(marxism, feminism, democratic secular humanism, mainstream democrat, republican, libertarian, anarcho capitalism, neo-reactionary) —“There is only one source of liberty: the organized application of violence to suppress parasitism by all means in every area of life.” Here we have the means (violence) to an end (liberty).How is this not edgy consequentialism again. Fucking animals can consequentialism bro. But thanks for your concern. Holy shit utilitarianism too! It’s literally a shit smorgasbord of consequentialism! Yeah I’m into deontological things like ethics and shit”— Greg Gilson (a victim of cosmopolitan deception, and current Useful Idiot) Neither you nor the author of the OP seem to grasp the difference between BELIEF and the ABSENCE of demonstrated preference, and INCENTIVES and the PRESENCE of demonstrated preference. In other words, the difference between an existentially impossible model and an existentially possible one. Nor do you realize the difference between internally consistent but informationally incomplete, and externally non-correspondent argument, with internally consistent, informationally complete, and demonstrably correspondent argument. Nor do you realize that selfish(isolationist), imitative(environmental), virtue(hero), deontological(rule), and teleological (outcome), ethics constitute a spectrum of problems from total ignorance to total knowledge – and that one only chooses a lower demand for knowledge when he lacks the information to use the ethical standard that requires greater knowledge. Unless of course, he is engaged in deception wherein the use of greater knowledge and a corresponding methodology of ethics that makes use of greater knowledge, would falsify his arguments. Nor do you seem to realize that your form argument is constructed by the same form of deceit as marxism: wishful thinking, overloading and suggestion, and appeal to cognitive bias that grants altruistic trust to appeals to your reproductive strategy. Now, while it is apparent to those of us with far greater knowledge and skill, that you are the victim of various forms of overloading and suggestion that appeals to your (lackluster) reproductive strategy and limited knowledge and ability, and therefore a “useful idiot” for advocacy on behalf of the left-marxist-center-libertine-right-neocon second great rebellion against meritocratic aristocracy and western liberty, it is not apparent to you for the same reasons you are open to such relatively easy suggestion. But once you are made aware that you’ve been duped, the fact that you can construct an argument using philosophical terms the consequence of which you demonstrably do not grasp, there is hope that you might learn, and transcend the Second Great Deceit of Pseudoscience and Pseudorationalism, and evolve beyond Useful Idiot, and learn the method of pursuing an existentially possible form of liberty. If any of you are still victims of cosmopolitan pseudo-mystical, pseudo-rational, or pseudo-scientific deception, we can cure you. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (note to readers: you might literally have to study this argument, or ask a few questions, but this is how you put an end to the Kantian fallacies that were adopted by the cosmopolitans and used to create the deep overloading fallacies in marxism, libertinism, and neo-conservativsm that made deceit by suggestion and appeal to reproductive cognitive bias possible. But remind people: if any of you are still fooled by the cosmopolitan fallacies – at any point on the ideological spectrum – there is hope: we can cure you.)
Form: Argument
-
If Any Of You Are Still Deceived, We Can Cure You.
(marxism, feminism, democratic secular humanism, mainstream democrat, republican, libertarian, anarcho capitalism, neo-reactionary) —“There is only one source of liberty: the organized application of violence to suppress parasitism by all means in every area of life.” Here we have the means (violence) to an end (liberty).How is this not edgy consequentialism again. Fucking animals can consequentialism bro. But thanks for your concern. Holy shit utilitarianism too! It’s literally a shit smorgasbord of consequentialism! Yeah I’m into deontological things like ethics and shit”— Greg Gilson (a victim of cosmopolitan deception, and current Useful Idiot) Neither you nor the author of the OP seem to grasp the difference between BELIEF and the ABSENCE of demonstrated preference, and INCENTIVES and the PRESENCE of demonstrated preference. In other words, the difference between an existentially impossible model and an existentially possible one. Nor do you realize the difference between internally consistent but informationally incomplete, and externally non-correspondent argument, with internally consistent, informationally complete, and demonstrably correspondent argument. Nor do you realize that selfish(isolationist), imitative(environmental), virtue(hero), deontological(rule), and teleological (outcome), ethics constitute a spectrum of problems from total ignorance to total knowledge – and that one only chooses a lower demand for knowledge when he lacks the information to use the ethical standard that requires greater knowledge. Unless of course, he is engaged in deception wherein the use of greater knowledge and a corresponding methodology of ethics that makes use of greater knowledge, would falsify his arguments. Nor do you seem to realize that your form argument is constructed by the same form of deceit as marxism: wishful thinking, overloading and suggestion, and appeal to cognitive bias that grants altruistic trust to appeals to your reproductive strategy. Now, while it is apparent to those of us with far greater knowledge and skill, that you are the victim of various forms of overloading and suggestion that appeals to your (lackluster) reproductive strategy and limited knowledge and ability, and therefore a “useful idiot” for advocacy on behalf of the left-marxist-center-libertine-right-neocon second great rebellion against meritocratic aristocracy and western liberty, it is not apparent to you for the same reasons you are open to such relatively easy suggestion. But once you are made aware that you’ve been duped, the fact that you can construct an argument using philosophical terms the consequence of which you demonstrably do not grasp, there is hope that you might learn, and transcend the Second Great Deceit of Pseudoscience and Pseudorationalism, and evolve beyond Useful Idiot, and learn the method of pursuing an existentially possible form of liberty. If any of you are still victims of cosmopolitan pseudo-mystical, pseudo-rational, or pseudo-scientific deception, we can cure you. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (note to readers: you might literally have to study this argument, or ask a few questions, but this is how you put an end to the Kantian fallacies that were adopted by the cosmopolitans and used to create the deep overloading fallacies in marxism, libertinism, and neo-conservativsm that made deceit by suggestion and appeal to reproductive cognitive bias possible. But remind people: if any of you are still fooled by the cosmopolitan fallacies – at any point on the ideological spectrum – there is hope: we can cure you.)
-
End Copyright
There are moral laws, and immoral laws. And copyright protection for creative works has long turned evolved an immoral law. There is no shortage of entertainment, and no evidence that limiting media copyright to terms of the creative commons will reduce the market presence of these productions. Worse, copyrights produce artificial subsidy that encourages the worst possible behavior in the media: pandering.
-
End Copyright
There are moral laws, and immoral laws. And copyright protection for creative works has long turned evolved an immoral law. There is no shortage of entertainment, and no evidence that limiting media copyright to terms of the creative commons will reduce the market presence of these productions. Worse, copyrights produce artificial subsidy that encourages the worst possible behavior in the media: pandering.
-
It’s Not Capitalism That’s The Problem
—capitalism is a failure. It’s like the game monopoly. — Except monopoly is nothing at all like real life. And capitalism is responsible for raising the world out of endemic violence ignorance disease and poverty. The problem isn’t capitalism ( the voluntary organization of production ). It’s that the richer we become, the more talented you need to be to earn a living. When we had unused talent most people could move up. Now we have passed the period where there is *unused* talent and entered the period where we have *unusable* talent. Societies progress just as evolution progresses: by eliminating the failures to produce from the gene pool. So has capitalism failed? Or have we failed to continue to constrain the reproduction of the unproductive?
-
It’s Not Capitalism That’s The Problem
—capitalism is a failure. It’s like the game monopoly. — Except monopoly is nothing at all like real life. And capitalism is responsible for raising the world out of endemic violence ignorance disease and poverty. The problem isn’t capitalism ( the voluntary organization of production ). It’s that the richer we become, the more talented you need to be to earn a living. When we had unused talent most people could move up. Now we have passed the period where there is *unused* talent and entered the period where we have *unusable* talent. Societies progress just as evolution progresses: by eliminating the failures to produce from the gene pool. So has capitalism failed? Or have we failed to continue to constrain the reproduction of the unproductive?
-
{Labor} -vs- {Calculating, Organizing, Negotiating, Risking}.
(important) [L]abor itself is trivial in its contribution to value compared with the organization of production, and the organization of the institutions that make possible the organization of production at scale. We get more paid for calculating than laboring, more for organizing than calculating, more for negotiating than organizing, more for risking the accumulated results of laboring, calculating, organizing, negotiating, and risking more than for negotiating. Man does not need to persuade the physical world to choose from a multitude of options according to preference. The physical world cannot choose. Man can. And it is convincing large numbers of people to chose to produce some set of various goods and services in an enormous complex web versus choose to work toward producing some other set that is the difficult job that individuals in each layer of our hierarchy are paid more for, than the labor to force the world to change, versus the calculating, organizing, negotating, and risking that it takes man to change. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
{Labor} -vs- {Calculating, Organizing, Negotiating, Risking}.
(important) [L]abor itself is trivial in its contribution to value compared with the organization of production, and the organization of the institutions that make possible the organization of production at scale. We get more paid for calculating than laboring, more for organizing than calculating, more for negotiating than organizing, more for risking the accumulated results of laboring, calculating, organizing, negotiating, and risking more than for negotiating. Man does not need to persuade the physical world to choose from a multitude of options according to preference. The physical world cannot choose. Man can. And it is convincing large numbers of people to chose to produce some set of various goods and services in an enormous complex web versus choose to work toward producing some other set that is the difficult job that individuals in each layer of our hierarchy are paid more for, than the labor to force the world to change, versus the calculating, organizing, negotating, and risking that it takes man to change. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
ISLAM VS CHRISTENDOM In our western civilization all that matters is whether a s
ISLAM VS CHRISTENDOM
In our western civilization all that matters is whether a statement is true or not. A man has no right to respect if he speaks dishonestly, if he speaks falsely, if he speaks stupidly, or if he speaks in ignorance.
This is why our people are so much more successful, wealthy, healthy, comfortable, trustworthy, smarter and truthful. They must learn how to speak truthfully (scientifically) and honestly or they are punished with disrespect whenever they speak.
This is one of the greatest differences between our cultures.
The Pillars Are Designed By The Devil To Impoverish And Enslave
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-27 04:01:00 UTC
-
Reciprocal insurance of life and property already covers survival conditions. If
Reciprocal insurance of life and property already covers survival conditions. If you need water in the desert, others must give it to you, even if you have no money, although you must pay them back for it later.
There is no altruism. Period. We can’t find it in nature.
We find:
1) Kin selection (kingroup morality)
2) reciprocal insurance (ingroup morality)
3) buying options on cooperation. (outgroup morality)
4) defense against future retaliation (if you don’t give him water he and his might kill you for it) (pragmatism)
There is no altruism.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-25 03:57:00 UTC