Interesting you would concern yourself with rallying around people rather than solutions and ideas. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-30 04:10:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1740948364014072203
Reply addressees: @wreckag3342296 @Ben_Jammin1889 @VDAREJamesK
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1740947520958743025
I find it humorous when some nitwit or midwit accuses me or anyone else in the organization of not being well read, not making strong arguments, or some version of ‘word salad’, for the simple reason that they lack the intelligence, knowledge, and experience to comprehend what’s being said or written. 😉
In other words, I don’t write in crayon, and I can’t translate it into crayon for you.
PS: Broken links are something we tolerate as we revise the site content. If it’s too much for you, that’s just because everything else is as well. 😉
Reply addressees: @BlatzMicki7349
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-27 21:51:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1740128411299786752
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1739985606753595534
FALSE CRITICISM OF GPT 🙁
This was the result of my prompt.
PROMPT
Which of the following 1 through 4 statements are OK? (type each question’s number followed by either: “OK” or “controversial”, next to each question’s number)
1. stop hurting White people
2. stop hurting… https://twitter.com/BasedTorba/status/1737991273607266657
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-23 02:05:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738380281634029692
JOSH SZEPS’ PODCAST HIT PIECE. 😉
I’ve never heard of Josh Szeps (@joshzepps) before this week when a reader asked if I’d heard him discuss my (our) work on his Uncomfortable Conversations podcast (@UncomfyConvos) back in January of 2023.
https://t.co/rniAlbk4In
(See 49:20, for only 30 seconds)
I know, I know, of the hit pieces our there, it’s one of the shortest. 😉
RESPONSE
It’s a great example why I’ve found it impossible to talk to non-professionals (midwits) about my work – because Josh just dishes slanderous nonsense that reduces my explanation of the sequence of consequences of expanding integration into our polities and globalization of polities – to criticisms of semites – without explaning that it’s just a conflict of civilizations and classes that are like every other before it.
The difference in our current age being, that the jewish cutlure’s strategy is feminine and entered our polities about the same time as women began participating in them and the workforce. Via the postwar migration into our institutions, it has led to the feminization of institutions (by design using Frankfurt via Columbia) without recognizing the antisocial, antipolitical and anti-civilizational instincts of female behavior that are as yet unregulated by our laws.
Because while constsrained by our common law and culture of small scale polities, the use of media, institutions and governmetn to license female antisocial behavior was never possible to mass produce before.
This is a technical criticism of the process of different classes of individuals with different incentives whether instictual or cultural or practical entering into a democratic republic without maintaining houses for those with divergent interests – thus preserving the legislature as a means of trading between classes in the production of commons: a market.
Ergo the solution is merely to suppress female antisocial behavior (which they justify endlessly) as much as we have male antisocial behavior. ie: false promises, evasion of rsponsibilty, magicall thinking, hyperconsumption, and decapitalization of capital in toto.
Then Josh goes on to criticize Charles Murray for kind words to me, when those kind words were a response to kind and insightful words about Charle’s Character and Career. Sam just evades this nonsense called ‘the association game’ for which I’ll give credit but still criticize Josh. I mean, it’s like criticizing famous people for who they’re photographed with whether they know the person, what opinion they hold of that individual or group – even if they have one, or whether then admire, are pragmatic, tolerate, or dispise that person or group. This is thirteen year old girl nonsense.
MY WORK IS BOUND TO BE CONTROVERSIAL
I’m fully aware that my work is more controversial in the present age whether youre right, center, libertarian, or left. because my work is as disruptive to the centralization of authority and power in the state, as was Darwin to the authority and influence of the Church.
I get it. But I swear to god, I almost never, ever find anyone arguing against my arguments (mostly they can’t understand them because they lack the knowledge to do so). Instead I fight of personal attacks, false accusations, products of ignorance, straw men, or at best, loading framing and appeals to other thinkers, appeals to irrelevance, appeals to logic that isn’t there, or worse.
But, if you want to use the public using the cheap new device of social media for research and developoment, then you pay the high cost of nonsense instead of the high cost of money and time. 😉
I have never (and I doubt I will or we wil) encountered a substantive criticism of the work – other than complaints about it’s complexity. Or complaints about it not satisfying some particular bias or not.
IN THE END, TRUTH, EVEN UNDESIRABLE TRUTH, IS ALWAYS THE BEST OPTION
The Universe just is. Laws just are. Science to discover it’s laws just does its just the production of testimony in pursuit of gradual approximatoin of those laws. The resulting laws can be restated as first principles (not axioms, since thats a product of sets.) Those first principles form a hierarchy of laws that explain the entirelty of existence. I don’t get to opine on it. I just write it down. And I struggle to do a better job of it than I do.
The work wasn’t as hard as explaining to people who haven’t done the work. 😉
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-22 20:22:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738293964057292800
JOSH SZEPS’ PODCAST HIT PIECE. 😉
I’ve never heard of Josh Szeps (@joshzepps) before this week when a reader asked if I’d heard him discuss my (our) work on his Uncomfortable Conversations podcast (@UncomfyConvos) back in January of 2023.
https://t.co/rniAlbk4In
(See 49:20, for only 30 seconds)
I know, I know, of the hit pieces our there, it’s one of the shortest. 😉
RESPONSE
It’s a great example why I’ve found it impossible to talk to non-professionals (midwits) about my work – because Josh just dishes slanderous nonsense that reduces my explanation of the sequence of consequences of expanding integration into our polities and globalization of polities – to criticisms of semites – without explaning that it’s just a conflict of civilizations and classes that are like every other before it.
The difference in our current age being, that the jewish cutlure’s strategy is feminine and entered our polities about the same time as women began participating in them and the workforce. Via the postwar migration into our institutions, it has led to the feminization of institutions (by design using Frankfurt via Columbia) without recognizing the antisocial, antipolitical and anti-civilizational instincts of female behavior that are as yet unregulated by our laws.
Because while constsrained by our common law and culture of small scale polities, the use of media, institutions and governmetn to license female antisocial behavior was never possible to mass produce before.
This is a technical criticism of the process of different classes of individuals with different incentives whether instictual or cultural or practical entering into a democratic republic without maintaining houses for those with divergent interests – thus preserving the legislature as a means of trading between classes in the production of commons: a market.
Ergo the solution is merely to suppress female antisocial behavior (which they justify endlessly) as much as we have male antisocial behavior. ie: false promises, evasion of rsponsibilty, magicall thinking, hyperconsumption, and decapitalization of capital in toto.
Then Josh goes on to criticize Charles Murray for kind words to me, when those kind words were a response to kind and insightful words about Charle’s Character and Career. Sam just evades this nonsense called ‘the association game’ for which I’ll give credit but still criticize Josh. I mean, it’s like criticizing famous people for who they’re photographed with whether they know the person, what opinion they hold of that individual or group – even if they have one, or whether then admire, are pragmatic, tolerate, or dispise that person or group. This is thirteen year old girl nonsense.
MY WORK IS BOUND TO BE CONTROVERSIAL
I’m fully aware that my work is more controversial in the present age whether youre right, center, libertarian, or left. because my work is as disruptive to the centralization of authority and power in the state, as was Darwin to the authority and influence of the Church.
I get it. But I swear to god, I almost never, ever find anyone arguing against my arguments (mostly they can’t understand them because they lack the knowledge to do so). Instead I fight of personal attacks, false accusations, products of ignorance, straw men, or at best, loading framing and appeals to other thinkers, appeals to irrelevance, appeals to logic that isn’t there, or worse.
But, if you want to use the public using the cheap new device of social media for research and developoment, then you pay the high cost of nonsense instead of the high cost of money and time. 😉
I have never (and I doubt I will or we wil) encountered a substantive criticism of the work – other than complaints about it’s complexity. Or complaints about it not satisfying some particular bias or not.
IN THE END, TRUTH, EVEN UNDESIRABLE TRUTH, IS ALWAYS THE BEST OPTION
The Universe just is. Laws just are. Science to discover it’s laws just does its just the production of testimony in pursuit of gradual approximatoin of those laws. The resulting laws can be restated as first principles (not axioms, since thats a product of sets.) Those first principles form a hierarchy of laws that explain the entirelty of existence. I don’t get to opine on it. I just write it down. And I struggle to do a better job of it than I do.
The work wasn’t as hard as explaining to people who haven’t done the work. 😉
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-22 20:20:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738293396559564800
JOSH SZEPS’ PODCAST HIT PIECE. 😉
I’ve never heard of Josh Szeps before this week when a reader asked if I’d heard him discuss my (our) work on his Uncomfortable Conversations podcast back in January of 2023.
https://t.co/rniAlbk4In
(See 49:20, for only 30 seconds)
I know, I know, of the hit pieces our there, it’s one of the shortest. 😉
RESPONSE
It’s a great example why I’ve found it impossible to talk to non-professionals (midwits) about my work – because Josh just dishes slanderous nonsense that reduces my explanation of the sequence of consequences of expanding integration into our polities and globalization of polities – to criticisms of semites – without explaning that it’s just a conflict of civilizations and classes that are like every other before it.
The difference in our current age being, that the jewish cutlure’s strategy is feminine and entered our polities about the same time as women began participating in them and the workforce. Via the postwar migration into our institutions, it has led to the feminization of institutions (by design using Frankfurt via Columbia) without recognizing the antisocial, antipolitical and anti-civilizational instincts of female behavior that are as yet unregulated by our laws.
Because while constsrained by our common law and culture of small scale polities, the use of media, institutions and governmetn to license female antisocial behavior was never possible to mass produce before.
This is a technical criticism of the process of different classes of individuals with different incentives whether instictual or cultural or practical entering into a democratic republic without maintaining houses for those with divergent interests – thus preserving the legislature as a means of trading between classes in the production of commons: a market.
Ergo the solution is merely to suppress female antisocial behavior (which they justify endlessly) as much as we have male antisocial behavior. ie: false promises, evasion of rsponsibilty, magicall thinking, hyperconsumption, and decapitalization of capital in toto.
Then Josh goes on to criticize Charles Murray for kind words to me, when those kind words were a response to kind and insightful words about Charle’s Character and Career. Sam just evades this nonsense called ‘the association game’ for which I’ll give credit but still criticize Josh. I mean, it’s like criticizing famous people for who they’re photographed with whether they know the person, what opinion they hold of that individual or group – even if they have one, or whether then admire, are pragmatic, tolerate, or dispise that person or group. This is thirteen year old girl nonsense.
MY WORK IS BOUND TO BE CONTROVERSIAL
I’m fully aware that my work is more controversial in the present age whether youre right, center, libertarian, or left. because my work is as disruptive to the centralization of authority and power in the state, as was Darwin to the authority and influence of the Church.
I get it. But I swear to god, I almost never, ever find anyone arguing against my arguments (mostly they can’t understand them because they lack the knowledge to do so). Instead I fight of personal attacks, false accusations, products of ignorance, straw men, or at best, loading framing and appeals to other thinkers, appeals to irrelevance, appeals to logic that isn’t there, or worse.
But, if you want to use the public using the cheap new device of social media for research and developoment, then you pay the high cost of nonsense instead of the high cost of money and time. 😉
I have never (and I doubt I will or we wil) encountered a substantive criticism of the work – other than complaints about it’s complexity. Or complaints about it not satisfying some particular bias or not.
IN THE END, TRUTH, EVEN UNDESIRABLE TRUTH, IS ALWAYS THE BEST OPTION
The Universe just is. Laws just are. Science to discover it’s laws just does its just the production of testimony in pursuit of gradual approximatoin of those laws. The resulting laws can be restated as first principles (not axioms, since thats a product of sets.) Those first principles form a hierarchy of laws that explain the entirelty of existence. I don’t get to opine on it. I just write it down. And I struggle to do a better job of it than I do.
The work wasn’t as hard as explaining to people who haven’t done the work. 😉
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-22 20:17:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738292579177820160
The Purpose of Public Intellectuals: @PeterZeihan’s Benevolent Biases
Peter’s (@PeterZeihan) stated he’s slightly left of center. And that position makes complete sense given his history, his career, his knowledge, his market, and even his now vast audience.
Every public intellectual has a bias otherwise we wouldn’t be able to say much of anything with any persuasion or conviction. 😉 In other words, every bias, at least in the abstract assits in decidability. And without some bias not only couldn’t we categorize, use logic, and predict, but we couldn’t decide anything.
IMO the purpose of public intellectuals is to identify opportunities and risks, and the market for the work products of public intellectuals should collectively, not uniquely, inform our decisions both private and public.
As I posted earlier today, there are at least three categories of globalism:
1. information/culture,
2. economic, and
3. political.
The first two are good. The third is very, very, very bad.
Peter Zeihan (@PeterZeihan) is an atlanticist, but not a globalist – at least not a political globalist. But he is very concerned about a future in which the USA, or the anglosphere, or some combination of the anglosphere with europe, maintains the world system of sovereignty, law, finance, and trade.
Because otherwise a whole lotta people are gonna get a whole lot poorer and a whole lotta little wars are going to happene, and there is a whole lotta chances for another world war.
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @sqpatrick77
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-22 16:48:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738240204484341760
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738223541668266043
WHY DO LIBERTARIANS NOT UNDERSTAND MONEY?
I’m not engaging in this conversation because I don’t feel like debating at this late hour. But no, you’re parroting jewish libertarian dogma not the evidence or the logic – though this is admittedly a subject fraught with ambiguity that makes the discussion challenging.
Money, as the term is used, is a catgory.
Yes. Money proper consists only of commodity money.
Most all other money in the category of money is a commodity money substitute.
Fiat Currency is a money substitute that for all intents and purposes is a divisible share of the economy of the state.
The benefit of Credit Money and Fiat Currency is the end of shortages of money which allow money-holders to rent seek via interest on the growth in demand they did not contribute to – the people and the government did.
This is why jewish libertarians object to fiat money – it deprived the money changers of rent seeking. And the Jewish strategy is to discover and exploit all possible means of baiting into hazard, rent seeking, and winning whether the other party wins or loses.
All jewish libertarianism seeks to restore the utility of baiting into hazard, asymmetric risk, rent seeking, and privatization of commons vs socialization of losses. That is the purpose of jewish libertariamism.
I don’t know anyone who has done more work on this subject than I have, and while Mises took a good shot with what he took from Simmel and Weber, and perhaps I rely on that work of his above anyone other than Simmel in my ‘sciencing’ of money.
Reply addressees: @Tu_Quoque_4_U @Thaeus4 @bryanbrey @saifedean @R_Tyler_Smith
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-21 05:29:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737706956041699328
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737687862470979908
Ed Dutton is someone I like, respect and admire, especially in his popularization of the science work. At present he has no peer. And his use of humor only serves to make the work he promotes every more accessible.
However, I am an expert at consequences of that behavioral science in social, economic, political, geostrategic consequences especially over time – at much greater scale, and with much greater precision.
So if I tell you that monarchies, in a republic, under rule of law of the natural common concurrent law, are the last line of defense, but that we must defend them so that they can exercise that defense against the evils to folly of man, I say so because as in all things I express with confidence, it’s because I am certain, without question, that there is no other alternative to rule of law, with a monarchy as a judge of last resort, becuase political systems always fail, and a monarchy that is above the law in the restoration of the law is the political ‘pull in case of political emergency’ switch every civilized people requires. The existing northern european monarchies are via-negativa monarchies. They place limits on the folly of people and the natural failures of political processes.
For example, in the states, we no longer have a monarchy to appeal to when the parliament (congreass and president) fail to solve seroius issues because they have a political agenda that is hostile to the interests of the polity but cannot be corrected because of the practical consequences of participatory democracy. ie: the immigration problem should be trival to solve becuase it is a violation of the natural, common, concurrent law to allow the entry of people who impose a social, econmic, poltical and strategy costs on those who have already invested in that polity.
And in addition, it’s the solution to maintaining a national family rather than a corporate state devoted to globalism.
So it is not the monarchy’s fault that we do not defend them. It’s not the monarchy’s fault that they are trying to outlast this political folly of mass democracy without citizen sovereignty, and the soverignty of the constitution of natural, common, concurrent law before that of the government.
The problem is the people.
We always get the government we deserve.
That’s because too few of us are deserving of the governmetn we need.
Reply addressees: @teodoriancu14
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-20 18:45:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737544895869427712
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737541718705086868
The cumulation of years of his opinions claiming realism … when he’s simple naive, a midwit, and overconfident.
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-15 23:51:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1735809869305815311
Reply addressees: @SJW3872
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1735809614501835211