—“People like Curt are the problem and not part of the solution.”— A Critic All: I don’t really have any technical critics. I kind of doubt I will ever see those any more than Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hume, Darwin, Menger, and Hayek saw technical critics. I have that I know of only non-technical critics. Most fall into the following camps: a) (Possible) They question whether, if my proposals were enacted that people would, compete the nationalist program and return to many, small, european nation states. b) (Practical) They prefer a faster, more ‘collectivist’ strategy in which they feel they have social (verbal) influence – or they feel that it is impractical to raise a revolution and enact constitutional changes. c) (Political) They are trying to rally through some sort of framing and my solution prevents emotional rallying by falsifying their framing and replaces it with one that is d) (Philosophical) They feel out of control and are seeking a means of control through some sort of framing that I have falsified. e) (Psychological) They feel out of control and are seeking a means of control and they cannot understand the algorithmic (operational) method that I’ve produced, and this makes them feel out of control again. FWIW: I can obviously understand and empathize with each of these criticisms. However, my intellectual contribution to mankind will survive and probably have influence regardless of those criticisms. So I have a list of objectives and the top of that list is producing that work. I know I can complete that work. I know a revolutionary change is possible because I know how easily that the American government can be collapsed. Whether I am able to produce a revolution and cause that collapse and institute such a constitutions *as I plan* is certainly a question. If I was ten years younger I wouldn’t really have any doubts. But my energy levels have decreased rapidly over the past decade and a half – possible just due to my illnesses, and possibly due to age. But that does not mean others who are younger, or more suited, or have more energy, will not succeed if I don’t. That it is possible to do a thing, and the labor and organization to do a thing are something different.
Theme: Science
-
Um. I Don’t Have Technical Critics…
—“People like Curt are the problem and not part of the solution.”— A Critic All: I don’t really have any technical critics. I kind of doubt I will ever see those any more than Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hume, Darwin, Menger, and Hayek saw technical critics. I have that I know of only non-technical critics. Most fall into the following camps: a) (Possible) They question whether, if my proposals were enacted that people would, compete the nationalist program and return to many, small, european nation states. b) (Practical) They prefer a faster, more ‘collectivist’ strategy in which they feel they have social (verbal) influence – or they feel that it is impractical to raise a revolution and enact constitutional changes. c) (Political) They are trying to rally through some sort of framing and my solution prevents emotional rallying by falsifying their framing and replaces it with one that is d) (Philosophical) They feel out of control and are seeking a means of control through some sort of framing that I have falsified. e) (Psychological) They feel out of control and are seeking a means of control and they cannot understand the algorithmic (operational) method that I’ve produced, and this makes them feel out of control again. FWIW: I can obviously understand and empathize with each of these criticisms. However, my intellectual contribution to mankind will survive and probably have influence regardless of those criticisms. So I have a list of objectives and the top of that list is producing that work. I know I can complete that work. I know a revolutionary change is possible because I know how easily that the American government can be collapsed. Whether I am able to produce a revolution and cause that collapse and institute such a constitutions *as I plan* is certainly a question. If I was ten years younger I wouldn’t really have any doubts. But my energy levels have decreased rapidly over the past decade and a half – possible just due to my illnesses, and possibly due to age. But that does not mean others who are younger, or more suited, or have more energy, will not succeed if I don’t. That it is possible to do a thing, and the labor and organization to do a thing are something different.
-
The Raufoss Mk 211 is a .50 caliber (12.7×99mm NATO) multipurpose anti-matériel
The Raufoss Mk 211 is a .50 caliber (12.7×99mm NATO) multipurpose anti-matériel High-explosive incendiary/armor-piercing ammunition projectile produced by Nammo (Nordic Ammunition Group, a Norwegian/Finnish military industry manufacturer of ammunition), under the model name NM140 MP.[1] It is common… -
The Raufoss Mk 211 is a .50 caliber (12.7×99mm NATO) multipurpose anti-matériel
The Raufoss Mk 211 is a .50 caliber (12.7×99mm NATO) multipurpose anti-matériel High-explosive incendiary/armor-piercing ammunition projectile produced by Nammo (Nordic Ammunition Group, a Norwegian/Finnish military industry manufacturer of ammunition), under the model name NM140 MP.[1] It is common… -
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-28 17:45:00 UTC
-
Very clearly a difference between economists and all other social scientists. Ju
Very clearly a difference between economists and all other social scientists. Just like there is a difference between philosophers of science and all other philosophers. Today I was so keenly aware that I about social science as an economist, philosopher of science, and theorist in algorithmic natural law…. -
Very clearly a difference between economists and all other social scientists. Ju
Very clearly a difference between economists and all other social scientists. Just like there is a difference between philosophers of science and all other philosophers.
Today I was so keenly aware that I about social science as an economist, philosopher of science, and theorist in algorithmic natural law….
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-26 15:28:00 UTC
-
Very clearly a difference between economists and all other social scientists. Ju
Very clearly a difference between economists and all other social scientists. Just like there is a difference between philosophers of science and all other philosophers. Today I was so keenly aware that I about social science as an economist, philosopher of science, and theorist in algorithmic natural law…. -
The universe operates on very simple rules, but does a great deal with those ver
The universe operates on very simple rules, but does a great deal with those very simple rules. Humans, as part of that universe, operate on very simple rules, but we do a great deal with those very simple rules. There is nothing incomprehensible. It’s just eliminating all the ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, that we are either born with or accumulate.
Was language invented to lie? Language was clearly not invented to tell the truth or it wouldn’t be nearly impossible for us to do so without so much effort. Instead, language merely evolved and like violence can be put to moral or immoral use.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-23 12:54:00 UTC
-
The universe operates on very simple rules, but does a great deal with those ver
The universe operates on very simple rules, but does a great deal with those very simple rules. Humans, as part of that universe, operate on very simple rules, but we do a great deal with those very simple rules. There is nothing incomprehensible. It’s just eliminating all the ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, that we are either born with or accumulate. Was language invented to lie? Language was clearly not invented to tell the truth or it wouldn’t be nearly impossible for us to do so without so much effort. Instead, language merely evolved and like violence can be put to moral or immoral use.