Form: Argument

  • Our challenge is to retain natural selection and tesulting natural eugenics to p

    Our challenge is to retain natural selection and tesulting natural eugenics to prevent regression to the mean and devolution into another second wold sh—hole. The moral means of doing so is separation into Whiteness(Natural Eugenics) and non-whiteness(Dysgenics). Otherwise you Dysgenecists will drag our civilization down even more so with you. As such national divorce is a necesssity of our survival against the tide of dysgenia made possible by women voters.

    Reply addressees: @SiljaJATalvi @doc_thoughts @Wyld_Wych


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-12 13:18:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646140707663491072

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1455247105841315854

  • Our challenge is to retain natural selection and tesulting natural eugenics to p

    Our challenge is to retain natural selection and tesulting natural eugenics to prevent regression to the mean and devolution into another second wold sh—hole. The moral means of doing so is separation into Whiteness(Natural Eugenics) and non-whiteness(Dysgenics). Otherwise you Dysgenecists will drag our civilization down even more so with you. As such national divorce is a necesssity of our survival against the tide of dysgenia made possible by women voters.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-12 13:18:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646140707789258754

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1455247105841315854

  • James (all) Conservatism is stated morally instead of scientifically and legally

    James (all)
    Conservatism is stated morally instead of scientifically and legally, while the marxist sequence is stated pseudoscientifically and with sophistry as a fraud. We can (I have) state conservatism as what it consists of doing not of what it claims to morally value: self determination and self determined means, sovereignty and reciprocity, duty before self and truth before face, judged by empirical evidence, in the commonality of dispute resolution by the common law, and concurrency in legislative contract. If you don’t know what commonality in law, and concurrency in voting (legislation) mean then you don’t grasp that they are empirical requirements for the prohibition of authority.

    Reply addressees: @ConceptualJames @TheLaurenChen


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 20:39:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645526875488354317

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645455345261633537

  • James (all) Conservatism is stated morally instead of scientifically and legally

    James (all)
    Conservatism is stated morally instead of scientifically and legally, while the marxist sequence is stated pseudoscientifically and with sophistry as a fraud. We can (I have) state conservatism as what it consists of doing not of what it claims to morally value: self determination and self determined means, sovereignty and reciprocity, duty before self and truth before face, judged by empirical evidence, in the commonality of dispute resolution by the common law, and concurrency in legislative contract. If you don’t know what commonality in law, and concurrency in voting (legislation) mean then you don’t grasp that they are empirical requirements for the prohibition of authority.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 20:39:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645526875580629018

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645455345261633537

  • Um, excuse me Trevor, but; 1) The military can’t constitutionally use arms again

    Um, excuse me Trevor, but;
    1) The military can’t constitutionally use arms against the citizenry.
    2) Estimates are that very few servicemen would comply if ordered. Those that might would largely resist in place. And the rest would defect to the citizenry.
    3) There are only about 200,000 total field personnel out of the 2M total in service. The rest are maintenance, logistics and administrative. Yet there are something around 10M men who would ‘be everywhere’.
    4) Our military is zero wins four losses against similar domestics, in comparatively tiny territories.
    5) It would take very vew people to plunge the USA, especially the dense urban cities with but a few days of supplies, into darkness, cold, and starvation – especially during the winter months.
    6) I’ve done a revolution already, and the moment you fire on the people, especially if they’re trying to restore the constitution, then your government is dead for eternity, and the gloves will come off. Police, Fire, Emergency, News Reporters, Linemen, Power Station crews, don’t show up or even show for work once you’ve sent men to ‘advise’ them and their families at home. (personal experience).
    7) The people are sovereign over the government only because men bear military grade arms and in sufficient numbers can defeat the government and the military. The second amendment is the only one that insures the rest. And in particular insures that democracy, that always drives back to authoritarianism, never succeeds in its deterministic ends.
    8) If you think military, Guard, ex-military, and police, are going to fight to preserve woke, trans, feminism, leftism, the further destruction of the constitution of natural law, and the continued ‘march through the institutions of cultural production’, then you are a product of the solipsistic feminine magical thinking minds that brought us to this conflict.

    Reply addressees: @CTrevorNelson


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 13:43:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645422308712906752

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1644586030128041985

  • Um, excuse me Trevor, but; 1) The military can’t constitutionally use arms again

    Um, excuse me Trevor, but;
    1) The military can’t constitutionally use arms against the citizenry.
    2) Estimates are that very few servicemen would comply if ordered. Those that might would largely resist in place. And the rest would defect to the citizenry.
    3) There are only about 200,000 total field personnel out of the 2M total in service. The rest are maintenance, logistics and administrative. Yet there are something around 10M men who would ‘be everywhere’.
    4) Our military is zero wins four losses against similar domestics, in comparatively tiny territories.
    5) It would take very vew people to plunge the USA, especially the dense urban cities with but a few days of supplies, into darkness, cold, and starvation – especially during the winter months.
    6) I’ve done a revolution already, and the moment you fire on the people, especially if they’re trying to restore the constitution, then your government is dead for eternity, and the gloves will come off. Police, Fire, Emergency, News Reporters, Linemen, Power Station crews, don’t show up or even show for work once you’ve sent men to ‘advise’ them and their families at home. (personal experience).
    7) The people are sovereign over the government only because men bear military grade arms and in sufficient numbers can defeat the government and the military. The second amendment is the only one that insures the rest. And in particular insures that democracy, that always drives back to authoritarianism, never succeeds in its deterministic ends.
    8) If you think military, Guard, ex-military, and police, are going to fight to preserve woke, trans, feminism, leftism, the further destruction of the constitution of natural law, and the continued ‘march through the institutions of cultural production’, then you are a product of the solipsistic feminine magical thinking minds that brought us to this conflict.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 13:43:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645422308868120576

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1644586030128041985

  • Again, desirable falsehoods spread in pseudoscience also. And again, without lia

    Again, desirable falsehoods spread in pseudoscience also.
    And again, without liability, and restitutability, we cannot correct this problem.
    The general claim is that we would suppress research.
    That’s false. We would suppress bad research and concentrate investment in research… https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1645225704236150787


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 13:24:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645417406104317953

  • ROTHBARD-HOPPE vs DOOLITTLE Hans hoppe’s argumentation ethics begins with the pr

    ROTHBARD-HOPPE vs DOOLITTLE
    Hans hoppe’s argumentation ethics begins with the premise that if we forgo violence then we recognize the demonstrated interests (property) of one another. This idea is via habermas (marxist), and both Hoppe and Habermas are Kantian (verbal) Rationalists.

    My work is based entirely on the science and resulting operational (not verbal) logic of the first principles of the universe. As such, we always have choice of violence, exchange, or boycott. So, violence is never off the table, and all ethics and morality are constructed from avoiding, minimizing, and prohibiting providing incentves for violence that is always present.

    The principle difference is in Hoppe/Rothbard’s use of intersubjectively verifiable property – a near prohibition on commons, and a license for free-riding, versus my use of demonstrated interests – which is any investment humans have made, including the common.

    In both cases all behavioral science both psychology, sociology, economics, and politics, are reducible to statements of demonstrated interest. But the Hoppe-Rothbard seeks to avoid responsibility for the commons and my work seeks to maximize responsibility for the commons.

    The result is Rothbards via-positiva Jewish Pilpul and Critique of no-responsibility separatists, Hoppe’s via-positiva German Rationalism and Critique limited responsibility (free cities), and my (Doolittle’s) via-negativa science and operational logic of maximum responsibility of anglo rule of law of the empirical common concurrent natural law, and our three differences in scope of interest and responsibility.

    I hope this helps.
    Cheers
    #libertarian @mises


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 13:20:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645416428013604864

  • ROTHBARD-HOPPE vs DOOLITTLE Hans hoppe’s argumentation ethics begins with the pr

    ROTHBARD-HOPPE vs DOOLITTLE
    Hans hoppe’s argumentation ethics begins with the premise that if we forgo violence then we recognize the demonstrated interests (property) of one another. This idea is via habermas (marxist), and both Hoppe and Habermas are Kantian (verbal) Rationalists.

    My work is based entirely on the science and resulting operational (not verbal) logic of the first principles of the universe. As such, we always have choice of violence, exchange, or boycott. So, violence is never off the table, and all ethics and morality are constructed from avoiding, minimizing, and prohibiting providing incentves for violence that is always present.

    The principle difference is in Hoppe/Rothbard’s use of intersubjectively verifiable property – a near prohibition on commons, and a license for free-riding, versus my use of demonstrated interests – which is any investment humans have made, including the common.

    In both cases all behavioral science both psychology, sociology, economics, and politics, are reducible to statements of demonstrated interest. But the Hoppe-Rothbard seeks to avoid responsibility for the commons and my work seeks to maximize responsibility for the commons.

    The result is Rothbards via-positiva Jewish Pilpul and Critique of no-responsibility separatists, Hoppe’s via-positiva German Rationalism and Critique limited responsibility (free cities), and my (Doolittle’s) via-negativa science and operational logic of maximum responsibility of anglo rule of law of the empirical common concurrent natural law, and our three differences in scope of interest and responsibility.

    I hope this helps.
    Cheers
    #libertarian @mises


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 13:20:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645416428206542849

  • Not an opinion. Its the science. Male systematizing vs female empathizing > Male

    Not an opinion. Its the science.

    Male systematizing vs female empathizing >
    Male search for truth to agree or not, vs female search for agreement regardless of truth >
    Female method of deception (lying) > Jewish Pilpul Critique (sophistry) > Abrahamic Religions (supernatural) >… https://t.co/AaxPJTM3Ao


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-08 12:35:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1644680322758344704

    Reply addressees: @rubicon700 @GonzaloLira1968 @kontherad1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1644513814245953538