Theme: Governance

  • DEFINING CONSERVATISM IN SCIENTIFIC TERMS Conservatism Understood 1. A conservat

    DEFINING CONSERVATISM IN SCIENTIFIC TERMS

    Conservatism Understood

    1. A conservative questions the overestimation of reason, and above all questions consensus. Conservatism is familial, stoic, pragmatic, and empirical. In other words risk averse to capital.

    2. As a means of questioning, a conservative requires reciprocity (tort): american < british < anglo saxon < germanic < european < norther indo european in law. That law evolved from the oath (tell the truth, never steal, never flee, in combat).

    3. A Conservative requires ‘empirical’ results – and where empirical fails, the ‘traditional’ is adequate, since traditional survived empirical tests in competition in reality.

    4. A Conservative accumulates genetic, cultural, normative, institutional, physical, and territorial capital – attempting to pass on to future generations of his family, more than he himself inherited.

    5. Conservatism is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy that increases accumulated capital through intergenerational transfer, using intergeneration lending, in order to produce increasingly ‘noble’ families.

    6. Ergo successful individuals in the market for craftsmanship, successful purchase of the franchise through military service, successful individuals in the market for marriage and child rearing, successful individuals in the market for industry, successful families in the market for noble (intergenerational) families.

    7. In other words, conservatism(aristocracy) is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy. And while bipartite manorialism was practiced from 700, and aggressive hanging of up to 1% of the population every year after 1000, and an attempt to escape church-state nobility, and create an entrepreneurial nobility (meritocracy), succeeded by 1600, there was a great reaction to the english revolution, and a greater reaction to the french revolution. Thus while Locke,smith,hume,adams, and jefferson promised an aristocracy available to everyone, Burke, after the french revolution, and germans after that, recognized that the peasantry was even worse at rule (see russia) than the nobility.

    The problem with today’s conservatism is that darwin and spencer were famous before the war, after the second world war, conservatism and eugenics were effectively banned from discourse, academy, and science.

    As such conservatives never (until perhaps 2000) restored empirical discourse to conservatism, because eugenics are antithetical to the experiment with democracy. This changed incrementally beginning in 76, through the 80s, and aggressively since 2000, and more aggressively since 2008.

    1 – Soveriengty requires reciprocity

    2 – Reciprocity requires rule of law (tort), jury(thang, senate, house of lords, supreme court), and an independent judiciary.

    3 – Rule of law forces markets, since it incrementally suppresses each innovation in parasitism.

    4 – Markets cause hierarchies, because they are necessary to voluntarily organize production.

    5 – Markets are eugenic, because they are empirical means of testing industry and impulse.

    6 – But they make possible liberty for those with property, freedom for those who labor, and subsidy for those who impose no costs on sovereignty, liberty, freedom, or property.**

    DOMESTICATION
    Man domesticated the human animal after he had learned to domesticate the non-human animal. And he did so by the same means. And the result in both domestication of the human and non human animal is the same: eugenics.

    CONSERVATIVES
    Most conservatives do not write philosophy, they run businesses, or write history, economics, science, and law. (I write because I was successful enough in multiple businesses to spend my time writing full time.) Conservatives also are actively suppressed in academy and media.

    This has been true since the end of the war and the rise of the Frankfurt School, and the Postmodern school, both of which were necessary after the failure of marxist pseudoscience. (a pseudoscience marx died knowing, since he stopped writing as soon as he read the Mengerians, and kept silent only to keep the checks coming in from Engels.)

    AUTHORS TO READ
    Burke, Hayek, Burnham, Sowell, Buchanan, Murray, and maybe Nietzsche. Veblen.
    (The essayists are nonsense)
    Anyone in Hoover or Heritage institutions.

    READING LIST
    Our Reading List (https://t.co/Nus5JIA88v).

    My reading list (above) contains most of the science we’ve been looking for, while the pseudosciences dominated the mid to late 20th century under the marxist-postmodernists.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-30 16:44:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752372295962689536

  • Sorry sweetie. I’m an authority on the subject. We live in a republic, and we us

    Sorry sweetie. I’m an authority on the subject. We live in a republic, and we use democratic processes to elect representatives in that republic. Democracy would mean that we all voted directly on all issues, and were not limited by constitution and rule of law or natural law.…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 20:36:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752068245576647137

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752041681426235581

  • RT @Plinz: Unpopular opinion: it may be uncivil to discuss politics and religion

    RT @Plinz: Unpopular opinion: it may be uncivil to discuss politics and religion in the presence of an audience that cannot afford to expre…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 04:53:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751830998201823644

  • Don’t be silly. He’s just saying that the guard should do it not the military

    Don’t be silly. He’s just saying that the guard should do it not the military.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 04:06:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751819115365310932

    Reply addressees: @cuttavant

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751818611067437309

  • EXPECT THE BEST NOT PERFECT IN OUR LEADERS –“General Mad dog was against using

    EXPECT THE BEST NOT PERFECT IN OUR LEADERS
    –“General Mad dog was against using the military to protect the border, thats why he resigned. Sounds like a woke general to me.”–

    We can’t expect people to be perfect, just best. His reasoning for not using the military was rational given the state and number of the forces. We have a tiny military force when we reduce it to combat forces. The US is a logistical and technological monster – unbelievable – but that logistics and tech absorbs almost all the people. The actual infantry is too small for the border, would deplete available forces for use in force projection, and the military doesn’t want to use heavy weapons on mexicans because it would create international issues and discredit both the USA and the US military. So he was right but he handled it badly. And I’m not sure he handled it badly. He resigned. That’s what officers do when they refuse an order they consider foolish, dangerous, immoral, or illegal.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 04:02:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751818052235051008

  • Think in economics and organizing economics and the difficulty of organizing gov

    Think in economics and organizing economics and the difficulty of organizing government, transport, or production on any scale in europe vs in the flood river valleys of the nile, eastern mediterranean, mesopotamia, indus and ganges, or yangtze and yellow rivers.

    The church was captured as a land holding corporation for the nobility and aristocracy because of primogeniture – and the later sons controlling the family land and accumulating more land, and renting the land to peasants, under auspices of the church.

    Given the muslim piracy in the mediterranean, Feudalism was all that was possible until the northern europeans restored trade around the atlantic, north, and baltic seas,and could restore the trade route through lotharingia from the netherlands overland to venice et al.

    The restoration of greek reason as muslim scholars fled to europe after islamic return to fundamentalism and purged greek reason and thought, really took effect by 1200, and by the 1400s invention of the printing press, combined with the muslim closure of the ports of byzantium forcing the development of the age of sail, europe’s isolation was broken and it took over the world.

    Reply addressees: @Lodenkar


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 03:38:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751812146248200193

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751434291232342231

  • It should have been obvious because while the first institution of wester civ is

    It should have been obvious because while the first institution of wester civ is law, the fist institution of Sinic civ is the state, just as the first institution of the middle east and india are religion. First institutions always dominate. Africa never got to political…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-28 20:49:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751709088965177552

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751707284617801817

  • You are a very smart man. 😉 “Maintain the Authority of the State”. Should have

    You are a very smart man. 😉 “Maintain the Authority of the State”.

    Should have been obvious. 😉 Thank you.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-28 20:47:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751708587905233096

    Reply addressees: @SaitouHajime00

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751707284617801817

  • Great Question The term you’re looking for is ‘direct democracy’. 1) First, in g

    Great Question

    The term you’re looking for is ‘direct democracy’.

    1) First, in general, the system of government that the european people have lived under is better described as the rule of law and jury system. In this sense, a parliament, was a jury that authorize or not the actions of the king (CEO of the people). The ‘innovation’ that instead, the parliament governed, converted the ‘via-negativa’ jury system to a ‘via-positiva governing system’. By restoring direct democracy, you’re seeking to restore (correctly) the traditional europea method of governing by jury. This is also important because it doesn’t empower the people to ‘make up nonsense’ but instead allows the people to approve or reject policy and particularly taxes that they feel would affect them.

    2) In the broader context, representatives should, at least in theory, be elected for demonstrated competency in military, industrial, or government affairs. They generally are not. Because competent people (as was the problem in England) eventually lose patience with the incompetence of government and the dishonesty of politics.

    3) If representatives are not capable of such, then we have alternative choice of either direct proportional democracy (voting by heads), or direct economic democracy (voting by what are taxes are spent on), or a democracy of randomly selected jury of representatives who have met some minimum standard of demonstrated competency: randomizing the process that prevents politicals from obtaining positions that can be manipulated by special intersets.

    4) However this is only possible if we prohibit “false promise (fraud) and lying to the public, in public, in matters public,” – which was impossible until my (our) work on providing the juridical criteria of decidability for legislating and enforcing such laws. And it’s necessary because the people are (very) easily deceived, and that’s because they are (almost universally) desirous of being decieved if it promises irresponsibility for self and commons, and even more so, if accompanied by desirous of magical thinking to justify it. (Especially white women).

    5) The other alternatives are quite simple (a) give women a separate house of government (lower house so to speak). (b) Rescind the right of women to vote. (c) ethnonationalism the government and all it’s offices. (d) legislate european religions alone as religions of the state, and that others are either tolerated or prohibited based on their consistency with and correspondence with our constitution, our natural law, and our christian ethics and morality – because religion is a group evolutionary strategy and they are and always will be competitors.

    That’s just the beginning of the list of possibilities.

    I live to serve. 😉

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @rynjpbb8yw @eyeslasho


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-28 02:13:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751428160736874496

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751362529865941096

  • Dear i/o. A little chastisement: We don’t live in a Democracy. By design. Becaus

    Dear i/o.
    A little chastisement:

    We don’t live in a Democracy. By design. Because they always fail by a race to totalitarianism, civil war, and collapse.

    Instead, by design, in deliberate institutional, procedural, and aesthetic imitation of Rome, thankfully elucidated by Gibbon, albeit with traditional common germanic law, thankfully codified as English common law by Blackstone, we live in a Republic, under rule of law, under common law, limited by the natural law, and limited by commonality in court and concurrency in voting and legislation, altogether largely codified in both the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, where we elect, by tests of concurrency, representatives representing the population (house, state localities (people)), of the states (senate(state legislatures)), and of the parties (electoral college (nobility)) – and somewhat foolishly have opened the franchise to those who do not demonstrate loyalty or responsibility for it’s preservation.

    Our founders left us the most scientific form of government ever produced by man, with all but six major holes in the constitution – six holes that have left open the door for sedition against it during the twentieth century.

    The question is whether, by trying to produce a democracy, hostile interests, have undermined our culture, our demographics, values, norms, traditions, our institutions, our common law, our concurrent legislation, our constitution, our rule of law, and it’s foundation on natural law (of cooperation).

    The answer is yes. By design. Between the movement of class marxists to the states converting to cultural marxism and then race marxism, and finding sympathy among white women, who could be sold education in indoctrination, and were more open to sedition and organization against our civilization than the underclasses were to communism.

    If you adhere to the fallacy that populations are equal, that sexes are equal, that cultures are equal, that religions are equal and that a heterogeneity of such can be governed without the same tyranny that led to the death of the Roman republic and its eventual fall, then you are too incompetent to hold a position on the subject, too incompetent to speak in public of it, and certainly to incompetent to participate in political franchise.

    At some point, your naive and foolish optimism that leads to the tyranny you so comfortably advance in your ignorance, must be offset by men of responsibility and competency, by force if necessary, out of self defense alone, but not just for self, or kin, or progeny, but for humanity – as we are the only people on this earth so far capable of demonstrating the competency necessary to liv with such correspondence and consistency to the natural law aw of cooperation – and in doing so, in the bronze, iron, and steel ages, dragging ignorant superstitious incompetent stagnating or devolving mankind oug of its ignorance, superstition, low-trust, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, early death, and victimization by the man and vicissitudes of a nature that biologically, climatologically, geologically, seeks to exterminate us with disturbing regularity in a universe that is a vast hostile irradiated wasteland uncaring for our existence and ignorant of it.

    Cheers
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @eyeslasho


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-27 21:19:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751354139899056128

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751330530841285039