Form: Critique

  • YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW THE CHURCH LIED? THE CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY? THE LAST WORD.

    YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW THE CHURCH LIED? THE CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY? THE LAST WORD.

    (be careful. these words are dangerous.)

    But I’ll make a few technical and unavoidable statements.

    1) Gods exist only as literary characters for the purpose of anthropomorphic communication of phenomenon that cannot be explained due to ignorance, using ideal(symbolic and non causal) or real(existential and causal) terms. In other words, anthropomorphic characters provide decidability through empathy with the unit of measurement requiring the least use of reason available to man.

    2) The organizations and leaders of the churches and temples, or their constituent priests, rabbis, and imams do not, will not, and have not stated this. And instead state exactly the opposite.

    3) The bible is pure myth and wisdom which we can choose to use to but is, was represented, and was intended to be presented as history and law which we must obey or suffer punishment.

    4) Jesus was probably a real figure, but everything attributed to his birth and rising is a restatement of ancient astrology, where the transition between stellar descent (minimum) and ascent requires three days. Everything that jesus said is reducible to “regardless of who rules, do not be divided, and instead, extend kinship love to non kin, and in doing so, exhaust tolerance, because it is by this degree of forgiveness trust is built among our disparate peoples with different customs.” This is a far more scientific explanation of the golden and silver rules.

    5) Christianity was produced from the teachings of Jesus by Paul (Saul) and his adherents, just as the works of Marx in the dogmas of marxism and postmodernism was spread by the Frankfurt School, Alinsky school, and Postmodern school. The ‘oppression’ literature of christianity was evolved and argumentatively transformed and expanded just as the ‘oppression’ literature of marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and identitarianism have been evolved and argumentatively transformed in the present era. Just as precisely the same was done with Islam and Judaism.

    4) From the tolerance of christianity to the forcible conversion to christianity and the persecution of pagans, it took only eighty years to destroy the empire. What had been a minority cult of the slaves and women, largely via women, was used to destroy the heroic and temporal civilization of the ancients. The consequence of christianity and the church was the destruction of the aristocracy both in rome and on the continent, the destruction of knowledge, the intentional hoarding of literacy, and the incremental accumulation and misallocation of and freezing of capital that prevented the recovery from the invasions and the plagues, and kept europe in a dark age until it was cast off again by the enlightenment as the scholars in the muslim world fled the spread the cancer of islam to the common people just as the church and byzantines spread the cancer of christianity to the common people. And the church, having transformed the warrior people of europe who desired to be ‘romans’ in adopting roman law and commerce into people who desired to be christians in christian mysticism and deceit, was too weak to resist both the rise of the North Sea Trade (Far from its reach), and the use of re-popularized greek (european) thought as a means of rebelling against the enslavement by poverty and ignorance of the church.

    The church was not only instrumental in the creation of the dark age by the attacks on the aristocracy and the thought of the aristocracy, but the cause of its prolongation.

    5) There is no difference between Judaism + Christianity + Islam, and marxism + postmodernism + feminism. It is precisely the same tactic repeated in the modern era as was used in the ancient era: immigrate, population, convert, resist, undermine, replace, and the successful return of Neolithic Feminine Equalitarianism that the Aristocratic (Aryan) Revolution evolved to resist and transform all mankind out of ignorance.

    The church is anti-western. To the degree that it is western it is only that the west resisted it. (See “Germanization of Christianity”)

    There is no reason that all of the goods of any religion cannot be provided without such institutionalization of lies and the consequential manufacture of ignorance.

    It is painfully obvious from intelligence data that the primary benefit of modernity has been the exchange of superstition and many small functional rules, to science and a few general descriptive rules, and the consequence has been the release of human intellectual capital imprisoned from the origins of abrahamism to its most recent death throws under abrahamic marxism, boazianism, freudianism, cantoranism, feminism, postmodernism, and identitarianism.

    CLOSING

    Abrahamism, in its three ancient, and three modern forms, was, is, and always will be, the source of ignorance, by which human intellectual, experiential, genetic, and material, and territorial capital is frozen dead.

    if there exist any gods, then the jury is in: The god of abraham is most certainly none other than the demon Lucifer – the Morningstar.

    Cheers.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-02 14:56:00 UTC

  • REFORM LIBERTARIANISM ONE BRICK AT A TIME: FROM FEBRUARY 2012 – BY IMITATING LEW

    REFORM LIBERTARIANISM ONE BRICK AT A TIME: FROM FEBRUARY 2012 – BY IMITATING LEW ROCKWELL: VOLUMINOUS CRITICISM

    (snip)

    Languages are necessary in order to articulate political preferences. Political preferences are the result of metaphysical value judgements. Value judgements are social strategies.

    The Libertarians have developed a language for universal political speech. Unfortunately, that language is grounded in a moralistic assumption about the very nature, cause and necessity of ethics.

    One brick at a time, one day at a time, I’m trying to reform the libertarian language into aristocratic language, so that conservative sentiments, values, and social strategy can be articulated in the public debate — so that we may conduct a battle of social models against encroaching totalitarianism brought about by Shumpeterian intellectuals.

    (snip)

    https://propertarianism.com/2012/02/21/what-i-learned-from-lew-rockwell/


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-02 13:26:00 UTC

  • THE DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE THE TERM “LIBERTARIANISM” NOW THAT ROTHBARDIAN

    THE DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE THE TERM “LIBERTARIANISM” NOW THAT ROTHBARDIANISM IS FALSIFIED.

    SOVEREIGNTY(made) !=FREEDOM(given) != LIBERTY(permitted)

    “Libertarianism is….”

    So, which thing are you talking about?

    Sovereignty?

    The earning of freedom (freeman)

    The liberty of the freed slave?

    The liberty of license to retain local laws?

    The liberty of taking license with norms?

    The Liberty of the french – political equality?

    The Liberty of the English – permission from the crown

    The Libertarian of the American – against marxism

    The Libertarian of the Rothbardian – against commons.

    One asks permissions from god and permissions from the government. A sovereign simply *IS* sovereign because his agency cannot be imposed upon by a third party.

    Which of those two are the origins of western civilization?

    Liberty, or sovereignty?

    HISTORY OF TERMS:

    —“At first of persons; of communities, “state of being free from arbitrary, despotic, or autocratic rule or control” is from late 15c.

    The French notion of liberty is political equality; the English notion is personal independence. [William R. Greg, “France in January 1852” in “Miscellaneous Essays”]”—

    —“Political sense of “person advocating the greatest possible liberty in thought and conduct” is from 1878. As an adjective by 1882. U.S. Libertarian Party founded in Colorado, 1971. Related: Libertarianism (1849 in religion, 1901 in politics).”—

    THESE ARE PERMISSIONS – NOT SOVEREIGNTY

    WHY DOES IT MATTER?

    The abrahamic use of half truths and terminological appropriation to grant meaning and authority or gravity or persuasive power to that which does not possess it.

    So. If as true, the political philosophy of libertarianism > anarcho capitlism was in fact invented by rothbard as the Rothbardian’s claim, then I have killed libertarianism (and I think that’s settled.)

    If you want to do as hayek did, and use the word libertarian to refer to classical liberalism. Well, that’s a part of the democratic revolution against aristocracy and the church by the middle class, as part of the enlightenment.

    If you want to recast the middle class pursuit of liberty by permission as an imitation of the origional sovereignty of western civilization, that might convey ‘meaning’ out of ‘ease’ but is is not TRUE.

    If you want to claim the basis of western civlization is LIBERTY AND LIBERTARIANISM that is simply false. It’s not even logically possible.

    HEROISM > SOVEREIGNTY > THE OATH/THE JURY/RULE OF LAW > MARKETS IN EVERYTHING

    That is the sequence and I can find no falsification of it.

    What I find is a lot of traditionalists trying to state falsehoods to preserve their malinvestments.

    THIS IS WHY I REQUIRE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE: TO DEFEAT THE ABRAHAMIC TECHNIQUES OF DECEPTION.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:02:00 UTC

  • Moldbug is cosmopolitan. His writing continental not analytic. His ethics separa

    Moldbug is cosmopolitan. His writing continental not analytic. His ethics separatist not civic. (Hoppe DEU., Moldbug JEW, Doolittle ENG.)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 18:28:00 UTC

  • Valerian a flop? let me help you. french humor isn’t funny, it’s stupid. french

    Valerian a flop? let me help you. french humor isn’t funny, it’s stupid. french drama isn’t dramatic it’s pathetic. french action isn’t tense, it’s boring. I had this arguments with a popular french art historian who was offended why we only sold remakes of french films in america. There is a deep effeminacy in french psychology that is simply impossible to see upon self reflection. one has to have the mind of a woman to find any interest in french cinema. If you study french plays (I have a bit) you understand where the tradition comes from. It’s like shakespeare and sherlock holmes in the english. And it has been a few decades since I studied this subject and understood the french arts, but I remember it well enough to say that french culture was too much affected by the farce, the plays, the operas and in particular the costumery, and all this nonsense lives on today in french like Henry V and MacBeth live on today in the english speaking world. Not because we watch them. But because everything we watch is an imitation of them.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-23 19:42:00 UTC

  • Think I’m gonna decide the mist is a dead man walking. Walking Dead could pull o

    Think I’m gonna decide the mist is a dead man walking. Walking Dead could pull off the Soap Opera thing. Mist can’t. Darabont can’t burn that much screen time with these circumstances.

    Lost had possibilities because of the Crichton Novel it was based upon. Mist had possibilities. Why do game of thrones and Westworld work? Density per episode. The Mist is a 22 minute weekly serial in hour format just to fill air time with soap opera. Walking dead can pull off crazy plot issues for cheap. Mist can’t and still work. The mist without monsters is …. boring.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-23 19:24:00 UTC

  • NITS ON CHOMSKY He uses ‘psychic continuity’ instead of ‘predictive model’. And

    NITS ON CHOMSKY

    He uses ‘psychic continuity’ instead of ‘predictive model’. And I feel he is using nonsense language. We create predictive models and are anchored by them, because it is ‘cheap’. Just like when you stream video only the changed pixels are transmitted.

    (answering a pm)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-23 13:28:00 UTC

  • NO DEBATE: WALTER BLOCK AND THE ROTHBARDIANS CHICKEN OUT The Rothbardian Circle

    NO DEBATE: WALTER BLOCK AND THE ROTHBARDIANS CHICKEN OUT

    The Rothbardian Circle withdrew their invitation to debate Walter Block.

    I was surprised Block would accept it. I was surprised dedicated Rothbardians wouldn’t be terrified by it. So I wasn’t surprised that within 24 hours they chickened out.

    Now first, I would have owned the argument. The reason being that I know all of Walter’s arguments and I know his technique of using suggestion by incremental reasonableness. And I have extraordinary practice at falsifying Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe, while preserving each of their insights.

    But it’s disappointing because it is possible to save the jewish ancap program from the dustbin of intellectual history, if it is possible to switch from having to falsify their program, to demonstrating that despite each generation’s failures, they incrementally produced insights such that by my generation the solution that Mises had intuited but could not solve, could be articulated. So that we solved social science in four generations.

    Now, I can’t, science can’t, and western civilization can’t, tolerate preserving any of mises, rothbard, and hoppe at all unless we can move away from the possibility of an anarchic (Separatist or Borderland) polity, or the claim that economics isn’t scientific like all other sciences, or that the NAP/ISV is sufficient, or that argumentation applies only under extant civil order and law, or that scarcity is perceptible rather than cost being perceptible. Or that the a priori describes an ideal rather than a real distribution. Or any of the other dozen fallacies that the rothbardians propagate to the educated but not terribly intelligent.

    So what rothbardians are doing today, is simply demonstrating the cognitive bias of throwing good time, effort, thought, and money after bad (Sunk Cost Fallacy) – just as do the marxists and neocons.

    And by doing so killing their heroes for all time.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-22 11:10:00 UTC

  • REVIEW OF CATO I work full time on the cause of creating a condition of liberty,

    REVIEW OF CATO

    I work full time on the cause of creating a condition of liberty, through an existential condition of sovereignty. And while I agree that CATO tries to influence policy, I never interact with CATO. I never use research from CATO. And I think CATO’s tepid attempts at educating (as does LvMI) has been one of serial failure.

    My position on CATO is that it was formed during the ‘hopeful’ generation. And that we have now transitioned into the ‘hopeless’ generation. And we have moved rapidly into ‘hopeless’ – a cold civil war. And with the next correction or election cycle, we may easily and quickly move into a hot civil war.

    So my opinion is that CATO, its members, participants, and donors are as out of touch with the current state of the polity and the severity of the worldwide shift in demographics, economics, real power, and political trends.

    And that they are throwing money in a hole in the political water so to speak.

    Why? There is no way to obtain liberty except through sovereignty in fact, by the use of a militia as the majority component of the military, the limit of enfranchisement to demonstrated contribution to family, industry, and commons, and a constitution of the natural law of reciprocity, strictly constructed, limited to stated original intent, and textually interpreted, with judicial veto prior to asset, and return-to-legislature for those cases impossible to resolve without juridical discretion.

    LvMI starts with the presumption of an impossible condition of anarchy with minimum commons that requires a major state to protect it. Cato starts with the presumption of the possibility of successful classical liberalism despite its demonstrated failure immediately upon the Louisiana Purchase. The Heritage Foundation starts with the presumption of the possibility of reasonable persuasion of the unemployable, marginally employable, single mother, and under classes. But the science is very simple: People vote their evolutionary necessities and meritocracy is only in the interest of those capable of fruitful life in the current international condition.

    In that circumstance, the rule of law of reciprocity is adequate defense of the dependent class, but they may not be given offense against the productive classes through enfranchisement. It is not even clear that representative government is even viable beyond the regional government.

    The intellectual work to be done is in researching the means by which all discretion is removed from the federal government and devolved to the states or regions, and where the only services of the federal government are those of insurer of last resort: the military, the treasury, the insurance against hardship and catastrophe, and a judiciary limited to conflicts of trade – thereby removing powers of legislation of norms from the central government.

    If you are not working on fixing the problem of the failures of the american experiment you are simply wasting time, money, effort, and the remaining capital of western civilization.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-21 18:22:00 UTC

  • Reading Kant from my current vantage point and seeing that his mental model is h

    Reading Kant from my current vantage point and seeing that his mental model is hermeneutic interpretation of scripture and he is trying to transition from the supernatural ideal, to the secular ideal, but either cannot or cannot imagine how to speak in the real. Which anglo law would have taught him. Hume on the other hand expressly tries the existential method and succeeds. Hume is a scientist – an aristotelian. Kant is a n idealist – a platonist. He reads childishly to me now, where he read obscurely in the past. And it is increasingly obvious why the marxists and postmodernists ran to him for cover.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 17:31:00 UTC