Source: Facebook

  • by Chris Novalis I don’t think anyone realizes what losing the House means: The

    by Chris Novalis

    I don’t think anyone realizes what losing the House means: The Trump agenda is dead in its tracks and the probability of Civil War just increased exponentially. The traitors in the swamp will operate without impunity. This is the nightmare scenario we have to look forward to:

    First, on the domestic political front, while Democrats and their MSM echo chamber have cooled down talk of impeaching Trump, it will return with a vengeance on November 7 (coincidentally, Great October Socialist Revolution Day) if the House changes hands. In contrast to the GOP’s dithering in the area of investigations and hearings relevant to the US-UK Deep State conspiracy to overturn the 2016 election (which will be buried forever), the Democrats will be utterly ruthless in using their power with the single-minded purpose of getting Trump out of office before 2020. They won’t waste much time on the phony Russian “collusion” story (Robert Mueller’s report will be an obscenely expensive dud), they’ll focus like a laser on getting Trump’s tax returns and dredging up anything they can from his long involvement in the sharp-elbowed, dog-eat-dog world of New York property development and construction, confident they can find something that qualifies as a high crime or misdemeanor. (Some racist language couldn’t hurt, either.) The model will be Richard Nixon’s Vice President Spiro Agnew, who was forced out of office on charges relating to his time in Maryland politics years earlier. Even the GOP’s retention of the Senate would be far from a guarantee that Trump won’t be removed. It’s easily foreseeable that a dozen-plus Republican Senators would be thrilled to get rid of Trump and restore the party’s status quo ante with Mike Pence in the Oval Office. As with Nixon, Republicans will panic at whatever dirt the Democrats dig up and demand Trump resign for the “good of the country and the party,” as opposed to the way Democrats formed a protective phalanx around Bill Clinton. Unlike Nixon, Trump might choose to fight it out in the Senate and might even prevail. In any case, a change in control of just one chamber means an extended political crisis that will keep Trump boxed in and perpetually on the defensive.

    Second, for Trump’s supporters and other dissenters from the Regime of Certified Victims, the walls will continue to close in. The digital ghettoization of alternative views to “protect our democracy” from supposed outside meddling conflated with “hate online” will accelerate, with social media a particular target for censorship. The Deep State’s intelligence and law enforcement organs will step up actions to penalize any resistance to Leftwing violence, while perpetrators of such violence will rampage with impunity. Trump has done nothing to protect free speech online or in public places while his enemies continue to contract the space for both – but things can and likely will get much, much worse if the Democrats feel the wind at their back after next week. Such vestigial protections of religion, free speech, right to bears arms, and others that we still possess – for now – aren’t likely to survive much longer as the edifice of the old America continues to crumble under the malfeasance of the very Executive, Legislative, and Judicial officials who pretend to be its custodians.

    Third and most ominously, chances of a major war could increase exponentially. If Trump is fighting for his life, chances of purging his terrible, horrible, no good, very bad national security team will go from slim to none. Any hope of a national interest-based policy along the lines Trump promised in 2016 – and which still seems to be his personal preference – will be gone. Thankfully, South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in has run with the ball through last year’s opening and hopefully the momentum for peace in Northeast Asia will be self-sustaining. With any luck, the Khashoggi imbroglio between Washington and Riyadh will lead to America’s “downplaying and eventually abandoning the anti-Iranian obsession that has so far overshadowed our regional policy” and to an end the carnage in Yemen, even as the Syria war lurches toward resolution. Still, the US remains addicted to ever-increasing sanctions, and despite warnings from both Russia and China that they are prepared for war – warnings virtually ignored by the US media and political class – the US keeps pressing on all fronts: outer space, the Arctic, Europe (withdrawal from the INF treaty), Ukraine, the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, Xinjiang, and elsewhere. Trump is expected to meet with Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping following the US election, but they may have to conclude that he is not capable of restraining the war machine nominally under his command and will plan accordingly.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-07 13:00:00 UTC

  • I started out as a scientist performing research. I evolved into a jurist writin

    I started out as a scientist performing research. I evolved into a jurist writing the law. Because of those efforts I wrote down the unwritten philosophy of the west. In doing so I advocate a set of possible choices that we would call a theory of politics today or a philosophy in yesteryear. I have an opinion in the construction of a system of education we call a religion within all of the above. To achieve them I use an ideology to market the set of solutions. So I have produced a complete system of thought entirely in the western group strategy captured in our law, which is our philosophy. But it is not a trivial system. It is a recipe for action.

    Not one of detachment that like all others limits our responsibility. Just the opposite. To obtain it enough of us must take responsibility such that we act to bring it about.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-07 11:07:00 UTC

  • AGAINST ABSOLUTISTS by Chris Moyer (updated: added chris’ name. not sure how I m

    AGAINST ABSOLUTISTS

    by Chris Moyer

    (updated: added chris’ name. not sure how I missed it. fixed it. )

    Couldn’t sleep and hashed some of my thoughts out on the recent discussion with the absolutists. If you don’t mind, let me know what you think.

    On absolutism and propertarianism:

    Absolutist: Does the non-declarative (intuitionalistic) actions of the monarch need to be justified?

    Answer: Propertarianism as a system is designed for prosecution via. negativa to prevent the CONTINUATION of harmful action. The monarch when using intuitionalistic means of decidability in the moment cannot rely on post-hoc prosecutionary language that categorizes the emergent after the fact.

    So no, the non-declarative does not need to be justified in its emergence (I think this is impossible). However I suspect that we can narrow down the mechanisms at play which allow for a person of a certain type to be successfully intuitionalistic. By which the mechanisms are largely unconscious and are carried down intergenerational via. our genetics.

    This by admission by no way shape or form dismisses the purpose of propertarianism as a prosecutionary system. This point in no way shape or form gives credit to the critique offered by absolutists that “Anglo Liberal Ontology” is invalid, but rather that it is a post-hoc system that is complementary to the intuitionalistic positiva mode of actions taken.

    It is by the continuation of this view of science as the categorization of the emergent into tangible concepts that propertarianism attempts to solve the issue of social and political organization.

    Propertarian frame thinking:

    Phenomena: Absolutists critique Propertarianism as a post-hoc prosecutorial language.

    Incentive: It is my opinion that this criticism occurs in the event that propertarianism doesn’t offer a means to overcome nihilism. Only an explanation of the empirical phenomena.

    Notes on the conversation:

    Absolutists have failed to demonstrate how language is used for anything other than measurement. A shout or call to attention is a measurement of a change in state. A command is a measurement of direction in reaction to a change is state. Both these examples were used during the discussion.

    Absolutists have failed to offer a fair argument against propertarianism and instead offer a strawman of Curt’s work while refusing to acknowledge that Curt has set his own limits on the scope of Propertarianism as a system. Criticizing Propertarianism on its self set limits is redundant

    Absolutists still engage in categorical shaming. In that their largest critique is that Propertarianism belongs to an ontologically liberal category and that it is somehow lame because of that. It is also then implied that being reactionary as a category is cool or socially better. This is childish.

    The strongest point put forth by the Absolutists (to me) is the methods of decidability that are engaged upon by a true sovereign to develop a moral code. As in reciprocity at some level is only valuable to engage in if other subjects have something to offer. This, from what I can tell, does not go against propertarianism; but should be fleshed out a little bit better (to me).

    Absolutists appeal to the complexity of the mechanism that take place in the mode of intuitionalistic decidability rather than providing an argument against propertarianism. They also offer little insight into the complex mechanism that are in effect during the process. Perhaps I need to dive deeper than I already have into GA, but I need to be convinced this isn’t going to be a waste of time.

    Absolutists and Generative Anthropologists appeal to the fact that language is in fact generative the same way a post modernist would appeal to the fact that categories of arbitrary precision are generative. All things are generative as the process of progressive disambiguation; or the attempts to overcome entropy by creating a more complex model for explaining phenomena. Linguistics have no inherent value besides measurement and those measurements are contextual and depend upon reciprocity of meaning to convey the empirically observable.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-07 10:59:00 UTC

  • QUESTION OF THE DAY: So at what point is civilization destroyed ? What do you th

    QUESTION OF THE DAY:

    So at what point is civilization destroyed ? What do you think? What constitutes a civilization, and what would constitute its destruction?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-07 10:53:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/45593333_10156761999032264_666568122

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/45593333_10156761999032264_666568122496450560_o_10156761999022264.jpg Micah PezdirtzWe defend property (via violence). They cannot do that successfully, but will defend (via lies/pilpul/justification) their means of acquisition (parasitism)Nov 7, 2018, 10:24 AMRock MandjinnTruth is what gets results, but that’s a nice thought I guess.Nov 7, 2018, 11:07 AMPablo PerezPilpul?Nov 7, 2018, 1:10 PMCurt Doolittle(you are getting very, very good. congrats)Nov 7, 2018, 2:14 PMCurt Doolittlesophism: numerology, astrology, scriptural interpretation, textual interpretation, legal interpretation: the art of making excuses to justify a prior, using loading, framing, suggestion obscurantism, overloading, fictionalism, and deceit.Nov 7, 2018, 2:14 PMMicah PezdirtzPractice, practice, practiceNov 7, 2018, 2:19 PMMicah PezdirtzYou, Eli, Bill, Steve, James et al have been very good influencesNov 7, 2018, 2:21 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-07 10:08:00 UTC

  • POSTMODERNISM IS JUST LYING. HERE IS WHY. Well, we differ in tolerance for lying

    POSTMODERNISM IS JUST LYING. HERE IS WHY.

    Well, we differ in tolerance for lying. I have none. You not only tolerate it, but seek to employ it at every opportunity you can get away with.

    So, I solve for truth. You solve for reasonableness. I use the word ‘true’ meaning decidable independent of preference. You use the word true meaning ‘preferable’ because you conflate the true with the ‘reasonable’ (preferable) – and you can get away with it.

    You do this because you can’t help yourself. You can’t help yourself for a combination of genetic and cultural reasons. Your ethic is ‘what can I get away with’, the aristocratic (and my) ethic is ‘what is true regardless of the consequences’.

    Postmodernism holds “what can I get away with normatively and therefore escape stratification and punishment for it, and what can I get away with claiming is ‘true’ and still escape ostracization and punishment for it.

    So yes, it says get rid of European (‘aryan’) morals, get rid of christian morals (germanized christian), and let loose female, french, and jewish non-morality (whatever I can get away with)..

    Why? Because Nietzsche was looking for a positive morality when in fact, as the aryans, europeans, romans, and germanics understood, there is no such thing. Morality is a negative (prohibition), and as such we have negative LAW, rather than positive philosophy and positive religion, and positive cults.

    You can see this in the major works of the civilizations, where the primitive civilizations of the semitic region imposed authoritarian positivism, the indian positive rulership, the chinese collective duty, and the europeans negative law – leaving a LOT of philosophers to propose CHOICES within that law. Rather than ONE SOLUTION CONFLATED with RULE.

    The Europeans/Romans/Germanics (Aryans) stated there was no positive morality, only a negative morality of reciprocity, leaving the MARKET for positive moralities to adapt to the needs of niches (classes).

    The only people to grasp this are the english and the americans – and even they failed to maintain indoctrination into it because they did not fully understand it (which is my job – to make it fully understood).

    But the jews, the french, and white anglo women, have all adopted the female strategy, of ‘what can I get away with’ rather than ‘what can i do without getting away with anything’.

    All positivas are choice. The only TRUTH AND MORALITY IS NEGATIVE. Everything else is just choice.

    Like I said. You only have to open your mouth for us to identify whether you are a positivist and parasite, or a negativist and producer.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-07 09:15:00 UTC

  • It’s just race. In homogenous polities it is class. In heterogenous polities it

    It’s just race. In homogenous polities it is class. In heterogenous polities it is race. The experiment is over. Democracy lost. National Socialism (fascism) won.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-07 08:48:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-07 08:46:00 UTC

  • WHAT DEMAND DOES POSTMODERN THOUGHT SATISFY? What Demand does Postmodern thought

    WHAT DEMAND DOES POSTMODERN THOUGHT SATISFY?

    What Demand does Postmodern thought satisfy?

    (FYI: Definition: A “Grammar”: rules of continuous, recursive, disambiguation, within a given set of semantic limitations.”)

    We produce arguments in their constituent …

    – Paradigms,

    – Frames, and ..

    – Ontologies,

    … using …

    – Names,

    – Relations,

    – Values,

    – Methods (operations) and their

    – cumulative imaginary (forecast) models (worlds)

    … to satisfy demand.

    We have little control over that demand as far as I know. But whether or not we do, we generate demand.

    But what demand do the various degrees of correspondence (and non-correspondence) with our three:

    – Physical-Sensory -> or;

    – Emotional-Intuitive ->, or;

    – Intellectual-Rational

    … faculties provide?

    And under what …

    – Geographic -> ,

    – Economic -> ,

    – Demographic -> ,

    – Political -> ,

    – Social

    … conditions?

    We have demonstrated an ability to speak in various grammars: using the …

    – Real-Pseudoscientific-Magical ->

    – Historical-Literary-Mythical ->

    – Ideal-Pseudorational-Sophistic -> and;

    – Supernatural-Theological-Occult,

    … meaning, in the …

    – Deflated (math, logic, algorithm, protocol, process) ->

    – Descriptive, (testimony) ->

    – Narrated, (story) ->

    – Inflated, ( fiction ) -> and;

    – Conflated,

    … models of comparison.

    Why do we choose the grammars (paradigms of communication)?

    Why do …

    – Abrahamists (theological) -> ,

    – Marxists (pseudoscientific) -> ,

    – Postmoderns ( pseudorational) -> ,

    – Feminists (mythical)

    … choose those grammars.

    And why do …

    – mathematicians and logicians (ideal) -> ,

    – scientists (real and historical) -> ,

    – jurists (real and historical) -> ,

    – and writers (literary)

    …choose their grammars?

    The answer is not the first series that will occur to you.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-07 08:29:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 21:27:00 UTC