Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

JOSH SZEPS’ PODCAST HIT PIECE. 😉
I’ve never heard of Josh Szeps (@joshzepps) before this week when a reader asked if I’d heard him discuss my (our) work on his Uncomfortable Conversations podcast (@UncomfyConvos) back in January of 2023.
https://t.co/rniAlbk4In
(See 49:20, for only 30 seconds)
I know, I know, of the hit pieces our there, it’s one of the shortest. 😉

RESPONSE
It’s a great example why I’ve found it impossible to talk to non-professionals (midwits) about my work – because Josh just dishes slanderous nonsense that reduces my explanation of the sequence of consequences of expanding integration into our polities and globalization of polities – to criticisms of semites – without explaning that it’s just a conflict of civilizations and classes that are like every other before it.

The difference in our current age being, that the jewish cutlure’s strategy is feminine and entered our polities about the same time as women began participating in them and the workforce. Via the postwar migration into our institutions, it has led to the feminization of institutions (by design using Frankfurt via Columbia) without recognizing the antisocial, antipolitical and anti-civilizational instincts of female behavior that are as yet unregulated by our laws.

Because while constsrained by our common law and culture of small scale polities, the use of media, institutions and governmetn to license female antisocial behavior was never possible to mass produce before.

This is a technical criticism of the process of different classes of individuals with different incentives whether instictual or cultural or practical entering into a democratic republic without maintaining houses for those with divergent interests – thus preserving the legislature as a means of trading between classes in the production of commons: a market.

Ergo the solution is merely to suppress female antisocial behavior (which they justify endlessly) as much as we have male antisocial behavior. ie: false promises, evasion of rsponsibilty, magicall thinking, hyperconsumption, and decapitalization of capital in toto.

Then Josh goes on to criticize Charles Murray for kind words to me, when those kind words were a response to kind and insightful words about Charle’s Character and Career. Sam just evades this nonsense called ‘the association game’ for which I’ll give credit but still criticize Josh. I mean, it’s like criticizing famous people for who they’re photographed with whether they know the person, what opinion they hold of that individual or group – even if they have one, or whether then admire, are pragmatic, tolerate, or dispise that person or group. This is thirteen year old girl nonsense.

MY WORK IS BOUND TO BE CONTROVERSIAL
I’m fully aware that my work is more controversial in the present age whether youre right, center, libertarian, or left. because my work is as disruptive to the centralization of authority and power in the state, as was Darwin to the authority and influence of the Church.

I get it. But I swear to god, I almost never, ever find anyone arguing against my arguments (mostly they can’t understand them because they lack the knowledge to do so). Instead I fight of personal attacks, false accusations, products of ignorance, straw men, or at best, loading framing and appeals to other thinkers, appeals to irrelevance, appeals to logic that isn’t there, or worse.

But, if you want to use the public using the cheap new device of social media for research and developoment, then you pay the high cost of nonsense instead of the high cost of money and time. 😉
I have never (and I doubt I will or we wil) encountered a substantive criticism of the work – other than complaints about it’s complexity. Or complaints about it not satisfying some particular bias or not.

IN THE END, TRUTH, EVEN UNDESIRABLE TRUTH, IS ALWAYS THE BEST OPTION
The Universe just is. Laws just are. Science to discover it’s laws just does its just the production of testimony in pursuit of gradual approximatoin of those laws. The resulting laws can be restated as first principles (not axioms, since thats a product of sets.) Those first principles form a hierarchy of laws that explain the entirelty of existence. I don’t get to opine on it. I just write it down. And I struggle to do a better job of it than I do.

The work wasn’t as hard as explaining to people who haven’t done the work. 😉

Cheers

JOSH SZEPS’ PODCAST HIT PIECE. 😉
I’ve never heard of Josh Szeps before this week when a reader asked if I’d heard him discuss my (our) work on his Uncomfortable Conversations podcast back in January of 2023.
https://t.co/rniAlbk4In
(See 49:20, for only 30 seconds)
I know, I know, of the hit pieces our there, it’s one of the shortest. 😉

RESPONSE
It’s a great example why I’ve found it impossible to talk to non-professionals (midwits) about my work – because Josh just dishes slanderous nonsense that reduces my explanation of the sequence of consequences of expanding integration into our polities and globalization of polities – to criticisms of semites – without explaning that it’s just a conflict of civilizations and classes that are like every other before it.

The difference in our current age being, that the jewish cutlure’s strategy is feminine and entered our polities about the same time as women began participating in them and the workforce. Via the postwar migration into our institutions, it has led to the feminization of institutions (by design using Frankfurt via Columbia) without recognizing the antisocial, antipolitical and anti-civilizational instincts of female behavior that are as yet unregulated by our laws.

Because while constsrained by our common law and culture of small scale polities, the use of media, institutions and governmetn to license female antisocial behavior was never possible to mass produce before.

This is a technical criticism of the process of different classes of individuals with different incentives whether instictual or cultural or practical entering into a democratic republic without maintaining houses for those with divergent interests – thus preserving the legislature as a means of trading between classes in the production of commons: a market.

Ergo the solution is merely to suppress female antisocial behavior (which they justify endlessly) as much as we have male antisocial behavior. ie: false promises, evasion of rsponsibilty, magicall thinking, hyperconsumption, and decapitalization of capital in toto.

Then Josh goes on to criticize Charles Murray for kind words to me, when those kind words were a response to kind and insightful words about Charle’s Character and Career. Sam just evades this nonsense called ‘the association game’ for which I’ll give credit but still criticize Josh. I mean, it’s like criticizing famous people for who they’re photographed with whether they know the person, what opinion they hold of that individual or group – even if they have one, or whether then admire, are pragmatic, tolerate, or dispise that person or group. This is thirteen year old girl nonsense.

MY WORK IS BOUND TO BE CONTROVERSIAL
I’m fully aware that my work is more controversial in the present age whether youre right, center, libertarian, or left. because my work is as disruptive to the centralization of authority and power in the state, as was Darwin to the authority and influence of the Church.

I get it. But I swear to god, I almost never, ever find anyone arguing against my arguments (mostly they can’t understand them because they lack the knowledge to do so). Instead I fight of personal attacks, false accusations, products of ignorance, straw men, or at best, loading framing and appeals to other thinkers, appeals to irrelevance, appeals to logic that isn’t there, or worse.

But, if you want to use the public using the cheap new device of social media for research and developoment, then you pay the high cost of nonsense instead of the high cost of money and time. 😉
I have never (and I doubt I will or we wil) encountered a substantive criticism of the work – other than complaints about it’s complexity. Or complaints about it not satisfying some particular bias or not.

IN THE END, TRUTH, EVEN UNDESIRABLE TRUTH, IS ALWAYS THE BEST OPTION
The Universe just is. Laws just are. Science to discover it’s laws just does its just the production of testimony in pursuit of gradual approximatoin of those laws. The resulting laws can be restated as first principles (not axioms, since thats a product of sets.) Those first principles form a hierarchy of laws that explain the entirelty of existence. I don’t get to opine on it. I just write it down. And I struggle to do a better job of it than I do.

The work wasn’t as hard as explaining to people who haven’t done the work. 😉

Cheers