Source: Facebook

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PHkD5DKO-X1I1eL7sJZED87nTc5h-PX5XL6q1ycnZ_kQ&A: ISNT THE CLASSICAL MODEL JUST AN ORTHODOXY

—“i am from the usa. i live in kiev. i first saw your videos on red ice radio. Classical Liberalism / propertarianism seems like a one-track

minded orthodoxy. (i would appreciate any comments about this essay)—“

(NOTE: I think the importance of the classical liberal program and it’s anglo saxon english predecessor, like it’s dutch originators, and compared to the jewish model, is that truth and trust provide greater competitive value for a minority by allowing the rapid and discounted production of competitive commons. The west is faster than the rest. That’s our secret.)

Well, you know, you’re taking on a big topic here, and while you write reasonably well, and while I find nothing terribly controversial in your arguments, as far as I know, just as boazian anthropology was created as a pseudoscience, and freudian psychology a pseudoscience, marxism was created as a pseudoscience, marxist reasoning a pseudo-logical, and critical theory, upon the failure of marxism, invented specifically to construct lies. And the purpose of those lies was to attack the west’s construction of commons, all of which were eugenic, and prosecutorial to the jews that invented these new pseudosciences, pseudologic, propaganda, and outright lies, culminating in postmodern, feminist, and political correctness, the purpose of which is to remove the ability to associate positive status signals with the production of commons, the achievement of heroism and self-sacrifice, and the eugenic suppression of the underclasses in order to continue western exceptionalism.

There is no difference really between the construction of the old testament in order for the jews to claim ownership of land when the persians retreated just as they claim ownership of arts and property after the nazis were defeated – and the construction of the new testament as a means of undermining the control of information provided by roman law, education, and religion – and the construction of the pseudosciences, pseudologics, and outright lies of the modern era. In each era the jews were able to construct a new lie using the same technique: suggestion, in order to rally women and slaves against their productive upper classes.

Now, explaining all that takes a bit of effort. But we can reduce it to the fact that dialectic(critique) is merely a vehicle for the conduct of suggestion(deception) using meaning(empty verbalism), rather than the conduct of criticism (survival from attempts at falsification), using tests of categorical consistency, internal consistency(logic), external correspondence (empirical consistency), which remove our ability to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception, that make systematic use of human cognitive biases.

But for simple people we can state it simply: You can use a lot of language to say ‘we can get away with saying this” or you can use a log of language to say “no matter how I try to say this is false, I cannot”. The first is marxist pseudoscience of rebelion by the undesirable underclasses, and the second is the discipline of giving truthful testimony that does no harm that we call ‘science’.

And why does this conflict exist? The underclasses must lie and rally and shame to persist in a meritocratic order, and the upper classes cannot openly acknowledge that they are engaging in a form of soft eugenics the purpose of which is to eliminate the amount of damage done by the daily existence of the underclasess.

And why does this matter? As we can see around the world, everywhere, the damage done by the mere existence oft he underclasses is more damaging to the economy, polity, gene pool, and civilization than the upper classes can compensate for.

So progress requires not improving anything in particular, other than ‘taking out the trash’, so that they inhibit the productive classes less than they naturally would.

MORE…

So my point is more that you make statements that have nothing to do with marxism, and any and all statements made under Marxist dogma and framing are basically (justifiably) pseudoscientific in origin, and tainted forever as nothing but nonsense-pseudoscience.

So where you in your paper succeed is where you just address incentives.

A propertarian takes this approach: all people at rationally and negotiate with others on behalf of their reproductive strategy, of which they are completely unaware, and unavoidably cognitively biased. Ergo when we analyze humans we need only determine what they have (including reproductive, social, commercial, political desirability) and then determine what it is that they seek to acquire, and the means they use to negotiate for it, then we can understand the incentives of all of us no matter what race, tribe, clan, family, culture or religion.

And we do not need pseudosciences to help us load and frame them with accusations, rallying, shaming, and psychologisms. All of which are just vehicles for deception.

-Curt Doolittle