So we respectfully part company for now over the "kinetic." I certainly am not forecasting a Civil war-ish scenario of neatly divided camps, the parties of which are clearly recognizable to each other and to themselves. But an escalation of violence -- more looting, rioting, destruction of public and private property, and gratuitous but often lethal attacks on senior citizens -- unfortunately, yes. Some local, likely small scale "Purge"-like pushback at some point. Also yes. What will drop first? Inflation, or Blue City homicide rates? The police forces in Seattle and Portland are understandably gutted. We'll see. I'm happy to hear about your confidence, but I am not seeing the trend lines for it yet. All best!
I didn't mean to imply that there wouldn't be violence. There is violence already, and with volatility such violence will probably increase in some areas as a result. I would just call this violence crime related as opposed to anything resembling a war with particular factions. I will do my best to ensure I'm not living anywhere a Soros DA presides...
I do not think "crime-related", while true, is an informative description. "Anarcho-tyranical" is a better one. Anti-Americans (I am using your terminology) employ lower classes to fight Americans. That's an old-age tactic, similar to kings using commoners against the aristocracy.
That is a good point. There is definitely a political component to the violence with such "crime" happening in higher concentrations secondary to incentives placed by anti-Americans to achieve political ends. I guess you could call it terrorism too. Like you said, crime-related is true, the question is whether it is informative. For me I still think it is, because it makes it easier to focus on the solution. Crime is a broad category of activity that will always exist. As a libertarian, I tend to view "victimless crime" as not really crime, so when I say crime, I mean private violations of the NAP. For this reason, it is a really useful term for me because of how broad it is, and because it helps recognize that the problem of crime isn't one that can ever be totally solved, just an ever present threat that can be mitigated with trade-offs. I've become more confident in this method of defining broad terms in order to understand fundamental dynamics from reading McConkey. For example, I like his conception of power as a broad term encompassing both violence and coercion as well as mere influence. Looking at it from different perspectives is probably most informative. That said, what practical measures do you see as effective at counteracting anarcho-tyranny vs. my conception of crime (private violation of NAP i.e. fraud, theft, violence, coercion etc.)?
>what practical measures do you see as effective at counteracting anarcho-tyranny
The evil is in the selective application of the law. The law enforcement (broadly speaking - including all law abiding people) is not allowed to enforce the law against certain kinds of crime and criminals, while using the full brunt of it against Americans.
There are at least 2 ways to fight it:
(1) in the court of public opinion (Robert Barnes sends regards) by exposing the hypocrisy and the double standard. Memes could be a very useful tool in this respect: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-revenge-of-the-shape-rotators. This is temporary, though, until we achieve (2)
You speak to my heart as a Barnes fanboy. I can see how a particular focus on inconsistent application of law would be more effective than targeting crime in general for this particular brand. I suppose that is the easy part in #2 is what we are all struggling to figure out!
I'm also not sanguine about avoiding violence. On the other hand, as Grant points out, the ability of the managerial state to orchestrate a large-scale campaign is dependent on their ability to maintain their financial influence, which is being undermined by their own fiscal irresponsibility and the accumulating impact of the contradictions of a debt-based monetary system. Their foot soldiers are additionally not high quality humans, as a rule - they don't attract the best, and their system actively cultivates the worst in people.
What that could mean is that the Fourth Turning period doesn't actually manifest as a civil war per se, but rather as a large scale breakdown in the social order. Violence will take the form of locally high crime rates, but you won't see red and blue militias armed with MANPADs and Apaches reducing cities to rubble. Meanwhile, those areas which can self-organize to maintain local order will end up cooperating and federating in a fluid, organic fashion, and as they provide the services the corporate state can no longer provide, will emerge as the natural successors.
Great piece. It feels like we're all intellectually groping towards a similar dimly perceived teleological object, apprehended at a pre-linguistic, intuitive level and then trying to describe it using whatever intellectual tools we individually have access to. All of us can sense that the present social order is perverse, even suicidal, and that there must be something better out there. You even see this on some of the more thoughtful voices that are traditionally left-aligned - Charles Eisenstein, for example.
The title brings to mind an essay by Christopher Langan. Were you thinking of that when you wrote it?
Thanks! Yes, this was heavily influenced by the mind matters podcast. I had heard of Langan before and even watched some news segment on him years back. I'm vaguely making the argument that for humanity to reach the end state that the majority would find desirable widespread internalization of the NAP is necessary. I liked his terminology of technological vs human singularity so I ran with it. The message I'm trying to reinforce within the hydra is that as soon as you determine that sometimes it is necessary to initiate violence against the innocent, you provide the minority enemy coalition the rhetorical leverage it needs to dominate the culture. I'm starting to think of the NAP as cultural technology that is crucial to dominate the pathocratic minority. I'll need to check out Charles Eisenstein for some more of that sweet sweet cognitive parallax.
You should definitely read the Langan essay. He's a powerful thinker.
NAP is basically iterated tit for tat, which is the most effective strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma. Obviously, as soon as one side drops the N, it's game on - it doesn't mean pacifism. But every successful, harmonious social order is ultimately based on it.
Wow, yes this is generally where I'm going. I will say that the focus on the NAP is more likely to be successful than getting everyone to have consistent beliefs. People can believe inconsistent things, and even not subscribe to the NAP as long as a prevailing culture of NAP appreciation dominates. Such a situation will result in scriptural "cherry picking" where say, Jihad is simply ignored as an inconvenient requirement. Motivated reasoning works towards the ends of a human singularity in this manner.
I also want to take this opportunity to point out the genius of Mises with his invention of Praxeology. Praxeology is useful as it provides a methodological dualism consistent with the monistic/self-dual reality Langan describes. This analytical method is necessary because 99.9% of us are closer to average intelligence than Chris Langan is to your average MENSA member. We don’t have the cognitive resources to apprehend the monistic nature of reality in a way that is practically useful. The analysis allows us to gain familiarity with principles that are true and explore them in limited models to get a feel for how they work, then recombine this understanding in synthesis to briefly and tangentially glimpse the monistic whole.
That is assuming Langan is right about the need of a meta-religion to resolve conflict. Perhaps it is the methodogical dualism I have used to investigate thousands of scenarios synthesized into my nomological network of reality that is hard to vary then considered with RHB that informs me people can have incoherent beliefs in many regards, but still live happy, healthy, and productive lives in a generally peaceful and prosperous society. Maybe it is too bold for me to think NAP dominance in the culture is a sufficient condition for the human singularity, but everything else Langan says except the last couple pages resonates with this.
Anyway, thanks for sharing, this is incredibly helpful in my ongoing project to address the spiritual crisis in the military. If you haven't read Boyd's Destruction and Creation, take a look for just a couple minutes and tell me if it doesn't seem familiar: https://www.goalsys.com/books/documents/DESTRUCTION_AND_CREATION.pdf My boss recommended Boyd's biography to me and it is mind blowing. The threads seem to be weaving together in front of my eyes...
Indeed, I don't think consistency is really necessary for the average person, who so far as I can tell is perfectly happy to believe several inconsistent things before breakfast. Maybe that's a symptom of the problem, but maybe it's just human nature. Either way, simple rules that generate positive outcomes is the best way to achieve social harmony.
I glean from this great article that the Fed is going to fuck itself to death gloriously and that it is the task of us Americans to ease the suffering of this inevitability by dominating culturally through nonviolent means.
There's a line in your article about condemning anti-Americans using American rhetoric as hypocrites as incentives realign post petrodollar collapse. I'm tempted to say I'd welcome a reformed hypocrite, even an insincere one, who is motivated by incentives to behave nonviolently over the current situation any day, but as the great Robert Barnes says, "motivation is the master of reason" and I do take this position because I believe in the power of incentives and in the ability of others to change their minds.
Harry Brown in his wonderful book The Secret to Selling Anything describes the usefulness of appealing to a person's motivation in order to make a sale. I look at my duties as an American similarly, as partly a task of finding what others want and describing to them how the existence of the Fed is a hindrance to what they want and how adoption of NAP can help them live in accordance with their preferences.
Yes, achieving cultural dominance will essentially consist of selling the NAP Harry Brown style. There are a lot of ways that the allure of this position can be increased to make it a more attractive "buy". I think one important overall trend we should be striving for is making it a "high-status" belief. Lots of different avenues to explore!
So we respectfully part company for now over the "kinetic." I certainly am not forecasting a Civil war-ish scenario of neatly divided camps, the parties of which are clearly recognizable to each other and to themselves. But an escalation of violence -- more looting, rioting, destruction of public and private property, and gratuitous but often lethal attacks on senior citizens -- unfortunately, yes. Some local, likely small scale "Purge"-like pushback at some point. Also yes. What will drop first? Inflation, or Blue City homicide rates? The police forces in Seattle and Portland are understandably gutted. We'll see. I'm happy to hear about your confidence, but I am not seeing the trend lines for it yet. All best!
I didn't mean to imply that there wouldn't be violence. There is violence already, and with volatility such violence will probably increase in some areas as a result. I would just call this violence crime related as opposed to anything resembling a war with particular factions. I will do my best to ensure I'm not living anywhere a Soros DA presides...
I do not think "crime-related", while true, is an informative description. "Anarcho-tyranical" is a better one. Anti-Americans (I am using your terminology) employ lower classes to fight Americans. That's an old-age tactic, similar to kings using commoners against the aristocracy.
That is a good point. There is definitely a political component to the violence with such "crime" happening in higher concentrations secondary to incentives placed by anti-Americans to achieve political ends. I guess you could call it terrorism too. Like you said, crime-related is true, the question is whether it is informative. For me I still think it is, because it makes it easier to focus on the solution. Crime is a broad category of activity that will always exist. As a libertarian, I tend to view "victimless crime" as not really crime, so when I say crime, I mean private violations of the NAP. For this reason, it is a really useful term for me because of how broad it is, and because it helps recognize that the problem of crime isn't one that can ever be totally solved, just an ever present threat that can be mitigated with trade-offs. I've become more confident in this method of defining broad terms in order to understand fundamental dynamics from reading McConkey. For example, I like his conception of power as a broad term encompassing both violence and coercion as well as mere influence. Looking at it from different perspectives is probably most informative. That said, what practical measures do you see as effective at counteracting anarcho-tyranny vs. my conception of crime (private violation of NAP i.e. fraud, theft, violence, coercion etc.)?
>what practical measures do you see as effective at counteracting anarcho-tyranny
The evil is in the selective application of the law. The law enforcement (broadly speaking - including all law abiding people) is not allowed to enforce the law against certain kinds of crime and criminals, while using the full brunt of it against Americans.
There are at least 2 ways to fight it:
(1) in the court of public opinion (Robert Barnes sends regards) by exposing the hypocrisy and the double standard. Memes could be a very useful tool in this respect: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-revenge-of-the-shape-rotators. This is temporary, though, until we achieve (2)
(2) By winning the struggle against the tyranny.
You speak to my heart as a Barnes fanboy. I can see how a particular focus on inconsistent application of law would be more effective than targeting crime in general for this particular brand. I suppose that is the easy part in #2 is what we are all struggling to figure out!
I'm also not sanguine about avoiding violence. On the other hand, as Grant points out, the ability of the managerial state to orchestrate a large-scale campaign is dependent on their ability to maintain their financial influence, which is being undermined by their own fiscal irresponsibility and the accumulating impact of the contradictions of a debt-based monetary system. Their foot soldiers are additionally not high quality humans, as a rule - they don't attract the best, and their system actively cultivates the worst in people.
What that could mean is that the Fourth Turning period doesn't actually manifest as a civil war per se, but rather as a large scale breakdown in the social order. Violence will take the form of locally high crime rates, but you won't see red and blue militias armed with MANPADs and Apaches reducing cities to rubble. Meanwhile, those areas which can self-organize to maintain local order will end up cooperating and federating in a fluid, organic fashion, and as they provide the services the corporate state can no longer provide, will emerge as the natural successors.
Great piece. It feels like we're all intellectually groping towards a similar dimly perceived teleological object, apprehended at a pre-linguistic, intuitive level and then trying to describe it using whatever intellectual tools we individually have access to. All of us can sense that the present social order is perverse, even suicidal, and that there must be something better out there. You even see this on some of the more thoughtful voices that are traditionally left-aligned - Charles Eisenstein, for example.
The title brings to mind an essay by Christopher Langan. Were you thinking of that when you wrote it?
Thanks! Yes, this was heavily influenced by the mind matters podcast. I had heard of Langan before and even watched some news segment on him years back. I'm vaguely making the argument that for humanity to reach the end state that the majority would find desirable widespread internalization of the NAP is necessary. I liked his terminology of technological vs human singularity so I ran with it. The message I'm trying to reinforce within the hydra is that as soon as you determine that sometimes it is necessary to initiate violence against the innocent, you provide the minority enemy coalition the rhetorical leverage it needs to dominate the culture. I'm starting to think of the NAP as cultural technology that is crucial to dominate the pathocratic minority. I'll need to check out Charles Eisenstein for some more of that sweet sweet cognitive parallax.
You should definitely read the Langan essay. He's a powerful thinker.
NAP is basically iterated tit for tat, which is the most effective strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma. Obviously, as soon as one side drops the N, it's game on - it doesn't mean pacifism. But every successful, harmonious social order is ultimately based on it.
Any chance you can drop me a link to the full text? I'll check it out as soon as I'm done with your latest!
I believe this is it:
https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/694/1157
Wow, yes this is generally where I'm going. I will say that the focus on the NAP is more likely to be successful than getting everyone to have consistent beliefs. People can believe inconsistent things, and even not subscribe to the NAP as long as a prevailing culture of NAP appreciation dominates. Such a situation will result in scriptural "cherry picking" where say, Jihad is simply ignored as an inconvenient requirement. Motivated reasoning works towards the ends of a human singularity in this manner.
I also want to take this opportunity to point out the genius of Mises with his invention of Praxeology. Praxeology is useful as it provides a methodological dualism consistent with the monistic/self-dual reality Langan describes. This analytical method is necessary because 99.9% of us are closer to average intelligence than Chris Langan is to your average MENSA member. We don’t have the cognitive resources to apprehend the monistic nature of reality in a way that is practically useful. The analysis allows us to gain familiarity with principles that are true and explore them in limited models to get a feel for how they work, then recombine this understanding in synthesis to briefly and tangentially glimpse the monistic whole.
That is assuming Langan is right about the need of a meta-religion to resolve conflict. Perhaps it is the methodogical dualism I have used to investigate thousands of scenarios synthesized into my nomological network of reality that is hard to vary then considered with RHB that informs me people can have incoherent beliefs in many regards, but still live happy, healthy, and productive lives in a generally peaceful and prosperous society. Maybe it is too bold for me to think NAP dominance in the culture is a sufficient condition for the human singularity, but everything else Langan says except the last couple pages resonates with this.
Anyway, thanks for sharing, this is incredibly helpful in my ongoing project to address the spiritual crisis in the military. If you haven't read Boyd's Destruction and Creation, take a look for just a couple minutes and tell me if it doesn't seem familiar: https://www.goalsys.com/books/documents/DESTRUCTION_AND_CREATION.pdf My boss recommended Boyd's biography to me and it is mind blowing. The threads seem to be weaving together in front of my eyes...
Indeed, I don't think consistency is really necessary for the average person, who so far as I can tell is perfectly happy to believe several inconsistent things before breakfast. Maybe that's a symptom of the problem, but maybe it's just human nature. Either way, simple rules that generate positive outcomes is the best way to achieve social harmony.
Boyd looks interesting, I'll give him a read!
> kinetic conflict
More on the subject fresh off the press:
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/where-we-stand-depends-upon-who-has
The bad cat is without a doubt among the greatest of Americans.
I glean from this great article that the Fed is going to fuck itself to death gloriously and that it is the task of us Americans to ease the suffering of this inevitability by dominating culturally through nonviolent means.
There's a line in your article about condemning anti-Americans using American rhetoric as hypocrites as incentives realign post petrodollar collapse. I'm tempted to say I'd welcome a reformed hypocrite, even an insincere one, who is motivated by incentives to behave nonviolently over the current situation any day, but as the great Robert Barnes says, "motivation is the master of reason" and I do take this position because I believe in the power of incentives and in the ability of others to change their minds.
Harry Brown in his wonderful book The Secret to Selling Anything describes the usefulness of appealing to a person's motivation in order to make a sale. I look at my duties as an American similarly, as partly a task of finding what others want and describing to them how the existence of the Fed is a hindrance to what they want and how adoption of NAP can help them live in accordance with their preferences.
Yes, achieving cultural dominance will essentially consist of selling the NAP Harry Brown style. There are a lot of ways that the allure of this position can be increased to make it a more attractive "buy". I think one important overall trend we should be striving for is making it a "high-status" belief. Lots of different avenues to explore!