CHOICE WORDS OF ARGUMENT
—Your method of ‘argument’ (non-argument) only works if (a) you are kin, and (b) you are a woman and can create future kin. Otherwise you are just an opportunity or a cost.
A man in rhetorical petticoats has nothing to trade.
You have no intrinsic value.
None.—
When a leftist male argues to ‘feels’ and ‘equality’ and ‘dysgenia’ producing decline, rather than Reals, Inequality, and Eugenia producing Transcendence.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 10:13:00 UTC
https://propertarianism.com/2018/10/27/the-myth-of-the-noble-savages-vs-the-the-debts-of-ignoble-savages/This post was ‘possibly’ too ‘insensitive’ to publish directly on Facebook. So I put it on the web site for those who are interested.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 10:10:00 UTC
HOW TO ARGUE AGAINST MORAL POSTURING UNDER PRETENSE OF VALUE, EQUALITY OR KINSHIP
(from elsewhere)
Did you just make a psychological rather than empirical argument? Oh wait. your first response was a moralism not a scientific one, or one of demonstrated preference. So yes, it’s not surprising that you would make a sentimental distraction rather than a scientific argument yet again.
Or that you would give freudian evidence of your feminine cognition and lack of evidentiary understanding by using the example of ‘great at parties’ rather than ‘great at business, science, and law.” I mean. Talk about a subconscious confession of animal intuition masked by language using the pretense of reason….. lol.
Debtors are debtors. Period.
We aren’t equal, we aren’t allies, we aren’t family, we aren’t friends. Your value to me and mine is only what is our interests, evolution’s interests, and as a consequence, and the future of mankind’s interest.
All your attempts to create the pretense of equality, value to one another, or social political military obligation due to reciprocity or advantage is just a fraud to create the peacock-tail of value. My only question is whether you are a cost, not a cost, or a contributor to me and mine, evolutionary excellence, and the transcendence of mankind.”
Your method of ‘argument’ (non-argument, fraudulent positioning) only works if (a) you are kin, and (b) you are a woman and can create future kin. Otherwise you are just an opportunity or a cost.
A man in rhetorical petticoats has nothing to trade.
You have no intrinsic value.
None.
You are dead weight on humanity’s Transcendence into the gods we imagine – and gods we must be – or be chained to the lifecycle of this rock.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 10:07:00 UTC
https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/11/climate-uncertainty-monster-whats-the-worst-case/CLIMATE: FORCING THE CATHEDRAL TO DO PENANCE FOR THE CRIME OF YELLING WOLF FOR FUN AND PROFIT
(for newbs: Cathedral = Academy, Media, State Complex: the new ‘church’.)
I was directly involved and know the political end of the AGW movement (and lost a lot of money), and I think (as usual) Harrari’s argument (his book) is typical pilpul (his usual articulate bullshit).
The people (skeptics) are punishing the academy and state for their handling of the issue. That’s what’s going on. They are forcing the academy and state to do penance for suppressing the counter-research, doing shoddy research, pursuing grant money by fraud, and trying to move to the left in by seizing the opportunity.
And my opinion is that it should be criminal to act as the academy and state did in this matter, and people should be in jail for it.
That said, we are getting fairly close to an understanding of what is actually going on in the climate, and it’s not clear that other than converting to nuclear power, and cutting the population to 1/6th, that we can (or should) do anything about it.
NONE of the predictions, either in the 1970’s with global cooling, or in the 2000’s with AGW, or in the 2010’s with “Climate Change” have played out.
Every single period in history, usually created by volcanic activity, has created much higher heat retention, which is rapidly corrected. We are nowhere close to it.
Current variations in the climate are within normal ‘noise’, and the statistical analysis of the temperature readings follows the same errors of the statistical analysis of the stock market (shown by mandelbrot) and that this is just noise not signal.
All evidence is that very little is going to happen and that all we need to do, if anything, is move to nuclear power, electric vehicles, and cut the population back to 1-3B.
Worse, we are entering another cooling period. We have to because of the various perturbations of the orbit and axis. And the recent warming period is nearly over.
I think everyone is largely attention seeking, and that as usually, the scientific community is seeking research dollars, the press attention, the state power, and the people who pay for it the truth.
The truth is we are affecting the heat retention of the planet. And we have no freaking clue what is going to happen because of it – and we have no freaking clue how the planet will respond to it.
But one thing is sure given the history of human thought: what’s being said is hyperbole.
Follow Judith Curry’s web site which is the most accurate (scientific) analysis of the movement and its current status.
Harrari is just another (((populist))) author selling abrahamic fantasy literature to the weak.
STATE OF CLIMATE DATA
If y’all can’t understand this report and how ‘moderate’ any change in the climate will be, then y’all are too ignorant and possibly too stupid to open your collective mouths on the subject.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/11/climate-uncertainty-monster-whats-the-worst-case/
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 09:49:00 UTC
(Woman nagging me) “… I just told you”
“Tell me again. Maybe this time I will listen <laughter>”
“… <exasperation>…”
“It’s part of man-training: how to not listen to women. … It falls under Survival Skills. <passing out from laughter>”
“I’m going to throw your computer out the window…”
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 09:11:00 UTC
—“CURT: PLEASE DEFINE ‘POST-MORAL’?”–
—“Can you explain POST-MORAL to a newb?”— Scott Claremont
So just like we changed from theological(authoritarian) discourse on morals, to philosophical (rational) discourse on morals during the enlightenment, that we have changed from philosophical (rational) discourse on morals, to scientific (measurements) discourse on morals.
|Explanation(Model)| traditional(norm) > religious (theology) > rational (moral) > scientific (reciprocity).
It means (a) our language consists of reasoning by morality( intuition, habit, norm, tradition) rather than reasoning by reciprocity(measurement),(b) and where morality(intuition, habit, norm, tradition) vary not only between groups, but between individuals, reciprocity does not. (c) as such we can use the language of law (decidability), accounting (directly measurable), and economics ( indirectly measurable) to measure that which removes ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our discussion of ‘morality’, and describe human actions scientifically (universally) rather than normatively (colloquially).
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 08:42:00 UTC
THE MYTH OF THE NOBLE SAVAGES VS THE THE DEBTS OF IGNOBLE SAVAGES
(unpleasant)(insensitivity warning)
—“Violence is a precious resource. We civilised the
whole world using violence. That’s the history of
civilisation: the incremental suppression of parasitism
through the organised application of violence.”–Curt Doolittle
—“Thoughts?”– Joel Harvey
—“If by “parasitism” you mean “the extermination of indigenous people who had a reciprocal relationship with the world and then the forced conversion of there children, theft of there resources and obliteration of there memories so the could end up fat useless consumers” then yeah brother, We are lovely”— Damien Woodgate
Yes, we dragged them out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and endemic violence – and we did it for profit, and we did it against their will; and they fought us kicking and screaming, all the way; and they are unthankful for it.
And other than profiting from it, and having a great european civil war over the profitability of it, and leaving the job unfinished, so rather than continue our work, that we had to fight the communists and now the islamists in their attempts at reversal of our work, while fighting the jews and puritans within our societies undermining our work, it seems to have done us no good – because they make up fantasy stories of the noble savage living peaceful lives in harmony with nature, instead of half domesticated animals at malthusian limits relentlessly preying upon one another in endemic competition, corruption, violence, and warfare.
So yes, we failed to complete our program of profiting from the domestication of barely humane humans, and enforcing farming, industry, technology, science, medicine, plenty, literacy, relative peace, charity to women, and long lives upon them, and they are resentful, because they cannot bear the thought of thanking us when we succeeded, or thanking us for exterminating those who were the most primitive, the most work, and who were dedicated out failure. We are not equals as individuals as classes, as groups, polities, nations, civilizations, or “races” if that means anything more than ‘civilizations’.
We dragged all of mankind out of barbarism. No man is a hero to his debtors. That said, none of us should expect respect or appreciation from our debtors. Our project was incomplete. However, in retrospect, we could have and perhaps should have treated white man’s burden as Pragmatic Heathen rather than Utopian Christian and instead of converting (educating) them, and improving their condition, simply engaged in organized replacement of them. Because history shows we always ‘lose’ when we are tolerant, ruling, or colonizing, and we have always ‘won’ and advanced ourselves and mankind rapidly whenever we conduct replacement.
And that is the lesson that our ungrateful ‘Debtors’ have taught us (yet again). The evidence is rather glaringly obvious: Replacement of less domesticated (evolved) peoples is the dominant force in developmental history, and produces the optimum results for not only us, but for all mankind. Hence the necessity of separatism.
That is the lesson of history.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 08:16:00 UTC
—“Can someone please explain to me why this occult shit is so attractive? I mean, it’s like reading fantasy fiction for the politically frustrated?”— Curt Doolittle
by Göran Dahl
It’s cool, it’s hip, and it’s accessible. You read something like Metaphysics of War, and it’s not that different from The Fellowship of the Ring. Same beautifully constructed sentences, full of poetic words, riddled with lofty nouns that are inevitably capitalized like the philosophical texts of old.
One of my favourites is when they capitalize Truth (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to mean). Who the fuck wants to read this “operational”, “via negativa” garbage, whatever that is? It all looks like computer code to me and that stuff is for nerds, right?
These kids grew up with this stuff, this poison from Arktos and Counter-Currents. And what’s more, they will never, for the life of them, consider that maybe – just maybe – they shouldn’t trust these jesters and their sources, all of which are rooted in religious texts.
You see, atheism or even agnosticism, those aren’t options; those are the tools of the Left. Surely, we cannot espouse the opinions of the Left, so instead, we will regress further and further and become ever more backward until this vile, leftist materialism and its child, despicable Science, are utterly obliterated and replaced with a spiritually transcendent society, which will be guided by religious texts, “perennial truths”, that were totally not written by fools and deceptive human beings, but instead written by people possessed by powerful, metaphysical forces, the names of which are once again capitalized for effect and this perverted stack of lies continues getting higher and higher and higher..
—“That is the best explanation anyone has ever given me: Fantasy Fiction. Thank you.”— Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 16:17:00 UTC
Q: GREG:
– What goal did you want to accomplish with this book?
– Do you think you accomplished it?
— I see the book as providing motivation, arguments and strategy for gradually winning the discourse. Is that right?
— What makes you think the idea of WN has reach? Especially with urbanites in the immigrant cities?
— Can you explain bourgeoise morality( consumerism ) vs the civil society, vs the religious/spiritual models? (I think you missed the mark on that one).
–You counsel against revisiting old regimes. Can you explain why that is? (I can explain why people are seeking a power narrative.)
— Rhetorical Ammunition in support of which strategy?
DIFFERENCES
Greg: Philosophy, Education, Appeal to rational choice.
Curt: Economics, Incentives, Law, License for Violence
Greg: appeal to morality and reason.
Curt: threat if reciprocity not met, licensing violence.
Greg: we must via-positiva control culture and values. Requires permanent ideological indoctrination with all the vulnerabilities that have been seen in the 19th and 20thc.
Curt: we must criminalize and punish that which is criminal, unethical, and immoral in display word and deed. Meaning: minority rule policed by individual self interest.
Greg: Philosophy, Education, Religion: Via-positiva control
Curt: Economics, Law, Markets: via negativa limits
Greg: White Nationalism as ‘good and right’ and whites should prefer this (despite evidence they prefer doing nothing.)
Curt: Nationalism instead of globalism, because it is the only means of forcing each of us to pay our own costs of domestication, and as such the only incentive not to exterminate, conquer and prey upon, or keep weak and powerless.
Greg: reasons for whites to agree…
Curt: voluntary disassociation and devolution of normative regulation to the states will create all the necessary incentives for coastals centrals, and souths to ‘go their own ways’. Collapse will occur by natural pressures of self interest.
Greg: mobilize (something) (I don’t understand strategy)
Curt: produce a constitution of rules, processes, and polities that are so desirable that we generate demand for change. Then threaten sufficient uprising by a tiny minority that the population and the military replace the government and enforce it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 15:35:00 UTC
(I owe someone a response from last night – still fighting a cold – but I forgot who it was…. something I was too tired to answer. Pls Remind me.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 14:20:00 UTC