Seriously. If you critically examine our schooling that’s its purpose.
Tax slavery.
What we need is just the opposite.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 14:30:00 UTC
(thinking…) Despite what you’d think. Out-group antagonism is a superior evolutionary strategy as long as you breed enough.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 14:20:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805053981017964544
Reply addressees: @autismcrisis
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804966236069253120
IN REPLY TO:
@autismcrisis
“empathy is often used by those who wish to generate animus toward outgroups” https://t.co/laS5uuviwi Paul Bloom in TICS, autism-relevant
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804966236069253120
‘CLANNISHNESS’ AND ‘TOLERANCE’ ARE SITUATIONAL GOODS.
AFIK the ‘clannishness’ sentiment increases with diversity in temperate climes, and decreases in homogeneity in cooler.
This is because in warm climes others are resource competitors, while in cold climes others are insurance against the environment.
(thinking…) Despite what you’d think. Out-group antagonism is a superior evolutionary strategy as long as you breed faster than competitors (islam).
(thinking…) We tend to think that tolerance is a good, but it is only a good as long as it increases our numbers faster. (christianity).
We europeans tend to practice low clannishness, high tolerance, but low birth rates. This is a terrible evolutionary strategy.
In fact, it’s suicidal.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 09:25:00 UTC
THE MALE FEMALE COMPROMISE
(nash vs pareto) (important concept)
Women are supposed to be drawn to socialism. Men are supposed to be drawn to Aristocracy. These are words for the female reproductive strategy and the male reproductive strategy at scale.
Its when we compromise through markets for marriage, markets for goods and services, markets for commons, and markets for rule, that we achieve the best possible even if it’s not the ideal for each given man or woman.
Conversely, pursuit of ideals can only occur if we end the compromise between men’s and women’s reproductive strategies.
Which is what we have been doing for the past century.
In economic parlance this is the difference between a NATURAL NASH equilibrium that we evolved under, and the UNNATURAL PARETO equilibrium that the socialist state attempts to create through forcible redistribution – violating the contract for compromise between the genders: male and female and the classes: the estates of the realm.
Paring off into mates (and admittedly cheating now and then) is the optimum evolutionary and social strategy. It creates incentives for the worse performers, and disincentives for greed for the best performers.
There is a reason we evolved serial monogamy before we developed property and a division of labor, and we evolved monogamy after we developed property and a division of labor.
That reason is that markets (pairing-off) provide us with the BEST OVERALL solution to our differences in value and ability, even though it doesn’t provide the best solution for either the best or the worst. (and yes, there are bad people that shouldn’t breed).
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 09:10:00 UTC
@Dr Peterson (great video this week)
SUGGESTION RE: “LOSS OF METAPHYSICAL FOUNDATIONS”.
(a) estates of the realm existed under manorialism (cooperation between classes) replacing more costly aristocracy, freemen, and slaves. Each estate often spoke a different language, each used a different narrative, and each a different ‘scripture’. Latin remained the language of the intellectual class. Christianity itself provided a convenient excuse to justify Aristocratic Expansion and their heroic cult and mythos. The common law remained as the primary means of decidability. The christian religion remained as a public religion. The ancient myths and legends remained as the religion of home and hearth. The west has always been poly-philosophical if we categorize religion as a sub-category of philosophy. Why? Because western civilization never engaged in conflation, but preserved the estates of the realm. Hence why there are three cults in china (Confucius, LaoTzu, Budda), the castes in india, the estates in the west, the three classes of islam under one book, and the single class of judaism under one book and one set of laws. But the west has many many books, and only the common law, the philosophy of the intellectual class, and the religion of the lower classes persist. The philosophy of the aristocratic classes was only captured in narrative and handed down from father to son for millennia.
(b) anglo enlightenment causes chain of events that undermines the unwritten cult of the aristocracy (sovereignty).
(c) liberal revolutions undermine the contract between the aristocracy and the middle classes (rule of law becomes discretionary law)
(d) proletarian revolutions undermine the contract between the middle classes and the lower classes.
(e) church is weakened by (a)+(b) and put to death by darwin.
(f) Poincare(mathematics), Maxwell(science), Dawin(anthropology), Spencer(social sci), Karl Menger(econ), Nietzche(aesthetics) and the pre-rapaelites (art), Wagner(theatre and opera),and others try to provide a new ‘map’ on the ancient model, in scientific rather than rationalism, reason, and platonism.
(g) Cantor (mathematical platonism), Boaz(anthropology and sociology), Marx (economics and sociology), Mises (economics), Freud (psychology), Adorno+Co (aesthetics), combined with democracy, women’s entry into the franchise, and the academy’s seizure of moral authority from the church by selling diplomas rather than indulgences – create a competing utopian suite of narratives ready to sell to the new members of the consumer classes. The entire cosmopolitan corpus however, is composed of nothing but pseudoscience.
(h) Early soviet successes despite the greatest human death and destruction in history, and the soviet emphasis of spending 85% of its intelligence budget on funding intellectuals who advance the Frankfurt school’s propaganda for the purpose of subversion (creating conflict between the classes), plus a compliant intellectual class, seeking even greater wealth, status, and power, succeed in capturing the narrative from the Continentals, and solidify it with the defeat of the Fascists (who are themselves merely a reaction to the same pseudosciences and breakdown of class cooperation.)
(h) Postwar economic boom in the states allows funding of expansion of the academy by turning ‘schools’ in to ‘colleges’ and ‘colleges’ into ‘universities’. And profits from the sale of pseudoscientific religion to a generation lacking empirical traditions.
(g) Produces crisis of the 1960s, followed by reaction in the late 1970s as policy failures accumulate, yet the movement had been successful for the first time in history, in replacing the martial aristocracy from membership in the competition for power, not realizing that they had merely replaced the military industrial complex’s productivity and empirical epistemology with the academy, media, state complex and their pseudoscientific epistemology.
(h) 1999’s surprising bow shot by Pinker provides the first substantial scientific counter to expand upon the previous generation’s political retrenchment against pseudoscientific politics. From 2000 until the present we are incrementally expanding the criticism of the pseudosciences overthrowing and reforming the hard sciences, while the pseudoscientific academy’s three generations of professors, four generations of teachers, and first generation of ‘snowflakes’, comes into maturity. We have been assisted by the demonstrated failure of the Keynesian economic and mathematical pseudoscientific program, and the assumptions of ongoing prosperity that the progressive postwar narrative had been constructed upon.
(i) Today there are a number of us working in different fields to end the pseudoscientific era, and the destruction of reason.
WHAT’S THE POINT?
The point I want to get across here is that while other civilizations may have been narratively monolithic, the church was merely one component of the system of cooperation between the classes that constituted the informal structure of western civilization.
even today the fallacy of equalitarianism, equalitarian democracy, and universalism merely continue this utopian deceit. Instead of a market for exchanges between the classes provided by multiple houses of government and the church, we conduct a war of disinformation and deception because our method of government is not suitable for the construction of agreements – only defeats.
So while we have plenty of class narratives, scientific, philosophical, political, military, entrepreneurial, artisan, laborer, and dependent; and we have founding narratives: Indo European, Homeric, Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, Arthur, and Germanic, Jeffersonian; and they all derive from the fight against the (middle) east (steppe and desert people), or their retaliation against Aristoracy (christianity, judaism, islam) and we have plenty of methods of argument: art, myth, literature, religion, philosophy, science, and law – And we still speak in a language comprised of three: latin-english for the intellectual class, ‘french-english’ for the middle class, and german-english for the common people, WE LACK THE NARRATIVE THAT EXPLAINS THE SYNTHESIS.
So that is the point I want to get across.
You cannot recreate christianity. The vulgar speech of the postmoderns, the ‘Church of TED’ and the ‘pseudoscientific academy/media/state complex, cannot be replaced with one institution.
We have a founding mythos.
We just need to talk about it scientifically, make pseudoscience illegal, and make suppression of scientific truth illegal. ( And that is what I have worked on for the past twenty years.) It turns out that it’s quite possible to use the law to demand warranties of due diligence on political speech(information) just as we demand warranties of due diligence on products and services. The law is exceptional at lie detection. We need only put it to work on detecting this category of lies.
The rest will sort itself out. We don’t have to DESIGN a solution. We have to design a PROHIBITION. The solution is already out there waiting to hatch.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 12:25:00 UTC
GROUP PRODUCTIVE OR PARASITIC STRATEGIES.
Each group practices some strategy from perfect cooperation (natural law) to perfect predation (conquest)
THIS GENERAL ORDER:
(which makes people pissed but its simply demonstrably true)
The West(utopian cooperation),
The Hindus(benevolent cooperation),
The Chinese(corporeal cooperation),
The Gypsies(parasitism on property and commons of others),
Jews(parasitism on the commons, and informational commons of others),
The Muslims (parasitism on property, commons, and informational commons of others).
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 09:33:00 UTC
THE DECIDABILITY OF NATURAL LAW
1) Man -> Biological Necessity – biological instinct for reciprocity (positive-purchase of options on future cooperation, neutral-exchange of cooperation, and negative-retaliatory at high expense, for violation of reciprocity.) This is ‘objective morality: natural law.
2) Normative Institutions -> man evolves normative institutions that we call ‘morals’. These morals vary from group to group because each group constructs various ‘contracts’ (habits) that we call norms, on top of objective morality. These habits attempt to construct a market of sorts suitable for the solution of certain cultural, demographic, and geographic problems. (marriage and inheritance habits being the easiest examples to study). Property rights evolved in concert with (a) division of labor and development of tools, built capital and territorial property, (b) inheritance of those assets, and (c) tribal, clan, village, extended family, family, and absolute nuclear family structures. ( Private property increases with class (independence).)
3) Formal Institutions -> the formal standardization (think of property rights registered in law as a standardization of weights and measures that facilitate the ‘fit’ of cooperation and the means of dispute resolution upon the failure of cooperation.
4) Logical Decidability -> the method of commensurability by reduction to natural law, when formal law fails, or normative morality fails, because of differences in local contractual assumptions. In other words, natural law provides a means of commensurability across normative and formal institutional contracts, just as the natural common law provides a standard of decidability between private contracts.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 09:15:00 UTC
BERENS ON PROPERTARIANISM AND THE RED QUEEN
by James Augustus Berens
(flawless)(insightful)(definitions)
The Red Queen Hypothesis in the Natural History of Human Kind: competing human groups seeking to profit via the production of asymmetries in information and violence
Thusly, from an evolutionary perspective, we see the development of human institutions as an evolutionary arm-race between competing, and co-evolving human social groups. However, the co-evolution has been asymmetrical due to differing geographies, historical particularities (path-dependent pressures), and class distributions leading to differential investments in institutional portfolios or what we call group-evolutionary strategies.
Propertarianism seeks to solve the problem of history (the evolutionary-arms race in seeking profit through asymmetrical violence and information) through the moral application of organized violence and testimony, prohibiting theft, fraud, parasitism and predation, leaving man no choice but meritocratic competition in markets for association, reproduction, production, (moral) violence and (warrantied) information.
That is, in more general terms, propertarians seek the transcendence of man through the incremental suppression of parasitism and predation in all social domains.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-28 00:15:00 UTC