NON RATIONAL IDEAS
“If you persist in the illusion that either the enlightenment vision of equality of ability limited only by will, or the postmodern vision of equality limited only by environment, then you are, in fact, non-rational, unscientific. “
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-10 09:25:00 UTC
REASON AND FACT ARE INSUFFICIENT FOR PERSUASION: BECAUSE MYTH, MYSTICISM, AND FALSEHOOD ARE MORE COMFORTABLE TRUTHS.
(Profound)
We can learn from history that allegorical mythology was converted to factual description by taking advantage of the desire for certainty, and inventing the scriptural religions – despite the obervable and logical contradiction of mystical statements with reality of experience.
We can observe the continuing human desire for marxism, communism, socialism and redistributive social democracy despite its irrefutable logical impossibility, despite its universal failure, and despite our scientific knowledge of human behavior.
We can observe that humans desire to believe the many contradictory falsehoods in Postmodern thought that form the current progressive ideology, and which is taught in our schools as the civic religion of the state.
None if this should give us confidence that reason and fact will prevail, or that people desire reason and fact. Evidence is to the contrary.
Progressivism, freudianism, postmodernism, and marxism are – as Hayek warned us – a new mysticism ushered in by Marx (1848) and Freud (1902AD), just as Zoroaster (~1800BC), Abraham (~1800BC), Jesus, Peter and Paul (<~50BC) ushered in ages of mysticism for political purposes.
And we are, thanks to them, and thanks to human desires, despite our progress in the physical sciences, living in an age of regressive, pervasive, social mysticism.
That is the evidence.
Hayek suggested that future generations would see this as an age of mysticism. But there is little evidence of that in history. Instead, generations are perfectly happy to persist the social narrative and the scientific and economic narrative as if they were independent frames of reference for describing human history.
Property, truth, and reason are aristocratic values and virtues, and their dominance in any culture the result of the organized application of violence by aristocrats to protect themselves from the ignorance, mysticism, and desires of the many.
That humans benefit from aristocratic virtues and values is evidentiary. That they will voluntarily adopt aristocratic virtues and values is contrary to all evidence.
And membership in aristocratic rationalism REQUIRES that we observe and respect that evidence.
If you persist in the illusion that either the enlightenment vision of equality of ability limited only by will, or the postmodern vision of equality limited only by environment, then you are, in fact, non-rational, unscientific.
Reason, property rights, and aristocratic virtues and values will exist only where a minority is willing to use violence to impose them on an unwilling population more desirous of mysticism and mental comfort than objective truth.
Violence is the highest virtue, and the greatest asset one can possess. Everything else is just rhetorical justification to obtain property rights at a discount. And that is not aristocratic: it is fraud.
Curt Doolittle
Kiev
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-10 04:53:00 UTC
SIGH.
Veronika just pretended she was an ignorant american who cant speak Russian so that she could smoke in a no smoking area.
🙁
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-03 11:48:00 UTC
Best Editorial Photo of 2013 So Far.
(Snowden reading about himself in the paper. )
I don’t support Manning because he exposed our overseas people to danger, and he was a soldier at the time which at least a minority of us understand must not violate certain trusts of the system, while maintaining vigilance on the trusts of individuals who are sanctioned with the right to kill and destroy. And it did nothing but embarrass the government by showing just what an incompetent bureaucracy it is. Snowden on the other hand, very different content and consequence entirely.
Source date (UTC): 2013-06-30 05:04:00 UTC
ITS POSTMODERNISM, NOT SOCIALISM [A]ll generals try to fight the last war. And it seems like all our libertarian intellectuals try to fight central control: socialism. Which is … fighting the last war. A war that we won, by the way, at least against the statist intellectuals. The strategic, political and economic war was won by conservatives. Not by us. Conservatives speak in moral, not analytical language. NAMES MATTER They are shortcuts for ideas and socialism is a dead idea. It has been replaced by postmodernism – an attack on our system of liberty that is correctly termed egalitarian aristocracy. Rothbard and Mises dont matter in the debate between Postmodernism and Egalitarian Aristocracy. Rothbard is wrong on ethics and Mises on Praxeology. Because they ignore the necessity of high trust in making liberty possible. THE CURRENT BATTLE IS AGAINST THE IRRATIONAL [P]ostmodernism – the equivalent of a state religion for empires – is predicated on the same degree of falsehood as was Marx and the labor theory of value. Postmodernism is ideological as was socialism. But instead of trying to argue that socialism is moral and scientific – which we disproved – it borrows from Abrahamic and Zoroastrian theology, which uses the strategy of chanting desirable but patent falsehoods. Whereas conservatives suffer because the form of conservatism is arational, even if its content is beneficial. Postmodern content, like continental philosophy, is irrational and its content economically destructive. But it is wrapped in pseudo rational language that attempts to obscure its deception through emotional and moral loading as well as linguistic complexity. If something cannot be described as human actions, whereupon each action is subject to the test of the rational actor and rational incentives, then it is either incomplete, false, or deception. Postmodernism is deception Libertarians must fight intellectual battles and conservatives, who vastly outnumber us, must fight moral and political battles. But we cannot perform our part of the division of labor if we fight the wrong battle. And socialism is a dead horse. Our ideological battle is postmodernism, post-post, and all the derivative attempts to restore the communal, static, equalitarian, dysgenic poverty of the pre-aristocratic societies. The silly distractions provided by Heritage, Cato, Mises, FEI rely on the failed assumption that liberty is a universal desire. When the data demonstrates that universally, women vote less diversely than men and favor totalitarian equality that is natural to their breeding strategy. And incrementally all democratic societies must incrementally adopt totalitarian equalitarianism under the female vote. [T]he battle is not socialism. The answer is not anarchy. The only solution we have is property rights and the guarantee of violence if deprived of them. The only security against the necessity and expense if violence is to undermine the postmodern ideology and feminism. It does not matter if other groups seek redistributive or communal ends if we employ a political system that allows them to operate as a class, and us to operate as a class. In that political system we can negotiate exchanges with that class. We must understand that this creates a market for trading that is not structurally different from the market for goods and services. Dictatorship gives the majority communalists the advantage, and the free market gives us the advantage. Since it is illogical to ask either side to suffer the advantage if the other, the only compromise position is to create institutions that facilitate cooperation between classes with disparate interests. Hoppe has provided a means of reducing or eliminating state bureaucracy and its attendant monopoly. But the question of how we cooperate with those who have polarized interests had not been solved. Curt Doolittle, Kiev
FALSEConservatives and Sewars – The NYT 1) It doesn’t follow that a one time expense, followed by fees for use is the same as redistribution that creates dependencies. the first requires action, the second does not. THe free-rider problem is different from the progressive-fees problem. Free riding is a negative signal that says free riding is a ‘right’, progressive fees illustrate that this is not a ‘right’, but a ‘charity’. This sends ‘truthful’ signals to both parties. And truthful signals are necessary to prohibit involuntary transfers. 2) It doesn’t follow that investment in a commons is the same as state-mandated redistribution. If that was true, there wouldn’t be factories, universities, churches and roads. 3) It doesn’t follow that investment in a universal commons is not conservative. Only that to do so out of charity at a cost, is different than to do so out of opportunity for profit. 4) it doesn’t follow that taxes must be levied other than fees. (They don’t need to be.) 5) It doesn’t follow that taxes should be put into a general pool and open to use OTHER than the purpose levied. (they shouldn’t) 6) It doesn’t follow that the monopolistic state is more efficient than competitive private administration (it’s not) 7) It doesn’t follow that funding the bureaucracy doesn’t produce externalities that are of intolerable cost. (it does – one of which is forcing us to spend time defending ourselves against other people’s political movements, as they seek to control the predatory state) [C]onservatism is a metaphorical language. Conservatives have one ‘curse word’ with multiple meanings: “Socialism” – state control of property and production and b) “Democratic redistributive socialism” – state ownership of the proceeds from limited private control of property. This ‘curse word’ is a catch-all for ‘those people that use the state to destroy aristocratic individualism and the status signals that I get from individualism regardless of my rank. And this is important. Conservatives do not feel victims because they obtain positive status signals from other conservatives regardless of their economic rank. This is obtainable in human societies only through religious conformity and it’s consequences, or economic conformity and its consequences. Conservatives do not object to investment in the commons. Conservatism places higher value on delaying gratification than immediate gratification – the formation of moral capital – which is an inarticulate expression meaning training human beings to enforce a prohibition on involuntary transfers of all kinds. Conservatism is the argument that we should not fund the expansionary bureaucratic state that out of deterministic necessity subverts our property rights and therefore our freedom, and therefore our ‘character’ – a euphemism for the prohibition on involuntary transfers of all kinds – because it is our universal prohibition on involuntary transfers both within our families and tribes and without, that is the source of western exceptionalism: the high trust society. Our high trust society is unique because we CAN trust others to avoid involuntary transfers, because of the pervasive prohibition on involuntary transfer that we developed under Manorailism by demonstrating fitness needed to obtain land to rent. Partly as a rebellion against the Catholic Church, partly because the church forbid cousin marriage and granted women property rights, in order to break up the tribes and large land holding families. Partly as an ancient indo-european tradition of personal sovereignty in the nobility, which became a status signal, and, thankfully remains a status signal in conservatives. Small homogenous polities are redistributive. Large heterogeneous polities are not. This is because trust DECLINES in heterogeneous polities. And trust DECLINES in heterogeneous polities because of the different signals used by different groups, and the fact that signals in-group are ‘cheaper’ (discounted) that signals across groups with differing signals. A strong state in a small homogenous polity that functions as an extended family and therefore with high redistribution, is entirely possible. But by creating a powerful state in a heterogeneous polity, it becomes necessary and useful for people to compete via extra-market means using the state by seeking redistributions and limited monopoly (legal) rights in order to advance their signaling strategy. (Which is what Dr. Krugman does, daily – advance an alternative strategy. A strategy that he does not recognize is from the Ghetto. And would cause a return to the low trust society. And **IS*** right now, causing a return to the low trust society. Because the low trust society is natural to man. Thats why it exists everywhere but the aristocratic west.
ITS POSTMODERNISM, NOT SOCIALISM
All generals try to fight the last war. And it seems like all our libertarian intellectuals try to fight central control: socialism. Which is … fighting the last war.
A war that we won, by the way, at least against the statist intellectuals. The strategic, political and economic war was won by conservatives. Not by us. Conservatives speak in moral, not analytical language.
NAMES MATTER
They are shortcuts for ideas and socialism is a dead idea. It has been replaced by postmodernism – an attack on our system of liberty that is correctly termed egalitarian aristocracy.
Rothbard and Mises dont matter in the debate between Postmodernism and Egalitarian Aristocracy. Rothbard is wrong on ethics and Mises on Praxeology. Because they ignore the necessity of high trust in making liberty possible.
THE CURRENT BATTLE IS AGAINST THE IRRATIONAL
Postmodernism – the equivalent of a state religion for empires – is predicated on the same degree of falsehood as was Marx and the labor theory of value. Postmodernism is ideological as was socialism. But instead of trying to argue that socialism is moral and scientific – which we disproved – it borrows from Abrahamic and Zoroastrian theology, which uses the strategy of chanting desirable but patent falsehoods.
Whereas conservatives suffer because the form of conservatism is arational, even if its content is beneficial. Postmodern content, like continental philosophy, is irrational and its content economically destructive. But it is wrapped in pseudo rational language that attempts to obscure its deception through emotional and moral loading as well as linguistic complexity.
If something cannot be described as human actions, whereupon each action is subject to the test of the rational actor and rational incentives, then it is either incomplete, false, or deception.
Postmodernism is deception
Libertarians must fight intellectual battles and conservatives, who vastly outnumber us, must fight moral and political battles.
But we cannot perform our part of the division of labor if we fight the wrong battle.
And socialism is a dead horse. Our ideological battle is postmodernism, post-post, and all the derivative attempts to restore the communal, static, equalitarian, dysgenic poverty of the pre-aristocratic societies.
The silly distractions provided by Heritage, Cato, Mises, FEI rely on the failed assumption that liberty is a universal desire. When the data demonstrates that universally, women vote less diversely than men and favor totalitarian equality that is natural to their breeding strategy. And incrementally all democratic societies must incrementally adopt totalitarian equalitarianism under the female vote.
The battle is not socialism. The answer is not anarchy. The only solution we have is property rights and the guarantee of violence if deprived of them.
The only security against the necessity and expense if violence is to undermine the postmodern ideology and feminism.
It does not matter if other groups seek redistributive or communal ends if we employ a political system that allows them to operate as a class, and us to operate as a class.
In that political system we can negotiate exchanges with that class. We must understand that this creates a market for trading that is not structurally different from the market for goods and services. Dictatorship gives the majority communalists the advantage, and the free market gives us the advantage. Since it is illogical to ask either side to suffer the advantage if the other, the only compromise position is to create institutions that facilitate cooperation between classes with disparate interests.
Hoppe has provided a means of reducing or eliminating state bureaucracy and its attendant monopoly.
But the question of how we cooperate with those who have polarized interests had not been solved.
Curt Doolittle, Kiev
Source date (UTC): 2013-06-16 08:13:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Stephen-Hawking-cancel-his-2013-trip-to-Israel
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Stephen-Hawking-cancel-his-2013-trip-to-Israel
http://business.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978689427#.UYv_aC5jhZM.facebook(Reposted from a friend’s thread so that I don’t lose it.)
[NOTE: I don’t shop at A&F. I don’t like A&F because of the borderline child-porn that they market with. Even if it has been exceptionally successful identity for them to build their brand upon. And even if I think it’s excellent work: they found the intersection of the upper class pre-war, and inter-war aesthetic and contemporary sexuality. It’s just brilliant work. Really. Even if the memetic content was an accident, it’s brilliant. On the other hand, It’s glorified GAP clothing. But then, I wear Ralph Lauren almost exclusively for casual wear and if’s the same message for the older demographic.]
———– Original Post —————–
UM THIS ISN”T RIGHT
a) There is no shortage of clothing for ‘the poor’. The problem is just the opposite: donated clothing is usually useful only for sale as scrap cloth. And those in need are notoriously more selective about brands than are average consumers. (Seattle shelters have great stories to tell.) Unless it’s almost new and a top brand, it’s not valuable except as scrap.
b) All brands that sell at high prices protect their brand from dilution. There is nothing special about A&F that isn’t also done by Guccci and Ferrari. Or any other artificial scarcity created entirely by brand reputation and design aesthetic.
c) A&F creates artificial scarcity and increased quality in order to protect a brand that is in fact ONLY A BRAND – that sells cotton clothing for the Flirting and Mating Demographic that can be washed repeatedly in permanent press cycles – and as such is just an upscale version of The Gap.
Without this artificial scarcity and brand protection, what is basically just expensive college wear would be rapidly depreciated in the market.
SO
1) THERE IS NO SCARCITY OF DONATED CLOTHING and
2) THERE IS NO REASON FOR A&F TO ALLOW ITS CLOTHING INTO THE DISCOUNT CHANNEL UNLESS IT”S ACTUALLY “USED”. and
3) ECONOMICS would dicate that by creating artificial scarcity, those used A&F clothes that reach the donated channel will actually be in demand, and earn money for the thrift shops. (Just as certain men’s wool coats still do. I still have the same Brooks Brother’s wool overcoat that I bought at a thrift store in college.)
4) Economists would also argue (correctly) that such complaints are driven by an unwillingness to purchase these products at the market price. And given that these products obtain their increased value not from practical utility, but from Design, Aesthetic, and SOCIAL STATUS SIGNALS, then there are only two reasons to complain about A&Fs behavior. First, because you falsely understand the economy for discarded clothing, and second because you want to get a status symbol to wear that you don’t pay status symbol prices for. Neither of those are good reasons to advertise about yourself. The first is that you’re ignorant, the second is that you’re just trying to attack a brand in order to threaten them into giving you their brand at a discount.
There are plenty of evil brands to attack. The US Governemnt, the monopoly education system, our usurious debt-creating university systems, anyone in the finance and mortgage business, any packaged food company, the soft drink industry, the insurance industry, the music and movie industries, donut shops, fast food companies, the scams in the fitness industry, anything to do with dieting, and …. well, you get the idea.
That a brand tries to create higher profits by relying upon design, quality and artificial scarcity is not a reason to criticize [it. Just the opposite. It’s adding a venue for design to the contemporary mating ecology. ]
Source date (UTC): 2013-05-10 05:21:00 UTC