by Gabriel Schmeiske Laport
Europe’s achievement was despite Christianity, not as a result of it.
Christianity hasn’t preserved, its has subverted, annexed, appropriated in the real sense European culture, into the failing amalgam we see in the Catholicism.
That’s a fact, and that’s slowly and steadily emerging. From far earlier times, prior to current narratives, as far back as the church scholars themselves such as the Culdeans, but notably since the epoch of L. A. Waddell and co.
To attempt to imply this is a narrative, rooted in a desire to rewrite history in a manner which portraits Pre-Abrahamic Europe favorably for the purpose of ideological propaganda is laughable.
Furthermore it’s blatant projection. The historical orthodoxy, which cherry picks from accounts, engages in nepotism, and restricts access, has launched numerous outrageous campaigns of slander, censorship and vandalism to paint a certain historians and their findings as a malicious and subversive. It’s ended numerous careers and even lives. It’s used every fallacious device to sustain itself to this day – from every ivory tower (((Uni)))versity – as a hegemon of History.
That’s the problem here, that’s why it’s become unpopular and that’s why ultimately, truth is being outed, but I digress.
Truth against the world.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Struggle Between Science And Myth
Mythical decidability is more influential at the bottom and scientific more at the top. —“And it is the view, or, at least Curt’s view, because I do not know your views, that Abrahamism has been harmful to Europe. I suppose the palingenetic undercurrent here is that a new history of European greatness must be crafted independently of Ahraminic influences.”— This is what I struggle with. While (a) the propertarian program is quite simple: truth produces trust and prosperity (b) one encounters a cavalcade of JUSTIFICATIONARY historical narratives to make excuses for fictionalisms. So how does one combat a justificationary narrative that claims to be empirical, without an equal empirical narrative. European excellence and east asian excellence are simply facts as far as I can tell. But as I’ve stated repeatedly, they are facts that are the product of geographical advantage and insulation from the competition in the ‘center’. But we cannot choose those things. We can choose between truth and fiction. We can choose the next era’s narrative. But – the age old question – how do you teach people during a time of transition that novel truth is better than traditional fictionalism without a history or mythology to contain it? Unconscious decidability (is necessary the larger the population grows). The grammar of story (analogy, mythology) is the broadest grammar and semantics available to us. Is the tragedy of achilles (the aristocratic warrior masculine hero defending property over the chaos of reality) or the tragedy of jesus (the underclass priestly feminine hero in reaction to the control of property by the aristocracy) a better monopoly myth, or are they faces of the “Janus” of the eternal competition between the strategies of the sexes? And then how does each limit the other? Are these the faces last archetypes, and is competition as calculation (compromise by trade) the ultimate archetype instead? (which is my view). Or is the individual actor (Achilles, Jesus) a problem in itself, and are FAMILIES the superior archetypal narrative that provides us with unconscious decidability? In my view families rather than the individual serve as the instrument of policy, while law serves as the instrument of individual limitation. So I prefer a hierarchical pagan world (saints and kings) for the simple reason that it avoids the problems of monopoly. Now, add to the problem, that every group has an evolutionary strategy, and uses it to work together whether moral or not. Every group has a ‘superiority’ wing. And must for it to survive competition with other group. Science has advanced, and social science not, for the simple reason that juridical (scientific) truth would punish the underclasses, women and the priests, to the benefit of the burgers, engineers, and the warriors. and we are in an era (democracy) where gossip – the weapon of women and priests, is powerful – powerful enough to bring about another dark age. For no other reason than that we have not yet suppressed falsehood in information as we have in goods and services. Anyway. I feel caught between Law and Truth on one hand and Myth and HIstory on the other, and it always seems like transcendence between stages requires both. -
The Struggle Between Science And Myth
Mythical decidability is more influential at the bottom and scientific more at the top. —“And it is the view, or, at least Curt’s view, because I do not know your views, that Abrahamism has been harmful to Europe. I suppose the palingenetic undercurrent here is that a new history of European greatness must be crafted independently of Ahraminic influences.”— This is what I struggle with. While (a) the propertarian program is quite simple: truth produces trust and prosperity (b) one encounters a cavalcade of JUSTIFICATIONARY historical narratives to make excuses for fictionalisms. So how does one combat a justificationary narrative that claims to be empirical, without an equal empirical narrative. European excellence and east asian excellence are simply facts as far as I can tell. But as I’ve stated repeatedly, they are facts that are the product of geographical advantage and insulation from the competition in the ‘center’. But we cannot choose those things. We can choose between truth and fiction. We can choose the next era’s narrative. But – the age old question – how do you teach people during a time of transition that novel truth is better than traditional fictionalism without a history or mythology to contain it? Unconscious decidability (is necessary the larger the population grows). The grammar of story (analogy, mythology) is the broadest grammar and semantics available to us. Is the tragedy of achilles (the aristocratic warrior masculine hero defending property over the chaos of reality) or the tragedy of jesus (the underclass priestly feminine hero in reaction to the control of property by the aristocracy) a better monopoly myth, or are they faces of the “Janus” of the eternal competition between the strategies of the sexes? And then how does each limit the other? Are these the faces last archetypes, and is competition as calculation (compromise by trade) the ultimate archetype instead? (which is my view). Or is the individual actor (Achilles, Jesus) a problem in itself, and are FAMILIES the superior archetypal narrative that provides us with unconscious decidability? In my view families rather than the individual serve as the instrument of policy, while law serves as the instrument of individual limitation. So I prefer a hierarchical pagan world (saints and kings) for the simple reason that it avoids the problems of monopoly. Now, add to the problem, that every group has an evolutionary strategy, and uses it to work together whether moral or not. Every group has a ‘superiority’ wing. And must for it to survive competition with other group. Science has advanced, and social science not, for the simple reason that juridical (scientific) truth would punish the underclasses, women and the priests, to the benefit of the burgers, engineers, and the warriors. and we are in an era (democracy) where gossip – the weapon of women and priests, is powerful – powerful enough to bring about another dark age. For no other reason than that we have not yet suppressed falsehood in information as we have in goods and services. Anyway. I feel caught between Law and Truth on one hand and Myth and HIstory on the other, and it always seems like transcendence between stages requires both. -
It never occurs to anyone that the school environment and the propaganda environ
It never occurs to anyone that the school environment and the propaganda environment and the anti-male environment, and the lack of exercise, lack of positive expression of competition and domination is the problem. in other words, it never occurs to anyone that ‘equality’ or ‘sameness’ and integration of the genders is a bad thing. European cultures are far less tolerant than we are. And we are too tolerant. And we are too tolerant so that (((certain peoples))) can express their group evolutionary strategy. And this is the result -
It never occurs to anyone that the school environment and the propaganda environ
It never occurs to anyone that the school environment and the propaganda environment and the anti-male environment, and the lack of exercise, lack of positive expression of competition and domination is the problem. in other words, it never occurs to anyone that ‘equality’ or ‘sameness’ and integration of the genders is a bad thing. European cultures are far less tolerant than we are. And we are too tolerant. And we are too tolerant so that (((certain peoples))) can express their group evolutionary strategy. And this is the result -
William L. Benge Unwarrantable positions are not punishable if they are not mate
William L. Benge Unwarrantable positions are not punishable if they are not materialized into the commons. Personally held opinions which cannot be constructed into a viable argument or claim are either premature or presumption. We can take from this the true nature of the popular habit of airing one’s opinion to peers: infantilism by gossip. Now, OTOH, if a group of persons is exploring a matter then contributions are transmitted and received by the same discretion (reciprocity). But these transmissions do not reach the level of published theory, or declared truth-claim. They’re exploratory. Many errors must be presented in the process of singling out the least erroneous, for the one most truthful. This discretion cannot be granted to a party declaring a truth-claim. It must be warranted. (BAM!) -
William L. Benge Unwarrantable positions are not punishable if they are not mate
William L. Benge Unwarrantable positions are not punishable if they are not materialized into the commons. Personally held opinions which cannot be constructed into a viable argument or claim are either premature or presumption. We can take from this the true nature of the popular habit of airing one’s opinion to peers: infantilism by gossip. Now, OTOH, if a group of persons is exploring a matter then contributions are transmitted and received by the same discretion (reciprocity). But these transmissions do not reach the level of published theory, or declared truth-claim. They’re exploratory. Many errors must be presented in the process of singling out the least erroneous, for the one most truthful. This discretion cannot be granted to a party declaring a truth-claim. It must be warranted. (BAM!) -
“I understand. You weren’t born stupid. It was something you acquired.”
—“I understand. You weren’t born stupid. It was something you acquired.”— -
“I understand. You weren’t born stupid. It was something you acquired.”
—“I understand. You weren’t born stupid. It was something you acquired.”— -
Actually, I Can’t Be Wrong (About This). Sorry.
(Note: this version is updated to correctly include operations/actions) Information. Decidability. Due Diligence. Testimony. TRUTH 4) Tautology exists (and can only exist) two statements that are identical in informational content for a given precision (context). Meaning closure of the constant relations between states (statements). 3) Truth (Analytic Truth) exists (and can only exist) as a definition of a Truthful statement that is informationally complete (closed). Analytic truths are tautological, with the difference between tautological, and tautology, being deductive necessity. (due to constant relations between states). 2) Truthfulness (Scientific) exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one has performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit in one’s testimony in all the dimensions of possible constant relations. 1) Honesty exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit – but not free of imagination, ignorance, bias, and error. DIMENSIONS WE CAN PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST 1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point) 2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line) 3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object) 4 – operational possibility – (equivalent of change [operations]) 5 – rational choice (volition) – (equivalent of time) 6 – reciprocity (ethics, morality) (equivalent of equilibrium) 7 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof) MATHEMATICAL DEFINITIONS OF DIMENSIONS 1 – point, (identity, or correspondence) 2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points) 3 – area (defined by constant relations) 4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations) 5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations) 6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas)) 7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations) 8 – reality (or totality) (full causal density) GRAMMARS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS (LOGICS) FOR THE DIMENSIONS We can speak in descriptions including (at least): 1 – operational (true) names 2 – mathematics (ratios) 3 – logic (sets) 4 – operations (actions) 4 – physics (action-limiting forces) 5 – Law (reciprocity) 6 – History (memory) 7 – Literature (allegory (possible)) 8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible ) 8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory) 8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory) 8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature) 8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory) 8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory ) INFORMATION Sets of constant relations between states (all facts must exist within the context of a theory (rules of states). CONSTANT RELATIONS Constant Change and Constant persistence, of Constant relations between states (time). RELATIONS Memory, and mind consists of a hierarchy of neurons that constitute a neural economy, that rewards constant relations, and starves inconstant relations. In other words, given that all testimony depends upon incomplete knowledge (a subset of reality), and that all general rules of arbitrary precision are of necessity incomplete, then testimony and therefore law is flasificationary, logics are falsificationary, not justificationary. Truth exists only as performative via-negativa warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias and deceit. However, a proof constitutes nothing other than possibility (survival from verbal prosecution). Too much for this audience but maybe it will give you ideas. ie: constant relations > logic(internal consistency) > math science(measurement -ratio-consistency) > physics(empiricism) > law(testimony) > economics (resources) > group evolutionary strategy (utility) > Philosophy (choice) You don’t understand. I CAN’T BE WRONG. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute