Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Rescuing Computer Science With the Relational Dimensions of the Empirical World

First I'm going to make a few radical assertions:

  • A real-world relation is best-regarded as a random variable.  Think of measurement.  This is consistent with SQL's default allowance of duplicate rows in an extension.  These count tables represent the probability distribution of the random variable.  Each relationship (row) in an extension is, therefore, best thought of as a single measurement, or case.  The duplicate row counts are therefore case-counts.  A probability density function results from simply dividing each case's count by the total counts in the relation.
  • The properties of a measurement (say, time and distance) are the dimensions of the measurement and these correspond to the columns of the extension.
  • Any measurement can be thought of as a low-dimensional selected projection of the empirical world: the universe. The universal extension has a single row -- a row with as many dimensions as the entire history of the universe has properties:  We might call this row "That which is The Case."

Now, accepting all of that (which philosophers may well argue against -- particularly if they don't like Descartes, etc.):

In order for the random variable to have meaning, its dimensions must have counts, just as do its duplicate rows.  For instance, we might think of a relation whose composite dimension is velocity, with columns: time and distance.  Although there might be meaning to a physical dimension of time*distance (time^(+1) * distance^(+1)) that is not the physical dimension we call "velocity".  To obtain a velocity relation, we need distance/time which is time^(-1) * distance^(+1).  Note that these terms commute because multiplication (like 'and') commutes.  Column order is meaningless, just as is row order meaningless since addition (like 'or') also commutes.

Now consider the relational dimension of energy where we join the velocity relation with a mass relation and assign column counts thus: time^(-2) * distance^(+2) * mass^(+1).

Note that thus far, I have not talked about "units", nor of "types".  First a down-to-earth comment about "units":  It is important to regard "units" as I/O formats (or "representations") with isomorphic transformations between them (1:1 correspondence between a distance measurement in inches and one in feet).  Second is a more philosophical comment about "types" vs "dimensions" that gets to the heart of what I believe is a huge mistake in the foundation of computer science dating to Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica:

PM's type theory (and elaborations/variations thereof) is the current foundation of computer science.  Russell used it to develop Relation Arithmetic.  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."

However, the ultimate project of Principia Mathematica was directed at "the empirical world" in the conclusion of PM: Part VI "Quantity". "Quantity" consists of 3 sections the last of which, section "C", is about "Measurement" in terms of a generalization of the concept of number (section "A"), to include units of measurement (mass, length, time, etc.) as commensurable (dimensioned) quantities ("B" "Vector-Families").

Yet, other than *314:

"Relational real numbers are useful in applying measurement by means of real numbers to vector-families, since it is convenient to have real numbers of the same type as ratios."

I see nothing in Part VI that references anything like "relation numbers" as defined in Part IV.

Before I get into a resolution strategy, I want to add one final issue that is key to understanding relational structure in terms of measurement:

Any value that we assign to a cell in a table has what is called "measurement error".  Note, I'm talking here not of a relation (table) nor of a relationship (row), but of a cell (relata) of that row.  Take, for instance, a table of velocities with time and distance columns.  Each case (row, or relationship between measured properties) has two measurements for that case: a measured distance and a measured time.  What we call "measurement error" is an estimate of the probability distribution that would prospectively obtain with repeated measurements of the same conditions.  In other words, assigning measurement error, or "fuzziness", is best thought of as imputing missing data -- those prospective measurements just mentioned.  In any rigorous attempt to deal with the fuzziness of the real world, it is important to keep in mind the relational structure of the measurements so that propagation of measurement error is understood in terms of relational composition (aka 'JOIN' to use database jargon).

Now to proceed to the resolution strategy:

Late in Russell's life he admitted he regretted Type Theory, stating it was the most arbitrary thing he and Whitehead did and that it was more of a stopgap than a theory.

As it turns out, Russell admitted this because he was relieved and delighted he lived long enough to see the matter resolved in the late 1960s book titled "The Laws of Form" by G. Spencer Brown.  The resolution was to include what logicians think of as "paradox" as a, if not the, primary foundation of mathematical logic:

Russell's Paradox (The set of all sets that don't contain themselves as members.) which motivated PM's Type Theory, is only one form of this protean "paradox".  The most Laconian form is:

"This sentence is false."

The resolution provided in GSB's LoF was to introduce the the square root of -1 as primary in mathematical logic.  This is otherwise known as the imaginary identity 'i' found throughout all of dynamical systems theory.  Dynamical systems are about changes.  In relational database terms, these are updates.  Relational updates are addition and subtraction of rows.

Under the notion of row-as-relationships-as-case, subtraction entails negative case counts.

Interestingly, negative case counts permit the emergence of something called Link Theory which Paul Allen's think tank, Interval Research supported until its demise, at which point I supported it at HP's "Internet Chapter II" project aka "eSpeak" until _its_ demise, at which point Federico Faggin (co-founder of Intel's microprocessor division) underwrote its final support at Boundary Institute.

Link Theory utilized negative case counts to provide a relational description of physics including the core of quantum mechanics -- and was therefore of interest in the quantum computing field.  This is due to the fact that quantum measurement involves projection (as do all measurements -- see my prior invocation of "That which is The Case.") that included not only ordinary probabilities, but also what are called "probability amplitudes".  Quantum probability amplitudes have complex values on the unit circle of the complex plane. Complex values have imaginary components,   Link theory accommodated QM's imaginary components with a particular symmetry used by George W. Mackey in his 1963 book "Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics" representing 'i' as a 2x2 spinor matrix:

 0  1
-1  0

See Appendix A of "Link Theory -- From Logic to Quantum Physics".

The -1 in this spinor corresponds to the negative case counts required for relational structure to encompass quantum measurement.

Federico Faggin supported this work because hardware design languages needed a formal theory other than conventional logic to model digital circuits with feedback (ie: memory, state change, etc.).  George Spencer Brown developed his mathematics as a result of inventing minimal circuits in the early days of the transistor -- and found he was working with imaginary logic values.

So, tying this all together to address the original point:  It would appear that the computer science notion of "type" is not only ill-founded -- leading to all manner of confusion regarding "the empirical world" (in Russell's apt descriptive phrase) but is recognized as being ill-founded by its founder!

My assertion is that the notion of "type" is rescued by the notion of "unit" and that "abstract type" is rescued by the notion of "dimension" within the relational paradigm. That this might be the case should be no surprise as the natural sciences (particularly physics) most rigorously address "the empirical world".

Once we accept the framework of dimensionality as relational structure, we can see, further, the potential for new modes of schema analysis based on the scientific discipline of dimensional analysis.

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Man's Primordial Morality of Sexual Selection

The foundation for Sortocracy's "State of Nature" is man's primordial morality of sexual selection.  What follows is an explanation of that foundation.

The best moral explanations start with the subjective experiences of the moral animal, aka "conscience":


The Irrationality of Fairness

Visualize two wild males together. A third of the same species is in the vicinity.  They approach each other.  A 2 vs 1 fight breaks out.

Take your time to visualize this and sense your reaction.

Now visualize a situation in which two wild males of the same species approach each other.  A 1 vs 1 fight ensues.

Again, take your time... sense your reaction.

Compare your emotional reaction to the two situations.  The first produces -- at least in many of us -- a different mixture of emotions than the second.  One aspect of that difference is qualitative:  We instinctively understand the 1 vs 1 fight but emotively question the 2 vs 1 fight.  The emotive question isn't so much "Why does the lone male fight rather than run?", as it is, "Why are these two males united against the one?"  In a dispassionate moment of thought, one realizes the most obvious explanation is ruthlessly rational:  Because the 2 are more likely to win the fight!  With that realization, a second-order question arises:  How could evolution favor a mode of dispute processing other than war -- selecting for the formation of the largest, most cohesive army prior to initiation of intraspecies force?  Then, a third-order question arises:  Why wouldn't nature have, long ago, selected for emotional understanding -- acceptance as "fair" -- the rationality of 2, or more, ganging up on any smaller number, including 1?


The Irrationality of Sex

During, and especially upon, maturation we experience powerful emotions toward the opposite sex.  We don't experience powerful instinctive (high time preference) emotions toward reproduction until the reproductive results of sex -- offspring -- obtain.  Our immediate, instinctive perception, emotions and actions center on sexual attraction and competition.  Although some species retain asexual reproduction as an option, most advanced multicellular species are entirely dependent on sex for reproduction.  The facile explanation for sexual attraction, that it is our only route to reproduction, begs the question:  Why not clone one's self?  This question is reinforced by the rationality of war:  The more closely related comrades are, the more evolutionary advantage there is in victory over less-related others.  A clone army is the most rational objective of reproduction -- particularly given the fact that nurture can develop variations in phenotype -- form and function -- from the same genotype, providing specialized war making and reproducing castes, as in the eusocial insects.


The Irrationality of Death

Humans don't experience their own prospective death as an immediate emotion, as they do fairness in conflict or attraction in sex.  The immediate, death-related emotion they experience is toward physical pain, in conflict, hunger, thirst.  For the young adult, the pain of lost sexual love is more immediate than the remote prospect of death.  Many risk and lose their lives to it.  Nevertheless, we sexual beings are programmed for death more certainly than sexual reproduction.  This isn't a "death-drive" in the sense of an emotional sex-drive or sense of fairness -- it is more deeply-ingrained than emotion.  It is a ruthlessly physical consequence of evolved senescence.  It makes no rational sense for the organism's physical foundation, its genotype, to throw away a reproductively viable vehicle, for the same reason it makes no rational sense to prefer sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction of specialized clone armies.


"We" Have All Been Here Before

From the point of view of rational evolution, cellular life is supremely rational.  They reproduce by cloning.  When two clone armies of the same species meet, fairness consists of eat or be eaten.  The individuals of single celled species don't die of senescence, but divide into two clones -- rejuvenated.  The most advanced sexual species dispensed with all of these rational evolutionary advantages.  Moreover, in sexual species, there is a memory trace of this sacrifice for the attainment of sexual love -- and it is in every cell of our bodies.  Our bodies are vast clone armies that have undergone specialized development so advanced that the most evolved eusocial insect colony looks like a disorganized riot of selfish individualists.  We remember this "past life" in every cell of our sexual being:  The loving unity of comrades in an eat or be eaten war.  So there is another "we" to consider:  Each individual sexual being consists of a cellular civilization in which each of its citizens is in asexual loving unity with its clones as "we are this sexual being".  Every cell loves being a part of something greater than itself.


Transcendent Life Over Death

This, cellular, level of love between clone comrades is buried like the memory of a past life -- a life that was sacrificed for sexual love.  Indeed, the senescence-toward-death of the sexual being is, precisely, that sacrifice of clone comrade love toward a higher, sexual, love.  We've been cut off from nature, by the artificial, from Mother Earth herself -- so we must pause and reflect.  We have feelings of love for our comrades in arms during war -- even though they aren't really clones except in fictive kinship.  This memory of ancient intercellular love is more or less fictive and no more relevant to our sexual love than is memory of a previous life.  We are new beings -- sexual love beings toward death.  It is hard for us to understand, separated from nature as we are by a long history of primate evolution in which fairness has progressively eroded in gang conflict; and, now, conflict going beyond mere violence to womb wars as the demographic destiny.  The warrior caste is overshadowed by the reproductive castes.  This is characterized as "The Better Angels of Our Nature" in direct correspondence to a husband's description of his wife as "My Better Half."  We have lost sight of the other half of sexual love:  Love of Enemies.  Other than some simple-minded masochism posing as "JudeoChristianity", what rational sense can the phrase "Love of Enemies" make -- particularly as an aspect of sexual love?  We are increasingly told this sexual love of one's enemy is morally expressed as homosexual love.  But the visceral emotion experienced when we witness 2 men unite to fight one man -- the evolutionary seed of war and clone comrade love -- corresponds to a visceral emotion, now labeled as the diagnostic category of "homophobia".  In reality, "homophobia" is a latent sense of fairness that is suppressed, not "man-love" homosexuality.  Love of one's enemy emerges only in sexual selection's 1 vs 1 conflict on fair terms.  This aspect of sexual morality is denied civilized men to the point that they are cut off and alienated from the half of their sexual beings:  Intrasexual selection.  Submission to a fair contest is the closest the sexual being comes to the creative consciousness of evolution.  In man, this submission achieves a moral dimension that transcends even female choice of sires, and risk of death in childbirth.  The male, in risking death, enjoys no immediate prospect of reproduction, as does the female.  In men, this is accorded moral territory:

Honor.


Civilized Man's Moral Horror of Death

For civilized man, deprived of transcendent death, he experiences an immediate, visceral and inchoate loathing of death that is unlike the abstract notion of one's prospective death.   -- is moral:  To the extent that life is unfair, in the sense of violating the creative power of sexual love, evolution reverts to the cellular level: "All's fair in comrade clone love and war."  This reversion of evolution is destruction of creation.  It is dysgenic.  This destruction of creation is felt, viscerally, as a moral horror of death in societies deprived of the masculine aspect of sexual love and the creative power of fair evolution.  Organized religions throughout history promise eternal life.  This, pig-in-a-poke immortality is an ersatz emotional substitute for the transcendent god-like acts of creation embodied in sexual being.  Civilization may, ultimately, offer substitutes for death in life extension and transhumanist genetic engineering if not cybernetic uploading of "mind".  Civilized man filled with an inchoate moral horror of death, and it's "irrationality", welcomes these substitutes as would the mortally wounded accept morphine: Out of desperation and alienation.  He has forgotten his own heritage, descended from the Creator that transcended death in mortal sacrifice for the creative power of sexual love.  But this substitute pig-in-a poke immortality is nothing compared to nearly a billion years of sexual selection and its joyful sacrifice of immortality for sexual love.

Saturday, March 18, 2017

... But Then Greg Cochran's Kind of Dim

In The Third Sex Greg Cochran says:
Are humans eusocial? They do cooperate, sometimes – but in truth they’re not at all like the social insects. E. O. Wilson thought so, but then he’s kind of dim. No castes, no reproductive division of labor, while most cooperation is with non-relatives. 
Not to pick on Cochran, since the 150 authors of "Inclusive fitness theory and eusociality" published in a political petition style "scientific" paper in Nature, got the paper "The evolution of eusociality", by M. Nowak, C. E. Tarnita and E. O. Wilson, wrong as well.  But Cochran is exemplary as in many areas he is quite insightful, as are the 150 scientists and, by the way, as is E. O. Wilson.  Even the insightful among us have their bad days when their reach exceeds their grasp leading, through good intentions, not to Heaven but to Hell on Earth.  Also, Cochran seems to have it in for Wilson for some reason.  Take, for example, Cochran's on-going assertions (with occasional supporting critique) of Wilson's innumeracy.

So I'm not "picking on" Cochran, but rather picking Cochran as an exemplar of the general attack on E. O. Wilson's position in "The Social Conquest of Earth":  That that the primate line leading to humans exhibits clear signs of evolving eusocial phenotypes.

Note I said "eusocial phenotypes" rather than "eusocial genotypes".  Wilson does make a "eusocial genotype" case with respect to human evolution (which I believe is overstated), but because of the confusion surrounding Nowak's mathematics, people aren't understanding his real point about "individual" vs "group" selection in eusocial organisms.

Now, I'm not claiming that Wilson grasps the full mathematical nuance of the argument made by Nowak in the paper he coauthored -- neither do I, by the way.  However innumerate Wilson may be, he did have the sense to take a professional mathematician seriously in the face of reality presented by Wilson's primary discipline:

The phenomenology of eusocial insects.

Wilson's phenomena confronted him, after a lifetime of field work, with a number of eusocial insect species in which eusociality could not be explained by Hamilton's inequality.  He knew he needed a new theoretic framework and knew, also, he needed the mathematics to be developed by someone like Nowak.

The real point of Nowak's math is best not phrased as "group selection" since he, himself summarizes:
This circumstance lends credence to the view that the colony can be viewed as an individual, or ‘superorganism’.  Further, insofar as social behaviour is concerned, descent is from queen to queen, with the worker force generated as an extension of the queen (or cooperating queens) in each generation. Selection acts on the traits of the queen and the extrasomatic projection of her personal genome.
extrasomatic. : of, relating to, or being something that exists external to and distinct from the individual organism.

Hmmm... where have we encountered projection of "traits" "external" to the individual's "genome"?

OH!  That's right!  It was Richard Dawkins's notion of the 'The Extended Phenotype'!"

Look, "Greg", you have to forget about eusociality being anything other than parasitic castration with the "queen" insect being the parasite and her non-reproductive offspring being her victims.  It's not entirely that, but to escape your current social paradigm, you have to set Hamilton aside until you get used to the parasitic castration paradigm of eusociality.

The fact that Richard Dawkins, himself, doesn't get this in his attacks on Wilson is simply Dawkins being "kind of dim".  Like I said -- it happens.  Moreover, as I have often observed since Dawkins wrote "The Extended Phenotype": Something very bad happened to Dawkins upon writing "The Extended Phenotype.  He derailed into the 19th century controversy between fundamentalist religion and evolutionary theory -- abandoning anything resembling original thinking.  Why did he anticipate, at least implicitly, a revolution in sociobiology by 25 years, and then promptly become effectively so brain-dead that he couldn't even recognize when that revolution had come to fruition?  It's almost as though he had become possessed by some external interest that didn't want that line of thought to develop -- at least not when Boomers were just reaching reproductive (marriage) age.  And what a reproductive catastrophe that turned out to be!

Now to get to the reason I use the phrase "eusocial phenotype" rather than "eusocial genotype".  Human eusociality is parasitic castration in which the behavior is manipulated not by developmental pheromones from one's mother -- but by developmental memes from one's authorities in media and academia.  "College educated" is a virtual dead giveaway adjective for someone who will have low fertility -- particularly among "whites".  As with any castrato, their resources can be diverted to the parasite, and whatever group's reproduction is thereby enhanced, rather than their own children.

As these memes can be considered "mind pathogens" one needn't even posit a parasitic genotype that is specifically selected to generate them.  All that is needed is differential immunity to them by the parasite -- an immunity that would be built up over The 10,000 Year Explosion, in highly theocratic societies where parasitic memes flourish.  But this is not full-blown eusociality.  At least E. O. Wilson admits as much about humans -- however overblown his position may have been about human cognitive capacity arising specifically in response to eusocial pressures of the campfire.

What is most curious, however, is that someone like Cochran, who co-authored "The 10,000 Year Explosion" and is, otherwise, frequently quite heterodox and incisive, would become suddenly "dim" about such a clearly important revolution in sociobiology.  It is so reminiscent of Dawkins...

Monday, November 07, 2016

An End to Politics (The Continuation of War by Other Means)

Votes are a club good, allocated equally to all citizens (members of the club).
Casting votes is a proxy for the voters’ participation in group force: Politics.
Political mobilization originates in war mobilization.
This is the reason votes were originally cast by men.
Fiat money, such as the dollar, is backed by sovereign force.
Just as do votes, dollars direct government force by proxy.

LISTEN

Newly created dollars are a club good not currently allocated equally to all citizens.

MOREOVER

Government force protects property rights.
Property tax is properly treated as a service fee for protection of property rights.
Sound government money is backed by the property rights so protected.
Sound money is created and destroyed to reflect its backing.
The sound assessment of a property’s value as monetary backing is its liquid value.
Liquid value is established by escrowed bids for respective properties.
Demurrage is the term used for the cost of storing a backing commodity such as gold.
In money backed by property right, “demurrage” is its cost of protection.
Taxes can be replaced by charging demurrage for protected properties.
A reasonable public demurrage rate is the interest rate paid on public debt.
Escrowed bids establishing liquid value should not be charged demurrage.

NOW

When a crisis hits of such magnitude that it calls into question the ability of the government to effectively protect property rights, begin a local monetary system that pays a citizen’s dividend to all able bodied men, equally, an amount that, in sum total, is equal to the demurrage for protected property rights plus the change in total property rights during that period.

Let free enterprise do the rest. The "rest" will include a military organized after the successful Swiss model in which the able bodied men are required, by peer pressure, to prepare themselves to respond to threats to civil society. This peer pressure would take the form of exclusion of able-bodied men deemed to be a drag on society, from the club's territory. The responses would be not just emergent (as first responders) but strategic. Since able bodied young men, but not young women, will receive this dividend, they will tend to mate early with young women and start families. The strongest coefficient of determination found in the social sciences may well be the 0.88 discovered by Steve Sailer's analysis of election results in his study of "The Marriage Gap". Sailer's money quote:
"The r-squared when years married and fertility are combined in a multiple regression model improves to 88 percent." You will be hard pressed to find a stronger coefficient of determination in the social sciences between variables whose relationship is non-trivial.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

"Diversity" vs Human Development


What was the justification when immigration policy preferences of less than 10% of the electorate dominated 90% of the electorate for decades from the early 1960s to the late 1990s, and even today, dominates with more than 75% opposing increased immigration?



Source:  US Department of Homeland Security
It must have been an overwhelmingly obvious justification for that 10% -- so obvious that the 90% could be discounted as ignorant if not xenophobic rubes, unworthy of anything remotely resembling consent of the governed, normally considered the overriding human right in any significant dispute.  That human right was tossed out the window for some reason.

What was that reason?

The reason most frequently trotted out during this era was that "diversity is our greatest strength" and that the "greatness" attributed to the United States was "diverse" because it was a "nation of immigrants".


OK, that sounds good, but what was the support for this assertion -- support that must have been so overwhelmingly intense and urgent, even if obvious to only an "educated" elite, as to justify throwing out the most fundamental of all human rights for decades in, not just the US, but in all of European derived governments -- in a policy that most believe to cause irreversible changes?

Whatever that support might have been, the most comprehensive academic study of the actual results of that massive violation of human rights supported the opposite conclusion:

For the vast majority of people social capital is their primary form of wealth.  For these people, already deprived of financial capital diversity is also socially impoverishing even though it is financially enriching for the top echelons of society for whom social capital is of little interest.  After all, the wealthy can afford private social goods like private schools, gated communities with guards, etc.  However, this elite will become very interested in social capital when their attack on the foundation of civilization -- implied by massive violation of human rights, not to mention victimization of the less fortunate 90% of society by this violation -- comes home to roost.  This is now happening with the derisively-termed "populist" movements.

The author of that academic study, Robert Putnam of Harvard University,  delayed its publication despite the urgent relevance of his discovery to public policy.  It was urgent as, at that time during the 1990s and 2000s, immigration volume and diversity was undergoing catastrophic increases.  These increases were so great as to alter the electorate hence decrease the majority opposition to immigration increase from more than 90% to between 75% and 80%.  The reason he delayed publication is that he feared it would be "misunderstood" as providing arguments against this massive violation of the primary human right -- violation that required arguments for this massive and irreversible gambit -- a gambit that put civilization itself at risk.  And that is if any amount of theoretic support, no matter how empirically justified, can then justify non-consensual treatment of human subjects.  In all scientific disciplines, apparently except the social sciences, even if a treatment has gone through double-blind control studies to establish safety and efficacy, it is still unethical to subject humans to those treatments without their fully informed consent.

Putnam wanted time to come up with justifications for the "short term" (already decades long) human suffering imposed by "diversity" with its social impoverishment of the vast majority of the electorate.  Ultimately, Putnam offered little beyond the tradition of anecdotal polemics that so-characterized 1960s discourse about "the nation of immigrants" used to radically alter and socially impoverish the electorate in the first place.

The essence of Putnam's polemic was that "in the long term" society would benefit.

OK.

Fine.

So let's look at the long term.

Let's look at the long term, not in terms of anecdotal polemics, but in terms of statistics:  A large number of operationally defined data points comparing "diversity" and "human development" in the world maps (see below), of these.  Superficially, what we see is that in areas with the highest "diversity" we find the lowest "human development".  At the other extreme, such as Scandinavia with its very low "diversity", we see the highest "human development" (Norway was ranked #1 in "human development" by the UN).

But this is a relatively superficial view of these maps.  With a closer reading for what might be called "long term" effects, we see that in the places with the longest history of "diversity", such as sub-Saharan Africa, there is not only the highest "diversity" but the lowest "human development".  Moreover, the apparent exceptions in places like the US and Canada were, until recently, so lacking in "diversity" that the attitudes of men in those prior eras, by today's standards, are considered "white nationalist" if not "white supremacist" or even "Nazi".

Such maps have little effect when reality is twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools but is of great value for the "deplorable" rest of us who demand self-determination.  They help expose the moral, ethical, scientific and political bankruptcy of even the strongest argument yet set forth by those who claim their attack on civilization's foundation -- the consent of the governed -- is justified.

The top map is "human development" measured by the United Nations.
The middle map is "ethnic diversity" measured by the Harvard Institute for Economic Research.
The bottom map is "cultural diversity" measured by the University of Bremen Center for Transnational Studies.

Spin these however you like, massive violation of the most fundamental human right has attacked the foundation of civilization for speculative long term gains for the vast majority, a risk imposed by an elite with a clear conflict of interest in short term centralization of wealth and power by immigration.

Thursday, September 01, 2016

Johnny



A few weeks ago, when my mother, in her 90's, asked me to please take a couple of boxes "of yours." I was curious as to what they could be.  Tonight, I finally got around to looking through them.  They included everything from a teddy bear to high school newspapers for which I written articles.   When I ran across this very short story written for my high school English class, I have to admit:  I was a little spooked.  Those familiar with me and my rather unique world view will recognize its major themes:  
  • The evolution of virulence in horizontal transmission
  • The evolution of eusociality as anathema to sexual individualism
  • The absurdity of unlimited exponential reproduction
  • Birth control abuse as auto-genocide, and 
  • The illusion of "communism" as "the enemy" when there is something far more virulent and world-threatening operating at a biological level.






Tuesday, February 09, 2016

Replacing "Human Rights" With The Right to Vote With Your Feet

Capitalism is in a political deadlock with liberal democracy's tyranny of the majority limited only by vague laundry list of selectively enforced "human rights".

Breaking this deadlock requires empirically grounding the social sciences by sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them: Sortocracy.

This means that the current model of "human rights" must be replaced with a single, well defined, right to vote with your feet. This right to vote with your feet necessarily implies three material rights:

  1. The material right to land. 
  2. The material right to transportation. 
  3. The material right to border enforcement.


#1 is obvious since you can't put your social theory into practice without land. #2 is also obvious as people who cannot practically relocate cannot vote with their feet.

#3 _should_ be obvious but, due to the moral zeitgeist, it is not. Incarceration rates, particularly in the US, show us that there are two, fundamentally opposed, kinds of borders: Those that keep people out and those that keep people in. Of the two, the kind that keeps people in is least compatible with the right to vote with your feet,  Even the US's 13th Amendment to the Constitution has provision for involuntary servitude: Slavery for those imprisoned.  Legalized slavery is increasing.  We see a prison-industrial complex arising at the interface of government and capitalism to exploit this loophole in the 13th Amendment.  The moral zeitgeist's mandate is "let people in".  What is not admitted is this necessarily entails walls that keep people from leaving who are found to be "criminal" by the admitting society.

The moral zeitgeist has to reconcile its moral outrage at imprisonment with its moral outrage at border controls. The only realistic answer to this is absolute enforcement of free emigration combined with absolute tolerance of restrictive immigration.