Category: Epistemology and Method

  • METAPHYSICS: “FITTING” You see, you start with the supply side error of ‘fitting

    METAPHYSICS: “FITTING”

    You see, you start with the supply side error of ‘fitting’ and tell me what the unicorn of metaphysics ‘is’.

    I start with the demand side and ask what problems are you supposedly trying to solve.

    The answer is that there exist only the material with potential to know, the experiential, memory of experience, and the products of our actions with the potential to know them.

    The rest is just fictionalism.

    Why: because the scale of free association is ‘exciting’ just as hallucinogens are exciting, and for the same reasons

    So if you mean you want to engage in experiential fictionalism I understand it as a form of entertainment. But that’s all it is.

    EPISTEMOLOGY

    Experience > Free association > Hypothesis > Theory > Law.

    GRAMMARS

    Deflationary < descriptive < ordinary > narrative > Inflationary > Conflationary

    Don’t confuse ‘Philosophy’ with ‘literature’. Fantasy literature exists in every field. It’s just that we are honest about literary fiction and dishonest about literary fictional-ISM (occult, pseudoscience, idealism, sophism.)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-14 08:40:00 UTC

  • OF METAPHYSICS, TRUST, AND LYING. — Claire Rae Randall — ‘Cogito ergo sum’ ~

    OF METAPHYSICS, TRUST, AND LYING.

    — Claire Rae Randall —

    ‘Cogito ergo sum’ ~ Rene Descartes. ‘I think, therefore I exist’. The foundational statement of modern metaphysical philosophy.

    Some say it is a lie because it examines metaphysics.

    Can you prove that to be the case?

    (CURTD: you can’t prove a positive, only say whether it is tautological(meaningless), consistent(possible), or inconsistent (false).

    ).

    — Claire Rae Randall —

    The existence of God in this one is a sidetrack.

    To say that one thinks, or is aware, demonstrates that at least something, the ‘thinker’, or the experience, exists. Something is happening, something is experiencing, which clearly means that something exists.

    (CURTD: Short version:

    1 – the criteria for existence is persistence in time.

    2 – awareness of persistence requires memory

    4 – experience is recreated from intermixture of sensation, incentive(‘focus’) and memory.

    5 – experience of stimuli and memory is continuous recursive, reconstructive and (very) faulty

    6 – reason tests experience

    7 – action tests reason

    8 – memory recalls the result of tests – and I learn.

    So the more correct answer is: “I remember, and remember remembering and therefore ‘I’ exist, because ‘I’ consist of my memories, and the body that allows me to reconstruct, experience, reason, and act upon them, therefore testing my existence. Conversely, I will cease to exist when my body will no longer sustain the continuous recursive production of experience using sense, memory, cognition, reason, and action.”

    This, is the short version, but operationally answers the question.

    There was no hard problem of cognition. there was no mind body problem. Just the continuous reaction of the old, middle and new brain by the ‘persistence of vision’ of normal chemical reactions over multiple cycles of sense-perception.

    )

    It is not a truism, because that would mean that ‘To exist is to think’, which is clearly not the case. Even ‘I exist, therefore I think’ is not a necessary inference, as existence and thinking are not identical.

    The inference in Descartes is clearly an ‘If A then B’, but not ‘If B then A’. A tautology is reversible, an inference is not.

    I was mostly hoping that Curt Doolittle would pick up on this since he claims that all metaphysical investigation is a lie, which this statement from Descartes demonstrates to be a false statement.

    (

    I do not make that statement. I make the statement that (a) operations consist of measurements in time that are falsifiable, subjectively testiable, and testifiable, (b) truth consists and must consist of testimony (promise), (c) what we call science consists of testimony of operations beyond the frail limits of human perception and warranty of due diligence of having done so, (d) operations are the most parsimonious and testable paradigms, (e) there are only so many grammars of paradigms, and they very from the most deflationary to the descriptive to the inflationary to the conflationary to the fictionalisms, (f) hierarchies of paradigms (networks of categories, relations and values) which are dependent upon the fictionalisms demonstrate an absence of knowledge to make truth (testimony) claims. And (g) that if it is possible to discover a motive for the pretense of knowledge (deceit), then we CAN personally, and MUST publicly (to insure others) err on the side of the attempted deceit (fraud) to defend ourselves other and the commons from ignorance, error, fraud and deceit. And it is up to the individual to defend himself from prosecution for attempted deceit.

    )

    The next stage of investigation is the simple question ‘Is an error a lie?’

    Clearly not, since a lie is a false statement, knowingly made, while an error is a false statement made unknowingly.

    (CURTD:

    This is the difference you see…

    1) The optimistic test of TRUST of EQUALS which is to presume ignorance and error.

    2) The practical test of DOUBT of UNEQUALS is to presume failure of due diligence.

    3) The pessimistic PROSECUTION of an ENEMY is ignorance error, bias and deceit.

    Notice the difference between operations and sets.

    Notice how I use series rather than ideals

    Note how I use a supply demand curve rather than ideal types.

    In other words, plato and descartes were still using theological and ideal language. They were not using ‘real’ language: operations and testimony deflated into series, and tested by using supply and demand, which make conflation and inference of fallacies impossible.

    )

    So, even in the event that Descartes was making a false assertion, if he did it with an honest intention, and wasn’t aware of any contradictions in his reasoning, then he may not have been ‘telling the truth’, but he certainly wasn’t lying.

    (CURTD:

    But someone who makes a descartes error today is. Because today we are failing to do due diligence.

    )

    — Claire Rae Randall —

    I’m concerned that you’re making it more of a problem than it needs to be.

    All I’m seeking to establish is that investigation into consciousness and underlying realities is a legitimate endeavour and does not necessarily involve lying. Really, it’s that simple.

    (CURTD:

    There is only one means of doing so and that is science (operational language). Because science is the only means of doing so without failing a test of due diligence and therefore lying.

    If you use another means and the means is fictionalism, and a the fictionalism provides incentive, then you are in fact lying, whether conscious of it nor not.

    We lack agency. We negotiate on part of our genes unconsciously. We are forever lacking agency, for this reason.

    We can therefore:

    Lie by design; or

    Lie by failure of due diligence. (convenience)

    Because to lie mens to testify.

    And to testify means performing due diligence.

    All truth claims are in fact promises. (testimony)

    Because there is no ‘truth’ it’s not possible.

    Instead, wea either speak truthfully or not.

    And to speak truthfully requires due diligence against ignorance, error, bias deceit, and malincentive.

    )

    You often seem to conflate things that are not within the parameters of what I consider to be ‘Metaphysics’ with the subject itself. And some things cannot be materially tested, but can be examined with language and logic so as to find out what that yields us.

    (CURTD: Metaphysics “after the physics”

    If metaphysics consist of something other than cognitive science then please tell me how.

    I understand metaphysics to consist of is almost entirely of experiments in the construction of paradigms of internally constant relations but incompatible external constant relations.

    In other words I cannot find any discourse on metaphysics that is not ‘word play’, entertainment, and an attempt to deceive, escape, or defraud. Conversely, we know many paradigmatic systems of education and transfer of meaning.

    Much of philosophy consists of fictional experiential literature whose effects are caused by stimulation using vocabulary to induce free association of imprecise and highly loaded terms. sort of a drug for nerds. Just like poetry. or comedy. or fictional literature.

    )

    I certainly have little truck with postmodernism (my forthcoming book is almost a non stop attack on the vile plague) and am no advocate of supernatural authoritarianism, since if ‘supernatural’ beings exist (I’m not keen on the term ‘supernatural’) then they should abide within terms of some law and don’t need to be authoritarian.

    About rationalism, well I don’t want to constrain things within artificial limits, but at the same time we do need to be rational.

    (CURTD:

    dream, daydream, free association, think, reason, rationalism, calculation, computation.

    This spectrum is available to us. With increasing demands on short term memory and rigidity of categories.

    rational(choice), rational (logical)

    )

    — Claire Rae Randall —

    I’m anxious not to confuse Metaphysics and Theology.

    If someone thinks that Metaphysical inquiry is in some way dependent on Theological assumptions then they are making a mistake.

    (

    CURTD: No. Metaphysics gives license to theology. and all fictionalisms. Because it claims (falsey) that there is suspect causal relation between perception and reality. Only outside of human scale.

    )

    Also, lying is knowingly telling a falsehood. Examining ideas and establishing postulates which have not been proven false is not lying.

    (

    CURTD:

    This is demonstrably not true since most people are lie-carriers and repeat lies simply because it is in their self interest to repeat lies, because they have not done due diligence to insure they are not lying in matters of self interest.

    We do not know whether you lie by intent or not. We only know you tell a lie by stating a falsehood that you cannot testify to. Your intention not do perform due diligence (via negativa) is the only test we have of whether you lie by intent, or by incentive. (excuse)

    Baiting in to moral hazard is how ((()))) we were destroyed by jews (christians), marxist, postmoderns. If we raise the standard from high trust to low trust we end their ability to lie while claiming just thinking. In other words you are to blame whether you intend to state a falsehood or not.

    So stop letting your cultural ‘metaphysical assumption of the necessity of high trust’ make you a sucker like the rest of our people. 😉

    Liars take advantage of us. Because we don’t do due diligence because we trust – because we didn’t evolve lying – they did. and we are vulnerable to it because of our trust.

    Stop being illogical. Stop trusting rather than doing due diligence.

    )

    — Claire Rae Randall —

    Ok. I need to solve this problem for a lot of people so I’m going to move this to the main page and we’ll work through it.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-13 20:49:00 UTC

  • “Hey Curt, a friend and I are going to read Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revo

    —“Hey Curt, a friend and I are going to read Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” soon. Do you recommend any other work that would expound the most up-to-date and rigorous philosophy of science? Cheers.”—

    The conversion of science from justification to falsification to to market competition, and unifying science and law, where science is but an extension and application of the law of tort, and the testimony required in laws of tort.

    Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery,

    Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions,

    Popper’s conjectures and refutations,

    …but first read:

    Hayek’s knowledge in society essay, and his

    Road to Serfdom

    … And if you can manage it:

    Elanor Ostrom (Commons)

    And Amartya Sen (philosophy and economy)

    … And then

    Hayek’s Law, Legislation, and Liberty if you want to take it all the way through to the end.

    Popper is talking about explicit knowledge and hayek about tacit knowledge. And we must possess both. Just as we must possess recipes (transformations/actions) and theories (search algorithms/opportunities). One to search for opportunities and one to exploit them.

    THe rest of the century is basically wasted with poorly articulated arguments attempting to state what is a fairly obvious problem.

    As far as I know my work is most current, and that is that there is no via-positiva scientific method (what to do) only a via-negativa scientific method (due diligence in that your testimony is truthful.) That we must perform due diligence in each of the applicable dimensions of possible human comprehension. And that science consists of the art of attempting to possess the information necessary to testify.

    And therefore that science then is a market for arguments.

    So:

    – Free Association > Hypothesis

    – Hypothesis > Theory

    – Theory > Law

    – Law > Habituation

    – Habituation > Metaphysical assumption.

    Cheers.

    -Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-13 10:07:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/51925002_10156982735932264_226284136

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/51925002_10156982735932264_226284136

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/51925002_10156982735932264_2262841367149412352_o_10156982735922264.jpg Singular SpeechThis comes in handy as I just mentioned it.Feb 12, 2019, 8:50 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 20:46:00 UTC

  • CHANTING THE CORE 😉 Given: Any statement passes the tests of: – categorically c

    CHANTING THE CORE 😉

    Given:

    Any statement passes the tests of:

    – categorically consistent (identity)

    – internally consistent (Logically consistent)

    – externally correspondent (empirically consistent)

    – existentially consistent (operationally stated)

    – scope consistent (limits and full accounting)

    – rational (subjectively consistent – incentives )

    – reciprocal (reciprocally subjectively consistent – exchanges)

    – with these warranties of due diligence,

    – within the limits of possible restitution,

    Therefore:

    – Any such display word or deed;

    – is free of imposition of costs,

    And Therefore;

    – free of retaliation.

    And Therefore;

    – it is truthful and moral.

    We can never know if a statement is true (“critical naturalism”).

    We can only know that we have exhausted due diligence sufficient for the demand for due diligence given the promise, claim, testimony we are making.

    This is Propertarian Natural Law’s epistemology:

    … “Testimonialism’:

    … … “The completion of the scientific method”,

    … … … or what some call

    … … … … ‘Critical Naturalism’.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 18:50:00 UTC

  • RULES OF DISCOURSE 1 – ASK IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND, AND BE RESPECTFUL (“How can

    RULES OF DISCOURSE

    1 – ASK IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND, AND BE RESPECTFUL

    (“How can you restate that as an intellectually honest question?”)

    2 – DON”T DEMAND OR GSRRM US INTO EDUCATING YOU.

    (“We only respond to intellectually honest questions asked in good faith”.)

    3 – YOU WILL NEED TO READ A LOT. SORRY. READ DON’T ASK.

    (“We cannot repeat long chains of logic for everyone. You must do the work on your own. If you can ask a specific question we will answer it providing it only takes a few minutes.”)

    4 – EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IS IN OUR OVERVIEW

    (“It’s a lot of material, and a lot of reading, and it’s pretty much all there. P is like any other system of ‘calculation’ and it takes time to learn.”)

    5 – IF IT”S TOO HARD WE GIVE CLASSES (THAT COST)

    (“If the reading is too much for you, then you will have to consider the classes. Classes reduce our cost of teaching you by batching you together, and let us ensure that you understand the material.)

    6 – IF YOU THINK WE ARE WRONG, YOU WILL 100% EITHER BE IMMORAL OR INCOMPATIBLE, MISUNDERSTAND, OR BE WRONG. “P IS TIGHT.”

    (“The only criticisms of P that we know of are (a) that it is a purely via-negativa system of thought and as such, it is up to you to supply ideology (power), philosophy (strategy and choice of good), religion(conformity), and Government (means of constructing the commons”.), (b) that some of you are still silly enough to believe any option other than revolt is possible, or that revolt won’t be successful – albeit costly.)

    WE BAN FOR

    1 – Wasting our time by GSRRM, Intellectual dishonesty, disrespect of the person, badgering, meming, non-argument We give only one or two warnings. We do not need to be popular with people who waste time, rely on GSRRM, are intellectually dishonest, badger, meme, and engage in non-argument.

    Why?

    We are the only answer you have.

    Its just going to take you a while to understand that.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 17:25:00 UTC

  • Not to disagree. But in a decision between pragmatism and truth, I’m taking the

    Not to disagree. But in a decision between pragmatism and truth, I’m taking the truth and this is what keeps me out of the multitude of traps that others historically fall into. The truth is enough. I don’t harsh on anyone unless they harsh on me first. I’d prefer no harshing.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-11 23:59:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1095110099096477696

    Reply addressees: @ArielFelidae @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1095105306332483584


    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/1095105306332483584

  • THE METHOD TO THE APPEARANCE OF MADNESS (An Opus for the Newbies and Normies) 0)

    THE METHOD TO THE APPEARANCE OF MADNESS

    (An Opus for the Newbies and Normies)

    0) I work through the combination of aristotelian, logical, scientific, social scientific, pedagorical-religious, and cognitive-linguistic fields with a discipline that most cannot imagine. And at any time I’m attempting to solve a handful of problems. If the audience understands what problem I am solving it does not help me with their reactions so I tend to mix them up to prevent it.

    1) I ‘riff’ off arguments wherever i find them in order to create controversy in order to draw attention in order to educate those who are educable, and filter out those who are not.

    2) I never resist the opportunity for a fight for this reason: it is exceptional, relatively free advertising, that lets us search for people that have potential for contribution to the development of an intellectual movement sufficient to counter second era abrahamism: destruction of advanced civilizations by islamism, judaism, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism, and outright lying that baits the ignorant and foolish into moral hazard, and civilizational collapse.

    3) I teach by conducting a continuous the king of the hill game, which consists of making an argument or assertion which generates either defense of a prior assumption, offense against a presumption, or conflict between assumptions. This is how men must be taught. There is no penalty for failure except one’s learning. The only reward is attention, respect, quoting, and republication of good arguments. One does not need to be ‘right’ in this game, one needs only continuously strive to improve his abilities at discourse, debate, argument, and prosecution.

    4) The principle methods we teach are actually quite simple:

    (a) deflate, operationalize, disambiguate, serialize, define limits and completeness and express as a supply demand curve. This produces ‘better definitions, redefinitinos, and new definitions which are not possible to use in decet by the incomplete sentences, inflation, conflation, sophism, or the fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience.

    (b) All human behavior can be reduced to attempts to obtain, maintain, or defend expenditures of investment, whether physical, emotional, or intellectual. … As a consequence we can enumerate everything that humans attempt to acquire as some form of property. … As a consequence we can test whether attempts at obtaining property are reciprocal and if reciprocal within the limits of proportionality – thus maintaining the incentive to cooperate …. or they are not. if they are not then they are violations of reciprocity and proportionality, and as such simply ‘violence by other means’. Violence by any means, invites reciprocity by retaliation by violence by any means. Therefore the only reason for those who are able, to cooperate rather than exterminate, enslave, enserf, en-tax, or en-debt, is reciprocity within the limits of proportionality.

    (c) humans divide not only labor, but time-frame, perception, cognition, memory, paradigm, opportunities for predation and conditions of(fear of being) prey, demands, advocacy, negotiation, cooperation, rejection, conflict, and warfare.

    (d) there are a limited means of dividing that cognition and advocacy and those are primarily driven by gender differences in cognition and intuition, the bias of male or female brain structure and resulting behavior in the group, very minor differences in personality trait within the group (stages of the prey drive or reward system), the degree of neoteny in a group, and the success of the group in upward redistribution of reproduction thereby limiting the dead weight of the unproductive or costly.

    (e) Within groups there are only three means of persuasion i) force, ii)remuneration, iii) ostracization. These three strategies reflect the masculine conservative(defensive), ascendent male (opportunistic), and female(consumptive) biases in cognitive strategy. We see this in extreme conflict behavior between the genders as men fight only to preserve hierarchy then end the conflict. Ascendent men (libertarians) rarely fight but move to other opportunities. Females undermine by reputation destruction and do not stop until the enemy is destroyed. We also see this same effect in three personality type clusters. In other words all human groups cluster around three sets of personality types (big5/6) that reflect the masculine, libertarian, and feminine reproductive and social competitive strategy. This strategy is modified slightly by the sexual, social, economic, political, and military genetic, cultural, and knowledge value that the individual demonstrates by his display word and deed. and if we modify by the increasing adaptation provided by intelligence we see that there are a finite number of means by which individuals and groups compete. Therefore, all group strategies can be understood as genetic expression of group evolutionary demands.

    (f) Societies form elites in each of the means of coercion: i)force, government, and law, ii) finance, production, and trade, iii)education, gossip, propaganda, moralism, religion and these elites compete to make use of their strategy on behalf of their followers. They ally with one another. Traditionally religion and state. At the present it is religion and the middle class and the military (the middle) against the immigrants, minorities (non whites), underclasses (disenfranchised), and media, academy, state complex. In other words the new ‘religion’ of the academy and state is in competition with the old religion of the church, law, and people – it’s the top and bottom against the middle classes.

    (g) Since this new ‘religion’ is imposed upon our people by the same technique as the abrahamic religions (false promise, baiting into moral hazard, sophism, pilpul(excuse making), and critique (undermining), by a process of environmental overloading (informational saturation by repetition), that takes advantage of our genetic and cultural high trust (vulnerability to moral deception by moral hazard), and particularly because this is the natural intuition of the female biased mind out of evolutionary necessity, the increase in females in the work place, in voting, in consumption, and in particular in education in pseudosciences (social science and psychology and literature) which are simply vehicles for deceit by baiting the female mind into moral hazard, we can make use of the law to suppress falsehood, fraud, and high-fraud: baiting into moral hazard, in commerce, finance, economics, law, politics, and pedagogy (the academy), and let the natural competition between offenders and defenders incrementally suppress these frauds through the court system. and this will produce the most rapid change possible, and the costs of prosecution will, as in most things, drive the bad out of our society by negative market pressure (the law) alone, using natural self interest of even a minority of ordinary people.

    (h) It is quite possible using ‘testimonialism’ to define what is truthful speech (really, it is, surprisingly, and without that much difficulty) and teo extend the same involuntary (forced) warranty of due diligence against harm (falsehood, fraud, high fraud: baiting into moral hazard).

    (g) We have in the west relied on a unique, counter-intuitive human evolutionary strategy, evolved by our early military origins as charioteers, raiders, pirates, vikings, conquerors when we combined horse, wheel, bronze, language, and developed sky worshiping and paternalism as means of expressing our new found dominance over others and nature. However, this military order required personal investment by families in expensive equipment (arms, men) necessary to conduct raids and wars, and conquest. This order required putting TRUTH BEFORE FACE REGARDLESS OF COST TO THE HIERARCHY. Including the self. And it required relatively ‘democratic’ rights among those raiders (warriors, vikings, conquerors), who fought by choice not command. With the headman (chieftain) being the judge of last resort, and the people as the jury. As a result we produced heroism (risk) for the franchise (equality), and resulting sovereignty, reciprocity, common law, meaning the law of tort (property), and as a consequence, markets for voluntary cooperation in association, reproduction (marriage), production(economy), commons (‘society’), polity (government), and war (defense and offense), where war is another business venture like any other. And this tradition and this tradition alone – our sovereignty by earning it, our law, our militia, our jury, is all that separates us from the rest of the world that did not develop these traits. And the east asians were insulated from the barbarians by their territory, more so than we were by the Urals, black sea, caspian, bosphorus and mediterranean. So they not only had a longer time to develop, fewer genetically different neighbors, a larger population, and and the flood river alleys to feed themselves. They never developed truth over face, and because of that were not able to organize as fast and invent as fast as europeans in the ancient and modern worlds. The middle of the earth was destroyed by the semites over the past few thousand years, and their destruction and reduction of man to ignorance dysgenia, and poverty, is universal. They have destroyed and consumed the genetic, informational, normative, political, administrative, fixed, environmental capital of every great civilization of the ancient world reducing them to ashes of superstition. WHen rome discovered it must build a wall they did not choose the bosporus the caucuses, and the urals – and they should have. Because beyond there. nothing but Mordor waits. We are the people of science and law, the east are the people of reason and family, and the middle are the people of cancer upon the world that we must all defend against.

    (j) There are enemies among us that are not europeans and do not have our genetic and cultural dispositions, that exist (survive competition) ENTIRELY BY BAITING IN TO MORAL HAZARD and preying upon our people. We do not need to war against these people. Only outlaw their behavior in self defense. If we do so those people will have a choice of conforming, leaving, or prosecution and if necessary, execution. These people specialize in Advertising, Finance, Media, Entertainment, Propaganda, Activism, Law, Government, Prostitution, Gambling, Pornograpy, and white collar crime. And they do so by immigration, undermining, baiting into moral hazard, profiting from it, investing in the privatization of commons (rent seeking), and sponsoring further immigration, conversion, and destruction of all we have spent 4000 years developing.

    We can end the 2000 year war against our people very easily.

    A moral license (predation upon us, extermination of us)

    A set of demands (new constitution and policies)

    A plan of transition (how to reorganize peacefully)

    A means of altering the status quo. (uprising to delegitimize the state.)

    It is hard for people to argue with definancialization, de politicization, de propagandism, de population replacement, and the total criminalization of lying, fraud, and high fraud against our people in matters commercial, financial, political, economic, and military.

    We must choose. At least. The answer is about two million of us must choose. And we must choose to pay the price of defense of our people from the current attacks on our civilization.

    We can easily win.

    It’s just a choice.

    5) I am, we are, creating a movement the size and scope of marxism and postmodernism precisely to counter the use of semitic abrahamism version two, against our people in the forms of the great deceits of baiting into moral hazard: boazianism, freudianism, marxism, socialism, keynesianism, postmodernism, denialism, and outright lying; the destruction of our rule of law, of our constitution of natural law, and our civilization nearly devoid of burdensome underclasses that must of necessity parasitically depend upon us just as the utility of unskilled labor, skilled labor, clerks, craftsmen, are being eliminated from the economic pool. I’m searching for the members of our equivalent of the ‘frankfurt school’ – the development of our arguments of Restoration.

    All I care about from the Libertarians, Traditionalists, Constitutionalists , and Religious, is to i) not impede our work ii) be willing if the time comes to raise the few million we need to bring this entire country to a halt in short order, such that once published, our demands are met without bloodshed. ii) BEcause while you don’t understand, and I do, the ability to starve tens of millions of our enemies and turn their island cities to ruin is about as difficult as having a sandwich and beer.

    Thanks for your time and attention.The gods, all of them, are with us. Because only a devil would leave behind so many dead gods, and so many dead people, a genetic wasteland, and the attempted reversal of human history back into the stone ages.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (and really…now we are everywhere)

    Please start a group in your area. Winning is easy once you know how to win and what to do once you’ve won.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-11 15:50:00 UTC

  • THE MARKET FOR DECIDABILITY When the ordinary person fails he appeals to associa

    THE MARKET FOR DECIDABILITY

    When the ordinary person fails he appeals to associates.

    When associates fail he appeals to superiors

    When superiors fail he appeals to professionals

    When professionals fail the appeals to thought leaders.

    When instincts fail we appeal to familial ethics.

    When familial ethics fail we appeal to virtue ethics.

    When virtue ethics fail we appeal to rule ethics

    When rule ethics fail we appeal to outcome ethics.

    When intuition fails one must appeal to logic.

    When logic fails, one must appeal to empiricism.

    When empiricism fails one must appeal to operationalism.

    When operationalism fails one must appeal to limits scope and parsimony.

    When religion fails, one appeals to reason

    When reason fails one appeals to philosophy

    When philosophy fails, on appeals to science

    When science fails, one appeals to testimony.

    And the opposite is true.

    Why?

    We only have so much knowledge, and so much time, to satisfy the market for decidability in time for taking action.

    – Curt Doolittle

    – The Propertarian Institute.

    —-

    PS

    by Bill Joslin

    Incremental Disambiguation in one direction (from low to high investment)- Graceful failure in the other (from high to low cost) which explains why the later presents stronger incentives than the former.z

    —-


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-11 13:11:00 UTC

  • (a) I can’t test vigilance, (a via positiva) I can only test due diligence (a vi

    (a) I can’t test vigilance, (a via positiva) I can only test due diligence (a via negativa).
    (b) give me link and I’ll look.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-10 19:58:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094687190834126848

    Reply addressees: @SPQRIUS @JFGariepy

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094676311312920578


    IN REPLY TO:

    @SPQRIUS

    @curtdoolittle @JFGariepy I read quickly through your Constitution – didn’t see the word vigilance there, it’s a good word. Also, have you looked at my project the living pan-European and American Cultural and Heritage Center?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094676311312920578