(SOMEONE ASKED ME TO REPLY TO THIS ARTICLE) THE LIBERAL BLIND SPOT http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/the-liberal-blind-spot.html NICHOLAS 1) Groupishness and Clannishness are empirically existent, universally demonstrable, human behaviors. These should be taught in academia because teaching universalism is a lie. In other words, the academy lies. 2) We teach marxism, socialism, almost all philosophies, comparative religion. So why not teach ‘hindu science’ or whatever? Well, because those people use those arguments to resist competing groups and clans. We teach all sorts of lies – in particular that democracy is a ‘good’. 3) Most of our history in every culture is constructed largely of lies, and one of the greatest innovations of the past generation has been the use of genetics, archaeology, anthropology, and brain science to demonstrate that these things are lies. But the purpose of those lies is to preserve groupishness against competitors. So a great deal of historical revisionism is necessary. The current narrative that man was oppressed by aristocracies rather than domesticated, and that upward redistribution of reproduction was a good, has been suppressed. So has the fact that the west’s advantage is largely the result of 3500 years of eugenic reproduction, with aggressive hanging from 1100 forward. 4) Religious scholarship is certainly useful, but religions argument is not. However, the purpose of religious argument is to rally the classes to resist invaders. And in a time where the west is being invaded by peoples with higher densities in lower class distributions, this is a rational tactic to take under democracy. All ideologies are false. That’s why they ‘work’ to inspire. Religion is just an pre-democratic ideology from when classes needed to be rallied against the state. It’s still effective. General intellectual consensus is that the USA resisted the secular state more effectively than europe because (a) we had neither aristocracy nor church to dispossess land from, (b) we are more religious and religion is the most successful means of resisting a state and establishing the limits under which a state may govern. (c) we did not have the european civil wars (ww1/2) or the prior (30 Years War), – just the opposite: we had the american civil war in which we lost trust for the state. So we have the opposite experience from Europe. ***So the universalist left lies to advance its impossible and undesirable utopia in advance of academy, media, and state, and the particularist right can’t tell the truth as to why they created the extant utopia we call the west: eugenics – the upward redistribution of reproduction to the middle class rendering all europeans descendants of the middle class.*** So why should the academy lie so fervently in support of it’s ideology that it creates a reactionary resistance to its lies? The only problem has been that the conservative strategy (persistence of family, tribe, nation, and eugenic hierarchy) is not sellable under democracy. Furthermore, what separates today’s “Academy and Diploma” from Luther’s “Church and Indulgence”? Nothing really. We can tell from the data that all universities do is sort. Nothing is taught that is of value in the economy. I’s just boot camp for white collar workers – it answers the question: do you have the endurance? That’s all. Furthermore, what separates the sale of indulgences to fund St Peters and the sale of diplomas to fund university infrastructure, administration, and savings? Nothing at all. In fact, the intergenerational economic damage done by the academy system since 1963 has been the greatest redistribution of wealth since the military industrial complex. The university media and state have nothing but universalist commercial incentives which they profess are moral ideals. When in fact they are demonstrably immoral in that they are self interested, against the interests of the body politic, and by reversal of eugenic reproduction, destructive to mankind. The net is that we either practice eugenics and end up with the northern european model, or we end up with the castes of India, and south america, or in the worst possible case – by extensive down-breeding – we end up with the muslim world, and the pervasive ignorance of the muslim world. Why? Because the people at the bottom are worse for a polity than the people at the top are good. It is not that great civilizations have such great leaders. It is that one can only be a great leader in an advanced economy if one is not overly burdened by dependent and disutilitarian underclasses. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response
-
The Liberal Blind Spot
(SOMEONE ASKED ME TO REPLY TO THIS ARTICLE) THE LIBERAL BLIND SPOT http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/the-liberal-blind-spot.html NICHOLAS 1) Groupishness and Clannishness are empirically existent, universally demonstrable, human behaviors. These should be taught in academia because teaching universalism is a lie. In other words, the academy lies. 2) We teach marxism, socialism, almost all philosophies, comparative religion. So why not teach ‘hindu science’ or whatever? Well, because those people use those arguments to resist competing groups and clans. We teach all sorts of lies – in particular that democracy is a ‘good’. 3) Most of our history in every culture is constructed largely of lies, and one of the greatest innovations of the past generation has been the use of genetics, archaeology, anthropology, and brain science to demonstrate that these things are lies. But the purpose of those lies is to preserve groupishness against competitors. So a great deal of historical revisionism is necessary. The current narrative that man was oppressed by aristocracies rather than domesticated, and that upward redistribution of reproduction was a good, has been suppressed. So has the fact that the west’s advantage is largely the result of 3500 years of eugenic reproduction, with aggressive hanging from 1100 forward. 4) Religious scholarship is certainly useful, but religions argument is not. However, the purpose of religious argument is to rally the classes to resist invaders. And in a time where the west is being invaded by peoples with higher densities in lower class distributions, this is a rational tactic to take under democracy. All ideologies are false. That’s why they ‘work’ to inspire. Religion is just an pre-democratic ideology from when classes needed to be rallied against the state. It’s still effective. General intellectual consensus is that the USA resisted the secular state more effectively than europe because (a) we had neither aristocracy nor church to dispossess land from, (b) we are more religious and religion is the most successful means of resisting a state and establishing the limits under which a state may govern. (c) we did not have the european civil wars (ww1/2) or the prior (30 Years War), – just the opposite: we had the american civil war in which we lost trust for the state. So we have the opposite experience from Europe. ***So the universalist left lies to advance its impossible and undesirable utopia in advance of academy, media, and state, and the particularist right can’t tell the truth as to why they created the extant utopia we call the west: eugenics – the upward redistribution of reproduction to the middle class rendering all europeans descendants of the middle class.*** So why should the academy lie so fervently in support of it’s ideology that it creates a reactionary resistance to its lies? The only problem has been that the conservative strategy (persistence of family, tribe, nation, and eugenic hierarchy) is not sellable under democracy. Furthermore, what separates today’s “Academy and Diploma” from Luther’s “Church and Indulgence”? Nothing really. We can tell from the data that all universities do is sort. Nothing is taught that is of value in the economy. I’s just boot camp for white collar workers – it answers the question: do you have the endurance? That’s all. Furthermore, what separates the sale of indulgences to fund St Peters and the sale of diplomas to fund university infrastructure, administration, and savings? Nothing at all. In fact, the intergenerational economic damage done by the academy system since 1963 has been the greatest redistribution of wealth since the military industrial complex. The university media and state have nothing but universalist commercial incentives which they profess are moral ideals. When in fact they are demonstrably immoral in that they are self interested, against the interests of the body politic, and by reversal of eugenic reproduction, destructive to mankind. The net is that we either practice eugenics and end up with the northern european model, or we end up with the castes of India, and south america, or in the worst possible case – by extensive down-breeding – we end up with the muslim world, and the pervasive ignorance of the muslim world. Why? Because the people at the bottom are worse for a polity than the people at the top are good. It is not that great civilizations have such great leaders. It is that one can only be a great leader in an advanced economy if one is not overly burdened by dependent and disutilitarian underclasses. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
March, April, May Quotes
An empire with many nuclear weapons is economically, financially, diplomatically, and militarily vulnerable. Many small nation states aren’t vulnerable if armed with a few nuclear weapons, artillery, and militia. ( It certainly SEEMS like the entirety of the NATO/UN organizations are nothing more than welfare programs: desperate attempts for post-empire anglos to perpetuate by bureaucracy what they’d constructed with arms and finance. ) The Warriors must suppress parasitism creating order under which commerce and reproduction prosper. We call it law. But it is perpetual war You might unknowingly lie on behalf of your genes. And they might lie to obtain your compliance. But they’re perfectly pragmatic in purpose. Moral intuitions tell you nothing other than how to pursue your reproductive strategy in the current circumstance as you understand it. If you think or feel a condition is moral it’s the product of indoctrination. Sure, objective morality exists. But few humans practice it. History is only a guide if you (a) know enough of it, and (b) don’t cherry pick it. Man’s rational thru history. Immorality can be rational. Promise of hereafter(priests tithes), (church indulgences). Promise of socialism(vote). Promise of prosperity(academy diploma). All lies. 1) The Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit. 2) Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Academy. Two false promises to deny truth. Monotheistic Religion requires submission and submission is incompatible with sovereignty. And the experience of Liberty requires existential sovereignty. The western tradition consists is in sovereignty, heroism, empiricism, the oath (truth and non parasitism), the common judge discovered law, the jury. Cultural Marxism and Postmodernism are nothing more than an attempt to use secular pseudoscientific language as ancients used the language of mysticism: for deceit. Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media were used to defeat aristocracy, by using false promises to rally women and proles. The Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, were invented to defeat the aristocracy using false promises to rally women and proles. What’s the difference between the Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, and Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media? Nothing.
-
We should file a class action suit on behalf of all the people’s lives damaged b
We should file a class action suit on behalf of all the people’s lives damaged by the nobel prize committee
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 16:04:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/737313849649602561
Reply addressees: @carloff74 @catoletters
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/737293317625413635
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/737293317625413635
-
Transforming the Academy To A Distributor of Lies
By Eli Harman The left remade society by transforming the academy from institutions of inquiry and education to ones that simply manufacture and distribute lies. But now, it‘s biting them in the ass. Racialized protests at campuses across North America last summer exposed affirmative action for the sham that it is, as unqualified, ungrateful, and unruly minorities made messes and antagonized serious faculty and students.
Enrollment at Mizzou is plummeting. Apparently, no one wants to attend an institution which is self-evidently little more than a holding pen for hood rats, where they’re goaded and whipped into a frenzy of envy, entitlement, and enmity, by Marxist intellectuals before being released back into the real world to afflict it. One can only hope that forthcoming numbers from Yale, Princeton, Georgetown, and others, show similar trends. Meanwhile, exploding student debt, and the increasingly obvious bankruptcy and worthlessness of college degrees that mean little more than that their recipients are easy marks, willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars that they don’t have to study bullshit that nobody needs in exchange for credentials that everyone has, is further eroding the credibility and appeal of these fraudulent institutions. Sooner or later the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. And when the money runs out, and the music stops, these bullshit factories are going to start going bust or belly up. It’s going to be a beautiful sight. And we can only hope there will be plenty of people willing to throw some gasoline on the fire, preferably literally. -
Transforming the Academy To A Distributor of Lies
By Eli Harman The left remade society by transforming the academy from institutions of inquiry and education to ones that simply manufacture and distribute lies. But now, it‘s biting them in the ass. Racialized protests at campuses across North America last summer exposed affirmative action for the sham that it is, as unqualified, ungrateful, and unruly minorities made messes and antagonized serious faculty and students.
Enrollment at Mizzou is plummeting. Apparently, no one wants to attend an institution which is self-evidently little more than a holding pen for hood rats, where they’re goaded and whipped into a frenzy of envy, entitlement, and enmity, by Marxist intellectuals before being released back into the real world to afflict it. One can only hope that forthcoming numbers from Yale, Princeton, Georgetown, and others, show similar trends. Meanwhile, exploding student debt, and the increasingly obvious bankruptcy and worthlessness of college degrees that mean little more than that their recipients are easy marks, willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars that they don’t have to study bullshit that nobody needs in exchange for credentials that everyone has, is further eroding the credibility and appeal of these fraudulent institutions. Sooner or later the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. And when the money runs out, and the music stops, these bullshit factories are going to start going bust or belly up. It’s going to be a beautiful sight. And we can only hope there will be plenty of people willing to throw some gasoline on the fire, preferably literally. -
Curt Doolittle shared a post
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 13:18:00 UTC
-
AGAINST THE TECHNIQUE OF CRITIQUE ( Jenna, Do you know what the rhetorical techn
AGAINST THE TECHNIQUE OF CRITIQUE
( Jenna,
Do you know what the rhetorical technique of Critique refers to?
TACTICS
(a) Heaping of undue praise on one’s heroes, rather than their arguments.
(b) Rallying, shaming, framing, suggestion, and overloading, rather than empirical decidability based upon the evidence.
(c) Psychologism(shaming) rather than incentives(logic)
(d) Ad hominem of the person rather than criticizing the argument.
(e) Proposing trivial straw man arguments as an excuse for lengthy discourse on psychologism, ad hominem, rallying, shaming and heaping of undue praise.
(f) Failing to propose an alternative solution and subjecting it to equal scrutiny.
(g) The use of false equivalency. The use of asymmetric judgement. The use of selective evidence. The use of ‘fixed pie’ economic reasoning.
(f) Using suggestion that can be readily self-interpreted, rather than argument that can be analytically tested with little room for interpretation.
The reductio explanation of this technique is that it’s “a literary form of gossip.”
WHY IS GOSSIP POSSIBLE?
Setting aside why we permit free speech rather than only truthful speech – a problem for philosophers – why is gossip more possible in the current era than prior eras?
We stopped teaching grammar, logic, and rhetoric earlier in the last century for three reasons:
1) it would have undermined the marxist/socialist/feminist education program
2) it readily exposes the differences in student abilities as a near perfect reflection of class.
3) it is quite hard for ‘teachers’ who are from the bottom 16 % of their classes (just below journalists) to teach grammar, rhetoric and logic.
Today we would have to add basic economics: grammar, logic, rhetoric and micro-economics (the science of incentives) to the ancient educational curriculum.
However, if the body politic were taught grammar, logic, rhetoric, and micro-economics (incentives) then it would be impossible for many writers (yourself included it appears) to see his or her words represented in modern font.
WHY DECEIVE?
I specialize in truthful speech. This specialty requires a great deal of understanding of untruthful speech. And gossip (Critique) is a well developed technique for conveying untruthful speech. It is the secular version of deception that we invented to replace mystical deception.
The question is, why, if one is correct, right, true, and just, why one would rely on Critique (Gossip) in lieu of argument?
We can say one lacks the skill, absent talent. We can say one is an unknowing pawn in the great game, and absent intent. We can say that one is a purveyor of deceit by intent.
But it is hard for the audience to know whether one lacks intelligence, whether one is a fool, or whether one is a liar.
Because when we speak truthfully and empirically then we can be judged on the content of our arguments, and by the content of our arguments, the content of our character.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
)
https://www.facebook.com/wpjennajohnson/
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 04:52:00 UTC
-
( Jenna, Do you know what the rhetorical technique of Critique refers to? TACTIC
( Jenna,
Do you know what the rhetorical technique of Critique refers to?
TACTICS
(a) Heaping of undue praise on one’s heroes, rather than their arguments.
(b) Rallying, shaming, framing, suggestion, and overloading, rather than empirical decidability based upon the evidence.
(c) Psychologism(shaming) rather than incentives(logic)
(d) Ad hominem of the person rather than criticizing the argument.
(e) Proposing trivial straw man arguments as an excuse for lengthy discourse on psychologism, ad hominem, rallying, shaming and heaping of undue praise.
(f) Failing to propose an alternative solution and subjecting it to equal scrutiny.
(g) The use of false equivalency. The use of asymmetric judgement. The use of selective evidence. The use of ‘fixed pie’ economic reasoning.
(f) Using suggestion that can be readily self-interpreted, rather than argument that can be analytically tested with little room for interpretation.
The reductio explanation of this technique is that it’s “a literary form of gossip.”
WHY IS GOSSIP POSSIBLE?
Setting aside why we permit free speech rather than only truthful speech – a problem for philosophers – why is gossip more possible in the current era than prior eras?
We stopped teaching grammar, logic, and rhetoric earlier in the last century for three reasons:
1) it would have undermined the marxist/socialist/feminist education program
2) it readily exposes the differences in student abilities as a near perfect reflection of class.
3) it is quite hard for ‘teachers’ who are from the bottom 16 % of their classes (just below journalists) to teach grammar, rhetoric and logic.
Today we would have to add basic economics: grammar, logic, rhetoric and micro-economics (the science of incentives) to the ancient educational curriculum.
However, if the body politic were taught grammar, logic, rhetoric, and micro-economics (incentives) then it would be impossible for many writers (yourself included it appears) to see his or her words represented in modern font.
WHY DECEIVE?
I specialize in truthful speech. This specialty requires a great deal of understanding of untruthful speech. And gossip (Critique) is a well developed technique for conveying untruthful speech. It is the secular version of deception that we invented to replace mystical deception.
The question is, why, if one is correct, right, true, and just, why one would rely on Critique (Gossip) in lieu of argument?
We can say one lacks the skill, absent talent. We can say one is an unknowing pawn in the great game, and absent intent. We can say that one is a purveyor of deceit by intent.
But it is hard for the audience to know whether one lacks intelligence, whether one is a fool, or whether one is a liar.
Because when we speak truthfully and empirically then we can be judged on the content of our arguments, and by the content of our arguments, the content of our character.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
)
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 04:51:00 UTC
-
POST’S ONGOING VERY STRANGE POSITIONING I realize that the Post is part of the s
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-in-victory-donald-trump-cant-stop-airing-his-grievances/2016/05/29/a5f7a566-2526-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_naTHE POST’S ONGOING VERY STRANGE POSITIONING
I realize that the Post is part of the status quo establishment, but it’s pretty clear to those of us who are of empirical rather than ideological bias, that the editorial team’s FAILED to grasp the demographic and political shift away from consensus on ideology (a class competition) and toward higher tribalism (a clan competition).
1) All people vote their reproductive interests, and all reproductive interests are better satisfied within tribe than without.
2) Given that all ‘tribes’ are constructed out of people with different distributions of talents – some lower, genetically, socially, familially, and economically, and some higher genetically, socially, familially, and economically – and that these distributions of talents are determined by the differing rates of reproduction of their classes – societies MUST organize to compete militarily, economically, and politically, with the people that they consist of. Ergo, in an homogenous upward-redistributive society that has practiced eugenics for thousands of years (Northern Europe) you will get equalitarianism – because people are relatively equal in ability. If you look to south america, or india, where the underclasses breed rapidly, you will get a caste system. If you look to Arabia, where there is no upper or middle class you will get authoritarianism.
Ergo, if you attempt to build a heterogeneous democracy you will eventually end up with either a caste system (which we now have approximately by race).
So why should you expect to create a series of racial competitions and not produce authoritarians in every caste? (Jackson etc on the black, and conservatives on the white, and the emerging hispanic consensus, and the existing jewish consensus.)
All empirical governments grow. All ideological governments stagnate. The Neocon-Neoliberal era is done. Welcome back to the world of tribalism.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 04:01:00 UTC