6.1.0-Progressivism (Feminism) · Genders · Women, Men, Relationships

Love Doesn’t Require Debate

We are supposed to love women and care for them. We are not supposed to debate with them over true or false. Only whether a want is possible for the two of us, or impossible for the two of us. Our education, commerce, and politics places too much emphasis on true or false or good or bad, and too little upon possible and impossible. Women are precious creatures if they are honest. There is no reason we must worry about good and true. Only possible and harmful. It does not matter if what they want is good or true, only whether it is possible and not harmful. We are happy to ask women not to ask us to think as women. But we too infrequently fail to reciprocate by not asking women to think as men. Women nest at home, seek signal status with their peers, and try to overload their children, and none of these three impulses have any limit other than her exhaustion. An exhaustion which she will transfer to you. So do not ask woment to be men and think of limits and efficiency. Just love them, and do what is possible. The suffering occurs when we engage in transfers and not exchanges. and the enemy of exchanges is lethargy caused by lack of fitness, and lack of will.

6.1.1.0-Socialism-Communism · Uncategorized

Why Don’t We Have Some Form Of Communism?

The problem is quite simple. It’s just unpleasant. But the universe is not kind. It has no mercy. And science tells us uncomfortable truths.
if you cannot find a means of survival in the market, and others can do so but at lower prices, humanity does not need you. If humanity does not need you then your only choice is to find a means to make your nation, region, tribe, kin, or family need you. The problem with any MONOPOLY order (Fascist, Libertarian, Socialist), and the problem we created in the enlightenment promise that all people could join the middle upper middle, or aristocratic classes, if we expanded either the authoritarian, market, or socialist forms of economy. Instead, we need economies for each of the major classes, because we need to organize each of those classes differently. So monopolies, even monopoly democracy (majoritarianism) turns out to be the problem rather than the solution to the differences in the productivity of the estates of the realm (martial-order, burger-managemnet, craftsman-producer).

There exist only three possible axes of coercion:
– Violence:Law,
– Bribery: Markets and Insurance
– Fraud: Religion, Propaganda, and Deceit

There exist only three axes of cooperation:
– Parasitism:Takings,
– Exchange:Markets,
– Avoidance:Boycott

There exist only three rational axes:
– Predation when possible (immorality),
– Exchange when Possible (morality);
– Avoidance when possible (amorality).

There exist only three methods of negotiation on cooperation.
– Truth(science), Truthfulness, Honesty
– Falsehood: Error, Bias, wishful thinking, suggestion/framing/loading, overloading/pseudoscience/pseudorationalism/propaganda, and deceit.
– Silence.

There exist only three axes of Organization
– Predation(parasitism,
– Exchange(production),
– Separation (resistance)

There exist only three possible axes of decidability for cooperative organizations:
– Deliberate Selection via Authoritarianism (Fascism)
– Pragmatic Eugenic Meritocracy (Markets)
– Dysgenic Malthusian Equalitarianism (Socialism)

The earth tells us a very clear, very obvious, very loud message: there are too many of us. Humans are not precious or special or valuable or intrinsically good. We are rational super predators organized by the application of violence and law, market and productivity, and norm and family.

1.7-The Solution (Promise) · 2.8-Evolution · 6.1.1-Cosmopolitanism (Judaism) · Uncategorized

You Want Me To Say Something Both Offensive And True?

You want me to say something offensive? Ok. How’s this: what’s a greater crime? The holocaust (the forcible deportation to of a gypsies, jews, and other non-conformists) or the inventions of the infantilizing lies of the Abrahamic religions and Cosmopolitan pseudoscience? (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Adorno+Co, Rothbard/Rand, Straussian Neo-Conservatism, Feminism, Postmodernism, and “Political Correctness”?)

What has caused more harm to mankind? It’s not even worth discussing. And after the west rescues the disenfranchised, what do they do? They struggle to destroy it by turning our high trust homogenous polity into another failed Levantine catastrophe.

THE UTOPIA CANNOT EXIST
We either create small prosperous redistributive high trust homogenous states, or we create a large corrupt low trust poor caste system.

There is no alternative.

6.1-Ideologies

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

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

6.1.1.1-Libertinism

The Criminality of Rothbardian Ethics

Moreover, the this is why libertarians were wrong in privatization. The difference between a commons and private goods, is that owners can consume private goods, and others cannot, whereas no-one can consume commons whether one was a contributor or not.

Instead the market (locality) itself benefits from the *externalities* produced by the construction of the commons.

So private property prohibits others from consumption, and commons prevent all from consumption. And whereas competition in the market creates incentives to produce private goods, competition in the construction of commons produces malincentives.

Why? Because of loss aversion. Given that commons product benefits only be externality, they must be free of privatization in order to provide incentive to produce them.

The libertarian solution was to make commons either impossible to produce due to malincentives, or to create vehicles for extraction by externality without contributing to production. pathways through two-dimensional space are particularly problematic since the only way to create private property is with a militia or military funded by the commons.

The answer instead is to increase incentives for the private production of commons as a status signal and personal monument that outlast’s one’s lifetime, and can be inherited by one’s offspring. And to increase the scale of commons that can be produced by the public (market) production of commons that are free from privatization.

6.1.1.1-Libertinism

The Fallacy of Libertarian ‘Principles’.

( recorded here )

This is such a great question. And I can answer it from several or all points of view.

  • First: any argument to principle is not argument to causality and can be generally interpreted as an attempt at deceit by the use of half truths in order to cause the individual to rely on intuition and therefore be the victim of suggestion.
  • Second: the full sentence would be that man acts in his rational self interest at all times given his available information and his available means of understanding.
  • Third: mises epistemology is a derivation of the kantian fallacy. Because while we can use free association to construct hypotheses, in the form of deduction, induction, and abduction (guessing), we cannot claim these to be truth propositions like we can in geometry, ( nor can we in geometry at scale either) because the information in reality is more causally dense than the ideal world of perfect imaginary mathematical categories. So for truth propositions we must ensure to perform due diligence that our discovery of a free association remains a truth candidate.
    This is what the scientific method accomplished: due diligence against falsehood. That is all. And our success arises from eliminating many errors so that our free associations are increasingly superior.

What does this mean?

It means that economic observations remain empirical – beyond direct perception. But that we must be able to explain any empirical observation as a sequence of subjectively testable voluntary operations in order for it to be a truth candidate.

So Mises had it backward. All sciences require empirical observation to capture imperceptible phenomenon, but all truth claims must be warranted against error bias wishful thinking, suggestion and error, by acts of due diligence.

The test of existential possibility and objective morality is performed praxeologically: by subjectively testing the sequence of operations necessary to produce the empirically observed phenomenon.

I could go on at length here but this should be enough.

IN CLOSING:
It is obvious to me that just as anglos used martial empiricism and contractualism in their enlightenment. And just as Germans used hierarchical duty and rationalism as a restatement of Germanic Christianity. The Jews used the authoritarianism of Jewish law as a reformation of their religion.

We can see mises like Freud, Marx, and Boaz as attempting to create an authoritarian pseudoscience using half truth and suggestion because Jewish law and religion is constructed by this method.

My rather uncomfortable observation is that this technique like Jewish ghetto financing, is a pattern under which suggestion can be use to use temporal language to create seductive moral hazards from which they and profit.

That mises had like Rothbard adopted this strategy metaphysically and involuntarily is obvious.

Both men, like Marx, went to their graves knowing they were wrong but not knowing yet what assumptions in their cultural heritage caused them to err.

6.1.1-Cosmopolitanism (Judaism)

Time To Teach Elites They Are Nothing Without Their People

(by Eli Harman )

Elites are naturally less racist, less ethnocentric, more cosmopolitan, than the lower classes. Elites can interact with *other* elites as peers. They don’t have to squabble over pieces of pie because they can make pie.

But the lower classes are justifiably racist, nationalistic, xenophobic, because they are in direct competition over resources they don’t create, infrastructure, services, social spending, jobs, and so on and so forth.

Additionally, the higher impulsivity of the lower classes increases the frictions that arise from differences and proximity. And they can’t afford to isolate themselves from these.

The classes can cooperate on common interests. And elites can cooperate with foreign elites. But in order for these two imperatives not to conflict, and for classes not to conflict, elites must stop claiming, defending, exercising, and sacralizing a “right” to betray and sacrifice their lower classes to others.

A people are less without their elites. But elites are nothing without their people.

Time to teach them.

H/t Curt Doolittle