“As a bit of occasional amusement, I try to tease silly self righteous people into demonstrating the fact, and then post the conversation for my followers to laugh at. It’s a sophisticated form of humor – with a touch of irony: that the underclass can vote, or even speak in public.”
(FYI: On a lark, I’m teasing people on the Left Wing Feminist Show ‘the View’. Sick today and programming is … too hard.)
Source: Original Site Post
-
American Nationalists: In Secession, The Whole Pie Is Undesirable.
1 – It is undesirable to hold the entire continent. 2 – it is undesirable to retain much of our own kind if they are underdeveloped and under-evolved (leftists/feminists/betas). (The aristocratic process of domesticating the underclasses in to Agency was incomplete.) 3 – It is entirely achievable to cause the breakup of the federal government in to regions with different ‘markets’ for participation, while preserving the insurer of last resort, in treasury, military, and judiciary of property. 4 – We have always been a minority and we are better and stronger bound with competitors. This is the result of aristocracy: the continuation of our ancestral industry of profiting from the domestication of animal man. European aristocratic classes were always small in number. Europeans have been small in number. Those of use who were created by that eugenic process are small in number. 5 – We are better off letting the less civilized people (and their genes) decline into arabia, brazil, india, and the steppe, and profiting from our differences. 6 – No civilization in history is as fragile as the american empire and it can be radically altered for our benefit in less than a year. There are no farms to return to. There are not enough soldiers to occupy. All that prevents success is attempting to (a) take the whole territory, (b) attempting to take the whole of our kin. Many of those kin are dead weight. 7 – Revolte. Separate. Build walls. Keep them out. The Chinese, Koreans, and Han hold the best external group evolutionary strategy even if we hold the best internal group evolutionary strategy. The urals and the bosphorus were not enough to protect us. 8 – Western (aristocratic) civilization is not replaceable. It was unique. A fortunate accident. And we dragged humanity out of ignorance, poverty, superstition, disease, starvation, and tyranny in just a few centuries in the ancient and modern worlds. 9 – We can rule the planet if we return to our native industrial specialization. 10 – and drag mankind behind us to ambitions we have not yet dreamed of. -
American Nationalists: In Secession, The Whole Pie Is Undesirable.
1 – It is undesirable to hold the entire continent. 2 – it is undesirable to retain much of our own kind if they are underdeveloped and under-evolved (leftists/feminists/betas). (The aristocratic process of domesticating the underclasses in to Agency was incomplete.) 3 – It is entirely achievable to cause the breakup of the federal government in to regions with different ‘markets’ for participation, while preserving the insurer of last resort, in treasury, military, and judiciary of property. 4 – We have always been a minority and we are better and stronger bound with competitors. This is the result of aristocracy: the continuation of our ancestral industry of profiting from the domestication of animal man. European aristocratic classes were always small in number. Europeans have been small in number. Those of use who were created by that eugenic process are small in number. 5 – We are better off letting the less civilized people (and their genes) decline into arabia, brazil, india, and the steppe, and profiting from our differences. 6 – No civilization in history is as fragile as the american empire and it can be radically altered for our benefit in less than a year. There are no farms to return to. There are not enough soldiers to occupy. All that prevents success is attempting to (a) take the whole territory, (b) attempting to take the whole of our kin. Many of those kin are dead weight. 7 – Revolte. Separate. Build walls. Keep them out. The Chinese, Koreans, and Han hold the best external group evolutionary strategy even if we hold the best internal group evolutionary strategy. The urals and the bosphorus were not enough to protect us. 8 – Western (aristocratic) civilization is not replaceable. It was unique. A fortunate accident. And we dragged humanity out of ignorance, poverty, superstition, disease, starvation, and tyranny in just a few centuries in the ancient and modern worlds. 9 – We can rule the planet if we return to our native industrial specialization. 10 – and drag mankind behind us to ambitions we have not yet dreamed of. -
The Grammar And Semantics Of Social Fraud: Soft Violence
—“Uhhh? I happen to like psychology/sociology”— I know you do because it is the grammar and semantics of using disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, and rallying for the purpose of defending a fraud you desperately seek to preserve, because you lack the agency to discipline your emotions, such that ratio-scientific discourse is possible. Psychology and Sociology consist of a grammar and semantics of shaming. Thats all. A means of using the threat of ostracization as a means of imposing equalitarian conformity. it’s just soft violence. -
The Grammar And Semantics Of Social Fraud: Soft Violence
—“Uhhh? I happen to like psychology/sociology”— I know you do because it is the grammar and semantics of using disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, and rallying for the purpose of defending a fraud you desperately seek to preserve, because you lack the agency to discipline your emotions, such that ratio-scientific discourse is possible. Psychology and Sociology consist of a grammar and semantics of shaming. Thats all. A means of using the threat of ostracization as a means of imposing equalitarian conformity. it’s just soft violence. -
Different classes use different forms vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, judgem
Different classes use different forms vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, judgement and humor. Pls don’t continue to reinforce my argument for me. 😉 You only demonstrate it further with any retort. >Lorraine 😂Please don’t overcompensate..you sound like you’re trying very hard to sound articulate.. Boo >Curt lol…. please don’t psychologize. It’s an admission of inferiority. Did you know psychology and sociology are pseudosciences? Did you ever look at the IQ distributions of people who study psychology and sociology? 😉 lolz >Lorraine Uhhh? I happen to like psychology/sociology to analyze dopes like you. You must feel inferior because you keep using that word..i also love philosophy and your argument can be considered inductive but not very cogent🤔😉😜 >Curt Hmmm…induction doesn’t exist right? Deduction (axiom), Induction (guessing), abduction (wild guessing), and guessing (free association.) I mean, only someone of late medieval understanding would even imagine inductive arguments. Instead we’d use science: endlessly contingent. >Lorraine Whoop whoop! You are a genius >Curt Actually I am but my arguments should stand independent of my authorship. I mean, otherwise that would be a fallacy of appeal to authority. Right? >Lorraine No I believe it’s attacking the motive Well in this case I am prosecuting your attempt to use shaming, as a means of false preservation of your self image. Whereas, an intellectually, morally, honest person would simply ask, “is that greater time, calories, content, discipline and precision that I can offer?” And simply admit superiority or inferiority by that criteria. I know your motive. I’m trying to expose your theft and dishonestly (fraud) as any good prosecutor would. I mean, that’s the virtue of stoicism and aristotelianism over marxism/postmodernism/feminism. Stoics have no need or incentive to disapprove, shame, ridicule, gossip, rally and lie to protect a fallacious self image. —“Uhhh? I happen to like psychology/sociology”— I know you do because it is the grammar and semantics of using disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, and rallying for the purpose of defending a fraud you desperately seek to preserve, because you lack the agency to discipline your emotions, such that ratio-scientific discourse is possible. Psychology and Sociology consist of a grammar and semantics of shaming. Thats all. A means of using the threat of ostracization as a means of imposing equalitarian conformity. it’s just soft violence. -
Different classes use different forms vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, judgem
Different classes use different forms vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, judgement and humor. Pls don’t continue to reinforce my argument for me. 😉 You only demonstrate it further with any retort. >Lorraine 😂Please don’t overcompensate..you sound like you’re trying very hard to sound articulate.. Boo >Curt lol…. please don’t psychologize. It’s an admission of inferiority. Did you know psychology and sociology are pseudosciences? Did you ever look at the IQ distributions of people who study psychology and sociology? 😉 lolz >Lorraine Uhhh? I happen to like psychology/sociology to analyze dopes like you. You must feel inferior because you keep using that word..i also love philosophy and your argument can be considered inductive but not very cogent🤔😉😜 >Curt Hmmm…induction doesn’t exist right? Deduction (axiom), Induction (guessing), abduction (wild guessing), and guessing (free association.) I mean, only someone of late medieval understanding would even imagine inductive arguments. Instead we’d use science: endlessly contingent. >Lorraine Whoop whoop! You are a genius >Curt Actually I am but my arguments should stand independent of my authorship. I mean, otherwise that would be a fallacy of appeal to authority. Right? >Lorraine No I believe it’s attacking the motive Well in this case I am prosecuting your attempt to use shaming, as a means of false preservation of your self image. Whereas, an intellectually, morally, honest person would simply ask, “is that greater time, calories, content, discipline and precision that I can offer?” And simply admit superiority or inferiority by that criteria. I know your motive. I’m trying to expose your theft and dishonestly (fraud) as any good prosecutor would. I mean, that’s the virtue of stoicism and aristotelianism over marxism/postmodernism/feminism. Stoics have no need or incentive to disapprove, shame, ridicule, gossip, rally and lie to protect a fallacious self image. —“Uhhh? I happen to like psychology/sociology”— I know you do because it is the grammar and semantics of using disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, and rallying for the purpose of defending a fraud you desperately seek to preserve, because you lack the agency to discipline your emotions, such that ratio-scientific discourse is possible. Psychology and Sociology consist of a grammar and semantics of shaming. Thats all. A means of using the threat of ostracization as a means of imposing equalitarian conformity. it’s just soft violence. -
STOICS HAVE FAR LESS NEED TO LIE
STOICS HAVE FAR LESS NEED TO LIE -
STOICS HAVE FAR LESS NEED TO LIE
STOICS HAVE FAR LESS NEED TO LIE -
Different classes use different forms vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, judgem
Different classes use different forms vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, judgement and humor. Pls don’t continue to reinforce my argument for me. 😉 You only demonstrate it further with any retort. (From elsewhere)