I can find dozens of liars throughout history, and tens of thousands to rewrite their words, and millions to repeat their words – on any subject. Just as we can find millions of liars today in the postmodern movement, just as we could find millions a few decades ago in the marxist and bolshevik movement. Che was one of the worst people to live in modernity, but his image is used world round as a savior of modernity. Marx caused 100M dead and he is treated as a savior. Mohammed caused 750M deaths at a minimum, destroyed the great civilizations of the ancient world, and is the longest threat to prosperity man ever made, yet he is a prophet, his words memorized, his warfare deified. The christians were instrumental in the destruction of the roman empire, and the church in undermining the aristocracy, and empire, and the church responsible for the conversion and submission, and illiteracy of europeans to the point where without the vikings, and the remilitarization of europe to resist them, they would have been too weak to resist the muslims. And today christians and their postmodern descendants are the advocates of bringing in the Hordes among us. By the time we overthrew the church half of the capital in europe was ‘dead’ (static), feeding the parasitic, corrupt, church and her politics. Today the church works daily to undermine western civilization. What separates evangelicals from the church is that they have half-recovered. The history of the church is of appropriation of credit they did not earn, and avoidance of criticism that they did. We nearly escaped her with 19th century romanticism, yet the catholic, half catholic, and orthodox countries destroyed germany, which was the remaining engine of our traditions. That we need a church or temple is one thing. That charity must be personally performed is another. That mindfulness is necessary for the many is yet another, but the cancer upon mankind that is abrahamism must end forever as the most evil lie ever invented.
Source: Original Site Post
-
“What Is Your Endgame?” (Religion)
—“What is your endgame?”— A Christian Believer
I understand that believers are non rational, and un-persuadable, and over invested in a network of falsehoods, and so believers will not change except to follow an even larger and safer herd. So my objective is to use arguments to search for people in the herd who know that the mythos is false, but want a new herd to join. So I state my arguments and avoid engaging in abrahamic sophisms, and then insult those who make them to deprive them of their attempt to gain confidence and signals from their denials. My endgame is the completion of the transformation of Germanicized christianity to natural law and reciprocity, completely laundered of sophism(abrahamism), superstition, mysticism, magic, falsehoods, and lies. Truth is enough. COMMENTS Daniel Roland Anderson This just turned a light on for me. Germanized Christianity (I’m thinking of Kant trying to put logical legs under “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” with the categorical imperative) really got pretty close to something. Reciprocity. Natural Law. I see the idea of reciprocity in Kant’s work—to the extent I can understand it. (The importance Kant places on truth telling, no matter the immediate consequence, looks very familiar.) How about Natural Law? Where do you see this principle most strongly in previous work? Curt Doolittle The common (Natural) law. Daniel Roland Anderson If I had to pick, this is my favorite thing. In law school, property class, I loved the series of cases on possession of property starting with Pierson vs. Post and the fox. Constitutionalists got in my head (my dad brought me up on the constitution) and I second guessed my love for the process of discovering the general law by looking at specific case after case and tweaking and modifying the ruling in connection with previous cases. It feels like home. It was my mother who helped me see that it isn’t judicial discretion that is bad. It’s just that you need to give discretion to the right sort of judge. We haven’t managed that. -
“What Is Your Endgame?” (Religion)
—“What is your endgame?”— A Christian Believer
I understand that believers are non rational, and un-persuadable, and over invested in a network of falsehoods, and so believers will not change except to follow an even larger and safer herd. So my objective is to use arguments to search for people in the herd who know that the mythos is false, but want a new herd to join. So I state my arguments and avoid engaging in abrahamic sophisms, and then insult those who make them to deprive them of their attempt to gain confidence and signals from their denials. My endgame is the completion of the transformation of Germanicized christianity to natural law and reciprocity, completely laundered of sophism(abrahamism), superstition, mysticism, magic, falsehoods, and lies. Truth is enough. COMMENTS Daniel Roland Anderson This just turned a light on for me. Germanized Christianity (I’m thinking of Kant trying to put logical legs under “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” with the categorical imperative) really got pretty close to something. Reciprocity. Natural Law. I see the idea of reciprocity in Kant’s work—to the extent I can understand it. (The importance Kant places on truth telling, no matter the immediate consequence, looks very familiar.) How about Natural Law? Where do you see this principle most strongly in previous work? Curt Doolittle The common (Natural) law. Daniel Roland Anderson If I had to pick, this is my favorite thing. In law school, property class, I loved the series of cases on possession of property starting with Pierson vs. Post and the fox. Constitutionalists got in my head (my dad brought me up on the constitution) and I second guessed my love for the process of discovering the general law by looking at specific case after case and tweaking and modifying the ruling in connection with previous cases. It feels like home. It was my mother who helped me see that it isn’t judicial discretion that is bad. It’s just that you need to give discretion to the right sort of judge. We haven’t managed that. -
“How Do You Verify Truth?” (You Don’t)
—“How do you verify truth?”— Verification is a method of falsification not a means of identifying truth. No matter how many excuses you make (justifications) that does not provide us with confidence of truth. Instead…. Survival, not Proof. You eliminate all falsehoods, and what remains is a truth candidate. You eliminate all falsehoods by attempting to falsify each dimension of actionable reality. And you do so to defend against fictionalisms (lies).
- Identity (categorical consistency)
- Logical (internal consistency)
- Empirical (external correspondence)
- Operational (existential possibility)
- Rational (rational choice)
- Reciprocal (reciprocally rational)
- Complete (scope, limits, and parsimony)
- Coherent (across all these tests)
- Warranty (warranty of having performed these tests).
If all premises and arguments pass these attempts at falsification one may have a truth candidate. Otherwise one does not. This is as certain as the laws of physics, mathematics, and logic. It is very hard for a statement to survive these tests, to give that testimony, and to warranty it.
-
“How Do You Verify Truth?” (You Don’t)
—“How do you verify truth?”— Verification is a method of falsification not a means of identifying truth. No matter how many excuses you make (justifications) that does not provide us with confidence of truth. Instead…. Survival, not Proof. You eliminate all falsehoods, and what remains is a truth candidate. You eliminate all falsehoods by attempting to falsify each dimension of actionable reality. And you do so to defend against fictionalisms (lies).
- Identity (categorical consistency)
- Logical (internal consistency)
- Empirical (external correspondence)
- Operational (existential possibility)
- Rational (rational choice)
- Reciprocal (reciprocally rational)
- Complete (scope, limits, and parsimony)
- Coherent (across all these tests)
- Warranty (warranty of having performed these tests).
If all premises and arguments pass these attempts at falsification one may have a truth candidate. Otherwise one does not. This is as certain as the laws of physics, mathematics, and logic. It is very hard for a statement to survive these tests, to give that testimony, and to warranty it.
-
Why Could Indian Civilization Not Resist?
I might argue that Hindus are an exception having been conquered, repeatedly, and never ascending into the age of commerce and affluence. We can see the indus valley civilization did. But India seems to not have ascended, but stagnated, and china was not able to enter the age of intellect and stagnated. This is very informative in and of itself. The difference being china could not be conquered until the 20th century and europeans had already given up those ambitions, and india was conquered by every single era of warfare technologists (despite producing the first quality steel). While I agree that the ancient myths are virtuous in cooperating submissively with one another, they are not virtuous in defense. The jews faced a similar problem – on first glance their religion appears beneficial, but upon study it has been catastrophic unless they have the warriors of a host people to defend them. This is my primary difficulty with Hindu civilization. It is incomprehensible to me at times, because, as a member of the aristocratic (military) caste(class) of my people, I cannot imagine the inability to defend, and the tolerance for external rule. And depending upon the mercy of rulers for success in rebellion.
-
Why Could Indian Civilization Not Resist?
I might argue that Hindus are an exception having been conquered, repeatedly, and never ascending into the age of commerce and affluence. We can see the indus valley civilization did. But India seems to not have ascended, but stagnated, and china was not able to enter the age of intellect and stagnated. This is very informative in and of itself. The difference being china could not be conquered until the 20th century and europeans had already given up those ambitions, and india was conquered by every single era of warfare technologists (despite producing the first quality steel). While I agree that the ancient myths are virtuous in cooperating submissively with one another, they are not virtuous in defense. The jews faced a similar problem – on first glance their religion appears beneficial, but upon study it has been catastrophic unless they have the warriors of a host people to defend them. This is my primary difficulty with Hindu civilization. It is incomprehensible to me at times, because, as a member of the aristocratic (military) caste(class) of my people, I cannot imagine the inability to defend, and the tolerance for external rule. And depending upon the mercy of rulers for success in rebellion.
-
If You Cannot Speak In Economic Terms and Incentives You Are Just Inventing Fictions.
1) The USA proposed a ‘Third Way’ (meritocracy), but that “third way” is very hard for the underclasses, who want to restore the old. 2) Fiat money, Scale, Wealth from selling off a conquered continent, Inheritance of the British empire and German science, created windfalls. 3) But those windfalls, and the temporary lifting of the underclasses into middle class consumption post civil – and world-war because of them, created too much incentive for those against meritocracy. And so they sought under marxism, and postmodernism to use US openness to destroy it. 4) The uneducated speak in theology. The educated speak in morality, philosophy, and pseudoscience. But those with existential responsibility speak in history, economics, and incentives. If you cannot explain phenomena in economic terms you are just inventing fictions
-
If You Cannot Speak In Economic Terms and Incentives You Are Just Inventing Fictions.
1) The USA proposed a ‘Third Way’ (meritocracy), but that “third way” is very hard for the underclasses, who want to restore the old. 2) Fiat money, Scale, Wealth from selling off a conquered continent, Inheritance of the British empire and German science, created windfalls. 3) But those windfalls, and the temporary lifting of the underclasses into middle class consumption post civil – and world-war because of them, created too much incentive for those against meritocracy. And so they sought under marxism, and postmodernism to use US openness to destroy it. 4) The uneducated speak in theology. The educated speak in morality, philosophy, and pseudoscience. But those with existential responsibility speak in history, economics, and incentives. If you cannot explain phenomena in economic terms you are just inventing fictions
-
Women Murdering Children…
WOMEN’S MURDERING OF THEIR CHILDREN IS MORE COMMON THEN MEN MURDERING THEIR ENEMIES I suppose I could estimate the stats, but I’m pretty sure there is an even balance between the number of men killed by violence, and the number of children killed by their mothers. There are very good reasons women are treated as dangerous throughout all of history, and it was only the victorians and romanticists that changed that in order to encourage the barbarians to behave once let loose in society by the industrial revolution. === —“An woman has confessed to killing her own children and setting fire to them, after claiming she could no longer support them. Divorcee Elena Karimova, who has 21,000 subscribers for her online cosmetic sales business, is being investigated for strangling her daughter, Khadizha, four, and son Suleiman, two, in the back seat of her rented Kia Rio. The Russian woman – who had fallen behind with loan repayments after being divorced by her husband – then bought fuel from a petrol station, drove the bodies to a forest and set fire to her dead children. Fearing she would be spotted by locals, the 27-year-old put the charred bodies back in her car and returned home. The next day she put the corpses in an abandoned warehouse near Nizhny Novgorod in western Russia and set fire to it.”— You know. I just can’t get my head around it. I just can’t. You know, I can understand walking away. I just can’t understand killing your kin and setting them on fire.