Form: Critique

  • SOPHISTS USING THE TERM METAPHYSICS TO LIE Metaphysics only exists in literary p

    SOPHISTS USING THE TERM METAPHYSICS TO LIE
    Metaphysics only exists in literary philosophy as the category of assumptions about the universe. This term should be replaced assumptions about reality.
    In logic, the term is premises within a paradigm.
    In science the term is assumptions in the paradigm.
    In social science these premises and assumptions are unconscious in the population in their different individual cultural and religious paradigms.
    The only legitimate use of the term is in social science to refer to the unknown assumptions held by individuals and populations that serve as the paradigm that they use for decidability. Decidability is necessary for choice and choice necessary for action.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-28 16:11:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751639119640289280

  • “Those with no pride in themselves often substitute pride in their nation’s achi

    –“Those with no pride in themselves often substitute pride in their nation’s achievements — that is, other people’s accomplishments.”– SRC

    Hmmm…. That doesn’t hold SRC.

    (a) Yes that may be true that the have no significant achievements.
    (b) However they may be preserving capital by doing no harm to the capital those prior achievements brought into being and handed down.
    (c) That capital is measurable both by comparison with competitors, and by pricing the cost of the harms to that capital.
    (d) And they may (and often are) simply demonstrating willingness to defend that capital, by their words and deeds demonstrating they will, and as a consequence considering themselves virtuous for doing so.

    The most obvious example is “How do you price the ‘bowling alone’ disintegration of the civil society?”

    Or how do you price the intentional destruction of fraternal education and civil society organizations?

    Or how do you price the financialization of the healthcare industry?

    Or how do you price ending liability for interference ina marriage, and instituting no fault divorce, child support and alimony?

    Or how do we price the consequence of the pill – given that we are beginning to understand not only the biological consequences but the psychological, marital, social, economic, and political consequences?

    Or how do you price NOT suppressing something like the ‘woke’ (race marxist) continuation of the pseudoscientific marxist sequence, or the marxist sequence as a reformation of the abrahamic supernatural sequence – both of which, if not so desirable could easily be measured as frauds and harms? We are still paying the cost of the latter. Meanwhile we are paying the cost of the former.

    Or worse, how do we price the introduction of women in to the voting pool without giving them their own house of government so that trades could be conducted between the classes given their separate interests as the anglo and european system had done for millennia?

    Or worse, ignoring the common law constraint on female antisocial behavior and instead letting it spread throughout the workplace academy bureaucracy and now military, when female antisocial behavior is always and everywhere reducible to evasion of responsibility for defense of the commons on one end and undermining, canceling, and sedition on the other? (Gossiping, Shaming, Rallying, RIdiculing, Psychologizing, Moralizing, Ostracizing) And instead they seek minimum responsibility, maximum privilege, maximum preference, and maximum hyperconsumption without the first thought of reciprocal exchange – the entire premise upon which our civilization is based, and why we outpaced the rest in the three ages of civilization: bronze, iron, and steel.

    We thought men were bad. But we had no idea the consequences of women in organizations. Something that is so politically incorrect that it is all but a moral sin to speak of it.

    So what has been the cost of the failure to suppress social, political, and informational frauds as equally as we have suppressed commercial frauds?

    Or to carry that forward, what is the cost of Income Statement government financing of the corporate state vs Balance Sheet government financing of the monarchies? The fact that these questions are both answerable but evaded is reducible to the deception that is made possible by not doing so. Cui bono.

    All of these ‘crimes’ are made possible by the fact that prior to the present it was challenging to disadvantageous to self destructive for institutions (state, finance, faith) to determine whether a proposition of social, economic, political, strategic, or evolutionary nature was testifiable and not criminal harm or theft especially from common capital, and therefore both good and true.

    Yet as far as I know, and I’m fairly confident I understand this problem as well or better than anyone living, the truth is, for reasons above, no longer a criteria for decidability, because decidability by truth requires sovereignty and reciprocity, and the feminine and the left and the abrahamic sequence all seek power to evade decidability, truth, sovereignty, reciprocity so that they can evade voluntary exchange, evade merit, evade the work and risk of production, and most importantly, evade the policing of the commons against those who would do as they do.

    So, the evolution of economic thought has taught those of us whose logical foundations are predicated upon it, that one accounts for all costs both seen and unseen, and opportunity costs, both seen by our actions, and unseen by our inactions.

    One of the reasons I am an anti-philosophy philosopher so to speak, is that disentangling the imaginary pretense from the faith, and the moral pretense of philosophy, the justificationary pretense of the ratio-empirical, leaving us with the constructively testifable from first principles, is that it is all too easy for empirical, philosophical, and theological to make excuses to avoid the truth when it suits a prior, and when most priors are so, because they provide a discount, and false priors are so because they cause an involuntary transfer from the productive to the non by free riding, socialization of losses or privatization of commons, fraud, conspiracy, corruption, sedition, treason and war.

    The Natural law is quite simple. An extension of physics to all human behavior, and all behavior to cooperation. The only reason for mine to kill and take from thine is sovereignty in demonstrated interests, reciprocity in display word and deed, leaving us with voluntary markets for cooperation and involuntary markets for resolution of disputes that we call the court whether common or state.

    So quite the contrary. just as christianity contrived a means of virtue, self worth, and status by doing no wrong, those who claim virtue by doing no wrong to the capital of the commons are just, moral, and deserving of their claim of virtue.

    We must account for the seen and unseen. When I do not take your wallet that I have found, but isntead drop it in the mailbox so that it is delivered to you, then I have forgone an opportunity. When I do not engage in a crime, I have forgone an opportunity. When I do not impose a cost on genetic, behavioral, normative, traditional, cultural, or institutional capital than have forgone an opportunity.

    Most of the high trust society is paid thus indirectly by means of NOT doing something – because it is the only thing we can do equally. And it is this high trust and the commons that we produce and capitalize that has made the west evolve faster than the rest and faster than the rest altogether.

    Affections
    – CD

    Reply addressees: @SRCHicks


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-25 21:27:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750631404994449408

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750575627642581003

  • LINDSAY MAY ALWAYS BE HALF WRONG BUT HE’S STILL HALF RIGHT – SO FILTER THE WRONG

    LINDSAY MAY ALWAYS BE HALF WRONG BUT HE’S STILL HALF RIGHT – SO FILTER THE WRONG BUT LISTEN TO THE RIGHT.
    @ConceptualJames cannot imagine the mind of a conservative especially a conservative intellectual any more than a woman can understand the mind of a man.
    His paradigm of history is philosophical and literary and not scientific, economic, and legal.
    His attempt to falsely cast the genealogy of the history of the cancerous ideas in order to defend his bias and his revenue sources is so obvious it’s painful.zz
    His attempt to walk the middle ground is somewhat fascinating to watch, abut his defense of it is tiresome.
    His abusive working class behavior to cover all of the above is simply a feminine defensive mechanism. (Though I have to control my cursing as badly as he for the same reasons of agitation.)

    That said, if you’re intellectually honest, you have to give the man his due when he explains the folly of the enemy, and explains it from their perspective (one he almost shares). He is still the best person working today and popularizing the enemy’s ideas strategy sedition and warfare against civilization by the ‘translation’ of the ‘woke’ into standard philosophical language – even if he does so from a center left disposition.

    This talk is reasonably effective if you filter out all the the above.
    https://t.co/12iSvjpDWW


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-21 22:27:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749197029991956480

  • Lincoln Michel is a perfect example of a dumb person’s midwittery. He engages in

    Lincoln Michel is a perfect example of a dumb person’s midwittery. He engages in banal, mainstream infantile feminine and left-wing social undermining signals as if they were ‘edgy’ despite the absence of any substantive argument. Then ridicules people much smarter, talented, and…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-20 21:47:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748824508301979990

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748779888834662635

  • “An open member of the Dissident Right (Keith Woods) is more influential on X/Tw

    –“An open member of the Dissident Right (Keith Woods) is more influential on X/Twitter than both Candace Owens and Matt Walsh.”–

    Sorry to disappoint:
    1) demographic distribution on social media is larger at the bottom.
    2) reach to the social media bottom does not convert into influence in votes, elites, or policy
    3) negative correlation between social media users and political action, political participation, and resulting votes.
    4) Bottom feeders and fishers only serve to reinforce the majority perception on both right and left that the losers are to be further suppressed and punished if necessary.
    5) And as a result the conservatives are dragged down by the bottom feeders and bottom fishers. Between fundamentalists, libertarians, and nazis the boat anchor is more than the moral middle can compensate for in social media, mainstream media, or the vote.

    In other words, social media consists of the top of the talking class and the bottom economic and social classes, absent the middle and the top – who have better things to do, because they are neither trying to enfranchise or find franchise.

    The way we used to say this in old media is “More people read USA Today, but the only people that matter read the Wall Street Journal.”

    Woods and Fuentes and their peers are bottom fishing for bottom feeders. But it doesn’t convert to political consequence in their favor. It does the opposite.

    (Cue the tirade from the loser brigade.) 😉

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @UBERSOY1


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-19 04:05:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748194904046522368

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748170151436935242

  • Would you fundamentalist lunatics please crawl under back under your rocks where

    Would you fundamentalist lunatics please crawl under back under your rocks where your superstition came from and leave the adults to adult conversation. If your ‘wishes’ meant anything you would not be cast out, powerless, and being competed out of existence by those more adult…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-17 23:10:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747758226530079055

    Reply addressees: @dixiebible @radiofreenw

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747757778750357943

  • Disappointment: Conservatives who engage in the feminine method of truth evasion

    Disappointment: Conservatives who engage in the feminine method of truth evasion

    Disappointment:
    Conservatives who engage in the feminine method of truth evasion. Followed by conservatives who can’t manage intellectual discourse, and try to drag the conversation into some shallow moralizing or emotional context, so that they can experience cathartic feels.… https://t.co/XBJ8V9T0j9


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-17 21:42:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747736085059219465

  • Please don’t waste my time or anyone else’s with supernatural nonsense. There is

    Please don’t waste my time or anyone else’s with supernatural nonsense. There is a place for it. In children’s stories. If you haven’t grown up yet, then don’t waste the time of other adults who have.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-17 20:37:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747719784668840259

    Reply addressees: @Truth_Me_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747719462747340904

  • RE: The Court: Prohibition on Guns in the Post Office Is Unconstitutional –“Fed

    RE: The Court: Prohibition on Guns in the Post Office Is Unconstitutional
    –“Federal law first barred guns in government buildings in 1964 and post offices in 1972. These precedents are apparently not old enough to be considered a part of America tradition of historical tradition of firearm regulation. No historical practice dating back to the 1700s justified the ban, she said.”–

    The judge is correct. The post office is a place of work. The court is a place of conflict resolution where the court seeks resolution and settlement and some people are highly dissatisfied with the court’s attempt at resolution and settlement. And as such seek to use violence to contradict the court, the coury, and it’s processes. As such the court is condition different from all other conditions other than war.

    In the broader context the court sees itself as correcting the mistakes of the positive law era where the court overstepped it’s responsilities.

    As such the court continues to restore originalism (words are a system of weights and measures at the time of the writing, not open to putting the thumb on the scales to alter the meaning of words) and as such all extensions of the law must pass the concurrency of the people by the concurrency of the legislature to prevent circumvention of the people by the circumvention of the legislature. That’s the court’s objective. To return decisions to the people rather than legislate from the bench – which violates the entirety for the purpose of the system of government.

    In europe, under continental law, the people are not soverign, the state is. In the states, by design, the people are sovereign, not the state. The only limit upon the people is what we would call the natural law as undersetood at the time and represented by blackstone.

    If you are overly convinced that your interpretation of human nature is correct then you may interpret the court’s defense of the right to bear arms as folly. If you have the opposite interpretation of human nature, then you consider the court’s position wise and correct.

    As far as I know, the left is wrong about human nature almost universally, and actively engages in denial and science denial as a core tenet of it’s political position. The right consists of at least three factions, and only one of those factions, the religious, engages in science denial. The (cognitively feminine) left tends to deny the nature of man, and the (cognitively masculine) right tends to deny the nature of the universe. Unfortunately, the left causes more damage than the right.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-15 17:35:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746949180902297600

  • Followup: If he wasn’t such an unpleasant sarcastic arrogant pr–k, it would be

    Followup: If he wasn’t such an unpleasant sarcastic arrogant pr–k, it would be easier to forgive his overwhelming bias, ignorance, posturing and sophistry. But, returning what he gives, what should one expect from a failed massage therapist whose intellectual work product is a gossip rag take on book reviews of the enemy’s propaganda.

    So yeah. That’s how I really feel. 😉
    Sorry for using your occasion to vent a continous frustration.

    Reply addressees: @CheatinChad_


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-15 05:11:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746762076045934592

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746755972880638309