Form: Quote Commentary

  • “Truth suppresses parasites and liars. It’s a prosecutorial tool. The damage it

    —“Truth suppresses parasites and liars. It’s a prosecutorial tool. The damage it inflicts is part of its value.”—Steve Pender

    (genius)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 18:00:00 UTC

  • “The reason we need a truth is because it’s undesirable.” — Curt Doolittle (qu

    —“The reason we need a truth is because it’s undesirable.” — Curt Doolittle

    (quote from yesterday’s show – suggested via Brandon Hayes)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 16:59:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1000421214098247680

  • Untitled

    https://www.quora.com/Should-I-become-an-Austrian-economist-Why-or-why-not/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=7e56d9c8&srid=u4Qv

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 13:15:00 UTC

  • 2005’s WAR OF THE WORLDS AS NON-ARYAN MYTH By Eli Harman (Curt: “Ghetto Ethics,

    2005’s WAR OF THE WORLDS AS NON-ARYAN MYTH

    By Eli Harman

    (Curt: “Ghetto Ethics, and Rat Heroism”)

    In the traditional hero’s journey of Aryan myth and legand, somebody relatable and unassuming faces great challenges and trials, sometimes setbacks and losses, before finally rising to the occasion and triumphing gloriously, and probably getting the girl. Then everyone lives happily ever after (until it’s time to do it again.)

    But the many possible variations on this simple theme are notably absent from most contemporary media.

    A good example of the this would be the 2005 version of “War of the Worlds.” There is no glorious triumph. It’s just run, hide, escape, run hide, escape; plus morally ambiguous connundra resolved by choosing self-preservation at all costs. Finally, the protagonists eventually survive just by outlasting the invaders, who are brought down by the filth, disease, and corruption, that Earthlings live amidst, rather than any heroics or agency on their part.

    It’s not the hero’s journey, so much as the rat’s, because it was not written or directed by Aryans…


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 13:03:00 UTC

  • “The reason we need a truth is because it’s undesirable.” — Curt Doolittle (qu

    —“The reason we need a truth is because it’s undesirable.” — Curt Doolittle

    (quote from yesterday’s show – suggested via Brandon Hayes)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 12:59:00 UTC

  • “Children are broken because families are broken because women are broken becaus

    —“Children are broken because families are broken because women are broken because men are no longer Hoplites – no longer husbands of their freeholds.”—Greg Swann

    The militia owns the commons, and tends it as a garden, or the commons is nothing but weeds – and like all countries lacking a militia – full of trash and fecal matter.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 12:47:00 UTC

  • Eli on Female Coercion

    —“This is what women do. They mostly can’t think. And they mostly can’t argue. So to get their way, and to get what they want, they deploy “the feminine means of coercion” (shaming, ridicule, mockery, rallying, scolding, nagging, gossip, psychoanalysis) to try and raise the social and emotional costs of disagreement WITHOUT addressing legitimate points of controversy or noncomplience with their demands WITHOUT offering anything of value in return. These means are dishonest, because they can be deployed to attack any point of view to advance or defend any other. They have no necessary connection to the truth. They are parasitic, because they are means of attempting to secure the *benefits* of cooperation, for the practitioner, at a discount – without paying all of the necessary costs. And they poison the dialog and lead to a general breakdown in cooperation and good order, and to hostility, acrimony, and bile instead, often boiling over into violence and other, more costly forms of conflict (e.g. “fighting words.”) That’s why our ancestors punished and suppressed such behavior by a variety of means.But as restrictions on the use of violence and masculine coercion have proliferated and intensified, restrictions on rhetorical violence and feminine coercion have been lifted and abolished, feminizing and emasculating our society and placing it under the harping, nagging, screeching, demanding, devouring, parasitic, stifling, control of bitchy, entitled, overbearing, unplesent and mentally and emotionally fragile women. At a time like this, over a medium like this, physical retaliation or other means of imposing costs to discourage such behavior are not realistic. But I’m damn sure not going to back down in the face of such c-ntery. I’m only going to escalate and double down to deprive its practitioners of satisfaction and let them know that we are not cooperating, that I do not need or desire their cooperation, and if they are going to deploy dishonest and parasitic methods I am going to consider us to be in conflict and seek to escalate that conflict by any and all means at my disposal, principally (here) by retaliation in kind (insults.)”— Eli Harman
    May 25, 2018 8:09am
  • Eli on Female Coercion

    —“This is what women do. They mostly can’t think. And they mostly can’t argue. So to get their way, and to get what they want, they deploy “the feminine means of coercion” (shaming, ridicule, mockery, rallying, scolding, nagging, gossip, psychoanalysis) to try and raise the social and emotional costs of disagreement WITHOUT addressing legitimate points of controversy or noncomplience with their demands WITHOUT offering anything of value in return. These means are dishonest, because they can be deployed to attack any point of view to advance or defend any other. They have no necessary connection to the truth. They are parasitic, because they are means of attempting to secure the *benefits* of cooperation, for the practitioner, at a discount – without paying all of the necessary costs. And they poison the dialog and lead to a general breakdown in cooperation and good order, and to hostility, acrimony, and bile instead, often boiling over into violence and other, more costly forms of conflict (e.g. “fighting words.”) That’s why our ancestors punished and suppressed such behavior by a variety of means.But as restrictions on the use of violence and masculine coercion have proliferated and intensified, restrictions on rhetorical violence and feminine coercion have been lifted and abolished, feminizing and emasculating our society and placing it under the harping, nagging, screeching, demanding, devouring, parasitic, stifling, control of bitchy, entitled, overbearing, unplesent and mentally and emotionally fragile women. At a time like this, over a medium like this, physical retaliation or other means of imposing costs to discourage such behavior are not realistic. But I’m damn sure not going to back down in the face of such c-ntery. I’m only going to escalate and double down to deprive its practitioners of satisfaction and let them know that we are not cooperating, that I do not need or desire their cooperation, and if they are going to deploy dishonest and parasitic methods I am going to consider us to be in conflict and seek to escalate that conflict by any and all means at my disposal, principally (here) by retaliation in kind (insults.)”— Eli Harman
    May 25, 2018 8:09am
  • “Science is no longer a methodology, it’s a criteria which many different method

    —“Science is no longer a methodology, it’s a criteria which many different methodologies can meet. The criteria unites the sciences.”—Bill Joslin


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-25 00:41:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/999812626027831302

  • Pilpul Everywhere

    by Bob Moran The intellectual dishonesty is amazing. 1. “Why did you ban me?” 2. Gives Compliments to open a dialogue 3. Tries to insert himself/herself as relevant or an equal with empty credentials 4. Acts surprised (avoid guilt; “What I did was normal”) 5. Shames (your followers can’t handle being *moderately* uncomfortable) 6. Mis-categorizes (lying or being wrong as “dissenting views and novel ideas”)
    May 24, 2018 8:20am