Form: Critique

  • An Example of Drowning a Leftist in Truth

    [W]hy these nitwits don’t grasp that their sophisms merely provide a vehicle for (a) training, (b) recruitment, (c) counter-signaling is beyond me. I (we) use the useful idiots as excuses for advertising, and like true members of the herd, they can’t control NPC impulses. 😉 — BEGIN — @curtdoolittle Duplicity, ir-reciprocity, honor-in-deceit, profiting from inciting and exploitation of moral hazard, false promise, justificationary sophism (Pilpu), straw man sophism (Critique), and disapproval, shaming, rallying, moralizing as substitute for argument is a cultural strategy. ZIONIST PROPAGANDA ‏Talking about sophism… Does this meaningless posturing pass for sophistication in your circles? The first stuff is inaccurate and the last stuff is your autistic interpretation of what some people call “taste.” Yes, bad taste is bad and he made the argument against it. @curtdoolittle You really aren’t trying to pretend you have an argument, or that you have any capacity whatsoever to discourse in these matters. (I am one of the primary researchers of the means by which the Abrahamists, Marxists, Postmodernists, Feminist, and Women, produce non-argument.) ZIONIST PROPAGANDA ‏Great argumentation queen, Curt, your “argument” was a torrent of misapplied phrases. It’s adorable, being coddled by the nazi right has convinced you that you’re important. @curtdoolittle You see, each one of these flaccid attempts merely provides us with examples with which to train our followers. Because you don’t understand. The moment you speak we can identify you. You can’t help yourself. The fear drives you. Fear of alphas. Evolution doing its work. ZIONIST PROPAGANDA ‏You can invent your silly language and attempt to force the world into it, Curt, and it will make the world simpler for you, in the short term at least. But the world and G-D is bigger than you and your edomite arrogance, and this is always reasserted eventually. Good luck. @curtdoolittle Now, females of the species evolved this trait in order to rally numbers of betas to contain alphas, so that females had more control over their reproduction (and safety). But …. you don’t exactly have reproduction to trade. In fact, you’ve done the opposite. Redistributed it. @curtdoolittle Well, I write LAW. I just test if you are engaging in a productive, fully informed, voluntary, exchange without imposition by externality, and I test whether you are doing so by fraud or not. Since you fail both counts, and are merely smoke screening theft. Theft and Fraud. @curtdoolittle So you see, it doesn’t matter if I ‘rally’ anyone, (like you do). It matters only that I can prosecute you and have a tribunal punish you such that you and your ilk never attempt such theft, fraud, and deceit again. You are not potential mates. You have nothing to trade.

  • An Example of Drowning a Leftist in Truth

    [W]hy these nitwits don’t grasp that their sophisms merely provide a vehicle for (a) training, (b) recruitment, (c) counter-signaling is beyond me. I (we) use the useful idiots as excuses for advertising, and like true members of the herd, they can’t control NPC impulses. 😉 — BEGIN — @curtdoolittle Duplicity, ir-reciprocity, honor-in-deceit, profiting from inciting and exploitation of moral hazard, false promise, justificationary sophism (Pilpu), straw man sophism (Critique), and disapproval, shaming, rallying, moralizing as substitute for argument is a cultural strategy. ZIONIST PROPAGANDA ‏Talking about sophism… Does this meaningless posturing pass for sophistication in your circles? The first stuff is inaccurate and the last stuff is your autistic interpretation of what some people call “taste.” Yes, bad taste is bad and he made the argument against it. @curtdoolittle You really aren’t trying to pretend you have an argument, or that you have any capacity whatsoever to discourse in these matters. (I am one of the primary researchers of the means by which the Abrahamists, Marxists, Postmodernists, Feminist, and Women, produce non-argument.) ZIONIST PROPAGANDA ‏Great argumentation queen, Curt, your “argument” was a torrent of misapplied phrases. It’s adorable, being coddled by the nazi right has convinced you that you’re important. @curtdoolittle You see, each one of these flaccid attempts merely provides us with examples with which to train our followers. Because you don’t understand. The moment you speak we can identify you. You can’t help yourself. The fear drives you. Fear of alphas. Evolution doing its work. ZIONIST PROPAGANDA ‏You can invent your silly language and attempt to force the world into it, Curt, and it will make the world simpler for you, in the short term at least. But the world and G-D is bigger than you and your edomite arrogance, and this is always reasserted eventually. Good luck. @curtdoolittle Now, females of the species evolved this trait in order to rally numbers of betas to contain alphas, so that females had more control over their reproduction (and safety). But …. you don’t exactly have reproduction to trade. In fact, you’ve done the opposite. Redistributed it. @curtdoolittle Well, I write LAW. I just test if you are engaging in a productive, fully informed, voluntary, exchange without imposition by externality, and I test whether you are doing so by fraud or not. Since you fail both counts, and are merely smoke screening theft. Theft and Fraud. @curtdoolittle So you see, it doesn’t matter if I ‘rally’ anyone, (like you do). It matters only that I can prosecute you and have a tribunal punish you such that you and your ilk never attempt such theft, fraud, and deceit again. You are not potential mates. You have nothing to trade.

  • AN EXAMPLE OF DROWNING A LEFTIST IN TRUTH lol Why these nitwits don’t grasp that

    AN EXAMPLE OF DROWNING A LEFTIST IN TRUTH

    lol Why these nitwits don’t grasp that their sophisms merely provide a vehicle for (a) training, (b) recruitment, (c) counter-signaling is beyond me. I (we) use the useful idiots as excuses for advertising, and like true members of the herd, they can’t control NPC impulses. 😉

    — BEGIN —

    @curtdoolittle

    Duplicity, ir-reciprocity, honor-in-deceit, profiting from inciting and exploitation of moral hazard, false promise, justificationary sophism (Pilpu), straw man sophism (Critique), and disapproval, shaming, rallying, moralizing as substitute for argument is a cultural strategy.

    ZIONIST PROPAGANDA

    ‏Talking about sophism… Does this meaningless posturing pass for sophistication in your circles? The first stuff is inaccurate and the last stuff is your autistic interpretation of what some people call “taste.” Yes, bad taste is bad and he made the argument against it.

    @curtdoolittle

    You really aren’t trying to pretend you have an argument, or that you have any capacity whatsoever to discourse in these matters. (I am one of the primary researchers of the means by which the Abrahamists, Marxists, Postmodernists, Feminist, and Women, produce non-argument.)

    ZIONIST PROPAGANDA

    ‏Great argumentation queen, Curt, your “argument” was a torrent of misapplied phrases. It’s adorable, being coddled by the nazi right has convinced you that you’re important.

    @curtdoolittle

    You see, each one of these flaccid attempts merely provides us with examples with which to train our followers. Because you don’t understand. The moment you speak we can identify you. You can’t help yourself. The fear drives you. Fear of alphas. Evolution doing its work.

    ZIONIST PROPAGANDA

    ‏You can invent your silly language and attempt to force the world into it, Curt, and it will make the world simpler for you, in the short term at least. But the world and G-D is bigger than you and your edomite arrogance, and this is always reasserted eventually. Good luck.

    @curtdoolittle

    Now, females of the species evolved this trait in order to rally numbers of betas to contain alphas, so that females had more control over their reproduction (and safety). But …. you don’t exactly have reproduction to trade. In fact, you’ve done the opposite. Redistributed it.

    @curtdoolittle

    Well, I write LAW. I just test if you are engaging in a productive, fully informed, voluntary, exchange without imposition by externality, and I test whether you are doing so by fraud or not. Since you fail both counts, and are merely smoke screening theft. Theft and Fraud.

    @curtdoolittle

    So you see, it doesn’t matter if I ‘rally’ anyone, (like you do). It matters only that I can prosecute you and have a tribunal punish you such that you and your ilk never attempt such theft, fraud, and deceit again. You are not potential mates. You have nothing to trade.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 11:24:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/45382362_10156754956122264_251624602

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/45382362_10156754956122264_2516246022456344576_o_10156754956107264.jpg I have (((Their))) Method of Argument down in form. James has it down in stages of argument and counter-argument. We just need to educate everyone on it. Then we need to educate everyone that the only reason to NOT engage in ‘warfare’ and instead in debate, is if we are actually debating in order to determine a trade when we don’t agree, or a good, when we do. Then we need to engage in ‘War’ often enough that we suppress the ‘poisoning of the well’.Andrea RoyallLet me sum up Librarian Vee.. “I don’t understand a fucking thing you said because those words are not in my vocabulary. I’m too lazy and entilted to educate myself. Nor, why should I because I’m chosen..”Nov 4, 2018, 8:54 AMCurt DoolittleI took it as an honest statement of “thank you for listing those out for me”. I realize it can be taken either way. But I riffed off it.Nov 4, 2018, 8:54 AMAndrea RoyallThats because you are far more patient that I am. It’s why you do what you do 🙂Nov 4, 2018, 8:55 AMGiego CaleiroJoao FabianoNov 4, 2018, 8:58 AMNick DahlheimAndrea Royall I love you because you’re ferocious for the truthNov 4, 2018, 9:03 AMCurt DoolittleAndrea Royall did you … did you just try to call me a nice guy? lolNov 4, 2018, 9:04 AMCurt Doolittle(Don’t tell anyone. I covet my reputation as a dick)Nov 4, 2018, 9:05 AMRob EllermanIt should be relatively simple to identify “moralistic” argumentation — “I’m not yet convinced you can argue without it” —- it’s the god damn virtue signaling and white knighting – I call it context dropping … these people can’t hold or don’t want to hold any propositions against uniform criteria … the lower IQ right is prone to this as well … they pick their team then throw shit arguments at the wall in machine gun fashion hoping something sticksNov 4, 2018, 9:14 AMJeff UrizenThe lefts only moral dynamic is caring /fairness. They simply Ignore loyalty, authority, and sanctity. The problem is really on the right, the right doesn’t understand morality well, it understands traditional values specifically, it can verbalize the specific beliefs it holds like patriotism, but it doesn’t understand the structure that those traditional values fall into, and if you lack that information it’s hard to argue why they matter. If you don’t understand the structure of morality you can’t see that the left is merely winning by ignoring moral dynamics completely, they’re taking things out of context, and the right is failing to be able to say “hey what about loyalty, what about authority, or sanctity. You have to make the left answer the questions of these other moral dynamics. We need a cultural shift where these dynamics each get a day in court in the political Dialoge.Nov 4, 2018, 9:23 AMAndrea RoyallCurt Doolittle me?? I said patient…. 🙂 no way I’d imply you were a nice guy…Nov 4, 2018, 9:27 AMRob EllermanThey signal caring and fairness … but drop the context when it doesn’t serve their implicit ends … happens on the right all the time

    In terms of values – I don’t care whether they are traditional or not – the question is “what are the consequences of a consistent application of the proposition?” If you don’t drop the context of your implicationsNov 4, 2018, 9:31 AMAndrea RoyallI’d posit that you cannot have caring/fairness without loyalty, authority, sanctity.. and ultimately, agency. It’s all just a facade otherwise. Which, in my mind, perfectly describes the left.

    And the issue with morality on the right is that it derives it’s morality from Christianity, wholesale. That’s a lot of deprogramming that has to happen.Nov 4, 2018, 9:39 AMRob EllermanAndrea Royall how do we square the idea that Europeans have genetically determinate reproductive strategies – but are also “programmable” via Christian edicts and “deprogrammable” via propertarian thinking 🤔Nov 4, 2018, 10:17 AMAndrea RoyallThat’s a very good question. Curt has more answers to that. I broke that programming long ago. Basically, because I was a questioning, impetuous child that didn’t accept authority. I haven’t changed much since.. lolNov 4, 2018, 10:19 AMRob EllermanAndrea Royall I think my disposition was probably pretty similar 👌Nov 4, 2018, 10:26 AMAndrea RoyallChristianity cut Europeans from their roots.. just as Islam has done to the Iraqis and Syrians. Less so for the Lebanese and Persians. Which, I find, quite interestingNov 4, 2018, 10:29 AMRob EllermanNature or nurture Curt Doolittle?Nov 4, 2018, 10:29 AMGilberto CarlosA sniper is patient.Nov 4, 2018, 10:59 AMJames Lyons Sr.I’ll stand the thin blue line between respect my light and fear my dark until cut down because my nuts ( those I love) won’t stay in the bag…and cause me to venture and strayNov 4, 2018, 11:10 AMAndrea RoyallCurt is our philosophical sniper.. 🙂Nov 4, 2018, 12:11 PMI have (((Their))) Method of Argument down in form. James has it down in stages of argument and counter-argument. We just need to educate everyone on it. Then we need to educate everyone that the only reason to NOT engage in ‘warfare’ and instead in debate, is if we are actually debating in order to determine a trade when we don’t agree, or a good, when we do. Then we need to engage in ‘War’ often enough that we suppress the ‘poisoning of the well’.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 08:49:00 UTC

  • Defending Hayek

    [T]here is so much “shyte” written about Hayek that it’s impossible to defend him against the cabbages of sophism. Look, Hayek in the sensory order, in the Knowledge Problem, in the Pricing System’s solution to the Knowledge Problem, can only be understood as he finally understood it, as a question of the Law, and the LAW as the institutional means of preserving the exceptionalism of western civilization. We do not submit to the market, we submit to the law, and we do so because it is, as in all cases, the means by which we provide no incentive to others to fail to submit to the law. The fact that we finally had power of the purse sufficient to interfere in the economy merely required hayek to expand it. Fortunately for me, and unfortunately for hayek, I was born after Turing (and chomsky) and Hayek before. So Hayek’s work can be completed in a method he could sense in the Sensory Order but not develop into the Science of Law he finally understood was the NEGATIVE means by which we produce positive ends. Popper got partway there. Hayek got partway there. Turing got partway there. Chomsky took turing and added a little bit more. But it was too late to prevent the 20th century’s consumption of the accumulated capital of western civilization.

  • There is so much “shyte” written about Hayek that it’s impossible to defend him

    There is so much “shyte” written about Hayek that it’s impossible to defend him against the cabbages of sophism. Look, Hayek in the sensory order, in the Knowledge Problem, in the Pricing System’s solution to the Knowledge Problem, can only be understood as he finally understood it, as a question of the Law, and the LAW as the institutional means of preserving the exceptionalism of western civilization.

    We do not submit to the market, we submit to the law, and we do so because it is, as in all cases, the means by which we provide no incentive to others to fail to submit to the law. The fact that we finally had power of the purse sufficient to interfere in the economy merely required hayek to expand it.

    Fortunately for me, and unfortunately for hayek, I was born after Turing (and chomsky) and Hayek before. So Hayek’s work can be completed in a method he could sense in the Sensory Order but not develop into the Science of Law he finally understood was the NEGATIVE means by which we produce positive ends. Popper got partway there. Hayek got partway there. Turing got partway there. Chomsky took turing and added a little bit more. But it was too late to prevent the 20th century’s consumption of the accumulated capital of western civilization.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-03 12:36:00 UTC

  • No, it’s not that I’m older you … it’s that I’m literate in something other th

    No, it’s not that I’m older you … it’s that I’m literate in something other than the novel, pop culture, and whatever passed for education for the past forty years.

    It’s called reading. History, Economics, Law, Science. Most people should try it. And yes most can be found in monosyllables I’m sure.

    There are a lot of crayon munchers. The Postmodernists worked hard at it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-02 21:24:00 UTC

  • ugh… frum is unwatchable. All I hear is pilpul

    ugh… frum is unwatchable. All I hear is pilpul.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-02 19:57:00 UTC

  • Religion: Psychological Drug Users Justifying Their Addiction

    —-“Heidegger posits that modern man is cut off from the sacred via the methods (scientific rationality) which you use to form the basis of your argument.”— Sean Kinney

    He is cut off from appealing, harmful, deceptions yes, when he could be otherwise provided with mindfulness by non-harmful means.

    —“The overarching externalized context or that which is beyond our understanding is the primary variable.”—

    That by which we are self manipulated, and manipulated by others, into submission or denial, rather than enabled into action, creates demand for non-harmful means of producing agency rather than sedation.

    —“There is no fundamental cohesive endpoint upon which to deduce your primary assertions: no universal self evident axioms can be identified upon which the initial premises of truth can be established.”—

    We never know the Truth (most parsimonious testimony possible) because our knowledge is incomplete. As such we only know that which is false with certainty. Between Omniscience (Truth: most parsimonious possible) and Falsehood (certainty), we merely satisfy demand for decidability necessary for making a choice. For ancestral reasons we conflate this demand for decidability sufficient for choice in the given context, with ‘truth’ proper (decidability), as ‘true enough for me’ (sufficiently decidable for the context).

    —“A fundamental Nietzschean and Heideggerian premise.”–

    German Authors sought to preserve the german grammar developed by kant (Rationalism), as a formal expression of Rousseau’s counter-reaction against empiricism (Literary Moralism), thereby creating a more formal Rational expression of christianity in the absence of war against the aristocracy, where french had created a literary and moral war restatement of christianity as a war against the aristocracy.

    —“The aforementioned authors here point us towards the sacred and mythical characteristics of being which are antithetical to the french pomos.”–

    German authors repeatedly try to preserve a secular restatement of germanicized christianity, that is antithetical to anglo rationalism, and antithetical to french anti-aristocracy.

    —“Mathematical equations of reality based upon markets are unlikely to summon the masses to action either way.”—

    The evidence is that the population pursues self interest at all times and seeks a narrative to rally with in pursuit of it.

    —“From a Heideggerian point of view, this appeal to contextual truths simply conceal the Aesthetic wonders of Dasein and conceal the inherent referentiality and mythos which transcend the age in which one is producing intellectual content.”—

    Use of various techniques will allow us to produce some degree of mindfulness, and this includes ritual and dance, delusion, drug and alcohol use, hallucinogens, and other forms of physical and mental abuse, such as body, and sexual identity illusions. Individuals who succeed in habituating demand for the delusion demonstrate an addiction response and are undesirable We can change behavior dramatically by changing psychochemistry, both by ritualistic and supplemental means. A docile, sedated population lacking agency is preferable in many cases to a population that competes by greater agency than others. The problem being that demographic distribution and wealth limit the choices of means of providing such sedation vs agency.

    —(Being cannot be enclosed in a conceptual structure). This is Heidegger: Be that as it may: I assume based upon his later writings that he would appeal to ancestral veneration (blood and soil) as the primary source of inspiration for the masses. Reducing such concepts to the playthings of children or products of the occult however would seem to be destructive from this perspective. )—-

    Drug users report the same effects, Religious zealots, those who practice meditation, even the ‘high’ runners experience can produce it. However we can also produce it through self authoring (cognitive behavioral therapy) or what we call ‘stoicism’ producing individual agency and action instead of individual sedation and detachment. We do not need perfect replication of experience to communicate it, we need only sufficient replication of experience, and of experience we need replication we need only those that produce agency not delusion and sedation. So yes, (and we can produce very solid metrics on this) the infant, child, youth, adolescent, young adult, establishing adult, established adult, and reproductive-cycle-complete adult demonstrate very different demands for methods of mindfulness. So yes, it’s not an opinion, that demand for mythos fulfills the needs of the weak, unaccomplished, lacking agency, and of low sexual, social, economic, and political value, and we find that the method of producing mindfulness changes as we increase our network of relationships and command over our destiny (agency). In that we increase our tools (paradigms) as we increase our agency. So yes, children (ignorant, lacking relationships, lacking ability, lacking capital, and lacking power) seek success in their dreams to satisfy their low status, and yes people who have high status do the opposite. Humans are very simple creatures. The strong law (command), the wealthy reciprocity ( trade), the weak storytelling (gossip, rallying). And no amount of postmodern prose will alter those facts. We pursue the narrative (paradigm) that suits our power in order to fulfill our will to power. If you had power able to influence, leaders worth leading, something to exchange, then you would not need a fantasy with which to escape reality. But the weak do not. They tell stories to themselves and others to ‘make it through the day’ given the hard reality of their low status (sexual, social, economic, political market value). hence why I say there is nothing in christianity that cannot be taught as a stoic virtue – without the lies. And nothing good in the search for ‘experience’ (delusion and sedation) that cannot be better provided by agency (truth and training). It is just (a) more expensive to train people in stoic virtues, (b) easier and cheaper to deceive them with sophisms instead, (c) those cheap and easy narratives are methods of deception that prevent the individual from learning how to falsify the OTHER nonsense thrown at him.

  • Religion: Psychological Drug Users Justifying Their Addiction

    —-“Heidegger posits that modern man is cut off from the sacred via the methods (scientific rationality) which you use to form the basis of your argument.”— Sean Kinney

    He is cut off from appealing, harmful, deceptions yes, when he could be otherwise provided with mindfulness by non-harmful means.

    —“The overarching externalized context or that which is beyond our understanding is the primary variable.”—

    That by which we are self manipulated, and manipulated by others, into submission or denial, rather than enabled into action, creates demand for non-harmful means of producing agency rather than sedation.

    —“There is no fundamental cohesive endpoint upon which to deduce your primary assertions: no universal self evident axioms can be identified upon which the initial premises of truth can be established.”—

    We never know the Truth (most parsimonious testimony possible) because our knowledge is incomplete. As such we only know that which is false with certainty. Between Omniscience (Truth: most parsimonious possible) and Falsehood (certainty), we merely satisfy demand for decidability necessary for making a choice. For ancestral reasons we conflate this demand for decidability sufficient for choice in the given context, with ‘truth’ proper (decidability), as ‘true enough for me’ (sufficiently decidable for the context).

    —“A fundamental Nietzschean and Heideggerian premise.”–

    German Authors sought to preserve the german grammar developed by kant (Rationalism), as a formal expression of Rousseau’s counter-reaction against empiricism (Literary Moralism), thereby creating a more formal Rational expression of christianity in the absence of war against the aristocracy, where french had created a literary and moral war restatement of christianity as a war against the aristocracy.

    —“The aforementioned authors here point us towards the sacred and mythical characteristics of being which are antithetical to the french pomos.”–

    German authors repeatedly try to preserve a secular restatement of germanicized christianity, that is antithetical to anglo rationalism, and antithetical to french anti-aristocracy.

    —“Mathematical equations of reality based upon markets are unlikely to summon the masses to action either way.”—

    The evidence is that the population pursues self interest at all times and seeks a narrative to rally with in pursuit of it.

    —“From a Heideggerian point of view, this appeal to contextual truths simply conceal the Aesthetic wonders of Dasein and conceal the inherent referentiality and mythos which transcend the age in which one is producing intellectual content.”—

    Use of various techniques will allow us to produce some degree of mindfulness, and this includes ritual and dance, delusion, drug and alcohol use, hallucinogens, and other forms of physical and mental abuse, such as body, and sexual identity illusions. Individuals who succeed in habituating demand for the delusion demonstrate an addiction response and are undesirable We can change behavior dramatically by changing psychochemistry, both by ritualistic and supplemental means. A docile, sedated population lacking agency is preferable in many cases to a population that competes by greater agency than others. The problem being that demographic distribution and wealth limit the choices of means of providing such sedation vs agency.

    —(Being cannot be enclosed in a conceptual structure). This is Heidegger: Be that as it may: I assume based upon his later writings that he would appeal to ancestral veneration (blood and soil) as the primary source of inspiration for the masses. Reducing such concepts to the playthings of children or products of the occult however would seem to be destructive from this perspective. )—-

    Drug users report the same effects, Religious zealots, those who practice meditation, even the ‘high’ runners experience can produce it. However we can also produce it through self authoring (cognitive behavioral therapy) or what we call ‘stoicism’ producing individual agency and action instead of individual sedation and detachment. We do not need perfect replication of experience to communicate it, we need only sufficient replication of experience, and of experience we need replication we need only those that produce agency not delusion and sedation. So yes, (and we can produce very solid metrics on this) the infant, child, youth, adolescent, young adult, establishing adult, established adult, and reproductive-cycle-complete adult demonstrate very different demands for methods of mindfulness. So yes, it’s not an opinion, that demand for mythos fulfills the needs of the weak, unaccomplished, lacking agency, and of low sexual, social, economic, and political value, and we find that the method of producing mindfulness changes as we increase our network of relationships and command over our destiny (agency). In that we increase our tools (paradigms) as we increase our agency. So yes, children (ignorant, lacking relationships, lacking ability, lacking capital, and lacking power) seek success in their dreams to satisfy their low status, and yes people who have high status do the opposite. Humans are very simple creatures. The strong law (command), the wealthy reciprocity ( trade), the weak storytelling (gossip, rallying). And no amount of postmodern prose will alter those facts. We pursue the narrative (paradigm) that suits our power in order to fulfill our will to power. If you had power able to influence, leaders worth leading, something to exchange, then you would not need a fantasy with which to escape reality. But the weak do not. They tell stories to themselves and others to ‘make it through the day’ given the hard reality of their low status (sexual, social, economic, political market value). hence why I say there is nothing in christianity that cannot be taught as a stoic virtue – without the lies. And nothing good in the search for ‘experience’ (delusion and sedation) that cannot be better provided by agency (truth and training). It is just (a) more expensive to train people in stoic virtues, (b) easier and cheaper to deceive them with sophisms instead, (c) those cheap and easy narratives are methods of deception that prevent the individual from learning how to falsify the OTHER nonsense thrown at him.