Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

—“You’ve been repeating that Rothbard is a liar recently though in the past you said he couldn’t have been a liar, just mistaken. What’s the lie?”—

This is one of those deceptively simple questions on its face that once deflated and operationalized makes you question the frame in which we ask the original question.

It depends on point of demarcation of agency vs tradition, intuition vs biology. …

I(we) use a higher standard of intent: failure of due diligence. Do women know what they do when they sh-t test or is it biology? Did Rothbard and mises? What about those men that invented the tradition of lying (pilpul) both operated under? Is a carrier of a lie responsible?

In law, one causes harm or not and is responsible for failure of due diligence, not intent, and must pay restitution for the failure of due diligence. If intentional an additional punishment is levied on top of the restitution.

However the entire marx/rothbard/trotsky-strauss … set of anti-white movements, consist of a continuation of undermining the host civilization (‘revolutionary spirit’), the use of sophism(pilpul) and critique (straw manning an undermining) and authoritarianism (monopoly class interests) in opposition to western tripartism.

So in the distribution between intent, failure of due diligence, carrier of lies, and a cognitive tradition of lying by sophism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience, and the biological drive of the female-biased mind to use gossip and undermining to undermine the hierarchy, … what is the distribution of rothbard’s guilt? With him, his culture, or his genome?

So which standard of lie, or set of standards of lying, are we to use?

The question is harder than at first appears. How could a man of that learning err so widely? Is he a fool or a liar, or a fraud?

Women engage in conspiracies of common interest when they undermine, to the detriment of the host males.

What does this say about rothbard mises, hoppe et al?