The combination of “Anglo-Saxon” economics (accepting the dynamism of open markets) and of “Anglo-Saxon” politics (governments as seriously responsible–British version–or accountable–Washington version–to their voters) is doubly subversive to the French elite’s entire modus operandi. The “Anglo-Saxons” provide an identity to define oneself against and, in the case of the US, a counterpoint to seek to surpass. (One cannot really say “rival” because the US fails to feel threatened by European unity–indeed, actively promotes it; which is, if anything, even more infuriating.) –Michael Philip
We aren’t debating, or discoursing. We can’t debate or discourse until we’re not lying. Until we’re not lying we’re in conflict. So I am prosecuting your ideas to ensure you’re not lying. Only after you’re no longer lying, can we say that we are negotiating an exchange.
But if we start from your premise of lying, and your premise of falsehoods, an honest exchange is not possible. If an honest exchange is not possible, then violence is preferable.
So I am not trying to discover the truth. The truth is unknowable. I am not trying to discover an optimum solution, because it may be unknowable. I am only trying to ensure that you are not engaging in error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception.
At that point, what remains is but truth. And all truthful exchanges of mutual benefit are ‘true’ and ‘optimum’. And all lies and thefts by lie are neither true nor optimum.
So you start from the position of maximizing benefit. I start from the position of needing a reason not to kill you for lying.
(PS: If you combine ethical propertarianism with personal stoicism you are probably the very best thinker that man can be.)
You can ignore reality but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality — Ayn Rand via Emil Suric
(sketch) (needs a lot more work)
THE ARISTOCRATIC MODEL: IF WE CONSTRUCTED NATURAL ARISTOCRACY FOR EVERY MAJOR TRIBE…HOW SUCCESSFULLY COULD WE PARENT OUR TRIBES ABOVE THE MAGIC NUMBER OF 106?
–We need a lot more countries–
(note: I am having a lot of fun with this. It’s a real learning experience. And we have enough dna now so that we can match morphology, geography,language and dna. Humans are awesome. )
Kinship: Race: Collection of Tribes: Collection of Clans: Collection of Families.
* = significant genetic distance from most other groups
** = major genetic distance from most other groups
*** = extreme genetic distance from most other groups
======Caucasian Macro Race======
The European (Ukrainian?) Major Race
(Northern Branch of Indo-European Migration?)
(Predominantly Brown and Blonde Hair, and small noses)
==Northwestern European Races / North Sea and Rivers(R1b/I1) ==
Atlantic, Celtic, Geramanic (R1b),
Nordic (Swedish, Norwegian)(I1)
===Slavic Race/Baltic/Dniepr/European Plain(R1a) ===
West Slavic, South Slavic, East Slavic
=== Uralic / Finno-Ugric Race (N) ===
Finn, Estonian, Latvia, Lithuania, (Russia/Moscovy)
Norwegian-Swedish Saami Race*** (Norwegian Saami – Swedish Saami)
Finnish Saami Race** (Finnish Saami)
Uralic Race (Komi – Mari)?? (Hard to place, here or Asian?)
=== Basque Race ===
Basque Race (Basque) (R1b1+Heavy non-european Admixture)
===Southern Proto Europeans (I2)===
Sardinian Race** (Sardinian)
Moldovans,Romanians,Bulgarians,Serbians, Bosnians, Croatians (et al)
===Irianian Major Race===
(Southern Branch of the Indo europeans?)
(Black Hair and big noses)
Iranian Race ( Armenian(R1b/J2) – Jewish(E1/J) – Greek(I2) — Southern Italians(I2) — Turk – Kurd – Iranian – Jordanian – Iraqi – Assyrian – Druze – Lebanese – Georgian – Caspian – Palestinian)
Tajik Race (Tajik – Bukhara Arab – Shugnan – Kallar – Sourashtran – Yadhava)
=== Arab (Semitic / Iranian-African?) Race===
(J) (Kuwait, and southern peninsula)
Kuwaiti Race* (Kuwaiti)
Arabian Race (Saudi – Yemeni – Bedouin)*
Egyptian Race (Egyptian)
North African Race (Moroccan – Libyan – Tunisian – Canarian)
Berber Race*** (Berber)
Algerian Race (Algerian)
===Indo Iranian Major Race***===
Kalash Race*** (Kalash)
West Asian Race/East Iranian Race (Pashtun – Brahui – Balochi – Makrani – Sindhi )
West Himalayan Race (Hunza – Bartangi – Roma)
Himalayan Race*** (Gurkha – Tharu – Ladakhi)
North Indian Race** (Punjabi – Central Indic – Punjabi Brahmin – Rajput – Vania Soni – Mumbai Brahmin – Jat – Kerala Brahmin – Koli)
Karnet-Uttar Pradesh Brahmin Race*** (Karnet – Uttar Pradesh Brahmin)
===Indo-Iranian-Dravidian Major Race?===
South Indian Race** (Munda – Bhil – Maratha – Rajbanshi – Oraon – Parji – Kolami-Naiki – Chenchu Reddi – Konda – Kolya – West Bengal Brahmin – Parsi – Gond)
South Dravidian Race*** (Sinhalese – Lambada – Irula – Izhava – Kurumba – Nayar – Toda – Kota – Malayaraya – Tamil)
Kerala Kadar Race*** (Kerala Kadar)
======Asian Macro Race======
===Northeast Asian Major Race*===
Japanese-Korean Race (Japanese – Korean)
Southern Japanese Race (Honshu Kinki – Kyushu)
Ryukyuan Race (Okinawans)
Ainu Race*** (Ainu)
Gilyak Race** (Gilyak)
Northern Chinese Race (Northern Han – Qiang – Manchu – Hui – Yunnan Han)
Oroqen Race (Oroqen)
Sherpa-Yakut Race (Sherpa – Yakut)
Nepalese Race (Nepali – Newari)
Mongolian Race (Mongolian – Inner Mongolian – Buryat – Kazakh)
Northern Turkic Race*** (Dolgan – Altai – Shor – Tofalar – Uighur – Chelkan – Soyot – Kumandin Teleut – Hazara)
Central Asian Race (Kirghiz – Karalkalpak – Uzbek – Turkmen)
Tuva Race (Tuva)
Tungus Race (Even – Evenki – Russian Saami)
Beringian Race** (Chukchi – Aleut – Siberian Eskimo)
General Tibetan Race (Tibetan – Lisu – Nu – Tujia – Akha – Burmese – Yizu)
Mizo Race (Mizo)
Bhutanese Race (Bhutanese Buddhist)
==Paleo-Siberian Race== (Related to Mexican/South American)
Paleosiberian Race (Koryak – Itelmen)
Reindeer Chukchi Race (Reindeer Chukchi)
North American Eskimo Race (Inuit)
Nganasan Race (Nganasan)
Siberian Uralic Race (Nentsy – Samoyed – Ket – Mansi – Khanty)
==Amerindian Major Race*==
Northern Na-Dene Race
Northwestern American Amerindian Race
Northern Amerind Race
Central Amerind Race
Southern Amerind Race
Ge Amerindian Race (Ge Language Group)
Tucanoan Amerindian Race (Tucanoan Language Group)
Nootka Amerindian Race (Nuuchahnulth – Makah)
Fuegian Amerindian Race (Ona – Yaghan – Kaweskar – Aonikenk – Alacaluf)
===Southeast Asian Major Race*===
Southern Chinese Race (Dong – Henan Han – Yi – She – Punu – Naxi)
Hmong-Mien Race (Chinese Hmong – Thai Hmong – Mien)
Li-Khmer Race (Li – Khmer)
Southeast China Race (Hakka – Min Nan – Singapore Chinese – Thai Chinese – Cantonese Han)
South China Sea Race (Tagalog – Ilocano – Visayan – Ami Taiwanese Aborigine – Guangdong Han)
Manobo Race (Manobo)
Philippines Negrito Race (Aeta – Agta – Palau Micronesian)
Mangyan-Ati Race (Iraya – Ati)
Mamanwa Philippines Negrito Race (Mamanwa)
Tai Race (Thai – Tai Lue – Tai Kern – Tai Yong – Tai Yuan – Lao – Lahu – Aini – Shan – Dai – Muong – Buyei)
Vietnamese Race (Vietnamese – Deang – Jinuo – Blang)
Mlabri Race** (Mlabri)
Htin Race (Htin)
Kachin Race (Kachin – Karen – Va – Nung – Lu – Lawa)
General Taiwanese Aborigine Race (Ayatal – Bunun – Yami)
Island SE Asian Race (Paiwan Taiwanese Aborigine – Sea Dayak – Sumatran – Balinese)
Bidayuh Race** (Jagoi)
Indonesian Race (Sulawesi – Borneo – Lesser Sunda – Sarawak – Javanese)
Mentawi Race (Mentawi)
Toraja Race (Toraja)
Lesser Sunda Race (Kambera – Lembata – Lamaholot – Manggarai)
Malay Race (Malaysia Malay – Singapore Malay)
Proto-Malay Race** (Temuan)
Austroasiatic Race (Mon – Zhuang – She – Ho – Lyngngam)
Nongtrai Race (Nongtrai)
Santhal-Naga Race (Santhal – Naga – Munda – Kurmi – Sudra)
Meghalaya Race (War Jantia – Bhoi – Maram – War Khasi – Kynriam – Nishi – Pnar – Bai)
Senoi Race (Senoi)
Shompen Race (Shompen)
Garo Race (Garo)
NE Indian Indo-European Race (Mahishya – Bagdi – Gaud – Tanti – Lodha)
Indian Tibeto-Burman Race (Apatani – Nishi – Adi – Tripuri – Jamatia – Mog – Chakma)
Semang Malay Negrito Race*** (Semang – Jehai – Kensui)
===Oceanian Major Race*===
Micronesian Race (Yap – Kanaka – Toba Batak Indonesian – Kora Batak Indonesian)
Polynesian Race* (Tonga – Western Samoa – French Polynesia – Cook Islands)
Melanesian Race (Fiji – Vanuatu – New Ireland – Papuan Melanesian – Nasioi – Alor Indonesian)
======Australoid Macro Race======
===General Australian Aborigine Major Race***===
Queensland Aborigine Race***
Western Territory Pama-Nguyan Aborigine Race***
===Papuan Major Race***===
General Papuan Race***
Motu Papuan Race***
Sepik-Ramu Papuan Race***
===Greater Andaman Islands Major Race***===
Greater Andaman Islands Negrito Race***
===Onge Andaman Islands Major Race***===
Onge Andaman Islands Negrito Race***
===African Macro Race==========
===African Major Race***===
Tigrean Race*** (Tigrean)
Amharic Race*** (Amharic)
Sudanese-Barya Race*** (Sudanese – Barya)
General Nilotic Race (Shilluk – Masai – Nuer – Dinka – Luo – Turkana – Karanojo – Mabaan)
Funji Nilotic Race (Funji)
Tuareg-Beja Cushitic Race*** (Tuareg – Beja)
Nubian Race*** (Nubian)
Wolof-Peul-Serer Race (Wolof – Peul – Serer)
General Bantu Race (Most Bantus)
Bedik Bantu Race (Bedik)
West African Race (Most West Africans)
Mbuti Pygmy Race
Sara Nilotic-Biaka Pygmy Race (Sara – Biaka)
San Khoisan-Somali Race*** (San – Somali)
Khoi Khoisan Race*** (Nama – !Ora)
Hadza Khoisan Race*** (Hadza)
Sandawe Khoisan Race (Sandawe)
–“We don’t agree that…”–
Well saying we don’t agree is to use a rhetorical fallacy. Statements are true, false, or incomplete, whether we agree with one another or not.
1) There exist no laws of science itself. There exist, and we have evolved, procedures that we use to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit from our hypothesis. These processes do not tell us a statement is true, they tell us only that it remains a truth candidate if it survives that set of criticisms.
2) There exist intuitions, hypothesis, theories, laws, and tautologies, because we have constructed them, and demonstrate them as such.
3) But there exist no non-tautological, yet certain premises: in other words, in any statement of arbitrary precision, we must seek limits, because all general rules possess limits. This is where mises failed by attempting to make use of justificationary Kantian rationalism instead of critical Popperian rationalism:science. Since there are no certain premises there are no certain deductions. Since there are laws we may deduce from them outcomes of equal precision. But if these are imprecise, then so are our deductions.
4) We can construct descriptive statements (theories) that are true, but inactionable, because they lack sufficient precision. A regularity may be so slow (business cycles, political cycles, generation cycles, and civilizational cycles) that no matter what we do within them, it is merely noise.
Mises proposition that history is non-regular is based upon the presumption that each exchange is unique because it is both subjective and momentary.
But he also proposes that we can empathize (sympathize) with economic statements and thereby test the rationality of any incentive.
This pair of propositions constitutes is a logical contradiction. Since we can decide whether an incentive is rational, and we can test the rationality of others decisions (it’s how we test liars in court), then our judgements are marginally indifferent. If they are marginally indifferent, then they can be represented as constants.
So at one end of the spectrum, decisions are marginally indifferent and we have tested this in thousands of ways in both economics and experimental psychology.
And at the other end his purported axioms (action), and his purported laws (inflation, the neutrality of money, minimum wage) are both sufficiently imprecise as to be inactionable. When in fact, it is possible to produce intentional externalities by intentionally mainpulating these behaviors caused by assymetric information and resource distribution.
And we can (quite accurately) measure those distortions. So it is not that these systems are not regular (they are), or that they are not deterministic (they are), or that they are not actionable (they are actionable), and therefore they are scientifically testable.
Instead of being impervious to science in the development of general rules, it’s that these actions are immoral: they cause involuntary transfers from people with lower/longer time preference, to those with higher/shorter time preference, and thereby not only steal, but deprive the commons of behavioral change necessary to preserve extended time preference.
ie: mises confused a moral theft, with a scientific truth.
This is just one of his many failings in developing his pseudoscientific kantian nonsense – for which he was outcast from the profession, justifiably.
His second main failing was that he did not grasp that he intuited (as did brouwer in math and bridgman in physics) that praxeology produced proofs of construction, but was insufficient for deduction.
A proof of construction is necessary (not only in economics but in mathematics) to demonstrate that an economic statement is existentially possible. It is a means of attempting to falsify a statement.
But most economic effects are not deducible, they are only observable empirically, and then explainable. They are explainable by attempting to construct them from a sequence of rational operations. If they cannot be constructed, then we cannot construct an existence proof, and as such a statement cannot be possible.
It is possible to construct existence proofs for human actions under Keynesianism. But these proofs tell us that such manipulation is an act of deception that causes involuntary transfers (thefts). It is not that such actions are unscientific.
As such mises was incorrect. He convused the immoral and the unscientifc. He confused justifiacationism under moral contract, with truth-candidates that survive criticism.
This is a non-trivial subject. It is probably one of the most important philosopihical questions that hte 20th century philosophers failed to solve. As did all those before them.
But it’s solved now.
Mises was just wrong. He was a cosmopolitan, and an austro-hungarian both, and he simple failed. He failed worse than brouwer and bridgman. And because he failed, and Hayek failed, we were subject to a century of deceit.
The Propertarian Institute
—“I generally do not follow socialistic thinking processes such as the concept of trade between groups. Methodological individualism is, to me, the way to go, as Ludwig von Mises pointed out. So I am sorry I cannot agree with this analysis. Individuals trade, and individuals act. This idea of a group having some kind of living reality jump straight out of Plato and was debunked back in the Middle Ages by the philosophers called nominalists.”— Lawrence
Well, you have to create an argument other than ‘the way to go’. Because that’s not an argument. it’s an expression of taste.
Individuals cooperate. They form families. They form friendships. They form cooperative alliances. They form partnerships, corporations, armies, and nations. So empirically, that is what people do. And praxeologically we can easily explain why it is in their interest to do so. And we can explain praxeologicaly why it is against their interest not to do so.
Groups who cooperate out-compete groups that do not cooperate. Universally. And the higher the trust, the more truth, the faster the rate of economic and inventive velocity. The more competitive the group.
The west has successfully out-competed other groups precisely because we produced commons. Including the commons of property rights, rule of law, the common law, the militia, and truth telling. Even science was produced as a commons.
There are productive commons, and parasitic commons. it matters only whether the commons is productive (moral) or parasitic (immoral). A commons is, like violence, value neutral. Commons and violence can be use to create productivity or they can be used for purposes of parasitism.
So not only is cooperation at scale, and the production of commons methodologically individualistic, but it fails the test of methodological individualism to suggest people not seize the opportunity to cooperate to produce returns unachievable by individual action.
Cooperation exists and moral intuition exists to preserve cooperation, for the simple reason that the rewards of cooperation are disproportionately higher than the rewards of individual production.
So the only question is whether you can voluntarily participate and exit such commons, and if you have universal standing in defense from parasitism. If so, then only productive commons can be constructed. This is what we call the Civic Society.
But if you don’t participate, why will members of that Civic Society tolerate your presence? They usually don’t.
So you can’t be right. Praxeologically you can’t be right.
Just how it is.
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine (London).
So whomever brought it up, it looks like humans favor a similar evolution of symbols and then incrementally evolve into pictorial or phonetic. I suspect that like most things, the mark-making process like the language speaking process evolves out of efficiency – laziness. lol
So just as humans speak language humans can speak, humans draw characters humans can draw. Just as language evolves from harsh clear sounds to lazy songs (chinese), writing evolves from infrequent symbols, to that which we can write quickly.
Chinese Jiahu symbols c. 6600 BC
European Vinča Symbols c5300 BC
European Dispillo Symbols c5000 BC
Egyptian Hieroglyphic c. 3500 BCE – 400 CE
Ur’s Proto-Cuneiform c3500
Sumerian Cuneiform c. 3200 BC
Heiratic (egyptian) c. 2900
Cretan Hieroglyphic c. 2100 – 1700 BC
Linear A c. 2500 – 1450 BC
Linear B c. 1450 – 1200 BC
Phoenician c. 1200–150 BC
China c. 1200 BC.
Mesoamerica c. 600 BC
Germanic c. 500 AD??
Slavonic c. 900 AD??
I think I have lost a bunch of you.
It seems we get truth.
It seems we get the high trust society.
It seems we get the western model of truth and trust produce economic velocity.
It seems we get the reproductive division of perception and cognition.
It seems we get that the anglo saxon and classical liberal model could not tolerate the enfranchisement of women and the loss of the church as a separate house of government.
It seems we get the century of mysticism, pseudoscience and propaganda caused by the Jewish century – now at an end.
But now that I venture into history in search of motivation to restore or sense of kin selection, it seems like everyone wants a single axis of causation: genetic, cultural, institutional, territorial.
But it’s all of them. Not one.
Feminine: Aggressive Gossip: (jewish)
Libertarian: Aggressive Trade (anglo neo-puritan)
Masculine: Aggressive Violence (muslim)
Russian = ++Gossip +Violence -Trade
Chinese = +Gossip +Violence -Trade
I suppose that we can graph all cultures on these three dimensions.
Sorry, but I am perfectly thrilled to have betters. Here in London I see lots of them. And I am thankful for them. I like what I do. I am glad they do what they do. I can see the Dutch and German in them. They’re bigger, taller, and better looking than my little Celtic self.
Why anyone doesn’t want betters is beyond me.
What scares me is proles.
Especially in the white house.