Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
http://propertyandfreedom.org/2018/10/rahim-taghizadegan-why-are-western-europens-so-naive-pfs-2018/RAHIM MAKES TELLS THE STORY SO THAT I DON’T HAVE TO:
The Weaponization of the Commons as means of FUNDING the KNIGHTS.
Rahim Taghizadegan, Why Are Western Europens So Naive (PFS 2018)
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/45103357_10156745897527264_5682407106028765184_n_10156745897522264.jpg LONG (3HR TALK) with DYLAN THOMAS, JOSH AND DICK)
They ‘get it right’ in the beginning, then go sideways. They invite me in after the first hour? Somewhere in there. And then we have a pretty good and helpful discussion for everyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I0lLmRtwg0&feature=youtu.beDaniel Roland AndersonWatching people go sideways is instructive as well. And it’s fun when it’s not me.
Usually, it’s me.Oct 31, 2018, 2:34 PMCurt Doolittlelol… funny, intellectually honest, humble, and wise thing to say….Oct 31, 2018, 7:14 PMShawn KinneyThis should be mandatory viewing: why are more people not weighing in here? I never thought I would side with Josh, but a new religion is not required here within the established context of the debate. Math, logic, and law do not eliminate the fundamental building block which is the sacred. The sacred is the fundamental cohesive endpoint. Declaratives cannot be established via the dismissal of the ancient sign and cause. Heidegger explains this in detail.Nov 1, 2018, 4:37 AMCurt Doolittle1 – Heidegger=german, which is the point of the discussion. Whether the Truth (knowledge, science, history, heroes, evolution) or Wisdom Literature (parables, fictions, myths) are the basis for civic contract (Monopoly). Or whether a hierarchy of graceful failure from the scientific to the religious is the basis of our civic contract (Market)
2 – The sacred can consist of us, ourselves, can be something else (creatures, anthropomorphic, or formless), can be of things (idols), can be of ideas (of books and words), or of anything that we owe a debt. Although, ideas, things, symbols-proxies for leaders, and ourselves is a very close to complete list of the possibilities.
3 – The sacred serves as a proxy between those who are not good enough to submit to one another.
4 – Religion consists of training (education) the intuition (emotions) so that people ‘feel like’ you do by taking advantage of our pre-cognitive biases.
6 – We can measure increase and decrease demand for ‘the sacred’ (proxies) and I am fairly sure the science of it (like that of status) is simply one that generates denialism. That is to to say that such therapeutic measures are unnecessary, but that they are not explicable.In other words, exposing the content and drive behind the ‘sacred’ makes the sacred impossible, thereby removing which is why it is denied. I
7 – So , to some people the scientific truth is sacred, to some of us (american constitutionalists) the constitution and by proxy ‘we, us, our-way’ is sacred. To some religious tradition is sacred. To some of us a monarchy or leader is sacred. To some of us family, tribe, and nation is sacred. To some of us mankind is sacred. To some of us the transcendence of mankind into the gods we imagine is sacred (that would include me). And to some of us we spread, combine, include, or exclude as suits our interests.
8 – Since debts of submission can be created along those and other axis, the behaviors we want to develop in a polity need only be expressible in all those paradigms – or at least, be sufficiently compatible that group persistence survives competition and shocks.
9 – So the question is, (a) what are those rules of group strategy obscured within and created by some sacred debt, (b) what paradigms within each grammar (system of thought) each system of thought which corresponds to a degree of agency and interests, given our age, class, and accumulated relationships and assets.
10 – it is not … challenging … to understand that the occult is an expression of vulnerability or powerlessness, that ritual an expression of mindfulness, that gatherings are an expression of inclusion, and that festival an expression of trust creation is rather simple. That the narrative content of a mythos allows us categories, relations, and values that can be taught to children (or idiots) which allows graceful (simple) calculation and coordination of cooperation is rather simple.
11 – I don’t do via positiva (religion, philosophy, and literature). I do via negativa law. While we differ in what is preferable and good, and we differ in demand for proportionality, and we differ in demand for liberty (opportunity), we do not differ in demand for reciprocity. Instead, we all seek to preserve our advantageous means of parasitism, predation, deception, and self deception.
12 – philosophy religion and literature (via positiva ) is for others (and frankly, for those who need them).Nov 1, 2018, 5:12 AMShawn KinneyHeidegger posits that modern man is cut off from the sacred via the methods (scientific rationality) which you use to form the basis of your argument. The overarching externalized context or that which is beyond our understanding is the primary variable. There is no fundamental cohesive endpoint upon which to deduce your primary assertions: no universal self evident axioms can be identified upon which the initial premises of truth can be established. A fundamental Nietzschean and Heideggerian premise. The beforementioned authors here point us towards the sacred and mythical characteristics of being which are antithetical to the french pomos. Mathmatical equations of reality based upon markets are unlikely to summon the masses to action either way. From a Heideggerian point of view, this appeal to contextual truths simply conceal the Aesthetic wonders of Dasein and conceal the inherrent referentiality and mythos which transcend the age in which one is producing intellectual content. (Being cannot be enclosed in a conceptual structure). This is Heidegger: Be that as it may: I assume based upon his later writings that he would appeal to ancestoral veneration (blood and soil) as the primary source of inspiration for the masses. Reducing such concepts to the playthings of children or products of the occult however would seem to be destructive from this perspective.Nov 1, 2018, 6:20 AMGöran DahlTwo young fools and Curt Doolittle.Nov 1, 2018, 6:49 AMSascha Alexander GünterI scrolled thru my feed, see this post… the first things my brain picks up is LONG
DICKNov 1, 2018, 8:46 AMCurt Doolittle—-“hHeidegger posits that modern man is cut off from the sacred via the methods (scientific rationality) which you use to form the basis of your argument.”—
He is cut off from appealing, harmful, deceptions yes, when he could be otherwise provided with mindfulness by non-harmful means.
—“The overarching externalized context or that which is beyond our understanding is the primary variable.”—
That by which we are self manipulated, and manipulated by others, into submission or denial, rather than enabled into action, creates demand for non-harmful means of producing agency rather than sedation.
—“There is no fundamental cohesive endpoint upon which to deduce your primary assertions: no universal self evident axioms can be identified upon which the initial premises of truth can be established.”—
We never know the Truth (most parsimonious testimony possible) because our knowledge is incomplete. As such we only know that which is false with certainty. Between Omniscience (Truth: most parsimonious possible) and Falsehood (certainty), we merely satisfy demand for decidability necessary for making a choice. For ancestral reasons we conflate this demand for decidability sufficient for choice in the given context, with ‘truth’ proper (decidabiilty), as ‘true enough for me’ (sufficiently decidable for the context).
—“A fundamental Nietzschean and Heideggerian premise.”–German Authors sought to preserve the german grammar developed by kant (Rationalism), as a formal expression of Rousseau’s counter-reaction against empiricism (Literary Moralism), thereby creating a more formal Rational expression of christianity in the absence of war against the aristocracy, where french had created a literary and moral war restatement of christianity as a war against the aristocracy.
—“The beforementioned authors here point us towards the sacred and mythical characteristics of being which are antithetical to the french pomos.”–
German authors repeatedly try to preserve a secular restatement of germanicized christianity, that is antithetical to anglo rationalism, and antithetical to french anti-aristocracy.
—“Mathematical equations of reality based upon markets are unlikely to summon the masses to action either way.”—
The evidence is that the population pursues self interest at all times and seeks a narrative to rally with in pursuit of it.
—“From a Heideggerian point of view, this appeal to contextual truths simply conceal the Aesthetic wonders of Dasein and conceal the inherrent referentiality and mythos which transcend the age in which one is producing intellectual content.”—
Use various techniques will allow us to produce some degree of mindfulness, and this includes ritual and dance, delusion, drug and alcohol use, hallucinogens, and other forms of physical and mental abuse, such as body, and sexual identity illusions. Individuals who succeed in habituating demand for the delusion demonstrate an addiction response and are undesirable We can change behavior dramatically by changing psychochemistry, both by ritualistic and supplemental means. A docile, sedated population lacking agency is preferable in many cases to a population that competes by greater agency than others. The problem being that demographic distribution and wealth limit the choices of means of providing such sedation vs agency.
—(Being cannot be enclosed in a conceptual structure). This is Heidegger: Be that as it may: I assume based upon his later writings that he would appeal to ancestral veneration (blood and soil) as the primary source of inspiration for the masses. Reducing such concepts to the playthings of children or products of the occult however would seem to be destructive from this perspective. )—-
Drug users report the same effects, Religious zealots, those who practice meditation, even the ‘high’ runners experience can produce it. However we can also produce it through self authoring (cognitive behavioral therapy) or what we call ‘stoicism’ producing individual agency and action instead of individual sedation and detachment.
WE do not need perfect replication of experience to communicate it, we need only sufficient replication of experience, and of experience we need replication we need only those that produce agency not delusion and sedation.
So yes, (and we can produce very solid metrics on this) the infant, child, youth, adolescent, young adult, establishing adult, established adult, and reproductive-cycle-complete adult demonstrate very different demands for methods of mindfulness.
So yes, it’s not an opinion, that demand for mythos fulfills the needs of the weak, unaccomplished, lacking agency, and of low sexual, social, economic, and political value, and we find that the method of producing mindfulness changes as we increase our network of relationships and command over our destiny (agency). In that we increase our tools (paradigms) as we increase our agency.
So yes, children (ignorant, lacking relationships, lacking ability, lacking capital, and lacking power) seek success in their dreams to satisfy their low status, and yes people who have high status do the opposite.
Humans are very simple creatures. The strong law (command), the wealthy reciprocity ( trade), the weak storytelling (gossip, rallying).
And no amount of postmodern prose will alter those facts.
We pursue the narrative (paradigm) that suits our power in order to fulfill our will to power.
If you had power able to influence, leaders worth leading, something to exchange, then you would not need a fantasy with which to escape reality. But the weak do not. They tell stories to themselves and others to ‘make it through the day’ given the hard reality of their low status (sexual, social, economic, political market value).
hence why I say there is nothing in christianity that cannot be taught as a stoic virtue – without the lies. And nothining good in the search for ‘experience’ (delusion and sedation) that cannot be better provided by agency (truth and training). It is just (a) more expensive to train people in stoic virtues, (b) easier and cheaper to deceive them with sophisms instead, (c) those cheap and easy narratives are methods of deception that prevent the individual from learning how to falsify the OTHER nonsense thrown at him.Nov 1, 2018, 11:05 AMAlain DwightThe sentimentality reminds me of this post… we all already have things we value, why does the response to that fact have to involve anything other than determining what creates and preserves our agency to act out those values?
They ‘get it right’ in the beginning, then go sideways. They invite me in after the first hour? Somewhere in there. And then we have a pretty good and helpful discussion for everyone.
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/45105822_10156745431987264_3032324624114253824_o_10156745431977264.jpg YES IT IS THE LEFT’S THING.Justus KilianHistorically they also quite excelled at something that is “not their thing”Oct 31, 2018, 11:29 AMMaxim V FilimonovLenin, Stalin, anyone?
(Hitler was a leftist, too)Oct 31, 2018, 11:34 AMMaxim V FilimonovThis red khmer thing in Cambodia, as well.Oct 31, 2018, 11:34 AMEthan TriceMaxim V Filimonov eh, I mean hitler was more taking up the Bismark compromise between communism/socialism and the Right.Oct 31, 2018, 12:42 PMMaxim V FilimonovEthan Trice nevertheless, I would say we all agree leftists did a lot of genocide.Oct 31, 2018, 1:15 PMEly HarmanLying and projection are also their things.Oct 31, 2018, 2:33 PMAndrew ClaytonDinesh Desouza: Hitler was a socialist… Democrats BTFO lolOct 31, 2018, 3:59 PMWilliam McFarlandSeems like a mankind thing generallyOct 31, 2018, 7:05 PMYES IT IS THE LEFT’S THING.
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/45105822_10156745431987264_3032324624114253824_o_10156745431977264.jpg YES IT IS THE LEFT’S THING.Justus KilianHistorically they also quite excelled at something that is “not their thing”Oct 31, 2018, 11:29 AMMaxim V FilimonovLenin, Stalin, anyone?
(Hitler was a leftist, too)Oct 31, 2018, 11:34 AMMaxim V FilimonovThis red khmer thing in Cambodia, as well.Oct 31, 2018, 11:34 AMEthan TriceMaxim V Filimonov eh, I mean hitler was more taking up the Bismark compromise between communism/socialism and the Right.Oct 31, 2018, 12:42 PMMaxim V FilimonovEthan Trice nevertheless, I would say we all agree leftists did a lot of genocide.Oct 31, 2018, 1:15 PMEly HarmanLying and projection are also their things.Oct 31, 2018, 2:33 PMAndrew ClaytonDinesh Desouza: Hitler was a socialist… Democrats BTFO lolOct 31, 2018, 3:59 PMWilliam McFarlandSeems like a mankind thing generallyOct 31, 2018, 7:05 PMDann HopkinsTheir programming says it can’t be genocide if they’re white, and that’s at the machine code layer so a software update won’t fix itNov 1, 2018, 12:08 PMYES IT IS THE LEFT’S THING.
