WHY WE NEED TO PEACEFULLY SEPARATE AND LET EACHOTHER GO OUR SEPARATE WAYS There are only a few directions the brain can evolve: 1) Neoteny (delay of maturity, retention of childlike features, giving more time for cognitive development). … a) Developmental specialization (sense, physical, social, abstract), which for some reason we tend to vary in. … b) Prefrontal, cortical, inhibition (agency) – appears to be neotonic in origin. … c) Intelligence (I won’t get into that here) but there are many underlying variables including neocortical volume. The big 5/6 personality traits, and measured differences in brain volume and function can be described by these dimensions. 2) sex: feminine and masculine, and this happens in early development. The differences in gender distributions of the big 5/6 (called ‘factors’, and their subfactors can be described by masculine and feminine differences, which are largely reduced to agreeableness, assertiveness, risk. We call these two resulting moral biases conservative (masculine pack) and liberal (feminine herd). And they reflect the different evolutionary strategies of males and females. Even so, all of us exist on a spectrum from the female mind to the male mind. There are pack (masculine minded) women, herd (feminine) minded men. Mental illness, anti social behavior, cognitive biases, moral intuition, use of language, vary consistently along this spectrum with very simple tests identifying the sex of the brain – regardless of sexual attraction, which is a developmental success or failure. One of the differences in cognitive biases between men and women is that men see differences and are slightly better at generalizing observations, and women the opposite at seeing similarity and individual empathy. This is our division of labor, and again – all of us are somewhere on this spectrum of masculine to feminine biases. And the cause of these differences is well understood, not only in hormones and developmental rehearsal of different biases, but in the structure of information processed in the brain, where one side (female) is language empathy and prey focused, and the other is action, objectivity, and predator focused. SO WHAT DO WE DO We were speciating into regional human groups when we discovered farming. We were forced to compromise with each other during farming. Farming is over and we are now wealthy enough to pursue our genetic biases (interests, strategies) and so we must separate between masculine (suburban and rural hunters) and feminine (urban gatherers) and there is no reason not to. We are simply able to afford specialization. It’s time to return to speciation and stop fighting our instincts as different animals returning to speciation now that the agrarian era is over.
Theme: Ethnoculture
-
Why We Need to Peacefully Separate and Let Eachother Go Our Separate Ways
WHY WE NEED TO PEACEFULLY SEPARATE AND LET EACHOTHER GO OUR SEPARATE WAYS There are only a few directions the brain can evolve: 1) Neoteny (delay of maturity, retention of childlike features, giving more time for cognitive development). … a) Developmental specialization (sense, physical, social, abstract), which for some reason we tend to vary in. … b) Prefrontal, cortical, inhibition (agency) – appears to be neotonic in origin. … c) Intelligence (I won’t get into that here) but there are many underlying variables including neocortical volume. The big 5/6 personality traits, and measured differences in brain volume and function can be described by these dimensions. 2) sex: feminine and masculine, and this happens in early development. The differences in gender distributions of the big 5/6 (called ‘factors’, and their subfactors can be described by masculine and feminine differences, which are largely reduced to agreeableness, assertiveness, risk. We call these two resulting moral biases conservative (masculine pack) and liberal (feminine herd). And they reflect the different evolutionary strategies of males and females. Even so, all of us exist on a spectrum from the female mind to the male mind. There are pack (masculine minded) women, herd (feminine) minded men. Mental illness, anti social behavior, cognitive biases, moral intuition, use of language, vary consistently along this spectrum with very simple tests identifying the sex of the brain – regardless of sexual attraction, which is a developmental success or failure. One of the differences in cognitive biases between men and women is that men see differences and are slightly better at generalizing observations, and women the opposite at seeing similarity and individual empathy. This is our division of labor, and again – all of us are somewhere on this spectrum of masculine to feminine biases. And the cause of these differences is well understood, not only in hormones and developmental rehearsal of different biases, but in the structure of information processed in the brain, where one side (female) is language empathy and prey focused, and the other is action, objectivity, and predator focused. SO WHAT DO WE DO We were speciating into regional human groups when we discovered farming. We were forced to compromise with each other during farming. Farming is over and we are now wealthy enough to pursue our genetic biases (interests, strategies) and so we must separate between masculine (suburban and rural hunters) and feminine (urban gatherers) and there is no reason not to. We are simply able to afford specialization. It’s time to return to speciation and stop fighting our instincts as different animals returning to speciation now that the agrarian era is over.
-
We Are the Continuation of The European Civilizational Arc
WE ARE THE CONTINUATION OF THE EUROPEAN CIVILIZATIONAL ARC
- The Western Indo Europeans were fighting submission to nature in every aspect of the social order: nature(technology), family, polity, and religion. They invented the Agency of Man. The application of mastery of metallurgy, the horse, the wheel and war to all aspects of human experience.
Aristotle was fighting ignorance in all the disciplines – including religion, custom, and politics. He invented Empiricism: the transfer of testimony in a court of peers to all aspects of human experience.
Galileo was fighting supernaturalism and denial in the physical sciences: physics, chemistry, biology. He was the principle advocate of Science: The restoration of testimony using mathematics in court a court of peers to all aspects of life.
Darwin was fighting supernaturalism in the biological sciences. He was the principle advocate of realism and naturalism in biology: the restoration of naturalism in biological and social sciences.
Propertarians are fighting pseudoscience and sophism and denial in the human sciences: language, psychology, sociology, politics, and group strategy: The completion of social science: The application of testimony using the measurement of reciprocity.
What’s Next? We will only save ourselves, and mankind from another dark age if we do not make the mistakes of the greeks and the romans, and the monarchists – optimism that other men, are equal in ability and interest to european men.
-
We Are the Continuation of The European Civilizational Arc
WE ARE THE CONTINUATION OF THE EUROPEAN CIVILIZATIONAL ARC
- The Western Indo Europeans were fighting submission to nature in every aspect of the social order: nature(technology), family, polity, and religion. They invented the Agency of Man. The application of mastery of metallurgy, the horse, the wheel and war to all aspects of human experience.
Aristotle was fighting ignorance in all the disciplines – including religion, custom, and politics. He invented Empiricism: the transfer of testimony in a court of peers to all aspects of human experience.
Galileo was fighting supernaturalism and denial in the physical sciences: physics, chemistry, biology. He was the principle advocate of Science: The restoration of testimony using mathematics in court a court of peers to all aspects of life.
Darwin was fighting supernaturalism in the biological sciences. He was the principle advocate of realism and naturalism in biology: the restoration of naturalism in biological and social sciences.
Propertarians are fighting pseudoscience and sophism and denial in the human sciences: language, psychology, sociology, politics, and group strategy: The completion of social science: The application of testimony using the measurement of reciprocity.
What’s Next? We will only save ourselves, and mankind from another dark age if we do not make the mistakes of the greeks and the romans, and the monarchists – optimism that other men, are equal in ability and interest to european men.
-
We Are Unique
—” We (european men) must stop making this mistake: we must stop thinking, wishing, or hoping that other groups (including our own women) are like us.”— by John Mark
This mistake has plunged us into long dark ages before. Let’s not do it again. Let’s learn this lesson once and for all.
-
We Are Unique
—” We (european men) must stop making this mistake: we must stop thinking, wishing, or hoping that other groups (including our own women) are like us.”— by John Mark
This mistake has plunged us into long dark ages before. Let’s not do it again. Let’s learn this lesson once and for all.
-
The National Socialism Question. It Won the 20 Th Right?
THE NATIONAL SOCIALISM QUESTION. IT WON THE 20TH RIGHT? I know history is currently overturning the mythology but I want to address the National Socialist community for a moment, even if it’s politically incorrect for now. My problem with supporting the NS political program is limited to the strange german obsession with recreating a secular religion to replace the devotion of the catholic church. It’s in everything they do. It’s also why they’re the most moral people on earth most of the time. So this remains one of my most frustrating problems: the germans have pretty much always ‘been right’, throughout all of history. And I know why (customary law). Am I right that we must create this formal law, but that we must also produce a secular political religion on top? NS won the 20th right? I mean, that’s what China is practicing, and that’s what Russia wants to practice – if we’d let them. Democracy failed as always. Representative democracy failed as always. and the only decent countries are those with intact monarchies, or politicians … … who in practice act as monarchs rather than CEO’s. Now. I prefer a monarchy, under our traditional rule of law of sovereignty and reciprocity, with the purpose of the government the intergenerational persistence of family and nation. Where the monarchy appoints a cabinet … … but in english fashion, a jury of the people (or multiple houses acting as juries) approve or veto requests from the cabinet, which are all to be structured as contracts of the commons. This depoliticizes society, which has been a catastrophe for western civlization. There is precious little evidence that political competition does anything except undermine the nation. And by limiting people to voluntary means of cooperating, we deprive them of pursuit of rents. But given our historical mistake of not making the state treasury the bank of the realm, and separating credit to the people, with credit in business and industry, we allowed creation of rents against the people that belong to them in the first place, not to the finance sector. This problem is easily rectified.
-
The National Socialism Question. It Won the 20 Th Right?
THE NATIONAL SOCIALISM QUESTION. IT WON THE 20TH RIGHT? I know history is currently overturning the mythology but I want to address the National Socialist community for a moment, even if it’s politically incorrect for now. My problem with supporting the NS political program is limited to the strange german obsession with recreating a secular religion to replace the devotion of the catholic church. It’s in everything they do. It’s also why they’re the most moral people on earth most of the time. So this remains one of my most frustrating problems: the germans have pretty much always ‘been right’, throughout all of history. And I know why (customary law). Am I right that we must create this formal law, but that we must also produce a secular political religion on top? NS won the 20th right? I mean, that’s what China is practicing, and that’s what Russia wants to practice – if we’d let them. Democracy failed as always. Representative democracy failed as always. and the only decent countries are those with intact monarchies, or politicians … … who in practice act as monarchs rather than CEO’s. Now. I prefer a monarchy, under our traditional rule of law of sovereignty and reciprocity, with the purpose of the government the intergenerational persistence of family and nation. Where the monarchy appoints a cabinet … … but in english fashion, a jury of the people (or multiple houses acting as juries) approve or veto requests from the cabinet, which are all to be structured as contracts of the commons. This depoliticizes society, which has been a catastrophe for western civlization. There is precious little evidence that political competition does anything except undermine the nation. And by limiting people to voluntary means of cooperating, we deprive them of pursuit of rents. But given our historical mistake of not making the state treasury the bank of the realm, and separating credit to the people, with credit in business and industry, we allowed creation of rents against the people that belong to them in the first place, not to the finance sector. This problem is easily rectified.
-
Yarvin Version Two Part Three
YARVIN VERSION TWO PART THREE Yarvin and Rothbard and Rand are Jewish, Hoppe german, Doolittle anglo. I don’t expect change in visions of the future. Mises, Popper, Hayek, Rothbard, Hoppe, and Doolittle, we solved social science in what, four generations? After how many centuries?
—“Eric Danelaw well you’re cringe too then hahah seriously tho how his is method of argument “jewish”? Also Hoppe is an ontological Liberal and Nick Land is too so they’re kinda silly”—Arrus Kacchi
Really, what form of argument do Yarvin, Land, and Hoppe rely upon? Do they use Hindu mythical analogy, abrahamic theological, Jewish Critique, Confucian Reason, Continental Rational, German Phenomenological, Kantian Rational, Anglo Analytic, Anglo Ratio-empirical? They are just as different as theology, philosophy, law, and science. They are just as different as physics, chemistry, biology, and sentience. Does his suggested social order of ‘freedom’ reflect jewish diasporic, german free cities, Anglo Rule of Law, European National Socialism, Russian Oligarchical, or Chinese hierarchical oligarchy, or Hindu communal? I never disagree with nick, or curtis, or hans on criticism or goals – we all criticize using our cultural methods of analysis, we all propose solutions our culture is familiar with. Hoppe identified property as the unit of measure of social science, but not commons as necessary for survival of a polity able to produce the institution of property. Hayek worked thru economics then finally identified law and commons, and extended commons to information. I took hoppe and hayek (and popperian falsification and united them) and in my understanding, I completed the project of a system of measurement for the social and political sciences. Curtis identified the migration of the church state complex, to the military state industrial complex, to the academy, media, state complex. I identified the problems of law and economics. What is different about these findings? Yarvin “talk and belief” (jewish or truthfully, female ‘words and belief’), Hoppe morality as empirical (german moral, ‘intuitions and norms’), I identified the operational problem (finance, economics and law ‘actions’. ) All of us come from gene pools and cultures or subcultures and we cannot escape them. Because we are raised on moral foundations in families that persist moral foundations, and those moral foundations contain metaphysical paradigms, goods, bads, orders, rights and wrongs. This is why moral differences between cultures persist in the USA (and judaism and islam and christianity and every other religion) across generation. No one is immune. Just as you and I are not. The only way to increase your immunity is through comparative analysis of the techniques of different civilizations to produce different arguments with different objectives.
-
Yarvin Version Two Part Three
YARVIN VERSION TWO PART THREE Yarvin and Rothbard and Rand are Jewish, Hoppe german, Doolittle anglo. I don’t expect change in visions of the future. Mises, Popper, Hayek, Rothbard, Hoppe, and Doolittle, we solved social science in what, four generations? After how many centuries?
—“Eric Danelaw well you’re cringe too then hahah seriously tho how his is method of argument “jewish”? Also Hoppe is an ontological Liberal and Nick Land is too so they’re kinda silly”—Arrus Kacchi
Really, what form of argument do Yarvin, Land, and Hoppe rely upon? Do they use Hindu mythical analogy, abrahamic theological, Jewish Critique, Confucian Reason, Continental Rational, German Phenomenological, Kantian Rational, Anglo Analytic, Anglo Ratio-empirical? They are just as different as theology, philosophy, law, and science. They are just as different as physics, chemistry, biology, and sentience. Does his suggested social order of ‘freedom’ reflect jewish diasporic, german free cities, Anglo Rule of Law, European National Socialism, Russian Oligarchical, or Chinese hierarchical oligarchy, or Hindu communal? I never disagree with nick, or curtis, or hans on criticism or goals – we all criticize using our cultural methods of analysis, we all propose solutions our culture is familiar with. Hoppe identified property as the unit of measure of social science, but not commons as necessary for survival of a polity able to produce the institution of property. Hayek worked thru economics then finally identified law and commons, and extended commons to information. I took hoppe and hayek (and popperian falsification and united them) and in my understanding, I completed the project of a system of measurement for the social and political sciences. Curtis identified the migration of the church state complex, to the military state industrial complex, to the academy, media, state complex. I identified the problems of law and economics. What is different about these findings? Yarvin “talk and belief” (jewish or truthfully, female ‘words and belief’), Hoppe morality as empirical (german moral, ‘intuitions and norms’), I identified the operational problem (finance, economics and law ‘actions’. ) All of us come from gene pools and cultures or subcultures and we cannot escape them. Because we are raised on moral foundations in families that persist moral foundations, and those moral foundations contain metaphysical paradigms, goods, bads, orders, rights and wrongs. This is why moral differences between cultures persist in the USA (and judaism and islam and christianity and every other religion) across generation. No one is immune. Just as you and I are not. The only way to increase your immunity is through comparative analysis of the techniques of different civilizations to produce different arguments with different objectives.