OUR STRATEGY IS LIMITED BY THE COMMAND AND CONTROL STRUCTURES When there is chaos the opportunist wins, which is why politicians do not operate like Trump, while entrepreneurs and soldiers do. In other words, we all use the strategy that our command and control structure tolerates. This is why democratic polities are a disaster. They are only even marginally possible in periods of windfall wealth and safety. Russians are exceptional at this technique, but they have very poor unit cohesion. We have the opposite problem.
Theme: Institution
-
UM. I AM NOT PRO AMERICAN, PRO ANGLO AT ALL Um. Don’t leap to the conclusion tha
UM. I AM NOT PRO AMERICAN, PRO ANGLO AT ALL
Um. Don’t leap to the conclusion that I’m pro american. I’m pretty anti-anglo all around. I’m pro american post-hoc law and entrepreneurialism, and pro-american and russian militarism. I’m pro anglo empiricism. I’m pro german almost everything else. And I’m pro dutch and scandinavian genetics. And I’m pro the source of western civilization’s exceptionalism: aggressive self domestication (Paternalism), individual sovereignty, rule of natural law of reciprocity, and markets in everything.I’m not pro anglo, or pro-american, as much as pro western civilization’s ability to rapidly evolve compared to all other civilizations.
I’m anti ignorance, error, bias, wishful-thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, propaganda, and deceit, because they impede the west’s ability to drag humanity kicking and screaming into godhood.
In the choice between middle eastern dysgenic globalism, and east asian and western eugenic nationalism, the choice is very clear.
Diversity is a bad because it does not force families, clans, tribes and nations to pay the cost of their domestication, and instead exteralizes that cost and devolves host populations permanently through genetic cultural and institutional damages.
I am not a white nationalist in the sense that I am perfectly happy to cut our population to the bone to rid ourselves of the undomesticated of our own. And putting those feeble genes to work improving those further behind.
Let a thousand nations bloom. Small homogenous states with professional warriors, citizen militias and a few nukes are all but invulnerable.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-27 11:30:00 UTC
-
REGIONS SUCCEED FOR REASONS —“There is a sizeable body of research on what mak
REGIONS SUCCEED FOR REASONS
—“There is a sizeable body of research on what makes some regions consistently able to produce high-growth companies compared with other regions. Overall, what appears to matter most is a density of smart people of prime entrepreneurship age (mid-career) with an orientation towards entrepreneurship and the pursuit of enterprise in knowledge-intensive activities—plus a bunch of other stuff that we aren’t measuring very well in a systematic way (namely, network and culture).”—
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-26 17:27:00 UTC
-
Nassim: d) So my read is the law is taught as a craft (practiced) and the ‘liber
Nassim: d) So my read is the law is taught as a craft (practiced) and the ‘liberal arts” are taught as doctrines, and we are wasting a phenomenal amount of money not separating Techne(craft), Religion(obedience), and Law(Rule). Meaning the problem is the Academy (secular church).
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-26 14:40:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/989514645508706304
Reply addressees: @nntaleb @bryan_caplan @tylercowen
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/989513856564256768
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@nntaleb @bryan_caplan @tylercowen Nassim: c) And so, my reading of history, is that the aristocracy was taught to rule (meaning decide, not direct), and the nobility to govern (direct), and labor to obey. (Indo European Tripartism). Otherwise I’m certain your positioning of the ‘Doctrine’ vs ‘Techne’ is correct.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/989513856564256768
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@nntaleb @bryan_caplan @tylercowen Nassim: c) And so, my reading of history, is that the aristocracy was taught to rule (meaning decide, not direct), and the nobility to govern (direct), and labor to obey. (Indo European Tripartism). Otherwise I’m certain your positioning of the ‘Doctrine’ vs ‘Techne’ is correct.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/989513856564256768
-
Um. My view is that women’s social priorities and sensitivities are often in con
Um. My view is that women’s social priorities and sensitivities are often in conflict with any organization that they participate in. Men are just far less ‘influenced’ by those sensitivities and priorities, which turns out to be the reason women prefer working for (competent) men: they insulate the workplace from women’s baser instincts.
Water will find a way through any wall. I tend to view women’s intuitions as shit testing everyone until the walls fall apart. The only way that women are truly safe is if they can’t break the wall. Ergo, I am not sure men need to tell women what to do, as much as prevent them from defecting and undermining to the point where the wall may fracture.
Men have different behaviors which are largely masked by marriage (redistribution of females). Without that arrangement, there is always a surplus of men, and while women are dangerous in the long term. ANGRY MEN EVEN IN VERY SMALL NUMBERS ARE VERY DANGERS IN EVERY SINGLE MOMENT.
Hence the universal religious attempt to pair us off.
Men think more, women feel more, and there is value in both techniques.It’s when we limit eachother not command each other that we make the optimum use of those intuitions.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-25 21:44:00 UTC
-
Rome: We Begin And End With The Militia
–“The story of [the Empire’s] ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple [the color of the robes of the Roman magistrates, ie: THE LAW]. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered [the citizens both] alike (each other,) formidable to their sovereign, and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine [Christianity]; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians.”— Edward Gibbon. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, “General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West”, Chapter 38 IT ALL BEGINS AND ENDS WITH OUR MILITIA, AND OUR MILITIA BY THEIR LAW, AND THEIR LAW BY EXCEPTIONLESS INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY.
-
Rome: We Begin And End With The Militia
–“The story of [the Empire’s] ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple [the color of the robes of the Roman magistrates, ie: THE LAW]. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered [the citizens both] alike (each other,) formidable to their sovereign, and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine [Christianity]; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians.”— Edward Gibbon. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, “General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West”, Chapter 38 IT ALL BEGINS AND ENDS WITH OUR MILITIA, AND OUR MILITIA BY THEIR LAW, AND THEIR LAW BY EXCEPTIONLESS INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY.
-
Self Ownership Must Be Constructed From A Commons.
SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS. Well, self ownership can’t exist, it can only be constructed as an informal institution(norm) or formal institution( legislation). So you can desire to construct a thing, and once you construct a thing, use that thing to produce goods, but it does not exist independently of construction – it’s impossible. The reason to use the word principle is always and everywhere a fraud – an attempt to attribute to law (existential) or axiom (declaration) that which is arbitrary. Any time a person uses ‘principle’ they mean arbitrary. Any time they use natural or physical law they mean inescapable, and any time the use axiom they mean ‘declared’ since we can declare any axion (premise) arbitrarily. So all attempst to argue from principle are arbitrary (false). Recirpocity provides decidability whether we like it or not, and that is why it is the bases of all law, and in particular, international law – since there is no means of enforcing international law other than war. So once you choose reciprocity, whether empirically or arbitrarily you will end up producing the institutions of possession, property(normative), and property rights (institutional). And once you follow me long enough you will understand the technique called ‘pilpul’ by which the ignorant are fooled into cherry picking a set of self confirming excuses, and hence why all justificationism (like numerology, and astrology, and scriptural interpretation, and rationalist philosophy that evolved from them) as a hierarchy of elaborate frauds. So no. We must construct a condition of reciprocity (commons) via informal and formal institutions, from which we incrementally produce the institutions of property and property rights, and possibly even the luxury of human rights. And that is how property evolved – as a luxury of the incremental suppression of free riding , theft, fraud, and conspiracy. And libertarianism is just another excuse for free riding.
-
Self Ownership Must Be Constructed From A Commons.
SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS. Well, self ownership can’t exist, it can only be constructed as an informal institution(norm) or formal institution( legislation). So you can desire to construct a thing, and once you construct a thing, use that thing to produce goods, but it does not exist independently of construction – it’s impossible. The reason to use the word principle is always and everywhere a fraud – an attempt to attribute to law (existential) or axiom (declaration) that which is arbitrary. Any time a person uses ‘principle’ they mean arbitrary. Any time they use natural or physical law they mean inescapable, and any time the use axiom they mean ‘declared’ since we can declare any axion (premise) arbitrarily. So all attempst to argue from principle are arbitrary (false). Recirpocity provides decidability whether we like it or not, and that is why it is the bases of all law, and in particular, international law – since there is no means of enforcing international law other than war. So once you choose reciprocity, whether empirically or arbitrarily you will end up producing the institutions of possession, property(normative), and property rights (institutional). And once you follow me long enough you will understand the technique called ‘pilpul’ by which the ignorant are fooled into cherry picking a set of self confirming excuses, and hence why all justificationism (like numerology, and astrology, and scriptural interpretation, and rationalist philosophy that evolved from them) as a hierarchy of elaborate frauds. So no. We must construct a condition of reciprocity (commons) via informal and formal institutions, from which we incrementally produce the institutions of property and property rights, and possibly even the luxury of human rights. And that is how property evolved – as a luxury of the incremental suppression of free riding , theft, fraud, and conspiracy. And libertarianism is just another excuse for free riding.
-
SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS. Well, self own
SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS.
Well, self ownership can’t exist, it can only be constructed as an informal institution(norm) or formal institution( legislation).
So you can desire to construct a thing, and once you construct a thing, use that thing to produce goods, but it does not exist independently of construction – it’s impossible.
The reason to use the word principle is always and everywhere a fraud – an attempt to attribute to law (existential) or axiom (declaration) that which is arbitrary. Any time a person uses ‘principle’ they mean arbitrary. Any time they use natural or physical law they mean inescapable, and any time the use axiom they mean ‘declared’ since we can declare any axion (premise) arbitrarily. So all attempst to argue from principle are arbitrary (false).
Recirpocity provides decidability whether we like it or not, and that is why it is the bases of all law, and in particular, international law – since there is no means of enforcing international law other than war.
So once you choose reciprocity, whether empirically or arbitrarily you will end up producing the institutions of possession, property(normative), and property rights (institutional).
And once you follow me long enough you will understand the technique called ‘pilpul’ by which the ignorant are fooled into cherry picking a set of self confirming excuses, and hence why all justificationism (like numerology, and astrology, and scriptural interpretation, and rationalist philosophy that evolved from them) as a hierarchy of elaborate frauds.
So no. We must construct a condition of reciprocity (commons) via informal and formal institutions, from which we incrementally produce the institutions of property and property rights, and possibly even the luxury of human rights.
And that is how property evolved – as a luxury of the incremental suppression of free riding , theft, fraud, and conspiracy.
And libertarianism is just another excuse for free riding.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 14:41:00 UTC