Are There Any Politicians Who Would Be Considered “donald Trumps Of Left-wing Politics”?

It’s rather interesting that most crazy Republicans are Male, and most crazy Democrats are Female. It’s less polite to call out women as crazy since nearly half of american women are on anti-depressants, and as much as 30% of women have psychological disorders (really – do the research).

Maxine Waters.
Nancy Pelosi
Elizabeth Warren
Barbara Lee
Howard Dean
Rahm Emmanuel
Hillary Clinton.

And it’s not like Bernie Sanders is holding a full deck either. (Although a Trump/Sanders race would have reduced America to Italian levels of political insanity without question, at least it would have been educational for the republic.)

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-politicians-who-would-be-considered-Donald-Trumps-of-left-wing-politics

Advertisements

Are “digital States” Real? Do They Enjoy Any Sovereignty Like Real Countries? Where Does The European Union Gdpr Come In?

(Thanks for asking.)

It is very hard for people raised in the current era of cultural, political, legal, and economic pseudoscience, to grasp the very simple reality that all forms of property from your body and mind, to your children and mates, to your home and assets, to your political rights, to your country’s territory, and all the patterns of behavior that you count on and benefit from every day, exist because of violence, and violence alone.

Violence and violence alone determines control of yourself, your relations, and anything and everything else. All our organizations and institutions are but proxies for that violence. And only those capable of applying violence to preserve the order are ever in control of that order. And it takes very few people willing to use violence to end that order and replace it with another.

So, a State exists as a State for two very simple reasons: some group of people possesses sufficient violence to prevent other people from having it. And other states prefer those people control that State rather than an alternative group of people.

That’s it. In other words, States preserve other States – usually out of self interest: the preservation of the balance of powers in the region. During the agrarian era of the past, and during the current era where oil regions are so enabling of primitive peoples, we see Iraq->Kuwait and Iran->Syria, and Russia->Crimea (Black Sea deposits) ,and China->South China Sea.

The same goes for digital anything: digital states, digital title registries, digital currency. They exist only so long as the states in which the servers exist, the people who manage them, the means of transforming the digital to the material, the people who use them, allow them to exist.

I’ve written about this for years, but my understanding of history tells me that the digital currency experiment is merely performing private funding of research and development for the next era of state credit when the current postwar order deterministically fails.

There is no escape from violence, or paying the cost of violence, in the form of the organization of violence, we call the State.

https://www.quora.com/Are-digital-states-real-Do-they-enjoy-any-sovereignty-like-real-countries-Where-does-the-European-Union-GDPR-come-in

As A Republican, How Do You Respond/outsmart People Talking Politics In A Democrat-dominated Area?

Republicans, like males, act they do not gossip or care about gossip.
Democrats like women gossip, and they care about gossip.

That is why, while liberals are smarter than conservatives, republicans are smarter and wealthier than democrats. (really – its the size of each demographic ).

In other words, we treat democrats like men treat women and children: with frustrated humor.

https://www.quora.com/As-a-Republican-how-do-you-respond-outsmart-people-talking-politics-in-a-democrat-dominated-area

—“Curt: Why Are Persian Americans So Much Wealthier Than Arab Americans?”—

—“CURT: WHY ARE PERSIAN AMERICANS SO MUCH WEALTHIER THAN ARAB AMERICANS?”—

There are some questions that you should not ask because they produce answers you will not like. It is my job to answer uncomfortable questions so I’ll give you the respect of the correct answer, if you’ll respect that it might be unpleasant.

We were horrified by the Galilean Revolution but we adapted to it anyway. In the west we were horrified by the Darwinian Revolution. But we adapted to it anyway. We were somewhat horrified by the consequences of industrialization but we adapted to it anyway. So some knowledge must be adapted to if we want to prosper.

Persians divided from common ancestors with Europeans a long time ago, but are the ethnic group closest to West Eurasians (Europeans) – They integrate well, tend toward professional occupations, and demonstrate relatively high trust versus their other levantine neighbors. They have an extraordinary history of intelligence and scholarship despite the destruction to their civilization, language, culture, and demographics by the Arab conquest. So they are ‘compatible’ with American Civilization.

Persians, like the Ashkenazi, are high performance ethnic group. They will do better in any country no matter where they go. The Indians and Chinese start with very large populations, and their best talent travels the world. They are consistently high performers. The difference is that Persians and Ashkenazi produce asymmetric success despite their small numbers.

Some groups consist largely of the upper genetic classes, some the middle, and some the lower. Economic, scientific, and artistic performance corresponds directly with the demographic constitution of an ethnic group. So no matter what anyone does, the fact that some ethnic groups consist almost exclusively of the genetic middle and upper classes means that they will always statistically outperform those groups with large underclasses. It’s just math.

So the differences in performances of ethnic groups is not so much due to genetic differences between groups but the scale of the underclass and the drag that the underclasses put on language, culture, institutions, and knowledge.

The problem that produces inequality isn’t race, or ethnicity, it’s class. Some groups have vast underclasses, and some have nearly eliminated them.

The Arab conquest was the most catastrophic event in human history, destroying the four great civilizations of the ancient world, causing 500M dead, and creating a 1400 year dark age from which only a remote corner of northern europe was able to rescue the world from.

And the side effect of that civilization was a rapid expansion of the size of the underclass due to the inability to develop a middle class, due to low trust, due to tribalism. Outbreeding with the slaves didn’t help much either. It just made it worse.
Curt Doolittle’s answer: There are some questions that you should not ask because they produce answers you will not like. It is my job to answer uncomfortable questions so I’ll give you the respect of the correct answer, if you’ll respect that it might be unpleasant. Persians divided from common…

I’m Going To Criticize Then Compliment The ACLU

I’m going to criticize then compliment the ACLU.

**CRITICISM – THE SINGULAR IMPORTANCE OF NATURAL LAW (RECIPROCITY)**
Unfortunately while the ACLU has defended those who need defending, they have also been instrumental in pursuing a set of cases with the objective of using the courts to circumvent the process by which our constitution was designed to be changed.
And they have been the principle prosecutors of the intentional destruction of the limits to expression that prohibit that behavior that westerners had developed carefully over centuries: the treatment of all common spaces as sacred – as extensions of the interiors of their church.
Now expressed in scientific rather than normative terms, this means that the west has aggressively prosecuted the underclass for at least one thousand years, by enforcing strict limits on “display, word, and deed” that would normalize behavior that would put the young, the foolish, and those of less able families at risk of imitating. The result was the west’s High Trust Society that no civilization has been in any way close to achieving.
The original Mission of the ACLU was decidedly Communist and Socialist (see their platform changes over time) and this strategy a means by which to undermine Anglo (western) civilization by taking advantage of a very tolerant legal and cultural system – the first system of its kind, in a territory never ruled by the Aristocracy or Church.
**HISTORICAL CONTEXT **
Lost to common people’s history was that the founders were conducting an experiment in ‘the third way’ which was rule by the middle class (or at least upper middle class) and business people, in a world run traditionally by church, state, or a competition between the two. They ran this experiment by encoding individual sovereignty (Natural Law) and rule of law (as opposed to rule by human discretion) into the constitution with strict processes to follow – unfortunately they did not yet understand strict construction or their experiment would have been even more successful.
So the ACLU’s mission has produced some goods, but equal if not offsetting bads, not the least of which was the destruction of rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity (natural law) by continuing the undermining of that constitution begun during the Civil War, the Reconstruction, under FDR, and under Johnson’s Great Society movement (trying to imitate the Soviets.)
So the constitution failed to include such provisions for the defense of high trust norms, in no small part because the discussion at the time assumed that the church would play the civic and familial role and the domain of the government was largely defense and commerce.
In addition, while all of us have universal standing in matters private, we do not have univeresal standing in matters public – we deliver our agency to proxies we call politicians. We do this because at the time of the constitution, (a) the population capable of such activity was limited, and (b) the time delay of communication was prohibitive.

And the constitution did not provide a mechanism for suing the state, the bureaucracy, or members of the state, nor taking up matters of norms at the federal level, in part because such activities were not the purview of the federal government, even the state governments, but the church enforced by polity and local government.
**WHAT WENT RIGHT**
So, while the ACLU has undermined those high trust norms, and contributed significantly to the present and future conflict:
(a) it is a civic organization not a state organization and therefore property constructed under natural, reciprocal, anglo saxon (meaning sovereign and contractualist), common law. In other words, it is constructed as the founders would have all civic institutions constructed – continuing long standing tradition.
(b) it was able to fulfill some of the functions that the church was unable to post the industrial and second scientific revolutions (post 1870) by providing a civic institution that levied for the underclasses the way the church had done throughout western history.
(c) by centralizing the government during the civil war, developing fiat money and the federal reserve, followed by the income tax, and vastly expanding the federal government influence, money that had (in europe) been in civic organizations and church assets was available for consumption by democratic politics and the court.
In my reading of history the democratic socialist movement in general can be seen as the slow replacement of the prior theological church with secular (if frequently pseudoscientific) institutions and prose.
**WHAT WENT WRONG**
The principle problem with their movement was the search for monopoly power and single-house government, by underclass rule, rather than adding a house for the underclass through which their interests could be negotiated with the other classes now that the church no longer existed as a semi-governing body responsible for norm and family.

In other words, MONOPOLY IS ALWAYS BAD and the world communist and socialist movements attempted (as did the church but the church also failed) attempted to achieve authoritarian monopoly, without understanding that the Tripartism of Church, Burger, and State functioned as a balance of power between the classes from the end of the empire to the first world war.
The court is a poor proxy for markets, and had we created additional houses for the classes rather than (i) the anglo enlightenment fantasy of an aristocracy of all, or (ii) the French/Russian/Jewish fantasy of underclass authoritarianism. Or the (iii) German fantasy of an army of civic duty replacing the church with secular rationalist prose (The Germans had the least inaccurate vision of man.)
**WE LEARN FROM RETROSPECT **
Small things in large numbers have vast consequences and if I am right then we will have another civil war within our lifetimes.
Hopefully our next constitutions will be written in strictly constructed law from the first law of reciprocity, but we will have many small states the normative, formal, economic, and military orgnaizations of which are custoimized for the reproductive interst of the polities.
The only value of scale is debt and the war made possible by access to that debt.
The continental government has outlived its usefulness as an institution that control the sale and distribution of a conquered continent to immigrants.
The american economy is and always has been housing and the goods to fill those houses. And that’s all there is and ever was. It has nothing to do with anything else.
In other words you just don’t like what I said but have nothing intelligent to say? Do you know what solipsism, neuroticism, and psychosis, mean? Look into gender differences in brain structure and the big five’s corresponding ten factors. You can get endocrine therapy for it.

(lolz)

I Am Not An Atheist, I Just Have No Tolerance For Lies, Particularly Lies By Suggestion And Obscurantism That Produce Ignorance&

1) i am not an atheist. I just have a scientific understanding of the gods.

2) Tracing the history of deception using the technique we call suggestion and obscurantism today, or Abrahamism (Pilpul) begins with scriptural religion which he started.

3) Zoroaster invented evil, as a means of dividing and ruling the iranians from the indians. He had no positive intentions. Monopoly is monopoly and the reason for monopoly is power that cannot be obtained by market means.

4) The short egyptian experiment was not monotheistic just primacy, as a means by which the ruler could eliminate the costly drag of the extensive clerical bureaucracy – which is why he moved the capital as well.

5) there is a reason for the success of far east and far west at the development of good government, reason, and the sciences, and why the people of the desert and steppe destroyed the four great civilizations of the ancient world, and dragged the center of the world into ignorance and poverty. And it begins with the first great lie.

All technological history is traceable, in every field, including the field of deception.

It begins with him. Zoroaster + Greek Idealism + Jewish Pilpul > Rabbinical judaism / christianity / Islam > the Abrahamic Dark Ages and 500M dead.

it continued with Rousseau > Kant > Marx > Boaz >Freud this time with pseudosciences instead of pseudo-rationalism or theology (supernaturalism).

Religion was invented by the east aryans as a way to explain their failure against the north and west aryans – their westward movement was not voluntary but necessary. (See Karen Armstrong). The monotheistic religions were developed to undermine the great empires (agrarians) via the pastoralists, women and slaves (the semitic poor). Judaism was limited, but they assisted in the development of christianity. Christianity spread by choice, and islam by the sword. finally the central asian people used gunpowder to develop the great gunpowder empires. The great civilizations were lost to history. Not the least of which was the damage done to india. And 500M people died of that slaughter. The byzantines and persians included.

So in my reading of history, we all like the people who write our favorite fairy stories. But those who invented utopian moral fictionalism are the most evil people in history because they caused more death with their demand for monopoly than anything but the great plagues and malaria.

Empirically speaking, the monotheists have been five times and murderous as the marxists.

What was the price of a 1500 year dark age? We have had only one other: the bronze age collapse and it was only half that duration, and during that period writing was even lost to the greeks.

The current era has seen the french revolt against science, the german revolt against science, the russian revolt against science, the jewish revolt against science, the chinese revolt against science, and now the muslim revolt against science.

Yet we drag humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, chronic disease, the plagues, the vicissitudes of nature – and meanwhile they cling to their fairy stories and lies like children to a mother’s skirt.

It is what it is.

So, either we seek the truth regardless of our feelings of it, or we seek lies for the purpose of their feelings.
—“The idea of fixed national borders came from the treaty of Westphalia. That was the birth of the modern nation state, like it or not. Previously, all of human history is a story of territorial conflict going back in evolution millions of years to monkeys fighting over bananas and such.”—Eric Pierce
—“Why do so many high IQ people amount to nothing?”–

Because conscientiousness and ambition are equally important legs on the step stool to accomplishment.

It is not actually enjoyable being exceptionally smart after grade school. Exercising that intelligence in the marketplace (world) produces competition that results in interpersonal frictions.

The joy in life is largely the result of cooperation with others in the absence of stress.

Smart people have many options for working with others in the absence of stress and enjoying life’s journey.

Prose And The Difference Between

There is a vast difference between people who speak in poetic, mythic, literary, and analogical verse in order to communicate to the unwashed a truth inaccessible to them by operational description – and those people who speak in poetic, mythic, literary and analogical verse because they do not know of the truth of what they speak and so cannot speak in operational verse.

One learns the use of aesthetic parsimony only to improve upon the communicability of what he has to say. But he must have something worth saying upon which to improve.

Otherwise he is just another actor in someone else’s clothes speaking someone else’s verse, the meaning of which he does not, and need not grasp, taking applause he did not earn.

—“We Can’t Measure IQ Above…”—

—“WE CAN’T MEASURE IQ ABOVE…”—

While a grain of truth, that’s not quite right.

We can use 160 as a test measure, or 160 on distribution (S.D.). We tend to conflate them.

Like testing any of the arts, testing intelligence can be accomplished through triangulation to produce ordinality whenever cardinality fails.

I know that Chomsky is smarter than I am because I am very conscious of his thought process when speaking and I cannot do that without side-tracking. (And believe me I can take you through a very long train of thought that will devastate even the smartest of people. But he is much better at it.)

I know some people can tolerate reading certain categories of text more so than I (anything that demands empathy is off my radar. I get exhausted. Just the data please. ).

I know that some people have superior ability to maintain categorical states (math and chess for example). I get … something between bored and tired. The only way I can play chess is to abstractly control the board, and leave traps for my opponent. I am not a cunning player.

I have never met anyone anywhere close to me in certain other abilities.

In other words, it is just increasingly expensive to test as we pass 140/150 because all gains after that appear to diverge from g (where all abilities scale in parallel) into where individual abilities scale and others don’t.

So above 140/150 we no longer get meaningful measures because g is a decreasingly meaningful aggregate. That does not mean that we cannot test the various abilities that we coalesce into g.

Chris Langan has a very IQ (g) but he makes a profound mistake in equating symmetry with intention. Einstein did not have that impressive an IQ but was extremely diligent and made few mistakes other than ‘the constant’.

Chomsky made a brilliant contribution by applying Turing’s insights to language. But his errors outside of his field are the product of having confidence in his institutions rather than analyzing the demonstrated behavior of humans throughout history.

Hayek was terribly smart and covered vast intellectual terrain before he understood that then only answer empirical to the question of politics was the common law of tort – and not economics, or politics. Popper and Mises had insights but were half wrong because they could not escape the framing of their cultures. Marx could work like few other men in history, but he was wrong on first principles and after reading Menger died knowing he was wrong, and his life wasted – he just couldn’t’ say so since Engels was supporting him.

This is a very common problem because it is the harmonic (market consequence) between the various cognitive abilities we possess that produces a ‘market for correspondence’ or what is more easily envisioned as “an accurate model of the world and our projections of that model into models outside our direct experience.”

In other words, demonstrated intelligence is the result of a competing market of mental agencies any of which can go wrong, and any of which can excel.

Just like everything else in evolution.

Cheers

–“Why Are Smart People So Quiet”–

–“WHY ARE SMART PEOPLE SO QUIET”–

**I’ll give you a much better answer.**

To begin with we do not rely on others for our understanding, only information that we do not yet know. That said, here is why we are quiet:

1) You learn fairly quickly that you cannot help people to come to a conclusion faster than they are able to comfortably do so with confidence.

2) You learn fairly quickly that giving them the answer early will lead to resisting it – fighting it, or denying it, because they didn’t ‘own it’ by going through the journey.

3) You learn fairly quickly that people grow suspicious of you and even avoid or exclude you if you make them feel inferior, inadequate, or unable to gain pleasure from working themselves or with others to come to a shared conclusion on their own.

4) You learn fairly quickly that people will overload you with decisions that are uninteresting – and you prefer to work on things you find interesting yourself.

5) You learn that the way to help people using your intelligence is to (a) let them come to you, (b) provide them with the next step in their reasoning (assist them on their journey don’t force them into yours), (c) in groups, prevent them from doing wrong or harm, and suggest paths of opportunity rather than give them the answer.

6) You only aggressively dominate the conversation (because we can generally do so with trivial ease) to prevent an immoral, unethical, criminal, or otherwise terribly harmful wrong.

In other words, you learn to speak with other humans like parents talk to children.

If you do this, people will generally like you very much.

We all want leaders. We just want leaders who we choose, and we choose them because they help us on our journey just as much as they take us with them on theirs.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

Russia And America

(a) the USA (state dept) was profoundly stupid not to bring a weak russia into nato at any cost thereby uniting german technology and russian resources. That is one of the greatest policy errores in history ( which the USA seems to stumble into regularly.)

(b) Putin’s only error (as a resident of Kiev myself) was in using deception of the little green men, insurrection, and propaganda rather than picking up the phone and just speaking the truth:

—“We just can’t allow our Don Basin tech, and only warm water port out of our influence so we are going to step in, and ask for your support, and pay for this undesirable action with discounted gas to ukraine for 50 years. I will work to help world leaders understand why this was an unfortunate necessity for the preservation of the international balance of powers.”—

(c) Postwar American policy is trivially simple, but stated morally instead of descriptively:

“This can’t happen again. So:

1) we will work to force states to focus on modernization and joining the world economy, and prohibit territorial expansion, or opposition to that integration of trade.

2) We will work to support self determination to the extent that it does not violate #1 -borders and trade. This will assist in the development of economic integration and limit future wars.

3) BUT if you choose self determination and choose poorly in violation of #1 we will punish you regardless. it is this last “BUT” that Americans don’t state.

There is nothing in that foreign policy that wasn’t stated by Burke, Smith and Hume.

The USA has a long history of criticizing the “constant wars” of european countries. But the price of creating the international order is policing contradictions of it.

And so the USA became what it despised.

Because all empires have no other options. Rule by commerce, rule by violence, rule by deceit (religion).

Philosophy For Grown Ups

1. The only truths we know for certain are falsehoods. Everything that is not false is a truth candidate. This is the inverse of the fallacy of justificationism and the central insight of the sciences: the means by which we invent or grasp an idea contribute nothing to whether or not it is true or false. Only exhaustive falsification and survival from criticism deliver confidence that actions produce anticipated outcomes due to our comprehension of cause, effect, and the operations that are possible. Otherwise we are forever justifying whatever it is we seek to justify by any set of excuses we can imagine. This is why astrology, numerology, theology, philosophy, and the pseudosciences are so common – justification means absolutely nothing.

2. The only preference we know is the one we demonstrate. The only good we know is the one we mutually demonstrate by acting upon. People report very differently from what they demonstrate. The only morality we know that is we must avoid criminal(material), ethical(direct), and moral (indirect) imposition of costs upon one another. The only moral actions then are those that are not criminal, unethical, and immoral, and that means the only moral actions consiste of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. Ergo, all moral actions are those that are not immoral. There is no recipe for moral action other than that which is not immoral.

3. People always and everywhere demonstrate that they are neither moral or immoral but amoral and rational, doing what they must in all circumstances that they exist in. it is just disproportionately advantageous to act morally for the simple reason that the returns of cooperation always and everywhere defeat the returns on individual action. This is why exhaustive forgiveness of ‘cheaters’ in all walks of life will generally reform them. Because it is in their self interest. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment also (high cost of punishing cheaters), because the returns on cooperation are so valuable that we evolved to pay the high cost of punishment in order to preserve the high value of cooperation.

4. People notoriously think they are right and in the right, and acting morally, which is why we have courts of one kind or another among all peoples at all stages of development. And while rules of decidability in courts in matters of conflict vary from the poor and underdeveloped where interests in things, kin, and relationships are rare and collectively owned, to the wealthy and developed where things, interests, kin, relationships, and contracts are universally allocated to individuals and individually owned, the means of decidability in every single civilization is RECIPROCITY.

5. There exist then only one negative moral rule and one universal test of morality: “Do not unto others as they would not have done unto them”. There is only one positive moral rule: the extension of trust to non kin that we extend to kin, until it is no longer empirically possible to trust. – this optimizes cooperation by continuously training malcontents that it is in their interest to cooperate, and ostracizes (punishes) those who do not.

6. There are no conflicts that are not decidable by tests of reciprocity. None. This is why all international law is limited exclusively to the test of reciprocity. So logically(rational choice) and empirically (demonstrated action), and universally (all laws domestica and international at all scales) morality is anything that is not immoral unethical or criminal in that it imposes costs upon the efforts already expended to obtain a non-conflicting interest, in a good, relationship, or opportunity.

As far as I know no argument can defeat this that is not in and of itself an attempt at reciprocity (theft, freeriding, parasitism, conspiracy).

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
—“An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”—

Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it can be calculated.

I think (as Chomsky and others have suggested) that (and I have some experience testing it) that our definition of intelligence (model + forecast) today would differ from that definition of intelligence just as our two-handed nervous system differs from the eight limbs of an octopus.

In that the models we are capable of perceiving with current intelligence are limited by our capacity to act, and that at some point, the models we rely upon are not longer limited by our capacity to act, any more than our ability to measure is limited any longer by the limits of our senses, or our ability to calculate limited by our reason independent of numbers.

So we can model today what we cannot percieve with our senses directly without use of ability to gather information and reduce it to an analogy to our senses. But we can in some senses model the universe, economies and subatomic interactions.

This same ability to construct models should not have any limit that I can see other than our ability to continuously excite enough neurons to create such a model. Ergo, it should be possible. The issue is reducing cost of neural transmission and preserving the number of neurons available for learning. As far as I know that’s not difficult since we know that white matter alone does much of it.

I just don’t’ know if we’re ‘human’ any longer at that point in other than morphology.
Igor Markov’s answer: Russia wants the US to give it free reign in what Russia considers its sphere of influence — ex-USSR countries, plus Serbia, plus Syria, plus Libya, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. Russia also wants to expand its influence in Europe, suppress competition in several energy markets (nat….

Constitutional Revolution

Look: Truth, Formal Logic, Formal Language, and Law are Via-Negativas, and are not going to be as popular or as accessible as story, parable, analogy, and essay.Natural Law, Programming, and Math are not accessible.I’m never going to be popular for my formal work.Not my audience.

If you understand my work it’s that I’m advocating for the best interest of the common laboring, craftsman and middle class and their families. And not for the priestly, intellectual, bureaucratic, or dependent class. That’s the end result of moral law: Producers vs Parasites.

And so the conundrum is, that my formal work is in the interest of a class not necessarily able to access that work at a technical level, only DEMAND IT BE IMPLEMENTED. I cannot ‘dumb it down’ any more than we can dumb down calculus, programming, or strictly constructed law.

But the Constitution as it was written was a first attempt at formal articulation of the natural law of reciprocity and the market political order for market civilization: rule of law. We can complete that project and write a constitution strictly constructed under reciprocity.

The laboring, working, and entrepreneurial classes need only understand that constitution, and the processes of decision articulated therein. And the result of that law will be once again, a moral society in which good men and families prosper and parasites cannot.

But to bring about a moral order requires the organized use of violence to alter the status quo -at high personal cost to those men who are willing and able to demand that change.Revolution is necessary for the preservation of our prosperity. There was never a better time for it.

No You Cannot Trust Your Thoughts.

—“Q: If you have an IQ lower than 130, can you trust your own thoughts?”—

Hmmm…. Interesting question. Can you trust your own thoughts? Does intelligence mean you can trust your own thoughts?

I have an answer for you that you’ll find insightful.

Intelligence generally translates to time required to learn – although below somewhere in the 80’s learning even the most trivial of sequences appears nearly impossible. And below the mid 90’s begins to become prohibitively costly upon those that teach. 10% of people are impossible to teach, and nearly half of people are costly to teach. Hence the future problem of employment.

Intelligence above 105 is largely reducible to a learning curve. at 105 or so you can learn from instructions, repair machines, and express yourself logically. About every 7–10 points or so higher, it’s easier to learn from increasingly abstract (less obviously related) bits of information. Around 115 learn on your own. Around 125 invent new machines. Around 135 understand complex relations and synthesize them for others. Around 145 invent and reorganize existing ideas.

Above that I have not seen anything meaningful other than the ability to construct longer denser sentences (I cannot speak in long narrations like Chomsky, and I cannot grasp and translate ideas as fast as Terence Tau. And I have also seen the opposite, which is a tendency to place too much value on intuitions (some people who shall remain nameless), and given that I specialize in identifying pseudoscience, there are a vast number of theorists in many fields who do not know about that which they speak.

Those higher than you are not so much smarter as we they had more ‘time’ to create vast networks of relations (associations) – so the time required to identify a new pattern is shorter. The only way I know to improve your “demonstrated” intelligence in everyday life is to be well read (possess more general knowledge) in multiple fields, and be lucky to have high conscientiousness as a personality trait. (All fields develop systemic falsehoods, so cross field knowledge is necessary).

Those that are nearly frightening (children), and born with extraordinary abilities are very rare but I think we are beginning to understand what makes them possible (in utero). And their abilities do not necessarily continue past maturity.

People in the 130’s tend to specialize in synthesizing and communicating difficult ideas to those in the standard deviations below them, and you would find that most CEO’s are in the 130’s, just like a lot of professors are in the 140’s.

This is why the ability to articulate your ideas and make use of vocabulary is such an extraordinary proxy for intelligence.
So here is my suggestion no matter where you are on the spectrum: Assume you’re wrong until you can’t possible find an alternative. Because that’s actually what demonstrated intelligence means.

So I want to reframe your question for you: there is NEVER A REASON to trust your thoughts, feelings, or intuitions for anything other than “ouch, that hurts”. Knowledge like evolution is the result of survival, not justification. No matter how good you think your reasoning, the only test of truth is survival against all odds.

That’s what being smart means. Which was Socrates’ whole point.

How Russians Misunderstand American Civilization

Dima,

You (as most Russians) misunderstand the constitution, because Russians (somewhat like Germans) run their civilization by religion, philosophy and literature, and anglos run and always have run their society by rule of law of reciprocity.

Hence anglo fascination with empiricism, french with pseudo-moral literature, germans with rationalism (philosophy), and Russians with Literature. The jews also use law but it is poly ethical, where anglos use universally ethical.

The reason being is that russians have yet to develop a substianial commerical middle class that exports the ethics of reciprocity and truthful speech to the rest of the society through participation in the commercial economy.

This is all well understood in the research.

There is a very good reason that the stock market is dominant in America, the Bond market in London, heavy industry in germany, and military production in russia.

RISK FOLLOWS TRUST AND RUSSIANS DON’T HAVE ANY

Now, I am a Russophile, and a resident of Ukraine. But I am also a political economist (I study institutions). Russian corruption is absurdly pervasive. And Russian mistrust as well understood as Chinese deception.

I would rather be a citizen of russia, run a business in america, labor in germany, and be educated in England. That is because each of us does something better than the other.

The only problem in this world that prevents the Circumpolar People (all of us) from Uniting is that russian foreign policy is correct, but russian expansion not. American foreign policy is incorrect, and american expansion not. If our people are to have a future it is by the incremental withdrawal of american empire from world affairs, and the unification of german technology and russian labor and resources.

America is lost to our people. The truth is russia and the Intermarium are our only hope. But that hope cannot come until russia matures into a fully diversified commercial economy and russians develop the trust in others that results from it.

Conspiracies In Our Genes

Women gossip to undermine alphas – and hen peck each other in corporations to the point where they are mutually self destructive. Do they conspire by intent, common interest, or genetic disposition?

There are only three possible means of human coercion: violence, remuneration(payment), and undermining (gossip). ie: Established males, ascendent males, and females. We are very artful in combining them. But still specialize.

The low IQ Gypsies specialize in mobility, low level parasitism and predation, and punishing members for honest labor. Agrarians had to develop norms, traditions, traits that allowed them to hold territory. Pastoralists never produced commons, and retained their clannishness.

High IQ disaporics are diasporic because they could not develop institutions by which to hold land (and made genocide against their southern neighbors who produced iron), and had to specialize in very different skills, as did ancestor females who were portable between male groups

More another time. But yes, we all, worldwide, demonstrate group strategies at the top (male) and all demonstrate equalitarianism(female) at the bottom to weaken the top. They are not strategies of intent, but they are strategies of survival.

Libertarian Pretense Of Paying The High Cost Of Order

—“libertarians aren’t against violence…”—

Empty words, because they are untestable words. Which is why libertarian words are, like religion, a comforting deception.

1. The question is not whether one is against aggression, but which cases of aggression.

2. The question is not whether one is against violence buth which cases of violence.

3. The question is not whether one will use violence, but under what cases they will use violence.

Libertarians have not and cannot answer these questions because if they do the answer becomes obvious: “I want other people to pay the cost of the commons I benefit from.”

Libertarianism is simply marxism for the commons instead of marxism for private property.

There is only one method by which we create the class conditions of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and Subsidy, and that is the continuous organized application of violence to deny one and all the alternatives, by the universal militia of able men, and the costly production of the normative, economic, judicial, political, military and traditional commons necessary for preservation of their power to do so against all opposition.

That is what libertarian means. Rothbardians did not favor liberty (ownership) but separatist anarchy (parasitism upon others commons).

Period. End of Argument.

I ended libertarianism forever like others ended marxism before it, and we ware currently in the process of ending neo-conservatism. When that is done, and we return to rule of law, the pseudoscientific century will have ended.

Cultural Specialization Requires National Specialization

To Jonathan Haidt via twitter:

1) Question. Wealth has allowed us to explore our individual differences, pursue individual preferences, and all but eliminate the dependence upon family. So why is it not deterministic that we will develop demand for separate states to further ends that we can now afford?

2) So, why isn’t it the next evolutionary consequence, to preferentially ‘speciate’ so that we produce commons that suit our desires? Why is ANY monopoly a good? The only monopoly good I know of is scientific (operational) truth.

3) Why does a monopoly continental government provide better technological, economic, political, and normative results than multiple regional or local governments that specialize to produce commons preferential to members and undesirable by other peoples?

4) Why aren’t we all conducting the natural evolutionary research program and therefore why isn’t this specialization in wants rather than monopoly desirable? Isn’t the answer to return to the reason for european rapid advancement: specialization?

Why Are Some Very Smart People So Quiet?

I’ll give you a much better answer.

1) You learn fairly quickly that you cannot help people to come to a conclusion faster than they are able to comfortably do so with confidence.

2) You learn fairly quickly that giving them the answer early will lead to resisting it – fighting it, or denying it, because they didn’t ‘own it’ by going through the journey.

3) You learn fairly quickly that people grow suspicious of you and even avoid or exclude you if you make them feel inferior, inadequate, or unable to gain pleasure from working themselves or with others to come to a shared conclusion on their own.

4) You learn fairly quickly that people will overload you with decisions that are uninteresting – and you prefer to work on things you find interesting yourself.

5) You learn that the way to help people using your intelligence is to (a) let them come to you, (b) provide them with the next step in their reasoning (assist them on their journey don’t force them into yours), (c) in groups, prevent them from doing wrong or harm, and suggest paths of opportunity rather than give them the answer.

6) You only aggressively dominate the conversation (because we can generally do so with trivial ease) to prevent an immoral, unethical, criminal, or otherwise terribly harmful wrong.

In other words, you learn to speak with other humans like parents talk to children.

If you do this, people will generally like you very much.

We all want leaders. We just want leaders who we choose, and we choose them because they help us on our journey just as much as they take us with them on theirs.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-some-very-smart-people-so-quiet

Is The ACLU Good For America?

I’m going to criticize then compliment the ACLU.

CRITICISM – THE SINGULAR IMPORTANCE OF NATURAL LAW (RECIPROCITY)
Unfortunately while the ACLU has defended those who need defending, they have also been instrumental in pursuing a set of cases with the objective of using the courts to circumvent the process by which our constitution was designed to be changed.

And they have been the principle prosecutors of the intentional destruction of the limits to expression that prohibit that behavior that westerners had developed carefully over centuries: the treatment of all common spaces as sacred – as extensions of the interiors of their church.

Now expressed in scientific rather than normative terms, this means that the west has aggressively prosecuted the underclass for at least one thousand years, by enforcing strict limits on “display, word, and deed” that would normalize behavior that would put the young, the foolish, and those of less able families at risk of imitating. The result was the west’s High Trust Society that no civilization has been in any way close to achieving.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Lost to common people’s history was that the founders were conducting an experiment in ‘the third way’ which was rule by the middle class (or at least upper middle class) and business people, in a world run traditionally by church, state, or a competition between the two. They ran this experiment by encoding individual sovereignty (Natural Law) and rule of law (as opposed to rule by human discretion) into the constitution with strict processes to follow – unfortunately they did not yet understand strict construction or their experiment would have been even more successful.

The original Mission of the ACLU was decidedly Communist and Socialist (see their platform changes over time) and this strategy a means by which to undermine Anglo (western) civilization by taking advantage of a very tolerant legal and cultural system – the first system of its kind, in a territory never ruled by the Aristocracy or Church.

So the ACLU’s mission has produced some goods, but equal if not offsetting bads, not the least of which was the destruction of rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity (natural law) by continuing the undermining of that constitution begun during the Civil War, the Reconstruction, under FDR, and under Johnson’s Great Society movement (trying to imitate the Soviets.)

The constitution failed to include such provisions for the defense of high trust norms, in no small part because the discussion at the time assumed that the church would play the civic and familial role and the domain of the government was largely defense and commerce.

In addition, while all of us have universal standing in matters private, we do not have univeresal standing in matters public – we deliver our agency to proxies we call politicians. We do this because at the time of the constitution, (a) the population capable of such activity was limited, and (b) the time delay of communication was prohibitive.

And the constitution did not provide a mechanism for suing the state, the bureaucracy, or members of the state, nor taking up matters of norms at the federal level, in part because such activities were not the purview of the federal government, even the state governments, but the church enforced by polity and local government.

WHAT WENT RIGHT

So, while the ACLU has undermined those high trust norms, and contributed significantly to the present and future conflict:

(a) it is a civic organization not a state organization and therefore property constructed under natural, reciprocal, anglo saxon (meaning sovereign and contractualist), common law. In other words, it is constructed as the founders would have all civic institutions constructed – continuing long standing tradition.

(b) it was able to fulfill some of the functions that the church was unable to post the industrial and second scientific revolutions (post 1870) by providing a civic institution that levied for the underclasses the way the church had done throughout western history.

(c) by centralizing the government during the civil war, developing fiat money and the federal reserve, followed by the income tax, and vastly expanding the federal government influence, money that had (in europe) been in civic organizations and church assets was available for consumption by democratic politics and the court. This increased the power of the federal government and the need for an institutional means by which to limit abuses by a government with a concentration of wealth that was all but limitless – at least after the world wars.

In my reading of history the democratic socialist movement in general can be seen as the slow replacement of the prior theological church with secular (if frequently pseudoscientific) institutions and prose.

WHAT WENT WRONG

The principle problem with their movement was the search for monopoly power and single-house government, by underclass rule, rather than adding a house for the underclass through which their interests could be negotiated with the other classes now that the church no longer existed as a semi-governing body responsible for norm and family.

In other words, MONOPOLY IS ALWAYS BAD and the world communist and socialist movements attempted (as did the church but the church also failed) attempted to achieve authoritarian monopoly, without understanding that the Tripartism of Church, Burger, and State functioned as a balance of power between the classes from the end of the empire to the first world war.

The court is a poor proxy for markets, and had we created additional houses for the classes rather than (i) the anglo enlightenment fantasy of an aristocracy of all, or (ii) the French/Russian/Jewish fantasy of underclass authoritarianism. Or the (iii) German fantasy of an army of civic duty replacing the church with secular rationalist prose (The Germans had the least inaccurate vision of man.)

WE LEARN FROM RETROSPECT

Small things in large numbers have vast consequences and if I am right then we will have another civil war within our lifetimes.

Hopefully our next constitutions will be written in strictly constructed law from the first law of reciprocity, but we will have many small states the normative, formal, economic, and military organizations of which are customized for the reproductive interest of the polities.

The only value of political scale is debt and the war made possible by access to that debt. We are seeing worldwide the slow collapse of nations that used credit not to transform behaviors to those of the high trust middle class, but to subsidize behaviors of the political, laboring, and underclasses.

The continental government has outlived its usefulness as an institution that controls the sale and distribution of a conquered continent to immigrants. The american economy is and always has been housing and the goods to fill those houses. And that’s all there is and ever was. We congratulates ourselves on many aspects of our society. But selling off a continent conquered by advanced weaponry, by using an action system funded by shares in the future is simply the most profitable enterprise humans have ever invented.

But like the Athenian Silver Mine, the veins eventually run dry, resulting in Brazil, India, and the Levant.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-ACLU-good-for-America

Are There Any Benefits To Being White In American Society?

There are worldwide benefits to being white, for the simple reason that we are less suspect of malfeasance because in reality other than the japanese we are statistically less likely to engage in malfeasance. This has largely to do with the fact that we have self-domesticated ourselves over 4000 years if not 20000 years, by the aggressive suppression of behaviors that cannot be suppressed in other territories and climates. In other words, stereotypes are extremely accurate predictors – the most accurate predictors in the social sciences. Only americans deny that for some reason.

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-benefits-to-being-white-in-American-society

Which U.s. Allies Would Back Up Their “support” With Actual Troops If America Was Attacked?

There are people with more understanding of field capacity than I have, but as far as I know the only people (a) reading and willing, (b) able to contribute whatsoever, are the British. Unfortunately the british vision of training is going home for dinner at 5:00pm (which our soldiers complain about endlessly.)

The French undermine Americans (they undermine Europe as a whole) at every opportunity. They will never participate in our defense. They are as likely to side with the enemy as help us. The aussies can fight but they’re far away, and small in numbers.

We learned a great deal from Libya. Europe can handle a bit of civil unrest but is otherwise entirely defenseless. The military is little more than a social service program to reduce unemployment.

The British and French are nuclear powers.

Germany is down there with Indonesia and Canada – a military in pretense only

Worse, European Armies don’t train and can’t fight.

https://www.quora.com/Which-U-S-allies-would-back-up-their-support-with-actual-troops-if-America-was-attacked

Why Is It That Iranian Americans Make More Than Double Income Per Capita Than Iraqi Americans?

There are some questions that you should not ask because they produce answers you will not like. It is my job to answer uncomfortable questions so I’ll give you the respect of the correct answer, if you’ll respect that it might be unpleasant.

We were horrified by the Galilean Revolution but we adapted to it anyway. In the west we were horrified by the Darwinian Revolution. But we adapted to it anyway. We were somewhat horrified by the consequences of industrialization but we adapted to it anyway. So some knowledge must be adapted to if we want to prosper.

Persians divided from common ancestors with Europeans a long time ago, but are the ethnic group closest to West Eurasians (Europeans) – They integrate well, tend toward professional occupations, and demonstrate relatively high trust versus their other levantine neighbors. They have an extraordinary history of intelligence and scholarship despite the destruction to their civilization, language, culture, and demographics by the Arab conquest. So they are ‘compatible’ with American Civilization.

Persians, like the Ashkenazi, are high performance ethnic group. They will do better in any country no matter where they go. The Indians and Chinese start with very large populations, and their best talent travels the world. They are consistently high performers. The difference is that Persians and Ashkenazi produce asymmetric success despite their small numbers.

Some groups consist largely of the upper genetic classes, some the middle, and some the lower. Economic, scientific, and artistic performance corresponds directly with the demographic constitution of an ethnic group. So no matter what anyone does, the fact that some ethnic groups consist almost exclusively of the genetic middle and upper classes means that they will always statistically outperform those groups with large underclasses. It’s just math.

So the differences in performances of ethnic groups is not so much due to genetic differences between groups but the scale of the underclass and the drag that the underclasses put on language, culture, institutions, and knowledge.

The problem that produces inequality isn’t race, or ethnicity, it’s class. Some groups have vast underclasses, and some have nearly eliminated them.

The Arab conquest was the most catastrophic event in human history, destroying the four great civilizations of the ancient world, causing 500M dead, and creating a 1400 year dark age from which only a remote corner of northern europe was able to rescue the world from.

And the side effect of that civilization was a rapid expansion of the size of the underclass due to the inability to develop a middle class, due to low trust, due to tribalism. Outbreeding with the slaves didn’t help much either. It just made it worse.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-Iranian-Americans-make-more-than-double-income-per-capita-than-Iraqi-Americans

Is The Proliferation Of Food Allergies A Result Of The Human Race No Longer Adhering To The Survival Of The Fittest Theory And Subsequently Poor Genes That Would Have Previously Died Out Are Now Being Passed On?