What are your vices?

(from an AMA elsewhere)

—“Curt, What are your biggest vices, if any?”—

I dunno. I’m basically an arrogant, effete, elitist, asshole and that’s my primary vice. (And I like to troll-f…ck idiots quite a bit) Otherwise not many. I don’t really drink, smoke, pop, trip, thot, or anything else. I guess my family would say I”m an obnoxious tease, but that’s just a means of playing while avoiding my impulses to correct idiots.

Advertisements

Community

by Ely Harman

Slaves -> Serfs -> Free Men -> Lords -> Kings -> Gods -> King of the Gods

(Also: Beast > Slave > Serf > Freeman > Citizen > Senator > Emperor. )

The hierarchy can of course be reorganized or individuals can rise or fall within it (to a limited extent) but the point of even having a hierarchy is to be united under one structure.

If you’re just doing your own thing, you don’t get that benefit, you don’t get the economies of scale or the network effects. People doing that might as well be atheists.

But if they’re doing stuff together, they are a true religious community, and their own, individual, influence on the norms, doctrines, beliefs, etc… Of the community are minimal. Rather, they adopt those of the community.

—“You’re Misguided”—

I think you’ll at least understand my restatement of history, once you understand deflationary and critical vs inflationary, conflationary, and fictional grammars.

I am tracking the technologies of truth and deception, and group evolutionary strategy using those grammars, just as you would track the history of linguistics, genes, pottery, or metallurgy.

I track economics not literature.

I understand that man seizes opportunities then justifies them.

I understand the desire for literature in some classes and results in other classes throughout history.

And once you have these understandings, you also attribute very different values and incentives to historical events, just as knowledge of science forced us to rewrite our understanding and history.

Now, you might say I err, but do I err, but it’s extremely unlikely that I err. Because we need do nothing more than study the economics (incentives), and grammars (excuses) to determine whether people acted morally in fact, or immorally, casting themselves as moral.

I am not misguided. My understanding of history is very clearly, the initiation of indo europeans, and the socially destabilizing counter-revolutions against their innovations, because meritocracy, reciprocity, sovereignty, and markets are a threat to every single old order.

The problem that you’ll face is providing superior explanatory power with greater parsimony, without appealing to knowledge that can’t exist in time and space.

You don’t know that (yet).

but that’s what you’re dealing with.

Cheers

The Science of Religions

THE SCIENCE OF RELIGIONS

>>1) Will Jesus be successful in saving everyone he intends to save?

The individual we refer to as jesus might have existed, however almost everything other than his disruption of the temple, and his crucifiction is fiction created by Paul. Paul created Christianity, not Jesus. The reason we know that is that all the ‘jesus stories’ were originally babylonian or a derivative thereof. Just as the old testament is merely plagiarism from the babylonian record.

>>2) Has anyone, or WILL anyone, actually go to hell?
There is no heaven or hell, they are just babylonian fictions that metaphorically assist us in judging one another’s characters, and by character we mean contribution to, or harm to, the polity. At best we can consider heaven and hell the memories of those whose lives you affected, and the record of their actions in response to your display word and deed.

>>3) Therefore

THE OATH OF TRANSCENDENT MAN; A PAGAN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT

I am a pagan if 1) I accept the laws of nature as binding on all of existence; and 2) if I treat nature as sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and 3) I treat the world as something to transform closer to an Eden in whatever ways I can before I die; and 4) if I deny the existence of a supreme being with dominion over the physical laws, and treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors as characters with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 5) if I participate with others of my society in repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of the above to my offspring. And 6) if I leave open that synchronicity appears to exist now and then, and that it may be possible that there is a scientific explanation for it, other than just humans subject to similar stimuli producing similar intuitions and therefore similar ends.

As far as I know this is all that is required of me to be a Pagan.

I am a christian if I have adopted the teaching of christianity: 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin. 3) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war.

As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Christian.

I am an Aryan if 1) I proudly display my excellences so that others seek to achieve or exceed them; 2) I seek competition to constantly test and improve myself so I do not weaken; 3) I swear to speak no insult and demand it; 4) I speak the truth and demand it; 5) I take nothing not paid for and demand it; 6) I grant sovereignty to my kin and demand it; 7) I insure my people regardless of condition, and demand it; and in doing so leave nothing but voluntary markets of cooperation between sovereign men; and to discipline, enserf, enslave, ostracize or kill those who do otherwise; 8) to not show fear or cowardice, abandon my brothers, or retreat, and 9) to die a good death in the service of my kin, my clan, my tribe and my people.

As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be an Aryan.

I am a warrior in that 1) we will prepare for war so perfectly that none dare enter it against us. 2) Once we go to war, we do so with *joy*, with eagerness, and with passion, and without mercy, without constraint, and without remorse; And 3) before ending war, we shall defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of our enemy, and the memory of the slaughter lives a hundred generations.

As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Warrior.

As far as I know, if I succeed as a Pagan, as a Christian, as an Aryan, as a Warrior, then I have transcended the animal man, and earned my place among the saints, heroes, demigods, gods, in the memories, histories, and legends of man.

And that is the objective of heroes.
We leave the rest for ordinary men.

Women Seek And Adapt To Power

by Candice Mary

When foreigners kill men’s comrades and give them the option to surrender and become slaves, men attack.

Women ask instead “what language do we speak? What god do we worship?”

Women evolved to shape themselves to the men who capture them.

Now, just replace “Foreign men” with “Government” and there is the answer.

We can be mad about that or accept reality and manage it.

“Women seek and adapt to power.”

There isn’t any shortcut.

THERE ISN’T ANY SHORTCUT TO WISDOM

There isn’t any shortcut.

You are either going to read enough basic history, and then learn the operational deconstruction of incentives from me, or you aren’t.

There isn’t any shortcut. There isn’t one book. There is however a series of books that are the minimum you’ll need. But that’s not easy.

My book will teach you the science and logic of natural law, and all that it entails. But it will simply explain how to make all the knowledge of all the disciplines, commensurable – into a single universal language.

That said, history provides the storytelling. And it’s the stories we remember.

Stories serve as search algorithms.
Logic serves as recipes.
Science insures we don’t err.

We have had enough of us working to gether now that very smart people with a scientific education and knowledge of computer science, and a bit of history can grasp the ideas within a year.

For most people it takes two to understand, and another one or two to master the use of.

Which is like any other STEM discipline.  ‘Cause it’s like any other STEM discipline…..

—“You’ve made a comment elsewhere which I’ll try to paraphrase. Once you get the importance to operationalism, obstacles to demonstrated intelligence are removed. From there, the way forward is just by acquiring more knowledge. There is no way around it. If you don’t have the data (information), operational arguments amount to well articulated opinions and nothing more.”— Bill Joslin

The British Are United In Mutual Defense

by Oliver Westcott

Genes -> Culture -> Politics -> Law

The UK is made up of many more than 4 distinct cultures.

BUT the British are mostly united in the very least on mutual defence. This has been invested into over the centuries and is one of our greatest commons as Britons.

(Culture is downstream of genes, and we share largely very similar and distinctive genes, even the Scotts are on average over 30% anglo-saxon, the source of our common law)

We have other commons, language, science… and we have not only maintained these commons but strengthened these commons, it has been an increasingly harmonious arrangement. It has been the lubrication on the wheels of contracts and the market. Our common trust.

There are differences and to the extent that there are, as much as possible authority might ought be decentralised as locally as possible.

Feelings and Group Strategies

THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT OF HOW PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL, OR THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL?

1) while I must understand how people came to their group strategies (habitual, normative, traditional, intellectual, institutional, and technological), I must also understand the outcomes (externalities) produced by those strategies.

2) if the world dislikes you and your people and their behaviors and their externalities, they must have a reason for it.

3) So the question is, if you and your people have failed in every social, economic, political, and technological, possible dimension except malthusian reproduction, and the world dislikes you, do they have a reason to?

4) People invent excuses for employing their group strategies. Otherwise those strategies would cause mental and emotional labor, and openness to failure of that strategy.
We all just negotiate on behalf of our personal, gender, class, and group strategies.

5) Our feelings then are mere reflections of success with or failure of our actions in correspondence with our justifications(habits). So the excuses (justifications) we use are a measure only of correspondence with our strategies, but that tells us nothing about the good/bad, morality/immorality of our actions and our strategies. Or more simply put, our emotions are reflections of the competitiveness of our strategies.

6) So as westerners we tend to consider the individual and his emotions, yet his emotions are just a reflection of the success or failure of his strategies. As such, what are those strategies and are they good/moral/constructive, or bad/immoral/destructive?

7) War and Genocide have an illustriously successful history. And islam and judaism have been more destructive than all other forces combined other than the great plagues and diseases. You have to get to the black plague even if not malaria before you’ve killed enough people to match the death, destruction, and dark ages created by islam, judaism(communism), and christianity(anti-aristocracy). Communism has been murderous under the pretense of ‘good’, and Islam has been nearly ten times as murderous under the pretense of ‘good’. Christianity was spread as a means of undermining the western empire from within by the syrians and byzantines, and ‘old europeans’. Islam was spread by force, and resulted in the destruction of the great civilizations: egypt, north african, levantine, mesopotamian, persian, roman, and eventually byzantine.

8) Despite its beginnings in the 600’s, islam had conquered and exhausted the assets of the great civilizations of the ancient world by 1200, and declined rapidly thereafter, brought only into survival by the migration of the turks and their adoption of islam.

9) At present we are fighting judaism(communism, libertarianism, neo-conservatism), postmodernism(French catholicism), and islamic fundamentalism, all of which originate with rabbinical judaism. (Christianity is a Jewish heresy and Islam a Christian heresy).

So by the logic of caring ‘what people feel or think’ instead of “what is the result of what people feel and think” we should allow our civilization to be overrun as were all other great civilizations, and leave only the chinese, japanese, and koreans holding back the tide of dysgenia, ignorance and violence?

Islam has been at war with the west for 1400 years and if you do nothing more than review an animated history of islamic raids and conquests in europe and the number of deaths they perpetrated, and the change in standard of living under those conquests, and the absolute destruction of all knowledge after 1200, then our conquest of the americas pales by comparison – if for no other reason than we used the wealth generated by it to drag humanity kicking and screaming out of the ignorance produced by judaism, christianity, and islam.

We were able to resist islam only because of our advanced technology, and because the turkish empire had exhausted itself under islam as well – and could not develop a european network under rule of law, or an asian network under rule of professional bureaucracy, or an indian network under rule by cast and religion. Instead, islam created iteratively dysgenic ignorance and tribalism.

Islam, south america, india and africa, all have the same problems: by adopting political systems favoring the increase in the size of the underclass, those underclasses are such a heavy burden that they cannot participate in the modern world economy.

If we stack countries by IQ we find their economic performance.

If we stack people by economic, and social class, we find IQ, personality, and physical attractiveness largely rise and fall in concert, with the upper middle class the peak, and the upper class consisting of random outliers.

Cheers

Education (To Taleb)

EDUCATION.
via Nassim Nicholas Taleb (NNT)

Distilling the conversation with @bryan_caplan hosted by Tyler Cowen

1) There has been a traditional separation between:
+ “liberal education” for free men, (liber), who didn’t work for a living, &
+”technical education”, for those who labor.

2) For instance, mathematics as taught for “liberal” education, was theoretical mind exercise. Euclid’s theorem was never used in building.

Meanwhile builders (parts of guilds with trade secrets) were using their own heuristic, richer, geometry. (see #Antifragile)

3) The Anglo-Saxon world conflated the two, with aristocrat-envy:

+ Education to be civilized. (Literature, philosophy, poetry, abstract math, history, stamp collecting, etc.)

+ Education to learn to do things. (Engineering, medicine, accounting, law, belly dancing, plumbing)

4) So we need to separate “things to learn to be civilized” and “things you learn to do things” with separate institutions.

The only overlap I could find was mathematics, though not a strong argument since applied math is a v. different animal.

5a) The problem of the peer review system is selecting professors on theories abt subject never checked for basic knowledge of subject. It is common for people to know the “post colonial gender theory” of Levant, teach it, but never the actual facts.

5b) The French solved the problem with knowledge exams for educators (“aggregation”); you never end up having people judged solely by peers (See #SkininTheGame ).

6) The educational model is now imploding as the only thing people seem to learn at colleges is ideology by losers who became professors because they aren’t good enough to create things & got together to BS in a citation ring #RentSeekers (not just in economics, but everywhere)

7) Finally, we can split education:

+ Taught by nonskininthegame people (math, poetry, etc.)

+ Taught by skininthegame people (engineering, medicine, belly dancing, plumbing, finance, law, burglarizing, computer “science”, accounting, …)

In SEPARATE institutions.

8) The idea that liberal education makes free thinkers is about the greatest myth: empirically, liberal education creates the exact opposite of “thinkers” and “free”: indoctrinated and slaves.Nassim Nicholas Taleb added,
Patrick Lee Miller

9) Remember that the “University” system for this “liberal education” (trivium/quadrivium) was historically closely associated with, and supervised by, the Church.

Technical education was left to free thinkers.

10 In #Antifragile I document the confusion
Business =>Technology => Science,
far far far far more frequent than the reverse.

Problem is that academic, not practitioners, write the books.

The Western Cult Is Sovereignty and Law

TO TALEB (THE WESTERN CULT IS SOVEREIGNTY AND LAW)
(possibly important post for followers)

Replying to @nntaleb @bryan_caplan @tylercowen

Nassim: a) Substitute “Warranty and Liability” for “Skin in the Game” and you switch from discourse under colloquial, rhetorical, propter-hoc, low trust, heterogeneous, bazaars, to scientific post-hoc, high trust, homogenous, rule-of-law ‘markets’ proper.

Nassim: b) I’ve watched you slowly move this direction, but I haven’t seen you include the fact that western civ and all it’s +/-‘s are the result of the primacy of sovereignty and reciprocity in the traditional law back into oral (pre-)history.

Nassim: c) And so, my reading of history, is that the aristocracy was taught to rule (meaning decide, not direct), and the nobility to govern (direct), and labor to obey. (Indo European Tripartism). Otherwise I’m certain your positioning of the ‘Doctrine’ vs ‘Techne’ is correct.

Nassim: d) So my read is the law is taught as a craft (practiced) and the ‘liberal arts” are taught as doctrines, and we are wasting a phenomenal amount of money not separating Techne(craft), Religion(obedience), and Law(Rule). Meaning the problem is the Academy (secular church).

Nassim e: (Closing) So my intuition is that we all carry our cultures with us and possibly to some degree in our genes, and that this cultural difference is what you are intuiting, but expressing in literary, rational, and mathematical rather than western (legal,scientific) form.

The Mythos of General Plan Ost

THE MYTHOS OF NAZI GENERAL PLAN OST

All general staffs develop war plans. The war plan to use asymmetric warfare against ukraine was produced somewhere between 2010 and 2012. Every single general staff in the world has hundreds of such plans. They vary from the trivial, to the devious, to the genocidal. That is what general staffs do. Yet these plans are rarely if ever used. The american Plan Red was to conquer canada so that the british couldn’t for example (I know this because they bought my great-grandparents farm to use as an airport in case they needed to put the plan into action. The plans that are currently in the russian (and soviet) archives are horrific, and include nuclear saturation of the west, and rapid movement of artillery and armor through that territory. There are plans to take finland, to take sweden, to defend from china, to take back constantinople. These are not likely to happen, but they are the research and development plans that all general staffs occupy their time with so that they are NEVER in a position of lacking a plan for any possible contingency.

Generalplan Ost existed in six only in preliminary versions from January 1940 to the last one dated 23. Dec. 1942 named “Generalsiedlungsplan”.

The plan was subject to a continuous ongoing development, and no version of it was ever approved.
Further development of the plan was abandoned in 1943.

The 2′nd, 3′rd and 4′th versions of the plan have never been found. Their existence and content is only known from other secondary documentary references.

In other words, this is more propaganda. As far as I know the general solution was to resettle people in order to prevent communist expansion from the soviets into european spaces where it could threaten germans.

Fascism was a reaction to soviet communism. That’s all.

Just as russians today want to defend their ‘resettled’ people in eastern europe, (despite the fact that they are despised in every country), the germans wanted to defend their settled peoples, because they had been incrementally civilizing europe through commerce since the beginning of the Hansa league.

I never believe anyone’s history. I look at the economics, and the demographics, and search for incentives. People just make excuses to justify seizure of opportunities. And history is nothing but such excuses.

The only measure of a people is trust and the technical, and economic velocity that results from it.

The measure of any philosophy or ideology is the long term condition of those who practice it.

Fact and Fiction of Nazi Aryan History

FROM QUORA
—“Leaving racial supremacy theories aside, what is the fact and what is the fiction behind the Nazi version of Aryan history?”—

CONTROVERSIAL
1) The Nazi propaganda was absolutely pseudoscientific nonsense. We have to understand that the Nazi program was aesthetic – a sort of secular religion – to inspire people who were utterly hopeless and defeated. It was the most successful pseudo-religious program after Marxism – and it was invented largely to oppose marxism (bolshevism) as was all fascism.

So the nazis were speaking in a sort of secular religious prose of nationalism the same way that today’s american and western postmodernists speak in a sort of secular religious prose (“Political Correctness”). These are outright falsehoods, and todays academy (postmodernists) openly admit that they are speaking falsehoods because “all that matters is power, not truth, and truth is a weapon of the aristocracy”.

The problem arises when we try to treat these movements with anglo-empirical-legal understanding rather than continental-fictional-philosophical understanding, which is simply religious “fictions” (falsehoods) or political ‘ideologies’. It’s inspirational, like myth and religion, not historical or scientific.

2) HOWEVER, first, the late 19th century archeologists were correct, in that the indo europeans were of Aryan (PIE) origins, and that that origin was in Europe (or at least in Ukraine), and that these people moved westward in waves, and brought with them aryanism (paternal, aristocratic, sky worshipping, expansionary, militaristic, technological) civilization, and that they settled in what is today’s poland, spread, and spread into high (Denmark,German) middle (Celtic), and lower (Ital and Hellenic) civilizations, without major impact on old europe (balkans) who were the first major metalworkers.

How do we know?
a) neoteny (domestication) (morphology, endocrine expression, personality traits)
c) verbal acuity (appears we have been trading spatial for verbal for a long time)
b) demographic distribution (very little underclass, if any).
c) Selection for long winters, close quarters, indoors.

In other words, the dozen or so minor races began local speciation, and the delta is highest in Haplogroup I(nordics), and gentility highest (apparently) in slavs.

Manorialism began in today’s Holland in the 7th or 8th century, and served to extend the meritocracy of scandinavians, high germans, and baltics. It spread southward (via the Hajnal line). And the germanic prohibition on capital punishment was eliminated first by romans, but by the 12th century reversed, and capital punishment was aggressively used through the end of the 19th century.

The far east and far west achieved higher rates of neoteny, albeit from different generations of homo sapiens sapiens, with greater selection pressure on the most northern peoples. (Something happens with cro-magnon generation and we don’t know yet what that was.)

The simple difference of lactose tolerance meant 40% more calories from the same food source for doing nothing, and this, with bronze, wheel, horse, voluntary militia, and Individual Sovereignty is the reason for indo european expansion.

The steppe and desert (Tribal peoples) did not go thrugh this process and instead under fertile crescent food production, expanded the underclasses.

So the asymmetry of our cultures is due in large part to the differences in selection pressures resulting in asymmetric distribution of classes. In other words, far east and far west reduced underclasses, and everyone else increased them.

The difference between far east and far west is western verbal acumen, and easter spatial acumen. The reason for this I think I understand, but is due to the time at which each group left africa.

The Possibility of an American Revolution

THE POSSIBILITY OF AMERICAN REVOLUTION

Replying to @DiasporaDiabhal @thefaceberg

1) While historically a small percentage (under 3%) of unwed males have been the cause for most revolutions (men being a surplus resource of violence like any other resource) it is trivial at this point in time for very small numbers to bring an end to the american government.

2) In fact I cannot think of a time in history where such a revolution would be so trivially brought about. Not just because of a small number of men, but because, like the fall of the roman empire, the basis of our civilization (military service and common law) has been undermined and the common man married or not are in rebellious mood.

3) In the ancient world, judaism was invented to resist, christianity to subvert, then islam used to conquer, and destroy all the great civilizations of the ancient world, creating the Abrahamic Dark Ages. So immigration of hostiles, the conversion of our women and underclass….

4) Localized rebellion, invasion, the costs of land vs marine policing, the plagues, and the islamic conquest of mediterranean and indian ocean trade, combined with a surplus of males able to retreat into deserts, destroyed every single great civilization between 100 and 1200 …

5) … with the Fresh Reserves of newly islamicized Turks, assisted by plague. accomplishing what the exhausted arabs could not in 1453. It took until 1683 to exhaust the Turks, who could not govern the arabs either. So we have fought islam for 1400 years.

6) And so far, only China, Japan, and Korea, on one end, and America on the other, have resisted the Muslim Conquests. Today muslims are accomplishing through migration what they could not achieve through martial means. It’s just numbers.

7) So imagine something as simple as cutting off EBT (welfare payments) to urban centers by serial overloading (shorting) of power lines, and cutting of transmission lines. That is one of only a hundred similar techniques that do not require armed conflict so much as “just letting the pressure of the dam, do its work”.

 

Do Smart People Lack Common Sense (Intelligence)

–“DO SMART PEOPLE LACK COMMON SENSE?”–

Well, there are a couple of issues here we can discuss.

1) IQ increases the rate at which you learn, and the degrees of indirection between what’s learned.
2) IQ is the most dominant personality trait, with industriousness second, and all others comparatively far less influential.
3) By and large, after the age of 22, we effectively sort by IQ. Or at least every 1/2 standard deviation (7 points). And it applies (generally) to all walks of life.
4) People with average IQ’s tend to collect information from peers. People with high IQ’s rely less on the opinions of others.
5) So average people network more and pursue less risky, or novel (innovative) ends, and smarter people do the opposite.
6) This is why science has been so important because as we have learned science and reduce errors, the ‘habits’ of scientific thought have been adopted by mainstream people and they ‘calculate’ together fairly successfully.
7) My point of view, is that together we create a sufficiently homogenous set of habits that we believe we understand far more than we do – (overconfidence) – when all we are doing is habituating norms that survived evolution and markets.

8) Roughly speaking, 140 innovates, 130 explains 120’s apply, 110’s organize, 100’s do, 90’s follow, 80s do the best they can and are generally angry about it, and 70s stumble through life despite the fact that no matter what they do it seems not to work. That’s an exaggeration, but it’s close enough that it serves as a general rule of understanding. We are just as specialized as ants, but the similarity of emotion, want, and language convinces us that we are more similar than we are.

Hence why we generally choose every aspect of our lives so that we function with people within six degrees of separation.

The Experiment Failed.

–“I never understood how letting everyone vote is a good thing”–Peter Sorrentino

Well, I think originally jefferson’s idea was that being as inclusive as possible decreased the chances of concentrating power.

Universal white males in 1856
White women in 1920
Minorities in 1965.

So you can see what happens rather rapidly.

The experiment has been a failure.

We just need to rule.

Return to rule for money and profit. 😉

Militia > King (General) > Judge > Sheriff > Family > Individual.

The Purpose of Diversity The Defeat of Western Civilization?

Are calls for dramatically increasing cultural diversity essentially calls for the replacing of Western Civilization with something else?

The roman empire was undermined by the same (((People))) by the same means, by selling similar fictionalisms to women and the underclasses, and rapid immigration overwhelming the military, which was what made Romans disciplined, invested in the civilization, and with shared values and experiences.

In this era, we have seen marxism, cultural marxism, so called scientific socialism, postmodernism, and the industrialization of lying, using the same grammar and arguments, only this time with promise of economic, status, and political achievement, instead of after death.

Make no mistake about it, in the years during and after the conquest of judea the insurrection against the aristocracy was aggressively pursued by conversion of the underclasses and as always, women – who are more susceptible to fantastic ideas due to the high frequency of psychosis and solipsism (about 1/3 of women, but approaching 40% in the west), and the rest conform to their standard. (another example of the most intolerant wins – even more so among women.)

Make no mistake that the same process has been underway, and aggressively pursued in the postwar era.

The result in the ancient world was the destruction of all major civilizations from africa to persia to rome, with a feeble byzantine city surviving by virtue of geography and wealth.

Under Johnson the (((left))) was able to both destroy the black family through russian style relocation, turn our cities into wastelands for having done so, reversing tradition and aggressively immigrating the underclasses, so that they (((Left))) could achieve by immigration that which could not be achieved by their ideas.

The purpose of the (((Left))) is genocide of western civilization.

A World Without Money?

A WORLD WITHOUT MONEY?

—“What would happen if there were no money on earth?”–

(Repost) Answered May 1, 2013

Believe it or not, this subject has been given quite a bit of treatment in the literature – mostly during the early part of the last century in response to the communist, socialist and fascist movements.

REALITY:
Almost everyone, on the planet, except for perhaps ~500M subsistence farmers would die in the first 30-90 days. Yes. Really. Seriously.

MONEY
Money makes planning of complex things possible.
Humans literally cannot ‘think’ as we understand the term, without numbers, money, property, contracts, credit and interest. Just as drawings and written words help us remember things, numbers help us remember things we could not remember, think about, or compare without them. Money makes numbers possible to apply to things that are DIFFERENT. Whereas numbers without money can only be used for things that are the SAME. As such, we say that money makes it possible to compare objects that are otherwise incommensurable. Money renders the world commensurable: open to planning and the use of mathematics (measurement and forecasting).

In practical terms, money and prices form an information system that tells us all what to do in real time in response to what others want and need. It is how we tell each other how to cooperate. It is the human social system. And the use of that social system, plus the capture of fossile fuel, has taken us out of ignorance and poverty.

CONVERSELY
What money and credit have also done is make it possible to breed again up to new malthusian levels. While Malthus was only half right, he was half right. Group selection accomplishes what malthus did not account for. THe general belief of ‘progressives’ is that technology will ‘save us again’ just like agrarianism, and then pastoralism saved us in the past. But the truth is we just breed up to these levels again, and reduce ourselves back to poverty.

The problem then is that we must control our breeding. And that has been, except for a brief period in china, or the middle ages in England under Manorialism impossible to achieve. Partly because it is so profitable to sell things to people who bear children, and those children as they too mature.

EXAMPLES
THe US economy is primarily driven by housing, and the high rate of return on lending for housing, and the large supply of labor jobs for the production of housing. From this perspective, the exceptional nature of the american economy is not the product of ‘democracy’ or innovation, but the product of selling off a continent to waves of immigrants and their offspring, and using the profits from the sale of the (conquered) continent to invest in increasingly complex technologies.

THe Chinese for example have figured this out and are doing the same thing but moving people from the ‘poor’ village farm to cities where they *hope* the population will be more productive than they were at subsistence farming. China can do this bcause it adopted consumer capitalism (money, prices and interest) and abandoned communism (no money, no prices, and no interest).

The problem other countries face (India and say, Ukraine) is india is so pervasively corrupt that it’s not possible to create infrastructure without privatization of the investment through corruption, and the population is still expanding unsustainably in a dirty and hot environment. THe problem Ukraine faces, is that it cannot play ‘china’ because the lower levels of government are so corrupt and the country sees no demand for its currency, so the government cannot issue credit, and therefore the people remain poor.

IN CLOSING
When you say ‘money went away’ what you must also understand is that with money and prices will go the ability to communicate, and think. Literally. Humans would not be able to cooperate, communicate, plan and think without money. Worse, they would have no incentive to do so, because to have an incentive one must be able to think of something to do. And you couldn’t think of anything to do that you couldn’t do with your own two hands.

THere is about 4 days worth of energy, and 14 days worth of food in the pipeline. If you made money vanish, you would need to make 6B people vanish along with it.

You may find a more thorough, or a more simplistic answer elsewhere. But this is the answer, and there isn’t any alternative.

There Are Plenty of Good Women…

There are plenty of good women. They are just rarely on the market precisely because they are good women. There are plenty of good men. They are just rarely on the market precisely because they are good men. The problem with good men and good women is that relationships do fail today, and they don’t maintain their sexual market value. And if they did, it’s probably that their relationships wouldn’t have failed.

Maintain your sexual market value. It’s not complicated. Stop putting things in your mouth. Sleep. And get just a little exercise (walk a lot and fast).

Western Vs Jewish Ethics

Libertarian ethics derive from hebrew diasporic pastoralist ethics (those than can run away) whereas western sovereign ethics derive from western indo european agrarian militia ethics (those that remain present) – which is a difference between the short term temporal and longer term intertemporal. which is why libertarian ethics are limited to volition, not like western, inclusive of reciprocity.

In other words, under western indo european ethics you warranty your words and deeds, whereas hebrew ethics are designed to be irreciprocal, and without warranty on purpose – as is stated in jewish law.

Otherwise, if you don’t follow ethics of warranty, and instead if you follow jewish ethics, then there is no prohibition on creating and profiting from moral hazard (parasitism). And so if they follow irreciprocal ethics a group can specialize in profiting from moral hazard (parasitism), like lending usurious money to poor people, engaging in the slave trade, blackmail, slumlording and tax collection.

Whereas moral peoples specialize in the lower returns on warrantable and reciprocal goods that do not create incentive to retaliate (kill). WHich is why jews in Europe had such a problem, (and had population bottlenecks). A low trust immoral parasitic population hosted by a high trust moral productive population will always lead to accumulated grievances and explosive retaliation. But, none of us can look i the mirror at our ancestors and recognize them for their criminality – although westerners since Burke certainly have done so.

Most other civilizations lack the intellectual honesty to look in the mirror at their ancestors and understand that their punishments were earned. In the case of the west our adoption of christianity demilitarized and fragmented europe to the point where it was the viking invasions that restored the western ethos, and the reintroduction of greek thought that lead to it’s return to it’s traditional vector after the damage of the abrahamic dark ages.

Rome: We Begin And End With The Militia

–“The story of [the Empire’s] ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple [the color of the robes of the Roman magistrates, ie: THE LAW]. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered [the citizens both] alike (each other,) formidable to their sovereign, and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine [Christianity]; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians.”— Edward Gibbon. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, “General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West”, Chapter 38

IT ALL BEGINS AND ENDS WITH OUR MILITIA, AND OUR MILITIA BY THEIR LAW, AND THEIR LAW BY EXCEPTIONLESS INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY.

Then and Now.

England started the industrial revolution with crucible steel. America supplied cheap labor to european inventions just like china is supplying cheap labor to western inventions. The second scientific and technological revolution happened in post-prussian germany in the later 1800’s and was truncated by the war, with the russians (equipment and tools) and americans (scientists) the primary beneficiaries of the german revolution.

The Failure of Libertarian Property Definition

by Eli Harman via Brandon Hayes

Libertarians have a theory of legitimate private property originating in original appropriation and subsequent exchange. This is sometimes called “Intersubjectively Verifiable Property” (IVP) which means “property people can agree who owns” and it basically limits the scope of “legitimate” property to personal, private, property.

But people will intuit assaults on or theft of common and intangible property as a loss and they will retaliate against it.

So if the purpose of property rights, norms, and regimes, is to minimize conflicts by codifying who owns what, and consequently, who may do what, where, and why, then libertarian IVP fails as a property regime and a property norm, because there are whole categories of conflict it does not address nor prevent because it does not codify property rights in things that people value (with good reason) and conflict over, but actually licenses parasitism, theft, destruction, and free-riding in these domains by prohibiting retaliation against it.

Libertarianism’s Self Destruction

by Luke Weinhagen
(better than I have said it) (brilliant)

The way (my revelation) hit me was that libertarianism survives/exists by miscategorizing relations. Specifically libertarians interpret commons(cooperation) as commons(conflict) and use property rights(IVP) to attempt to resolve that conflict.

In doing so they justify libertarianism’s parasitism of the commons(that can only be generated via cooperation) as defense and that justification requires it not suppress any parasitism of the commons(cooperation) as this would self destruct the ideology.

Libertarianism self destructed for me once I recognized this categorization error.

(CURT: Luke, this is, the … it’s, pricelessly stated. nice work.)

The Key To Understanding Propertarianism

KEY TO UNDERSTANDING PROPERTARIANISM
by Luke Weinhagen

Understanding this:

—-“There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict).”—-

… and developing the skill to accurately identify these categories, makes everything Propertarianism is exploring understandable and in context.

Where I’ve had misses in comprehension has consistently been where I’ve mis-categorized one or more of those three as another in whatever relation is being explored.

Ghengis Khan vs Crusoe

GENGHIS KHAN VS CRUSOE

What provides genghis kahn with the incentive to (a) let you live, (b) keep your things (c) let you remain free of slavery (d) Let you keep a portion of your production?

It’s the inverse of the Crusoe’s Island thought experiment.

Historically, the model that we evolved with, is an evenly distributed but scarce population preying on one another to obtain territory, women, and goods.

How do you develop mutually beneficial cooperation in the historical (existential) rather than pessimistic (Kahn) or optimistic (Crusoe) models?

Genghis Khan <———- Steppe ———> Crusoe

Self Ownership Must Be Constructed From A Commons.

SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS.

Well, self ownership can’t exist, it can only be constructed as an informal institution(norm) or formal institution( legislation).

So you can desire to construct a thing, and once you construct a thing, use that thing to produce goods, but it does not exist independently of construction – it’s impossible.

The reason to use the word principle is always and everywhere a fraud – an attempt to attribute to law (existential) or axiom (declaration) that which is arbitrary. Any time a person uses ‘principle’ they mean arbitrary. Any time they use natural or physical law they mean inescapable, and any time the use axiom they mean ‘declared’ since we can declare any axion (premise) arbitrarily. So all attempst to argue from principle are arbitrary (false).

Recirpocity provides decidability whether we like it or not, and that is why it is the bases of all law, and in particular, international law – since there is no means of enforcing international law other than war.

So once you choose reciprocity, whether empirically or arbitrarily you will end up producing the institutions of possession, property(normative), and property rights (institutional).

And once you follow me long enough you will understand the technique called ‘pilpul’ by which the ignorant are fooled into cherry picking a set of self confirming excuses, and hence why all justificationism (like numerology, and astrology, and scriptural interpretation, and rationalist philosophy that evolved from them) as a hierarchy of elaborate frauds.

So no. We must construct a condition of reciprocity (commons) via informal and formal institutions, from which we incrementally produce the institutions of property and property rights, and possibly even the luxury of human rights.

And that is how property evolved – as a luxury of the incremental suppression of free riding , theft, fraud, and conspiracy.

And libertarianism is just another excuse for free riding.

The East Was Never Roman.

The roman empire consisted of the Roman (western mediterranean), and Rome’s conquest of the Greek Empire (Aegean), Greek-Conquered Egypt, and Anatolia, Roman conquered Syria, Palestine, and North Africa.

The greek (eastern empire) survived, but the west was lost to jewish internal insurrection and Germanian external conquest, and the rest incrementally lost to judaism v3, the muslim conquests, which destroyed every great civilization of the ancient world.

So the eastern empire was roman in name the same way the holy roman empire was roman (neither was).

Eli Harman Schools Libertarians

ELI TRIES TO SCHOOL LIBERTARDS ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CIRCULARITY OF “SHOULD” VERSUS THE CORRESPONDENCE OF “IS”

> Clifton Knox

Hoppe’s argumentation ethic presented in formal logic.

1. Using reason and evidence to deny a proposition is a kind of argument.
2. Deny a necessary precondition or premise of an argument and you deny that argument.
3. Any argument that denies a necessary precondition of the activity of argumentation denies the basis of argumentation, and so contradicts itself.
4 The act of argumentation itself presupposes self-ownership.

Therefore, Any argument that denies self-ownership, contradicts itself.

> Ely Harman

—“4 The act of argumentation itself presupposes self-ownership.”—

Nope. A slave can argue. A child can argue, if it’s precocious. A woman can argue, if she’s in a particularly lucid state of mind. None of those are self-owners.

> Clifton Knox

I would say they are self owners. Even if some person has immorally compelled them to act in that other persons interests and against their own, they are still their own rightful owner. You always have the option of laying down and dying in the face of overwhelming force and nobody can do anything about it. Circumstantial reality does not change the ultimate facts of your ability to make the ultimate decisions regardless of outcomes.

> Ely Harman

You’re just trying to justify a preference for self-ownership. But “shoulds” don’t actually exist and you can’t just argue one into being. If you want to bring something about the only reliable way to bring it about, generally speaking, is to do all the things, and pay all the costs, that it logically implies. Sometimes you can con other people into paying the costs or doing the things for you, but even if you can that never lasts. And that’s all justificationary arguments ever are.

See my next comment below this one.

> Andrew Smith

Slaves still own themselves… They are being coerced, which violates their right to self ownership, but the slave owner doesn’t control the body of the slave, he coerces the mind of the slave. Also, slavery violates argumentation ethics, so it’s besides the point.

> Ely Harman

What you own is what you demonstrate willingness and ability to defend.

If slaves demonstrated willingness or ability to defend themselves, they wouldn’t be slaves.

Ergo, slaves don’t, in fact, own themselves.

> Ely Harman

Hoppe’s argumentation ethics actually set out to prove the non-aggression principle, not self ownership. The argument was non-aggression is a ground rule of argument. (If someone commits aggression it’s no longer an argument, but something else.) Therefore to attempt to justify aggression argumentatively involves a performative contradiction and is invalid.

His conclusion isn’t actually wrong. It’s just misleading. To attempt to justify ANYTHING argumentatively is invalid. It just ends up either being elaborate question begging (you have to assume the axioms so why not simply assume the conclusions? it’s exactly as valid…) or you run into the problem of induction if you’re trying to approach it that way.

Nothing can be justified.

Nothing needs to be justified.

Aggression doesn’t need to be justified.

Plenty of aggressors haven’t bothered trying to justify their aggression, and have gotten away with it; with something for their trouble.

> Andrew Smith

Self Ownership precedes (depends upon) the NAP, and property rights in things precedes self ownership. Self ownership doesn’t mean anything other than “you have a better claim to control your body than anyone else”.

I’d suggest Stephan Kinsella for more on this topic. He is the best teacher of it that I’ve found.

> Ely Harman

“In answer to the Argives, who were disputing with the Spartans in regard to the boundaries of their land and said that they had the better of the case, [Lysander] drew his sword and said, ‘He who is master of this talks best about boundaries of land.'”

> Clifton Knox

It does both. It requires cooperation that precludes violence but it is based on the idea of natural law and self ownership. Number 3 includes self ownership as a necessary precondition. Even Hoppe has made it clear that self ownership,is a necessary precondition.

There is no justification going on here. We could say nothing needs to be justified but we can also say everything needs to be justified.

Why does everything need to be justified? Let’s elaborate, “everything that you wish to be reciprocated” needs to be justified.

> Andrew Smith

Ely you’re literally ignoring the entire point of property rights and self ownership. It’s for a society attempting to avoid conflict, not one looking to provoke it. If you’re pro aggression and believe “to the Victor goes the spoils” is a moral position, then the only thing to do is fight, you’ve rejected argumentation ethics, property rights, self ownership and the NAP

> Ely Harman

The argument is if you assume the right axioms, they’re irrefutable. But a lot of them CAN be refuted. And even if not, you’re still wasting time and energy on something pointless.

> Thomas Cummings

You have to ASSUME the axioms (ie: circular argument).

People are not property. My body is not deeded or owned.

If you are interested in purchasing human bodies, check with your local human trafficker

Exactly, clif. No thank you. My body is not an item of property to begin with. Ownership thereof is moot

> Ely Harman

We can CHOOSE to cooperate or not cooperate or conflict. (According to our incentives.) I agree. If we want to cooperate, then some ground rules are necessary, starting with reciprocity. But not everyone wants to cooperate. And if they don’t, arguing at them about argumentation is worse than useless. If people aren’t going to cooperate, or if they aren’t worth cooperating with, extending them the benefit of cooperative norms is cost without benefit. And trying to justify the moral obligation to cooperate is still more cost without benefit.

> Andrew Smith

Ely who gets to determine who controls the coffee mug I’m drinking from?

> Ely Harman

If I’m Genghis Khan, I don’t care about your arguments. I drink from the coffee cups of 1000 men, right before I fuck their wives. Your arguments are meaningless to me. What are you gonna do now?

I’m a smart, economically savvy, productive Genghis Khan. I actually don’t have anything against mutually beneficial trade. I just insist that most of the benefit accrue to me, while you get to keep only enough to cover your costs plus a token surplus, greatly less generous than my cut. Otherwise we fight.

What are you gonna do now?

—–:CURT:———-

1) You cannot OWN anything without an insurer (violence) capable of insuring it against all *anticipatable* alternatives.
2) You can possess something in fact without an insurer (numbers).
3) You cannot possess a right of enforcement (property right) without an insurer.
4) Ownership consists of a normative and institutional contract (or demand) for the suppression of parasitism, and the insurance thereof.
5) Therefore ownership can only exist as a social and political construction, with ownership in fact and property ‘rights’ agreed to among the members of the society and polity.

This is why terms matter so much when making arguments. If your premises are false so will be your conclusions. The premise of self ownership is false. Your body possesses your mind, and your mind exerts control over your body. But whomever owns your body and your mind is determine by those who possess the force necessary to do so. It can’t be otherwise.

As Eli Says above:

—“non-aggression is a ground rule of argument. (If someone commits aggression it’s no longer an argument, but something else)”–

In other words by cooperating in argument rather than boycotting argument, and forgoing violence, you are demonstrating cooperation. There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict).

The problem is that people largely engage in falsehood in argument, so in that case are we cooperating, or are we in conflict at lower cost.

Hoppe is stating a TAUTOLOGY (a circular definition). So again, hoppe is stating a requirement (law) that is necessary in the construction of Law proper. It’s entirely circular. It’s a SHOULD argument not an IS argument.

Eli is showing that if you make an IS argument, (one that is externally correspondent, rather than only internally consistent) then you can only create a polity with liberty with violence, and economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources.

In other words, you can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires.

As such one only possesses liberty by permission of powers, who grant such liberties to excess population in exchange for the labor and investment of settlement of borderland territories.

in other words, all libertarianism is just another (((diasporic))) people’s fantasy of preserving (((pastoralism))) and a normative and cultural bias in favor of consumption rather than investment in the commons. So just as communism eliminates private property by wishful thinking, libertarianism eliminates required common property by wishful thinking.

The Militia produces sovereignty in fact, not liberty by permission for its members, if sufficient investment in commons and sufficient prevention of defection is produced.

Thus Endeth The Lesson.
Apr 23, 2018 11:10am

Ending the Libertarian Fallacies of Argumentation and Estoppel

ENDING FALLACIES OF ARGUMENTATION AND ESTOPPEL: THE LESSON

1) You cannot OWN anything without an insurer (violence) capable of insuring it against all *anticipatable* alternatives.
2) You can possess something in fact without an insurer (numbers).
3) You cannot possess a right of enforcement (property right) without an insurer.
4) Ownership consists of a normative and institutional contract (or demand) for the suppression of parasitism, and the insurance thereof.
5) Therefore ownership can only exist as a social and political construction, with ownership in fact and property ‘rights’ agreed to among the members of the society and polity.

This is why terms matter so much when making arguments. If your premises are false so will be your conclusions. The premise of self ownership is false. Your body possesses your mind, and your mind exerts control over your body. But whomever owns your body and your mind is determine by those who possess the force necessary to do so. It can’t be otherwise.

As Eli Says:

—“non-aggression is a ground rule of argument. (If someone commits aggression it’s no longer an argument, but something else)”–

In other words by cooperating in argument rather than boycotting argument, and forgoing violence, you are demonstrating cooperation. There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict).

The problem is that people largely engage in falsehood in argument, so in that case are we cooperating, or are we in conflict at lower cost.

Hoppe is stating a TAUTOLOGY (a circular definition). So again, hoppe is stating a requirement (law) that is necessary in the construction of Law proper. It’s entirely circular. It’s a SHOULD argument not an IS argument.

Eli is showing that if you make an IS argument, (one that is externally correspondent, rather than only internally consistent) then you can only create a polity with liberty with violence, and economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources.

In other words, you can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires.

As such one only possesses liberty by permission of powers, who grant such liberties to excess population in exchange for the labor and investment of settlement of borderland territories.

in other words, all libertarianism is just another (((diasporic))) people’s fantasy of preserving (((pastoralism))) and a normative and cultural bias in favor of consumption rather than investment in the commons. So just as communism eliminates private property by wishful thinking, libertarianism eliminates required common property by wishful thinking.

The Militia produces sovereignty in fact, not liberty by permission for its members, if sufficient investment in commons and sufficient prevention of defection is produced.

Thus Endeth The Lesson.
Apr 23, 2018 11:43am