Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • As if you didn’t assume there were competing sides of constitutionalists versus

    As if you didn’t assume there were competing sides of constitutionalists versus arbitrary law on the court. Virtue signal in the mirror. Like all forms of self pleasure, It’s revolting in public.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-09 15:40:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060919962313863168

    Reply addressees: @AndyOstroy @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060911052043546624

    IN REPLY TO:

    @AndyOstroy

    .@realDonaldTrump, when asked about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he wished her well even though she’s “not on my side.” Didn’t realize #SupremeCourt justices were supposed to be on a president’s “side”… #Trump #RBG

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060911052043546624

  • Look jim. You want to opine, get a column. You want to report, then do so. When

    Look jim. You want to opine, get a column. You want to report, then do so. When you opine under pretense of reporting, you make yourself the news, you are a clown. And you’re a clown.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-09 15:03:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060910744647143425

    Reply addressees: @Acosta

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060332691143491584

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Acosta

    I’ve just been denied entrance to the WH. Secret Service just informed me I cannot enter the WH grounds for my 8pm hit

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060332691143491584

  • Religions Narrative

    zzzz….. yet another critic who is a product of the postmodern cult academy. —“Evolutionary psychology has very strict rules, and none of this can be said under those rules. “— Evolutionary psychology consists in an operational rational test of the possibility of construction. It is a means of falsification. It is not a science. it is not a formal logic. It is a technique by which we attempt to narrate a plausible history given the difficulty of selecting a subset of information by which to reduce any intertemporal phenomenon to communicable form. I don’t rely on that technique, but on demonstrated behavior documented in the canon of research of differences in human behavior, and use the evolutionary model, almost always with reference to either the other great apes, the domestication of dogs and foxes, the findings of neuroscience, brain science, and cognitive science, and in particular the insights from the study of male and female brain differences at the extremes (solipsism and autism), and the study of male and female anti social behavior at the extremes, and differences in expression of male and female methods of conflict at the extremes, and the differences in male and female conflict-argument. –“Second, humans are no longer under the rule of evolution. We haven’t been since the around the time of the invention of agriculture.”– This is false. We have evolved FASTER under agriculture than in prior eras which can be easily demonstrated by the distribution of the adaptation to milk and wheat (or the cabbage family for that matter). The indo european expansion was driven not only by horse bronze and wheel, but by milk tolerance that made 40% more calories available from the same efforts. The opposite is also true: we have produced increases in dysgenia faster during the past 180 years. (which we are not allowed to talk about without moral criticism). The difference between east asian and western european peoples is due to forcible domestication under manorialism, and extreme prosecution of non-conformists which westerners achieved by bipartite manorialism and hanging, and chinese achieved by rice farming and the headsman (the symbol of rule in china was the headsman’s axe – something the Great Khan found amusing apparently.) That said, the fact that an individual can CHOOSE outside of his or her genetic demands, does not mean that people do not by and large demonstrate bias in favor of their genetic biases. This is true in everything from gender brain and endocrine differences, to our personality traits (of which intelligence is one), and –“It also views the past through the present’s framework of human behavior which is completely inappropriate.”— No it views the past through a deep understanding of human history, particularly economic and legal history – although my specialty was art(archaeology) and military history, I added economic, legal, and intellectual history. And I am still working on the genetic but at present I think I am close enough to current for high level arguments I make. –“… scientist…”–
    I write, and am probably at present, by a long shot, the most innovative and current contributor to the scientific method, and without a doubt I can debate that with any person living – easily. NOW IN RESPONSE TO THE NON-ARGUMENT BY ‘CRITIQUE’ You are simply positing what is called ‘Critique” which is a combination of marxist pseudoscience, and postmodern denialism. We know the intellectual history of the argument you make above, and we know why it was invented, and who taught it to you and why. You actually didn’t propose a SINGLE counter proposition. You just proposed straw men. It’s pseudoscience at its best: DENIAL without argument. One of my principle contributions has been to articulate the techniques by which abrahamic-marxist-postmodernist-feminist pseudoscience, sophism, and supernaturalism have evolved and been practiced and the mechanics by which they use false promise (bait), pilpul (sophism), critique(straw manning), and heaping of undue praise (distraction), as a means to produce suggestion by loading, framing, overloading, forcing appeal to intuition and therefore genetic bias. THis is how abrahamic religion and its secular substitutes of marxism (pseudoscience), postmodernism (sophism) and feminism (fictionalism, revisionist historicism, pseudoscience, sophism) have been used to construct counter-rational, counter-empirical, counter-scientific movements in the Ancient (jewish greek revolt against roman evidence, reason and stoicism), Modern (french, german, counter-revolution against anglo empiricism), and Present Worlds (jewish-french-feminist counter revolutions against Darwin et al.) . ( Um. And while you don’t know this, I don’t make mistakes. It’s sort of my job. ie; don’t waste my time. Learn something – even though your genetics, and indoctrination in the postmodern cult, that feeds your genetic bias, will fight it all the way. ) 　

  • Fascism Won

    UM RELIGIOUS NARRATIVE (Supernatural) > SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION (Sophism) > GENERATIVE ANTHROPOLOGY (Pseudoscience) = LIES AND MORE LIES The Weak Lie, the Able Trade, the Strong Rule. Let me help you. Postmodern social construction is a fashion statement. Generative Anthropology is an updated fashion statement. Both describe the same phenomenon: if we tell enough lies, people may in fact behave according to those lies. And while this may produce some sort of political advantage for that category of people who can do nothing but resort to lying (priest, intellectual, media, politician, salesman) because they possess no value in production or trade (truth), or violence or law (truth). So no, nothing novel there. Just another attempt at handwaving. These clowns took a few keywords from Chomsky, who took his idea from Turing, and restated Social Construction. And social construction is just a secular attempt to undermine western civilization by producing a canon of lies, the way abrahamic theologians succeeded in destroying western civilization with a canon of lies. More of the same. the weak lie, the able trade, the strong rule. The liars have three techniques: Supernatural, Sophism, and Pseudoscience: the vernacular of the weak, unable, and immoral.

  • Religions Narrative

    zzzz….. yet another critic who is a product of the postmodern cult academy. —“Evolutionary psychology has very strict rules, and none of this can be said under those rules. “— Evolutionary psychology consists in an operational rational test of the possibility of construction. It is a means of falsification. It is not a science. it is not a formal logic. It is a technique by which we attempt to narrate a plausible history given the difficulty of selecting a subset of information by which to reduce any intertemporal phenomenon to communicable form. I don’t rely on that technique, but on demonstrated behavior documented in the canon of research of differences in human behavior, and use the evolutionary model, almost always with reference to either the other great apes, the domestication of dogs and foxes, the findings of neuroscience, brain science, and cognitive science, and in particular the insights from the study of male and female brain differences at the extremes (solipsism and autism), and the study of male and female anti social behavior at the extremes, and differences in expression of male and female methods of conflict at the extremes, and the differences in male and female conflict-argument. –“Second, humans are no longer under the rule of evolution. We haven’t been since the around the time of the invention of agriculture.”– This is false. We have evolved FASTER under agriculture than in prior eras which can be easily demonstrated by the distribution of the adaptation to milk and wheat (or the cabbage family for that matter). The indo european expansion was driven not only by horse bronze and wheel, but by milk tolerance that made 40% more calories available from the same efforts. The opposite is also true: we have produced increases in dysgenia faster during the past 180 years. (which we are not allowed to talk about without moral criticism). The difference between east asian and western european peoples is due to forcible domestication under manorialism, and extreme prosecution of non-conformists which westerners achieved by bipartite manorialism and hanging, and chinese achieved by rice farming and the headsman (the symbol of rule in china was the headsman’s axe – something the Great Khan found amusing apparently.) That said, the fact that an individual can CHOOSE outside of his or her genetic demands, does not mean that people do not by and large demonstrate bias in favor of their genetic biases. This is true in everything from gender brain and endocrine differences, to our personality traits (of which intelligence is one), and –“It also views the past through the present’s framework of human behavior which is completely inappropriate.”— No it views the past through a deep understanding of human history, particularly economic and legal history – although my specialty was art(archaeology) and military history, I added economic, legal, and intellectual history. And I am still working on the genetic but at present I think I am close enough to current for high level arguments I make. –“… scientist…”–
    I write, and am probably at present, by a long shot, the most innovative and current contributor to the scientific method, and without a doubt I can debate that with any person living – easily. NOW IN RESPONSE TO THE NON-ARGUMENT BY ‘CRITIQUE’ You are simply positing what is called ‘Critique” which is a combination of marxist pseudoscience, and postmodern denialism. We know the intellectual history of the argument you make above, and we know why it was invented, and who taught it to you and why. You actually didn’t propose a SINGLE counter proposition. You just proposed straw men. It’s pseudoscience at its best: DENIAL without argument. One of my principle contributions has been to articulate the techniques by which abrahamic-marxist-postmodernist-feminist pseudoscience, sophism, and supernaturalism have evolved and been practiced and the mechanics by which they use false promise (bait), pilpul (sophism), critique(straw manning), and heaping of undue praise (distraction), as a means to produce suggestion by loading, framing, overloading, forcing appeal to intuition and therefore genetic bias. THis is how abrahamic religion and its secular substitutes of marxism (pseudoscience), postmodernism (sophism) and feminism (fictionalism, revisionist historicism, pseudoscience, sophism) have been used to construct counter-rational, counter-empirical, counter-scientific movements in the Ancient (jewish greek revolt against roman evidence, reason and stoicism), Modern (french, german, counter-revolution against anglo empiricism), and Present Worlds (jewish-french-feminist counter revolutions against Darwin et al.) . ( Um. And while you don’t know this, I don’t make mistakes. It’s sort of my job. ie; don’t waste my time. Learn something – even though your genetics, and indoctrination in the postmodern cult, that feeds your genetic bias, will fight it all the way. ) 　

  • GOOD CRITICISM: UTOPIANISM? BUT NO…. —“Propertarianism as far as I understan

    GOOD CRITICISM: UTOPIANISM? BUT NO….

    —“Propertarianism as far as I understand is an utopian vision of humanity as primarily rational. An implementation of such an utopian vision may have many unforeseen consequences, as micromanagement of human resources is not in Curt’ strategic vision. The general disapproval of Abrahamic cults within his system may lead to many improvised atrocities, created out of sheer escalation of violence. To conclude – this scene is possible and likely to happen, although Curt would probably disapprove of it.”—Igor Rogov

    –” … an utopian vision of humanity as primarily rational.”–

    No, but that law is conducted rationally empirically and tediously operationally. And the legal class is in fact, rational.

    Frames: Math, Science, Economics, Law, History, Literature, Philosophy, Religion(Theology), and the Occult and Magic. People.

    —“… An implementation of such an utopian vision may have many unforeseen consequences,…”—

    Hmmm…. All increases in the suppression of violence, theft, and fraud have predictable universal consequences, and that is raising the cost of doing so, and shifting people either into markets or into more advanced (indirect) means of parasitism.

    All decreases in superstition have produced extraordinary increases in quality of life. The problem we see is the inadequate suppression of pseudoscience(marxism and fiat monetarism), sophism(postmodernism and feminism), and supernaturalism (islam and judaism in particular).

    There is every reason to expect that increases in the ‘scientification’ of the social sciences will produce the same or better returns than the ‘scientification’ of the physical sciences.

    There is certainly every reason to expect that definancializing, de politicizing, and suppressing fraud, libel, and slander will produce windfalls that will restore the pre-72 middle class rates at the expense of financial class and bureaucratic and media rates.

    It’s not that there won’t be unexpected consequences, but that those unexpected consequences have historically been fantastic. It was the rollback of our laws to ‘tolerate’ consumer capitalism that has been the problem.

    THE CONFLICT

    Can you teach mindfulness, ethnonationalism, transcendence and create a non-supernatural religion? Absolutely. it was the hardest problem to solve. it is absolutely possible. if it is possible to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, manners, ethics, morals and norms, it is possible to teach mindfulness – and we know so that the more desirable civilizations appear to do so. So the argument that we must have a ‘religion of nonsense’ is false.

    However….

    If people wanna make cults they will no matter what anyone does because it fills a need. That does not mean the need the cults fill is the only one possible.

    As today many means of framing the world exist in each culture with classes navigating to the most useful.

    I have been struggling to further understand, but as someone (possibly also Igor) helped me understand, Slavic civ does not have one other than the church. However, the west has all of those Frames listed above; India has at least the scientific, legal, political-philosophical, and traditional-religious. And china has the scientific, bureaucratic, wisdom lit, and buddhism. Japan has the the shinto and buddhist as well as feudal martial, and confucian and now scientific. I can go through most cultures but one of the things I have come to understand is that there are cultures that produced no wisdom lits of their own. And this is a bigger hurdle than I had originally imagined.

    So this is why it is easier for some western groups and harder than others, is longer periods under MORE LITERATURES, producing classes in each of the literatures over time. Thereby relying on a portfolio rather than a monopoly.

    PROPERTARIANISM’S CONTENTS:

    1) explain the cause of western uniqueness (Done)

    2) create a formal, value-independent, cross disciplinary, fully commensurable language sufficient for decidability of ALL conflicts in court, thereby restoring the market for common law in opposition to the market for goods services and information.. (Done)

    3) create a constitution restoring that uniqueness using that language (Done) within that constitution, ALSO provide a set of incentives for definancializing, de-propagandizing, de-politicizing the current era.( Done)

    4) Apply the method to all questions – literally all. Such that we demonstrate how these CAN be decided. In other words produce a canon of solved problems so that lies cannot be made as they were in the past.

    5) Produce advice on a “means of transition.”

    AS SUCH

    it is an evolutionary enhancement of law that extends the current tort constraint on goods and services and the speech regarding each to political speech in order to compensate for the industrialization of lying that has been made possible by the development of mass media.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-08 20:05:00 UTC

  • Utopianism

    GOOD CRITICISM: UTOPIANISM? BUT NO…. —“Propertarianism as far as I understand is an utopian vision of humanity as primarily rational. An implementation of such an utopian vision may have many unforeseen consequences, as micromanagement of human resources is not in Curt’ strategic vision. The general disapproval of Abrahamic cults within his system may lead to many improvised atrocities, created out of sheer escalation of violence. To conclude – this scene is possible and likely to happen, although Curt would probably disapprove of it.”—Igor Rogov –” … an utopian vision of humanity as primarily rational.”– No, but that law is conducted rationally empirically and tediously operationally. And the legal class is in fact, rational. Frames: Math, Science, Economics, Law, History, Literature, Philosophy, Religion(Theology), and the Occult and Magic. People. —“… An implementation of such an utopian vision may have many unforeseen consequences,…”— Hmmm…. All increases in the suppression of violence, theft, and fraud have predictable universal consequences, and that is raising the cost of doing so, and shifting people either into markets or into more advanced (indirect) means of parasitism. All decreases in superstition have produced extraordinary increases in quality of life. The problem we see is the inadequate suppression of pseudoscience(marxism and fiat monetarism), sophism(postmodernism and feminism), and supernaturalism (islam and judaism in particular). There is every reason to expect that increases in the ‘scientification’ of the social sciences will produce the same or better returns than the ‘scientification’ of the physical sciences. There is certainly every reason to expect that definancializing, de politicizing, and suppressing fraud, libel, and slander will produce windfalls that will restore the pre-72 middle class rates at the expense of financial class and bureaucratic and media rates. It’s not that there won’t be unexpected consequences, but that those unexpected consequences have historically been fantastic. It was the rollback of our laws to ‘tolerate’ consumer capitalism that has been the problem. THE CONFLICT Can you teach mindfulness, ethnonationalism, transcendence and create a non-supernatural religion? Absolutely. it was the hardest problem to solve. it is absolutely possible. if it is possible to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, manners, ethics, morals and norms, it is possible to teach mindfulness – and we know so that the more desirable civilizations appear to do so. So the argument that we must have a ‘religion of nonsense’ is false. However…. If people wanna make cults they will no matter what anyone does because it fills a need. That does not mean the need the cults fill is the only one possible. As today many means of framing the world exist in each culture with classes navigating to the most useful. I have been struggling to further understand, but as someone (possibly also Igor) helped me understand, Slavic civ does not have one other than the church. However, the west has all of those Frames listed above; India has at least the scientific, legal, political-philosophical, and traditional-religious. And china has the scientific, bureaucratic, wisdom lit, and buddhism. Japan has the the shinto and buddhist as well as feudal martial, and confucian and now scientific. I can go through most cultures but one of the things I have come to understand is that there are cultures that produced no wisdom lits of their own. And this is a bigger hurdle than I had originally imagined. So this is why it is easier for some western groups and harder than others, is longer periods under MORE LITERATURES, producing classes in each of the literatures over time. Thereby relying on a portfolio rather than a monopoly. PROPERTARIANISM’S CONTENTS: 1) explain the cause of western uniqueness (Done)
    2) create a formal, value-independent, cross disciplinary, fully commensurable language sufficient for decidability of ALL conflicts in court, thereby restoring the market for common law in opposition to the market for goods services and information.. (Done)
    3) create a constitution restoring that uniqueness using that language (Done) within that constitution, ALSO provide a set of incentives for definancializing, de-propagandizing, de-politicizing the current era.( Done)
    4) Apply the method to all questions – literally all. Such that we demonstrate how these CAN be decided. In other words produce a canon of solved problems so that lies cannot be made as they were in the past.
    5) Produce advice on a “means of transition.” AS SUCH
    it is an evolutionary enhancement of law that extends the current tort constraint on goods and services and the speech regarding each to political speech in order to compensate for the industrialization of lying that has been made possible by the development of mass media.

  • Utopianism

    GOOD CRITICISM: UTOPIANISM? BUT NO…. —“Propertarianism as far as I understand is an utopian vision of humanity as primarily rational. An implementation of such an utopian vision may have many unforeseen consequences, as micromanagement of human resources is not in Curt’ strategic vision. The general disapproval of Abrahamic cults within his system may lead to many improvised atrocities, created out of sheer escalation of violence. To conclude – this scene is possible and likely to happen, although Curt would probably disapprove of it.”—Igor Rogov –” … an utopian vision of humanity as primarily rational.”– No, but that law is conducted rationally empirically and tediously operationally. And the legal class is in fact, rational. Frames: Math, Science, Economics, Law, History, Literature, Philosophy, Religion(Theology), and the Occult and Magic. People. —“… An implementation of such an utopian vision may have many unforeseen consequences,…”— Hmmm…. All increases in the suppression of violence, theft, and fraud have predictable universal consequences, and that is raising the cost of doing so, and shifting people either into markets or into more advanced (indirect) means of parasitism. All decreases in superstition have produced extraordinary increases in quality of life. The problem we see is the inadequate suppression of pseudoscience(marxism and fiat monetarism), sophism(postmodernism and feminism), and supernaturalism (islam and judaism in particular). There is every reason to expect that increases in the ‘scientification’ of the social sciences will produce the same or better returns than the ‘scientification’ of the physical sciences. There is certainly every reason to expect that definancializing, de politicizing, and suppressing fraud, libel, and slander will produce windfalls that will restore the pre-72 middle class rates at the expense of financial class and bureaucratic and media rates. It’s not that there won’t be unexpected consequences, but that those unexpected consequences have historically been fantastic. It was the rollback of our laws to ‘tolerate’ consumer capitalism that has been the problem. THE CONFLICT Can you teach mindfulness, ethnonationalism, transcendence and create a non-supernatural religion? Absolutely. it was the hardest problem to solve. it is absolutely possible. if it is possible to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, manners, ethics, morals and norms, it is possible to teach mindfulness – and we know so that the more desirable civilizations appear to do so. So the argument that we must have a ‘religion of nonsense’ is false. However…. If people wanna make cults they will no matter what anyone does because it fills a need. That does not mean the need the cults fill is the only one possible. As today many means of framing the world exist in each culture with classes navigating to the most useful. I have been struggling to further understand, but as someone (possibly also Igor) helped me understand, Slavic civ does not have one other than the church. However, the west has all of those Frames listed above; India has at least the scientific, legal, political-philosophical, and traditional-religious. And china has the scientific, bureaucratic, wisdom lit, and buddhism. Japan has the the shinto and buddhist as well as feudal martial, and confucian and now scientific. I can go through most cultures but one of the things I have come to understand is that there are cultures that produced no wisdom lits of their own. And this is a bigger hurdle than I had originally imagined. So this is why it is easier for some western groups and harder than others, is longer periods under MORE LITERATURES, producing classes in each of the literatures over time. Thereby relying on a portfolio rather than a monopoly. PROPERTARIANISM’S CONTENTS: 1) explain the cause of western uniqueness (Done)
    2) create a formal, value-independent, cross disciplinary, fully commensurable language sufficient for decidability of ALL conflicts in court, thereby restoring the market for common law in opposition to the market for goods services and information.. (Done)
    3) create a constitution restoring that uniqueness using that language (Done) within that constitution, ALSO provide a set of incentives for definancializing, de-propagandizing, de-politicizing the current era.( Done)
    4) Apply the method to all questions – literally all. Such that we demonstrate how these CAN be decided. In other words produce a canon of solved problems so that lies cannot be made as they were in the past.
    5) Produce advice on a “means of transition.” AS SUCH
    it is an evolutionary enhancement of law that extends the current tort constraint on goods and services and the speech regarding each to political speech in order to compensate for the industrialization of lying that has been made possible by the development of mass media.

  • Against Absolutists

    AGAINST ABSOLUTISTS
    by Chris Moyer
    (updated: added chris’ name. not sure how I missed it. fixed it. ) Couldn’t sleep and hashed some of my thoughts out on the recent discussion with the absolutists. If you don’t mind, let me know what you think. On absolutism and propertarianism: Absolutist: Does the non-declarative (intuitionalistic) actions of the monarch need to be justified? Answer: Propertarianism as a system is designed for prosecution via. negativa to prevent the CONTINUATION of harmful action. The monarch when using intuitionalistic means of decidability in the moment cannot rely on post-hoc prosecutionary language that categorizes the emergent after the fact. So no, the non-declarative does not need to be justified in its emergence (I think this is impossible). However I suspect that we can narrow down the mechanisms at play which allow for a person of a certain type to be successfully intuitionalistic. By which the mechanisms are largely unconscious and are carried down intergenerational via. our genetics. This by admission by no way shape or form dismisses the purpose of propertarianism as a prosecutionary system. This point in no way shape or form gives credit to the critique offered by absolutists that “Anglo Liberal Ontology” is invalid, but rather that it is a post-hoc system that is complementary to the intuitionalistic positiva mode of actions taken. It is by the continuation of this view of science as the categorization of the emergent into tangible concepts that propertarianism attempts to solve the issue of social and political organization. Propertarian frame thinking: Phenomena: Absolutists critique Propertarianism as a post-hoc prosecutorial language. Incentive: It is my opinion that this criticism occurs in the event that propertarianism doesn’t offer a means to overcome nihilism. Only an explanation of the empirical phenomena. Notes on the conversation: Absolutists have failed to demonstrate how language is used for anything other than measurement. A shout or call to attention is a measurement of a change in state. A command is a measurement of direction in reaction to a change is state. Both these examples were used during the discussion. Absolutists have failed to offer a fair argument against propertarianism and instead offer a strawman of Curt’s work while refusing to acknowledge that Curt has set his own limits on the scope of Propertarianism as a system. Criticizing Propertarianism on its self set limits is redundant Absolutists still engage in categorical shaming. In that their largest critique is that Propertarianism belongs to an ontologically liberal category and that it is somehow lame because of that. It is also then implied that being reactionary as a category is cool or socially better. This is childish. The strongest point put forth by the Absolutists (to me) is the methods of decidability that are engaged upon by a true sovereign to develop a moral code. As in reciprocity at some level is only valuable to engage in if other subjects have something to offer. This, from what I can tell, does not go against propertarianism; but should be fleshed out a little bit better (to me). Absolutists appeal to the complexity of the mechanism that take place in the mode of intuitionalistic decidability rather than providing an argument against propertarianism. They also offer little insight into the complex mechanism that are in effect during the process. Perhaps I need to dive deeper than I already have into GA, but I need to be convinced this isn’t going to be a waste of time. Absolutists and Generative Anthropologists appeal to the fact that language is in fact generative the same way a post modernist would appeal to the fact that categories of arbitrary precision are generative. All things are generative as the process of progressive disambiguation; or the attempts to overcome entropy by creating a more complex model for explaining phenomena. Linguistics have no inherent value besides measurement and those measurements are contextual and depend upon reciprocity of meaning to convey the empirically observable.

  • Postmodernism Is Just Lying. Here Is Why

    POSTMODERNISM IS JUST LYING. HERE IS WHY. Well, we differ in tolerance for lying. I have none. You not only tolerate it, but seek to employ it at every opportunity you can get away with. So, I solve for truth. You solve for reasonableness. I use the word ‘true’ meaning decidable independent of preference. You use the word true meaning ‘preferable’ because you conflate the true with the ‘reasonable’ (preferable) – and you can get away with it. You do this because you can’t help yourself. You can’t help yourself for a combination of genetic and cultural reasons. Your ethic is ‘what can I get away with’, the aristocratic (and my) ethic is ‘what is true regardless of the consequences’. Postmodernism holds “what can I get away with normatively and therefore escape stratification and punishment for it, and what can I get away with claiming is ‘true’ and still escape ostracization and punishment for it. So yes, it says get rid of European (‘aryan’) morals, get rid of christian morals (germanized christian), and let loose female, french, and jewish non-morality (whatever I can get away with).. Why? Because Nietzsche was looking for a positive morality when in fact, as the aryans, europeans, romans, and germanics understood, there is no such thing. Morality is a negative (prohibition), and as such we have negative LAW, rather than positive philosophy and positive religion, and positive cults. You can see this in the major works of the civilizations, where the primitive civilizations of the semitic region imposed authoritarian positivism, the indian positive rulership, the chinese collective duty, and the europeans negative law – leaving a LOT of philosophers to propose CHOICES within that law. Rather than ONE SOLUTION CONFLATED with RULE. The Europeans/Romans/Germanics (Aryans) stated there was no positive morality, only a negative morality of reciprocity, leaving the MARKET for positive moralities to adapt to the needs of niches (classes). The only people to grasp this are the english and the americans – and even they failed to maintain indoctrination into it because they did not fully understand it (which is my job – to make it fully understood). But the jews, the french, and white anglo women, have all adopted the female strategy, of ‘what can I get away with’ rather than ‘what can i do without getting away with anything’. All positivas are choice. The only TRUTH AND MORALITY IS NEGATIVE. Everything else is just choice. Like I said. You only have to open your mouth for us to identify whether you are a positivist and parasite, or a negativist and producer.