[W]hy these nitwits don’t grasp that their sophisms merely provide a vehicle for (a) training, (b) recruitment, (c) counter-signaling is beyond me. I (we) use the useful idiots as excuses for advertising, and like true members of the herd, they can’t control NPC impulses. 😉 — BEGIN — @curtdoolittle Duplicity, ir-reciprocity, honor-in-deceit, profiting from inciting and exploitation of moral hazard, false promise, justificationary sophism (Pilpu), straw man sophism (Critique), and disapproval, shaming, rallying, moralizing as substitute for argument is a cultural strategy. ZIONIST PROPAGANDA âTalking about sophism… Does this meaningless posturing pass for sophistication in your circles? The first stuff is inaccurate and the last stuff is your autistic interpretation of what some people call “taste.” Yes, bad taste is bad and he made the argument against it. @curtdoolittle You really aren’t trying to pretend you have an argument, or that you have any capacity whatsoever to discourse in these matters. (I am one of the primary researchers of the means by which the Abrahamists, Marxists, Postmodernists, Feminist, and Women, produce non-argument.) ZIONIST PROPAGANDA âGreat argumentation queen, Curt, your “argument” was a torrent of misapplied phrases. It’s adorable, being coddled by the nazi right has convinced you that you’re important. @curtdoolittle You see, each one of these flaccid attempts merely provides us with examples with which to train our followers. Because you don’t understand. The moment you speak we can identify you. You can’t help yourself. The fear drives you. Fear of alphas. Evolution doing its work. ZIONIST PROPAGANDA âYou can invent your silly language and attempt to force the world into it, Curt, and it will make the world simpler for you, in the short term at least. But the world and G-D is bigger than you and your edomite arrogance, and this is always reasserted eventually. Good luck. @curtdoolittle Now, females of the species evolved this trait in order to rally numbers of betas to contain alphas, so that females had more control over their reproduction (and safety). But …. you don’t exactly have reproduction to trade. In fact, you’ve done the opposite. Redistributed it. @curtdoolittle Well, I write LAW. I just test if you are engaging in a productive, fully informed, voluntary, exchange without imposition by externality, and I test whether you are doing so by fraud or not. Since you fail both counts, and are merely smoke screening theft. Theft and Fraud. @curtdoolittle So you see, it doesn’t matter if I ‘rally’ anyone, (like you do). It matters only that I can prosecute you and have a tribunal punish you such that you and your ilk never attempt such theft, fraud, and deceit again. You are not potential mates. You have nothing to trade.
Source: Original Site Post
-
T’s Here, Unevenly Distributed, and Well Past the Point of No Return
(FB 1541423298 Timestamp) “IT’S HERE, UNEVENLY DISTRIBUTED, AND WELL PAST THE POINT OF NO RETURN”
-
T’s Here, Unevenly Distributed, and Well Past the Point of No Return
(FB 1541423298 Timestamp) “IT’S HERE, UNEVENLY DISTRIBUTED, AND WELL PAST THE POINT OF NO RETURN”
-
He who can destroy a thing, can control a thing.
(FB 1541455890 Timestamp) –“He who can destroy a thing, can control a thing.”- Frank Herbert —Those that can control a thing, own a thing.—CD —“Militia. The distributed dictatorship of sovereign men”– Eli Harman
-
He who can destroy a thing, can control a thing.
(FB 1541455890 Timestamp) –“He who can destroy a thing, can control a thing.”- Frank Herbert —Those that can control a thing, own a thing.—CD —“Militia. The distributed dictatorship of sovereign men”– Eli Harman
-
“Why Have Our Marvelous Brains Formulated Two Diametrically Opposite Explanations?”
Question: “Why have our marvelous brains formulated two diametrically opposite explanations?” Answer: Cognitive Division of Labor: Predator (action, dominance, science) — vs.– Prey (mindfulness, submission, religion). Problem: Demand for mindfulness increases with uncertainty. Post tribal life removes resource uncertainty at the cost of social uncertainty (female herd equality, male pack hierarchy). Scale increases uncertainty. Production cycles decrease availability of positive reinforcement (status signals, fitness signals). Consumerism buys signals, at cost of increase in isolation. Diversity (market polity) increases isolation. Choices: (a) Personal Rituals: Stoicism (Self Authoring) > Sophism (Philosophy) > Pseudoscience (“Church of TED, Marxist Economics”) > Religion (Old Age) > Magic (New Age) > Occult (literature – post-reason). (b) Social Rituals: Hunting > Sport > Commerce > Civic Groups and Clubs > Politics > Religion (academy, media, cult) > Fringe Movements (outcasts) > Occult (‘escapists’). What’s the Underlying Problem? Neural Economy. (Physical Economy(Stress), Emotional Economy (Stress), Neural Economy(stress)). Regularity provides certainty and decreased neural cost. Plenty provides personal decrease in neural cost but increase in cost of collective coherence, consistency, correspondence, and (frame) decidability. In other words, manageable neural cost provides anti-fragility (mindfulness) and suppressed neural cost (infantilization) increases fragility. The problem we face satisfaction of demand for predatory ( consumption, acquisition, opportunity, signals/status) vs prey ( consumption, insurance, certainty, not-sticking-out/equality). Markets (Economy) in everything: Unfortunately we have constructed a cognitive model of monopoly under both universalist abrahamic religion, justificationary philosophy, universal democracy, legislation (rather than tort law), and constructivist mathematics (and positivist logic). Despite the fact that the uniqueness of western civilization’s ‘salvation’ of mankind from superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, endemic violence, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature – was the product of anti-monopoly “Markets in All Walks of Life” under individual sovereignty, tort law of reciprocity, evidentiary (testifiable) truth regardless of cost to face, status, dominance, or competence hierarchy, duty of the commons regardless of station, decision jury, judge and rule of law, leaving the only remaining method of cooperation “as markets in all aspects of life” that resulted in our innovations of reason, empiricism, and science. Ergo, between religion, philosophy, (and that counter-empiricism we call the ‘enlightenment’ and it’s capture of power) democracy, followed by the revision of monopoly Abrahamic Monotheism( judaism, christianity, and islamism), that we call Marxism(Pseudoscience), Socialism(Monopoly Property), Postmodernism (monopoly sophism), and Feminism (monopoly female control vs compromise familial control) – we repeated the same process as the ancient era (resulting in the destruction of every civlization of the ancient world) and attempted in the current era to undermine (destroy) that social order that made our salvation from natural condition possible: non-monopoly markets of competition (calculation) using discovery by trial and error at the cost of soft eugenics (suppression of the reproduction of those who force burden by moral hazard onto others). The questions are one of knowledge and one of choice. Lacking knowledge one cannot make a choice. Possessing knowledge what choice does one (or all) make? The answer is divided between the predator and pack’s preservation, or the prey and herd’s submission. 😉 Maybe that will add to the discourse. 😉 -Cheers
-
“Why Have Our Marvelous Brains Formulated Two Diametrically Opposite Explanations?”
Question: “Why have our marvelous brains formulated two diametrically opposite explanations?” Answer: Cognitive Division of Labor: Predator (action, dominance, science) — vs.– Prey (mindfulness, submission, religion). Problem: Demand for mindfulness increases with uncertainty. Post tribal life removes resource uncertainty at the cost of social uncertainty (female herd equality, male pack hierarchy). Scale increases uncertainty. Production cycles decrease availability of positive reinforcement (status signals, fitness signals). Consumerism buys signals, at cost of increase in isolation. Diversity (market polity) increases isolation. Choices: (a) Personal Rituals: Stoicism (Self Authoring) > Sophism (Philosophy) > Pseudoscience (“Church of TED, Marxist Economics”) > Religion (Old Age) > Magic (New Age) > Occult (literature – post-reason). (b) Social Rituals: Hunting > Sport > Commerce > Civic Groups and Clubs > Politics > Religion (academy, media, cult) > Fringe Movements (outcasts) > Occult (‘escapists’). What’s the Underlying Problem? Neural Economy. (Physical Economy(Stress), Emotional Economy (Stress), Neural Economy(stress)). Regularity provides certainty and decreased neural cost. Plenty provides personal decrease in neural cost but increase in cost of collective coherence, consistency, correspondence, and (frame) decidability. In other words, manageable neural cost provides anti-fragility (mindfulness) and suppressed neural cost (infantilization) increases fragility. The problem we face satisfaction of demand for predatory ( consumption, acquisition, opportunity, signals/status) vs prey ( consumption, insurance, certainty, not-sticking-out/equality). Markets (Economy) in everything: Unfortunately we have constructed a cognitive model of monopoly under both universalist abrahamic religion, justificationary philosophy, universal democracy, legislation (rather than tort law), and constructivist mathematics (and positivist logic). Despite the fact that the uniqueness of western civilization’s ‘salvation’ of mankind from superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, endemic violence, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature – was the product of anti-monopoly “Markets in All Walks of Life” under individual sovereignty, tort law of reciprocity, evidentiary (testifiable) truth regardless of cost to face, status, dominance, or competence hierarchy, duty of the commons regardless of station, decision jury, judge and rule of law, leaving the only remaining method of cooperation “as markets in all aspects of life” that resulted in our innovations of reason, empiricism, and science. Ergo, between religion, philosophy, (and that counter-empiricism we call the ‘enlightenment’ and it’s capture of power) democracy, followed by the revision of monopoly Abrahamic Monotheism( judaism, christianity, and islamism), that we call Marxism(Pseudoscience), Socialism(Monopoly Property), Postmodernism (monopoly sophism), and Feminism (monopoly female control vs compromise familial control) – we repeated the same process as the ancient era (resulting in the destruction of every civlization of the ancient world) and attempted in the current era to undermine (destroy) that social order that made our salvation from natural condition possible: non-monopoly markets of competition (calculation) using discovery by trial and error at the cost of soft eugenics (suppression of the reproduction of those who force burden by moral hazard onto others). The questions are one of knowledge and one of choice. Lacking knowledge one cannot make a choice. Possessing knowledge what choice does one (or all) make? The answer is divided between the predator and pack’s preservation, or the prey and herd’s submission. 😉 Maybe that will add to the discourse. 😉 -Cheers
-
An Example of Why Religion Is More Moral than Science, Engineering, Philosophy or Magic.
by Adam Voight An example of why Religion is more moral than science, engineering, philosophy or magic. “Saruman” – Old English for “engineer”. Of course, over the long run the difference between religion and magic is contested and variable. This is why Odin is the sketchiest Sky Father ever. He is both Gandalf and Sauron, whom Tolkien split up into Good and Evil facets. The clue is the Nine Rings of Power given to the Ringwraiths: Odin’s Ring produced nine rings every day, and the giving of rings is typical of the lord’s gifts to his men. The phrase “Lord of the Rings” is only used once in all of Germanic lit: it refers to Beowulf, but it is so used late in the story, just before the fatal dragon episode (I cannot find it now. it mentioned during some swimming episode, perhaps in recounting his expedition against Grendel’s mom or swimming to Finnmark.) It seems that Tolkein saw the modern era as a struggle within the soul of Europe, between the good Odin and the bad Odin. Notice that Gandalf officiates at a wedding, something that Odin would never do; the Vanir and Thor were best for this purpose. Wagner also made Odin the crux of the conflict in the Ring cycle, by making Odin’s one lie to the Giants the tragic flaw that brought about Ragnarok. Odin in this version is more of a villain than in the Eddas, but shares the villainy with Alberich. In the Eddas, he is a good guy, but still crazy. Praying to him before a battle could bring victory, or it could bring you death with induction into the Einherjar. (CD: Thank you. exactly.)
-
Religion was the hardest problem in social science.
(FB 1541426321 Timestamp) I told ya. Religion was the hardest problem in social science. The rest was trivial by comparison. But once you understand religion as a science, you are no longer bound by the limits of your experience.
-
An Example of Why Religion Is More Moral than Science, Engineering, Philosophy or Magic.
by Adam Voight An example of why Religion is more moral than science, engineering, philosophy or magic. “Saruman” – Old English for “engineer”. Of course, over the long run the difference between religion and magic is contested and variable. This is why Odin is the sketchiest Sky Father ever. He is both Gandalf and Sauron, whom Tolkien split up into Good and Evil facets. The clue is the Nine Rings of Power given to the Ringwraiths: Odin’s Ring produced nine rings every day, and the giving of rings is typical of the lord’s gifts to his men. The phrase “Lord of the Rings” is only used once in all of Germanic lit: it refers to Beowulf, but it is so used late in the story, just before the fatal dragon episode (I cannot find it now. it mentioned during some swimming episode, perhaps in recounting his expedition against Grendel’s mom or swimming to Finnmark.) It seems that Tolkein saw the modern era as a struggle within the soul of Europe, between the good Odin and the bad Odin. Notice that Gandalf officiates at a wedding, something that Odin would never do; the Vanir and Thor were best for this purpose. Wagner also made Odin the crux of the conflict in the Ring cycle, by making Odin’s one lie to the Giants the tragic flaw that brought about Ragnarok. Odin in this version is more of a villain than in the Eddas, but shares the villainy with Alberich. In the Eddas, he is a good guy, but still crazy. Praying to him before a battle could bring victory, or it could bring you death with induction into the Einherjar. (CD: Thank you. exactly.)