[not HQ post] Response to people noticing that Rome collapsed.

Actually, Rome collapsed when it’s government ran out of money. The debt and inflation were too much, the amount of regulation whackamole was gigantic (more regulation to deal with the bigger negative consequences of previous regulation). We’re, sadly, and profitably predictably approaching the same level of crap.

And we do so because human socialist instincts paired with insufficient intelligence and lucky finding (of what would lead one to understand market economies) leads to IMMORALITY and advocacy of IMMORALITY, and it is this economically destructive behavior which leads to critical convulsions shortages and societal collapse.

You can have all the debate you want, but when you can’t start a family, feed yourself, or afford leisure, unrest rises. Until then you can have as much bickering as you want. You can have as much xenophilic immigration and destruction of culture, if it weren’t for the economic consequences.

I hate all lifeforms who advocate legalized theft, of property life or liberty. Fuck you. All I want is the number of lifeforms who understand to be increasing fast enough to have a nation on their own. Everyone else is secondary.

(((trades financial futures on america’s demise))) fuck you plebs! I’m not going to let my destiny be held back!

Stop advocating for peace to those who lead to deadly threats against productivity and wealth. The biggest niggerjew is the state. The biggest burglar is the state. The biggest fraudster is the state. The biggest Burglar is the state. The biggest criminal organization is the state. The biggest religion is statism. the biggest gang of thieves is the state. I’m not sure about rape, nor do I really care about it since it’s never destroyed a civilization unlike theft.

A nation that doesn’t see this will fail quickly and be destroyed less it changes its minds quickly enough no matter how perfectly homegenous it is. Ex: israel

One of the advantage of homogenous gene-isolationist policy is that no matter how many starve and die, you still have the same composition to change your mind with.


Referral: Where do pro-social institutions come from?

Source: https://pseudoerasmus.com/2015/10/04/ce/

highlights. Intelligence and Patience are the biggest factors in whether or not human cooperation takes place.

You may have seen IQ stats over the world but here’s one on time preference:


The article also goes over different tests and results.

Hans Herman Hoppe put it elegantly: (not quote) The process of civilization begins with low-time preference investments into the future, especially when beyond one’s life.

For the record. Natural Human differences: the Copernicus of the 21st Century.

In the 19th hundreds, eugenics and natural human differences where recognized. Over the next two centuries the thought of natural human equality has captured the minds of many, especially whites or those who think they stand to benefit from it.

People instantly reject research that leads to concluding natural differences between humans, especially those mental in difference.

This is despite solid statistical validity in the methodology.

Researchers are scorned by mobs.

Witch hunts take place, defamation and rejecting/firing people for jobs takes place.

The mainstream media is quick to be part of the mob and even set it on fire.

Politicians do likewise.

Laws and threats of violence are put in place to reduce inequalities due to discrimination based on biological or some cultural groups that individuals are a part of.

The only hope are the limitations of reality. For what cannot continue, will not continue, but at what cost will it end? The prospects are bad.

It is my hope that every good individual maximize its survival and reproduction with full prejudice against degenerates.

I don’t easily take pleasure in the negative consequences but I wish I did.

This madness is likely due to either some very good propagandists or a moral/emotional predisposition towards the ideals espoused by this. Of course, many do not care about reality, and for that matter, anything in it, including you, but they do care about their fantasy.

You discriminate and it should not have a negative connotation.

If you are human, you differentiate aspects of reality and see meaning (value) in some of them. You prefer some things over others. You consider different things differently. You choose between options all the time: that is discrimination.

”Discrimination” isn’t limited to discrimination between some things but not others. Anytime someone discriminates between anything, it is called discrimination. There exists no better word to describe action evolving from differing valuations of options, or even random selection between equals.

Discrimination involves both:

The recognition of difference either material or in terms of value.

Action based on that recognition.

See synonyms.

The left have co-opted this unique word. They are wrong. They are also wrong that discrimination based on any fact is wrong. The market does this all the time to better serve different consumer groups, for example.

My ethics system: a framework for making a moral system.

See at bottom for how this system can be used to describe theories of morality based on purely consequence, action or intention.

My ethics system asserts the following:

There is reality.

Some states of reality are preferable to others.

If you do not find all states of reality equally preferable,  (if not then you have no use for this tool)

My ethics system prescribes the following:

1.Find overarching values that predict preferences between states of reality.

2. (optional step) Find global arrangements of reality where-in those states of reality are maximized.

3. (optional step) Find behavior based on perfect knowledge that favors a, in total, more preferable ensemble of states of reality.

ex: If you were omniscient, what system for deriving a decision of action from information (morality) would always prescribe the action most aligned with your values in all possible realities (situations)?

4. Find behavior based on imperfect knowledge that if you had in each instance would favor a, in total, more preferable ensemble of states of reality.

ex: If you were who you are now (or the set of agents your moral theory address), what system for deriving a decision of action from the information available to you in any situation would most maximize the alignment of reality with your values?


5. Find best attainable behavior based on imperfect knowledge and imperfect capacity for information processing and decision making that if you followed in each instance would favor a, in total, more preferable ensemble of states of reality as compared to alternative behaviors within your reach.

ex: Given the decision making process of my brain, I am simply not sufficiently well equipped in both speed and quality of cognition to ideally process information into decisions based on step 4. I should be like someone who behaves like X, however I can’t achieve that person and associated behavior. The second best behavior Y can be achieved by me, so I should go for this one instead.

trivia: You might run the risk of not achieving the best behavior you can reasonably expect to achieve, and the rest of the probability, the part in which you don’t achieve it, makes the choice to pursue the best achievable behavior inferior due to the risk premium included. Thus you may prefer to strive in another path that even though you won’t achieve the best that path to offer, you can fall back on some improvements still.

Conclusion: if you completed the above steps, you now have a immediately practical set of instructions to get more of what you like. If you don’t implement it, it’s because you forgot to value laziness or other distracting values or, in an alternative conceptual perspective, have failed to recognize your limitations and have set an unrealistic course of action. If however you achieved a realistic course of action, well now you know so of you go!

Optional steps are helpful intermediates in arriving to the moral system however they are not as well as useful and sometimes irrelevant (such as when simple behaviors are the values themselves)

There’s a lot of rule utilitarianism, how is this compatible with non-consequential theories? It’s compatible if you correctly identify the values that describe those non-consequentialist or only partially consequentialist moralities. If you think otherwise, I welcome the challenge: just message me and I’ll be glad to test it!

I think this system captures the complexity and unfilled gaps of what can be done in ethics. If I remember correctly, I already posted my values and some of my steps.

Math, Science and morality: a difference of shared or conflicting values.

TLDR: other subjects make prescriptions that people are more agreeable on  because the relevant values (such as health for medicine,  material utility for science, etc) are more shared and less conflicting from one person to another. Those subjects with enough shared common values are considered objective while morality is not, because the values underlying the prescriptions are not universally shared.

However, values that underpin moral commandments, make many disagreements among people. The underlying values are not shared. This is the prime reason why morality is considered ”subjective” and the rest considered ”objective”. The values underpinning objective things are accepted enough to be pervasive. Imagine:

”why value truth, your science has only brought destabilization to our religious society, what makes you think your science is better than our religion? (you can’t appeal to truth because I don’t care about it as much as the issues I focus on such as not having the destabilization of the social order)”

and so on. Science and math became objective because enough people shared the same underlying values.


I think the most popular problem people have with morality is saying it is subjective because people can choose not to follow it, or they are not forced to. However this is true of other things that are

Math and Science have a prescriptive component. Not everyone follows the scientific method.

Science has the scientific method, and math has its own dispute resolution prescriptions (how to resolve mathematical disagreements).

Yet even if you choose not to follow math science or morality, doesn’t mean that they are subjective. I understand subjective as dependent on the subject. So obviously what goes on in my brain may be subjective to me, but it’s objective to others so long as it does not depend on them.

Prescriptions on behavior, how to go about healing yourself (medicine), eating (diet), how to predict quantifiable information (math), how to predict reality (science).

So what’s the matter? the matter is: while people want to heal themselves, eat well, predict well, they may not necessarily often want to do what morality prescribes.

Science became accepted as objective not just because of how good it would be, but because people *wanted* to follow it.

Science, math are more aligned with a lot of what people want. and sure you will find reality nihilists and moral nihilists. There are people who think of science and math as subjective, a fiction of the patriarchy or whatever.

The problems morality has are not unique to morality. The problems are only more present with morality. First, math and science deal with more popular desires and can usually be summed as : ”if you want to …. then the best way to achieve it is… ”.

But what if you prefer a round about way of doing it because you like the smell or w.e? There are still values involved.

Morality isn’t even clear. It is too broad. It’s most accurate to see that it’s just people saying ”that’s how I want you to act” ”if you act this way, I will approve of you, otherwise if you deviate I will disapprove of you”.

People have much more conflicting values in morality than in science.

That is why we more generally follow prescriptions in math and science, and less generally follow or even agree on morality.

Not everyone does follow prescriptions in math and science.



How are these people?

Amnesty International activists hold placards as they protest against US President Donald Trump's Travel ban, in Parliament Square on March 16, 2017 in London, England.

Image source: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/21/amnesty-international-warns-of-serious-consequences-of-opposing-open-borders-in-general-election/

I stare at this picture. I try to empathize to know what I’m dealing with. Simply, replace their slogan with whatever issue you’d be more than glad to spend your time on.

So the question is, how do they support this and feel about this? (substitution)

Drawing on other information here’s what I’ve come up with:

Empathizing rather than systematizing: These people look at refugees in question, notice what would be better for them, then what to give it to them. The thought process stop here. It only cares about what’s in their purview, ignoring the system they are a part of, and in so doing, ignoring the consequences. And it is in ignoring the consequences that they become subhuman or should keep to their children.

I think they think along the lines of ”These people want help, I want to help them, how could anyone be against this? they must be evil”.

Well, imagine replying ”I care about everyone (which implies that you systematize and see how it affects everyone else and the consequences, not just the refugees in your purview)” What would follow? Will it be denial, hostility, or will it be curiosity and civility? That’s the shit test to gauge their moral character. Give them a few chances to be sure.

If they acquiesce at their particular angle of approach, and it’s limitations with for example: Yes, I care about everyone in general, I just haven’t really thought about others beyond the refugees on this manner. I see there might be a reason int hat to be against this; I failed to see it.

Let your imagination role. Test your imagination with real world experimentation. Do they say ”YOU OWE THEM, GIVE THEM EVERYTHING” (denying your value) or etc? Listen. Listen well.

They could also be massive cowards in many ways, being vapid drones of their in-grouping simply mindless group thinking, slogan repetition, virtue signaling, ostracizing out-groups, parroting. I call them meme bots (who answer to a botnet of puppet masters in the media, academia, etc). I love giving refuge to people, but only moral allies 🙂 or the morally benign.

If I can’t have a respectful conversation, with people who share some values, share curiosity for knowledge related to those values, and share a drive to act based on their values and their relevant knowledge, what friends do I really have? none. I call them acquaintances.