Theme: Reciprocity

I’m not anti anyone at all. I’m not a racist in particular. I’m anti parasitism in all its forms, particularly falsehoods. I’m anti-folly. And I’m anti-conflict. Now, Natural Law of cooperation that we call ‘reciprocity’ tells us what NOT to do. So I end up writing a lot of “Reprimands” (as a follower explained recently.) And I write reprimands of pretty much group on earth – particularly my own. Where I come from is this: There was, that I know of, only one enlightenment – that of Britain – and it was purely empirical. Every culture, in response, has resisted that empirical enlightenment. If we were at the end of the french or german or russian counter-enlightenments, I would attack them. but the french, the germans, and the Russians (or at least the jewish Russians) committed suicide. At present we are at the end of the American Christian, and Ashkenazi-jewish counter-enlightenemtns, and in the midst of the Muslim counter-enlightenments. So of course, my work will place greater emphasis on current examples of interest in the current era, than it will on the french, german, and russian. And of course, I criticize the chinese and indian civilizations as well. Now, empirically, I have to accept that the fundamental problem all civilizations face is the underclass, and that all present, past, and even more so future, questions will be determined by how we answer the fundamental problem of the ‘drag’ that the underclasses place upon mankind. And I understand that this is a difficult problem. But that single problem is solved by soft eugenics: one child policy for the unproductive, and paying them to have either one child only or no children at all. This will, as a consequence attach status to having multiple children, and … attach lack of status to those with wealth that do not. And this is the only solution I know of that is achieved by reciprocity under natural law. So if I offend you then you must answer these questions differently. And you will, of necessity, have a very difficult time finding a better method of calculating a happy prosperous mankind without entering into hubris or deceit.

I’m not anti anyone at all. I’m not a racist in particular. I’m anti parasitism in all its forms, particularly falsehoods. I’m anti-folly. And I’m anti-conflict. Now, Natural Law of cooperation that we call ‘reciprocity’ tells us what NOT to do. So I end up writing a lot of “Reprimands” (as a follower explained recently.) And I write reprimands of pretty much group on earth – particularly my own. Where I come from is this: There was, that I know of, only one enlightenment – that of Britain – and it was purely empirical. Every culture, in response, has resisted that empirical enlightenment. If we were at the end of the french or german or russian counter-enlightenments, I would attack them. but the french, the germans, and the Russians (or at least the jewish Russians) committed suicide. At present we are at the end of the American Christian, and Ashkenazi-jewish counter-enlightenemtns, and in the midst of the Muslim counter-enlightenments. So of course, my work will place greater emphasis on current examples of interest in the current era, than it will on the french, german, and russian. And of course, I criticize the chinese and indian civilizations as well. Now, empirically, I have to accept that the fundamental problem all civilizations face is the underclass, and that all present, past, and even more so future, questions will be determined by how we answer the fundamental problem of the ‘drag’ that the underclasses place upon mankind. And I understand that this is a difficult problem. But that single problem is solved by soft eugenics: one child policy for the unproductive, and paying them to have either one child only or no children at all. This will, as a consequence attach status to having multiple children, and … attach lack of status to those with wealth that do not. And this is the only solution I know of that is achieved by reciprocity under natural law. So if I offend you then you must answer these questions differently. And you will, of necessity, have a very difficult time finding a better method of calculating a happy prosperous mankind without entering into hubris or deceit.