(FB 1551884573 Timestamp) RESPONSE TO “TURD FLINGING MONKEY” AND KRITARCHY =Turd Flinging Monkey= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lr90HDyfpU& == CURTD == Sorry man but Propertarianism is a METHODOLOGY. You can produce any kind of government with it that you want. I Talk about restoring fascism, monarchical government, multi house government, as options for reforming our system. I propose a constitution for restoring the constitution and defending and repairing the weaknesses in it, and another for devolving the federal government into an insurer of last resort. But Kritarchy, especially in the jewish method (legal interpretation of literary tradition), where there is no means of commons production (The reason the jews always failed) is pretty much the opposite. You could say instead, that the ultimate government under the method would be more like the way the church served as a judiciary over european nationstates, and that church as it would have evolved had natural law and deism (anthropomorphism of the laws of nature and the natural law) replaced parable and supernaturalism. Very tedious to defend against straw men. =Turd Flinging Monkey= I’m referring specifically to elements such as making lying illegal, and declaring intangibles property. This would necessarily open up a legal nightmare which would ultimately rest on the human biases of judge to sort out. However if Propertarianism can be anything, and its merely methodology, then so be it. It appeared to be promoted as a system of government, not merely a methodology to create any government you want. ==CURTD== Yes, It is a methodology. And as far as I know it is the missing logic of psychological and social sciences including economics and law – because it has parsimonious explanatory power in every one of those disciplines. Yes it is possible to use this methodology to construct any system of laws transparently and truthfully. Yes it is possible to use this methodology to plug holes in our common law, our legislative processes, and our judicial processes. Because the method, by producing a formal logic of the ‘soft (human)’ sciences enables and forces judgements made not by interpretation but by application of that logic. The prosecution of lies in the commons is possible because today we successfully suppress fraud in commercial speech, and in the past we used to prosecute scolding, libel, slander, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by conspiracy, and treason in defense of the commons (King’s Peace). We allowed the state and the left to use the hole in ‘free speech’, rather than free truthful speech, to destroy our protections of the informational commons. And we did not repair the holes in the constitution (ascent w/o court ascent, inability of the court to return undecidability to the legislature, and that the court’s ‘interpretation’) We did so for the simple reason that christianity is constructed by the same technique of lying, in excitement of the same incentives, as are marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism: false promise, baiting into hazard, the sophisms of pilpul and critique, and environmental saturation with repetition of the deceit despite persistent contrary evidence. This is the same behavior as drug addiction because it is in our underlying biology why we are vulnerable to drug addiction: demand for mindfulness. But rather than expressly permitting christian ‘parable’ and outlawing all other forms of deceit (it was the anglo enlightenment at the time, and religion, philosophy and science were competing), we have preserved those holes in our law permitting the abuse of our people and the gradual INTENTIONAL degradation of our informational commons, upon which most of the population is more dependent than upon reason. As in all eras, every time we increase the scope of suppressions of the law, there are a fury of cases until the incentives work their way through the ‘markets’ such that people change their behavior in order to avoid prosecution under the law. This particular law I (we) recommend suppresses commercial, financial, economic, political, and pedagogical speech IN THE COMMONS from using that method of false promise, baiting into hazard, the sophisms of pilpul (justification) and critique (criticism) and environmental saturation with these deceits. For example, in this case I could claim damage because you published a piece of of assertive critique (straw manning) rather than simply asking the question whether what you thought was true or false, and operating from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. Because there are legitimate criticisms of the work. I know them and I publish them with frequency. Especially when the work is available for free, the definition of it on the home page in bright colors, and the overview of the innovations in an outline with links to relevant arguments. As such you sought attention, virtue signals, and if you collect revenue, you sought profits, by failure of due diligence before asserting a criticism in public. The result would be fewer public opinions of higher quality, and a near eradication of leftist discourse. Conservatives would not have this problem since conservatism is largely reducible to defense of all forms of property equally, and libertarianism defense of private property, and the left defense of nothing other than unmeritocratic consumption of children. But the fact that law has been, is now, and must be the means by which we engineer a social order of sufficient precision that advanced civilization can occur in a complex division of cognition and labor among at least the productive classes – although arguably religion is sufficient for slaves, serfs, underclass, and unskilled and semiskilled labor. Although they must be bound by law, since law remains, the adjudication of differences in conflicts over property, where property the result of demonstrated interest (costs).
Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1551887794 Timestamp) HOBBES WAS RIGHT – PINKER ON THE DATA (CurtD: Rousseau was not only wrong but suicidal, Locke was wrong but proposed a solution, and Hobbes was right but had the wrong solution.) by Steven Pinker (Via @[100024818064292:2048:Rosenborg Predmetsky]) “From Rousseau to the Thanksgiving editorialist of Chapter 1, many intellectuals have embraced the image of peaceable, egalitarian, and ecology-loving natives. But in the past two decades anthropologists have gathered data on life and death in pre-state societies rather than accepting the warm and fuzzy stereotypes. What did they find? In a nutshell: Hobbes was right, Rousseau was wrong. To begin with, the stories of tribes out there somewhere who have never heard of violence turn out to be urban legends. Margaret Mead’s descriptions of peace-loving New Guineans and sexually nonchalant Samoans were based on perfunctory research and turned out to be almost perversely wrong. As the anthropologist Derek Freeman later documented, Samoans may beat or kill their daughters if they are not virgins on their wedding night, a young man who cannot woo a virgin may rape one to extort her into eloping, and the family of a cuckolded husband may attack and kill the adulterer.68 The !Kung San of the Kalahari Desert had been described by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas as âthe harmless peopleâ in a book with that title. But as soon as anthropologists camped out long enough to accumulate data, they discovered that the !Kung San have a murder rate higher than that of American inner cities. They learned as well that a group of the San had recently avenged a murder by sneaking into the killer’s group and executing every man, woman, and child as they slept. But at least the !Kung San exist. In the early 1970s the New York Times Magazine reported the discovery of the âgentle Tasadayâ of the Philippine rainforest, a people with no words for conflict, violence, or weapons. The Tasaday turned out to be local farmers dressed in leaves for a photo opportunity so that cronies of Ferdinand Marcos could set aside their âhomelandâ as a preserve and enjoy exclusive mineral and logging rights The first eight bars, which range from almost 10 percent to almost 60 percent, come from indigenous peoples in South America and New Guinea. The nearly invisible bar at the bottom represents the United States and Europe in the twentieth century and includes the statistics from two world wars. Moreover, Keeley and others have noted that native peoples are dead serious when they carry out warfare. Many of them make weapons as damaging as their technology permits, exterminate their enemies when they can get away with it, and enhance the experience by torturing captives, cutting off trophies, and feasting on enemy flesh. Counting societies instead of bodies leads to equally grim figures. In 1978 the anthropologist Carol Ember calculated that 90 percent of hunter-gatherer societies are known to engage in warfare, and 64 percent wage war at least once every two years. Even the 90 percent figure may be an underestimate, because anthropologists often cannot study a tribe long enough to measure outbreaks that occur every decade or so (imagine an anthropologist studying the peaceful Europeans between 1918 and 1938). In 1972 another anthropologist, W. T. Divale, investigated 99 groups of hunter-gatherers from 37 cultures, and found that 68 were at war at the time, 20 had been at war five to twenty-five years before, and all the others reported warfare in the more distant past. Based on these and other ethnographic surveys, Donald Brown includes conflict, rape, revenge, jealousy, dominance, and male coalitional violence as human universals. It is, of course, understandable that people are squeamish about acknowledging the violence of pre-state societies. For centuries the stereotype of the {58} savage savage was used as a pretext to wipe out indigenous peoples and steal their lands. But surely it is unnecessary to paint a false picture of a people as peaceable and ecologically conscientious in order to condemn the great crimes against them, as if genocide were wrong only when the victims are nice guys. The prevalence of violence in the kinds of environments in which we evolved does not mean that our species has a death wish, an innate thirst for blood, or a territorial imperative. There are good evolutionary reasons for the members of an intelligent species to try to live in peace. Many computer simulations and mathematical models have shown that cooperation pays off in evolutionary terms as long as the cooperators have brains with the right combination of cognitive and emotional faculties.76 Thus while conflict is a human universal, so is conflict resolution. “
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551884573 Timestamp) RESPONSE TO “TURD FLINGING MONKEY” AND KRITARCHY =Turd Flinging Monkey= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lr90HDyfpU& == CURTD == Sorry man but Propertarianism is a METHODOLOGY. You can produce any kind of government with it that you want. I Talk about restoring fascism, monarchical government, multi house government, as options for reforming our system. I propose a constitution for restoring the constitution and defending and repairing the weaknesses in it, and another for devolving the federal government into an insurer of last resort. But Kritarchy, especially in the jewish method (legal interpretation of literary tradition), where there is no means of commons production (The reason the jews always failed) is pretty much the opposite. You could say instead, that the ultimate government under the method would be more like the way the church served as a judiciary over european nationstates, and that church as it would have evolved had natural law and deism (anthropomorphism of the laws of nature and the natural law) replaced parable and supernaturalism. Very tedious to defend against straw men. =Turd Flinging Monkey= I’m referring specifically to elements such as making lying illegal, and declaring intangibles property. This would necessarily open up a legal nightmare which would ultimately rest on the human biases of judge to sort out. However if Propertarianism can be anything, and its merely methodology, then so be it. It appeared to be promoted as a system of government, not merely a methodology to create any government you want. ==CURTD== Yes, It is a methodology. And as far as I know it is the missing logic of psychological and social sciences including economics and law – because it has parsimonious explanatory power in every one of those disciplines. Yes it is possible to use this methodology to construct any system of laws transparently and truthfully. Yes it is possible to use this methodology to plug holes in our common law, our legislative processes, and our judicial processes. Because the method, by producing a formal logic of the ‘soft (human)’ sciences enables and forces judgements made not by interpretation but by application of that logic. The prosecution of lies in the commons is possible because today we successfully suppress fraud in commercial speech, and in the past we used to prosecute scolding, libel, slander, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by conspiracy, and treason in defense of the commons (King’s Peace). We allowed the state and the left to use the hole in ‘free speech’, rather than free truthful speech, to destroy our protections of the informational commons. And we did not repair the holes in the constitution (ascent w/o court ascent, inability of the court to return undecidability to the legislature, and that the court’s ‘interpretation’) We did so for the simple reason that christianity is constructed by the same technique of lying, in excitement of the same incentives, as are marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism: false promise, baiting into hazard, the sophisms of pilpul and critique, and environmental saturation with repetition of the deceit despite persistent contrary evidence. This is the same behavior as drug addiction because it is in our underlying biology why we are vulnerable to drug addiction: demand for mindfulness. But rather than expressly permitting christian ‘parable’ and outlawing all other forms of deceit (it was the anglo enlightenment at the time, and religion, philosophy and science were competing), we have preserved those holes in our law permitting the abuse of our people and the gradual INTENTIONAL degradation of our informational commons, upon which most of the population is more dependent than upon reason. As in all eras, every time we increase the scope of suppressions of the law, there are a fury of cases until the incentives work their way through the ‘markets’ such that people change their behavior in order to avoid prosecution under the law. This particular law I (we) recommend suppresses commercial, financial, economic, political, and pedagogical speech IN THE COMMONS from using that method of false promise, baiting into hazard, the sophisms of pilpul (justification) and critique (criticism) and environmental saturation with these deceits. For example, in this case I could claim damage because you published a piece of of assertive critique (straw manning) rather than simply asking the question whether what you thought was true or false, and operating from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. Because there are legitimate criticisms of the work. I know them and I publish them with frequency. Especially when the work is available for free, the definition of it on the home page in bright colors, and the overview of the innovations in an outline with links to relevant arguments. As such you sought attention, virtue signals, and if you collect revenue, you sought profits, by failure of due diligence before asserting a criticism in public. The result would be fewer public opinions of higher quality, and a near eradication of leftist discourse. Conservatives would not have this problem since conservatism is largely reducible to defense of all forms of property equally, and libertarianism defense of private property, and the left defense of nothing other than unmeritocratic consumption of children. But the fact that law has been, is now, and must be the means by which we engineer a social order of sufficient precision that advanced civilization can occur in a complex division of cognition and labor among at least the productive classes – although arguably religion is sufficient for slaves, serfs, underclass, and unskilled and semiskilled labor. Although they must be bound by law, since law remains, the adjudication of differences in conflicts over property, where property the result of demonstrated interest (costs).
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1551887794 Timestamp) HOBBES WAS RIGHT – PINKER ON THE DATA (CurtD: Rousseau was not only wrong but suicidal, Locke was wrong but proposed a solution, and Hobbes was right but had the wrong solution.) by Steven Pinker (Via @[100024818064292:2048:Rosenborg Predmetsky]) “From Rousseau to the Thanksgiving editorialist of Chapter 1, many intellectuals have embraced the image of peaceable, egalitarian, and ecology-loving natives. But in the past two decades anthropologists have gathered data on life and death in pre-state societies rather than accepting the warm and fuzzy stereotypes. What did they find? In a nutshell: Hobbes was right, Rousseau was wrong. To begin with, the stories of tribes out there somewhere who have never heard of violence turn out to be urban legends. Margaret Mead’s descriptions of peace-loving New Guineans and sexually nonchalant Samoans were based on perfunctory research and turned out to be almost perversely wrong. As the anthropologist Derek Freeman later documented, Samoans may beat or kill their daughters if they are not virgins on their wedding night, a young man who cannot woo a virgin may rape one to extort her into eloping, and the family of a cuckolded husband may attack and kill the adulterer.68 The !Kung San of the Kalahari Desert had been described by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas as âthe harmless peopleâ in a book with that title. But as soon as anthropologists camped out long enough to accumulate data, they discovered that the !Kung San have a murder rate higher than that of American inner cities. They learned as well that a group of the San had recently avenged a murder by sneaking into the killer’s group and executing every man, woman, and child as they slept. But at least the !Kung San exist. In the early 1970s the New York Times Magazine reported the discovery of the âgentle Tasadayâ of the Philippine rainforest, a people with no words for conflict, violence, or weapons. The Tasaday turned out to be local farmers dressed in leaves for a photo opportunity so that cronies of Ferdinand Marcos could set aside their âhomelandâ as a preserve and enjoy exclusive mineral and logging rights The first eight bars, which range from almost 10 percent to almost 60 percent, come from indigenous peoples in South America and New Guinea. The nearly invisible bar at the bottom represents the United States and Europe in the twentieth century and includes the statistics from two world wars. Moreover, Keeley and others have noted that native peoples are dead serious when they carry out warfare. Many of them make weapons as damaging as their technology permits, exterminate their enemies when they can get away with it, and enhance the experience by torturing captives, cutting off trophies, and feasting on enemy flesh. Counting societies instead of bodies leads to equally grim figures. In 1978 the anthropologist Carol Ember calculated that 90 percent of hunter-gatherer societies are known to engage in warfare, and 64 percent wage war at least once every two years. Even the 90 percent figure may be an underestimate, because anthropologists often cannot study a tribe long enough to measure outbreaks that occur every decade or so (imagine an anthropologist studying the peaceful Europeans between 1918 and 1938). In 1972 another anthropologist, W. T. Divale, investigated 99 groups of hunter-gatherers from 37 cultures, and found that 68 were at war at the time, 20 had been at war five to twenty-five years before, and all the others reported warfare in the more distant past. Based on these and other ethnographic surveys, Donald Brown includes conflict, rape, revenge, jealousy, dominance, and male coalitional violence as human universals. It is, of course, understandable that people are squeamish about acknowledging the violence of pre-state societies. For centuries the stereotype of the {58} savage savage was used as a pretext to wipe out indigenous peoples and steal their lands. But surely it is unnecessary to paint a false picture of a people as peaceable and ecologically conscientious in order to condemn the great crimes against them, as if genocide were wrong only when the victims are nice guys. The prevalence of violence in the kinds of environments in which we evolved does not mean that our species has a death wish, an innate thirst for blood, or a territorial imperative. There are good evolutionary reasons for the members of an intelligent species to try to live in peace. Many computer simulations and mathematical models have shown that cooperation pays off in evolutionary terms as long as the cooperators have brains with the right combination of cognitive and emotional faculties.76 Thus while conflict is a human universal, so is conflict resolution. “
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1551888038 Timestamp) A LEGIONNAIRE DEMON NAMED “WHITE SUPREMACY” by Rosenborg Predmetsky March 4 at 9:20 PM · Leftists are increasingly obsessed with the idea that a Legionnaire demon named “White Supremacy” pervades our consciousness. But isn’t this the very same culture whose postwar obsession is dominated by the demonization of Hitler as the Ultimate Evil and also allegedly the demonic avatar of white supremacy? If it is true that World War 2 was a war against racism and white supremacy, and yet our very own culture is white supremacist, why did we go to war with Hitler? Was it really over racism? I mean, it’s not like those who got us into the war were what we would consider “woke” on racial issues. Winston Churchill in his “Zionism versus Bolshevism” piece: “In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.” In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission: “I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” He concluded that “Americans have destroyed in Europe the only sound country”, thereby clearing the way “for the advent of Russian Communism” (Diary entry, 18 August). General George S. Patton said: August 8 “According to the Bishop, more than two million Poles have been taken to Russia for slave labor. [â¦] The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European but an Asiatic and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinaman or a Japanese and, from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and is an all out son of a bitch, a barbarian, and a chronic drunk.” Another pair of earlier diary entries, written only days after Germany’s unconditional surrender: “14 May I have never seen in any army at any time, including the German Imperial Army of 1912, as severe discipline as exists in the Russian army. The officers with few exceptions give the appearance of recently civilized Mongolian bandits. The men passed in review with a very good imitation of the goose step. They give me the impression of something that is to be feared in future world political reorganization. 18 May In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined armsâ whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to fight the Russians, the sooner we do it the better. Eisenhower and Bradley were somewhat worried about the attitude of the soldiers. Personally, I donât think the soldier cares… so well disciplined and so patriotic he will fight anywhere he is told to fight, and do a good job. I believe that by taking a strong attitude, the Russians will back down. So far we have yielded too much to their Mongolian nature.” extracts from letters to his wife, Beatrice: “21 July 1945 I left here at 0630 and got there in two hours and a half. We could have gone faster but for the fact that if one flies over Russian occupied territory, they shoot at you â nice friends. [â¦] The Mongols are a bad lot, even the U.S. sector has their guards in it [i.e. to prevent them from looting, etc.], and I had to have a pass. However, I did not need it. I just pointed to my [Russian] medal and the world was mine⦠Berlin gave me the blues. We have destroyed what could have been a good race and we about to replace them with Mongolian savages. And all Europe will be communist. Itâs said that for the first week after they took it, all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it had I been allowed. 31 August 1945 The stuff in the papers about fraternization is all wet… All that sort of writing is done by Jews to get revenge. Actually the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe. Itâs a choice between them and the Russians. I prefer the Germans.” cf. a diary entry of the same date: “I also wrote a letter to the Secretary of War, Mr. Stimson, on the question of the pro-Jewish influence in the Military Government of Germany. I dared do this because when I was in Washington, he showed me a great deal of correspondence he had had with the Secretary of State and Mr. Morgenthau prior to the Quebec Conference. 2 September 1945 I had never heard that we fought to de-natzify Germany â live and learn. What we are doing is to utterly destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe so that Russia can swallow the whole. 14 September 1945 I was going to Nancy in the morning to become a citizen but Ike phoned he is coming here so I had best stay and see him. Perhaps I can make him see the menace of the Mâs. They have 300,000 troops in Checo. [i.e. Czechoslovakia] now and are running 200,000 more in, and we are pulling out â getting the boys home by Xmas. It may well result in getting them back in the trenches by spring⦠I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff. It is not cricket and is Semitic. I am also opposed to sending PWâs to work as slaves in foreign lands where many will be starved to death⦔ All extracts taken from The Patton Papers, 1940â1945, edited by Martin Blumenson
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1551888038 Timestamp) A LEGIONNAIRE DEMON NAMED “WHITE SUPREMACY” by Rosenborg Predmetsky March 4 at 9:20 PM · Leftists are increasingly obsessed with the idea that a Legionnaire demon named “White Supremacy” pervades our consciousness. But isn’t this the very same culture whose postwar obsession is dominated by the demonization of Hitler as the Ultimate Evil and also allegedly the demonic avatar of white supremacy? If it is true that World War 2 was a war against racism and white supremacy, and yet our very own culture is white supremacist, why did we go to war with Hitler? Was it really over racism? I mean, it’s not like those who got us into the war were what we would consider “woke” on racial issues. Winston Churchill in his “Zionism versus Bolshevism” piece: “In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.” In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission: “I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” He concluded that “Americans have destroyed in Europe the only sound country”, thereby clearing the way “for the advent of Russian Communism” (Diary entry, 18 August). General George S. Patton said: August 8 “According to the Bishop, more than two million Poles have been taken to Russia for slave labor. [â¦] The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European but an Asiatic and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinaman or a Japanese and, from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and is an all out son of a bitch, a barbarian, and a chronic drunk.” Another pair of earlier diary entries, written only days after Germany’s unconditional surrender: “14 May I have never seen in any army at any time, including the German Imperial Army of 1912, as severe discipline as exists in the Russian army. The officers with few exceptions give the appearance of recently civilized Mongolian bandits. The men passed in review with a very good imitation of the goose step. They give me the impression of something that is to be feared in future world political reorganization. 18 May In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined armsâ whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to fight the Russians, the sooner we do it the better. Eisenhower and Bradley were somewhat worried about the attitude of the soldiers. Personally, I donât think the soldier cares… so well disciplined and so patriotic he will fight anywhere he is told to fight, and do a good job. I believe that by taking a strong attitude, the Russians will back down. So far we have yielded too much to their Mongolian nature.” extracts from letters to his wife, Beatrice: “21 July 1945 I left here at 0630 and got there in two hours and a half. We could have gone faster but for the fact that if one flies over Russian occupied territory, they shoot at you â nice friends. [â¦] The Mongols are a bad lot, even the U.S. sector has their guards in it [i.e. to prevent them from looting, etc.], and I had to have a pass. However, I did not need it. I just pointed to my [Russian] medal and the world was mine⦠Berlin gave me the blues. We have destroyed what could have been a good race and we about to replace them with Mongolian savages. And all Europe will be communist. Itâs said that for the first week after they took it, all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it had I been allowed. 31 August 1945 The stuff in the papers about fraternization is all wet… All that sort of writing is done by Jews to get revenge. Actually the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe. Itâs a choice between them and the Russians. I prefer the Germans.” cf. a diary entry of the same date: “I also wrote a letter to the Secretary of War, Mr. Stimson, on the question of the pro-Jewish influence in the Military Government of Germany. I dared do this because when I was in Washington, he showed me a great deal of correspondence he had had with the Secretary of State and Mr. Morgenthau prior to the Quebec Conference. 2 September 1945 I had never heard that we fought to de-natzify Germany â live and learn. What we are doing is to utterly destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe so that Russia can swallow the whole. 14 September 1945 I was going to Nancy in the morning to become a citizen but Ike phoned he is coming here so I had best stay and see him. Perhaps I can make him see the menace of the Mâs. They have 300,000 troops in Checo. [i.e. Czechoslovakia] now and are running 200,000 more in, and we are pulling out â getting the boys home by Xmas. It may well result in getting them back in the trenches by spring⦠I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff. It is not cricket and is Semitic. I am also opposed to sending PWâs to work as slaves in foreign lands where many will be starved to death⦔ All extracts taken from The Patton Papers, 1940â1945, edited by Martin Blumenson
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1551968899 Timestamp) PROPERTARIANISM SIMPLY EXPLAINED. ( We should hire this guy. )
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551967066 Timestamp) WATCH. SHARE. GET ANGRY. GET READY https://twitter.com/TeaBoots/status/1103262942496215047
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551966491 Timestamp) MORE RESPONSE TO TURD FLINGING MONKEY Your counter proposition is counter to all logic and evidence, and that is that it is far more expensive to speak truthfully under due diligence than it is to spread falsehoods. Since the left spreads falsehoods faster than the right can correct them, and since the right is non-rational non-scientific purely traditional, moralizing, and religious in its arguments this not only means that the left wins but that without P the right continues to be argumentatively dead. And that is the lesson of the 20th c. That the industrialization of lying by media (propagandizing) was even more effective than the Pulpit. And that the right has continuously failed to put forth an argument. And the reason is that our traditional order is hostile to democracy since democracy is dysgenic, and aristocracy eugenic, and european shave been eugenic and aristocratic even under the dead weight of the church. The economics of lying are what they are. The right lost. And continues to lose. Ther eis only one means of sovereignty, liberty, and freedom which is the organized use of violence by sufficient men to win, and the imposition of rule of law of sovereignty reciprocity truth duty and markets in everything that has been our historical method of competing against the lower trust rest-of-the-world.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551962479 Timestamp) SECOND RESPONSE TOâ TURD FLINGING MONKEY (good material for countering critics) —“@Curt Doolittle You’ve simply proven my point. Under your system, everyone would sue everyone for any criticism, and this would have a far reaching silencing effect, which would make civil discourse impossible out of fear, and lead to violence as the natural consequence. You say “fewer public opinions of higher quality”, but in reality it would simply lead to the mass silencing on opinions which are not approved by the ruling class of judges who determine what is and isn’t approved. You accuse me of straw-manning while proving my point. Obviously under your system you would sue me and it would be left to judge to sort out. Maybe they side with you, maybe they side with me, but either way it rests on the personal beliefs, biases, and interpretations of judges with no input from the people. This is rule by judges, but you don’t see it that way in the same way that Communists would reject the idea that their system leads to a Dictatorship. They would scoff at the idea that they support Dictators, even though that would inevitably happen (and has happened) whenever their system is implemented.”— So how would judges and JURIES make decisions on the truthfulness, due diligence, and harm of a statement – and why would that be DISCRETIONARY rather than DECIDABLE? In other words, since P consists of a methodology for such due diligence under law, such that you know, and the court knows, and the jury knows, you performed sufficient due diligence to satisfy demand for decidability before making a claim – then whether the claim is later found true or false is immaterial. And if found against you, retraction and equal promotion would be required – plus court costs. In this case you did not criticize wether that method of due diligence would provide decidability versus discretion. You assumed P is an ideology or philosophy rather than a methodology where one part of that methodology which consists of those steps of due diligence. And you did not criticize whether that methodology will in fact provide decidability rather than discretion that you accuse me of fostering. The answer is, that you are lazy, didn’t do your due diligence, and sought attention and signaling and perhaps income by criticizing that which you did not understand is a formal (in the grammatical sense ) logic. And like every excuse maker in history you are trying to preserve your source of attention, signaling, self image, and possible income, by externalizing costs onto others – in my case defense of my work, it’s brand, and the potential to offer a viable solution to conquest by the sophisms of the left. Now, were ths law in place, you would no doubt simply have done your due diligence and PAID THE COST YOURSELF, rather than making a dishonest statement in public and forcing me to bear the cost of defending it. Or you could have, at the very least, engaged in reciprocity, produced a list of questions, and either published those questions or asked me to answer them for you. Instead you made an assertion without the effort and knowledge of doing so and forced me to bear a cost. In other words, you’re a thief. P asks you to perform due diligence before polluting the informational commons with falsehoods. P consists of a methodology that you can use and the court can use to test whether you performed due diligence. P doesn’t ask us to know the truth. it asks us to perform due diligence against making false and harmful statements that pollute the information commons. The jury is exceptionally good at testing whether one did due diligence, and whether that due diligence is reasonable. Now, could keynesian economics survive? I don’t think so. Could postmodern academy survive? I don’t think so. But conservatism and anglo libertarianism can because they consists of nothing other than what I am proposing: rule of law with full accounting of display word and deed. Stifling discourse isn’t the point. Stifling the stupid, ignorant, lazy, dishonest, and malfeasant is the point. You would adapt your behavior. your returns on laziness in exchange for attention, signals, and possible income would be lower, and therefore the cost to the informational commons for the damage you do to it would be lower. The problem with our law is the increase in discretion under activist pressure because there is no formal logic to the law that limits its abuse. Now there is. No more lies. No more fraudulent returns. Not in commerce, not in finance, not in economics and politics – and not in shit-talking virtue signaling, attention seeking nonsense from the peanut gallery. Pay your way to enlightenment. Don’t make others pay to educate you in defense of the commons you seek to pollute. –follow up– (and it kind of pains me to point out that rule of law, which is the method that separates the west from ALL OTHER PEOPLES and is the single most influential reason for our success in the ancient and modern worlds, is how we live and how we always have lived other than under communism, socialism, and discretionary fascism. Rule of law is the goal of all peoples. It is GOVERNMENT in the via positiva that is discretionary. It is RULE in the via negativa by LAW that is not discretionary. WHile there is value in discretion in the allocation of punishments there is very little value in discretion of truth or falsehood. And despite what you (naively) might think, the courts are absurdly good at what they do. Despite the fact that we have ‘shitty’ laws. Particularly shitty laws defending men from women and the state.)