— “one of the central problems with the formation of any ‘society’ is providing men with the incentive to defend a commons.”—
“This point is missed by most. Modern men have become soft, voyeurs (porn, gaming and sports) neglecting the martial duties of manhood. Defense of our folk is vital to our survival. Universal suffrage and feminism represent a defensive failing.” — Howard Roarrk
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-29 11:30:00 UTC
We either all fight for liberty or we cannot possess it. I know many men would prefer to talk rather than fight. I know some of us would prefer to fight rather than talk. But liberty only can survive when we insure one another. There is no other insurer of it. And belief or desire is not action it is the avoidance of action.
A man. A plan. A purpose.
Truth.
Kill them all.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-28 08:18:00 UTC
every politically correct, false, dishonest, postmodern, propagandism is a lost opportunity for voluntary exchange.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-28 08:15:00 UTC
THIS IS HOW TO SAY IT:
The empathy necessary for cooperation invites suggestion. The harder we work at cooperation, the more empathy we must expend. The more trusting the more empathic. The more empathic a society the more vulnerable to suggestion, Ergo the greater suppression of suggestion is necessary for continuing trust expansion.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-25 01:36:00 UTC
THE CONTRACT OF ARISTOCRATIC COOPERATION
We prefer to cooperate morally – meaning beneficially – with you.
If we cannot cooperate beneficially with you on fully moral terms – meaning without parasitism, then we have only four choices:
1) Pay the cost of your parasitism and suffer the consequences, in exchange for avoiding the cost of defending against your parasitism.
2) Boycott you and bearing the costs of boycotting you in exchange for avoiding the cost of transforming you into a moral individual or group.
3) Colonize you and bear the cost of evolving you, in exchange for creating a valued member of mankind.
4) Conquering you and bearing the cost of exterminating you in exchange for freedom from your parasitism.
So, you have a choice: limit your actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, constrained to externalities under the same conditions.
Or we will eventually colonize and reform you, or conquer and exterminate you.
You may have the ambition of mere survival. Our ambition is to make mankind moral. For it is only in moral mankind that the evil and immoral are exterminated forever.
– Aristocratia –
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-19 10:07:00 UTC
SYNONYMS FOR HUMANISM
Pathological Altruism (a Psychologism)
Contra-empirical cooperative-option purchasing, (Propertarianism)
Institutionalized Hazard Creation (Institutional Propertarianism)
Irrational Moral Optimism, (Rationalism)
Faith in Christian Love. (Moralism)
Current Discounting to Externalize Future Costs (Theft by inaction)
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-17 11:30:00 UTC
Trade routes. + Byzantium like Persia was conquered and slowly degraded. Why did they fail? Trust.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-17 06:52:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699848882021339136
Reply addressees: @Vitex_DR @AidanTierian @Bidenshairplugs
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699808482845831168
IN REPLY TO:
@Simpsonito9999
@AidanTierian @Bidenshairplugs @curtdoolittle mm how arabs live 500 years ago, and how Europeans live?The “nicer” places were in Middle East
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699808482845831168
If you simply look at this single set:
{
Existence (action)
Biology (physical limits)
Psychology (mental limits)
Testimony (truth limits and the logics and instruments )
Ethics (cooperation)
Family (reproduction)
Sociology (norms)
Law(dispute resolution)
Politics (commons production)
Group Evolutionary Strategy (competition)
War (conflict/dispute resolution)
Technology (recipes)
Education (training)
Aesthetics (art)
}
How is that different from the the following sets?
{Psychology and Sociology}
{Economics and Politics}
{Religion, Philosophy, and Morality}
{Law and Legislation}
{Strategy and Logistics}
{History and Literature}
{Science and Engineering}
And how is that different from this set?
{
Metaphysics
Epistemology
Ethics
Politics
Aesthetics
}
It’s very different different world when everything is fully integrated into a single hierarchical theory of knowledge: it’s far harder to error or lie.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-16 11:47:00 UTC
Earlier civilizations could not make use of cooperation – exchange – as the source of information by which to collect and use information in vast numbers, because the ‘drag’ of the lower classes was too high. In the industrial revolution we experienced such a leap in productivity that as a consequence, consumption could increase dramatically, because the lower classes need only trade labor (their only possession – a commodity), in exchange for the new cheap consumption.
It is increasingly obvious that that central problem for all civilizations is eugenics.
I did not expect to come to this conclusion.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-16 05:36:00 UTC
IS CHRISTIAN LOVE IMPORTANT, OR NOT? GOOD OR BAD?
(promoted to post)
(Now that it’s the next day and I’m not under the influence (as much). )
“Christian Love” refers to the unconditional extension of kinship love (cost-bearing) to non-kin. This concept exists in the literature. It is just appropriately mangled by church rhetoric.
This idea was an innovation at the time. We take it for granted now. But in the ancient period, at the beginning of the decline of the Roman period, and the beginning of the medieval, it was an invention. We could actually make the case that it is christian love in competition with aristocratic egalitarianism that defines the medieval period.
We take this concept of the devotion of Jesus/Ascentic-Monts and Saints/Mother-Theresa, for granted, but it was just as much an innovative technology as was reason.
Now. At present we know the strategy originated in slave morality. And that it causes unification in the slave populations and prevents division within them. But what we didn’t account for was that in combination with near-breeding and property rights, chivalry, and the incentive to imitate aristocracy, that it would produce high trust and economic velocity.
Once combined with the re-emergence of science under Bacon in the 13th century, and the Hansa’s recreation of the incentives of the trading society of the greek Aegean, and roman mediterranean in the north sea, that
My question is whether all of this is nonsense, and that christian love was nothing but a detriment, and that Martial (not marital – marriage, but martial as in military) was all that mattered. This is the the premise behind Mithraism which heavily influenced the state’s design of institutional christianity. Mitraism being dominant in the armies where brotherly love was constructed as part of the intitatic brotherhood of soldiers that goes back as far as we havre evidence of human warafare.
It’s also lost on us today (and it is why I illustrate argumentative technique) that the social science of the ancient world was the study of religion – a formal improvement upon myth and oral tradition. And that people investigated religion the way we use comparative law, comparative government, and scientific analysis.
The religious era was a great transformation of mankind.
The Just as was the invention of reason – and the counter to reason: in Augustine and Muhammed.
Just as was the invention of experimental science from Bacon to Smith and Hume – and to a lesser degree Jefferson – and the counter to experimental science was german, french, and jewish rationalism.
Just as was the invention of evolutionary physical and social science by Darwin, Spencer, and Maxwell – and the counter to evolutionary science by Freud, Marx, Cantor, Keynes, Rawls.
Just as SHOULD HAVE BEEN the evolution of the unification of truth, philosophy, science, biology, morality, and law, but that failed. Brouwer(math), bridgman(science), mises(economics), popper(philosophy), hayek(law).
But that revolution failed, and the postmodern revolution outpaced our development of science through about 1990-2000 (my generation of thinkers). And fully ensconced pseudoscience and wishful thinking, as well as outright deceit, using suggestion by loading,f raming, overloading and partial information to convert women and the underclasses just as christianity had done milennia before.
So my question is, christian love a ‘bad’ technology, that merged slave morality of the jews and the soldier morality of mithraism (soldiers are also slaves) into a weak approximation of warrior love (aristocratic egalitarianism).
While we know there is but one truth, we still require a spectrum of truth necessary for different externalities produced by our actions.
Just as we need different levels of educational argument.
Just as we need different levels of ethical argument.
Just as we need different levels of technical argument.
Do we also need different levels of love?
Or is martial love enough, if all men are engaged in martial commons?
How do we extend high trust to non kin?
Is it through:
– Martial love among warriors and aristocracy? (right)
– Commercial love of those who engage in commerce? (libertarian)
– Christian love among women, children and ‘slaves’ (proles)? (left)
This is my question.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-15 07:43:00 UTC