Why isn’t that money the best possible use of it. What will be the cost of his victory? His ideas aren’t possible to implement without catastrophic consequences.
Source date (UTC): 2025-11-06 02:28:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1986259252697305508
Source date (UTC): 2025-11-01 03:25:40 UTC
Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1984461813275377978
RACES
I share this kind of thing with regularity. But why is it necessary?
The feminine cognitive attempt to rewrite history in teh same manner the semitic civilizations promoted mythicism instead of history: loading, framing, and deceiving.
There are three primary actors in the pseudoscientific attack on human differences.
1) Boaz and boazian anthropology all of which is, as stated above, mythicism – there is no science behind it.
2) The frankfurt school of social science, which, as stated above, produced mythicism – again, they literally ‘made it up’ – there is no science behind it.
3) Perhaps most importantly, Lewontin, and lewontin’s fallacy of the non-existence of race because of statistical fictionalisms (mythicism) he invented and which have no logical or scientific foundation.
All of these people were jewish, meaning, of semitic genetic and cultural extraction. Jewish culture is the most advance culture using the feminine strategy, just as europeans are the most using the masculine strategy.
I shouldn’t perhaps have to illustrate the female tendency to storytell (semitic mythicism) vs the male tendency to testify (european history). Nor point out that the intellectual elites in the middle east copied what they could of european thought, but used it to advance their feminine strategy (authoritarian falsehood) over the extant and obviously more successful masculine strategy (rational and empirical truth).
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-30 17:09:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1983944261675708653
RE: DENIAL OF AMERINDIAN CHILD SACRIFICE
–“Vance claimed that when settlers arrived in the New World, they found widespread child sacrifice, … Archaeologists, including those specializing in North American history, are calling this a flat-out lie”–
First, your claim, their claim, is false.
–“…there is credible archaeological and historical evidence that child sacrifices occurred among Indigenous groups in both Central/South America and, to a lesser extent, parts of North America. Below is a breakdown of key cases, caveats, and issues of interpretation.”–
Decidable (high confidence): Child sacrifice occurred among some American indigenous cultures, notably the Inca, Maya and the northern Peru cultures (Chimú).
Less decidable (lower confidence): That child sacrifice was widespread among northern Indigenous peoples of North America (i.e., U.S./Canada) in the same ritualised form as found in Meso/South America. Evidence is scarce and ambiguous.
ARGUMENT
North American tribes had not achieved the degree of development and in particular urbanization as did south american peoples. As such, we see a difference in child sacrifice and scale: more visible and institutionalized with evidence whereas in north america, less so, instead of organized termination of children, we see the professionalization of termination by Shamans.
Why? Sanction. When sanctioned by authority, the disposal of children in excess of those that can be adequately cared for, or who are dim or defective, the blame of the mother is implicitly forgiven. This mirrors the same sanction of capital punishment that protects people from the crime of murder.
EVIDENCE
Archaeologists have found a mass‐sacrifice site of more than 140 children and 200 young llamas (in northern Peru) believed to date to about 550 years ago, part of the Chimú culture.
More recently another site of 76 children and 2 adults (with chest‐cut marks) was reported. Live Science
There is clear evidence of large-scale child sacrifice in the pre-Hispanic Andes.
At Chichén Itzá in the Yucatán, DNA analysis of 64 children (buried in a cistern/chambers) found all were male, many closely related (including identical twins) — pointing strongly to a ritualised child sacrifice system.
The paper suggests that this may have been linked to mythology (the Hero Twins myth) and the broader belief system around fertility/maize/rain gods.
Also, in Central America, sites such as the “Sacred Cenote” at Chichén Itzá show clusters of children and adult sacrifices.
So here, the evidence is strong for child sacrifice (though not always with the detail of cause of death, ages, etc).
The ritual known as Capacocha (or qhapaq hucha) involved the sacrifice of children (and sometimes young adolescents), typically in very high–altitude mountain shrines, often with grave‐goods and elaborate offerings. MayaIncaAztec.com+3PMC+3PNAS+3
One well-known site: the “Children of Llullaillaco” discovered on the summit of Llullaillaco (on the Argentina–Chile border) — three well-preserved mummified children, clearly identified as ritual sacrifice.
Analysis of hair and fingernail chemistry shows that some of the children were given coca leaves and alcohol/hallucinogens in the period before death.
So in the Inca case: child sacrifice is very well documented, both archaeologically and by multiple methods of evidence.
Some older colonial/travel accounts claim child sacrifice among tribes (e.g., the early account of the Taensa: “mothers of infants handed their babes to the high priest; he strangled them and then threw them into a fire.”
CONTEXT
Exposure is the universal means of post birth termination of children that cannot be cared for.
As far as I know sacrifice was used more in south america than in the north american tribes.
Fact: the most prolific serial killers in history are women who made ‘babies disappear’. Women have killed more children than men have killed one another in war.
We talk about abortion as a tragedy, and maybe it is. But women have been killing babies since they had the ability to do so. Often by just leaving them out to die of exposure or consumption by predators. But it appears strangulation is the most common means of termination.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-30 17:07:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1983943793247494629
This is the proper analysis of
@Yockey_gaming9
‘s method of lying.
https://
x.com/curtdoolittle/
status/1981195617708970385
…
Now historically we categorized most topics as fallacies because we tried to be respectful of the frailties and follies of others when in the mutual pursuit of truth and responsibility.
But whenever you hear or see a feminine argument to avoid truth and responsibility then it’s not fallacy, its lying. And this individual is lying by instinct, experience, or intent.
Given the lack of intelligence in the arguments we will have to assume lying by instinct and experience, rather than intent.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-23 16:19:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1981395147087892859
This is trump using your leftist strategy of undermining by appeal to the commoners. The right resisted. Social media enabled it. Now it’s being used to bypass the talking classes.
Never criticize what you use and cause. It’s like most left propaganda: projection.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-21 01:41:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1980449398002970791
A non argument, but a disapproval, with all the depth and insight of an eleven year old schoolgirl. And as such, of no substance or merit.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-18 13:13:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1979536420139385178
I have trouble understanding how anyone in the field can make this category of error. Go back to any human revolution of any scale and fully account for the indirect and direct investments including the path dependency. The difference this time is that there is a greater chance of winner-take-most (RE:amazon), the disruption can be on the scale of state formation, and the outcome as great as core state formation. So, as in war, the upside and downside are greater than anyone with the capacity to participate cannot afford not to.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-14 19:58:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1978188640263278920
I just disagree with your terminology in this case. And I suspect you have not disambiguated the terms you use into first principles so that you can argue your intuitions with sufficient precision to separate your statements from opinions to arguments.
So far:
a) We have unwound your emphasis on subsidiarity (hierarchy). This was a leap in my understanding of your objections. That aspect of your criticism stands on its own now. We have a first principle to argue from that we seem to agree upon.
b) We still need to unwind your emphasis on capitalism (which is a bias in favor of private control of capital) and very difficult to argue against. I have no idea what the term means to you.
c) And then unwinding whatever is your definition of liberalism. I have no idea what that term means to you either.
I suspect you would recognize this criticism:
–“Liberalism originated as a reaction to tyranny (aristocratic, clerical, or collectivist), evolved into a system of economic and political optimization for cooperation among equals, and has fragmented as the concept of equality expanded beyond reciprocity into moral entitlement. It remains the moral grammar of Western civilization: the attempt to reconcile autonomy with cooperation through law rather than faith or force.”–
But I suspect that you also hold suspect the well meaning fools who are responsible or not. But without discovering a means by which we identify people whose values, understandings, ideas and incentives can ensure the groups persistence, competitiveness, condition, and of course sovereignty by subsidiarity.
In Context:
1. Classical Liberalism (Locke, Smith, Mill)
= Rule of law, private property, individual liberty.
→ Doolittle: “Worked better, in an evolutionary sense, than the alternatives”.
2. Progressive / Egalitarian Liberalism
= Drifted from reciprocity toward redistribution and moral universalism, abandoning empirical grounding.
→ Doolittle calls this “the failure of Enlightenment liberalism to stay within natural law.”
3. Anglo Classical Liberalism (Ideal)
= “Elimination of rents” and full accountability within markets of voluntary cooperation.
4. Propertarian Completion
= Formalization of liberalism as a science of cooperation: every act, policy, or law must pass the reciprocity test (no involuntary transfer, no externalized cost).
However, under such sovereignty the practicality of producing commons via an institution of market government must function – hence the necessity of homogeneity in a population – made worse by the destruction of the family through working women, and the consequential impossibility of reconciliation between the sexes that is driving the ‘bad parts’ that undermine our sovereignty and therefore our Subsidiarity. Individualism in the familial sense is fine. In the homogenous polity sense is fine. But it fails at the individual scale due to incommensurability between the sexes, and it fails beyond the homogeneous scale because of group differences.
My argument would be that the problem is that classes and sexes demonstrate vastly different will and ability to bear responsibility to the group and as such for any such system to work we must not allow the irresponsible to participate in the production of commons we call government, nor in the institutions of state which preserve responsibility (court and bureaucracy) etc.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-06 22:57:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1975334676022919244
I’m from the opposition. And it’s because you’re wrong. We have ‘scienced’ why you and those like you are wrong. It’s just so offensive we’re too well mannered to so so in public.
Female sedition against male dominance by the one civilization that instantiated the female strategy of undermining to compensate for inability to produce anything of strategi value. Your intuitions are false. Your method of argument is a deception. Over the next twenty years it will become common knowledge.
As far back as 2009 I thought I’d spend a few years explaining you and krugman and a few others who use sedition by critique. I eventually understood the hole in our laws that let you get away with institutionalizing lying. And with a science of lying, and exposure of your use of it, we can permanently outlaw it. And end the abrahamic > marxist >postmodern sequence of deceptions.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-02 18:33:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1973818514659291159