Oct 8, 2019, 3:04 PM (reply to a hostile christian) Gunther; We are working on the development of a value free language of the human sciences, psychological, social, economic, political and strategic; articulating the western group evolutionary strategy in those terms; and producing a constitution in those terms, imposing that strategy, against the second abrahamic attack on civilization – the cause of the dark ages of ignorance in the past, and the cause of the coming dark ages in the present. You are an Abrahamist, trained by Abrahamists, to avoid the truth, by employing the female system of competition by undermining demanding that others agree with you, demonstrating disapproval rather than truth or falsehood, using disapproval, ridicule, moralizing; threatening to gossip and rally others, in defense of a superstition. You are cognitively feminine in a masculine body and addicted to the sedation provided by falsehood. You lack agency, and truth regardless of cost, and respect for our sovereignty, and are not a european male – and are rather unfit for this level of discourse for the same reason all but a few women are unfit for truthful masculine discourse. You need someone to confirm your comforting lies. To preserve your feeling of safety in the herd. You need to find that person. Others will provide you with that sedation. There are psychological drug dealers everywhere. You will eventually find some psychological drug dealer that proposes a possible solution for reformation of the country on terms you can tolerate because they don’t threaten the supply of sedation your addiction demands. When you are a man, if it is still possible, then join the conversation of men. Until then you are unfit. Addicts have no place in the world because it exists to prevent reality. Fictional Religion, alcohol, drugs are all forms of escape and sedation. We are men. We solve problems. You can’t. Reality does not exist for you.
Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response
-
Yes You Are Unfit for Truth Regardless of Cost.
Oct 8, 2019, 3:04 PM (reply to a hostile christian) Gunther; We are working on the development of a value free language of the human sciences, psychological, social, economic, political and strategic; articulating the western group evolutionary strategy in those terms; and producing a constitution in those terms, imposing that strategy, against the second abrahamic attack on civilization – the cause of the dark ages of ignorance in the past, and the cause of the coming dark ages in the present. You are an Abrahamist, trained by Abrahamists, to avoid the truth, by employing the female system of competition by undermining demanding that others agree with you, demonstrating disapproval rather than truth or falsehood, using disapproval, ridicule, moralizing; threatening to gossip and rally others, in defense of a superstition. You are cognitively feminine in a masculine body and addicted to the sedation provided by falsehood. You lack agency, and truth regardless of cost, and respect for our sovereignty, and are not a european male – and are rather unfit for this level of discourse for the same reason all but a few women are unfit for truthful masculine discourse. You need someone to confirm your comforting lies. To preserve your feeling of safety in the herd. You need to find that person. Others will provide you with that sedation. There are psychological drug dealers everywhere. You will eventually find some psychological drug dealer that proposes a possible solution for reformation of the country on terms you can tolerate because they don’t threaten the supply of sedation your addiction demands. When you are a man, if it is still possible, then join the conversation of men. Until then you are unfit. Addicts have no place in the world because it exists to prevent reality. Fictional Religion, alcohol, drugs are all forms of escape and sedation. We are men. We solve problems. You can’t. Reality does not exist for you.
-
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:58:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265703826352414722
-
EMJ / Doolittle
EMJ / Doolittle https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/emj-doolittle/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:49:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265701619406118915
-
EMJ / Doolittle
Oct 11, 2019, 10:51 AM by Michael Churchill Actually having Curt and EMJ debate wouldn’t be helpful at all. EMJ is great for who he is and what he does. Fabulous, even. Heroic. A great man. Role model. But he is operating in a religious paradigm. Curt is operating in a scientific paradigm. Having a debate between them will only annoy everyone involved. Far better the Roosh/EMJ conversations. They speak more or less the same language (ironically).
-
EMJ / Doolittle
Oct 11, 2019, 10:51 AM by Michael Churchill Actually having Curt and EMJ debate wouldn’t be helpful at all. EMJ is great for who he is and what he does. Fabulous, even. Heroic. A great man. Role model. But he is operating in a religious paradigm. Curt is operating in a scientific paradigm. Having a debate between them will only annoy everyone involved. Far better the Roosh/EMJ conversations. They speak more or less the same language (ironically).
-
No More Ancap Lies
No More Ancap Lies https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/no-more-ancap-lies/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:48:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265701514015846400
-
No More Ancap Lies
Oct 11, 2019, 11:31 AM
—“First AnCaps are not free riders because AnCaps are not demanding or relying on any resources created by others. You say that it is some kind of fairy-tale village on the frontier which is protected by the federal cavalry when in trouble, but that is Y…”— Gunther Schadow
ERROR #1 – AN ANARCHIC POLITY CAN OBTAIN PROPERTY, ATTRACT POPULATION, CONSTRUCT A POLITY (ORDER) AND THEN SURVIVE COMPETITION FOR TERRITORY AND POPULATION ON HOPPEIAN OR ROTHBARDIAN TERMS. Assertion: This isn’t possible without dependency upon external revenues, population, and governance. Evidence: it never has succeeded – ever. (see Crusoe’s island fallacy for why). a) I can produce no plan by which such an order is possible. b) I can find no evidence in history by which such an order is possible. c) I can discover no incentives under which such an order is possible. d) Every order that has tried has been exterminated by competitors because it has become a haven for criminals who use it as a staging ground for parasitism against polities that produce commons. You are welcome to falsify these falsifications. I cannot. LIE #1 – MISREPRESENTATION OF LACK OF COMPREHENSION OR ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT AN ARGUMENT AS COMPREHENSION
—“Doolittle doesn’t have debates with anyone who might disagree too much…”—
I’ll debate anyone who:
– has the knowledge to. – has the ability to. – is intellectually honest – and is willing to. This dramatically limits the number of people worth debating to fellow researchers (academics). If one cannot conduct an argument on the opponent’s terms then one does not comprehend those terms. The only system of measurement for incommensurable terms is operations – a sequence of actions testing the possibility of the propositions. The leading people will not debate me for a variety of reasons,
a) the most prevalent of which is my intolerance on one hand, b) and that I haven’t published a work they can dissect on another – which is the price of entry into the academy’s circle of discourse; c) i’m a hostile that they don’t want to feed attention to. d) they are afraid I would win. This is why I want to publish, but maintain presence online, which generates demand for the publication, and assists me in simplifying the arguments so that they are more digestible for less specialized people. LIE #2 – INABILITY TO RECIPROCALLY CONDUCT AN ARGUMENT ON THE OPPONENT’S TERMS DEMONSTRATING KNOWLEDGE OF THE OPPONENT’S TERMS You can’t. You don’t. You pretend you do. Yet you can’t demonstrate it. Yet you pretend to. LIE #3 (THEFT) – USING MALE GSRRM TO STRAW MAN THE OPPOSITION BEFORE MASTERY OF THE MATERIAL. Meaning you’re too lazy to do the work so you cast unsubstantiated criticism and insults in an attempt to force the opponent to educate you and debate you rather than asking questions or doing the research yourself. (theft by fraud). LIE #4 – OBJECTIVE IS TO CONFIRM BIASES NOT DISCOVER TRUTHS You aren’t searching for truth you’ve made up your mind that what you already consider the good (which as far as I can tell is purely habituated intuition ). CLOSING So man up and provide a solution ERROR #1, while not engaging in LIES #1,#2,#3,#4. If you can provide a solution to ERROR #1 then we have used operational terms to ameliorate differences in our arguments. Because so far you’re just pulling nonsense out of the air. This sort of goes along with my statement that if you can’t produce a constitution you’re talking smack. Well, same goes for the rest of the polity. The starting point being “how do I get a territory where I can determine the law”.
-
No More Ancap Lies
Oct 11, 2019, 11:31 AM
—“First AnCaps are not free riders because AnCaps are not demanding or relying on any resources created by others. You say that it is some kind of fairy-tale village on the frontier which is protected by the federal cavalry when in trouble, but that is Y…”— Gunther Schadow
ERROR #1 – AN ANARCHIC POLITY CAN OBTAIN PROPERTY, ATTRACT POPULATION, CONSTRUCT A POLITY (ORDER) AND THEN SURVIVE COMPETITION FOR TERRITORY AND POPULATION ON HOPPEIAN OR ROTHBARDIAN TERMS. Assertion: This isn’t possible without dependency upon external revenues, population, and governance. Evidence: it never has succeeded – ever. (see Crusoe’s island fallacy for why). a) I can produce no plan by which such an order is possible. b) I can find no evidence in history by which such an order is possible. c) I can discover no incentives under which such an order is possible. d) Every order that has tried has been exterminated by competitors because it has become a haven for criminals who use it as a staging ground for parasitism against polities that produce commons. You are welcome to falsify these falsifications. I cannot. LIE #1 – MISREPRESENTATION OF LACK OF COMPREHENSION OR ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT AN ARGUMENT AS COMPREHENSION
—“Doolittle doesn’t have debates with anyone who might disagree too much…”—
I’ll debate anyone who:
– has the knowledge to. – has the ability to. – is intellectually honest – and is willing to. This dramatically limits the number of people worth debating to fellow researchers (academics). If one cannot conduct an argument on the opponent’s terms then one does not comprehend those terms. The only system of measurement for incommensurable terms is operations – a sequence of actions testing the possibility of the propositions. The leading people will not debate me for a variety of reasons,
a) the most prevalent of which is my intolerance on one hand, b) and that I haven’t published a work they can dissect on another – which is the price of entry into the academy’s circle of discourse; c) i’m a hostile that they don’t want to feed attention to. d) they are afraid I would win. This is why I want to publish, but maintain presence online, which generates demand for the publication, and assists me in simplifying the arguments so that they are more digestible for less specialized people. LIE #2 – INABILITY TO RECIPROCALLY CONDUCT AN ARGUMENT ON THE OPPONENT’S TERMS DEMONSTRATING KNOWLEDGE OF THE OPPONENT’S TERMS You can’t. You don’t. You pretend you do. Yet you can’t demonstrate it. Yet you pretend to. LIE #3 (THEFT) – USING MALE GSRRM TO STRAW MAN THE OPPOSITION BEFORE MASTERY OF THE MATERIAL. Meaning you’re too lazy to do the work so you cast unsubstantiated criticism and insults in an attempt to force the opponent to educate you and debate you rather than asking questions or doing the research yourself. (theft by fraud). LIE #4 – OBJECTIVE IS TO CONFIRM BIASES NOT DISCOVER TRUTHS You aren’t searching for truth you’ve made up your mind that what you already consider the good (which as far as I can tell is purely habituated intuition ). CLOSING So man up and provide a solution ERROR #1, while not engaging in LIES #1,#2,#3,#4. If you can provide a solution to ERROR #1 then we have used operational terms to ameliorate differences in our arguments. Because so far you’re just pulling nonsense out of the air. This sort of goes along with my statement that if you can’t produce a constitution you’re talking smack. Well, same goes for the rest of the polity. The starting point being “how do I get a territory where I can determine the law”.
-
Why Is Debating Against P so Unpleasant?
Why Is Debating Against P so Unpleasant? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/why-is-debating-against-p-so-unpleasant/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:47:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265701251179741184