Form: Critique

  • If you can’t make a moral argument in economic terms either you lack the intelle

    If you can’t make a moral argument in economic terms either you lack the intellectual ability or you are engaging in some for of fraud by deceit. This is yet another book doing the latter. And then feminists wonder why men are losing patience with the experiment of the franchise.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 22:00:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184227518133555201

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184227517340762113


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    So in other words, this book demonstrates the second Abrahamic (sophomoric) attempt to undermine western civlization: Monotheism in the old world, then Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism, and ‘Denialism’ now – more embarrassing by far than pretense of religious dogma.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184227517340762113


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    So in other words, this book demonstrates the second Abrahamic (sophomoric) attempt to undermine western civlization: Monotheism in the old world, then Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism, and ‘Denialism’ now – more embarrassing by far than pretense of religious dogma.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184227517340762113

  • So in other words, this book demonstrates the second Abrahamic (sophomoric) atte

    So in other words, this book demonstrates the second Abrahamic (sophomoric) attempt to undermine western civlization: Monotheism in the old world, then Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism, and ‘Denialism’ now – more embarrassing by far than pretense of religious dogma.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 22:00:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184227517340762113

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184227516552302593


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    I mean, this is another use of Female Gossiping, Shaming, Ridiculing, Moralizing, Psychologizing, Suggestion, Obscurantism, Sophism and Critique (straw manning) completely ignoring both truth vs falsehood and the necessity of cooperative exchange vs gender specific ideals.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184227516552302593


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    I mean, this is another use of Female Gossiping, Shaming, Ridiculing, Moralizing, Psychologizing, Suggestion, Obscurantism, Sophism and Critique (straw manning) completely ignoring both truth vs falsehood and the necessity of cooperative exchange vs gender specific ideals.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184227516552302593

  • I mean, this is another use of Female Gossiping, Shaming, Ridiculing, Moralizing

    I mean, this is another use of Female Gossiping, Shaming, Ridiculing, Moralizing, Psychologizing, Suggestion, Obscurantism, Sophism and Critique (straw manning) completely ignoring both truth vs falsehood and the necessity of cooperative exchange vs gender specific ideals.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 22:00:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184227516552302593

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184227515734417408


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    —“It also emerges that the failure to recognize women as human”– No, just that women are unequal to men in the foundations of european successes: truth, reciprocity, duty, markets, and meritocracy, and so far have demanded concessions in every aspect of life to accommodate.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184227515734417408


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    —“It also emerges that the failure to recognize women as human”– No, just that women are unequal to men in the foundations of european successes: truth, reciprocity, duty, markets, and meritocracy, and so far have demanded concessions in every aspect of life to accommodate.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184227515734417408

  • ON DOWN GIRL @[541432766350869:274:Kate Manne] Q: β€œWhen will women be human? Whe

    https://www.amazon.com/Down-Girl-Misogyny-Kate-Manne/dp/0190604980NOTES ON DOWN GIRL

    @[541432766350869:274:Kate Manne]

    https://www.amazon.com/Down-Girl-Misogyny-Kate-Manne/dp/0190604980

    Q: β€œWhen will women be human? When?” asked feminist legal theorist, Catharine A. MacKinnon, in a 1999 essay.

    A: When Truth, Productive and Accumulative, and Eugenic, take precedence over Approval, Consumption and Dysgenia.

    WHY MISOGYNY? Presumption: Why do women confuse rejection, disapproval, restraint from ir-reciprocity with emotional disapproval (hate)? Why do women not argue truth or falsehood, reciprocity vs reciprocity? Why do women engage in endless conflict by Undermining … vs Exchange?

    Why do women consider emotions a cost? Example: “These asymmetrical moral support relations may be instantiated in many different ways” …Asymmetrical accumulation of cellular damage may be instantiated in many different ways. That’s why men die earlier. How are they equivalent?

    “… serves to police and enforce these social roles…” Or serves to constrain female hyperconsumption,hypergamy, undermining, and involuntary transfer of resources from males through preservation of reciprocity (exchanges).

    Men = Material Economics,Physics, Constraint (Reals)

    Women = Emotional Economics, Manipulation, Consumption (feels).

    “M:Stress over failing to advance” versus “F:Fear of being left behind”.

    Kate: study physics, economics, cognitive science, and developmental biology emphasizing gender and class differences. Then study the differences in mental illness, anti-social behavior, and conflict between men and women instead of philosophy: the language of sophism and deceit.

    What does Moral mean? It can only mean reciprocity (voluntary exchange) within limits of proportionality (defection). Normative morals vary because reciprocal traditions vary. Personal moral bias is just a demonstration of Class, Gender, Gender Expression and Sexual Market Value.

    Envy, Revolt against Nature. Demand for greater gains for less contributions. Yes. But the west advanced beyond the rest by legal sovereignty, reciprocity, truth before face, judgement by jury, and resulting markets in all aspects of life – domesticating (Eugenics) the worst.

    Our success that made women’s ‘liberation’ from household chores, and productive enough to hire substitute mothers, was the product of 1500+years of eugenics, as much as it was our strange male obsession with truth reciprocity and institutions of continuous competition.

    —“It also emerges that the failure to recognize women as human”– No, just that women are unequal to men in the foundations of european successes: truth, reciprocity, duty, markets, and meritocracy, and so far have demanded concessions in every aspect of life to accommodate.

    I mean, this is another use of Female Gossiping, Shaming, Ridiculing, Moralizing, Psychologizing, Suggestion, Obscurantism, Sophism and Critique (straw manning) completely ignoring both truth vs falsehood and the necessity of cooperative exchange vs gender specific ideals.

    So in other words, this book demonstrates the second Abrahamic (sophomoric) attempt to undermine western civlization: Monotheism in the old world, then Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism, and ‘Denialism’ now – more embarrassing by far than pretense of religious dogma.

    If you can’t make a moral argument in economic terms either you lack the intellectual ability or you are engaging in some for of fraud by deceit. This is yet another book doing the latter. And then feminists wonder why men are losing patience with the experiment of the franchise.

    I am aware that it’s an uneven contest but I’ll happily debate anyone intellectually honest: Women are excessively privileged, and failing to learn, just like all other peoples have failed to learn, from the lessons of european achievement in the ancient and modern world: Trade.Updated Oct 15, 2019, 6:04 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 18:04:00 UTC

  • EX-PROPERTARIANS ALWAYS SOUND LIKE JILTED EX-GIRLFRIENDS by Predmetsky Rosenborg

    EX-PROPERTARIANS ALWAYS SOUND LIKE JILTED EX-GIRLFRIENDS

    by Predmetsky Rosenborg

    Ex-Propertarians always sound like jilted ex-girlfriends:

    –“and that non-operationalizable “abrahamism” word”–

    Operationalizing abrahamism is easy…high verbal IQ (median about 129) combined with low visual-spatial (there goes the calculating for physical costs and forces…) care-harm fundamentalism produced by high openness to experience (often correlated with high schizotypy) and agreeableness, moral module predisposes to vulnerable rather than grandiose narcissism (or callous-unemotional as a stand-alone construct), and the predictably high dispositional envy that accompanies it, leading to reversal of hierarchy (the good are evil and the bad are good) — Christianity is Jewish hatred’s most delicate flower of ressentiment rather than its repudiation.

    all of these things have been operationalized with as much precision as you can find in good psychometrics anywhere.

    What I’m interested in is in operationalizing sex differences as inherently relative to race (to say nothing of species) rather than considering them as stand-alone constructs. For example, East Asian masculinity and Ashkenazi masculinity and Caucasian masculinity must always be operationalized and studied together and can only ever be separated analytically. sort of like how some lemur species are female-dominant for biological reasons. Most lemur species are female dominant, but only most. So we can speak of mouse lemur (microcebus)-femininity, dwarf lemur (cheirogaleidaes)-femininity, mongoose lemur (lemuridae)-femininity as female dominant instances whereas brown lemur-femininity is more submissive.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-12 13:50:00 UTC

  • LUNATICS, ADDICTS, AND LIARS ALL SHOW THEIR COLORS EVENTUALLY —” About the Err

    LUNATICS, ADDICTS, AND LIARS ALL SHOW THEIR COLORS EVENTUALLY

    —” About the Error #1, I submit the following: America itself with those 40 million people with 400 million guns are proving that it is possible. THEY, not the US Military, are protecting the homeland from boots-on-the-ground invasion. I am for saving the Republic not overthrowing it. Indeed the starting point is “how do I get a territory where I can determine the law”.— Gunther Schadow

    Yes but they don’t want an anarchic polity. They want a restoration of the constitution of natural rights. There is no evidence that they don’t want the classical liberal tradition.

    I am for saving the republic as we did during the last civil war by forcibly altering the constitution regardless of the political process such that necessary reforms are permitted.

    So you lied again that I want to overthrow the government and replace it rather than reform the constitution and modernize it.

    —“At this very moment, your P is as much a non-existing utopia as Hoppe’s A. Nothing that you say can change that. So all your arguments about “has never been done” and “cannot be done” do not apply. You may dream up something as the lone dreamer that you are, and you can claim all you want, and you can collect minions on the internet all you want. And you can refuse to consider arguments that do not adopt your autistic language first.”—

    Well that’s not true. The only difference between the current constitution and mine is strict construction, precise enumeration, and the extension of the current prohibition on false and fraudulent commercial speech to fraudulent political speech, and from criminal speech (conspiracy) to criminal political speech. The rest is just choices of the series of means of separation that permit local specialization of policy while providing unified defense as the framers intended. I mean, P is a methodology, but effectively the constitution I’m proposing just adapts the construction of commons to current conditions.

    —“But the reality is that you are but one man with a bunch of crazies on the internet dreaming of his great revolution in which for some reason his faction would win.”—

    And you are one man without crazies. And hoppe and rothbard have crazies that have failed for forty years now. and contributed to western failure. All revolutionaries are crazies, that tells us nothing. You’d have called Darwin a crazy, and happily killed aristotle as well as socrates.

    —“No, until then, you need to be held responsible to the belching and farting of your minions who you sit together in a room with dreaming your pipe dreams. All those “dealing with the Joo Qoo” and “Hitler was right” and that crude Hitlerian anticapitalist sentiments you are grooming around you (like one guy actually told me that “the economy shouldn’t have priority over the people” when I pointed out how foolish it is to round up and deport people who immigrated after 1965, shit like that.”—

    You are welcome to disagree on truth vs falsehood. If you want to disagree on preferable vs not then that’s not important here. I do truth, not preference.

    (I leave like and dislike for women and half men.)

    —-“When your minion-knights actually ride out in their attempt to assume power, there will be lots and lots of other powers who compete with you, and you have nothing to prove you would fare any better than Hoppe. Except you have a bunch of fascists around you who may be good with the rapid radical and murderous ascension to power, followed by foolishly squandering away the resources that they have violently and illegitimately conquered.”—

    Well you know, you are just venting your frustration.

    What will happen is ALL factions will ride out, and chaos will ensue and people will gravitate to a solution that appeals to them.

    —“I came here EXCITED about the IDEA and PROMISE of using formal definitions, scientific reasoning, truthful DILIGENT speech using operationalizable terms, and rule of law to reform our polity in America and world wide. “—

    That’s a lie right? You came here an ancap at worst, a civnat at best, a continental and a christian. You cam searching for a way to enforce what you wanted. I supplied away to enforce truth, reciprocity, and competitive necessity – which falsifies some of your wants. You just don’t like it.

    Yet you aren’t complaining about formal definitions, scientific reasoning, truthful diligent speech in operationalizable terms, and rule of law to reform our polity and America world wide, are you?

    Which of those have you complained about? None.

    What have you complained about? Every single time, the application of truth to TABOOS.

    Why? Why are you afraid of the truth such that you can’t speak of the taboos?

    And what have you offered us to repair the current conflict except the same silly political tweaks that have been proposed for fifty years? Nothing.

    So what you want from me is to stop falsifying and stop undermining falsehoods. And to simply agree with your sentiments. You are worried about people being OFFENDED and asked to LEARN. I am doing the opposite. I’m worried about TEACHING PEOPLE regardless of whether they’re offended by the truth or not.

    Because that’ is what ‘western’ means: truth regardless of cost. That’s what Kant said. THat’s what Aristotle said. That’s what I say.

    —-“””However, as soon as I noticed you are full of mythological shit and can’t let go of your Aryan master race mythology and that non-operationalizable “abrahamism” word, and you refuse to teach your minions to not be fascists while you fire them on while at the same time denying it (you are a liar actually) I got turned off. I don’t need to waste 10 thousand web pages of time to study any further and neither will 90% of those 40 thousand gun owners in America.”—

    What you mean is that I am looking for a way to reform our religion of christianity such that it is no longer a means by which our people are made vulnerable to the abrahamic methods of deceit we see in feminism, postmodernism, and marxism, as well as judaism, christianity, and islam. I want to outlaw this form of lying in public speech..

    This offends you. Because it forces you to put truth before comfort regardless of cost.

    No philosopher achieves his ultimate end, but by discovering the ultimate ends, he moves the polity some number of steps toward them.

    —“You and John Mark (who won’t show his face, why?) “–

    My understanding is that people are doxxed and it affects their income. I no nothing at all about him. I don’t need to. Either a man’s words are true and reciprocal or false and irreciprocal.

    —“are playing with fire. Your minions are using some of that same rhetoric as the NZ mosque shooter, accelerationism. And one day you’ll have a few 100 men stupid enough to begin with aggression (all perfectly justified by your ideology). “—

    Where do you see that? You mean, instead, that there are people who come here because I truthfully discuss the Taboos, and so THEY are whacky. All of our people are trying to restore the need to fight to the anglo liberty tradition because of the failure of rothbardian and hoppeian pacifism. And I am at least, Eli is as well, saying that the solution is no longer possible democratically because it is no longer possible demographically.

    Regardless you are again GSRRM instead of asking whether P is true, you’re just lying again. So I’ll repeat what I said earlier: Yet you aren’t complaining about formal definitions, scientific reasoning, truthful diligent speech in operationalizable terms, and rule of law to reform our polity and america world wide, are you? Which of those have you complained about? None.

    You’re a liar. You are a liar by failure of due diligence. A carrier of others lies because of your failure of due diligence. And you don’t do your due diligence because either you are lazy, psychologically incompetent, or intellectually unable.

    —“And then the fascist tyranny that’s already siting at the levers of power will have enough to persecute all of the dissident right. “—

    Well, you know, that’s because you don’t know that what I’m proposing in the constitution is very hard for all but ideological leftists to disagree with. A scientists has to discover limits. That doesn’t mean you make use of them.

    —“But they aren’t as stupid as your minions are. It’s going to be a slow boiling death. Your crowd here for whom you are responsible fits the definition of terrorism and your ethno Aryan master race bullshit has gambled away all your moral authority already.”—

    Well, as far as I know I’m trying to restore the jeffersonian constitution under threat that if we don’t, then we will quite happily do something far less desirable. This is to remove the negotiation position like I have said for years.

    Sorry man, but the evidence is that (a) we have superior demographics, (b) superior balance of neoteny, depth of maturity, and dimorphism. (c) are the only people who have produced testimonial truth and reason, science and medicine, and have done so with a small population in a remote portion of euroasia, at the edge of the bronze age. (d) and have single handedly in this world and the ancient, dragged mankind out of ignorance and poverty hard work, disease and suffering with that civilization and genetic distribution.

    Sorry man, but the semitic religions are a crime against humanity and I’m trying to find a way to replace them with something that supplies demand but doesn’t include the Semitic cancers. My insight is truth and truth alone. And truth is unforgiving.

    So to say we are superior is simply true. To say that other people can imitate at least our truth and rule of law and eugenics and they will also become superior in a few generations, is also true.

    —“And there is even the big question how come that John Mark suddenly appears on the scene with that big boom and is your herald? Where does he come from? What funds do you have? “—

    Do a search. I’m a serial entrepreneur. I retired in my late 40’s to do this full time. That said, on purpose, donations pay for the institute and its costs. It’s a trivial cost. We collect trivial donations. Mostly from regulars. Why? I never want to have to modify my work to suit an income stream.

    Lots of people come and go. It has always been our strategy that I would do the R&D and others would take it to market, for reasons that are relatively obvious – mostly comprehensibility. John decided this was the answer he wanted to promote. So did eli. so has everyone else.

    —“Why doesn’t your stuff get blocked on YouTube? The thought that this is a honey trap is not at all far fetched. “—

    Ok now you have gone from borderline to full fledge lunatic.

    The reason I don’t get blocked is rather obvious. I don’t do hate speech. And I don’t post videos on controversial taboos. I only post on philosophy – and moreover, partly by design, they aren’t intellectually accessible to many. So others get blocked. The newest guy did yesterday. But as we continue to grow I expect to maintain technical content myself, others to education, others to rally, and others to test the margins.

    —“And why are you Curt siting in the Western Ukraine where the Stepan Bandera emblem wearing Nazis are celebrating their comeback aided and abetted by the deep state that is also running the coup against Donald Trump? So many questions that need to be talked about on common terms, not on your terms.”—

    Who says I’m in Ukraine. I’m in the states. I formed the institute and my companies in Ukraine, and as far as I know I’m married and a resident there. However, Ive been here in the states (a) restoring my health, and (b) taking care of a seriously ill parent. (c) investing in a revolution I’ve been predicting for fifteen years now.

    HERE IS THE REAL ISSUE

    Be a fucking gentleman, ask questions, and seek to understand. You clearly don’t understand that I work through prosecution of ideas reducing them to first principles, that must be true, rational, and reciprocal. And you’re an ignorant arrogant immature, loudmouth trying desperately to have someone agree with you or educate you on your terms at their cost.

    I’m the real deal. I’m exceptional good at what I do. As far as I know there is no other man living that has made anywhere near the progress I have.

    So If…

    You want an ideology go find one.

    You want a secular theology go find one.

    You want a religion go find one.

    I do truth, which means science, which means true, rational and reciprocal – regardless of costs.

    And if there isn’t a market for it in this decade there will be in another.

    And stop wasting my time.

    Your argument isn’t over truth it’s over preference and I do truth.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-11 13:40:00 UTC

  • NO MORE ANCAP LIES —“First AnCaps are not free riders because AnCaps are not d

    NO MORE ANCAP LIES

    —“First AnCaps are not free riders because AnCaps are not demanding or relying on any resources created by others. You say that it is some kind of fairy-tale village on the frontier which is protected by the federal cavalry when in trouble, but that is Y…”— Gunther Schadow

    ERROR #1 – AN ANARCHIC POLITY CAN OBTAIN PROPERTY, ATTRACT POPULATION, CONSTRUCT A POLITY (ORDER) AND THEN SURVIVE COMPETITION FOR TERRITORY AND POPULATION ON HOPPEIAN OR ROTHBARDIAN TERMS.

    Assertion: This isn’t possible without dependency upon external revenues, population, and governance. Evidence: it never has succeeded – ever. (see Crusoe’s island fallacy for why).

    a) I can produce no plan by which such an order is possible.

    b) I can find no evidence in history by which such an order is possible.

    c) I can discover no incentives under which such an order is possible.

    d) Every order that has tried has been exterminated by competitors because it has become a haven for criminals who use it as a staging ground for parasitism against polities that produce commons.

    You are welcome to falsify these falsifications. I cannot.

    LIE #1 – MISREPRESENTATION OF LACK OF COMPREHENSION OR ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT AN ARGUMENT AS COMPREHENSION

    —“Doolittle doesn’t have debates with anyone who might disagree too much…”—

    I’ll debate anyone who:

    – has the knowledge to.

    – has the ability to.

    – is intellectually honest

    – and is willing to.

    This dramatically limits the number of people worth debating to fellow researchers (academics).

    If one cannot conduct an argument on the opponent’s terms then one does not comprehend those terms. The only system of measurement for incommensurable terms is operations – a sequence of actions testing the possibility of the propositions.

    The leading people will not debate me for a variety of reasons, a) the most prevalent of which is my intolerance on one hand,

    b) and that I haven’t published a work they can dissect on another – which is the price of entry into the academy’s circle of discourse;

    c) i’m a hostile that they don’t want to feed attention to.

    d) they are afraid I would win.

    This is why I want to publish, but maintain presence online, which generates demand for the publication, and assists me in simplifying the arguments so that they are more digestible for less specialized people.

    LIE #2 – INABILITY TO RECIPROCALLY CONDUCT AN ARGUMENT ON THE OPPONENT’S TERMS DEMONSTRATING KNOWLEDGE OF THE OPPONENT’S TERMS

    You can’t. You don’t. You pretend you do. Yet you can’t demonstrate it. Yet you pretend to.

    LIE #3 (THEFT) – USING MALE GSRRM TO STRAW MAN THE OPPOSITION BEFORE MASTERY OF THE MATERIAL.

    Meaning you’re too lazy to do the work so you cast unsubstantiated criticism and insults in an attempt to force the opponent to educate you and debate you rather than asking questions or doing the research yourself. (theft by fraud).

    LIE #4 – OBJECTIVE IS TO CONFIRM BIASES NOT DISCOVER TRUTHS

    You aren’t searching for truth you’ve made up your mind that what you already consider the good (which as far as I can tell is purely habituated intuition ).

    CLOSING

    So man up and provide a solution ERROR #1, while not engaging in LIES #1,#2,#3,#4. If you can provide a solution to ERROR #1 then we have used operational terms to ameliorate differences in our arguments. Because so far you’re just pulling nonsense out of the air.

    This sort of goes along with my statement that if you can’t produce a constitution you’re talking smack. Well, same goes for the rest of the polity. The starting point being “how do I get a territory where I can determine the law”.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-11 11:31:00 UTC

  • The church never did anything for good reason. Ever. Like any bureaucracy it it

    The church never did anything for good reason. Ever. Like any bureaucracy it it wanted a population of ignorant obedient labor it could rent seek from.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-10 01:04:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182099567501811713

    Reply addressees: @Protagoris7788 @FaithGoldy

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182098971516395520


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Protagoris7788 @FaithGoldy That’s not really true. Father’s, Brother’s Daughter marriage over generations is so.Repeated reproduction of the underclass is so.The church had no knowledge of genetics, they only wanted to give women property rights so that the church could more easily obtain land. That’s all.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1182098971516395520


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Protagoris7788 @FaithGoldy That’s not really true. Father’s, Brother’s Daughter marriage over generations is so.Repeated reproduction of the underclass is so.The church had no knowledge of genetics, they only wanted to give women property rights so that the church could more easily obtain land. That’s all.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1182098971516395520

  • NO SPENGLER IS WRONG. TOO MUCH MIDDLE EAST, NOT ENOUGH CHINA AND INDIA —“Someb

    NO SPENGLER IS WRONG. TOO MUCH MIDDLE EAST, NOT ENOUGH CHINA AND INDIA

    —“Somebody like Spengler would say that there is no way around the decline and eventual fall of the Faustian West, no matter what we do politically. What if like an individual human life, and indeed the universe itself, an expiration date is just destiny?”—

    He’s demonstrably wrong. China and india are the examples,

    The problem for most western intellectuals is that fertile crescent begins both the agrarian and bronze ages, and that we were behind them because we didn’t have that climate with those rivers, and so agrarian production had to be distributed over broader colder territories.

    I can envision history now without semitic influences and the semitic dark ages of ignorance.

    The problem is we let our civilizations partly merge when rome was conquered by byzantium (se europeans, anatolians and syrians and levantines) and so almost all out intellectuals are infected by the european semitic competition rather than studying europe, semitia, india, and china as different models.

    The Chinese have always been right.

    Homogeneity. gradual genetic colonization. Isolation. and eradication of any and all competition.

    We failed because when we moved from land trade through the Bosporus, to the age of sail, we didn’t put a wall at gibraltar, the Bosporus, the caucuses, and between the caspian, the aral sea, and the himalayas.

    We didn’t wall ourselves off like the chinese.

    Civilizations and territories, and SPECIES: china, India, europa (to the urals), semitia, africa, austronesia, north and south america, and australia.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-08 13:26:00 UTC

  • ANOTHER HOPPEIAN MORON BITES THE DUST —“Special pleading by polylogism and ign

    ANOTHER HOPPEIAN MORON BITES THE DUST

    —“Special pleading by polylogism and ignoring a question from earlier. The question summarized was: How would it be non-reciprocal to “physically remove” property violators/externals when they have already estopped themselves, and are prohibited from appealing in their own defense, by the fact that they are externals, and already do not reciprocate prima facie, why would I be wrong to physically remove them?”—David German Hoppe

    You clearly use words you don’t understand. It fools fellow useful idiots I’m sure. πŸ˜‰

    —“How would it be non-reciprocal to “physically remove” property violators/externals when they have already estopped themselves, and are prohibited from appealing in their own defense, by the fact that they are externals, and already do not reciprocate prima facie, why would I be wrong to physically remove them?”—

    DEFINITIONS

    Polylogism:

    The proposition that different groups of people reason in fundamentally different ways vs the proposition that the logical faculty remains constant across all sentient beings and that different groups use different values not different logics.

    Estoppel:

    … juridical prohibition on reversing a claim made before the court, or a decision on which the court has already ruled. (one may not change one’s testimony or revisit a decision by the court).

    Reciprocity:

    … limiting one’s words and deeds to those that affect the demonstrated interest of others to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition on the demonstrated interests of others by externality.

    Internal or Ingroup vs external or outgroup:

    … Members of a family , clan, tribe, nation, polity reliant on the same institutions of defense: military, and juridical, under the same organization performing the production of commons: government, within the same jurisdiction (monopoly of control).

    EXPANDED INTO COMPLETE SENTENCES

    WHEREAS

    A plaintiff, having been injured by an irreciprocity, has made an appeal to the court in its role as insurer of reciprocity for a judicial decision demanding the court produce restitution, punishment, and prevention of further irreciprocities,

    WHERE

    The court performed its function as insurer against irreciprocity and rendered a judicial decision.

    AND WHERE

    The defendant was convicted of engaging in sufficient irreciprocity that he cannot perform restitution, or the judiciary (prosecutor) predicts it cannot prevent from further acts of irreciprocity.

    AND WHERE

    That decision consisted of issuing orders, compelling enforcers of that judicial decision to physically remove an individual from the polity.

    — EITHER —

    WHERE (Note: this is unclear)

    – the actor (defendant) has already *voluntarily* departed the jurisdiction (Territory),

    AND

    – the actor is prohibited from juridical defense, by virtue of their absence from the territory,

    AND

    – ???? NON-SEQUITUR: and already do not reciprocate prima facie, why would I be wrong to physically remove them?)

    — OR —

    ??? (Unknown, Please Clarify)

    SHALL THEREFORE

    – This action cause one or more irreciprocal transfers between any parties involved or uninvolved, whether internal or external.

    DECISON

    – Undecidable.

    EXPLANATION

    – Given the phrases:

    “… and already do not reciprocate prima facie, why would I be wrong to physically remove them?”

    – Expanded into :

    “… and WHO? already do not engage in reciprocal words and deeds, under what conditions would I as plaintiff violate reciprocity myself by physically removing him FROM WHERE?

    COUNSEL:

    The court makes up to six decisions:

    1. was an involuntary negative change in demonstrated interest (harm) performed?,

    2. was the defendant responsible for the negative change in demonstrated interest?

    3. was it by unpredictable accident regardless of due diligence, or because of a failure of rational due diligence, or was it an act of intention, or an act of passion (failure of emotional due diligence)? While restitution is demanded consistently across the spectrum, prevention of repetition is is not, and the imitation of the violation by others is not.

    IF SO THEN:

    4. What is the restitution? (Compensation)

    5. What will prevent the defendant’s repetition? (Punishment)

    6. What will prevent others from repeating the defendants actions? (Setting an Example)

    TIPS

    You’re using polylogism where you mean error (a pretention)

    I don’t underseatnd how you’re using estoppel, “Stopping”, as other an analogy to some sort of personal choice. Or do you mean he’s been removed from the polity and that’s defacto stopping him? (a pretention)

    How can one defend against an extant judgement?

    We conduct prosecutions in absentia all the time.

    Most of law is procedure, the institutional structure is presumed (it’s a competitive marketplace in common law, and system of administration in continental).

    Jurisprudence consist of the limits upon the judge, usually which consist of a conflict between customary law, empirical evidence of the findings of the court, and the degree of interference in that law by the state.

    We study cases and principles by which problems are solved -general rules. Rules increase in complexity by discipline as do findings of the courts.

    P constitutes the logic of the jurisprudence of natural law, of reciprocity under individual sovereignty, but is dependent upon testimony, and the capacity of the polity to perform testimony, in the form of testimonial truth: observables.

    Empiricism and science are just the application of our ancient law of tort and testimony to claims about that which is an intellectual interests rather than merely a material one.

    You are not capable of schooling me.

    Nor is Hans.

    I would eat him like Pringles and beer in a debate.

    He teaches y’all sophisms converted from jewish pilpul to kantian rationalism and you soak it up like marxists below you and neocons above you.

    πŸ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-07 13:04:00 UTC