Theme: Truth

  • Free speech, limited libel/slander were granted to ensure truth in government. N

    Free speech, limited libel/slander were granted to ensure truth in government. Not fund Paparazzi and Entertainment.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-26 07:34:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735735856082739200

    Reply addressees: @fmanjoo @felixsalmon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735692028529369091


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735692028529369091

  • The only voice of authority is not synthesis (advocacy) but neutral criticism (s

    The only voice of authority is not synthesis (advocacy) but neutral criticism (science). Yet this is not culture of news.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-26 06:54:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735725748342788096

    Reply addressees: @brianstelter

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735706835349471232


    IN REPLY TO:

    @brianstelter

    Warren Buffett’s bleak view of his beloved newspaper biz: “We haven’t cracked the code yet…” https://t.co/X1F7miA6sv

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735706835349471232

  • All ideas originate on the internet, but no synthetic editorial voice across the

    All ideas originate on the internet, but no synthetic editorial voice across them. Need era of empirical (analytic) news.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-26 06:53:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735725550472298496

    Reply addressees: @brianstelter

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735706835349471232


    IN REPLY TO:

    @brianstelter

    Warren Buffett’s bleak view of his beloved newspaper biz: “We haven’t cracked the code yet…” https://t.co/X1F7miA6sv

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735706835349471232

  • The reason prior gen. lacked solutions, was that the truth is hard to face: West

    The reason prior gen. lacked solutions, was that the truth is hard to face: West’s rapid progress largely result of eugenics.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-26 06:34:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735720628217511936

    Reply addressees: @charlesmurray

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/733412991534665728


    IN REPLY TO:

    @charlesmurray

    I get pretty irritated about that too. https://t.co/6EtklMG7qI

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/733412991534665728

  • We can explain deductively once we understand empirically. But we cannot deduce

    We can explain deductively once we understand empirically. But we cannot deduce economic or genetic phenomenon. Mises failed


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-26 06:28:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735719274988199936

    Reply addressees: @charlesmurray

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734206243963699200


    IN REPLY TO:

    @charlesmurray

    Why even very smart economists (e.g. Deirdre McCloskey) must do their homework before holding forth on genetics. https://t.co/ToY644z7T3

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734206243963699200

  • What’s it mean to be a philosopher? What is this thing we call philosophy? We co

    What’s it mean to be a philosopher? What is this thing we call philosophy?

    We could say that it is a discipline by which we learn the craft of reasoning. So, many of us philosophize just as many of us repair machines, or do housework, or use mathematics.

    But using these tools is different from demonstrating a mastery of them, or demonstrating one’s ability of surviving a competition with others who may do it better. Or creating innovative ideas using reason.

    We could say that philosophy is a discipline in which we attempt to master the criteria for decision making in any field of interest. Or rather, the process of creating a set of internally consistent general rules (theories) of decidability in a domain of inquiry.

    We could say that philosophy is a discipline in which we attempt to discover fundamental truths – but I would suggest that this is the same as determining the means of decision making – a network of interdependent, internally consistent theories – in any field of interest.

    I’m going to provide a narrow definition of the discipline of philosophy. Because while many people philosophize, just as many people work with wood, few people succeed in mastery of it.

    A philosopher’s job is to take new knowledge and understanding, and to reorganize the causes, values, decisions, and narratives of the current network of causes, values, decisions, and explanatory narratives to make use of the new knowledge, providing us with greater explanatory power, greater power of action, and greater parsimony between our model of the world we live in and objective reality. This is a better way of saying that a philosopher’s job is to increase the precision of model we use to determine courses of action in the world.

    Conversely, it is possible to use reasoning to create errors, to create justifications and rationalizations, to create cunning but empty circumventions, and develop elaborate deceits. And it appears that many philosophers use the verbal craft of philosophy, not to create greater correspondence, but to advocate for a deception. And that is what most if all prophets do.

    So reasoning, or philosophizing, can be used for good – meaning greater correspondence with reality, giving us grater control of reality. Or it can be used for ill – meaning non-correspondence with reality, giving others more control of us.

    A philosopher reorganizes a network of theories in response to, by including, knew knowledge and understanding.

    A logician is not a philosopher.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-25 08:20:00 UTC

  • SALON: A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW As one of the principle philosophers of what libe

    http://www.salon.com/2016/05/23/donald_trump_is_going_to_win_this_is_why_hillary_clinton_cant_defeat_what_trump_represents/FOR SALON: A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW

    As one of the principle philosophers of what liberals refer to as “reactionary fascism”….

    … I’d like to add that the problem with both neo-liberalism and movement-conservatism has been the assumption that the other side would eventually ‘catch on’ rather than pursue their own interests.

    Liberal(socialist) strategy reflects the female reproductive strategy to increase the viability of her offspring regardless of its merit to the tribe, and to increase numbers in an attempt to prevent alphas from controlling the direction of evolution.

    The conservative(aristocratic) strategy reflects the male reproductive strategy to increase the viability of the tribe in competition with other tribes, regardless of the interests of the uncompetitive individuals within it.

    What happened instead, was that once the difference between male and female reproductive strategy was no longer constrained to the family, and that policy was no longer developed to advance the family, was that females first, and as a consequence, more recently males, have each pursued their individual reproductive interests in politics and law, instead of compromising them within the family, and voting in the interests of the family.

    Ergo, just as socialism(non-merit) advances the interests of females and underclasses, aristocracy(merit) – what you call fascism – advances the interests of the male.

    The institutional solution to this problem of conflict are either (a) restoration of the family as the central purpose of policy – rather than the individual, or (b) the separation of houses in to gender, class and race, so that all must agree to any policy in order for it to ascend into legislative law.

    The west advanced faster than ‘the rest’ in large part because of successfully instituted eugenic reproduction over a period of many hundreds of years.

    1) Late marriage ensuring women were experienced at working and running households.

    2) Prohibition on cousin marriage out to as many as 12 generations – ensuring limited genetic damage from inbreeding that is so influential in much of the world.

    3) Extension of property rights to women ensuring that cousin marriage could not be used to hold territory in a clan.

    4) The use of Bipartite Manorialism to restrict access to farmland to married couples of demonstrated character sufficient to make use of it.

    5) Heavy taxation that limited the reproduction of the lower classes.

    6) Hanging 1/2 to 1% of the population every single year.

    7) The cumulative effect being the upward redistribution of reproduction to the genetic middle class.

    Liberalism(female reproductive strategy) inverts this aristocracy/fascism(male reproductive strategy), redistributing reproduction downward to the lower classes.

    WHY DOES THIS DIFFERENCE EXIST?

    Man has developed two strategies for organizing(governing) societies, with each necessary for the demographics each governs.

    1) The Persian/Iranian/Jewish/Egyptian (Managers)

    In the fertile crescent the climate allows the survival of many offspring and the use of flood plains can make use of genetically lower class labor and slaves.

    In the Persian/Jewish/Egyptian model, an elite uses verbal mysticism to dominate and ‘farm’ the lower classes, using large slave armies.

    2) The Chinese / Russian (conquerors)

    The Conquering Peoples. The Chinese rapidly advanced beyond flood plains out of defense against raiding neighbors and then converted to authoritarian conquerors. But out of genetic and cultural diversity, had to maintain authoritarian order.

    The Russians -steppe raiders- learned their governance from the conquering Mongols, and so started as conquerors, and because of genetic and cultural diversity had to maintain authoritarian order – bypassing both the flood pain, and the

    3) The Hellenic/Roman/Germanic (enfranchisors)

    The forest-and-rivers of the european plain allow for if not require, individual family farms, and the survival of harsh winters limits the ability of the genetically lower classes from survival.

    In the Hellenic/Roman/Germanic model, an elite uses rule of law among many peers to suppress the reproduction and burden of the lower classes, using militia and voluntarily organized warriors.

    4) The Hindu/South American Model (Failed Managers)

    In this model the aristocracy is so overwhelmed by the numbers of the underclasses that it cannot create Pareto-distribution of property, and without the control of the flood plains, the only method of insuring the survivability of the populace is through castes, and constraining the upper classes from down-breeding.

    We see this socialist strategy today in the Islamic forced indoctrination, in Jewish verbalism – information control by saturation of it, and in Chinese/Russian violence/censorship – information control by limiting it. All three of these methods are constructed of deceit.

    We see this aristocratic strategy today only in Germanic the west, that still seeks to parent society into a universal genetic middle class – an ‘aristocracy of everyone’ – by the suppression or at least out-casting of the underclasses.

    THE WEST MUST CHOOSE A FUTURE SUITABLE TO ITS DEMOGRAPHIC, AND A DEMOGRAPHIC SUITABLE TO ITS DESIRED FUTURE

    The Aristocratic Egalitarian System (that everyone seems to want to belong to)

    The Caste System (which is evolving in south america)

    The Authoritarian Disinformation System (Russia and china)

    The Authoritarian Mystical System (Judaism in all its many forms / Islamism)

    In the end, we must abandon the pseudosciences of the Jewish Enlightenment: Boaz, Freud, Marx, and the Frankfurt School. As well as the pseudosciences of the continentals: the postmodernists. As well as the pseudosciences of the soviets.

    Our world is as genetic as that of domesticated animals. We are unequal. And it is more important that we suppress the reproduction of the lower classes than it is that we attempt to improve the upper.

    There is precious little evidence that more than two and a half standard deviations in intelligence make much difference – instead it introduces dysfunction. Our problem is increasing the domestication and intelligence of the population by one standard deviation (15 points) and we cannot do that, nor possess prosperity, nor redistribution, nor liberty, if we reverse three thousand years of eugenic reproduction.

    This is the world as it is. Governing the people we possess. With the people we possess to govern with.

    Neoliberalism is yet another lie. A new mysticism. A secular religion. An evolution of Egyptian, Persian, Jewish, Muslim thought. Nothing more. Yet another set of appealing lies.

    And those lies are a prison for genes, and therefore for man.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-24 07:21:00 UTC

  • THIS ARTICLE A DISINGENUOUS JOURNALISTIC JUSTIFICATIONISM WITH A HEAVY DOSE OF P

    http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article79165287.html#fmpIS THIS ARTICLE A DISINGENUOUS JOURNALISTIC JUSTIFICATIONISM WITH A HEAVY DOSE OF PSYCHOLOGISM THROWN IN FOR EXTRA MEASURE?

    People don’t like or trust the Clintons

    1) Hillary-care vs Obama-care. We still hold her responsible for the first failure as much as we will soon hold Obama accountable for the second: imposing controls on our largest industry against the will of the voters.

    2) Clinton-era devolution of the military. Against the will of the voters.

    3) Dead Soldiers. Did we say “Dead Soldiers?” Did we say lying about dead soldiers? Against the will of the voters.

    4) The Clinton Foundation’s behavior. (I have personal experience – they lied and stole 2M from my company)

    5) Tolerating a husband’s serial-sex-predator problems. And not honestly addressing it.

    6) “More of the Same Policy” instead of the end of empire-under-the-rubric of-globalism.

    7) Racial and Minority Pandering in an era where the parties represent racial divides.

    8) The most scandalous presidency on record – and she covered for it.

    9) Taking credit for 1990’s economy which was entirely the result of the end of world socialism and the universal adoption of consumer capitalism.

    10) Did we say ‘flagrant disregard for the rule of law, and a failure to come clean, apologize, and correct the behavior”.

    11) Total absence of any creativity, innovation, policy, to address the current world and domestic stresses.

    12) The backing of wall street, which is no longer providing a necessary function of distributing physical currency, or marshaling hard-money-credit in an economy of digital currency created from the issuance of shares in the economy: what we call fiat money.

    13) The boomers killed america. She’s a typical lower middle class boomer social climber, and she bears every unlikeable property of her generation.

    Our rule of law is sacred. Our Truthfulness in speech is sacred. Our military and our soldiers are sacred. Our marriages and our families are sacred. And the presidency functions as the sacred moral steward of the country. But, what does sacred mean? It means that no matter what good we wish to achieve in private or the commons we may not violate those rules in achieving it – because our ability to create those commons

    She has no respect for the sacred. And so we have no respect for her.

    She’s a professional pandering, Boomer politician. A product of the postmodern anti-scientific, ant-rational, anti-moral generation.

    She represents all that is sick with our nation.

    Of course she is not trusted, disliked, and by some, openly despised.

    Because she’s deserving of it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-24 05:23:00 UTC

  • (review) Probably your best paper yet. No criticisms. Subject near and dear to m

    (review)

    Probably your best paper yet. No criticisms. Subject near and dear to my heart.

    -Unwanted, Thoughts-

    “Ought” is a moral term, that we have appropriated for use in probability. Where probability has altered the declarative nature of the english language significantly since it’s origins in 16th century, but more extensively since the development of statistics in the 19th and 20th centuries. So much so that most stuttering and rephrasing in English is almost always reducible to an attempt to convert english declarative speech, into political and probabilistic speech.

    Application of the principle of Probability outside of closed axiomatic systems falls under the Ludic fallacy, just as justification falls under the Ludic fallacy. Man-made systems may be constructed axiomatically, but very little in nature is so closed.

    The most important error, or oversight, or ‘missing concept’ in popper’s thought is cost. Just as the most significant error, oversight, or missing concept in western philosophy for 2500 years has been cost.

    For, it is not that we ought to do what is probable, any more than we ought to do what is justifiable. it is that we ought to do what we can ascertain will provide us with the greatest return, at the lowest, cost, in the shortest, time, with the greatest certainty, at the lowest risk.

    Popper’s two anchors – critical preference and critical rationalism – ignore the problems of decidability, cost, and action. And he never conducted any research on whether his logical statement was empirically true, or he might have discovered that it wasn’t true.

    That is because there is a very high correlation between taking the least cost route to experimental discovery, and discovery – for obvious reasons: the the universe out of necessity operates by this same axiom. Only man delays action in order to amplify returns. Nature seizes all available opportunity.

    So, my view is that Popper didn’t understand physics (although he did understand the calculus thoroughly), just as mises did not understand either science, or mathematics. And that Poincare, Popper, Mises, Brouwer, Bridgman and Hayek – and I can group Einstein in this list – were all victims of the same 2500 year old bad habit in philosophy of avoiding the consideration of cost, because not only is it difficult (See Pareto) to obtain sufficient data, but it was considered Gauche in most of history for learned men to soil their hands, words, and minds with the sin of cost: reality.

    So in summary, I kept wanting to interject “but…” when reading your otherwise excellent paper. Because I think you illustrate the point but do not answer the failure of the philosophy of the social sciences on one end – to consider cost – and the failure of economics on the other end – the failure to fully account for genetic, normative and institutional costs.

    Cheers.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-23 08:12:00 UTC

  • (True. But it has also told us uncomfortable truths. One of which is that change

    (True. But it has also told us uncomfortable truths. One of which is that changes are harder than we anticipated going in.)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-19 12:04:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/733267017608859648

    Reply addressees: @pmarca

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/733169088302718977


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/733169088302718977