I don’t know why the problems of the EU and the problems of the USA are somehow any different. They’re proving that you can’t create an empire out of nation-states, and we’re proving you can’t maintain an empire out of Nation States. The West = Maximum Adaptation = Small States.
Source date (UTC): 2021-08-03 17:19:02 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106693338223086989
@Afterrthought Smart
Source date (UTC): 2021-08-03 00:55:56 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106689472507478337
@Afterrthought@ramzpaul@Counter-Currents@kingofallnads@rooshv@VDARE@TheZBlog …. I want to get involved.
Source date (UTC): 2021-08-03 00:27:36 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106689361132947088
@Sqpatrick @a Pretty much, yes. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2021-08-03 00:27:05 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106689359103336002
Q Curt: “Do you believe in private language?” 1. Well, like in many things Wittgenstein was a pre-scientific thinker trying to make a scientific argument. However (a) all language consists of measurements, (b) normative language seeks a standard of weights and measures, (c) science seeks to produce the most precise measures. 2. (d) each of us uses language that is only as precise as our skill with that set of measurements. (e) because in the absence of common experience, common measures, common skill with those measures, we diverge in our individual weights and measures. 3. However, human Sense (sensations), Perception (modeling), Auto-Association, and Prediction (imagination), vary by the weights (values) we attribute to SPAA,Pr. So we speak in different combinations of weights and measures seeking approximations of one another measures. 4. In this sense, “private language” is a term for the Ignorance>Knowledge>Skill spectrum. In other words he’s trying to legitimize a falsehood: Pseudoscience. 5. Conversely, yes we do think, speak, and act using different but not incompatible weights and measures. 😉
Q Curt: “Do you believe in private language?” 1. Well, like in many things Wittgenstein was a pre-scientific thinker trying to make a scientific argument. However (a) all language consists of measurements, (b) normative language seeks a standard of weights and measures, (c) science seeks to produce the most precise measures. 2. (d) each of us uses language that is only as precise as our skill with that set of measurements. (e) because in the absence of common experience, common measures, common skill with those measures, we diverge in our individual weights and measures. 3. However, human Sense (sensations), Perception (modeling), Auto-Association, and Prediction (imagination), vary by the weights (values) we attribute to SPAA,Pr. So we speak in different combinations of weights and measures seeking approximations of one another measures. 4. In this sense, “private language” is a term for the Ignorance>Knowledge>Skill spectrum. In other words he’s trying to legitimize a falsehood: Pseudoscience. 5. Conversely, yes we do think, speak, and act using different but not incompatible weights and measures. 😉
@alternative_right (Havent said it lately, Brett, so: Thank you for your work on behalf of all of us.)
Source date (UTC): 2021-07-23 14:34:19 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106630405120119650
@AdamNoEve@Brodsted@FillYourHand Painful Truth: the masculine mind relies on itself and its own knowledge and jdugement because the masculine mind is individualistic, unempathic, disagreeable, systematizing and therefore fails to integrate available social political and procedural information. And combined with laboring, working, and lower middle class IQ limitations, that leads to over-reliance on one’s intutions, priors, and opinions.
In other words., There is zero chance the disenfranchsed right will do anything non-stupid without authoritarian leadership. I can’t provide that. I”m an intellectual. And an effete intellectual at that. I can only provide the solutoin to those who can exersise influence and authority over the mass of dumb fucks that are being ground to dust because they are too ignorant to study, to uneducated to have been tought, and too inexperience at managing, administrating, and governing others.
Personally I think it’s not very hopeful. But that said. I’m gonna die trying despite the odds. Until the right is desperate. Until the left comes for them one at a time. Incdreasingly, house to house, they’ll cover their ignorance and cowardice with bravado and pretense of competency, pretence of virtue, pretense of morality, and pretence of courage.
All I see are nastly little school girls in little-boy pants.
Source date (UTC): 2021-07-22 17:40:15 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106625473932451536
@Afterrthought (Thanks for your ongoing support)
Source date (UTC): 2021-07-22 14:31:10 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106624730448264045
The Constitution was designed as a political organization for an alliance of traditional Germanic micro-states under traditional European natural law. The Bill of Rights was added to enumerate specific limitations on the state. But this enabled the lie: ‘Rights’ over Natural Law. Constitutional Rights were testable, and Natural Law was insufficiently articulated outside of Blackstone, Smith, Locke, and Hobbes. Like the common law, it was ASSUMED not stated. This opened the door to positive law (command) that violated Natural Law and the Common Law. Between the failure to articulate the natural law logic, and common law method, as the SCIENCE OF COOPERATION, then enumerating a subset of rights, then combining classical liberalism’s positive inspirations,with Jewish postwar Sophistry(Pilpul) Undermining(Critique), it ‘broke’. It’s entirely possible – because I’ve (we have) done it – to restore the constitution and reverse the incremental destruction of our civilization by a long stream of sophomoric and pseudoscientific attacks on our western SCIENTIFIC traditions of cooperation and government. And strategically speaking, it’s a very different thing to revolt – sue the state by a common law declaration of reformation or secession – in order to restore the constitution, and overthrow more than a century of pseudoscience sophistry and deceit, than any other justification. So if you want rebellion, violence, religious rule, authoritarian rule – you’re asking for ‘feels’ not ‘reals’. You’re as bad as the left and women. If you have a brain, and you want victory, you have to choose ‘reals’ over ‘feels’. The Law, defended by a court, sherrifs, militia and an army is the only interpersonal, social, political, economic, and strategic operating system that does not require the people to share the same abilities, intuitions, feelings, experience, knowledge, and skill. Law is the solution: always. Not because it is best. But because it is the only solution possible. But to make and enforce law, constitution, legislation, regulation, policy, and procedure a people need the POWER to do so. That power must come from a combination of the force necessary to replace an evil state, AND solutions that for the majority are preferable to status quo. So any revolution victory requires the satisfaction not of the extremes but of the center. The extremes will take action for ANY improvement, the center will simply not RESIST a substantial improvement. And we are able to provide a substantial improvement for the majority middle. Revolution Comes.