Spectrum Blindness: The Frequency Of Concepts, And Conceptual Networks As Production Cycles


Time Preferences form a spectrum, from the very short (high), to the very long (low) — just as do frequencies of light.

As one’s [glossary:time preference] increases in length (lowers), and the ability to perceive abstracts must necessarily increase.

As one’s ability to perceive abstracts decreases, time preference also must necessarily decrease (lower).

On average we all see a similar portion of the spectrum. Some the shorter and lower, some the longer and higher.

Concepts are the equivalent of production cycles. And concepts of different lengths are incommensurable.

Therefore human beings habituate and reinforce their time preferences, until they can no longer recognize or attribute value to concepts in the other portions of the spectrum.

At that point of habituation, [glossary:Time Preference] becomes [glossary:Time Bias].

So for genetic, environmental, cultural, pedagogical, and habitual reasons, people are effectively ‘color blind’ to different areas of the conceptual spectrum.

We cannot value each…

View original post 121 more words


Monopoly Thinking is Endemic in Democracy and Monotheism, but Not Polytheism and Propertarianism


[I] see class theory as a set of elites in each of four disciplines of only three of which produce political coercion:
1) Violence(male conservative)/Law,
2) Gossip(female progressive)/Speech
3) Remuneration (male)/Trade,
4) Transformation(male and female)/Production-Craftsmanship.

With Transformation not producing elites other than scientists (who are weak influencers). And with some groups succeeding in combining more than one means of coercion in the same group of elites. (Priest/Kings for example).

I see humans a negotiators for their part of the spectrum of the reproductive division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy.
1) Female consumption, short term (progressive)
2) Male biased production, medium term (libertarian)
3) Male accumulation, long term (conservative)
And that through voluntary exchange we ‘calculate’ the optimum for the group, despite the fact that none of us senses the entire spectrum sufficiently to make a general judgement.

I see the creative, productive, and ‘true’ processes as merely different points…

View original post 189 more words


Heroism: The Channeling of Dominance To The Expansion of the Commons.

—“You will not find some emotional appeal for heroism therein. Heroism is not mere emotionalism, but a state of deep detachment, the sovereign psychology.”— Josh. 
Thats dominance, not heroism. That’s Excellence as an expression of dominance.

Heroism cannot exist without a commons to benefit from the hero.

  • It may be true that heroism is merely the reward for dominance on behalf of the tribe.
  • It may be true that heroic status is merely compensation for breaking the ingroup moral bias against what would otherwise be interpreted as ‘dangerous’ displays of dominance. In other words, it may be true that heroism is a means of insuring the dominant that they will be free of retribution by ingroup members, by reversing the prohibition on dominance.
  • It may be excuse making by the population as a means of defense against dangerous displays of dominance.
  • You might be correct in that its dominance not heroism that inspires, and heroic status is merely a reward.
  • You might be correct in that heroism provides training for the young in the appropriate uses of dominance. (This is my interpretation).

In this sense your statement is correct: That 1) we seek to be free of the evolutionary norm that inhibits our desire for alpha dominance, and 2) that heroism is a normative institution that justifies the mature, and incentivizes the young, and limits uses and abuses to those that benefit the commons (ingroup members).

But you cannot conflate heroism, with dominance as you have done above.

So since dominance exists in all cultures, but only the west has constructed a (universal) heroic society, where the incentive to apply dominance is constantly rewarded, and heroism is a pedagogical means of channeling it to good uses, and punishing it for bad uses, then I think we can come to agreement.

It just took me overnight to think it through. I knew you were not so much wrong as not using the right language because conflation is natural to you, but if we agree that heroism is value/virtue that we train so that we do not need to suppress dominance, but instead, FOCUS dominance, so that we are a more competitive ‘tribe’ then I think we can agree that almost all men of ability seek to excercise their dominance just as much as a beautiful woman seeks to exercise hers so to speak.

If you had not written this post I would not have been able to put this question in to words, so yet again, I have to thank you for your insights and criticism, which over the past few years has been extremely helpful and influential.

I guess in this sense, the heroic tradition is our central ‘teaching’. “Your dominance is an asset to the tribe so long as it is channeled for the tribe’s benefit. And if we channel all our men’s dominance rather than suppress it, then we are concentrating a scarce and valuable resource into a constant evolutionary cycle.”

This plays into the argument that we develop faster than the rest because we do not seek to limit our people by limiting what they can do, only limiting what they cannot do. Most tribes do the opposite: they create rules of repetitive conduct (for stupid creatures) that focus effort in static directions, rather than focusing efforts of men in innovative and creative directions.

So through heroism (training for competition) and through dominance, and reward for ‘good cunning’ and punishment for ‘bad cunning’, and through the enfranchisement of all who will fight, we create a constant stream of predators at-the-ready in constant competition with one another, producing constant innovations in war, politics, industry, family, craft, and arts.

And this is why heroism (encouraging the mastery of dominance) is so effective a strategy: it creates a market (calculator) for excellence in dominance.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

— Original Post from Josh —

After studying Aryan traditions more, it’s become increasingly clear to me what I was always suspecting would happen.

You will not find some emotional appeal for heroism therein. Heroism is not mere emotionalism, but a state of deep detachment, the sovereign psychology.

I understand you want methods for class collaboration; you want inspiration for the working class, but the Aryan mind doesn’t play that game. Such appeals to emotionalism would themselves lead to petty attachment.

Instead, this mind simply does what is necessary—katam karaniyam—without regret, hesitation, or feeling. This impersonal action would also concern policing the classes, but any downward inspiration would be indirect and secondary.

Thus, very much opposite of considering the ancient Aryan traditions as silly hokum for the less bright, they were the highest form of consciousness and represent the missing raison d’être that was plaguing your scientistic system.

Regarding what we do to inspire the working class, we can consult Evola and Nietzsche, who both believed these men of lesser consciousness (the telluric, the lunar, the Catholic) inherently can only behold these higher states in fractured ways, as separated salvationist divinities, and the avatars of these divinities are heroic men past and present.

So, this would be the skeleton of my synthesis and how I solve your problem. Catholic Traditionalism, as it did at the time, can be a method of organizing women and lower men around higher men, but it’s very important to understand that that isn’t the only spiritual dynamic going on. It won’t work if that’s all you have; the lower classes will orient around their myopic perception of spirituality if there isn’t authentic divinity in their presence, which requires the heroic, which is only produced by the Olympian, which is as I said the missing “soul” of your system.

So, being that some of this isn’t your first choice of study, I’ll recap:

1: Aryan traditions are not an appeal to the lower classes, but are the ‘why’ of why someone would commit themselves to the heroic ‘aristocratic’ deeds (deep sovereignty, authenticity, detachment).

2: There are grades of ‘spirits’ in Evola’s work, just as Nietzsche theorized personhood was inherently an aristocratic phenomenon, with few people possessing deep authenticity. Understanding this, if we want to know what interfaces with the lower tiers, we must study the spiritual schools that occur there (telluric animism < lunar salvationism < Catholic Traditionalism < Olympian Aryan).

3: The main takeaway for you is that the Aryan traditions are not mere tools for your scientistic system, but the very psychology that animates its most involved functions, which is why it’s not accurate to even look at these traditions as ‘religions’, really. They aren’t escapist or Platonic, but completely holistic. For an expansion on that, I’ll use Jünger’s brother.


Precision in Argument vs Transfer of Meaning

Most of what I encounter is people trying to talk about precise things dependent upon reason and deduction, while relying on imprecise language from which reason and deduction are largely impossible.

One cannot make deductive arguments from the common speech – which is full of error and ignorance.

There is a very good reason that each discipline uses specific terminoligy despite the confusion that this creates for non-members: some degree of precision is necessary for the purpose of argument.

Law still uses latin terms for good reason: they’re not open to colloquial interpretation.


Natural Law Means A Simple Law.

When arguing under natural law it is not so important that you master all the contracts (legislations) and processes (regulations). The reason being that legislations and regulations are always open to revision or refutation if they violate the One Law. So while many layers of contract and regulation may result in conformity to the One Law, it is also possible that they may result in violation of the One Law. And the only way we know that is through FULL ACCOUNTING.

Tech Business

Realities of IQ in Business

(No jimmy, not everyone can join the upper middle class)

People above 140 come up with new concepts.
People above 130 come up with new business ideas.
People above 120 exploit niches in markets with existing ideas.
People above 110 work harder than others are willing to at capturing marginal opportunities at lower profit, that better companies are unwilling to chase.
People above 100 might, if they’re lucky manage well.
People below 100 do the work of bringing others’ ideas to fruition.
People below 85 are too difficult and expensive to train to work on ideas.

(If you thought of it, and you arent’ in the 130+ category, someone thought of it already, and decided it wasn’t possible, or worth it. on the other hand, if you are willing to serve niche customers who you can empathize with that is something you can turn into money. But you must get customers, you cannot attract them.)


Why Are We Not Better Off Killing, Dispossessing Or Enslaving You?


The fact that I don’t kill you, enslave you, or dispossess you, and instead cooperate with you for mutual benefit, does not include the presumption that I will sacrifice for you. If I must sacrifice for you then I am better of killing, enslaving, or dispossessing you.

You presume too much. contribution to commons, and insurance against vicissitudes of nature, are not the same as redistribution allowing you to increase your consumption and reproduction.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine