Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

(FB 1547953072 Timestamp) First, while you consider this a warning, it is just extremely good advertising. Because the person who would be as fearful as you are would have no value in altering the status quo, while at the same time those people that listen to this who would have value would merely be driven to interest in our work. Second, You are a good person, I have known you to be a good person and a moral person. I see nothing in this criticism that is not intellectually honest. I ‘like’ you and I will probably always do so because there is not much else to ask of fellow humans but to be good, moral, and intellectually honest. Now, except for the whacky stuff about being a fed, or ‘doggy robots’ this isn’t a bad bundle of criticisms. But, that said, they are just ‘fears’ not ‘faults’ but for some fears are the same as faults. Just as hurt feelings are the same as harms. And so I’m operating under the understanding that what you are evidencing in your argument and demeanor is fear. 1 – No disagreement on your statement of objective. Although my objective is more subtle: the certainty of revolt brings options to the table. This is stated repeatedly throughout the work: the more certain the revolution the more likely it is unnecessary. I set out to produce “a moral license, a set of demands, a plan of transition, and a means to alter the status quo.” This is what is required for political change that would restore the constitution to one of natural law, insulate it from future abuses by legislation from the bench, and to eliminate the predation on our people by the commercial, financial, media, academic, and political classes that have been able to use the media to develop an industrialization of deception on a scale not possible since the formation of the monotheistic religions under their near monopoly on writing. 2 – No. Writing plans was not my job. I have definitely written plans. I talk about both Australia and Hungary. I don’t think I”ve talked about others. Writing plans is part of the job of the general staff and there are tons of them. These plans are used in games to test them. The games are incredibly unsophisticated. You can read about these games. They involve political, bureaucratic, industry, academic, and military folk. This was very common back in the day. I haven’t followed the current nonsense over the past decade. I simply was in ukraine to watch it first hand. 3 – In the battle between opinions i am sure i have more knowledge of the available resources, and this information is not exactly hard to come by if you follow the geostrategic, economic, and military think tanks. If you and any knowledge at all you would have offered it. You don’t. Why? This is the general criticism I have of anything you’d say. If you had a criticism other than fear you would levy it. 4 – I understand you are scared. But many of us are not scared. i understand you have been threatened by Adam and my discussion of metaphysics and the inability of deceits to survive testimonial criticism. I understand you are panicking because our movement is scaling rather rapidly. i understand that we are scaling rapidly because we have material solutions to present serious problems. I understand that you are frustrated because you cannot find a way to preserve your self illusion in a court of law. And that the court could prevent you from spreading those illusions or maintaining those illusions. The difference is that today you and the left can do so. Where we would prevent you and the left from doing so in the commons (conspiracy to conduct fraud). If your illusions are a cost of the eradication of leftism in all its forms then it is a cost I am willing to pay for our people just as depriving a drug addict of his fix is a cost I am willing to pay for our people. RE The Six Points: 1 – I know you are scared of losing supernaturalism and idealism as your preferred drug of escapism and i do not deny that many of us need means of escapism. That does not mean it is ethical or moral or good or any such positive to conspire to create falsehoods that produce externalities in the commons. I know this is the purpose of your criticism. the rest is cover for your mysticism. I know your world is threatened. it is threatened in fact because the majority will easily trade the end of commercial, financial, academic and political deceit for a return to trustworthy speech. Every random group that we test on buys it. 2 – There is a reason you are not using examples rather than vague critique. That is because if you used examples i could test them and show they are nonsensical fears. Courts are practical. juries are practical. common law accumulates rapidly and adjust rapidly. 3 – Lying? It’s not if you are lying, but failing to perform due diligence against conspiracy to commit fraud. We all err. we cannot know we speak the truth. we can however know we performed due diligence against error, bias, deceit, fraud.. 4 – Reciprocity? I cannot find any possibility of anyone falsifying reciprocity except to defraud. maybe you can. but as far as i know, like rational choice it is impossible. Again if you use ideals it is easy to engage in sophism and critique. But I have cataloged every single conflict I can find and all of them are resolvable by tests of reciprocity. 5 – The hard problem of consciousness is not hard which is why people in CS are panicking that we are going to reach it before knowing how to control it. Yes, the difference between knowledge of experience, and the construction of experience and the experience of experience itself is meaningful in the discourse between man and machine, or man and an alternate live form – but it is not meaningful between humans. Or else we could not communicate. That which we cannot communicate must be demonstrated. We are very good at this in all walks of life: it’s called education. 6 – My method is simple: either you can testify to it or not. if you cannot, then we are left with your incentives to determine whether that what is not testifiable is somehow true. It is almost impossible to find an example where one is both arguing for the truth of a proposition and doing so against testifiability, and at the same time not possessed of an incentive to deceive or defraud. I have tried. These questions are all reducible to some variation on the rationality of choice. And in the end all choices are rational in the sense that they are explicable. So, we have eliminated this stuff from private property disputes, and from some common property disputes, but not from informational commons disputes. The courts are very good at adjudicating failures of due diligence. 7 – I don’t claim i am always right. I claim i don’t make mistakes in my arguments. And I say it to bait. And I state frequently that this is a tactic to bait lazy thinkers. The truth is that if I can construct a formal argument in operational terms it is very hard for me to be wrong. It is very hard for anyone to be wrong. The reason is that operational argument exposes presumptions of knowledge and fictionalisms. I am right a LOT and that’s simply what it is. But it’s because I artfully avoid taking a position on anything I can’t make into a question that’s decidable. The most common being various criticisms of homosexuality, abortion, and christianity. The reason being that the first two are undecidable, the second is decidable but repairable. Not that it’s necessary since it’s disappearing. 8 – Yes there are many of us willing to fight for our civilization, and i know you are not. That does not make you a bad person it means you just do not matter in the quest to save our people from the near immediate conquest. In other words, if you won’t fight you don’t matter. 9 -Assertion? Assertion is how we force counter argument. Otherwise I bear the cost of education. Instead, bring a counter argument. no justification provides truth, only survival from falsification. So i require an argument that would survive in court and i do not consider it my job to educate. So what you and many others do, is attempt to get me to educate you until you an propose a counter argument., This is a fools errand and too costly. I tend to take on arguments that are within a few steps of the next leap in reasoning, and I do not take on the job of bringing people from kindergarten to grad school. Economics in everything. WHat you want me to do is accept your premises except they are premises I cannot, because they are unjustifiable (inadmissible). You see, I won’t accept anything that isn’t on testifiable (juridical) terms and you won’t accept juridical terms. Sorry. Then don’t debate me. 10 – GSRM as a means of avoiding argument is different from gsrm for not making an argument. I use it to punish circumvention of argument that would survive. There is no contrariness here. I shame people who need shaming because they are not offering an argument. This is something my followers appreciate, and it is something they asked me to stick to, because I was wasting too much time on people below the threshold of potential. 11 – Yes, I know you are therefore unable to make theological, supernatural, fantasy, and non arguments. Yes, and the left can’t make marxist, postmodernist, feminist, and otherwise denialist arguments. That your … needs … to find a way to preserve your investments is a cost that those of us who want to stop the left are willing to bear. 12 – Psychology. My argument is with freudian psychology which is an instance of Critique. I use naturalism, the grammars, acquisitionism, reciprocity and propertarianism to explain human behavior in economic terms. In general I rely on neural economy to explain most issues that are currently explained in … less scientific terms. So yes we are continuing to grow, yes we will go mainstream sometime in the not too distant future, yes you should feel threatened if you are attempting to spread falsehoods, yes a revolution is possible, yes the best revolutions are those that are contractual rather than physical, yes getting to that point requires fear that the government will lose, no you are a very sill person if you think the state has advanced weapons like ‘robots’ and you are bordering on schizotypal behavior by accusing me of conspiracy of some kind (OMFG…). and you are even more silly if you think the govt can do much except accelerate collapse. But then cowards abed, shuddering under covers, leave no mark on history, their names are forgotten, their people and their gods are replaced, and the souls of all those yet to be, and all that have been, damn those cowards to the only hell there is for their cowardice, if there is any at all. Cowards fear truth, and the fight, and the harm that they may come to. They are of no meaning to those that fear only the passage of their people, The only thing the state can do to a person who writes as I do is to provide him legitimacy. And for that legitimacy, i could only beg, not fear, when my demands are the cessation of the parasitism of the financial, academic, media, and political classes upon the people I love. Even the cowards. As for ‘illegal’, I never ever cross the line. And I probably won’t have to. (BTW: look at john mark’s video from today. he’ puts it out in the open.)

(FB 1547953072 Timestamp) First, while you consider this a warning, it is just extremely good advertising. Because the person who would be as fearful as you are would have no value in altering the status quo, while at the same time those people that listen to this who would have value would merely be driven to interest in our work. Second, You are a good person, I have known you to be a good person and a moral person. I see nothing in this criticism that is not intellectually honest. I ‘like’ you and I will probably always do so because there is not much else to ask of fellow humans but to be good, moral, and intellectually honest. Now, except for the whacky stuff about being a fed, or ‘doggy robots’ this isn’t a bad bundle of criticisms. But, that said, they are just ‘fears’ not ‘faults’ but for some fears are the same as faults. Just as hurt feelings are the same as harms. And so I’m operating under the understanding that what you are evidencing in your argument and demeanor is fear. 1 – No disagreement on your statement of objective. Although my objective is more subtle: the certainty of revolt brings options to the table. This is stated repeatedly throughout the work: the more certain the revolution the more likely it is unnecessary. I set out to produce “a moral license, a set of demands, a plan of transition, and a means to alter the status quo.” This is what is required for political change that would restore the constitution to one of natural law, insulate it from future abuses by legislation from the bench, and to eliminate the predation on our people by the commercial, financial, media, academic, and political classes that have been able to use the media to develop an industrialization of deception on a scale not possible since the formation of the monotheistic religions under their near monopoly on writing. 2 – No. Writing plans was not my job. I have definitely written plans. I talk about both Australia and Hungary. I don’t think I”ve talked about others. Writing plans is part of the job of the general staff and there are tons of them. These plans are used in games to test them. The games are incredibly unsophisticated. You can read about these games. They involve political, bureaucratic, industry, academic, and military folk. This was very common back in the day. I haven’t followed the current nonsense over the past decade. I simply was in ukraine to watch it first hand. 3 – In the battle between opinions i am sure i have more knowledge of the available resources, and this information is not exactly hard to come by if you follow the geostrategic, economic, and military think tanks. If you and any knowledge at all you would have offered it. You don’t. Why? This is the general criticism I have of anything you’d say. If you had a criticism other than fear you would levy it. 4 – I understand you are scared. But many of us are not scared. i understand you have been threatened by Adam and my discussion of metaphysics and the inability of deceits to survive testimonial criticism. I understand you are panicking because our movement is scaling rather rapidly. i understand that we are scaling rapidly because we have material solutions to present serious problems. I understand that you are frustrated because you cannot find a way to preserve your self illusion in a court of law. And that the court could prevent you from spreading those illusions or maintaining those illusions. The difference is that today you and the left can do so. Where we would prevent you and the left from doing so in the commons (conspiracy to conduct fraud). If your illusions are a cost of the eradication of leftism in all its forms then it is a cost I am willing to pay for our people just as depriving a drug addict of his fix is a cost I am willing to pay for our people. RE The Six Points: 1 – I know you are scared of losing supernaturalism and idealism as your preferred drug of escapism and i do not deny that many of us need means of escapism. That does not mean it is ethical or moral or good or any such positive to conspire to create falsehoods that produce externalities in the commons. I know this is the purpose of your criticism. the rest is cover for your mysticism. I know your world is threatened. it is threatened in fact because the majority will easily trade the end of commercial, financial, academic and political deceit for a return to trustworthy speech. Every random group that we test on buys it. 2 – There is a reason you are not using examples rather than vague critique. That is because if you used examples i could test them and show they are nonsensical fears. Courts are practical. juries are practical. common law accumulates rapidly and adjust rapidly. 3 – Lying? It’s not if you are lying, but failing to perform due diligence against conspiracy to commit fraud. We all err. we cannot know we speak the truth. we can however know we performed due diligence against error, bias, deceit, fraud.. 4 – Reciprocity? I cannot find any possibility of anyone falsifying reciprocity except to defraud. maybe you can. but as far as i know, like rational choice it is impossible. Again if you use ideals it is easy to engage in sophism and critique. But I have cataloged every single conflict I can find and all of them are resolvable by tests of reciprocity. 5 – The hard problem of consciousness is not hard which is why people in CS are panicking that we are going to reach it before knowing how to control it. Yes, the difference between knowledge of experience, and the construction of experience and the experience of experience itself is meaningful in the discourse between man and machine, or man and an alternate live form – but it is not meaningful between humans. Or else we could not communicate. That which we cannot communicate must be demonstrated. We are very good at this in all walks of life: it’s called education. 6 – My method is simple: either you can testify to it or not. if you cannot, then we are left with your incentives to determine whether that what is not testifiable is somehow true. It is almost impossible to find an example where one is both arguing for the truth of a proposition and doing so against testifiability, and at the same time not possessed of an incentive to deceive or defraud. I have tried. These questions are all reducible to some variation on the rationality of choice. And in the end all choices are rational in the sense that they are explicable. So, we have eliminated this stuff from private property disputes, and from some common property disputes, but not from informational commons disputes. The courts are very good at adjudicating failures of due diligence. 7 – I don’t claim i am always right. I claim i don’t make mistakes in my arguments. And I say it to bait. And I state frequently that this is a tactic to bait lazy thinkers. The truth is that if I can construct a formal argument in operational terms it is very hard for me to be wrong. It is very hard for anyone to be wrong. The reason is that operational argument exposes presumptions of knowledge and fictionalisms. I am right a LOT and that’s simply what it is. But it’s because I artfully avoid taking a position on anything I can’t make into a question that’s decidable. The most common being various criticisms of homosexuality, abortion, and christianity. The reason being that the first two are undecidable, the second is decidable but repairable. Not that it’s necessary since it’s disappearing. 8 – Yes there are many of us willing to fight for our civilization, and i know you are not. That does not make you a bad person it means you just do not matter in the quest to save our people from the near immediate conquest. In other words, if you won’t fight you don’t matter. 9 -Assertion? Assertion is how we force counter argument. Otherwise I bear the cost of education. Instead, bring a counter argument. no justification provides truth, only survival from falsification. So i require an argument that would survive in court and i do not consider it my job to educate. So what you and many others do, is attempt to get me to educate you until you an propose a counter argument., This is a fools errand and too costly. I tend to take on arguments that are within a few steps of the next leap in reasoning, and I do not take on the job of bringing people from kindergarten to grad school. Economics in everything. WHat you want me to do is accept your premises except they are premises I cannot, because they are unjustifiable (inadmissible). You see, I won’t accept anything that isn’t on testifiable (juridical) terms and you won’t accept juridical terms. Sorry. Then don’t debate me. 10 – GSRM as a means of avoiding argument is different from gsrm for not making an argument. I use it to punish circumvention of argument that would survive. There is no contrariness here. I shame people who need shaming because they are not offering an argument. This is something my followers appreciate, and it is something they asked me to stick to, because I was wasting too much time on people below the threshold of potential. 11 – Yes, I know you are therefore unable to make theological, supernatural, fantasy, and non arguments. Yes, and the left can’t make marxist, postmodernist, feminist, and otherwise denialist arguments. That your … needs … to find a way to preserve your investments is a cost that those of us who want to stop the left are willing to bear. 12 – Psychology. My argument is with freudian psychology which is an instance of Critique. I use naturalism, the grammars, acquisitionism, reciprocity and propertarianism to explain human behavior in economic terms. In general I rely on neural economy to explain most issues that are currently explained in … less scientific terms. So yes we are continuing to grow, yes we will go mainstream sometime in the not too distant future, yes you should feel threatened if you are attempting to spread falsehoods, yes a revolution is possible, yes the best revolutions are those that are contractual rather than physical, yes getting to that point requires fear that the government will lose, no you are a very sill person if you think the state has advanced weapons like ‘robots’ and you are bordering on schizotypal behavior by accusing me of conspiracy of some kind (OMFG…). and you are even more silly if you think the govt can do much except accelerate collapse. But then cowards abed, shuddering under covers, leave no mark on history, their names are forgotten, their people and their gods are replaced, and the souls of all those yet to be, and all that have been, damn those cowards to the only hell there is for their cowardice, if there is any at all. Cowards fear truth, and the fight, and the harm that they may come to. They are of no meaning to those that fear only the passage of their people, The only thing the state can do to a person who writes as I do is to provide him legitimacy. And for that legitimacy, i could only beg, not fear, when my demands are the cessation of the parasitism of the financial, academic, media, and political classes upon the people I love. Even the cowards. As for ‘illegal’, I never ever cross the line. And I probably won’t have to. (BTW: look at john mark’s video from today. he’ puts it out in the open.)