TRADING MASCULINE EUROPEAN ADVERSARIALISM FOR FEMININE ABRAHAMIC UNDERMINING (important framing) The western canon consists of the study of Adversarialism: Truth(Science), Law, Politics, Economics, and War. That’s my ambition for the Propertarian Institute. The postwar doctrine consists in the eradication of Adversarialism – because women can’t compete. Without grasping that it is the foundation of our civilization. So we have replaced truthful Adversarialism with dishonest, sophomoric, and pseudoscientific feminine undermining. Why? Sexual Genetics: Truth and Systems Vs Approval and Experiences. Adversarialism: truth seeking, Discourse: consensus seeking, Undermining: deception seeking.
Theme: Truth
-
Undermining European Adversarialism
TRADING MASCULINE EUROPEAN ADVERSARIALISM FOR FEMININE ABRAHAMIC UNDERMINING (important framing) The western canon consists of the study of Adversarialism: Truth(Science), Law, Politics, Economics, and War. That’s my ambition for the Propertarian Institute. The postwar doctrine consists in the eradication of Adversarialism – because women can’t compete. Without grasping that it is the foundation of our civilization. So we have replaced truthful Adversarialism with dishonest, sophomoric, and pseudoscientific feminine undermining. Why? Sexual Genetics: Truth and Systems Vs Approval and Experiences. Adversarialism: truth seeking, Discourse: consensus seeking, Undermining: deception seeking.
-
The Errors of Our Thinking at Both Bottom and Top
May 2, 2020, 10:19 AM Dunning-Kruger overconfidence expresses a lack of ability. However, educational overconfidence expresses a lack of skepticism. Half truths whether theological, philosophical, historical, scientific, or formal, are sources of ignorance by providing us with overconfidence. Mathiness has been the source of formal, philosophical, and scientific (physical and social) ignorance. Philosophical sophistry has been the source of most of the rest of pseudo intellectual ignorance. And of course theological – a monopoly conflating all the falsehoods plus false promise – is the most ignorance inducing of all. It appears that there are a very small number of fundamental laws that can be taught to everyone at the cost of suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses, and the suppression of the parasitism of the elite classes. Paragraph one – low end of the spectrum Paragraph two – high end of the spectrum Paragraph three – curing the problems of the high AND low ends of the spectrum
-
The Errors of Our Thinking at Both Bottom and Top
May 2, 2020, 10:19 AM Dunning-Kruger overconfidence expresses a lack of ability. However, educational overconfidence expresses a lack of skepticism. Half truths whether theological, philosophical, historical, scientific, or formal, are sources of ignorance by providing us with overconfidence. Mathiness has been the source of formal, philosophical, and scientific (physical and social) ignorance. Philosophical sophistry has been the source of most of the rest of pseudo intellectual ignorance. And of course theological – a monopoly conflating all the falsehoods plus false promise – is the most ignorance inducing of all. It appears that there are a very small number of fundamental laws that can be taught to everyone at the cost of suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses, and the suppression of the parasitism of the elite classes. Paragraph one – low end of the spectrum Paragraph two – high end of the spectrum Paragraph three – curing the problems of the high AND low ends of the spectrum
-
When We Perceive Something Wrong – We’re Right
May 2, 2020, 11:07 AM (The Economics of Communication) To profit we must exchange. To trade (communication) requires we discover a medium of exchange. To exchange we must discover coincidences of wants using the available medium of exchange. All language consists of measurements. Measurements within paradigms. Paradigms that serve interests. Interests that are achievable with abilities. And values that measure the degree of interests. So we are trying to achieve commensurability so that we can measure the value of the exchange. When we are frustrated it means we are seeking cooperation (exchange, trade, returns) where the transaction costs are higher than the rewards. When we are not frustrated it means we have divided the labor of discovering coincidences of wants, commensurable mediums of exchanges, given abilities, values, and paradigms. Are we frustrated that they don’t think like us or that the cost of thinking like them, or reducing our thoughts to their level of precision is too costly? Are we frustrated by those cost or are we frustrated that that we no longer function in an aristocratic hierarchy because under democracy our words despite our differences in ability are mispriced? If we were still ruled by Nindsors, Nevilles, Fitzroys, Marlboroughs, Curzons rather than the parliament of fools would we have this problem? If the anglo-dutch aristocracy and the german labor majority were not undermined by underclass immigration? If our society was organized multi dimensionally so that the martial hierarchy, the commercial hierarchy, and the informational hierarchy were mediated by the law preventing ‘putting fingers on the scale’, would this be the case? So my view is the over-commercialization of society, and the over-politicization of society that were the result of the windfalls of the industrial revolution, and the (((world wars))) we tolerated by not nationalizing banking, and redistributing the windfalls of interests on state credit, as we all sought to seek commercial success where the balance of military-aristocratic, comercial-noble, and intellectual-arts and knowledge, and priestly-service could compete on their own terms rather than universal commercialization (privatization). We are at the end of the windfall. And we must learn, that like the athenian discovery of the silver mine, the roman conquest of the celts, the spanish conquest of the mezzo americas, that the industrial revolution created the ability to devote our energies increasingly away from food production to innovation. And that we followed the folly of the athenians, romans, the spanish, into the false promise of endless growth and the abandonment of aristocratic martial discipline, in favor of commercial overconsumption. If something is’t computing without substantial friction than the computation system is ‘programmed’ with the incorrect incentives and resulting division of labor.
-
I’m not against anyone.
May 2, 2020, 2:14 PM
I”m not against anyone. But you’re either integrating into the militia, the natural law, duty reciprocity and truth, markets in everything, trifunctionalism, optimum government, and evolutionary necessity or you’re not only undermining western civlization, but mankind, and you’re not only depriving those of us who inherited all those institutions from self determination but leaving us no choice but war.
-
I’m not against anyone.
May 2, 2020, 2:14 PM
I”m not against anyone. But you’re either integrating into the militia, the natural law, duty reciprocity and truth, markets in everything, trifunctionalism, optimum government, and evolutionary necessity or you’re not only undermining western civlization, but mankind, and you’re not only depriving those of us who inherited all those institutions from self determination but leaving us no choice but war.
-
You Won”t Be Able to Criticize or Falsify P-Logic and Law
You Won”t Be Able to Criticize or Falsify P-Logic and Law https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/09/you-wont-be-able-to-criticize-or-falsify-p-logic-and-law/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-09 15:31:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259144023283044353
-
You Won”t Be Able to Criticize or Falsify P-Logic and Law
May 3, 2020, 9:40 AM Every professional discipline uses a methodology. P creates a single professional discipline of the metaphysical, psychological, social, political, and group strategy. It is to sentient sciences what physics is to non-sentient physical sciences. P is a methodology that produces a formal grammar (or logic). As such it is what we refer to as a formal science (formal logic of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology). We use that science to explain western civlization. We use the explanation of western civilization to explain why it’s the optimum civilization. We explain and advocate our preference for that optimum civilization. We use that understanding and preference of optimum civilization to correct past and present errors in that civilization, and to restore, reform, and, innovate on that optimum civilization. It is impossible to criticize the methodology (science). It is very difficult to criticize what we do with it. At best one can argue for preference of different organizations of our or other civilizations given the tactical advantage of circumstances, within that strategic optimum. You must be able to criticize P on it’s foundations and it’s propositions. (You won’t be able to). The difference between counting, accounting, mathematics, programming, and P is simply the increasing number of causal dimensions in the domains they describe). You certainly can criticize the choice of continuing the strategy of western civlization or the policy implementations we suggest to do so. But you aren’t going to be able to criticize the logic or science whatsoever. It won’t happen. You don’t know that yet. But I do. Hostility to criticism of any of the sciences (logical facility, logic, mathematics, accounting, mathematics, programming, P (P-logic, P-Law) is simply hostility to laziness and ignorance rather than informed debate. P is not a theology, philosophy, ideology, or analogy. It’s a (the) formal grammar (logic, vocabulary, paradigm) of sentient life if not all life.
-
You Won”t Be Able to Criticize or Falsify P-Logic and Law
May 3, 2020, 9:40 AM Every professional discipline uses a methodology. P creates a single professional discipline of the metaphysical, psychological, social, political, and group strategy. It is to sentient sciences what physics is to non-sentient physical sciences. P is a methodology that produces a formal grammar (or logic). As such it is what we refer to as a formal science (formal logic of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology). We use that science to explain western civlization. We use the explanation of western civilization to explain why it’s the optimum civilization. We explain and advocate our preference for that optimum civilization. We use that understanding and preference of optimum civilization to correct past and present errors in that civilization, and to restore, reform, and, innovate on that optimum civilization. It is impossible to criticize the methodology (science). It is very difficult to criticize what we do with it. At best one can argue for preference of different organizations of our or other civilizations given the tactical advantage of circumstances, within that strategic optimum. You must be able to criticize P on it’s foundations and it’s propositions. (You won’t be able to). The difference between counting, accounting, mathematics, programming, and P is simply the increasing number of causal dimensions in the domains they describe). You certainly can criticize the choice of continuing the strategy of western civlization or the policy implementations we suggest to do so. But you aren’t going to be able to criticize the logic or science whatsoever. It won’t happen. You don’t know that yet. But I do. Hostility to criticism of any of the sciences (logical facility, logic, mathematics, accounting, mathematics, programming, P (P-logic, P-Law) is simply hostility to laziness and ignorance rather than informed debate. P is not a theology, philosophy, ideology, or analogy. It’s a (the) formal grammar (logic, vocabulary, paradigm) of sentient life if not all life.