Form: Critique

  • THE MIND OF A POSTMODERNIST – THE ART OF DECEIT. The reason I don’t ban Zachary

    THE MIND OF A POSTMODERNIST – THE ART OF DECEIT.

    The reason I don’t ban Zachary Davidson is because he is exceptional at the use of an extensive vocabulary for the purpose of obscuring his technique, which is the postmodern denial of truth.

    Abrahamism is the most creative vector for lying ever created but the technique is quite simple: suggestion by straw men, ridicule, criticism, and overloading.

    The fact that he uses the via negativa of skepticism suggesting that all truth is impossible, and therefore only scripture (authority) or preference (regardless of consequence) is just the inverse of the promise of salvation.

    Just as marxism inverted the promise of life after death and a second coming. Just as postmodernism inverted the class warfare into an identity warfare.

    So once you understand the technique it’s a bit like understanding literary analysis and losing your ability to enjoy fiction.

    Or in most people’s cases, understanding science, and losing your ability to enjoy religion.

    Or in my case, understanding the dimensions of reality and the various logics we have invented for testing each of them (and losing your ability to enjoy philosophy.

    Postmodernism is just the most recent generation of the technique of lying we call Abrahamism.

    Whereas Political Correctness is just outright denial and outright lying but repetitive chanting.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 16:48:00 UTC

  • ARGUMENTS WITH THE SOPHOMORIC FAITHFUL Ok. So, again. WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM. Yo

    ARGUMENTS WITH THE SOPHOMORIC FAITHFUL

    Ok. So, again. WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM. You have none, right?

    HERE IS A SIMPLE PASSAGE WITH CLEAR ARGUMENT. WHAT IS FALSE?

    One can experience the feelings of love, friendship, passion, touch color, smell, fear, and a host of combinations. One can experience drugs, theatre, and music. And one an remember those experiences, and one can empathize with those experiences in others.

    One can understand the causes of those experiences independent of their experiences, just as one can ‘feel’ the experiences independent of an understanding of the causes.

    It is true that an understanding of causes limits the range of experiences. It is true that the value of experiences limits the conclusions we draw from the causes. But it is the competition between experience and causality, like the competition between imagination and reason, like the competition between literature and history, like the competition between reason and science, that prevents our development of addiction behavior and zealotry to defend it, and scientistic behavior and zealotry to defend it. And the method of decidability we can use for both limits is ‘truth’.

    For this reason we can separate good ‘religions’ from evil ‘religions’. And that line of demarcation is simple: (a) imagination rather than action, (b) deflation (competition) vs monopoly: fictionalism (conflation) rather than competition between true and wise, and advise and command, and history and myth. We can ‘rank’ better religions and worse religions by the same means.

    And so it is profoundly clarifying, to both Know and Feel, such that we form a competition between knowing and feeling, if for no other reason than to prevent of harm. And specifically, to prevent the harm of the abrahamic deceits, which succeed by self induced drug addictions through the ritualistic production of endorphins.

    (The answer is, it’s all true)

    Try to construct an argument. Because all you’re doing is proving my assertion that you can’t.

    You are just a liar by obscurantist means.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 14:53:00 UTC

  • = FAKE NEWS / PSEUDOSCIENCE Yeah. Well studied territory. Totally false. Reality

    https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/6/27/15873072/google-porn-addiction-america-everybody-lies?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=entry&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebookVOX = FAKE NEWS / PSEUDOSCIENCE

    Yeah. Well studied territory. Totally false.

    Reality? people search for novelty. So what we see at any given time is the market for novelty given the inventory of consumption of the individuals.

    I investigated the homosexuality thing, and the findings will surprise you. (Fascinating)

    it’s just possible to search for homosexual porn in some countries then use the search results to get access to regular porn through proxy servers.

    Pakistan for example (as many muslim countries) most commonly searches for homosexual porn. But the reason is not intuitive. 😉

    The measure of sexual interest is the individual porn sites and dating sites and this is pretty well understood territory, and every stereotype you can imagine turns out to be true.

    Just another example of the fact that ‘stereotypes are the most accurate measure in the social sciences”.

    So (a) as is usual, vox = fake news. (b) as usual, vox = pseudoscience.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-30 14:02:00 UTC

  • I LOVE IT WHEN PEOPLE CHALLENGE ME IN MATH AND LOGIC USING SPECIAL PLEADING. 😉

    I LOVE IT WHEN PEOPLE CHALLENGE ME IN MATH AND LOGIC USING SPECIAL PLEADING. 😉

    —“We are talking about logic and mathematics; areas where American low quality of education and rhetoric is irrelevant.

    All Statements are: (either True or False)

    Whether a statement is undecidable in a system is irrelevant; it is still a statement and thus either T or F. End of story

    No amount of poor education from you; knowing no significant logic or mathematics will change that.

    As an aside if you foolishly imagine that all of math is either trivial or tautologous then why have you not presented your proofs of : Fermat’s last theorem, The Continuum Hypothesis, Goldbachs Result

    I will tell you. It is because you do not even have a high school level of competence and your poor education is devoid of any significant logic and mathematics.”—- Robert Mosimann

    CURT’S RESPONSE

    That is very interesting because I have a far greater grasp of these things than you do, I am certain. Much of my work involves the falsification of the special pleading employed in mathematics and logic – and particularly the logic of ordinary language.

    Is it true that all statements can be demonstrated to be true or false? No. Because a proposition or statement must be decidably true or decidably false, otherwise it is undecidable. And if you understood Kripke in philosophy, and Goedel in mathematics, and even Poincare, Hilbert, Brouwer in math, and Bridgman in physics (and even Mises in economics) then you would know that. And that’s before we bring in Turing.

    Decidably true, and Decidably false both require our ability to decide

    The trope: [everything in this box is false] is undecidable. It is not true. It is not false. It is undecidable.

    So you might engage in special pleading (making excuses) which is common in philosophy, logic, and mathematics, but you cannot testify that an undecidable statement is false without employing special pleading and therefore falsifying your statement.

    At best, you can say, “In logic we are concerned only with deductibility, and we can only deduce from true(not false, not undecidable) statements, and therefore out of convention we attribute to the statement itself, that which is a property of its use in deducibility (service as a premise).”

    So just as we prohibit special pleading in theology, just as we eliminate special pleading in philosophy, if we eliminate special pleading in logic (the study of constant properties of categories and sets), an if we eliminate special pleading in mathematics (the study of constant relations between types), we are reduced to existential (testimonial or performative) truth as used in science (the study of the elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) by the construction of physical and logical methods of measurement that reduce the imperceptible and incomparable and undecidable to that which is perceivable, comparable, and decidable.”

    4 – The Analytically True (Tautological).

    3 – The (ideally) True (most parsimonious possible in human language)

    2 – The truthful (that which we have performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, by the tests of consistency in the categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational-incentive, reciprocal-moral, and fully accounted.)

    1 – The truth candidate (that which we have not yet found false but have not yet fully exposed to due diligence)

    0 – The undecidable (that which we can say is neither true nor false nor possible)

    -1 – The False candidate ( which which is possible in the process of failing due diligence)

    -2 – The Falsified (that which has failed due diligence and cannot be otherwise than false.)

    -3 – The (ideally) False (the most parsimonious possible in human language)

    -4 – The Analytically False (Self Contradictory)

    The question then, is why does one need to employ and defend special pleading other than to hide behind a veil of ignorance or deceit?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-29 14:16:00 UTC

  • DEAR ALT-RIGHT AND HARD-RIGHT S–T SLINGING MORONS. If you don’t understand the

    DEAR ALT-RIGHT AND HARD-RIGHT S–T SLINGING MORONS.

    If you don’t understand the different values of the Alt Light, the Alt-Right, and the Hard Right, then you don’t understand the sales funnel: gradual progress from awareness to interest to informed, to persuaded, to choice, to service, to support. And that’s just means you’re an ignorant twit.

    Hey dickhead. The reason you aren’t in charge of anyone’s capital, anyone’s money, anyone’s procedures, anyone’s organization, anyone at all, despite your passion for the outcome, is because you’re a well intentioned simple dipshit.

    Managing the movement of individuals, teams, groups, organizations, and populations requires the industrialization of the process of providing information, incentive, and education until one reaches the point at which individuals make rational choices.

    So be a good dipshit and learn from your betters. The moron at the bottom always thinks he’s smarter than the next guy above him. But the next guy above him must balance facts (what the guy below him knows about particulars independent of other factors) with demands (what is necessary to move an organization given all the other factors.)

    So just as the dipshit thinks the labor theory of value is true, he doesn’t realize that all the work in production is organizing layers of individuals by the use of nothing but incentives, and that the grunt work is fucking obvious and of trivial value.

    So grow the fuck up. We divide the labor. Your labor is probably nothing more than breaking faces, lighting stuff on fire, and in general, bringing the entire political-economic system to a halt so that your betters can issue and negotiate demands on your behalf.

    So help your betters on your behalf. Don’t hinder them.

    You help them when you state what your minimum demands are. Your minimum demands are a nation state. Everyone knows that. But interfering in the sales funnel is just being an ignorant dipshit.

    If you’re only good for monkey work, that’s fine. But fling your shit at the right targets. We’re all on the same team. It’s a division of knowledge and labor. the fact that you want higher status than you can demonstrate is fine. But the only people that can provide you with higher status is your betters. And the only way they can provide it for you is if you don’t cause more harm than good.

    Yeah. Well. You know. I don’t live under the illusion of equality ingroup any more than I live under the illusion of equality between groups. Ok?

    Here. Have a banana. Be a good boy.

    -Curt.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-26 09:29:00 UTC

  • “Curt, You should talk to X!!!”— Anon Translated: Curt, I have this frame of r

    —“Curt, You should talk to X!!!”— Anon

    Translated: Curt, I have this frame of reference. Can you talk in my frame of reference?

    I get this all the time because some writer somewhere said something that made sense to somebody.

    In other words, “Can you do the work for me?”. So instead, say “so and so says this, and I felt this, can you tell me what you think about it?”

    Well you know I provided a universal frame of reference right? That’s what acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism do right?

    Why is it that I should talk to people who do NOT talk in a universal frame of reference?

    I don’t need to find a way to make excuses or lie in some other frame of reference in order to justify my objectives.

    It’s up to others to justify their frames of reference and objectives if they violate acquisitionism, propertarianism, testimonialism: the natural law of reciprocity.

    Ya see? Its like asking a mathematician using measurements to talk in nonsense like ‘Oh, it’s about a country mile as the crow flies…”

    (Excuse my frustration.)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-23 09:58:00 UTC

  • The amount of rationalization of one stupid thing or another by some subset of t

    The amount of rationalization of one stupid thing or another by some subset of the right never ceases to amaze me. Monkeys on the Left. Monkeys on the Right. Makes no difference.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 10:09:00 UTC

  • PETERSON’S POSTMODERNISM Peterson is in part a postmodernist because he relies u

    PETERSON’S POSTMODERNISM

    Peterson is in part a postmodernist because he relies upon a postmodern (utilitarian) definition of truth – as if the purpose of truth was choice of good or preference when we are cooperating, rather than decidability in matters of conflict when cooperation fails.

    The more complex the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy, the greater requirement for decidability.

    Peterson (I assume) preserves this postmodernism, in order to preserve his fondness for literature, idealism, and supernaturalism, and especially conflationary idealism and supernaturalism (Fictionalism).

    I can understand why he needs this ‘crutch’ because the monomyth, the list of plots, the archetypes, and the virtues provide our best historical (empirically devolved) and most enduring analysis of psychology.

    However, there is a very great difference between the teaching of meaning so that we may discover and seize opportunities in reality, and the teaching of law so that we may decide conflicts without provoking retaliation cycles.

    So while Peterson COULD say “truth is truth” and “wisdom is wisdom”, and while we can CHOOSE with wisdom, we can only DECIDE with Truth – he doesn’t. Instead, he conflates the personally preferable the common good and the necessarily true.

    Otherwise, Peterson is on the way to restoring our ancient literary ‘Religion’, but he seems bent on preserving the ‘fictionalism’ (lies) of Abrahamism.

    My question is, why preserve the lies of Abrahamism, if is is the use of the techniques of Abrahamism – fictionalism as a means of deception by suggestion – that the marxists (pseudo-science) and postmodernists (pseudorationalism) used to defeat the west in both the ancient (Forcible christianization) and modern (forcible marxism and postmodernism) eras.

    Once Peterson resolves this one question I think he’s not just telling the conservatives what they want to hear. Until then, that’s all he is doing.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-21 18:00:00 UTC

  • STOREY TRIES TO PULL THE STAKE FROM THE ROTHBARDIAN VAMPIRE AND FAILS. —“The s

    STOREY TRIES TO PULL THE STAKE FROM THE ROTHBARDIAN VAMPIRE AND FAILS.

    —“The state, being a judicial monopolist, is an irrational system of government because of the self-contradictory violation of private property rights required to establish or maintain it. “—

    That’s illogical (irrational) since no rights can exist until an insurer is brought into material existence to insure them. There exist no property rights until they are constructed. We may NEED possessions, the norm of property, and rights of restitution from an insurer of property, but no rights can be brought into existence without an insurer capable of de-facto insuring them.

    —“Praxeological jurisprudence and the doctrine of dialogical estoppel provide the rational framework to show that, where there is incentive for rational consistency in the law, estopping the activities of state government and, rather, employing private judicial services is the only rationally viable option.”—

    The value of constructing increasingly competitive cooperation requires the suppression of the imposition of costs upon the investments of others so that retaliation is avoided, and all individuals must limit themselves to productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs by externality. Otherwise the incentive of the strong is to prey upon the weak through killing, takings, or serfdom or enslavement rather than cooperation.

    —“rational consistency in the law,”—

    The purpose of rational consistency in the law is to prevent the jurist from favoritism, and to remove incentives to enter into conflict, so that extra-judicial violence and retaliation cycles are prevented.

    —“private judicial services”—

    There is a vast difference between an independent, private, professional judiciary and a polylogical law. All polylogical law societies have failed. They cannot suppress sufficient desires for retaliation to eliminate demand for prior restraint, or the extermination of deviations from norms, or invasion by peoples with lower trust (allowing greater parasitism in law).

    The rest of the article is nonsense as well And here is why:

    1) you rely on praxeology, meaning, through sequential analysis of incentives and choices from them.

    2) you refrain from arguing your point praxeological, and instead do so ideally.

    In other words, your argument is ridiculous because it relies on one logic but demonstrates another. THIS IS HOW THE COSMOPOLITANS learned to lie from the practice of PILPUL (excuse making) in jewish law. The use of excuse making in christian doctrine (hermenutics).

    3) you are relying on the existence of an enforced order (state, normative law, tribal law, cult law) as a prior cause if you even mention the words Estoppel. In other words, you’re just repeating hoppe/what’s-his-name, in that you’re assuming a contract of cooperation at the point of negotiation (legal argument) when a state or equivalent must exist to construct the institution of property or demand rational discourse, or truth. Instead, we start with the permanent opportunity for predation, flight, or cooperation, and there exists no promise of truth or non-contradiction, or even rationality of argument – only a negotiation of demands, one of which is that if the negotiation fails, is violence.

    So your argument starts out with a pyramid of some combination of lie, error, and falsehood, as such all that yo produce from false premises is merely error.

    In other words. it’s a circular argument. A bit of sophomoric nonsense sold by rabbis, rothbard, hoppe and the like to simpletons indoctrinated into abrahamic fictionalism so deeply that they cannot but fall victim to it themselves.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    (Ps: libertinism is just common-property marxism. Another abrahamic fiction constructed of Pilpul (lies). Time to grow up. Marxism, Libertinism, Neoconservativsm are dead, and we are in the process of killing postmodernism.)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-21 16:17:00 UTC

  • 12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are n

    12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect”

    terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant,

    abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of

    whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from

    privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold

    among university professors, who have secure employment with

    comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white

    males from middle-class families.

    13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of

    groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American

    Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists

    themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit

    it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely

    because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with

    their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE

    inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).

    14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as

    strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women

    may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

    15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong,

    good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western

    civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The

    reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not

    correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West

    because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so

    forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in

    primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he

    GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points

    out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in

    Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the

    leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates

    America and the West because they are strong and successful.

    16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative”,

    “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc. play little role in the liberal and

    leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic,

    pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s needs for them,

    take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense

    of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy

    his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of

    competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

    17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to

    focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an

    orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope

    of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that

    was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

    18. Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science,

    objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally

    relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the

    foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the

    concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that

    modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians

    systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply

    involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack

    these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one

    thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent

    that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More

    importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they

    classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and

    other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings

    of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification

    of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or

    inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the

    concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are

    antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior

    because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or

    inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or

    blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is

    “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been

    brought up properly.

    19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of

    inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter,

    a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith

    in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but

    he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong,

    and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant

    behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings

    of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as

    individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the

    leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization

    or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

    20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists

    protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke

    police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be

    effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but

    because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist

    trait.

    21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion

    or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the

    leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle

    cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too

    prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.

    Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of

    benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help.

    For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black

    people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or

    dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a

    diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal

    and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative

    action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take

    such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.

    Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems

    serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and

    frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black

    people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white

    majority tends to intensify race hatred.

    22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would

    have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse

    for making a fuss.

    23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate

    description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only

    a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 13:42:00 UTC