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.

6.1.1.1-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

6.1.1-Cosmopolitanism (Judaism) · Uncategorized

Defeating Cultural Marxism

HOW TO DEFEAT CULTURAL MARXISTS USING THE WESTERN DEVELOPMENT OF LAW
(very important ideas inside)

1-Find a Lie
2-Ask if it is really true.
3-Then just work through the whole argument until they run away.
4-Use their vanity to spam their channel or feed.

AN ARGUMENT OVER WESTERN INVENTION OF LAW
(number responds to the number of the tweet in the sequence. It’s just for my reference. Ignore it.)

1 Lets take the lie that we live under the code of Hammurabi. Now, Hammurabi made a list of standardized punishments.
3 But the greeks developed argument to order, but it was the stoics who created natural law.
4 The Romans were suspicious of Geek ‘excuse making’ and so they choose the stoic pragmatism.
5 The romans effectively industrialize ’empirical’ (natural) law.

6 Unfortunately, the combination of migration tribes, cost of land holding vs naval, and immigration of underclasses was almost impossible to manage without north african grain.

8 So when the first byzantine plague was followed by the islamic conquest of northern africa, and Islamic piracy and raiding destroyed trade as had the sea peoples in 1200 bc, the aristocracy and the demographic quality of the population was insufficient to maintain roman rule of law.

11 So administratin in europe collapsed and the roman mediteranean was victim of islamic piracy on a scale that the Vikings never matched, and only the sea peoples exceeded.

13 Now, to rebuild the lost population and rebuild the economy out of private feudal estates took time.

14 But Vienna supplied the byzantine navy, and the north sea trade, followed by the Hansa rebuilt trade just as the greeks, and romans, had built agean and mediterranean. And how the french dutch spanish and english built atlantic, and americans built pacific. Since it is not land but water that civilizations must hold in order to control trade routes, and the terms of trade, and the financing of trade. It was these generations who slowly merged roman law, church law, german law into an international body of DECIDABLE law, crossing all cultures: natural law.

20 It was this SCIENTIFIC law, that inspired Bacon, to invent empiricism, using law as a universal model, and cause the anglo empirical enlightenment and the development of science, medicine, technology, and NATURAL LAW.

22 The british then conquered the known world with guns, ships, accounting, banking, and a militia.

23 New Zealand is bigger than Britain. England had a tiny population. France reacted with a MORAL enlightenment preserving authority and culminating in dualist CONTINENTAL law. The germans reacted with rationalism (kant) by restating christian submission with obscurant speech. The ashkenazi responded with the pseudoscientific revolution: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Mises, Frankfurt and Americans responded by seizing this pseudoscience and expanding political correctness:Lying

28 Unfortunately, in the 20th century, all the philosophers – desperately trying to turn philosophy into a respectable science, were distracted by applying cantor’s set theory to language.

30 So all the thinkers of that era failed to defeat the Ashkenazi pseudoscientific revolution, and pseudosciences overtook academy, media, and state policy – only recently reversed by cognitive science, archeology, and genetic research. So since 1990 we have been slowly eradicating lies.

33 Now, what we did count on was the 1964 immigration bill’s attempt to flood the aristocratic west with underclasses that would allow the pseudoscientific era to expand just as Christianity had been spread by underclasses, women, and immigrants in the ancient world. What we did not count on, and cannot correct, is the flood of Caribbean and south americans and the voting patterns of single mothers in black, hispanic, and single white women.

38 So we neither had a chance to reform the law to prevent pseudoscience in public speech, nor could we defeat the rates of reproduction of the underclasses while employing and reducing the rate of reproduction of the women in the upper classes (germanic protestants). So our strategy seems to have failed and we cannot retain the continent, and our only solution is to force underclasses to revolt. If these underclasses revolt in sufficient numbers we will have the opportunity we seek.

43 So while others made rules, we made NATURAL LAW, and came close to strict construction: a formal logic of law. thereby recognizing finally, that it is natural law, that is the basis of western civilization’s ability to evolve FASTER than all other civilizations, despite being YOUNGER.

46 So there is no truth to the statement that the west did not invent law. Others invented commands. Still others codified superstition and norm into permanent and stifling and limiting rules. Others like china did neither and used vague moral philosophy to issue edicts (commands) not laws. But just as the west invented reason,rationalism,and science,the west invented social science: Law.

50 Now what I didn’t mention, is that I’m using the western rhetorical model to educate using truth. And you my friend, are using the Frankfurt schools technique of lies, propaganda, and overloading.
52 This technique is meant to raise the cost of argument to the point where the scientific party cannot respond and answer objections as fast as the liars can manufacture falsehoods (critique).

54 So thus endeth the lesson in the conduct of the economics of argument: cheap lies expensive truth.

55 It is not surprising that only westerners have developed a high-trust society. Truth is expensive. Truth is the most expensive norm we can develop, and produces the highest returns. But to develop the norm of truthfulness and high trust requires people capable of REASON.

58 My opponent demonstrates that he prefers rule by ashkenazi lies, then rule by anglo truth. The underclass never wins or rules, at best they are fooled by the master they prefer. The data is clear: it’s just demographics. Unless you can keep your median IQ over 106 and preserve truthfulness in public speech, you cannot obtain and hold the benefits of western civ.

62 We do not lose if we laugh at you for eternity – rebuild the favellas and slums. It’s your home. 🙂 I was not trying to achieve anything other than an excuse.

I am very very good at what I do. That is why I am the most innovative contemporary philosopher of the American Right.

6.1-Ideologies · 6.1.1-Cosmopolitanism (Judaism)

North Sea Truth vs Levantine Critique

(profound)(group evolutionary strategies)(macro-sociology)

[O]nce you grasp that Cosmopolitan (Marxist-Socialist, Libertine, Neoconservative) Critique is an attempt at exclusionary authoritarianism – a modern restatement of the technique applied in Jewish argument and law – it becomes fairly obvious why the combination of (a) desire for obscurant arguments to be true, (b) emotional and intellectual investment in the truth of these obscurant arguments, and (c) hostility to refutation, are so pervasive: 1) psychological utility obtained from intuitional moral ‘righteousness’, 2)group unity in that moral conviction, and 3) ostracization of non-believers on the other, are precisely what ‘separatists’ require of a religion.

However, this modern set of religions is pseudo-scientific and pseudo-rational rather than legal, mystical and monotheistic in verbal construction. But the verbal construction is merely a technological advancement over monotheistic mythology, and jewish dual-ethics-law.

Northern europeans used truth, property and fighting as the binding commitment to one another, not belief. We used opportunity to join success in a hostile landscape, and they used threat of ostracization in among hostile tribes. We are all the product of our ancient geographies.

The strategies of the weak and small in number, versus the strong and small in number. Both Jewish and Germanic systems of thought evolved for use by small populations.

You will take notice which strategy leads to the construction of vast civilizations, technology, art, science and medicine, and what the other led to – near extermination.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev