The Intellectual Thuggery of Popper and Kuhn Heading Off the Threat of Genuine Social Science

Posted by James Bowery on Sunday, 16 January 2022 18:25.

Popper and Kuhn both successfully attacked the foundation of data-driven scientific discovery of causality with their psychologically and rhetorically intense popularizations of “the philosophy of science” at the precise moment in history that it became practical to rigorously discriminate mere correlation from causation, even without controlled experimentation, by looking at the data.

I only became aware of this after attempting to do first-order epidemiology of the rise of autism that had severely impacted colleagues of mine in Silicon Valley — investigation required since it was apparent that no one more qualified was bothering to do so. I didn’t expect to find a substantial ecological correlation with Jews and autism and, indeed, there was none. However, I did expect to find a correlation with non-western immigrants from India, and found one. Now, having said that, I’m not here to make the case for that particular causal hypothesis — there are others that I can set forth that I also expected and did find evidence for. What I’m here to point out is that my attempts to bring these hypotheses up were greeted with the usual “social science” rhetoric one expects: “Correlation doesn’t imply causation.” “Ecological correlations are invalid due to the ecological fallacy.” and so forth. This got me interested in precisely how it is that “social science” purports to infer causation from the data — especially since it was becoming apparent to me that the one thing Jews absolutely panic over is the presence of any human ecology in the West that remotely controls for the presence of Jews — experimental controls being the one widely accepted means of determining causality in the philosophy of science.

This interest was amplified when I, on something of a lark, decided to take my data that I’d gathered to investigate the ecology of autism, and see which of the ecological variables was the most powerful predictor of the other variables I had chosen. One variable, in particular, that I had been interested in, not for autism causation, but for social causality in general, was the ratio of Jews to Whites in a human ecology at the State level in the US. I don’t need to explain to the readers of MR my reasons for taking that ratio as significant. Well, out of hundreds of variables, guess which one came out on top?

Of course, again, I don’t need to explain to the readers of MR the kind of rhetorical attacks on this “lark” of mine: Same old, same old…

So my investigation of causal inference intensified.

Eventually, circa 2004-2005, I intuited that data compression had the answer and suggested something I called “The C-Prize” — a prize that would pay out for incremental improvements in compression of a wide-ranging corpus of data, resulting in computational models of complex dynamical systems, including everything from physics to macrosocial models. That’s when I ran across information theoretic work that distinguished between Shannon information and what is now called “Algorithmic Information”. The seminal work in Algorithmic Information occurred in the late 1950s and early 1960s — precisely when Moore’s Law was taking off in its relentlessly exponentiating power. Algorithmic Information content of a data set is the number of bits in its smallest executable archive — the smallest algorithm that outputs that data. Shannon information is basically just statistical. Think of the digits of pi. Shannon says the information content is identical with the string of digits. Algorithmic Information says the information content is the size of the program that outputs the digits of pi.

That discovery threatened to bring the social sciences to heel with a rigorous and principled information criterion for model selection far superior, and provably so, to all other model selection criteria used by the social sciences. Moreover, the models so-selected would be necessarily causal in nature and be amenable to using the power of silicon to make predictions without any kind of ideological bias.

This, I strongly believe, was the precise reason Popper and Kuhn committed their acts of violence against science at the precise moment in history they did.

Tags:



Comments:


1

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 06:42 | #

Go on to pursuit of more rigorous grounds for social sciences as you will, but please do not make the kind of mistake that Guessedworker is prone to, in trying to assert that I am anything like beholden to an entire program, let alone its distortions and abuses for political purposes, when I recognize significant value in a few ideas, viz. paradigms, comparability and incommensurability, for application in responsible handling (phronesis = practical judgment) necessary in the more messy, more changeable, less perfectly causal world of social interaction (as opposed to the hard sciences); especially as it is to be negotiated by us ordinary non-scientists.

That is to say, it may be possible to undertake an elaborate equation where people from a third world culture are comparable for their abilities or lack thereof, but for practical sake, the notion of “incommensurability” provides a useful, if not valuable heuristic; as in, “these people are evolved for a different niche, and have skills for entirely different purposes” (a different “paradigm”) which would not only be impractical, but destructive, unnecessarily disrespectful (provocative) and even dangerous to ignore - niche differences the sight of which may be lost, as might happen with comparisons pushed to an extreme, if not false comparisons made.

Think of the White nerd who behaves as if his higher I.Q. puts him on superior and safe ground across the board as opposed to the street black. The White nerd can be caught off guard for false comparison, not respecting incommensurable difference; which in the case of blacks is speaking a long pre-evolution to European differentiation; as you also know, comporting more testosterone, (comparatively hyper) assertion, less sublimation - short time horizon - and lack of compunction in impulse control that causes the White guy to come up short for the complacency of his nerd I.Q. and its logical rationalizations (“they are not so bad/dangerous to me”). Yes, these are scientific comparisons, but where the comparisons veer toward incommensurability is in the hubris of thinking that the niche evolutionary requirements for our circumstance apply across the board and render the other lesser in all significant ways.

Whereas this hubris which got the nerd caught off guard may have been staved-off by a bit of tribute to incommensurability and the necessity for paradigmatic separation. The sensitivity to niche differences that is proposed with the practical option of “incommensurability” provides the means for respect and coordination, not only between groups, but within, I might add.


2

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 14:01 | #

There is a marked tendency for Jewish intellectuals, because (to borrow from Kuhn) they operate within the historical paradigm not as interpreters and descriptors but as re-interpreters and inflectors, and because the historical paradigm anyway is not the same as the history of the practise of truth (“normal science”, to Kuhn), to expose their true ardour, which is for the controlling and directing power of the word.  Obviously, in themselves words ... the kind of words employed in science and most branches of genuine intellectual enquiry ... have a certain state of philological innocence.  “Paradigm” is, after all, a perfectly useful term.  It does not carry the sign of a lower intent.  That only enters with its artful and strategic incision into the living if not organic matter of our intellectual expositions and mores.

Another of Kuhn’s artful words was “incommensurability”, the effect of which was to undermine the structural integrity of realist descriptions of the world, and all it contains, by appealing to perspectivism.  When he was challenged on the basis that his ideas led to relativism ... something that should not surprise us in the slightest ... he defended himself noisily and by turning to the individual scientist’s subjectivism and values overriding his vaunted and dispassionate attachment to truth.  It’s pretty thin stuff, really.  An accusation, nothing more; and a pessimistic judgement on Scientific Man, excising his better nature, his professional discipline, his stated purpose.  But the eponymous culture warrior must do these things to escape the dread finger of suspicion.

Anyway, in the process he had to attack the role of “internal and external consistency” in the scientific method. What is there without the adequacy of consistency?  The anti-relativists were completely right.  James is totally right.  The question - as always there is a question - is: where do we go from here?


3

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 14:45 | #

Incommensurability is not a merely artful term, but can be practically useful; a more clear example would be in the evaluation of the differences between the genders; in a word, it prompts that attention is best paid to a qualitative (paradigmatic) difference.

Go ahead and try to make social sciences like a hard science as you might, James is not completely right inasmuch as he (and you) would over extend application of science where philosophical judgment is called for; as ever, you have set up a false either/or. Glad to leave you behind.


4

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 16:08 | #

Actually, the term “incommensurability” came into the sociology lexicon from two Jews - Fleck and Kuhn - working thirty years apart, and the paedophile postmodernist Foucault.  Its meaning concerns not sociobiology but sociological nomenclature.  You, Daniel, are filching it off them, presumably from your uni days, and forcing it into an ill-fitted sociobiological service.

Foucault was right in one respect.  What we are really talking about here is the problem of episteme ... the problem of truth.  One would hope that, rather than take lessons from the denizens of sociology departments either of the last century or this, thinking nationalists might attack the problem independently, without relying on correspondence or coherentism.  Relationality in the forms of accretion and consonance might have some role to play.


5

Posted by Thorn on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 16:29 | #

Don’t leave, DanielS.

Putting your differences with GW aside, the substance of your comment @1 is very spot-on and important. If only white ppl understood and acted on the info you presented, we wouldn’t be in the shape we’re in. Instead, whites are conditioned to think the differences between the races are negligible; small differences that integration and education can erase. Most whites simply refuse to acknowledge sub-Saharan negroes evolved to adapt to their enviornment in Africa ... which is much different to how whites evolved in Europe—of course those evolutionary differences include emotional, intellectual and physical differences. It’s all built into the DNA. But the majority of whites are so thoroughly brainwashed/conditioned that they police their own thoughts; in doing so they discard any factual information that does not comport with or support their egalitarian/anti-racist mindset.


6

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 17:32 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 16:08 | #

Actually, the term “incommensurability” came into the sociology lexicon from two Jews - Fleck and Kuhn - working thirty years apart, and the paedophile postmodernist Foucault.

Incommensurability is one of the few ideas that I’ve gleaned from a Jewish source; and I’ve applied it as it can serve the interests of White/European systemic homeostasis; in fact, so useful to our purposes (e.g., as opposed to looking at things as equal or unequal - and therefore tactlessly chasing the red cape “against equality”) that when a prominent Jewish academic gave a lecture criticizing the idea, it “confirmed” for me my mistaken belief that Khun must be non-Jewish. If a Jew is arguing against the idea, it only goes to show that there is something there.

I retain the value of the idea - as I apply it - not because I’m beholden to what professors told me, despite the fact that your puerile autobiography insists on that.

Its meaning concerns not sociobiology but sociological nomenclature.

As sociological “nomenclature” it can be a good, useful idea; and like any and every good idea, you will attack it because it threatens your autobiography and unmerited, gargantuan ego.

You, Daniel, are filching it off them, presumably from your uni days, and forcing it into an ill-fitted sociobiological service.

“Filching”? I never denied where I got the idea, and no normal person will presume, as you do, that if something was gotten during university days, that it must be bad; like anything that I’ve gleaned, I’ve fashioned it for service of our people.

Foucault was right in one respect.

In your idiotic remarks before, you ignored the distinctions that I make in post modern thought, in that regard, and pander to reactionary idiots (or go along with instigating enemies) who want to maintain associations that I have no use for - Derrida. And now you invoke Foucault, which I have little use for ... though “biopower” is useful notion; perhaps “the use of pleasure” and a few other things, but not an important figure.

I am not trying to ill fittingly put incommensurability into sociobiological service, but recognize, rather, its utility as prompt to be careful about quantitative comparisons; particularly as deployed by the general population.

And like any good idea, you will attack it.

What we are really talking about here is the problem of episteme ... the problem of truth.

Are you really?

One would hope that, rather than take lessons from the denizens of sociology departments either of the last century or this, thinking nationalists might attack the problem independently, without relying on correspondence or coherentism.

Relationality in the forms of accretion and consonance might have some role to play.

You can’t get over (stop reacting to) this red caping of sociology. Don’t care that I never took a sociology course in my life - your anti sociology club requires you to keep depicting me as a sociology student beholden to presiding Jewish charlatans. It’s your problem; I gave you the benefit of the doubt in thinking that there might be something positive behind your attacks on good ideas. There is no good reason, and you will never admit it; its just what you do because you are an asshole.


7

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 17:51 | #

Understand that I quite deliberately limited my discourse to “data-driven scientific discovery” knowing full well that there are other paths to truth.  The reason for this limitation is the modern pretense that all is machine—the past determines the future through the present including our behavior as seekers of truth. 

We expend enormous resources engaging in discourse over cause and effect, as though cause and effect are real—as though the flow of time is unidirectional.  So long as we remain in this relation to our world, may we at least economize those resources?


8

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 18:07 | #

On commensurability/incommensurability, the concept simply does not mean what you want it mean, Daniel.  It does not refer to the vulgar difference between entities (or paradigms) per se but between the unitary measure of their structure or unitary theory of same.  That’s what makes it philosophy of (hard) science and not simple sociology.

Now, a saving grace, for which you will not be in the slightest grateful, is that the two philosophers of science who are in question here had an entirely predictable agenda which is not interested in science at all but in the negation of Truth.  They really are only interested in refuting the possibility of knowing kind and Other, or they wouldn’t be doing this stuff at all.  So it turns out that you have a point, as do all nationalists.  But you are still using the wrong technical term.  What you are looking for, even if you don’t know it, is something that goes to realism and naturalism.


9

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 18:25 | #

I’ve explained this to the [expletive] countless times now (it won’t penetrate), that his being against sociology is like being against the telescope and saying only microscopes are good instruments. Ridiculous. It depends upon your unit of analysis. And, in fact, the sociological unit of analysis - the group - is most relevant as we are under attack as a group - i.e., a race, under attack by anti-racism (anti white group-ism). Sure, other units of analysis can be investigated, sometimes fruitfully, but I am not the one who is treating the other means of inquiry as mutually exclusive to anything worthwhile.


10

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 18:27 | #

GW writes: “James is totally right.  The question - as always there is a question - is: where do we go from here?”

That depends on the “we”, of course.  For example, if The Royal Society were true to its original purpose to firewall dangerous enthusiasms (such as the religious enthusiasms in the years leading to 1666) and offer an empirical truthsayer to the government, it would immediately and forthwith offer a revised form of The Longitude Prize according to my intent with “The C-Prize” (that eventually provided the idea for the inadequately-endowed “Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge”).  That intent:  Take virtually all the government’s data of any purported, if controversial, relevance to government policy (including the Genome-Wide Association Study, COVID-19 epidemiological data, etc.) and put it into a single corpus for lossless compression by anyone anywhere in the world, with a prize purse commensurate with the value of increasing the accuracy of predictions of the consequences of policy decisions, for decreasing the size of the executable archive of the data.  This would be a multibillion dollar per year prize, with virtually no wiggle room for judges to cheat winners of their prizes—unlike what happened to Mr. Harris when the Royal Society basically terminated his bloodline.  The King should have had them executed for that.


11

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 18:32 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 18:07 | #

On commensurability/incommensurability, the concept simply does not mean what you want it mean, Daniel.  It does not refer to the vulgar difference between entities (or paradigms) per se but between the unitary measure of their structure or unitary theory of same.  That’s what makes it philosophy of (hard) science and not simple sociology.

Now, a saving grace, for which you will not be in the slightest grateful, is that the two philosophers of science who are in question here had an entirely predictable agenda which is not interested in science at all but in the negation of Truth.  They really are only interested in refuting the possibility of knowing kind and Other, or they wouldn’t be doing this stuff at all.  So it turns out that you have a point, as do all nationalists.  But you are still using the wrong technical term.  What you are looking for, even if you don’t know it, is something that goes to realism and naturalism.

GW, you are a fucking idiot; as ever (you’ve done this countless times), making these proclamations, thinking like a queen that if you proclaim it, that “incommensurability/ commensurability simply does not mean what I say”. Shut up; and don’t tell me what I’m looking for as in accordant subject to your retarded rule.


12

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 19:47 | #

If I may appeal to a recent paper on “commensurability” in the social sciences, “Commensurability and collective impact in strategic management research: When non-replicability is a feature, not a bug”, and show how it is handled in an unbiased manner by Algorithmic Information:

Abstract
A persistent challenge in social science research is understanding whether and when empirical results generalize beyond a specific study’s sample or context. In strategic management, “quasireplication” examines whether results derived from particular industry, temporal, or geographic categories apply in adjacent research settings (Bettis et al 20Abstract A persistent challenge in social science research is understanding whether and when empirical results generalize beyond a specific study’s sample or context. In strategic management, “quasireplication” examines whether results derived from particular industry, temporal, or geographic categories apply in adjacent research settings (Bettis et al 2016). We contend that the path to more robust and general theory must extend beyond quasi-replication by identifying the underlying factors driving both similarities and differences in results across research settings,
which we call “basis variables.” By transforming our usual categorical representations of research settings, basis variables promote commensurability, where seemingly distinct settings become comparable, enabling middle-range theorizing as theoretical contingencies are revealed. We close with suggestions to identify and elevate basis variables in individual and collective research efforts.16). We contend that the path to more robust and general theory must extend beyond quasi-replication by identifying the underlying factors driving both similarities and differences in results across research settings,
which we call “basis variables.” By transforming our usual categorical representations of research settings, basis variables promote commensurability, where seemingly distinct settings become comparable, enabling middle-range theorizing as theoretical contingencies are revealed. We close with suggestions to identify and elevate basis variables in individual and collective research efforts.

Performing data transformations so that they become commensurable is critical to applying mathematics to the empirical world.  This is most directly relevant when performing meta-studies/analyses with data provided by different measurement techniques, etc.  What commensurability means, in arithmetic terms, is doing transformations so that the measurements can be added.  For instance converting F to C degrees to add them together is to make the two measurements “commensurable”.  But more subtle transformations are required to bring things of different dimensions, say, mass and energy into commensurability—transformations famously exemplified by E=mc².  In this more subtle case our measurements reflect latent relational structure to which we must appeal to relationally transform the apparently incommensurable so they become commensurable.  In this sense, there is a notion of arithmetic that is necessarily relational when dealing with measurements.  Bertrand Russell was really focused on this as the crowning achievement of Principia Mathematica, but he fell short of the mark and we’ve, instead, been saddled with something called “Model Theory”.

In “My Philosophical Development”, of Principia Mathematica Part IV “Relation Arithmetic”, Bertrand Russell laments:

“I think relation-arithmetic important, not only as an interesting generalization, but because it supplies a symbolic technique required for dealing with structure. It has seemed to me that those who are not familiar with mathematical logic find great difficulty in understanding what is meant by ‘structure’, and, owing to this difficulty, are apt to go astray in attempting to understand the empirical world[emphasis JAB]. For this reason, if for no other, I am sorry that the theory of relation-arithmetic has been largely unnoticed.”

I’ve previously mentioned the fact that the H-1b program brought to an end my ability to hire the experts that could resolve this at the level of computer programming languages, but is I became aware of the relationship between structural commensurability and data compression, I tried to replicate my success in triggering an avalanche of prize awards in private rocketry using only a very small prize as a challenge—hence the C-Prize.  That relationship is simply this:  If you have two things that must be considered in separate categories because they are incommensurable, you can’t use a unfied algorithm to make predictions about both—you need a separate algorithm for each, resulting in a larger total program to output both things without loss.

 

 


13

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 20:04 | #

Daniel, “the unit of measure” isn’t “the unit of analysis”.  That latter is the object measured in some respect.  If that respect is, say, general intelligence then the unit of measure can, for example, be the Intelligence Quotient.  But someone like Howard Gardiner may construct a protest on grounds of incommensurability with other bases for measurement which he perceives to be as important as general intelligence.

Get it now?


14

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 21:53 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 20:04 | #

Daniel, “the unit of measure” isn’t “the unit of analysis”.

Asshole, that’s a strawman. I always understood that you are trying to compare and measure things. I did not say that things could not be compared and made somehow commensurable.


Get it now?


15

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 21:55 | #

I.e., there is a difference between “incommensurable and incomparable” - I didn’t suggest the later could not be done.


16

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:02 | #

..and I began by saying that this idea could abused, e.g., red caped, and I suggested that James neither chase the abuse as you invariably would nor insist that I was (or should) follow Khun’s entire program because I see one idea as useful (and use it in a benign, if not helpful way, a fact which you will invariably ignore).


17

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:24 | #

“Incomparability” means something else again (from set theory, I think) and is not what Kuhn was talking about.  And “straw man” indicates a weak argument advanced so it may then be knocked down.  OK, knock down my argument @ 13.  Or, alternatively, cut your losses and retire gracefully.


18

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:57 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:24 | #

“Incomparability” means something else again (from set theory, I think) and is not what Kuhn was talking about.  And “straw man” indicates a weak argument advanced so it may then be knocked down.  OK, knock down my argument @ 13.  Or, alternatively, cut your losses and retire gracefully.

Fuck you douchebag. Did I say that I was using the term exactly the way that Khun did or did I warn Bowery that you would try to keep me beholden to his entire program verbatim because I glean and idea from him and craft it for ethnonational purpose?

“A straw man” is also an argument that the interlocuter is NOT making, set up to avoid his real argument and you do this constantly.

Along with your proclamations, which you presume makes them true; the only saving grace being that they are so stupid as to be easily set aside. Classic GW proclamation: “Aristotle simply is not relevant.”

Time for you to retire GW. You’ve been enough of an obstruction.

 


19

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 00:45 | #

So, Daniel, you are not, in fact, going to knock down the argument that you have labelled a straw man.  Because it isn’t a straw man, is it?  You only said it was because you are flailing away with anything that comes to mind, and flailing is more important to you right now than precision.  I could ask why and in what way vulgar argument is more important than intellectual discipline.  But I won’t get an honest answer, will I?

Anyway, let’s return to the practicalities.  Whatever you think you meant by your use of the word “incommensurability”, the truth of it is that “these people” who “are evolved for a different niche, and have skills for entirely different purposes” can be compared to Europeans on the basis of shared traits which can be measured.  There is nothing incommensurable there, even using the term, as you say, heuristically.

Our point, then, is that Kuhn is dishonest and wrong, just as Boas was fifty years before him and Gould thirty years after.  But for some reason known only to yourself, you dragged in his dishonest and wrong if typical example of Jewish artfulness and plonked it down in the middle of your ideology.  As a result you find yourself excuse-making on the basis that an heuristic utility justifies a given usage even when it is demonstrably wrong in substance.  Now that usage has become untenable, maybe even incommensurable in some mysterious, not to say, heuristic way.  Don’t defend it.  Change it.


20

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 04:26 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 00:45 | #

So, Daniel, you are not, in fact, going to knock down the argument that you have labelled a straw man. Because it isn’t a straw man, is it?

I have observed your argument as a strawman and it was a strawman.

You only said it was because you are flailing away with anything that comes to mind,

I have not “flailed away”, I have knocked away your strawman by being consistent with what my meaning has always been.

and flailing is more important to you right now than precision.

“Flailing” is a projection of what you do in chasing red capes and attacking your straw men.

“Flailing” is what you call practical judgment, a working hypothesis as opposed to your retarded, reactionary desperation to over-apply and misapply your STEM over-valuation of precision to the social world.

I could ask why and in what way vulgar argument is more important than intellectual discipline.  But I won’t get an honest answer, will I?

I’ve given you an answer (and have, many times, but you are impervious) - phronesis (practical judgment) / working hypotheses (I can add, specificatory structures) - which are not vulgar argument and comport the intellectual disciplinary end of accountability, correctivity, operational verifiability and warranted assertability.

Anyway, let’s return to the practicalities.  Whatever you think you meant by your use of the word “incommensurability”

Yes, lets return to that, asshole. Not that anything ever gets through your narcissistic personality disorder.

What I mean by “incommensurability” as I have indeed explained, is a tag that is well applied to an issue to be investigated, and the tag says “warning”, important qualitative differences between two paradigms (niche evolutionary functional schemes) that you are about to compare. You can compare them, maybe even make them commmensurable in some aspects, but may take on / give misdirection regarding the fuller (holistic, to use a word that you would claim for yourself, as if myself and others are guilty of not thinking as such) paradigmatic configuration as they function ecologically in importantly different, qualitative niche differences. Incommensurability thus, would be a practical tag for professional and ordinary, non scientific people alike in line with emergentism’s non-Cartesian emphasis against reductionism as it might otherwise send one into one after the other impractical inquiry, likely with the pejorative result of narcissism, i.e., the modernists universalizing tendency to impute sameness and run roughshod over important qualitative, paradigmatic, niche differences.

the truth of it is that “these people” who “are evolved for a different niche, and have skills for entirely different purposes” can be compared to Europeans on the basis of shared traits which can be measured.

 

Yes, you can do that, and its main utility in that regard is to overturn stupid Marxist arguments about how, say, Whites have only achieved by exploitation of the third world, nepotism and systemic discrimination (“racism”) on behalf of our own.

But it is limited and can be over applied; we are defending our people, including, for example, our high I.Q. component; but we are not I.Q. nationalists, we are ethnonationalists; at least, I am, defending a systemic ecology which has other important aspects and niches to value besides.  ...and perhaps other capabilities to be aware of in other groups.

There is nothing incommensurable there, even using the term, as you say, heuristically.

So, its another one of your proclamations which (typically) glosses over the important point, as it is indeed, a practical heuristic.

Our point, then, is that Kuhn is dishonest and wrong, just as Boas was fifty years before him and Gould thirty years after.

Boas and Gould were certainly dishonest and wrong (just as you are) and Khun probably is - didn’t finish The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (boring), having anything I needed from it in those few words, paradigm, incommensurability and perhaps took for granted the difference from comparability as a term imported to parse that discussion.

But for some reason known only to yourself, you dragged in his dishonest and wrong if typical example of Jewish artfulness and plonked it down in the middle of your ideology.

You are truly an asshole GW, the way you talk about my discussions, using terms like “ideology” and “hagiography”, so on, as you have done for years to serve your narcissistic personality disorder, providing perfect explanation as to why I speak to you with such contempt in return; you are not only a stupid man but a bad man, who places your ego above an honest and truthful assessment of our peoples needs.

  As a result you find yourself excuse-making on the basis that an heuristic utility justifies a given usage even when it is demonstrably wrong in substance.

I have demonstrated that it has practical utility and is not wrong in substance (as I deploy the term).

Now that usage has become untenable, maybe even incommensurable in some mysterious, not to say, heuristic way.  Don’t defend it.  Change it.

It is you that needs changing, asshole, needed it a long time ago. Your boomer shit is old and in the way; it may have served your selfish ends, and you obviously don’t want to own up to the effects of your kind of ignorance (which is magnified through your personality disorder), would rather blame the red capes (that would be corrected, if the underlying concepts were understood properly, as opposed to the red capes) that you flail at, and insist upon maintaining as part of you straw man repertoire, but we will happily leave you behind.


21

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 07:56 | #

The practical application of DanielS’s tortuous intellectual prestidigitation remains unveiled.

What now ?


22

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 08:12 | #

It’s not true, Al. There are many practical applications to my platform, beginning with its central most relevance. As for “what now”, here at MR, I might suggest that Bowery try to explain to GW that his fundamental error is false and unnecessary either/or-ing between my concern for the broad, social group perspective and his being enamored of precision and the more rigorous, empirical side of inquiry - which is included, and valued in my platform, though not acknowledged as such by his penchant for false either/or-ing and false mutual exclusivity. However, I must add to Bowery in the endeavor to persuade GW against this false either/or-ing and false mutual exclusivity, good luck.


23

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:48 | #

Fighting the present war:

I contacted the Oxford COVID pandemic modeling team at the start of the pandemic, to make them aware of the superiority of Algorithmic Information as model selection criterion.  The primary contact at Oxford dismissed my suggestion that they use Algorithmic Information as their model selection criterion by claiming it is the same as the Bayesian Information Criterion.  This is a misconception that goes under the phrase “minimum description length principle” in a 1970s paper that attempted to describe an algorithm that would generate the minimum length description of a set of data but did _not_ generate the minimum length _algorithm_ that output the data.  In other words, it did not describe an algorithm that generated an algorithm (in the sense of using a Turing complete language to describe the generated algorithm).  The reason given by this paper is that computers of the time were very limited in capacity but that even within that limitation, a statistical shortcut could be used to get some results using a non-Turing complete language—but the name “minimum description length principle” stuck as being associated with this statistical approach.  This statistical shortcut _is_ equivalent to what statisticians call “BIC” or Bayesian Information Criterion.  When I pointed out to my Oxford colleague this difference, he was forced to give at least that much ground but then threw it back in my lap by demanding that I demonstrate the superiority of a Turing-complete description approach to an information criterion.

I sent him a few papers that approached the topic but due to the noise in the field—noise to which he himself was a victim—there was insufficient evidence in his opinion to pursue it.

As a result I went into Wikipedia and basically rewrote the entire article on Minimum Description Length to clear up the misconceptions still being spread by Wikipedia.  There was some squawking from the usual scholarly suspects and although they, as expected, reinserted their noise—surprisingly, my corrections haven’t (yet) been _entirely_ suppressed.

Another misconception that provided Oxford an excuse to go off the rails:

When I brought up the need for dynamical rather than statistical models and that algorithmic models are necessary for truly dynamical models, my colleague complained that if you try to fit a bunch of data points to a dynamical model, extrapolations will end up suffering from “the butterfly effect”—that is to say small errors in the model or initial conditions will amplify exponentially.  That’s true as far as it goes of course, but weather forecasting based on computational fluid dynamical models work to a practical extent because, unlike attempts to predict a bunch of x,y points from some prior x,y points in time, the more _dimensions_ you include—the wider the range of _kinds_ of data you include in the data driving your model—the more constrained the future is for any given dimension in the data by the need for consilience between the data sources.  Again, he was unconvinced even though it is obvious to anyone who has modeled dynamical systems.

In short, Oxford is full of shit-for-brains experts responsible for pandemic modeling.


24

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 19:35 | #

As BIC is to the Oxford modellers, so incommensurability is to Danny.

In the matter of modelling, it does not appear that government wants accuracy.  Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, had exactly this from the horses mouth last month, and retailed the story at the DT on
19 December 2021:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2021/12/19/tackled-sage-covid-modeller-twitter-quite-revelation/

I tackled a Sage Covid modeller on Twitter and it was quite the revelation
Why does Sage not tell us the probability of its gloomy Covid ‘scenarios’?

Over the weekend, the latest Sage document arrived with some blood-curdling figures on what could await us if we fail to lock down. The omicron wave could be the deadliest yet, we’re told, killing up to 6,000 of us in a single day. This would be at least five times more than the peak of previous wave - and this from an omicron variant that South Africans say is far milder!
...

But dig deeper, and the Sage story changes. The 6,000 is the top of a rather long range of “scenarios”, not predictions. The bottom is 600 deaths a day, which certainly would not pose an existential threat to the National Health Service. Why won’t they tell us how likely (or otherwise) these scenarios are? I was mulling all this when, on my Twitter feed, up pops the chairman of the Sage modelling committee Prof. Graham Medley. I thought I’d try my luck and ask him.

...

he replied. “Decision-makers are generally only interested in situations where decisions have to be made.” But isn’t it just as vital to be told if action is not needed? I asked him straight. “So you exclusively model bad outcomes that require restrictions and omit just-as-likely outcomes that would not require restrictions?”

“We generally model what we are asked to model,” came the reply. “There is a dialogue in which policy teams discuss with the modellers what they need to inform them with their policy.”

At this point our conversation was interrupted by “Reg”. “This entire exchange has left me open-mouthed,” he told us both. “To think of the livelihoods at stake here, mainly because they don’t see the need to model accurate outcomes as it will not make the government take any action. Scandalous.” Prof Medley gave “Reg” the same cryptic reply. “We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions.”

As to the actual UK mortality rate, that is also an interesting story, covered yesterday by GBNews:

https://youtu.be/igqMTmmgsYM

GBNews, 17 January 2022

Dan Wooton: As I mentioned at the top of the show, the Office of National Statistics released bombshell Covid figures yesterday that exposed the lack of substance behind the political and media scare campaign over the past two years. Via a freedom of information request, the ONS were asked to provide the number of deaths purely from Covid with no other underlying causes. Just 9,400 in 2020 were caused solely by Covid. In 2021, just 7,971 deaths total were from Covid until the end of quarter three without underlying conditions.

Karol, giving these statistics, is it intellectually dishonest for the media to continue to trump at the fact that there have been 150,000 Covid deaths in the UK?

 

 


25

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 21:21 | #

Is there any remnant of the Royal Society that remains even relatively true to its truthsayer role to government as bulwark against the excesses of religious enthusiasm?  Clearly quasi-religious enthusiasm is the dominant influence on government—and the virulently malign nature of its theology is precisely the kind of enthusiasm against which The Royal Society was intended as bulwark.  For example, is there any discernible difference between Oxford and Cambridge in this regard?  How about the redbrick universities?  The reason I ask is that this attack vector on the quasi-theocracy is one that is hard to counter-attack with the ordinary rhetoric of the quasi-theocracy, and if there is even one remnant of truthsaying left from the original Royal Society it could be an incredibly potent force for good.


26

Posted by Manc on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:03 | #

I suggest that it is the NHS and “health professionals” who don’t want accuracy. I’m surprised that nobody has drawn a comparison between the pandemic pandemonium and the anti-smoking measures, at least in the UK and Australia. It appears that if enough of the population can be convinced that doing x and not doing y is good for their health they will go along with pretty much anything. As for the government, it seemed to me that BoJo was railroaded into taking reactionary measures by the BBC, Twitter and the Opposition. Expediency being the key word concerning the governments response, which would explain all the wine and cheese episodes.

In conclusion, I speak as someone who has been triple jabbed, not for my own sake, having already had Covid and ranking it as a 5 on a scale of 1-10 of the various viral infections I’ve endured in my lifetime but because I realized that the economy would not reopen until the vaccinated passed the magic number, which wouldn’t be good for my progeny and I’ll always put their interests first. For once, this puts me on the same page as Her Maj and her sense of duty - but then, we live in an age when we are all going to have to make sacrifices.


27

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:05 | #

“Karol, giving these statistics, is it intellectually dishonest for the media to continue to trump at the fact that there have been 150,000 Covid deaths in the UK?”

Behavioral control

Robert W Malone MD, MS

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/behavioral-control?r=ta0o1&fbclid=IwAR3PPgnrviMHZsmleaROQmxxqRrLahdDqHxBPKsw8u4kQTCbdWTol_rkxjI


28

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:05 | #

Glad to hear you are doing OK, Manc.  Don’t have any more damned jabs.  It does at least look possible that the jabbing has come to an end in this country.  Could change with a new Tory leader, though.


29

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:40 | #

James, I don’t think any part of the university class is worth a light now.  Humanities departments were lost to “the dictate” by the middle of the Blair years, and earlier than that for the most part.  The sciences held out maybe for another decade but, in the end, the power of the university left, of the funding institutions, and of the sheer need to receive a pay-packet at the end of every month have done for them.  Ideologically, the educated classes are North Korean in the unity of their (stated) political opinion.

The larger corporations have all gone the same way, of course.  The profession of party politics at all levels and in all roles is completely lost.  Journalism and the media are gone.  The Civil Service and the government machine is utterly Marxised.  Likewise the unions, the public sector, the voluntary sector, and the law (including the police and the security state).  At the top, the forces are gone.  It’s total.  There is nothing left except the betrayed natives who are belaboured daily by all this, and who are finding it increasingly impossible to communicate to one another about it.

If the traitors had got the virus they so obviously expected the unvaxed would all be looking at detention now.  I don’t think they have got it, though; and the result is that those leadership cadres across the world who have gone in hardest ... Austria, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Italy, Holland, and so on ...  may have a lot of explaining to do as the grounds for their action disintegrate before their very eyes.


30

Posted by Thorn on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 00:12 | #

From the website the crackpot JB was banned from: https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2021/12/29/lest-darkness-fall-e-o-wilson-in-2009-with-alice-dreger/


31

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 04:17 | #

Thanks, anti-Christ.  I was kind of suspecting my linking to the old autism correlation with Indian immigrants posts just might flush you out.


32

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 07:41 | #

On the state of Cambridge:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/18/wildly-incorrect-covid-modelling-caused-boris-johnson-bounce/

‘Wildly incorrect’ Covid modelling bounced Boris Johnson into second lockdown, MPs told
Model predicting 4,000 deaths per day was leaked to the press before it could be challenged, says Steve Baker

Boris Johnson was bounced into the second coronavirus lockdown after a “terrifying” and “wildly incorrect” model warning of 4,000 deaths a day was leaked to the press, MPs have heard.
...
Modelling from Cambridge University and Public Health England (PHE) had suggested that without immediate restrictions there could be 4,000 deaths per day by the end of December.

Mr Baker said that he had told Mr Johnson to challenge the model, and Prof Tim Spector, of King’s College London, and Prof Carl Heneghan, of Oxford University, were called into Downing Street to go over the data.

But by the time the models were shown to be inaccurate, it was too late to stop public calls for restrictions.
...


33

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:30 | #

As BIC is to the Oxford modellers, so incommensurability is to Danny.

Nice try asshole. There is a huge difference. Incommensurability as I deploy the term designates/marks (as I have said, but will not penetrate your thick skull) the suggestion of qualitative niche evolutionary differences, thus cautions against facile comparisons - doesn’t say you can’t make comparisons, but that those comparisons are likely to parse out variables which don’t do justice to the totality of the difference in some cases. So, it is a practical heuristic, not rigid and fixed, whereas the Oxford Modellers are apparently rigidly wedded to a particular model.


34

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:38 | #

As luck would have it, this morning when I powered up my phone and began making an espresso, Chrome’s startup page’s news recommendations for me (always somewhat humorous to see what they think I need to be “informed” of) had, somewhere down the list, a substack article by Razib Khan about E. O. Wilson.  But what really caught my eye was the title of Khan’s substack blog:  “Unsupervised Learning”.

“Unsupervised Learning” is the machine learning field’s phrase for data-driven science—Algorithmic Information being the gold standard thereof—and Khan’s article on Wilson’s second sentence started thus:

Many younger biologists who focus on mastering new statistical and computational methods…

It doesn’t surprise me that Khan has no clue about Algorithmic Information, except, perhaps, to dismiss it with one or more of the several obvious fallacies that are used that I’ve encountered over the last 15 years.  I’ve not the time nor patience to read what any of the gnxp folks have to say about anything after they characterized the autism ecological correlation with immigrant presence from India as resulting from (their words) “data mining” otherwise known as “data dredging”.  It should have been obvious to the most casual observer that, given the decades my reputation has been attacked as “racist” and, in particular, my essay “The GOD Hypothesis”, combined with my familiarity with autism etiology conjectures involving “leaky intestine syndrome”, that I would have expected to see the top correlation to turn out about as it did (Indians*Finns predicts Autism).  My conclusion from that result was merely that county-level correlations should be pursued and, perhaps, in the interim, Finns intending to have children should avoid Indian restaurants.  These are measured and reasonable conclusions. 

Regarding Godless Capitalist’s accusation that I did not understand the nature of “robustness” in correlational scatters, I can only say that I took pains to normalize the data to the greatest extent I could based on the best principles available and had repeatedly asked statisticians how one goes about discounting p values in a principled manner based on the departure of the variables from normality—rather than simply throwing them out as ‘invalid’.  There is never, under any circumstances, a situation in which a statistical distribution is exactly normal.  This failure of statistics to have reasonable answers to such obvious questions is part of what motivated me to come up with compression as a principled alternative for model selection.

Having said all that, Khan has some chutzpah to call his blog “Unsupervised Learning” when he’s not backing me up on Algorithmic Information as model selection criterion so he and I can get to the bottom of human ecology pathologies in an unbiased manner. 

May the best win may be my motto but clearly it has nothing to do with the occupation of STEM positions in the West.

 


35

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 17:50 | #

Daniel: Incommensurability ... designates/marks ... the suggestion of qualitative niche evolutionary differences, thus cautions against facile comparisons - doesn’t say you can’t make comparisons, but that those comparisons are likely to parse out variables which don’t do justice to the totality of the difference in some cases. So, it is a practical heuristic, not rigid and fixed ...

So, Daniel, kindly provide us with, say, three working examples of this novel and, of course, not at all facile but just and totally practical if, sadly, only heuristic yet not rigid or fixed “incommensurability suggestion”.


36

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 19:15 | #

Regarding the occupation of STEM positions in the West—this time from the hardware up toward Algorithmic Information:

Because Musk actually wanted to get something done with his money, once he had exploited the private capture of positive network externalities (Paypal), unlike Bezos with his toy company “Blue Origin” Musk took serious risks that, were the income tax to be replaced with a tax on liquid value of net assets, would place him far and away beyond the market cap of the network effect monopolists of Silicon Valley.  Since companies that aren’t monopolistic are far less attractive to the culture of India, Musk enjoyed a relative natural immunity to the de facto cyberwarfare of India against the US suffered by virtually the entirety of the information industry.  But, like the Mormons with their relative natural immunity to having the fertile years of their best young women thrown into the urban gene shredders—it was a terminal euphoria, as Tesla’s custom silicon design for machine learning was captured by India with the predictable result:  Ignorance of the fundamentals of machine learning leading to the “drunk under the lamp post” architecture of the D1 chip—that is going into massive production and deployment in Tesla’s cars.  The triumphalism out of India is predictable.

So, what’s this about “fundamentals of machine learning”?  Am I talking about Algorithmic Information here?  Not directly*—no—what I’m talking about is the fact that something called sparsity is fundamental to the topology of the neocortex and has been all-but-ignored by The Big Boys floating in oceans of economic rent from their network effect monopolies due, precisely, to the takeover of Silicon Valley by India in its cyberwar against America to capture those monopolies and occupy the pinnacle of technology development.  There’s no way NOW that a replacement of the 16th with a NAT will be permitted in the US. 

Those of us who cut our teeth on supercomputers architected by Seymour Cray don’t have a problem understanding the way one should be utilizing silicon real estate to support sparsity.  One colleague of mine from the old Cray days, worked at nVIDIA on its GPUs and when I showed him my Crayesque chip idea that would be great for sparsity in machine learning, he was impressed, but he had been discarded by the Affirmative Action Brahmans—so he couldn’t put me in contact with the mixed-signal IC experts (_very_ specialized field)—I needed to see if the idea was workable.  Musk is just the kind of guy who would have been able to take a look at something like that idea and at least provide the mixed signal specialist to debunk it for very little money at risk.  But my prior experience with colleagues as high as the Microsoft chief architect indicates that once surrounded by Indians, its game over for any real innovation.

* Firstly, AIT as model selection criterion says nothing about how scientific induction is done—it is merely a measure of the quality of that induction whether the algorithm induced is done by machine learning, human learning or a combination of the two.  As a “fundamental of machine learning” it is quite simply how to assign grades.  Secondly, as the word “sparsity” would imply, the connections are not very dense which means there are fewer of them to deal with in a given neuron for a given potential of connectivity (distance) to other neurons.  This lower density means the whole thing can be much more easily compressed without loss—something sometimes called “knowledge distillation” in machine learning—often used to reduce the size of neural networks to fit into phones.  Also, in the case of Tesla, there is a prominent place for more conventional, dense, connectivity supported inadvertently by GPUs which has led to sparsity being all-but-ignored by the mindless drunks under the lamp post.  That place is at the very lowest levels of processing pixel arrays from the cameras.  But you quickly want to abstract the 2d streams (multiple streams) into a 3d world representation, and that very quickly gets you into higher abstractions which gets you into sparsity.  When you get into judgement about what, then, to do about various features, it is even more abstract hence more sparse—which is where the neocortex’s sparsity originates.



38

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 05:19 | #

Interesting post from JB. 

When did the genius IQ products of Mid - Western boys like Control Data’s Norris and Cray hit capitalist reality ?

Perhaps, when they imagined that their STEM stratospherically intellectual applications might be appreciated by Wall Street.

A sensible country would have sidelined laissez faire capitalism’s Chicago School Friedmanite rules and financed these boys from MN and WI.

Of course , the Jews would doubtless have discerned a similarity between such a policy and the neo - Mercantilism employed by Herr Hitler .  Such economic policies allowed Germany to rise quickly, to the benefit of the citizenry and the terror of their and our enemies.


39

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 05:51 | #

Found my late drinking partner :

https://www.salisburyreview.com/author/scott-gronmark/


40

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 06:04 | #

The Scott Gronmark ( http://scottgronmark.blogspot.com/  )  reference is to a post which has gone awry :

Scott Gronmark’s Popper story :

Karl Popper on a London bus overheard two women , one of whom has suffered a bereavement :

” Don’t be so terribly sad , it comes to us all”

“I just can’t help it , I keep thinking about stuff”

” Oh , don’t do that , you must be philosophical about these things, just don’t think about them.

Scott , a Cantabrigian , would be whirling like a dervish in his grave if he saw today’s ” Conservatives.”


41

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 06:04 | #

Guessedworker 35

I will cut to the quick and go to positive sense first to state that establishing criteria of human and pervasive ecology could be commensurable and a worthwhile project, in that human ecologies could be established and recognized as corrective systems in relation to habitat, other human ecologies and overall environs. However, I have long ago (years ago) proposed that as one of the most, if not the most, basic platforms (you said it was weak) because it is universalizable, always relevant and yet not perfectly foundational (what is ecological in this situation?), which has advantages that I have cited, one of which is not compelling one to get caught up in search of a perfect solution at all times (the pragmatists major contribution - fallibility does not mean that skepticism is necessary)

As far as examples where the heuristic tag “incommensurable” would serve the general population (especially) in order to avoid false, quantitative comparisons where important qualitative niche differences are bundled: the differences between the sexes/genders would be a salient example; and again, another wold be the differences between African and European peoples - the reason to put the warning tag is so that skills which may be inborn of the African (long pre evolution to Europeans probably should be respected) and may in fact be dominant in atavistic circumstance of modernity’s disorder, its roughshod over socialization that would otherwise respect the sublimation of Europeans (and Asians), are not necessarily overcome, say, by I.Q. alone; and therefore, the protection of the human ecology requires paradigmatic distinction out of respect for the overall incommensurabilty in service of maintaining the human ecologies (which are being destroyed by habits of modernity, especially as they are weaponized by YKW); though again, criteria of human and pervasive ecology being something that is worthy of rigorous investigation; which never was mutually exclusive to anything that I’ve said.


42

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 06:13 | #

... and as I have said, the respect that this (tag of incommensurabilty as opposed to Modernist over application of universalizability*) allows, would probably go a long way to avoiding conflict and reciprocally escalating diatribe. It provides a practical and respectful way out of these tangles.

* One of the more egregious (((red capes))) is (((Steve Sailer’s))) taking the concept of human biodiversity and misrepresenting it as a matter of I.Q., thereby taking a good concept to sensitize attention to qualitative, horizontal niche evolutionary differences and putting them on a lateral, horizontal scale, obviously for the sake of the Ashkenazi, to bolster justification for their disproportionate, if not hegemony in 7- 10 positions of niche power and influence.


43

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 06:25 | #

Adding (this important idea that the Z-man tried to steal from me).

(socialization requires the somewhat “unnatural” - to GW’s chagrin - establishment of group boundaries/borders, which otherwise becomes diffused and more prone to a base, animal common denominator)


and again, another would be the differences between African and European peoples - the reason to put the warning tag is so that skills which may be inborn of the African (long pre evolution to Europeans probably should be respected) and may in fact be dominant in atavistic circumstance of modernity’s disorder, its roughshod over socialization (socialization requires the somewhat “unnatural” - to GW’s chagrin - establishment of group boundaries/borders, which otherwise becomes diffused and more prone to a base, animal common denominator) that would otherwise respect the sublimation of Europeans (and Asians), are not necessarily overcome, say, by I.Q. alone


44

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 07:12 | #

And since you asked for three examples where the heuristic of incommensurability would serve, let me add that between Europeans and North East Asians. Their comparatively high median i.q. having them pour out of the doors of M.I.T. in legion, while the more creative Europeans are left out, with their greater degrees of autism, and more moderate sublimation, which is apparently part of our creativity and its reward.


45

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 07:22 | #

Let me put these all together in one comment here:


Guessedworker 35

I will cut to the quick and go to positive sense first to state that establishing criteria of human and pervasive ecology could be commensurable and a worthwhile project, in that human ecologies could be established and recognized as corrective systems in relation to habitat, other human ecologies and overall environs. However, I have long ago (years ago) proposed that as one of the most, if not the most, basic platforms (you said it was weak - dismissive, as you would be in response to all good ideas; treating them as a threat to your unmerited, gargantuan ego) because it is universalizable, always relevant and yet not perfectly foundational (what is ecological in this situation?), which has advantages that I have cited, one of which is not compelling one to get caught up in search of a perfect solution at all times (the pragmatists major contribution - fallibility does not mean that skepticism is necessary)

As far as examples where the heuristic tag “incommensurable” would serve the general population (especially) in order to avoid false, quantitative comparisons where important qualitative niche differences are bundled: the differences between the sexes/genders would be a salient example; and again, another wold be the differences between African and European peoples - the reason to put the warning tag is so that skills which may be inborn of the African (long pre evolution to Europeans probably should be respected) and may in fact be dominant in atavistic circumstance of modernity’s disorder, its roughshod over socialization [adding this important idea that the Z-man tried to steal from me; that socialization requires the somewhat “unnatural” (to GW’s chagrin, because it requires philosophical judgment as opposed the Cartesian anxiety of his reaction, which has him push aside even important ideas, white knuckle clinging to foundational quest) establishment of group boundaries/borders, which otherwise becomes diffused and more prone to a base, animal common denominator] that would otherwise respect the sublimation of Europeans (and Asians), are not necessarily overcome, say, by I.Q. alone; and therefore, the protection of the human ecology requires paradigmatic distinction out of respect for the overall incommensurabilty in service of maintaining the human ecologies (which are being destroyed by habits of modernity, especially as they are weaponized by YKW); though again, criteria of human and pervasive ecology being something that is worthy of rigorous investigation; which never was mutually exclusive to anything that I’ve said.


42
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 06:13 | #

... and as I have said, the respect that this (tag of incommensurabilty as opposed to Modernist over application of universalizability*) allows, would probably go a long way to avoiding conflict and reciprocally escalating diatribe. It provides a practical and respectful way out of these tangles.

* One of the more egregious (((red capes))) is (((Steve Sailer’s))) taking the concept of human biodiversity and misrepresenting it as a matter of I.Q., thereby taking a good concept to sensitize attention to qualitative, horizontal niche evolutionary differences and putting them on a lateral, horizontal scale, obviously for the sake of the Ashkenazi, to bolster justification for their disproportionate, if not hegemony in 7- 10 positions of niche power and influence.


44
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 07:12 | #

And since you asked for three examples where the heuristic of incommensurability would serve, let me add that between Europeans and North East Asians. Their comparatively high median i.q. having them pour out of the doors of M.I.T. in legion, while the more creative Europeans are left out, with their greater degrees of autism, and more moderate sublimation, which is apparently part of our creativity and its reward.


46

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 08:40 | #

Adding:

  ... in atavistic circumstance of modernity’s disorder [for the modernist/enlightenment’s oblivion to non-empirical boundaries, running rough shod over boundaries and borders, and the (((weaponization))) of that purity spiral - “civil rights and anti racism”]


47

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 09:52 | #

Daniel, Brother Occam should tell you immediately that nothing you have said is “bundled” and requires technical terminologies to be unbundled.  You just picked Sailer’s alleged focus on IQ as an example of bundling all difference into one aspect.  Well, you unbundled it right there, in one sentence.  You didn’t need your very own definition of “incommensurability” to do it.  It already has a definition everyone but you understands and uses.  As I wrote earlier, “it does not refer to the vulgar difference between entities (or paradigms) per se.” It defines and limits the operating area of units of measurement, so poor thinkers may not run them together.  That is all one can positively say about it.

You have a killing tendency to construct Frankenstein ideologies, made up of odd bits of philosophy, sociology and science which you haven’t bothered to think through (probably because you can’t), and which don’t fit together except in your own crude imagination.  You took Dasein and midt-Dasein from Heidegger without caring what they really tell us, and you applied them in in the most crude and arbitrary way, rejecting warnings from me with the usual graceless form.  It has never occurred to you that these things may be “incommensurable” by your own incompetent use of that term.  No, everything gets abused and jumbled up together as a matter of convenience.

It is embarrassing, which is why I quietly attempted over a period of years, no less, to pull you towards rigour.  Naturally, you never saw this, and confused my motivation with supposed personality flaws.  It never occurred to you to question why I always stood back as soon as the dog was on the loose, and you had begun dumping multiple angry, expletive-laden replies on the thread.  You actually thought you were “winning”!

I can’t save you from yourself, Daniel.  You are too angry and far too proud.  You are, though, welcome in my house if you will control your need to jump on everything with your Frankenstein creature.  You are good at critiquing the politics and personalities of WN, and that’s always worth a read.


48

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 13:13 | #

You , DanielS, are the uncontested master of the futile argument .


49

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:08 | #

Al Ross, the only futility is trying to reason with the narcisistic personality disorder case which is Guessedworker. He will never try to get the gist of what I am saying but will always be looking for anything that he can twist, because his aim is to “win”, and deem himself near the only worthwhile source of information; not to arrive at the truth of worthwhile positions. I will address this latest in what has been years of shit from this asshole in a minute. But to begin where he does…

He is not trying to understand what you (I) say, just looking for things that he can latch onto and misrepresent. Where I might have chosen a better word than “bundle”, for example, as short hand for the qualitative difference of a female from a male, there he is, fashioning a strawman, that only a fool like yourself would wish to follow in his misdirection.


50

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:13 | #

You just picked Sailer’s alleged focus on IQ as an example of bundling all difference into one aspect.

Did I “just” do that?

I didn’t just that at all.

As a matter of fact, wasn’t thinking of it as a matter of “bundling” but rather a red cape, misrepresentation of the idea of human biodiversity, to change it from a matter of qualitative niche differences into a quantitative matter of i.q. hierarchy in order to serve the Ashkenazi.

It’s true and a good observation on my part, and like any good idea you will attack it. Because you are an asshole.


51

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:18 | #

Well, you unbundled it right there, in one sentence.  You didn’t need your very own definition of “incommensurability” to do it.

Again, idiot, this was not an example of “bundling”. If I were to apply how a singular criteria is being misapplied to a “bundle” of difference, I would have been emphasizing how there can be many important differences in a paradigm, besides i.q., which would recommend that the tag “incommensurable” be applied in order to avoid misleading comparisons.


52

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:26 | #

I bolded the word “didn’t need” from your last turd, as that goes to your motive; you are desperate to make everyone unnecessary but yourself. You are that sick.

Now then for your next shit:

It already has a definition everyone but you understands and uses.

You don’t know everybody (in fact, you obviously don’t know anybody with the capacity to evaluate properly my usage of the term - far from unique, but in fact, the way he term is used by those concerned with relations between people.

As I wrote earlier, “it does not refer to the vulgar difference between entities (or paradigms) per se.” It defines and limits the operating area of units of measurement, so poor thinkers may not run them together.

That is how harder scientists might use the term, moron, but not how it is used by others with better philosophical bearing than you can manage.

That is all one can positively say about it.

That is all you can say about it in order to protect your ignorance and unmerited, gargantuan ego.


53

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:31 | #

You have a killing tendency to construct Frankenstein ideologies

There is nothing “Fankenstein” about my platform, it consistently demonstrates how post modern thought (including Heidegger) is supposed to be applied in the service of ethnonatioanlism (whereas you will try to say that I am serving Jewish sociology professors)

made up of odd bits of philosophy, sociology and science which you haven’t bothered to think through (probably because you can’t), and which don’t fit together except in your own crude imagination.

And there are no “odd bits” that I put together. I take what is essential, centrally relevant and coherent from these disciplines in the application of ethnonational interests.


54

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:36 | #

You took Dasein and midt-Dasein from Heidegger without caring what they really tell us, and you applied them in in the most crude and arbitrary way, rejecting warnings from me with the usual graceless form.

Nothing arbitrary about the way that I apply Dasein and midt-Dasein.

And I reject your “warnings” with the contempt deserved, as your will is bad, that of a man sick with narcissistic personality disorder.


55

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:39 | #

It has never occurred to you that these things may be “incommensurable” by your own incompetent use of that term.  No, everything gets abused and jumbled up together as a matter of convenience.

Things may get confused and jumbled by your philosophical incompetence, which stems from the hyper competitiveness of your mental disease, and your unwillingness’ to deal honestly with what I say, instead of your convenient strawmen.


56

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:45 | #

It is embarrassing, which is why I quietly attempted over a period of years, no less, to pull you towards rigour. 

You are the embarrassment, GW. And it is an expression of your illness that you pretend to be helping me, as opposed to what you have done, which is try to force me into the role of foil for your puerile, reactionary autobiography - “singular champion of the truth for the common man against the pretense and academic deception of Jewish sociology and other humanities”  .. so desperate you are to maintain your autobiography, that you cannot be honest, but must endlessly render strawmen and false either/or and mutual exclusivity where they are not necessary (in fact, distract, at best, from crucial ideas).

You are the embarrassment GW.


57

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:47 | #

Naturally, you never saw this, and confused my motivation with supposed personality flaws.

I don’t confuse your motivation with personality flaws (a form of narcissistic personality disorder), you have made it abundantly clear for years now.


58

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:51 | #

It never occurred to you to question why I always stood back as soon as the dog was on the loose.

lol. Remember how you wanted me to be your “water carrier.” ?

and you had begun dumping multiple angry, expletive-laden replies on the thread.  You actually thought you were “winning”!

Asshole, there has not been a single argument that you have won. I suppose I wish that you were more intelligent since at least it would have been more instructive argument; but then if you were more intelligent, you would not be so contentious, trying to deconstruct everything I say (while never succeeding).


59

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:58 | #

I can’t save you from yourself, Daniel.  You are too angry and far too proud.

lol. Like you are trying to help me. As if you are not the one misguided by a resentment of academia and an unmerited gargantuan ego in your autobiography as its dragon slayer, more stuck in your personality disorder and irrational than anyone can reasonably expect.

You are, though, welcome in my house if you will control your need to jump on everything with your Frankenstein creature.  You are good at critiquing the politics and personalities of WN, and that’s always worth a read.

The “Fankenstein creature” you see is a stawman in place of what you don’t want to see: someone else, besides GW, has good, coherent and important things to say.


60

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 17:11 | #

Al Ross on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 21:19 | #

Interesting post from JB.

When did the genius IQ products of Mid - Western boys like Control Data’s Norris and Cray hit capitalist reality ?

See Norris’s January 1978 paper “Back to the Countryside Via Technology.  1978 was the year I went to work at Control Data Corporation as a PLATO system programmer. 
Back To The Countryside Via Technology

If anything “radicalized” me it was seeing the way Wall Street nuked my small part in Bill Norris’s effort enable family formation among The Nation of Settlers, as the bulk of the Boomers were entering their early 20s —as I was at the time.  Norris’s vision is in the linked archive.  My small part was to bring about mass market computer networking in the late 1970s-early 1980s, to support home schooling and artisanal homestead farming.  Once Wall Street had nuked Norris—and it did get quite personal to the point that the middle management women in men’s bodies were so identified with the Wall Street business press that Norris took to taking the back stairs up to his office in the corporate tower—I had to abandon the mass market version of PLATO my team had demonstrated and take a position with the largest newspaper chain in the US in a joint venture with AT&T to try to bypass Bill Gates et al and go straight to the Internet Age circa 1983, which, again, ran into the Big Business Model of Social Control.  Those two decisions of mine to trust Big Business cost me a little 1978 project at the U of IL PLATO lab where my team was developing an emulator of the 8086 to run on the supercomputer so we could develop a mass market OS for the 8086, so Gates ended up with that monopoly.

Urban elites liked urbanization of The Nation of Settlers because it directed the tsunami of young women into a kind of de facto prostitution with the urban elites acting as pimps.  Enabling them to form families in rural homesteads would have been bad for their business model—a business model that blew a hole in the population the size of the Grand Canyon which was then used to justify mass immigration.


61

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 23:34 | #

Buy one, get ten free.


62

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 03:26 | #

Thank you , JB

I remember reading about IBM’s sidelining of Gates in the early PC days .  The top guys at IBM HQ in Armonk didn’t deign to meet the Harvard dropout geek , preferring instead to direct Gates to Boca Raton where the incipient PC division was based.

The IBM Florida PC division head said there was no interest in software development , just in pushing hardware.

Still , corporate memory among IBMers was raw and recent , given that the company had recently signed a consent decree, after the then longest anti trust suit in history,  agreeing not to abuse market power.


63

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 03:48 | #

JB ,  so the nub of your reply is , this is not about technology it’s about pussy ?

Oh Come Come !


64

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 04:05 | #

DanielS , as reluctant as I am to abandon my distaste of cliche , you are the living example of Einstein’s famous admonition about the definition of insanity.

Re your jihad against GW , well every underdog elicits some measure of racial sympathy from White people, so I’d wish wish you good luck but you wouldn’t know what to do with it if you got it.


65

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 04:59 | #

Al see my comment that I just put up in response to JB; I don’t need your “good luck wishes” thanks.


66

Posted by Bobby on Thu, 17 Feb 2022 14:42 | #

Forgive the intrusion of a midwit into your presence, but I’ve just discovered this website, and if I as a layman wanted an introduction to the topics discussed here, in this thread, and elsewhere, where would I start? Thank you.


67

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:01 | #

What is your interest, Bobby?  What have you been reading?  Are you looking for news and nationalist commentary or theory, perhaps?


68

Posted by Bobby on Fri, 18 Feb 2022 07:06 | #

Particularly this thread caught my attention, I wouldn’t know the right words to describe the topics, but I’m guessing epistemology, scientific models, scientific method, errors in science, data analysis, scientific development of social sciences, the history of these topics, etc.


69

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:52 | #

I can’t speak for GW’s “ontology project” nor his further “structure project”, but regarding the topic of this post, which involves my own understanding w/re your list of interests, one can’t approach sociology without regard to the scientific ethics of human experimentation*.  There are a number of “authorities” out there who decry “Occam’s Razor”—such as Harvard’s Jonathan Haidt, who are viciously attacking the foundation of the only unbiased manner of interpreting data (AIT is the formalization of Occam’s Razor), thereby relegating everything to “cultural relativism”.  This is bad enough, but they could have at least recognized that it is unethical for them, as scientists, to, therefore, permit their theories to be applied in government experiments on populations without the informed consent of those humans where the standard of “informed consent” must be brought into line with other government interventions such as FDA approvals contingent on evidence of safety and efficacy.  The recent COVID-19 debacle is, of course, removing even the FDA safeguard for human experimental subjects in favor of ever greater government power, which is causing quite a stir.  This is supposedly justified by “the science” both the macrosocial level and medication level:  “We have to (do stuff to) you in order to keep society from falling apart—and we know that this stuff (such as vaccine not only approval but mandate) is, in the big picture, safe and effective despite far less testing than has historically been applied because our macrosocial models tell us the risk is worth it.”

On top of that, you have some guys like Scott Adams running around with a substantial following among Trump supporters telling them that Occam’s Razor is garbage because individuals engage in motivated reasoning whereby they discard data that doesn’t fit their worldview—again without copping to the fact that his listeners are being subjected to massive experiments on them without their informed consent and without suggesting that, perhaps, there are ethical issues that need to therefore be addressed with the same urgency with which we might address military preparedness lest the whole situation blow up into a quasi-religious war (see my references to the Treaty of Westphalia’s failure to dynamically allocate “living space” between nation states as the primary cause of the loss of nationalism’s legitimacy and the solution I’ve offered under sortocracy.org).  Adams will advocate “the high-ground maneuver” as persuasion tactic whereby one, essentially, advocates fair contests between differing viewpoints, but limits those social experiments to only the ones that billionaires are willing to finance within their own little walled communities.  The arrogance arises from his wealth, no doubt.

The Artificial General Intelligence theory with which I am most closely aligned (AIXI) can be thought of as a formalization not only of science but decision, but with a key missing parameter:  unifying value system.

I see top down TOE’s as promising to fill in that missing parameter via what the Greeks called “final causation” or “telos”.  This doesn’t mean we’ll be able to construct friendly AGIs but you can be certain that without a handle on the value system, the best you will be able to get out of the work on “AI” is a powerful fair contest between theories based on the data available:  The smallest executable archive of the data available embodies the best data-driven scientific model.  But our “scientific authorities” don’t want to be bothered and some, like Haidt, are viciously attacking that potential in the tradition of Popper and Kuhn.

Now, having said all that to put things in perspective regarding the social sciences, there is quite a history to Occam’s Razor going back at least to the Greek philosophers and up to the present work in which I’m involved reflected in the toesettast.one project.  The big remaining problem I see (which I’m attempting to address at that project) is bringing the best of Eastern philosophy together with the West in a “top down” theory of everything.  By “top down” I mean there is a unity from which “the hard problem of mind/body” emerges that has not yet been properly addressed by either Western nor Easter philosophies.  I’m not as convinced as is GW that this is a futile exercise.

*Lest I be accused of grossly understating the case, “genocide” is not too strong a word for the experiments being conducted on human populations—especially in the developed countries and the West in particular.


70

Posted by Bobby on Sat, 19 Feb 2022 21:18 | #

I really don’t have the IQ to be getting involved in these discussions.


71

Posted by Thorn on Sun, 20 Feb 2022 00:52 | #

@70

It’s not about IQ, Bobby.  It’s about familiarizing yourself with the jargon these chaps converse in.


72

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 02:51 | #

As usual , GW asks the salient question , viz., ” What have you been reading ? “

Later you may have to display your understanding of that reading . 

But ” It’s not about IQ Bobby , have you got tickets for the Justin Bieber Vegas concert, Bobby ? “


73

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 27 Feb 2023 22:14 | #

I note with some bemusement that no one has mentioned ChatGPT here at MR.

When ya’ll catch up with the importance of the development of this obscenity, I invite you back to this comment:

How much power have conservative organizations lost due merely to the threat that a weaponized government agency like the IRS will engage in lawUNfare against them as they clearly did under Obama? If you tax-deduct any such donation, you could end up in prison and don’t tell me you’ll be able to pay.

The worst are full of passionate intensity…

The Hutter Prize may be one of the few areas where the “conservative” agenda can be advanced under a non-profit. Obama demonstrated in the US, the IRS’s weaponization against “conservative” non-profits.  The neoliberal swarm can hardly claim Wikipedia, as the choice of corpus, is “biased” toward a “conservative” viewpoint.  Moreover, the neoliberal swarm would have to not only become aware of the fact that lossless compression is the gold-standard for truth discovery, but become self-aware that they are hostile to truth.

Truth becomes political when politics denies truth.

When I speak to “conservatives” regarding “truth discovery”, I am appealing to their self-perception of being more open to objectivity—to facts and principled standards of interpretation. In the present instance I’m challenging them to either deny the most principled definition of Ockham’s Razor known as their model selection criteria, or to consider backing the Hutter Prize as a way of fighting language model bias. They are clearly up in arms about language model bias in the wake of ChatGPT, so they are _very_ motivated.

I would be most grateful to post-modernists here at MR if you could see your way to posing a similar challenge to neoliberals (substitute whatever term that doesn’t trigger you and feel free to correct me without going on a blitzkrieg that derails the topic). But I’m afraid that is a far more difficult task, otherwise I would have taken it up myself. Why? “Neoliberals” (as opposed to paleo or classical liberals) are far more tolerant, if not active proponents of what is called “The Social Construction of Reality”—title of what the International Sociological Association called the fifth most-important book of 20th-century sociology.

It is instructive that the only place where I’ve see the is/ought distinction in “algorithmic bias” addressed in the literature is “feminist epistemology” and then only so as to indict that distinction as patriarchal.

There are other places that commit less egregious errors, but still don’t address the issue head-on, such as “Taking Principles Seriously: A Hybrid Approach to Value Alignment in Artificial Intelligence”. In that paper they palaver endlessly about the is/ought distinction and the dangers of “the naturalistic fallacy” (deriving “ought” from “is”) but then they utterly ignore the notion of what constitutes “is” bias – which is to say, they don’t talk about objective notions of bias that arise in science involving sample bias or measurement instrument bias – and how these are objectively not only detected but measured and discounted from the data. Then, of course, we can get into the reverse of the naturalistic fallacy: Deriving “is” from “ought” – which is actually the most dangerous form of boundary violation between “is” and “ought”. We have experienced relentless solutions to “inequity” by punishing white heterosexual men for decades on end. Why? It is obvious that it “ought” to be the case that “protected groups” have socioeconomic equality with white heterosexual men! Axiomatic, one might say. Therefore it “is” the case that they have the same potential for achievement in all areas of society to white heterosexual men. This kind of “thinking” being supported by a civilization’s institutions is the real existential risk of “bias”.

For 17 years I’ve been telling people increased funding for the Hutter Prize is the way to fix bias in AI. Now POTUS exec-orders this.
“root out bias in the design and use of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence”.


Time’s running out.

I strongly suggest contacting Marcus at his email address to discuss how you can support the Hutter Prize.

For my own part, I’m taking $100/month out of my income stream, that has been annihilated by my political pariah status and 20 years of caring for a HD-degenerating wife, to increase the Hutter Prize steadily.
This is the vault where I’m putting $100/month of BTC to increase the next Hutter Prize payout.

bitcoin:BC1QGWJ2GYVA5GZ2J7E6095CJJDA9QQJ2SJQYKDY73

—————Forwarded message————-
From: James Bowery .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Date: Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 6:40 PM
Subject: Sending Donations For the Next Prize Award?
To: Marcus Hutter .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Cc: Matt Mahoney .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Marcus,
Given all the hype about large language models, and the growing suspicion about “bias”, I suspect now would be a pretty good time to start accepting monthly donations to gradually increase the size of the next HP payout. There may be quite a number of folks who get that the HP fills an important gap. Paypal has facilities for this kind of thing, as well as Patreon, etc.

A funding thermometer on the HP page showing the current level of prize payout may help to induce not only contestants but donors as well.
For my own part, I’d be willing to send $100/month toward this end without any requirement that I be credited. I just want to see more attention paid to the value of algorithmic information approximation in drawing a distinction between the “is” and the “ought” notions of “bias” as well as debunking the specious notion that “bigger is better” in ML .
– Jim


74

Posted by Timothy Murray on Tue, 28 Feb 2023 19:13 | #

This is a fascinating post.

Why the reliance on “conservatives” ?

To use a coding/thinking paradigm…if you keep getting the same result (failure)  given various inputs and tweaks , then “the problem” probably needs redefinition.

I am sure, given your post, that you know that most of problem solving is correctly defining the problem. that is, that defining the problem is to , largely, solve the problem, or create a situation where the problem solves itself. (think epicycles for the classic example)

So many smart people are looking for that perfect ellipse to finally square the circle of “conservative” failure.

The correct approach is to think anew and disregard the “conservatives” or better, actively work to destroy them.

p.s. I am nowhere near your level of thinking or intelligence, but I do see many patterns quite well.

cordially.


75

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 01 Mar 2023 17:07 | #

The correct approach is to think anew and disregard the “conservatives” or better, actively work to destroy them.

Hence I said:

When I speak to “conservatives” regarding “truth discovery”, I am appealing to their self-perception of being more open to objectivity—to facts and principled standards of interpretation.

The truth will set “conservatives” free from their self-delusions.  This will destroy them as “conservatives” in the sense you mean.


76

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 00:29 | #

Love this post by the late great Lawrence Auster. It encompasses the mindset of both white liberals and white conservatives.

Why do I focus so relentlessly on these endlessly repeated stories of the massive cover-up, followed by the massive exposure, of black criminality and black failure—which is, we should point out, failure by white standards? Beyond its immediate interest and obvious importance, the truthful communication about black dysfunction and violence also serves the larger purpose of this website, which is nothing less than to save the American nation.

In my view, the greatest single factor driving whites to national suicide is their false guilt over black inferiority. Because whites believe—as modern liberalism has taught them to believe—that all groups have equal inherent abilities, they also believe that the actual inferiority of blacks in almost every area of accomplishment and behavior must be caused by something bad that the whites are invidiously doing to blacks, or by something good that whites are selfishly refusing to do for blacks. However expressed, it all comes down to the idea that black failure is caused by white racism—the transcendent sin of the modern world. And because black inferiority continues, and is even getting worse, the conclusion is that white racism is continuing, and is even getting worse.

The final result of this woefully mistaken thought process is the paralyzing racial guilt which makes whites feel that they have no right to defend and preserve their civilization, no right to defend and preserve themselves, but that they must instead self-sacrificially open themselves to and empower, not only blacks, but all nonwhites. This self-sacrifice takes numerous forms, including denial of the truth of black anti-white violence, denial of the tyrannical and murderous reality of Islam, and unquestioning acceptance of the mass Third-World immigration that is steadily turning America into a non-European country in which whites and their civilization will be steadily weakened, dispossessed, and destroyed. Therefore, as I began saying in the mid 1990s, if whites could see the truth that blacks’ lesser intelligence and other lesser civilizational abilities are not whites’ fault but are inherent in blacks themselves, it could literally save the country, by freeing whites from their suicidal guilt.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/019843.html

 


77

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 03 Mar 2023 03:27 | #

Karl Popper was upstairs on a London bus and overheard two women conversing.  One was condoling with her friend on a recent sad event and , KP was hugely amused to overhear :

” Now , now, you must not be so upset , these things are so sad that you must be philosophical -  just don’t think about them “.

Thanks to my wife who retailed this one from Cambridge.


78

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 03 Mar 2023 04:31 | #

Timothy , may I ask what practical assistance Christianity offers to White people in the USA in the matter of racial survival ?

I note that Churches seem heavily directed towards assisting the non - Americans .

Is your triple - headed,  Middle Eastern deity amenable to such developments as ‘race replacement’  ( copyright : Fred Scrooby) ?



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Histories and historiographies, and some futurism too
Previous entry: The Delegate Network

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:42. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:41. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:21. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:50. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:13. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 06:26. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 06:09. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:41. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:24. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 02:16. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Mon, 18 Mar 2024 23:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:31. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:58. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'A Russian Passion' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:27. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 08:34. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 08:11. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 07:20. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:29. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:15. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:03. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:15. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:31. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:46. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:27. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 07:14. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 05:38. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:54. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:51. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:47. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:44. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'What lies at the core' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:28. (View)

affection-tone