Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • non argument

    non argument.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-09 14:19:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/861948853200859138

    Reply addressees: @schopee

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/861744981144289280


    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/861744981144289280

  • Lexus demonstrates yet again, that they are the the world leaders in high qualit

    Lexus demonstrates yet again, that they are the the world leaders in high quality ugliness.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-08 20:50:00 UTC

  • Liberals populate systems where criticism isn’t allowed, so FB would not be a pr

    Liberals populate systems where criticism isn’t allowed, so FB would not be a proper venue for them. The entire feminine and postmodern and liberal hypothesis is that truth, argument, and science are methods by which the dominant, superior, market-demonstrated, survival-from-competition, paternal, and paternal conspiracy must be suppressed through shouting, shaming, ridicule, rallying, lying, and propaganda


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-08 07:22:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-07/how-government-literally-makes-people-go-insane


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-08 07:10:00 UTC

  • I have to live in a world without television again. It rots your brain. Kill cop

    I have to live in a world without television again. It rots your brain. Kill copyright, kill the lying media. Punish falsehood. Kill the lying media, lying academia, lying state.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-07 12:46:00 UTC

  • “Fake everything must die. No more #fakenews #fakescience #fakebanking #fakegove

    —“Fake everything must die. No more #fakenews #fakescience #fakebanking #fakegovernment”— David Mondrus


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-07 12:44:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoYRvayQsEw&feature=youtu.behttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoYRvayQsEw&feature=youtu.be


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-07 08:41:00 UTC

  • To National Socialists

    (re: criticisms that I am anti-religion) Hey guys. Thanks for the mention, and it’s fine to disagree. Um. I am not anti religion. (a) I treat religious texts as wisdom literature, not science or history, and as such meaningless in argument. I do not state that religion is unnecessary, or that it is bad. Only that anti-western religion is unnecessary or bad; (b) like Nietzsche I view christianity as an attack on western civilization that we have not fully saved ourselves from, but that we can reform our church to be pro-western – but the church has followed the money into the third world and abandoned us; (c) That the French and the Jewish cosmopolitans developed a new pseudoscientific set of arguments creating another false religion with which to attack the west, and that this pseudoscience is our current secular ‘cult’. (d) That by the application of (technical) natural law it is possible to make these pseudosciences illegal at the cost of making islam, unreformed christianity, judaism illegal in public speech – the same way we have made fraud illegal in the sale and distribution of goods and services; (e) that the only means of saving ourselves is the organized application of violence to impose this law, and to prosecute these liars by the organized application of violence. Mostly this group argues against me because (1) I do not believe the 1930’s can be recreated, (2) I advocate nationalism for everyone, not just my kin, (3) I blame our people for not using violence to defend ourselves, rather than blaming others for exploiting our weaknesses. (4) I don’t have a lot of patience with stupid people – and I doubt that I ever will. And this group can attract stupid people. Not that they aren’t my kin, and are wrong, but I have nothing to say to them. (Sorry). Cheers.

  • To National Socialists

    (re: criticisms that I am anti-religion) Hey guys. Thanks for the mention, and it’s fine to disagree. Um. I am not anti religion. (a) I treat religious texts as wisdom literature, not science or history, and as such meaningless in argument. I do not state that religion is unnecessary, or that it is bad. Only that anti-western religion is unnecessary or bad; (b) like Nietzsche I view christianity as an attack on western civilization that we have not fully saved ourselves from, but that we can reform our church to be pro-western – but the church has followed the money into the third world and abandoned us; (c) That the French and the Jewish cosmopolitans developed a new pseudoscientific set of arguments creating another false religion with which to attack the west, and that this pseudoscience is our current secular ‘cult’. (d) That by the application of (technical) natural law it is possible to make these pseudosciences illegal at the cost of making islam, unreformed christianity, judaism illegal in public speech – the same way we have made fraud illegal in the sale and distribution of goods and services; (e) that the only means of saving ourselves is the organized application of violence to impose this law, and to prosecute these liars by the organized application of violence. Mostly this group argues against me because (1) I do not believe the 1930’s can be recreated, (2) I advocate nationalism for everyone, not just my kin, (3) I blame our people for not using violence to defend ourselves, rather than blaming others for exploiting our weaknesses. (4) I don’t have a lot of patience with stupid people – and I doubt that I ever will. And this group can attract stupid people. Not that they aren’t my kin, and are wrong, but I have nothing to say to them. (Sorry). Cheers.

  • Yes, Of Course I’ve Considered it…

    —“Curt, have you considered writing your own material on violence, incremental suppression and domestication in to a book?”— Long time followers know that I made my first draft in 06, another in 09/10, another in ’13, another last year 15/16, and that each time I draft it, I learn ‘what’s missing’. Last fall I couldn’t put my arms around it, but it was Agency. Right now, given Transcendence /Agency, I can’t find anything ‘that’s missing’. Also, every six months I get better at communicating the ideas and at present I feel pretty good, as long as I don’t have to cross too many sigma of iq. If I had launched the work before now I would have failed. Next, there are sort of three formats to publish in. One is a skeleton of the innovations. The second is the skeleton plus readings leaving interpretation of ‘voice’ up to the reader. The third is more ‘traditional’ educational form, where you walk the reader through it, with your own voice. The skeleton is easily published now as a set of definitions, series, and explanations, culminating in a constitution of natural law. I can augment this skeleton with selected short readings of my own on the application of that law; and with selected writings from history; and with selected historical literature. Producing a more traditional ‘law’. One that is absent my ‘voice’. But can take the place of wisdom literature that is durable over time. And then to produce a class online that performs the teaching function, and that includes my voice. This will be less durable over time, since we must speak in different language to the audience in every generation. Anyone with a little effort can grasp the skeleton from the Overview readings. I know becuase others have. And I don’t think those ideas are terribly difficult – what is difficult is replacing everyone’s existing ‘framing’, that includes justificationism, majoritarianism, and persuasion, rather than criticism, reciprocity, and rule. Retraining your mind, if you are not naturally ‘neutral’ (aspie) is pretty difficult. I mean, ratio-empirical-reciprocal-operational-and-fully-accounted, is not difficult to separate ratio-empiricism-correlative is not difficult to separate from rational-and-reasonable, which is not difficult to separate from mythical-supernormal, whch is not difficult to separate from religous-supernatural. What is hard is transitioning people from a lower method of truth testing requiring less information, to a higher method of truth testing requiring more information. Every time we do it, we encounter vast resistance. Western civilization needs a small number of us to form the counter revolution against the frankfurt school and restore the western ‘scientific’ civilization. So that’s what I’m looking for. Yet, as a group, we need this book. We need Natural Law of Sovereign Men: the Cult, Philosophy, Law, and Science, of Western Civilization. The basis from which all our sub-disciplines evolved. It’s a very simple set of rules that ask us to live in correspondence with reality, since by acting in correspondence with reality we obtain an advantage over all those others who do not so much conform to reality. And simply because we will evolve all aspects of our society faster than all other societies if we do. Which is what we have done. IN CLOSING So I am again trying to produce another draft that is this time, shortest of all, and is closest to the literary model put forth in the 48 Laws of Power, and which is sufficiently structured as wisdom literature that it does not ‘decay’ with the generation that it was first written for. I have a very hard time with this. And it makes me appreciate spinoza, who worked by the same principle, toward different ends.