(SOMEONE ASKED ME TO REPLY TO THIS ARTICLE) THE LIBERAL BLIND SPOT http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/the-liberal-blind-spot.html NICHOLAS 1) Groupishness and Clannishness are empirically existent, universally demonstrable, human behaviors. These should be taught in academia because teaching universalism is a lie. In other words, the academy lies. 2) We teach marxism, socialism, almost all philosophies, comparative religion. So why not teach ‘hindu science’ or whatever? Well, because those people use those arguments to resist competing groups and clans. We teach all sorts of lies – in particular that democracy is a ‘good’. 3) Most of our history in every culture is constructed largely of lies, and one of the greatest innovations of the past generation has been the use of genetics, archaeology, anthropology, and brain science to demonstrate that these things are lies. But the purpose of those lies is to preserve groupishness against competitors. So a great deal of historical revisionism is necessary. The current narrative that man was oppressed by aristocracies rather than domesticated, and that upward redistribution of reproduction was a good, has been suppressed. So has the fact that the west’s advantage is largely the result of 3500 years of eugenic reproduction, with aggressive hanging from 1100 forward. 4) Religious scholarship is certainly useful, but religions argument is not. However, the purpose of religious argument is to rally the classes to resist invaders. And in a time where the west is being invaded by peoples with higher densities in lower class distributions, this is a rational tactic to take under democracy. All ideologies are false. That’s why they ‘work’ to inspire. Religion is just an pre-democratic ideology from when classes needed to be rallied against the state. It’s still effective. General intellectual consensus is that the USA resisted the secular state more effectively than europe because (a) we had neither aristocracy nor church to dispossess land from, (b) we are more religious and religion is the most successful means of resisting a state and establishing the limits under which a state may govern. (c) we did not have the european civil wars (ww1/2) or the prior (30 Years War), – just the opposite: we had the american civil war in which we lost trust for the state. So we have the opposite experience from Europe. ***So the universalist left lies to advance its impossible and undesirable utopia in advance of academy, media, and state, and the particularist right can’t tell the truth as to why they created the extant utopia we call the west: eugenics – the upward redistribution of reproduction to the middle class rendering all europeans descendants of the middle class.*** So why should the academy lie so fervently in support of it’s ideology that it creates a reactionary resistance to its lies? The only problem has been that the conservative strategy (persistence of family, tribe, nation, and eugenic hierarchy) is not sellable under democracy. Furthermore, what separates today’s “Academy and Diploma” from Luther’s “Church and Indulgence”? Nothing really. We can tell from the data that all universities do is sort. Nothing is taught that is of value in the economy. I’s just boot camp for white collar workers – it answers the question: do you have the endurance? That’s all. Furthermore, what separates the sale of indulgences to fund St Peters and the sale of diplomas to fund university infrastructure, administration, and savings? Nothing at all. In fact, the intergenerational economic damage done by the academy system since 1963 has been the greatest redistribution of wealth since the military industrial complex. The university media and state have nothing but universalist commercial incentives which they profess are moral ideals. When in fact they are demonstrably immoral in that they are self interested, against the interests of the body politic, and by reversal of eugenic reproduction, destructive to mankind. The net is that we either practice eugenics and end up with the northern european model, or we end up with the castes of India, and south america, or in the worst possible case – by extensive down-breeding – we end up with the muslim world, and the pervasive ignorance of the muslim world. Why? Because the people at the bottom are worse for a polity than the people at the top are good. It is not that great civilizations have such great leaders. It is that one can only be a great leader in an advanced economy if one is not overly burdened by dependent and disutilitarian underclasses. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Form: Critique
-
AGAINST THE TECHNIQUE OF CRITIQUE ( Jenna, Do you know what the rhetorical techn
AGAINST THE TECHNIQUE OF CRITIQUE
( Jenna,
Do you know what the rhetorical technique of Critique refers to?
TACTICS
(a) Heaping of undue praise on one’s heroes, rather than their arguments.
(b) Rallying, shaming, framing, suggestion, and overloading, rather than empirical decidability based upon the evidence.
(c) Psychologism(shaming) rather than incentives(logic)
(d) Ad hominem of the person rather than criticizing the argument.
(e) Proposing trivial straw man arguments as an excuse for lengthy discourse on psychologism, ad hominem, rallying, shaming and heaping of undue praise.
(f) Failing to propose an alternative solution and subjecting it to equal scrutiny.
(g) The use of false equivalency. The use of asymmetric judgement. The use of selective evidence. The use of ‘fixed pie’ economic reasoning.
(f) Using suggestion that can be readily self-interpreted, rather than argument that can be analytically tested with little room for interpretation.
The reductio explanation of this technique is that it’s “a literary form of gossip.”
WHY IS GOSSIP POSSIBLE?
Setting aside why we permit free speech rather than only truthful speech – a problem for philosophers – why is gossip more possible in the current era than prior eras?
We stopped teaching grammar, logic, and rhetoric earlier in the last century for three reasons:
1) it would have undermined the marxist/socialist/feminist education program
2) it readily exposes the differences in student abilities as a near perfect reflection of class.
3) it is quite hard for ‘teachers’ who are from the bottom 16 % of their classes (just below journalists) to teach grammar, rhetoric and logic.
Today we would have to add basic economics: grammar, logic, rhetoric and micro-economics (the science of incentives) to the ancient educational curriculum.
However, if the body politic were taught grammar, logic, rhetoric, and micro-economics (incentives) then it would be impossible for many writers (yourself included it appears) to see his or her words represented in modern font.
WHY DECEIVE?
I specialize in truthful speech. This specialty requires a great deal of understanding of untruthful speech. And gossip (Critique) is a well developed technique for conveying untruthful speech. It is the secular version of deception that we invented to replace mystical deception.
The question is, why, if one is correct, right, true, and just, why one would rely on Critique (Gossip) in lieu of argument?
We can say one lacks the skill, absent talent. We can say one is an unknowing pawn in the great game, and absent intent. We can say that one is a purveyor of deceit by intent.
But it is hard for the audience to know whether one lacks intelligence, whether one is a fool, or whether one is a liar.
Because when we speak truthfully and empirically then we can be judged on the content of our arguments, and by the content of our arguments, the content of our character.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
)
https://www.facebook.com/wpjennajohnson/
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 04:52:00 UTC
-
Promise of hereafter(priests tithes), (church indulgences). Promise of socialism
Promise of hereafter(priests tithes), (church indulgences). Promise of socialism(vote). Promise of prosperity(academy diploma). All lies.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-28 07:47:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736463958677303296
-
1) The Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit. 2) Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Fran
1) The Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit. 2) Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Academy. Two false promises to deny truth.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-28 07:42:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736462690026131456
-
Of course I do my work in public, and on the ‘streets’ of the net. Have you seen
Of course I do my work in public, and on the ‘streets’ of the net. Have you seen what passes for philosophy in papers, journals, classrooms?
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-26 11:53:00 UTC
-
Wrong people in journalism today. Cognitive bias for false consensus. Future is
Wrong people in journalism today. Cognitive bias for false consensus. Future is in covering all political POV, and falsifying.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-26 06:52:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735725244640415744
Reply addressees: @brianstelter
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735706835349471232
IN REPLY TO:
@brianstelter
Warren Buffett’s bleak view of his beloved newspaper biz: “We haven’t cracked the code yet…” https://t.co/X1F7miA6sv
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735706835349471232
-
The Founding Fathers of Pseudoscience: Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Mises, Keynes,
The Founding Fathers of Pseudoscience: Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Mises, Keynes, Frankfurt School, Rothbard. (Anti-Darwins)
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-26 06:38:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735721796406648832
Reply addressees: @charlesmurray
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/730332077355315200
IN REPLY TO:
@charlesmurray
Hilarious. Sociology openly describing itself as politicized, wondering if it can coexist with real science. https://t.co/4qEp4omshT
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/730332077355315200
-
Charles Murray ON UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME VS UNIVERSAL ECONOMIC DIVIDEND First a
http://www.aei.org/multimedia/the-doolittle-effect-charles-murrays-in-our-hands/comment-page-1/#comment-154183Dear Charles Murray
ON UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME VS UNIVERSAL ECONOMIC DIVIDEND
First a bit of humor: (wink) thank you for further advancing the disparaging narrative against a great norman name. ๐ What further thought crimes will be done to the sons and daughters of the Norman Radolfo De Dolietta (Doolittle), his descendants, the literate Puritans who escaped the english civil war and founded towns throughout Connecticut – and the many sergeants, captains of generals before and after them. โDwooโ-littleโ has been a middle class land-holding name since the Norman conquest. ๐ And Puritans never needed a reason for production. They were economic eugenicists like all those who advanced Bipartite Manorialism.
That ancestral defense aside, I’ll offer a counter-argument against the ‘Doolittle Effect’:
1) If women are more narrowly distributed than men. (they are)
2) And if women only desire to marry and stay married upward. (they do)
3) And if no man who is available to many women are desirable by women (they aren’t)
4) And if women do not economically need a man. (they don’t)
5) And if men marry and divorce bearing child support rather than trading productivity for a new mate, they will almost universally die lonely and poor – and we should see increasing rates of suicide. (We do)
6) Then there is no incentive for man or woman to marry – or reproduce. (there isn’t)
7) And the Universal Basic Income will only exacerbate the existing trend. (True)
8) Because it will increase the possibility of non-working or black-market subsistence for even more people.
UBI is extremely risky. If instead, we provided returns on the economy per quarter or per year then the incentives of the population would be to limit immigration of dependents, and limit reproduction of the lower classes, as a means of preventing dilution of their income.
So for this reason a ‘dependable’ UBI provides a malincentive in every possible way; while a ‘market’ or ‘national dividend on the economy’ produces every possible good incentive that the UBI seeks to provide.
The Singapore and Corpus Christi models are calculable. The intergenerational promissory models of the socialist era are non logical, fragility-inducing, and behaviorally dangerous.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Keiv, Ukraine
http://www.aei.org/multimedia/the-doolittle-effect-charles-murrays-in-our-hands/comment-page-1/
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-25 05:11:00 UTC
-
SALON: A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW As one of the principle philosophers of what libe
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/23/donald_trump_is_going_to_win_this_is_why_hillary_clinton_cant_defeat_what_trump_represents/FOR SALON: A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW
As one of the principle philosophers of what liberals refer to as “reactionary fascism”….
… I’d like to add that the problem with both neo-liberalism and movement-conservatism has been the assumption that the other side would eventually ‘catch on’ rather than pursue their own interests.
Liberal(socialist) strategy reflects the female reproductive strategy to increase the viability of her offspring regardless of its merit to the tribe, and to increase numbers in an attempt to prevent alphas from controlling the direction of evolution.
The conservative(aristocratic) strategy reflects the male reproductive strategy to increase the viability of the tribe in competition with other tribes, regardless of the interests of the uncompetitive individuals within it.
What happened instead, was that once the difference between male and female reproductive strategy was no longer constrained to the family, and that policy was no longer developed to advance the family, was that females first, and as a consequence, more recently males, have each pursued their individual reproductive interests in politics and law, instead of compromising them within the family, and voting in the interests of the family.
Ergo, just as socialism(non-merit) advances the interests of females and underclasses, aristocracy(merit) – what you call fascism – advances the interests of the male.
The institutional solution to this problem of conflict are either (a) restoration of the family as the central purpose of policy – rather than the individual, or (b) the separation of houses in to gender, class and race, so that all must agree to any policy in order for it to ascend into legislative law.
The west advanced faster than ‘the rest’ in large part because of successfully instituted eugenic reproduction over a period of many hundreds of years.
1) Late marriage ensuring women were experienced at working and running households.
2) Prohibition on cousin marriage out to as many as 12 generations – ensuring limited genetic damage from inbreeding that is so influential in much of the world.
3) Extension of property rights to women ensuring that cousin marriage could not be used to hold territory in a clan.
4) The use of Bipartite Manorialism to restrict access to farmland to married couples of demonstrated character sufficient to make use of it.
5) Heavy taxation that limited the reproduction of the lower classes.
6) Hanging 1/2 to 1% of the population every single year.
7) The cumulative effect being the upward redistribution of reproduction to the genetic middle class.
Liberalism(female reproductive strategy) inverts this aristocracy/fascism(male reproductive strategy), redistributing reproduction downward to the lower classes.
WHY DOES THIS DIFFERENCE EXIST?
Man has developed two strategies for organizing(governing) societies, with each necessary for the demographics each governs.
1) The Persian/Iranian/Jewish/Egyptian (Managers)
In the fertile crescent the climate allows the survival of many offspring and the use of flood plains can make use of genetically lower class labor and slaves.
In the Persian/Jewish/Egyptian model, an elite uses verbal mysticism to dominate and ‘farm’ the lower classes, using large slave armies.
2) The Chinese / Russian (conquerors)
The Conquering Peoples. The Chinese rapidly advanced beyond flood plains out of defense against raiding neighbors and then converted to authoritarian conquerors. But out of genetic and cultural diversity, had to maintain authoritarian order.
The Russians -steppe raiders- learned their governance from the conquering Mongols, and so started as conquerors, and because of genetic and cultural diversity had to maintain authoritarian order – bypassing both the flood pain, and the
3) The Hellenic/Roman/Germanic (enfranchisors)
The forest-and-rivers of the european plain allow for if not require, individual family farms, and the survival of harsh winters limits the ability of the genetically lower classes from survival.
In the Hellenic/Roman/Germanic model, an elite uses rule of law among many peers to suppress the reproduction and burden of the lower classes, using militia and voluntarily organized warriors.
4) The Hindu/South American Model (Failed Managers)
In this model the aristocracy is so overwhelmed by the numbers of the underclasses that it cannot create Pareto-distribution of property, and without the control of the flood plains, the only method of insuring the survivability of the populace is through castes, and constraining the upper classes from down-breeding.
We see this socialist strategy today in the Islamic forced indoctrination, in Jewish verbalism – information control by saturation of it, and in Chinese/Russian violence/censorship – information control by limiting it. All three of these methods are constructed of deceit.
We see this aristocratic strategy today only in Germanic the west, that still seeks to parent society into a universal genetic middle class – an ‘aristocracy of everyone’ – by the suppression or at least out-casting of the underclasses.
THE WEST MUST CHOOSE A FUTURE SUITABLE TO ITS DEMOGRAPHIC, AND A DEMOGRAPHIC SUITABLE TO ITS DESIRED FUTURE
The Aristocratic Egalitarian System (that everyone seems to want to belong to)
The Caste System (which is evolving in south america)
The Authoritarian Disinformation System (Russia and china)
The Authoritarian Mystical System (Judaism in all its many forms / Islamism)
In the end, we must abandon the pseudosciences of the Jewish Enlightenment: Boaz, Freud, Marx, and the Frankfurt School. As well as the pseudosciences of the continentals: the postmodernists. As well as the pseudosciences of the soviets.
Our world is as genetic as that of domesticated animals. We are unequal. And it is more important that we suppress the reproduction of the lower classes than it is that we attempt to improve the upper.
There is precious little evidence that more than two and a half standard deviations in intelligence make much difference – instead it introduces dysfunction. Our problem is increasing the domestication and intelligence of the population by one standard deviation (15 points) and we cannot do that, nor possess prosperity, nor redistribution, nor liberty, if we reverse three thousand years of eugenic reproduction.
This is the world as it is. Governing the people we possess. With the people we possess to govern with.
Neoliberalism is yet another lie. A new mysticism. A secular religion. An evolution of Egyptian, Persian, Jewish, Muslim thought. Nothing more. Yet another set of appealing lies.
And those lies are a prison for genes, and therefore for man.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-24 07:21:00 UTC
-
THIS ARTICLE A DISINGENUOUS JOURNALISTIC JUSTIFICATIONISM WITH A HEAVY DOSE OF P
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article79165287.html#fmpIS THIS ARTICLE A DISINGENUOUS JOURNALISTIC JUSTIFICATIONISM WITH A HEAVY DOSE OF PSYCHOLOGISM THROWN IN FOR EXTRA MEASURE?
People don’t like or trust the Clintons
1) Hillary-care vs Obama-care. We still hold her responsible for the first failure as much as we will soon hold Obama accountable for the second: imposing controls on our largest industry against the will of the voters.
2) Clinton-era devolution of the military. Against the will of the voters.
3) Dead Soldiers. Did we say “Dead Soldiers?” Did we say lying about dead soldiers? Against the will of the voters.
4) The Clinton Foundation’s behavior. (I have personal experience – they lied and stole 2M from my company)
5) Tolerating a husband’s serial-sex-predator problems. And not honestly addressing it.
6) “More of the Same Policy” instead of the end of empire-under-the-rubric of-globalism.
7) Racial and Minority Pandering in an era where the parties represent racial divides.
8) The most scandalous presidency on record – and she covered for it.
9) Taking credit for 1990’s economy which was entirely the result of the end of world socialism and the universal adoption of consumer capitalism.
10) Did we say ‘flagrant disregard for the rule of law, and a failure to come clean, apologize, and correct the behavior”.
11) Total absence of any creativity, innovation, policy, to address the current world and domestic stresses.
12) The backing of wall street, which is no longer providing a necessary function of distributing physical currency, or marshaling hard-money-credit in an economy of digital currency created from the issuance of shares in the economy: what we call fiat money.
13) The boomers killed america. She’s a typical lower middle class boomer social climber, and she bears every unlikeable property of her generation.
Our rule of law is sacred. Our Truthfulness in speech is sacred. Our military and our soldiers are sacred. Our marriages and our families are sacred. And the presidency functions as the sacred moral steward of the country. But, what does sacred mean? It means that no matter what good we wish to achieve in private or the commons we may not violate those rules in achieving it – because our ability to create those commons
She has no respect for the sacred. And so we have no respect for her.
She’s a professional pandering, Boomer politician. A product of the postmodern anti-scientific, ant-rational, anti-moral generation.
She represents all that is sick with our nation.
Of course she is not trusted, disliked, and by some, openly despised.
Because she’s deserving of it.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-24 05:23:00 UTC