Theme: Decidability

  • Replying to @PoisonAero @frattinicaue @JFGariepy I don’t do ideology. I do law.

    Replying to @PoisonAero @frattinicaue @JFGariepy

    I don’t do ideology. I do law. What you folks do with law is up to you. But ask me to decide a question, I can do so using the law. It’s just that some of those decisions are unpleasant. …

    … And I answered the questions according to that law. Not according to whether it’s normative, pleasant, or acceptable. Just whether decidable (true).

    The law does not appeal for your permission. It just is the law whether you like it or not. And my work on law suppresses untruth.

    That said, (a) I was laughing because I found the circumstance humorous, absurd, and intellectually ridiculous. (b) I teach and practice radical intolerance for ignorance, error, bias, sophism, and deceit and laugher is more pleasant than anger. (c) I don’t feign respect.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-09 22:30:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/51474531_10156966669717264_426906834

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/51474531_10156966669717264_426906834

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/51474531_10156966669717264_4269068342557409280_o_10156966669712264.jpg GO BIG OR GO HOME. ;)Nick DahlheimYou can’t count or build, Curt Doolittle….that pyramid isn’t big enough or beautiful enough….I think you’re off by 99,000,988 skulls….Feb 6, 2019, 12:33 AMNick Dahlheim😂Feb 6, 2019, 12:33 AMStephen ThomasGotta pump those numbers up!Feb 6, 2019, 12:38 AMTimmy MatlockI don’t have time to bleach all those.Feb 6, 2019, 12:38 AMJames Dmitro MakienkoWhat should we build first – the wall or the pyramid?Feb 6, 2019, 12:47 AMRoss Michael IIThat’s a good start…Feb 6, 2019, 12:48 AMJWarren PrescottThis is the Turkey-Syria Border wall. It’s recently finished. I’m sure these contractors are anxious to start a new project and we have a massive military budget.Feb 6, 2019, 12:50 AMDarren HowellFeb 6, 2019, 12:55 AMJoseph KelleyYou’ve gone over skulls and heads as currency, but have you discussed whether or not teeth as a sub-currency could be viable?Feb 6, 2019, 1:03 AMDarren HowellRum, Whiskey, or Mead??Feb 6, 2019, 1:03 AMPhilip ChristopherDarren Howell Yes.Feb 6, 2019, 1:08 AMDarren HowellJoseph Kelley a full mouth has 32 teeth… so, how many teeth to equal the value of 1 skull? 32? Or some other value?Feb 6, 2019, 1:09 AMTobias DarbyIt’s a start…Feb 6, 2019, 1:54 AMTobias DarbyToo easy to create forgeries…Feb 6, 2019, 1:55 AMJoshua D. HickoxFeb 6, 2019, 1:57 AMSolomon VolodymyrI wonder how many years of messing around and debating with libtards it took for them to build this… oh none because it’s a dictatorship that actually gets things done.Feb 6, 2019, 1:59 AMJoseph KelleyI’ve got no idea how it would work. That’s why I’m appealing to greater minds than my own.Feb 6, 2019, 2:24 AMNick DahlheimFinally, we have a monetary policy that is smarter than that of Helicopter Ben. :PFeb 6, 2019, 3:13 AMJohn John StephensEh, a shrunken head might be better. LOLFeb 6, 2019, 4:54 AMJeffrey ElvinIts not much but it is honest work.Feb 6, 2019, 7:44 AMGO BIG OR GO HOME. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-06 00:27:00 UTC

  • (in progress) TALEB’S ARGUMENTS A1 – Categories(and paradigms) we find useful (p

    (in progress)

    TALEB’S ARGUMENTS

    A1 – Categories(and paradigms) we find useful (predictable) consist of regularities (marginal indifferences in determinism).

    A2 – Within those frames (paradigms) variation is noise not signal.

    A3 – Outliers are unpredictable (within any given frame (Paradigm)) because we lack and do not track, and may not possibly track, information that will cause outliers (irregularities).

    A4 – Singular or Rare Outliers are more determinant (signal) than all Regularities (noise).

    A5 – Information necessary to predict an outlier from within a given frame (paradigm) increases logarithmically.

    A6 – Prediction then requires attempts to break the system in order to identify candidate outliers.

    A7 – Returns on outliers (signal) then are disproportionate to returns on regularities (noise).

    A8 – Limits to prediction are permanent constraints.

    A9 – investment in risk mitigation is preferable to extreme growth (caution in policy).

    (TRUE)

    B1 – Any system subject to stresses that do not break it, will result in stronger systems. (any biological organism will divert resources to stresses(durability/risk) rather than growth(fragility/opportunity)).

    (TRUE)

    C1 – Via Negativa (falsification, stress) not justification (via-positiva) provides empirical knowledge (survivability of knowledge in market competition.)

    (TRUE)

    D1 – Military epistemology is the most scientific because of the risk and warranty (

    TRUE)

    E1 – Because of various cognitive biases, we do not know ourselves if we speak truthfully without ‘skin in the game’ (warranty).

    (TRUE)

    ALSO:

    a) These constitute a restatement of scientific epistemology: Popper’s critical rationalism and Critical preference.)

    b) these constitute an investment strategy we call ‘contrarian’)

    c) this extends contrarianism to making small bets on dramatic outliers.

    TIDBIT

    Nassim discovered this when writing investment models.

    I discovered this when writing AI’s for games. Same problem.

    The problem is the information necessary to eliminate determinism rapidly exceeds the information available to the system. Thus producing noise within deterministic limits.

    D1 – “White” people’s academy produces intellectuals (honest, intelligent) yet idiots (at personal scale), where the Fat Tony’s of the world (cunning) outperform them (at personal scale)”

    REVERSAL:

    D1R – the purpose of greco roman education was to produce teachers, administrators judges, governors. The purpose of church (european) was to produce teachers, administrators, judges, governors. The purpose of enlightenment education was to produce teachers, administrators, business people, officers, judges, and governors. The purpose of Chinese education was to produce teachers, administrators, judges. Both east and west had martial, administrative, and labor classes (tripartism). Modern and Ancient europe, china/korea/japan, were able to produce good (low corruption) government. The Byzantines were able to do so. The church wrote it’s own history but it was terribly corrupt. But the semitic world could never produce a high trust polity or bureaucracy. Whereas germanic peoples above the hajnal line produced hight trust POLITIES at every level.

    D2R – Of the supposed islamic accomplishments, all but a tiny fraction were produced by the Persians (iranians, caucasians).

    DR3 – It is one thing to sit in the axis of four contentinents, the med, red sea/nile, persian gulf, caspian, black sea, and tigris-euprates, and tax trade, yet produce no contribution to civilization. And quite another thing to live at the ends of the continent at the limits of the bronze age, and develop the very opposite of the middle eastern countries:

    Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Rule of Law, continuous technological evolution, higher calorie diets, higher agrarian productivity. the corporation, universal Commons, high trust, naturalism, reason, empiricism, science. markets in all aspects of life.

    Writing is the result of taxation, and taxation the result of trade, and trade the result of the combination of territorial obstacles (resistance) fed by waterways (highways).

    Information results from that same trade.

    But what do different cultures do with that information?

    The middle east studied nonsense. Even their so called astronomy was merely for the purpose of astrology.

    Why coudlnt’ the middle east survive into modernity?

    Demographics.

    SUMMARY

    Reflecting upon Aesop’s Fable “Hermes and the Arabs”

    GROUP DIFFERENCES

    1 – The principle difference between ethnic groups is the size of the underclass in relation to the pareto-effective class.

    2 – the “pareto effective class” refers to those able to organize a population by means of incentives, to produce goods services or information sufficient to provide sufficient returns to maintain and adapt that voluntary organization by means of incentives.

    2 – The potential prosperity of a group is determined by the size of the genetic underclass (below 93/95) in relation to the genetic middle class (above what we call 106 – the ability to repair a machine, or to learn by self guided reading of instructions.).

    3 – Continuous reduction of the relative underclasses is necessary to remain a comparative advantage without dependence upon the luck of technological innovation (low handing fruit problem.)

    4- The decline is not linear but stepped geometrically, with 95/97 creating a cliff effect. The improvement is not linear but stepped, with each 3pts to 7pts or so providing geometric returns.

    5 – All population groups taught naturalism and operationalism (science) will increase in ability, by as much as a standard deviation, but all populations scale equally, retaining the same comparative advantage.

    1- IQ is but one of at least six personality traits that appear to originate in physical structures and processes in the brain: particularly reward systems on the one hand, and physical density(white and grey) and organization(compartmental vs integrated) on the other, and particularly the distinction between the division of labor of the hemispheres (predator-actor) prey(defender), and the female(solipsistic) vs male bias (autistic).

    2- IQ measures an aggregate of different functions making use of the same cortical layers and therefore which tend to scale together, but which are individually measurable, and are measured by statisticians.

    3- IQ measures rate of pattern recognition and rate of learning across those functions.

    4- IQ may permit creativity but does permit reduction in systemic error, rent, parasitism, and predation.

    5- Demonstrated IQ can be artificially improved through training but will eventually normalize (under market pressure)

    6- Demonstrated IQ does slowly increase in most of us at about one point every three years (assuming its exercise) – the cumulative effect over time which is not insignificant.

    7- Demonstrated IQ is affected by at least g (general intelligence), short term memory, general knowledge, and mal-incentive to defend prior investments, in addition to three categories of cognitive biases: memory, decision, and social.

    8- Demonstrated IQ in the Academy grants one access to non-market activity, in exchange for not seizing opportunities. (long game).

    9- Populations that select for Demonstrated IQ for non-market activities can produce bureaucracies by doing under sufficient genetic homogeneity (trust).

    10- Heterogeneous low IQ polities cannot produce sufficient returns to fund a sufficient body of incorruptible extra-market personnel because market demand for corruption is impossible to exit (india, south america, middle east).

    11- The only possibility is the increase in the middle class which exports non-corruption since everyone is a potential customer, just as in free-marriage societies everyone is a potential relative, just as in free law societies, everyone is a potential appellant. just as in classical liberal societies since everyone is a potential voter.

    In other words, the middle eastern peoples destroyed every great civilization of the ancient world, and continues to attempt to destroy ours.

    Taleb is actually telling us we should act like middle easterners, despite their failure over three thousand years, to compete with the agrarians, their metals, and their tools, and their TRUST OF ONE ANOTHER.

    ETHNIC ORIGINS

    Northern Europeans are north west asians from north of the black sea. (slav, finn, scandinavian, germanic, celtic, italic, atlantic.)

    South eastern Europeans are either from west of the black sea (old europe) or anatolia (hittites etc).

    Iranic (caucuses) are south west asians.

    Turkics (mongolians) are eastern west asians)

    (Europeans have the greatest neoteny other than far east asia.)

    The Assyrians were west asians.

    The Phoenicians were west asians (persian gulf area).

    The Persians were west asians.

    The jews and palestinians are closely related to the palestinians and the arabs.

    (Arguably the jews a gone, and exist only as mixed race peoples).

    The Arabs are afro-asiatics and speak an afro asiatic language. (horn of africa/red sea,yemen)

    The arabs consist of north and southern distributions.

    The north africans are west asians.

    The africans (at least three major branches) are africans.

    PRODUCTIVITY

    ONLY REASON NOT TO GUT TALEB BEFORE NOW WAS UTILITARIAN.

    Now it’s time to take him down. Let moly make the correlative argument and I’ll make the causal argument and explain what taleb got wrong, why his project is a failure, and why he writes as he does in the grammars that he does, and why he ridicules the people that he does.



    I am going to enjoy increasing the scope of my reputation by gutting Taleb’s pseudoscience, and in doing so explain why a certain tribe commits so much evil.



    I wanna talk to Molly about doing a smack down on Taleb. The community would benefit from this discussion. I would like to cover taleb’s original insight, and how he is applying it outside it’s limits, and in doing so largely deflate his IQ position, illustrate why he’s just talking pseudoscience to justify his racial biases, while reinforcing his via-negativa argument as a general rule. It’s not that difficult but it will be better to have molly’s popularity and my arguments together because they will flatten Taleb on this issue.

    Can anyone contact someone who can try to arrange this?



    (From Twitter: putting an end to Nassim Taleb’s insight, edited a bit for clarity)

    Nassim (all), IQ describes a curve. East and west are superior for having culled underclass reproduction, while center have failed to cull underclass reproduction.

    So, to reverse your statement: “I can understand loving one’s people, and apologizing for one’s people, but denying the science is quite sinister.”

    Other ‘peoples’ are ‘inferior’ (meaning poorer) socially, economically, politically, and militarily because of Pareto problem created by the size of their lower classes in relation to their upper classes. Hence continuous middle eastern failure under underclass religion and rule. Despite the wealth of possessing the optimum trade routes, the middle east was unable to fix this problem.

    Stephan is Correct. IQ (meaning, the relative size of genetic classes as measured by rate of learning), is the MOST important factor in group wealth. PERIOD. This is because trust and trustworthiness increase in concert with cognitive ability.

    Nassim: Your ‘admiration’ for a certain class of individuals is unscientific as well: they and their behavior are why no large corporations, and only smaller (inefficient) organizations. Our ‘clerical’ education and society, is why we HAVE large (efficient) corporations. In other words YOU ARE DESPERATELY WRONG. Relative wealth = demographics.

    Nassim, so if you hadn’t taken up this particular issue it wouldn’t have made me pay attention to, and understood, the catastrophic error in your conflation of individual speculators and the political orders in which wealth potential of such people is possible. YOU ARE WRONG.

    Nassim: The west, despite beginning with Aryanism (sovereignty and tort law), and Aristotelianism (empiricism), SURVIVED the first wave of Semiticism (Abrahamism) because of genetic reserves. Every other civilization that has tolerated Semiticism has been destroyed by the continuous expansion of the underclasses.We are in the process of not-surviving the second wave of Semiticism.

    Nassim: So I just unfortunately realized that your FatTony et all, sensibility is just Semitic hatred of high trust peoples who produce their extraordinary wealth by the production of COMMONS. And this insight, if widely understood will destroy your reputation even further.

    You think that our high-trust people, are ‘suckers’ when it is precisely that social order and those values that allow us to produce the commons that make high returns possible, while those historical peoples you (out of racial bias) favor, were NEVER ABLE TO, because of ‘petty profiting’ that you favor.



    RE: Nassim Nicholas Taleb ON HIS IQ RANT

    I will still take this debate, but not interwoven with twitter-spam. (a) g measures what we attempt to measure (b) chance of success corresponds to a distribution of traits, plus the utility of those traits, in service of the population under the bell curve within 1 SD.

    Those of us with exceptional abilities favor working with our region of the bell curve – puzzles – that are of INDIRECT value rather than DIRECT value. WE HAVE KNOWN THIS FOR DECADES.

    Lastly, we go to university etc to avoid the marketplace (‘work’). This is the value of higher education: to provide a non-market means of identifying selection. In this sense your criticism is correct. In the sense that you’re criticizing IQ measurements, you’re WRONG …PERIOD.

    All of this is OLD NEWS. If you want to encourage people to prosper by pairing their skills to those necessary to serve the market that they understand, then yes. If you mean very bright people are fooled by sophism, innumeracy, pseudoscience – then yes.

    But likewise, just as it has taken you many years to migrate from the positivist search for mathematical discovery of units of informational prediction, to the demand for warranty of due diligence (falsification), you too are vulnerable to innumeracy, pseudoscience, ‘literature’.



    TALEB, LIKE SOROS AND ROTHBARD TELLS A HALF TRUTH TO MASK THE SAME PROFOUND LIE.

    They hate white people and white civilization. They gleefully treat our high trust as an opportunity to make us victims of their lack of it. They profit from our trust. They ridicule the very people who DO NOT SEIZE immoral opportunities as fools. Rather than this being the very reason why we have prosperity and they do not.

    The people of truth vs the people of lies.



    LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR: “TALEB’S PROJECT FAILED.”

    And it failed because he is a racist against whites, and that is the origin of his entire argument. He hates the moral people that he profited from scamming.



    REGARDING TALEB’S IDENTITY CRISIS

    Druz, Jew, Syrian, Jordanian, Palestinian, … they’re ALMOST as close to each other as northern europeans are to each other.

    Look:

    … NORTH

    … South Caucasus, Anatolian, Iranian (North West Asians)

    … <-overlap with->

    … CENTER

    … Mesopotamians, Levantines (South west eurasians)

    … <-overlap with->

    … SOUTH

    … North Semites, South Semites ( middle easterns:

    … horn of africa, yemen, red sea, arabian peninsula)

    Ashkenazi went thru a bottleneck after selecting for literacy, and they seem to have saved their rabbis first, every time they were punished for usury and conspiracy with the state against the people, and they consistently pushed reproduction up thru the rabbis – and that’s all it took.

    Adaptation may be slow but expression of bottlenecks (eugenics) is not. Six generations and miracles can happen.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-01 13:49:00 UTC

  • “I learned years ago to think in terms of what would be beneficial rather that w

    —“I learned years ago to think in terms of what would be beneficial rather that whats good or bad. Good and bad can be argued all day long but determining what is beneficial is quite simple and difficult to argue against.

    I believe that change in paradigm is aligned perfectly with reciprocity, as reciprocity(according to my understanding) is finding the most beneficial compromise between two or more parties.

    What people consider to be “moral” is subjective as it varies from culture to culture and has changed throughout time. I haven’t seen evidence to support the idea that there is such a thing as objective or absolute morality since it is subject to change.

    Perhaps the notion of defining morality or determining what is moral and amoral is a thing of the past and should be updated to include the most beneficial practices for all parties involved.

    One sided thinking in the extreme has led to most if not all the social issues that plague humanity, in my opinion of course – I’m sure there are plenty who would disagree(in their state of one sided thinking ;p)”—David McCarthy


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-30 14:14:00 UTC

  • MORE ON ADAM AND CURT’S DISCUSSION ON METAPHYSICS. (QUESTIONS FOR METAPHYSICISTS

    MORE ON ADAM AND CURT’S DISCUSSION ON METAPHYSICS. (QUESTIONS FOR METAPHYSICISTS)

    —“…substance…”—

    Your [Adam] approach is extremely useful in demarcation of legal decidability. It is the physical equivalent of the decidability provided by potential interest and demonstrated interest. So as you taught me recently Aristotle is an exceptional framework for cognition at human scale, and while we may know post human scale both micro and macro, that only assists us in removing falsehood and error from decisions at human scale. We are only capable of acting at human scale and cooperating at human scale…. So Aristotle really did learn about the universe from writing the athenian constitution….

    —“…underlies…”–

    Operationalize that term and …

    —“Real Metaphysics – How we ought to think. If you are actually thinking, then you are so constrained that you cannot help but think such and such, which we call “metaphysics”. This there is a form of necessity that is neither logical nor physical, but which underlies both.”—

    I don’t know what metaphysics means – other than ‘Aristotle’s failed attempt to operationalize the brain’.

    So ‘fitting’ is simply error. And any talk of “metaphysics’ is fitting. We can instead ask, given his ignorance, what categories of phenomenon was he seeking to explain?

    He could not explain the function of the brain, and the relationship between that lower function, and the means of calculation and communication we call language. (serial, continuous, recursive, disambiguation, resulting in sufficiency for a contract for meaning.)

    I know the following.

    1 – the natural world exists (reality) and persists independent of our thought and action, and follows simple deterministic rules from which complexity arises, including the complexity of near chaos due to the hierarchy of possible operations and near-infinite scale. I know this because I am unwilling to act contrary to that condition in any manner that would test that condition; and I observe this in everyone else; Beyond that is meaningless because only action determines outcomes.

    2 – to be able to act in this world and capture calories we have evolved a great deal of memory with which to convert high information density experience into fragmentary (distributed fractional memory) but reconstructable experiences, of lower information density.

    3 – to be able to plan a sequence of actions we have evolved categories of constant contingent relations in memory by the addition of more layers of memory.

    4 – to be able to communicate we evolved language to communicate stories in serial, continuous, recursive, disambiguation until a contract for meaning has been achieved.)

    5 – this language required rules of continuous disambiguation, and so we evolved the natural grammar.

    6 – once we had the grammar we could engage in reason, calculation, and eventually computation.

    7 – increases in opportunity for exploitation of the natura world (and the human) cause increase scope of communication. T

    8 – the greater the correspondence with reality, and the greater the scope, and the more consistent the relations in those categories and grammar, the greater the ability to act to seize calories by which to insulate the mind, emotions, and body from stress and cellular damage (wear and tear).

    9 – at some point a competitive advantage in non-correspondence evolved (frauds and deceits) in order for those lacking agency to compete with those possessing agency.

    10- this ‘resistance movement’ creates many fictions (non correspondences) to improve political resistance in opposition to economic and military agency

    Ergo my only interest is not in the correspondence per se but in the use of non-correspondence for the purpose of parasitism and predation.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-30 12:29:00 UTC

  • GENERAL PREFACE TO CRITICS AND WOULD BE CRITICS There are frequent criticisms of

    GENERAL PREFACE TO CRITICS AND WOULD BE CRITICS

    There are frequent criticisms of my work. I post them. Often. There are criticisms of preference, pragmatism, or probability. But, as yet, no one has offered any material criticism of the work. No one.

    All I get are pragmatisms from:

    (a) young men who are very smart and prefer authoritarianism – because they have no experience organizing anything – even a family – at any scale,

    (d) a range of men who cling to the hope of (authoritarian) religious restoration (not knowing how lucky we are to have escaped it.),

    (b) nat-soc’s who prefer intolerant authoritarianism,

    (c) young men who cling to the possibility of anarchism,

    (e) the room temperature IQ crowd that attempts to participate or observe a discourse that is beyond their knowledge and ability, but is too impatient to wait for the full constitutional changes and the policies that arise from them that would bring them relief.

    The only extant criticisms I can find, despite trying everything, are:

    (a) people want a positive religion(supernaturalism), philosophy(sophism), pseudoscience, or narrative(excuse), not law, or policy that would benefit them;

    (b) people want to preserve their right to advocate for supernatural, sophistry, pseudoscientific, or excuses, rather than do so truthfully (scientifically);

    (c) that propertarianism’s grammars, operationalism, epistemology, and strict construction, are too hard for ordinary people to undrestand (not that they undrestand the calculus, programming, or the law as it stands today yet they live under them);

    (d) because of these reasons it will not be possible to form a majority movement to enact those policies and that law producing those benefits.

    In other words – they want people to agree with them on some given utilitarian falsehood, rather than produce a market for people who agree on utilitarian goods and truths.

    But as to the work itself, there is no surviving criticism of:

    (a) the grammars;

    (b) or the epistemology;

    (c) or the law;

    … that I know of.

    And ‘grown ups’ – meaning those of us who have built organizations of any scale, or worked large organizations, or in government, or in finance or in the judiciary, are quite well aware that the world operates by rules and those rules consists of legislation, regulation, and findings of law. And that everything else exists within it. Not because people believe in the law via positiva, but because they fear the consequences of not doing so.

    And conversely that philosophy and religion are for those lacking agency to operate within that which is governed by the law.

    In other words, if you argue with religion or philosophy or moralizing, rather than law it is evidence of lack of agency in material matters.

    (a) The purpose of religion is regional social mindfulness.

    (b) The purpose of philosophy is local personal mindfulness.

    (c) The purpose of science is a universal language of truthful speech.

    (d) The purpose of the NATURAL law is a universal method of prosecuting imposition of costs upon others involuntarily.

    (e) The purpose of legislation and regulation is to enforce the terms of the local contracts in the production of commons.

    The difference in the production of commons is determined by asian (dictatorial corporate), european(bipartite state vs citizen), anglo (egalitarian sovereign) presumptions. The semites do not produce commons other than religious, which only force continued devolution.

    So, in relation to my work, my opinion is, that if you cannot argue against:

    (a) the epistemology

    (b) the construction of the law, and;

    (c) the construction of any given constitution;

    (c) the benefits (policies), and;

    (d) the creation for a market of non-false religion, non-false philosophy, non-false science;

    …then you don’t much matter other than preventing good people who are willing to act to obtain material benefits and the rewards of a society far more free of falsehoods – then you don’t matter.

    THE OPINIONATED IGNORANT

    People are happy to opine and presume knowledge.

    However,

    (a) if you sit down, and try to write a constitution that cannot be violated and which ends the industrialization of propaganda, disinformation, sophism, pseudoscience, and deceit, in commercial financial, economic, and political spheres you will find that the problem is quite difficult.

    (b) To do so requires a VIA-NEGATIVA epistemology of eliminating falsehoods. Which if you sit down and try to produce, is quite difficult. And once having done so

    (c) if you sit down and try to produce a set of policies that eliminate commercial, financial, economic, political, and academic parasitism in all its forms, you will find it is quite difficult.

    (e) If you sit down and try to produce a plan by which a small percentage of (costly) men can bring a government to its knees such that it has no choice but to enact this constitutional amendments, end parasitism, and free a people from predation and genocide, you will find it is somewhat hard to do.

    Now, if you can find a one, single, other, person, who can do any ONE of those things, I’d like to meet that person.

    If you can find that group of people to do all those things, I would love to know about them.

    Because from where I’m sitting you folks haven’t got a single other person living today with anything other than wishful thinking and empty words.

    And while I’d MUCH RATHER sit around and work on my tech company and reap the economic rewards, I am not (unlike critics) extirpating my frustration with hollow nonsense to mask my lack of agency and courage.

    I am not afraid of dying. And I don’t lack agency. I’ve demonstrated my agency in every walk of life.

    I have built companies of scale. I have built a body of thought on a scale only seen since the marxists and perhaps since locke, smith and hume. And much against my preference I’m building a body of people capable of teaching and communicating the work, the policies, and the revolution to those who would have it.

    And if you had a criticism of anything material you would make it. However, what I see is nothing more than

    (a) lack of understanding, and straw manning because of it,

    (b) self confidence absent evidence of demonstrated ability,

    (c) moral conviction that is admirable,

    (d) but lacking the courage to do more than gossip.

    So make an argument, offer a competing alternative of equal or better scope and precision, or don’t waste my time.

    Thanks

    Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-25 10:38:00 UTC

  • What you CAN criticize

    [L]ook nitwits. You can try hard to criticize propertarianism. And you’re going to fail. I promise. It’s not gonna happen. That you don’t know this yet is just a matter of time. It is what it is. What you can criticize is: 1) the PRACTICAL possibility of sufficient power to produce a constitutional order making use of it in law. 2) the POLICIES I’ve recommended for the restoration of the middle class at the expense of the financial, political, academic, and media classes. 3) the PREFERENCE of some alternative order that is NOT dependent upon natural law, but some other set of rules. To engage in any of those criticisms you must produce one of the following:

    a) some sort of argument that a few hundred thousand men can’t disrupt cooperative velocity in all its forms sufficiently to bring the government to the negotiating table.

    b) some set of arguments that these are not already the general beliefs and wants of the populace (other than voluntary disassociation).

    c) that you can produce a recipe for the construction of an alternative order by equally operational means. You can criticize it. So do it. Or realize you can’t and do us a favor of not wasting our time.

  • What you CAN criticize

    [L]ook nitwits. You can try hard to criticize propertarianism. And you’re going to fail. I promise. It’s not gonna happen. That you don’t know this yet is just a matter of time. It is what it is. What you can criticize is: 1) the PRACTICAL possibility of sufficient power to produce a constitutional order making use of it in law. 2) the POLICIES I’ve recommended for the restoration of the middle class at the expense of the financial, political, academic, and media classes. 3) the PREFERENCE of some alternative order that is NOT dependent upon natural law, but some other set of rules. To engage in any of those criticisms you must produce one of the following:

    a) some sort of argument that a few hundred thousand men can’t disrupt cooperative velocity in all its forms sufficiently to bring the government to the negotiating table.

    b) some set of arguments that these are not already the general beliefs and wants of the populace (other than voluntary disassociation).

    c) that you can produce a recipe for the construction of an alternative order by equally operational means. You can criticize it. So do it. Or realize you can’t and do us a favor of not wasting our time.

  • Most false speech today is economic, statistical, and financial, since this is t

    Most false speech today is economic, statistical, and financial, since this is the primary means of political decidability in the postwar era.There are a host of them.The most common I cite is household income, and the most common economists refer to is productivity. (aggregates)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 17:36:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087403589880946696

    Reply addressees: @OctaveFilms @vdare

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087399669121118210


    IN REPLY TO:

    @OctaveFilms

    @curtdoolittle @vdare Please give an example of false or irreciprocal speech as I don’t understand your useage.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087399669121118210

  • This is the primary means by which parasitism is conducted, and is so simply bec

    This is the primary means by which parasitism is conducted, and is so simply because our laws, legislation, and regulation have not been reorganized to take advantage of the use of shares in the economy as a fiat money substitute.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 17:23:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087400341124071430

    Reply addressees: @OctaveFilms @vdare

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087390799791382528


    IN REPLY TO:

    @OctaveFilms

    @curtdoolittle @vdare Let’s do it like this; give me a real world example on #1 parasite.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087390799791382528