It is time for the Papacy, and the Church to right their greatest wrong: the betrayal of and destruction of the poor knights of the temple; and to restore their Order, with the duty of the protection of Christians. If the church does not do so, it is no longer the religion of europa, no longer christian, and must be destroyed, and replaced with one that is Christian and the Religion of Europa.
—How is eugenics a mode of thought not comparable to race? Especially given the social and economic divides amongst ethnicities?— Savannah
Because eugenics is the study of individuals using the properties of individuals while race applies properties of a class to all individuals represented or not by those properties.
1 – One can judge an individual by the properties of its class (racism)
2 – One can judge a class by the properties of its individuals (racialism).
3 – Or one can judge individuals by the properties of each individual (eugenics).
The first is simply non logical and immoral.
The second is logical, moral, but in-actionable
The third is simply logical, moral, and actionable.
Eugenics of some sort is necessary for shared prosperity. I prefer paying the underclasses not to breed, and not paying them and sterilizing them if they do; and eliminating the migration of labor to capital and requiring the migration of capital to labor instead; maintaining as close to a homogenous society as possible. If we have small states with these policies we will have marginal inequality – inequality is necessary for the organization of invention, investment, production, distribution, trade, and savings. But people disproportinoately resist redistribution when it consists of parasitism.
Women have a genetic ‘incompetence’ in political matters as they evolved to protect their offspring and other women’s offspring REGARDLESS of their merit as a means of surviving their ‘ownership’ by competing bands of males.
So just as men are noticeably incompetent with childrearing, women are noticeably incompetent with political matters.
Even if it’s uncomfortable, the data on the 20th century is in: women happily destroy civilization due to their reliance upon internal intuitionistic incompetence designed to produce irrational behavior: the birthing, care and preservation of children in the presence of warring males, and the need to demonstrate submission and to and share with other women as a means of work sharing, risk reduction, and maintaining group cohesion against existing and invading males.
Women see us men as the enemy. That is why feminists sound like they do. It may be true that we are an enemy of their parasitism. But we are far less of an enemy than the enemy they import into our nations through the misapplication of their genetically produced political incompetence which is a side effect of the need to care for an extremely costly, annoying child, over which she may or may have not had much control in the selection of fathers, and even when she did, it was impulsive and speculative rather than reasoned – and most often selected by familiarity and empathy rather than understanding and judgement.
A mother’s love is blind for a reason. It must be. A reasonable creature would walk away from an offspring that requires five to seven years of high cost maintenance to reach minimum self sufficiency, and twice that for maturity.
But her blindness applies not only to her children and her peers children, but to anything that she can imagine.
Does that hurt?
Well, you know it’s just true.
The data is in.
Women have no place in politics.
In the west we have three tribes wherein men seem to keep their hair: The Welsh, the Lombards, and one in southern Russia that I can’t name – something in the Georgian region. Now, hair loss in men is caused by complex and asynchronous factors related to testosterone – lower testosterone earlier balding, higher testosterone tends to later balding. The same chemistry that produces facial and body hair causes head hair to go dormant. Some of us simply have more hair than others so it takes longer to go bald, some of us less so that it’s more visible sooner.
The reason seems fairly obvious to me, as someone who had so much hair that it would often ‘hurt’, and I would just die in summers – and that is heat dissipation. As we get bigger its harder to dissipate heat when running, and humans were born to run so to speak. So baldness, if it is an adaptation, is likely an adaptation to the increasing need for heat dissipation. it’s more interesting I think to ask why we get beards (armor) on our faces, but lose hair (armor) on our heads.
…on the one hand we could cull about 70% of males and about 20% of females from the average population. But we cannot DEFEND from those who have inferior breeding but a larger number of males with higher aggression.
If you have ever gone natural long enough (cleaning with water and baking soda and without harsh soap), you can readily grasp that the purpose of body hair is to hold your scent. Which aside from diet is like a less spicy set of variations of sandalwood in both sexes (hence our love of sandalwood incense.) I love that smell on me and women.
But the head and facial hair is largely defensive in men, and hair is largely a signal of health and fertility in women. And given that men are about 10% bigger than women, and more ‘dense’ with higher heat retention; and given that about 70% of males will experience male pattern baldness and that women far less; and given that we can clothe our bodies and our heads, apparently nature made a trade off for men: less protection of the head in exchange for greater heat dissipation and durability under stress.
One humorous analogy I like to use is that women like a lot of clothes because they aren’t really that different. Men are very different and like uniforms.
What I don’t like is the knowledge that nature has evolved men to vary so greatly so that we can serve so many purposes like so many types of warrior ants. And as such a few of us are very valuable mates, and many of us are literally disposable: nature counts on us dying and women selecting our betters for reproduction.
Algorithmically this presents a difficult problem. Because on the one hand we could cull about 70% of males and about 20% of females from the average population. But we cannot DEFEND from those who have inferior breeding but a larger number of males with higher aggression.
So you see, we have to have this distribution and marriage to survive competition against others. Not because it is the optimum linear algorithm. But it is the optimum game algorithm in an equilibrium.
Bet you didn’t see that coming did you? smile emoticon
ARGUMENTATIVE ASSISTANCE FOR STUDENTS OF DEBATE
1 – “Anecdotal evidence is a contradiction in terms. One either has sufficient data to eliminate more parsimonious alternatives, wishful thinking, and error, or one is engaged in justification of a prior, with or without your knowledge and understanding of it.”
2 – “Outliers do not distributions make. The terms Men, Women, Class, Race, and Culture refer to distributions not outliers. Outliers are not evidence of anything except noise.”
3 – “The central objective of political representation is to do no harm, not to find an imaginary perfect candidate, and not to give everyone a chance to rule. Exceptional people are marginally indifferent and learn by doing.”
The Author’s criticisms stand (mostly), if we restate them as “increases in productivity and decreases in prices are beneficial only so long as the externalities are not more costly than the price discounting”.
I think all of us are now aware that the big box reseller movement was as disastrous as he suggests.
I think that it’s become obvious that free trade can be performed just as disastrously by the same criteria.
I think it’s become obvious that the perverse incentive of immigrating labor at the expense of the populace has political effects for either party, and for the Deep State’s corrupt self interest, but negative effects for the population and their offspring.
I think it’s obvious now that democracy a convenient tool for useful idiots used to place labor(organizer of goods and services), manager(organizer of production), entrepreneur (organizer of production), and lender (organizer of production) into conflict for the benefit of the state bureaucracy and the large financiers.
I think it is obvious that the financial sector is privatizing nearly all gains of the world commons because we use that financial sector to distribute fiat currency (divisible shares of stock in the commons used as a money substitute) instead of directly distributing liquidity to consumers (and creating a political hazard under Democracy). And I think it’s become obvious that the mistakes of the 20th century were made with good intentions by those outside of the marxist/socialist/syndicalist/frankfurt-school/postmodern schools (the quantitative economists), but that most of these errors were errors of pseudoscience and ignorance in an era of great change.
Now, the cause of this monstrous behavior is not only the economics profession, and it’s convenient use of measuring what’s visible and not whats invisible to justify its own existence. But also the stock market and the fiat money system that make such inter-temporally risky (and unmeasurable) allocations of capital possible, and then privatize that speculation (as did Mitt Romney – albeit not knowing that he was immoral. BTW: I was one of the owners of those prior downtown businesses affected by Staples).
Just as importantly, perhaps the most important cause in the 20th century, was the use of the Union movement to artificially increase prices, that renders businesses price-uncompetitive and drove our businesses offshore, and created a war between labor and entrepreneur rather than the ancient partnership between savers, craftsmen and entrepreneurs.
Improved goods matter to us. It’s not moral to charge import duties on superior goods at superior or inferior prices. But I have no idea why it is NOT moral to charge import duties in wage differences in a world where there are no longer comparative advantages other than wages. This concept is important, because like all theories, the theory of competitive advantage has limits. Hence why in Propertarianism I require that truth propositions include limits and morality, rather than ‘assume’ that all measurable gains are without worse negative externalities.
It is drastically cheaper to pull oil out of Saudi Sands and get it to the sea, than it is to pull it out of Russian Tundra and ship it across thousands of miles of pipeline, or extract it from Canadian oil sands and get it to a port. These are matters of comparative advantage whose price differences produce no externalities. The fact that canadian wages, russian wages, and saudi wages differ so greatly is not a factor of production open to comparative advantage. It is price arbitrage at the cost of human suffering. (I am sure I will get hammered for this but according to propertarianism it is an objectively moral statement).
It is likewise just as distorting of the information system not to account for intertemporal shifts in credit cost by state subsidized loans and wages – although I cannot see that this is immoral, only that trade wars can be immorally constructed by doing so.
It’s not more efficient if we produce negative externalities in excess of gains. It’s only efficient if people are freed up for more productive work (farm labor for factories, factory labor for white collar work), but not if people are made unemployable (I hate automated cash registers and parking lot attendants and movie theatre service and anything else of that nature frankly. Minimum wage is a bad idea but human replacement because of external costs created by the state that make employment undesirable are far worse.
CONVERSELY THE IMMORALITY OF THE LABOR AND UNDERCLASSES
Conversely, people demonstrate that they will prefer price over quality help, service and employment. Which is why I am so much against immigration of labor that makes such things possible. So we give rise to black markets, because while people claim to be moral and want justice they do so only when it affects others not themselves.
So people demonstrate moral selection bias. If we fix the financial and legal system will that help us in fixing the immorality of individuals who seek to create black markets in oder to circumvent the higher costs of immorally discounted goods?
It is not just the big boys in power that are immoral. Every asian shop-keeper without a credit card terminal is a tax evader, and a thief. And there are thousands of such cases every day everywhere. Immorality is difficult to suppress in all walks of life. And there is pretty good evidence that it’s harder to suppress it among the little people than the middle and upper middle class.
And moreover, it is one thing to say that we may not profit by privatizing the commons and act immorally, and another to say that we must share our profits in creating commons (increases in productivity and decreases in prices) with others who already gained from the compound effects of increases in productivity and decreases in prices. Capitalism after all refers to ‘consumer capitalism’ which has benefitted consumers and the state far more than entrepreneurs.
“Thou Shalt Do No Harm In The Pursuit of Self Interest” is quite different from “Thou Shalt Do The Most for Others Out Of High Mindedness”.
The moral requirement that the preservation of cooperation requires that we limit our actions to those involving productive, fully-informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of imposition of costs upon that which was obtained by others by the same means – meaning free of negative externalities – does not require that we also redistribute the gains from taking the risk of doing so.
The moral requirement that we insure others against the vicissitudes of nature despite their good efforts says nothing about those insufficiently productive in value to others that they can expand their moral hazard – doing harm to others – by reproduction of offspring and placing the burden on others. Or that taxation that transfers rates of reproduction from those productive in the service of others to those unproductive in the services of others – which imposes a cost on the producer and upon the commons.
So the immorality of our current state of affairs cuts both ways. Each class preys upon the other using government as the method and obscurantism and fog of political accounting as the means of escaping both criticism and self awareness of our immorality. Each class imposes costs upon the other until we all decide that the incentives are insufficient to play the game and descend into civil war – which is certainly a possibility on the near horizon.
THE PROBLEM OF ECONOMIC PSEUDOSCIENCE
These various externalities that allow immoral abuses of capitalism are measurable. But so called ‘economic science’ does not (often) practice full accounting or morality. I practices Selective Accounting to Justify Immorality that creates opportunity for the financial class to privatize commons of all forms.
It is this pseudoscience created by marx and keynes and justified by Rawls on the left, rand and rothbard in the libertarian movement, that accomplished this horror – and did so over the objections of the white conservatives who simply lacked the science and understanding other than tradition to stop it. Yet somehow capitalism is to blame despite its use in dragging humanity out of disease, poverty, ignorance and mysticism. And despite the revelry the underclasses have demonstrated by their unregulated dysgenic reproduction and overpopulation of the planet and its carrying capacity.
I cannot see less developed societies refraining from ‘cheating’ by conduct of immoral trade any more than I can see them abandoning levels of corruption endemic to all cultures outside of christendom.
So it is one thing for a MORAL PEOPLE (us) to INCREASE our use of morality and decrease our use of immorality within our borders and quite another thing to expect OTHERS to discontinue immoral behavior in the borders and across their borders via trade.
THIS IS WHY PROPERTARIANISM IS TAKING ME SO LONG
This is why, in my work on Propertarianism, I demand tests of ‘full accounting’ as a scientific warranty of due diligence in any promise of truthful speech about matters of the commons. By full accounting I mean across all capital forms across all time periods affected. (note that we idd not have the economic and financial knowledge to do this prior to the era of computers in which immoral economics – marxist and keyensian economics – were constructed.
I tell everyone that it’s the Economics. I need to make sure that I understand the implications of Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth in an attempt to cleans economics of pseudoscience and immorality.
One of my ambitions is to correct the pseudoscience of economics by restoring objective MORALITY to economic science. But this is a huge problem and I have to work through these issues carefully and at some painful level of detail.
This particular argument I think survives for eternity. And I think that we solve the problems of capitalism with it. Problems that are not problems of capitalism per say: they are problems with pseudoscientific Keynesian economics of obscurantist aggregates and the Rothchildian use of financialism as state authorized parasitism specifically created to circumvent the morality of western ethics.
The Propertarian Institute
I‘m working through Kripke again because I know it’s a half truth and I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing. I know what is wrong with analytic philosophy (sets): their construction destroys information, causation, and operational construction, and therefore existential possibility. I know what’s right with information analysis: marginal difference (cause of change in state).
So analytic philosophy is a sort of dead end in the sense that language is always informationally incomplete.
But his understanding of names is correct. Even if his examples are not (the referent Aristotle isn’t identical to the referent Aristotle if he dies at age two and never creates the set of properties Aristotle). We cannot construct the references to the two year old without the reference to the man Aristotle. Therefore operationally, the example cannot exist. I can refer to Aristotle at the age of two, but I cannot refer to a greek two year old with the name of Aristotle. and convey any meaning without the existence of the aforementioned Aristotle as an accomplished adult.
Meaning does not tell us much about truth – if anything. And the verbalists (analyticals and rationalists) are working with too little information to achieve much. Existence tells us a great deal about truth. Even if other methods tell us a lot about meaning. But even where they tell us about meaning, they tell us nothing about truth. And I think this is the area of confusion, because of hermeneutic conflation. We see this coming out of judaism and christianity and into law, where it did not previously exist. But this conflation of truth and meaning has imposed a catastrophically damaging influence on western thought. And in both the ancient(agrarian), modern(industrial), and current (information) eras, it has constituted a revolt against truth and the undesirability of truth for the parasitic and unproductive classes, peoples, and cultures.
Meaning is dependent upon the content of one’s mind, and analogy to experience, but has little to no dependence upon truth content.
Truth is dependent upon reality that is independent of the content and mechanism of of one’s mind – even if it is dependent upon the reduction to analogy to experience so that the mind can grasp it.
But meaning is required as part of the process of free association. It is useful in obtaining information (hypotheses) that we may pursue and turn into truth candidates. It is useful in the transfer of experiences whether or not those experiences contain truth content. We must construct hypotheses out of concepts we can grasp, and we can only grasp concepts reducible to analogies to experience. So we must accumulate analogies to experience in sufficient number that we are able to run tests for possibility.
This is one of the reasons for the value of scientific thinking (theories of general rules) since they reduce the informational content we must process in order to identify patterns and test perceptions and information against them.
My hope (my suspicion) is that truthfulness once practiced like any other set of general rules will have an equally influential impact on human demonstrated intelligence and cooperation as has science.
My concern is that we have passed peak human and are damaging our gene pool, and that we must reverse our century and a half of dysgenia before the accumulated damage is not correctable through assortative mating.
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
AM I FREE?
Do I have freedom of association and disassociation? (No)
Do I have the freedom of creating productive, voluntary exchange? (No)
Do I have freedom to retain the products of my work? (No)
Do I have freedom to defend my life and property? (No)
Do I have freedom to defend the commons? (No)
Do I have freedom to transfer my wealth to my offspring? (No)
Do I have freedom of exit for myself and my property? (No)
Do I have freedom from retroactive Regulation, Legislation, and Law? (No)
Do I have Juridical Defense in all manner of interference? (No)
Then I am not free.
This list constitutes the criteria for freedom.
And its opposite the criteria for slavery.
I must possess each of these freedoms to exist in a state of freedom.
If not, then by definition, and without exception, then I am not free.
If I am not free then I am a slave.
I know full well I am enslaved.
That me and mine are enslaved.
And so now you have a choice.
Either free me and mine from slavery,
And then Leave, or Resign and Repent,
This is the most generous offer I will grant you.
If you do not free me and do not leave,
or do not repent, and do not resign,
then you will die.
I promise before all the gods past and present.
You will die.
And there will be no mercy.
You have sought genocide against me and my kin.
For this crime only restitution available is the death of you and your kin.
T he Outline of Propertarianism as posts organized by chapter. This is only useful at this point to scan and get a sense of the structure of the argument. But you’re a smart guy and it might bear glancing.
That the combination of the european civil war to contain germany was a catastrophe for the west in that it cast doubt upon the western (aristocratic) order just as the thirty years war had cast doubt upon the prior (religious) order. That the cosmopolitans started producing as the enlightenment change rolled across eastern europe. And that just as the anglos(empiricsts/Locke-Smith-Hume-Jefferson), french(moralists/Rousseau) and germans (rationalists/kant) had attempted to restate their group evolutionary strategy in modern terms, so did the jews(pseudoscience/lying) as a universal moral strategy. Women freed from labor under the industrial revolution used these arguments to reform slavery, and claim men were their enemies and oppressors.
Once the slaves were freed, the women also demanded equal representation, and within one generation after obtaining it used ‘the great lies’ of the cosmopolitans to undermine the western order further, creating a century of pseudoscience, the destruction of the church, the destruction of the family, and the conquest of academy, state and media by women’s interests (r-selection), because women dispose of more of the earned income than do men in all these areas. Women are great consumers and it is profitable to serve them – even when they are spending down five thousand years of accumulated cultural and genetic capital. Postwar jews immigrating to the United states attacked and took over the academy and media just as they had used the pulpit in the ancient era, and the printing press in the prior era, to spread their second great lie of pseudoscience in every field of human social order.
The reason being quite simple: consumption of the commons (predation on the weak.) Jews continued their parasitism and non-production of commons (which is why they could not hold Judea) by expanding into every field where parasitism, propaganda, pseudoscience, and deceit were possible (partly the result of denial of property). This is not a conspiracy as much as the combination of genetic superiority at verbalism, genetic bias toward the parasitic strategies and separatism, rational self interest, and cultural training duplicity provided by talmudic study and jewish history.
So armed with this knowledge how do we reverse the century of propaganda, lies, and pseudoscience of the alliance between the jews, women and minorities, and return the west its lost confidence, and restore the civilization’s strategy of truth+commons?
By stating in rational and scientific terms the reason for the west’s rapid success in the ancient and modern periods, despite its many disadvantages. The west practiced aristocratic egalitarianism (a form of eugenics at scale), but this strategy was never written down, only handed down.
I’m writing it down. Forever. Truth was enough to create the west, and it is enough to restore the west.
The Minimum Basis for Law (Nomocracy)
A Lot More On Rothbard’s Low Trust Ghetto Ethics.
WHY IT MATTERS
But you can’t really understand why truthfulness, non-parasitism, and morality matter without also understanding The Secret of the West, and Testimonial Truth.
The North Sea Peoples: Hanseatic Civilization
A VERY SHORT COURSE IN DECIDABILITY
A SHORT COURSE IN TESTIMONIAL TRUTH
THE DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR A WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS
A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN MORALITY
A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN REASONING
THE EVOLUTION OF SUPPRESSION VIA COMMON LAW
1000 WORDS THAT CAPTURE IT ALL
THE CURE FOR PROPAGANDA (LYING) AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION
THE END OF HISTORY IS NOT DEMOCRACY BUT THE TRUTHFUL CIVILIZATION
There is much, much more online. But this is enough to keep you (or anyone else for that matter) busy for quite a while.
AN ARCHEOLOGICAL RATHER THAN LITERARY VERSION OF EUROPEAN PEOPLE’S HISTORY
The Cookery – Crossing The Galactic Plane – Accelerating Evolution?
The Birth – Out of Africa in Waves and Along the Waves
The Childhood – The Miracle In Afghanistan: Big Brains.
The Maturity – Domestication of plants and animals.
*The First Disaster: The Black Sea Deluge and the Diaspora and Division of PIE peoples into Northern (european), Southern (iranian), and Eastern (indian) peoples.
The Religious Era: Island Britain as The Holy People of Nature
The Copper and Bronze Era: Celtic Europa as Metalworkers
*The First Great Plague – The Sea Peoples and Natural Disasters
The Iron Age: Greco – Roman Civilization as Expansionary/Commercial
The Extermination of the Religion of Nature – Roman and Church Conquest
*The First Plague Age – Justinian Plague, The Criminal Conversion of Europe, and the First Muslim Plagues
The Frankish Age (Migration Period) – The Failure of the French Attempt
The Viking Age, The Templar Age, and The Great Betrayal by the Church
*The Second Plague Age – the Black Death
The Hanseatic Age – The Success of the North Sea Germans
The Hanseatic – Venice Age – Trade Merges North Sea and Mediterranean
The Atlantic Age – Anglo, Dutch, French, Spanish, Austrian Age.
*The First Great Civil War – The Thirty Years War.
The British Age – The Second Athenian Empire: World Trade
*The Second Great Civil War – WW1+2 and The Second Great Lie: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Keynes, and Pseudoscience
The American Age – Flight,Technology, Democracy, and The Failure of the Second Roman Empire
*The Third Great Plague – Third world immigration, Jewish proselytizing of Pseudoscience, Islamic fundamentalism, Postmodern (feminist) lying (verbalism),
The Flat Age: Technology, Population, and The Great Leveling,
*The Fourth Great Plague / Next Great Disaster – (gotta happen).
Keep in context please that I can expand this coverage for the whole world but my central concern is the evolution of truth and the high trust society. Which appears largely the result of hostile climates, sparse populations, a wet continent, and constant eugenics.
HUMOR OR SARCASM OR TRUTH?
All my posts referencing Rothbard’s Ghetto Ethics.