—“Unfortunately when people say they are Traditionalist they mean they are idealists with no knowledge of actual tradition.”—Chris Moyer
(now that’s a bit of insight for the day)
(I would say it as:
—“idealism is a means of providing false self confidence in the face of overwhelming but intolerable ignorance.”—
)
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 09:34:00 UTC
yes, exactly.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 06:04:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055701683249074176
Reply addressees: @karlbykarlsmith
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055578558972809216
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
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 post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055578558972809216
no. never surrender. ever.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 01:36:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055634182477619201
Reply addressees: @theodore_beza @TheGreatOrderIs @NoWhiteGuiltNWG
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055629952035573760
IN REPLY TO:
@theodore_beza
@TheGreatOrderIs @NoWhiteGuiltNWG @curtdoolittle I like Greg and share his desire for a homeland but let’s be realistic. The forces of the ruling elites are too powerful and show no signs signs of diminishing. We should probably discuss how to live as a minority.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055629952035573760
I am not confused. I work on the evolution of deception and its means of eradication by law. The technique used by marxists and postmodernists and the abrahamists and platonists before them uses obscurantism to construct a pretense of knowledge, from which to criticize&undermine.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 23:36:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055604065286152192
Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289
IN REPLY TO:
@Jonas_Ceika
@curtdoolittle @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN The main confusion seems to be that you think I’m only talking about intent, I’m not. I’m literally showing how Hicks is misinterpreting the relevant theory and backing it up with sources. Again, you’re not addressing my points. You’re also not making arguments for your case.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289
My accusation is that each of your points “quotes” is a sophistry (lie) to cover the lies and intended thefts that your arguments seek to support. I deflated one of them, and I can (if I wish) deflate the entirety of them, showing the same attempted fraud in each case.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 23:33:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055603165691817985
Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289
IN REPLY TO:
@Jonas_Ceika
@curtdoolittle @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN The main confusion seems to be that you think I’m only talking about intent, I’m not. I’m literally showing how Hicks is misinterpreting the relevant theory and backing it up with sources. Again, you’re not addressing my points. You’re also not making arguments for your case.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289
I am not confused. I’m waiting for you to put together an argument. And since you haven’t, I’m framing the argument as we do (hicks and I), as marxists and postmodernists seeking to construct a fiction using sophistry and pseudoscience to replace the sophistry of religion.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 23:31:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055602738476785664
Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289
IN REPLY TO:
@Jonas_Ceika
@curtdoolittle @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN The main confusion seems to be that you think I’m only talking about intent, I’m not. I’m literally showing how Hicks is misinterpreting the relevant theory and backing it up with sources. Again, you’re not addressing my points. You’re also not making arguments for your case.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289
(Because some people run away with interpretations of what I say – not because you will. 😉 )
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 21:48:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055576858421616640
Reply addressees: @ChrisNahr @Caine60724874
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055552025843417088
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
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 post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055552025843417088
CLOSE 9) And that is why Profs generally won’t respond to sophists who are little more than scriptural fundamentalists in secular prose – each seeking to escape the painful reality that the search for truthful speech (sciences logics, and laws) demand compete by adapting to.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 21:24:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055570891952799744
Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055556675585875968
IN REPLY TO:
@Jonas_Ceika
@MrKennan1948 @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN The language is very familiar to me. What confuses me is the fact that it’s completely detached from any of my criticisms on the topic.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055556675585875968
CLOSE 8). And that is just ONE example. I can literally tear apart every single example you give in the video as straw manning and sophistry as a means of preserving a malinvestment in “Wisdom Lit” that confirms a false prior (self overestimation), rather than Truth “Science”.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 21:22:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055570216942477315
Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055556675585875968
IN REPLY TO:
@Jonas_Ceika
@MrKennan1948 @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN The language is very familiar to me. What confuses me is the fact that it’s completely detached from any of my criticisms on the topic.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055556675585875968
Cont. 3) By attempting to construct yet another set of fictions, that while internally consistent with experience, were not externally consistent with the findings of law, economics, and science: That western civ’s tradition(success) is systemically empirical and eugenic.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 21:11:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055567490649088000
Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055556675585875968
IN REPLY TO:
@Jonas_Ceika
@MrKennan1948 @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN The language is very familiar to me. What confuses me is the fact that it’s completely detached from any of my criticisms on the topic.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055556675585875968