Topic: Dark Enlightenment - page 24. (Read 69319 times)

Agreed. Politics legislates that which can not be controlled top-down, magically promising the people what they think should be but either can not or not sustainably. Equality and social justice means plunder and the redistribution of wealth.

An insidious form of redistribution that enables many aspects of the political illusion is borrowing from the predicted future using debt to redistribute capital FROM necessary real-time demand, e.g. currently TO excess consumption (west) and excess fixed investment (china). Compared to binding to years of prediction, real-time feedback loops have orders-of-magnitude higher fitness (dynamic adaptability to dynamic opportunities) due the geometrically permuted network effects of real-time degrees-of-freedom. Unfitness manifests as inefficiency, laziness, ignorance, inability, corruption, brutality, etc..

If I am correctly interpreting esr’s summary of Olson, it implies the special interests groups are a minority, however they comprise the entire population playing the political game.

Why do you protest against politics, given it is a natural form of human competition? Anarchism would unrealistically require that everyone is a pure sigma (the sigma in PUA theory)– not libertarians who think we can legislate liberty.

Sigmas are successful when they reject political capital (and money as much as practical) and make innovations or insights in the free market. When they drift to relying on the monetary or political capital they’ve earned from those innovations or insights, they are falling away from their optimum efficacy.


When it is done in the private sector then it does not fall victim to the Olson failure, see khanacademy.org and codecademy.com (the future of education).

Compare the fitness of accomplishments in the competitive free market, versus the blindness of legislating with no market feedback what other people should do.

Non-sigmas don’t think they can get all their desired results without some politics. The alphas serve their demand to be deluded on the efficacy of political action.

Well their efficacy in the role of sigma to maximize individual freedom and fitness. This is not to say that alphas, betas, etc are not effective in the complex game of evolution. I should not assert that some sprinkling of alpha mode could not be evolutionary advantageous for a sigma.

The unfitness of debt and political action is apparently evolutionary necessary or optimum, else it wouldn’t be natural and someone would devise a private sector solution.

For example, from the perspective of debt money as the antithesis of gold, they compete and balance the opposing disadvantages, e.g. gold encourages burying savings in hole and rewards non-production.

Even if the masses held physical gold (i.e. well distributed wealth), then the money supply could not expand fast enough for financed production to outpace the natural population growth rate. And with that inherent deflation, conservative savers are either motivated to hold the physical thus removing it from the circulating money supply, or to deposit it in return for an interest rate in which case mathematically the banks must do fractional reserve banking.

Debt is natural and required.

Infinite degrees-of-freedom (perfect fitness) could not be observable in any reality. There are no absolutes. Contrast requires imperfection. Existence requires perception. Perception requires contrast. Full circle to my early comment.

Ah the baiting of the soul with the “gold will save us” emotional trap.

History has shown that the stored value medium for money is always debased, regardless whether it is gold, paper, Tally sticks, electronic digits, etc..

An insoluble fact is that debasement is always assured with politics, because the costs of the voters’ desires is obfuscated in the debasement of all citizens, instead of applied individually w.r.t. individual performance.

Don’t confuse the desire to work and get paid, or to start a business and earn a profit, with the political promises made to voters. Don’t confuse “economic value” with “I saw jobs, prosperity being created”. Economic value is a network of feedback loops from investment followed by profit or bankruptcy. The more individually directed these investments are, the more chances of finding the profitable ones that fit the economic demand. The collective politics has an incentive (to earn votes) to invest in everything voters want, economic or not.

This insoluble power vacuum (that sucks in a leader who can make the political promises) can not be wished away just because it is repulses a person’s emotions. There is no possible mechanism to remove it.

For example, some claim that Hitler and Lincoln or recently Iceland and China, took the power from the banking establishment and gave it to the citizens, by handing the control over the creation of paper money to the national treasury. Hitler and Confederate notes both debased their society by spending on uneconomic projects. China is doing the same now. Hitler initially made the people happy with lavish public works spending (e.g. the road network and health care), promising the people more than the economic value of the projects could sustain. When he could not get enough oil to sustain it, he was forced to expropriate via war in order to fulfill the collective social promises. That summary probably misses some complexities, but the essential point remains valid.

Since the masses don’t hold most of the wealth, if the society enforces a strict gold standard, then the masses don’t get what they want. This is why gold standards are always subverted by politics.

A strict gold standard would over time concentrate relative wealth from the consuming middle class to the wealthy, who save say 99% and consume 1% of their income. Politics demands debasement, because the rich concentrate wealth (with or) without debasement.

Some refer to the Byzantine era as an example of a sustainable gold standard. I have not studied the period intensely. Apparently gold was being imported into the economy by their trade surplus, so perhaps political promises were less attractive to citizens who were finding sufficient opportunities to be busy and prosperous. Unlike China’s current situation, their trade surplus was not due to a mercantile policy of debasement of their currency, rather apparently due to some situational and technological advantages, e.g. their cannon spraying flaming oil on pirates. Further insight on this would be appreciated.

I posit the taxonomy of male social order types from PUA type theory applies to this power vacuum. I asserted that the alphas get their power from public politics and/or Theory of the Firm (corporate politics), with the lower order male types (betas, gammas, omegas) employing politics to fight back. They can band together with politics to fight the rich with political promises including Doublethink such as equality and social justice, which actually end up as debasement and plunder. The sigmas don’t play the class warfare delusion, instead create technology to empower individuals.

Stored wealth is ephemeral and depleting. It should be this way, otherwise people become unmotivated to continue producing. The rate of growth of relative wealth of the rich decelerates as they grow richer and less in tune with the markets invested in, i.e. smaller things grow faster because of the fitness. I don’t hate the bankers+politicians because I don’t want to hate most people (i.e. the symbiotic borrowers+voters). Why hate what can’t be changed? Why be bitter and perceive the glass as half-empty? The inspiring fact is that despite the booms and busts (and occasional resultant atrocities and wars) caused by the political promises, everyone gets wealthier over time. The cost of commodities is inexorably declining as a relative share of the global GDP. In 323 B.C. iron was a precious metal. Technology, innovation, and art (i.e. knowledge) is the savior of mankind.

Atrocities repulse all of us. Religion is not the only cause. To entirely prevent them, we would have to somehow eliminate political promises and the Doublethink they create. Unfortunately I don’t see how such a goal is possible or congruent with evolution.

@Greg, we are both correct. Agreed stored wealth should not disappear too fast to discourage saving and planning. It should deplete fast enough so that we remain competitive. Planning too far into the future or managing too much capital, reduces degrees-of-freedom and fitness. For dynamic systems, the best strategy is often an incremental adaptive approach of plan, implement, re-evaluate and repeat. I suppose divergence could be an issue in some cases.

I posit that Eric is smart enough to recognize his mistake. Eric, you are conflating the mathematical duality of the inductive construction of the universe with the coinductive construction of infinity.


Indeed it would be impossible to construct an INSTANCE that is simultaneously all good, all powerful, and all knowing, because nothing imperfect could be constructed. Perfection would require infinite degrees-of-freedom, thus a dynamic, competitive world could not exist– the Second Law of Thermodynamics could not exist.

In type theory, top is the inductive bound and bottom is the coinductive bound. Top is the intersection of all types and bottom is the union of all types. Thus bottom can never be constructed as an instance, yet it exists as type bound.

Shift your frame-of-reference into the type of types domain of the universe to find the existence you claim is impossible.

Note that the operations (e.g. methods of a class) of an inductive type are a coinductive type and dually vice versa, e.g. the top class type contains the union of all methods of all types in the universe, thus can not be constructed. And dually, the bottom class type contains the intersection of all methods of all types, thus can be constructed.

I understood your tripartite impossibility claim to be that a good God would not be powerless to make good all that is in the universe.

The claim is illogical in several orthogonal ways.

1. Good does not exist without evil. Perception requires contrast.
2. Good is evil, and vice versa, from different perspectives.
3. Some cases of global or greater good require local or lesser evil.

Essentially by implication you claimed that infinity (infinite degrees-of-freedom to attain good at all possible perspectives) must be observable, else it is impossible. Or by implication you claimed that we can prove the universe is finite, thus the necessary degrees-of-freedom would be observed and achieved by such a God.

Some theories of the universe posit that infinity exists as an unreachable bound in some domain, e.g. entropy, space, time, or precision. True or not, we can not prove that infinity does not exist as unreachable bound. Your claim of impossibility is too strong. Such a God can not provably exist, because we can’t observe for infinite time, precision, etc..

A possible interpretation of your linked essay on math, is that an infinite universe can not be completely described by any finite set of theories or axioms.

Infinity can not constructed inductively from a starting point, because infinity (final unreachable bound) can not be observed.

Whether it exists or not, infinity or the finite bound is decomposed co-inductively as observations directed towards its final unreachable or finite bound that we can not prove is final.

How sad a finite universe would be, where the scientific method could be shelved and knowledge would cease to expand at some finite bound. The scientific method requires that we never trust a bound (e.g. Planck’s constant precision) as final and continue searching and testing forever.

 Wow - sounds like you had it really rough - what with them black folk touching your hair and everything  

You sound to me like a borderline trustafarian

- over here the PM's wife (aristocrat Samantha Cameron), used to make a big noise about when she used to hang around with Tricky - back in the day, when she'd slum it as a student in the wrong part of Bristol. Tricky has to this day never heard of the woman - let alone played pool with her  


Yeah - and I tried to have some of my best friends as gay  

You really need to educate yourself buddy. Have a look at Adorno/the Frankfurt School and the "culture industry" - you might then have some understanding of why the patronising ramblings of egotistical rock stars have absolutely fuck all to do with socialism

- and indeed, if you are able to make the connections, why in turn socialism has absolutely fuck all to do with the US driven debt problem.

We recently had floods in the UK due to a shift in the jet stream and exceptional levels of precipitation. I suppose this had something to do with "socialism" as well, right ?

Hold on a minute    Wouldn't this mean that the women would have had to have had sex with fewer men, not more.

FWIW I read the article - you were, as indeed I was, educated to first degree level (to a greater or lesser extent) in Mathematics - nothing more than that. So I understand the language, if you like. But all I can see is a disjointed rambling, without a clear or cited aim/intention - the majority merely describes what we already know, but attempts to link it altogether in a way that is clearly tenuous and over ambitious.

In short, I'm not sure there's many here has the slightest idea WTF you are going on about.

As William James said in the Unheresy link, “The essence of genius is to know what to overlook”.

But surely he's just misguided? We ought to lead him back to the light -- that would be the morally right thing to do

'Tis not necessity, but opinion, that makes men miserable; and when we come to be fancy-sick, there's no cure.

There is no opposing brutal force to the stratagems of reason.

That which the world miscalls a jail,
A private closet is to me.

Before you read my response, note that I grew up in the inner cities slums of New Orleans and Baton Rouge. My sister and I were once the only white kids in the entire elementary school, and our hair was always oily from all the kids touching our fine hair from behind. It was irritating.

I tried to have many friends who are black.

As George Carlin says, "I'm tired of these rock stars dealing with their cocaine guilt by saving a forest somewhere", arrogant white people are dealing with their socialism debt and colonialism guilt by saving nature (of races). It is just more irrational bullshit. What they are really saving is their socialism system that enables them to have their cake and eat it too (but this is coming to end with $150 trillion global debt). The socialism is going away folks, and you are too. Reality check.

A longer penis means the women were having sex with more men, as the longer penis would have a better chance of depositing the sperm deep and greater change of spreading the male's genetics.

practicaldreamer is apparently too dumb, obstinate, or lazy to understand the linked math.

It only takes a bit of logical thinking to come to a conclusion that the actions of mankind are warming the globe.

You confused the definition of "anger" with that of "frank statement of reality".

Who is angry? Maybe those who are stupid are angry. They usually get angry about anything being stupid as they are. They especially believe that no one should ever speak Truth when it impacts someone's emotional delusion.

One of the reasons I started this thread, was to teach. To help others be smarter. That is empathy.

Is this an emotional test or an analytical poll?

I want to be analytical and rational. Emotions usually interfere with these goals. There is a role for empathy, but not when making an analysis.

Even Spock expressed empathy (about teaching) didn't he (because it was logical to do so)?

D.E. thinks anthropogenic, man-made global warming (AGW) is junk science...

So shove your politically correct bullshit up your arse. I am not a racist. I am a realist with real life experience.

Yeah is akin to playing Whac-A-Mole when you are drunk and reaction speed has slowed.  


But he missed all the satire which laid (pun intended) out those ideas.  

The underlined sentence above is what my entire argument is based on. There is no natural order to races because in the natural environment it was impossible for different races to even meet each other, let alone compete to form an order!

...

My emotions behind that concern are not irrational at all. As I argued above, races were never put into an order by nature. Every racial order to have ever existed have been synthetic and so will every racial order in the future be.

No I showed mathematically that can't be true and that we actually live in a universe where spacetime exists in the domain of unbounded frequencies and phases. This explains how to conceptualize that there is no edge to the universe in 4D. That is my blog.

Contentionism doesn't appear to be falsifiable.

- how about this one Coincube, if we are throwing googled quotations about :-

     "When men will not be reasoned out of a vanity, they must be ridiculed out of it." - L'estrange.

As Licenser and Surveyor, L’Estrange was charged with the prevention of the publication of dissenting writings, and authorised to search the premises of printers and booksellers on the merest suspicion of dissension.[5] L’Estrange excelled at this, hunting down hidden presses and enlisting peace officers and soldiers to suppress their activities. He soon came to be known as the “Bloodhound of the Press.”[6] His careful monitoring and control of nonconformist ideas and opinions succeeded not only in checking seditious publications,[4] but also in limiting political controversy and reducing debate.[7]

we can't top-down provide an environment

rather we push on the environment and see how it anneals (this is effectively what government does, although it may wish it was actually setting the environment).

If your assertion were true that we can top-down create an environment..

You claim there is no order, but then why did evolution give females an accelerated fertility curve as compared to males, which has numerous serious ramifications. Why did evolution give women a different strategy for hypergamy and short-term time preference. Because this strategy was the most optimally fit for the survival of the human race.

What I am saying is that it is fine-grained, bottom-up competition is an order in itself.

The government wants to ... but this is just pushing on the natural order in the environment and the environment annealed by producing a failed society with insufficient youth to support the elderly and a $150 trillion global debt bomb that will soon explode and then we go back to the natural order again.

Your irrational emotions aside, the mathematical facts are irrefutable.

What does this statement have to do with the Dark Enlightenment?

I believe practicaldreamer may be trying to demonstrate that true statements may also possibly have no relevant implication.

“Distinguishing the signal from the noise requires both scientific knowledge and self-knowledge: the serenity to accept the things we cannot predict, the courage to predict the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
― Nate Silver

Contentionism doesn't appear to be falsifiable.

I've exchanged some discussion with James A. Donald in his blog (and actually he seems like a reasonable man and amicable with me). It appears to me his hate derives from the bad outcomes he sees from the state supporting females and minorities, thus causing great ruin (as explained in my prior post). Yet this is irrational. Hating individuals for their choices when the causes are macro-economic (socialism) and technological (i.e. lack of anonymity to destroy the state), is irrational...

...

I don’t interpret the experience ais JAD would; he needs these incidents to be evidence of black and female inferiority, which I don’t. No, the problem was that as an unintended consequence of civil rights law this woman had power and immunity without responsibility. That can make anybody stupid and arrogant, no matter what their skin color or the shape of their genitalia.

...

    Many computational biologists would agree that (and I'm sure Anonymint would have to, albeit begrudgingly, concur) , had it not been for lambda calculus, the understanding of spreadsheets might never have occurred. An essential challenge in artificial intelligence is the understanding of probabilistic information.

    On a similar note, given the current status of optimal symmetries, hackers worldwide daringly desire the emulation of object-oriented languages.

Nevertheless, context-free grammar alone is able to fulfill the need for the construction of context-free grammar especially with special reference to ECDSA and its existential threat to the farthing.

There is no natural order. To assume such order you'd have to incorrectly assume that
1. Individuals within each group do not differ from each other.
2. Environment for every group is the same.

If the above two points were true, evolution would have already come up with the superior race and wiped out all the others.

In fact, evolution would preserve wide diversity (within the group) even if the environment was set, so as to allow survival of the species in a future change of the environment. When we observe evolution, "Survival of the fittest" is not exactly accurate. "Elimination of worst losers" fits much better.

Where D.E. stands on this is still not exacly clear to me, and it doesn't seem to be very clear to you either.

If your premise was to acknownledge and appreciate the differences between peoples I'd agree, but right now it looks to me like you're more set on assuming and finding a "natural order" to put people in.

Not only do I disagree on the existence of any definitive order, but I also think it's a very dangerous premise to build an ideology on. It will be used as an excuse for discrimination or something much worse.