Mar 6, 2020, 7:56 AM Aaron Kosminski (born Aron Mordke Kozmiński; 11 September 1865 – 24 March 1919) was a Polish barber and hairdresser, and suspect in the Jack the Ripper case. Kosminski was a Polish Jew who emigrated from Congress Poland to England in the 1880s. He worked as a hairdresser in Whitechapel in the East End of London, where a series of murders ascribed to an unidentified figure nicknamed “Jack the Ripper” were committed in 1888. From 1891, he was institutionalised in an insane asylum. Two different DNA studies, one in 2014, and 2019, on one the one piece of evidence we have – a bloody shawl – have confirmed the century long-suspicion that Kosminski is Jack the Ripper.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Kosminski is Jack the Ripper.
Mar 6, 2020, 7:56 AM Aaron Kosminski (born Aron Mordke Kozmiński; 11 September 1865 – 24 March 1919) was a Polish barber and hairdresser, and suspect in the Jack the Ripper case. Kosminski was a Polish Jew who emigrated from Congress Poland to England in the 1880s. He worked as a hairdresser in Whitechapel in the East End of London, where a series of murders ascribed to an unidentified figure nicknamed “Jack the Ripper” were committed in 1888. From 1891, he was institutionalised in an insane asylum. Two different DNA studies, one in 2014, and 2019, on one the one piece of evidence we have – a bloody shawl – have confirmed the century long-suspicion that Kosminski is Jack the Ripper.
-
Peter Thiel vs Curt Doolittle on The Enlightenment Failures
PETER THIEL VS CURT DOOLITTLE ON THE ENLIGHTENMENT FAILURES Same Argument, Slightly Different Narratives Thiel, a fellow libertarian, in a September interview at the Hoover Institution, discusses his take on the failure of the enlightenment to produce a theory of man, and attendant social science, and the consequences thereof. Peter’s (correct) take is that the enlightenments were a reaction to a period of bloody warfare over religion. And after a bloody war over religion we were reluctant to have another war over the nature of man – and gave up. That take attributes greater agency to man than I do. That does not mean it’s false. It means that he’s describing the human reaction as they would understand it, and i’m describing the human incentives regardless of whether they understood them My take is only marginally different, stating that each civilization other than the british resisted the anglo empirical revolution, and that each group happily extracted the church from politics in reaction to the wars of religion, but that they preserved their group strategy, group strategic nature of man, and group grammar in preservation of their strategy including the nature of man. And that we went through conflicts anyway: the french revolution, the german imperial restoration, the russian revolution, the chinese revolution, the american jewish counter-revolution, and the muslim counter-revolution. And, because we failed to solve the problem we left open these counter revolutions, including the current female,progressive, jewish, and muslim counter revolutions. But again, we had solved the nature of man by the 1920’s and correctly started the nature of man – which, honestly, smith and hume largely got right, missing only darwin(biology), spencer (sociology), and nietzsche (religion). And of course, my take is that P SOLVED THE PROBLEM of metaphysics, psychology, social science, economics, politics, and the nature of man. But that we are going to need to complete the conflict over the nature of man that was not settled in the postwar, prewar- darwinian, or enlightenment eras. So yes, we will need a civil, civilizational, and cross civilizational war to save mankind from our failure to save mankind in the greeco-roman, and anglo-american eras.
-
Peter Thiel vs Curt Doolittle on The Enlightenment Failures
PETER THIEL VS CURT DOOLITTLE ON THE ENLIGHTENMENT FAILURES Same Argument, Slightly Different Narratives Thiel, a fellow libertarian, in a September interview at the Hoover Institution, discusses his take on the failure of the enlightenment to produce a theory of man, and attendant social science, and the consequences thereof. Peter’s (correct) take is that the enlightenments were a reaction to a period of bloody warfare over religion. And after a bloody war over religion we were reluctant to have another war over the nature of man – and gave up. That take attributes greater agency to man than I do. That does not mean it’s false. It means that he’s describing the human reaction as they would understand it, and i’m describing the human incentives regardless of whether they understood them My take is only marginally different, stating that each civilization other than the british resisted the anglo empirical revolution, and that each group happily extracted the church from politics in reaction to the wars of religion, but that they preserved their group strategy, group strategic nature of man, and group grammar in preservation of their strategy including the nature of man. And that we went through conflicts anyway: the french revolution, the german imperial restoration, the russian revolution, the chinese revolution, the american jewish counter-revolution, and the muslim counter-revolution. And, because we failed to solve the problem we left open these counter revolutions, including the current female,progressive, jewish, and muslim counter revolutions. But again, we had solved the nature of man by the 1920’s and correctly started the nature of man – which, honestly, smith and hume largely got right, missing only darwin(biology), spencer (sociology), and nietzsche (religion). And of course, my take is that P SOLVED THE PROBLEM of metaphysics, psychology, social science, economics, politics, and the nature of man. But that we are going to need to complete the conflict over the nature of man that was not settled in the postwar, prewar- darwinian, or enlightenment eras. So yes, we will need a civil, civilizational, and cross civilizational war to save mankind from our failure to save mankind in the greeco-roman, and anglo-american eras.
-
The Wallet Game Is in Both Party’s Interest if You “buy” Within Your Means.
Mar 6, 2020, 9:37 AM
—“It’s the women who AREN’T looking to be supported who are often the most difficult. For … if they don’t need you for your financial support, that must mean they want you for emotional support. Which is a lot more complicated.”— by Michael Churchill
Be valuable: sexual, social, economic, political, military market value. This is as easy as (a) stay fit, (b) avoid risks to brain (drugs, alcohol), and fix broken brains (therapy, drugs, psychedelic treatments.) Live within the means of the value you create. Quality women will upgrade for consumption of stimulation at lower emotional, psychological, and compromise cost – men are not fulfilling masculine role for the given variability of woman’s demand for masculine traits. Quality men will upgrade for consumption of femininity at lower emotional, psychological, and compromise cost, given the invariability of the value of femininity to men. As we age our ability to learn, adapt, and compromise decreases – we demand greater consilience. Successful high school sweethearts from similar backgrounds with similar values working together to raise a family have least risk of divergence of consilience. Two Parent Working Families with Children in School create insufficient shared experience for relationship persistence. Our forecast of future value of one another is poor. Marriages currently operate via trade-ins for this reason. And while the cost of depreciation on a car is high; The cost of depreciation on marriage is far, far higher. This is why we must restore:
– Bring capital to people not people to capital – Civil Society so we are invested in the commons and one another. – Possibility of single parent income – Reduction or eliminate of 4 year high-debt education for all but extreme (outlier) cases. – Physical, emotional, and mental fitness by mindfulness training, physical fitness, and P-logic so that we have no deciets over the nature of man and what is possible for man.
-
The Wallet Game Is in Both Party’s Interest if You “buy” Within Your Means.
Mar 6, 2020, 9:37 AM
—“It’s the women who AREN’T looking to be supported who are often the most difficult. For … if they don’t need you for your financial support, that must mean they want you for emotional support. Which is a lot more complicated.”— by Michael Churchill
Be valuable: sexual, social, economic, political, military market value. This is as easy as (a) stay fit, (b) avoid risks to brain (drugs, alcohol), and fix broken brains (therapy, drugs, psychedelic treatments.) Live within the means of the value you create. Quality women will upgrade for consumption of stimulation at lower emotional, psychological, and compromise cost – men are not fulfilling masculine role for the given variability of woman’s demand for masculine traits. Quality men will upgrade for consumption of femininity at lower emotional, psychological, and compromise cost, given the invariability of the value of femininity to men. As we age our ability to learn, adapt, and compromise decreases – we demand greater consilience. Successful high school sweethearts from similar backgrounds with similar values working together to raise a family have least risk of divergence of consilience. Two Parent Working Families with Children in School create insufficient shared experience for relationship persistence. Our forecast of future value of one another is poor. Marriages currently operate via trade-ins for this reason. And while the cost of depreciation on a car is high; The cost of depreciation on marriage is far, far higher. This is why we must restore:
– Bring capital to people not people to capital – Civil Society so we are invested in the commons and one another. – Possibility of single parent income – Reduction or eliminate of 4 year high-debt education for all but extreme (outlier) cases. – Physical, emotional, and mental fitness by mindfulness training, physical fitness, and P-logic so that we have no deciets over the nature of man and what is possible for man.
-
Me? I’m a Jeffersonian Christian
1 – My Christianity: … a) I’m a deist – gods exist as information. … b) I”m a jeffersonian christian – jesus was a philosopher … c) I’m a scientist that finds: … … Christianity was an innovation that made virtue possible for the underclasses (those without ability or means), … … AND that it was the optimum via positiva extension to natural law of western women and underclass men. … … AND Christianity is the optimum religion for a majority middle class polity because it trains people to treat one another as ‘customers’. … … AND christianity brings prosperity where it goes as long as the law also goes there. 2) I’m a Stoic – mindfulness does not need falsehoods and false promises but training, and anyone can be trained. The difference is that religion is cheap (ritual indoctrination) and stoicism is expensive (repetitive education). 3) I’m an Epicurean – happiness is the result of living within your means, regardless of your means, great or small. 4) “Spiritually” if that word has any meaning I’m a European Pagan (all generations of our gods), and Natural Heathen (Our people, my ancestors, and nature). My god is european not semitic, but military and heroic. He is Sky Father, Tyr, Zeus. 5) I’m an advocate of state religions (local organization by non profit, non-power church instead of profit and power state ) 6) I’m a tri-functionalist – I understand that the competition between masculine and feminine biases of military and religion, moderated by the law maximizes the use and utility of both while limiting the extremes, or producing a mediocrity (as did the founders). So I have a more mature understanding of religion, of christianity, and how to modernize it so that it survives.
-
Me? I’m a Jeffersonian Christian
1 – My Christianity: … a) I’m a deist – gods exist as information. … b) I”m a jeffersonian christian – jesus was a philosopher … c) I’m a scientist that finds: … … Christianity was an innovation that made virtue possible for the underclasses (those without ability or means), … … AND that it was the optimum via positiva extension to natural law of western women and underclass men. … … AND Christianity is the optimum religion for a majority middle class polity because it trains people to treat one another as ‘customers’. … … AND christianity brings prosperity where it goes as long as the law also goes there. 2) I’m a Stoic – mindfulness does not need falsehoods and false promises but training, and anyone can be trained. The difference is that religion is cheap (ritual indoctrination) and stoicism is expensive (repetitive education). 3) I’m an Epicurean – happiness is the result of living within your means, regardless of your means, great or small. 4) “Spiritually” if that word has any meaning I’m a European Pagan (all generations of our gods), and Natural Heathen (Our people, my ancestors, and nature). My god is european not semitic, but military and heroic. He is Sky Father, Tyr, Zeus. 5) I’m an advocate of state religions (local organization by non profit, non-power church instead of profit and power state ) 6) I’m a tri-functionalist – I understand that the competition between masculine and feminine biases of military and religion, moderated by the law maximizes the use and utility of both while limiting the extremes, or producing a mediocrity (as did the founders). So I have a more mature understanding of religion, of christianity, and how to modernize it so that it survives.
-
If You Don’t Want to See the Religious Sausage Being Made…
IF YOU DON’T WANT TO SEE THE RELIGIOUS SAUSAGE BEING MADE THEN STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN
- Christianity is becoming a third world religion of the underclasses, and disappearing from the POLITICAL and social basis.
Christianity is TRANSMITTED as a superstitious falsehood that prevents the evolution of a natural religion.
Christians like you (but not like me, and all other secular christians) are using the abrahamic method to justify superstitious falsehood,
… AND learning that form of lying extends into the rest of your life. (It does).You are presuming there isn’t a better version of christianity possible that will preserve it for future generations.
5 – My Christianity: … a) I’m a deist – gods exist as information. … b) I”m a jeffersonian christian – jesus was a philosopher … c) I’m a scientist that finds: … … Christianity was an innovation that made virtue possible for the underclasses (those without ability or means), … … AND that it was the optimum via positiva extension to natural law of western women and underclass men. … … AND Christianity is the optimum religion for a majority middle class polity because it trains people to treat one another as ‘customers’. … … AND christianity brings prosperity where it goes as long as the law also goes there. 6) I’m a stoic – mindfulness does not need falsehoods and false promises but training, and anyone can be trained. The difference is that religion is cheap (ritual indoctrination) and stoicism is expensive (repetitive education). 7) I’m an advocate of public religions (local organization by non profit, non-power church instead of profit and power state ) 8) I’m a tri-functionalist – I understand that the competition between masculine and feminine biases of military and religion, moderated by the law maximize the use and utility of both while limiting the extremes, or producing a mediocrity (as did the founders). SO I HAVE A MORE MATURE UNDERSTANDING of religion, of christianity, and how to modernize it so that it survives.
-
If You Don’t Want to See the Religious Sausage Being Made…
IF YOU DON’T WANT TO SEE THE RELIGIOUS SAUSAGE BEING MADE THEN STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN
- Christianity is becoming a third world religion of the underclasses, and disappearing from the POLITICAL and social basis.
Christianity is TRANSMITTED as a superstitious falsehood that prevents the evolution of a natural religion.
Christians like you (but not like me, and all other secular christians) are using the abrahamic method to justify superstitious falsehood,
… AND learning that form of lying extends into the rest of your life. (It does).You are presuming there isn’t a better version of christianity possible that will preserve it for future generations.
5 – My Christianity: … a) I’m a deist – gods exist as information. … b) I”m a jeffersonian christian – jesus was a philosopher … c) I’m a scientist that finds: … … Christianity was an innovation that made virtue possible for the underclasses (those without ability or means), … … AND that it was the optimum via positiva extension to natural law of western women and underclass men. … … AND Christianity is the optimum religion for a majority middle class polity because it trains people to treat one another as ‘customers’. … … AND christianity brings prosperity where it goes as long as the law also goes there. 6) I’m a stoic – mindfulness does not need falsehoods and false promises but training, and anyone can be trained. The difference is that religion is cheap (ritual indoctrination) and stoicism is expensive (repetitive education). 7) I’m an advocate of public religions (local organization by non profit, non-power church instead of profit and power state ) 8) I’m a tri-functionalist – I understand that the competition between masculine and feminine biases of military and religion, moderated by the law maximize the use and utility of both while limiting the extremes, or producing a mediocrity (as did the founders). SO I HAVE A MORE MATURE UNDERSTANDING of religion, of christianity, and how to modernize it so that it survives.