—The proof is in the Left’s success.— Lying is a successful strategy. Marxist pseudoscience was a successful strategy. Kantian pseudorationalism was a successful strategy. Acquinian Christian synthesis was a successful strategy. Christianity was a successful strategy. Jewish synthesis of Egyptian and Babylonian monotheism was a successful strategy. If you succeed by lying, have you in fact succeeded? —Gramsci was no fraud and no lie and no pseudo-science.— Are you sure that his Marxist framing of his criticism of capitalism is not in itself pseudoscientific? (it is). The assumption is that man was innately good and that state and capitalist were predators, rather than man was barbaric, and that religion(norm/ostracism), state(law/force), and capital(remuneration/exchange) were the three tools available to man to engage in the gradual eugenic domestication of man by the systematic culling of the underclasses. And the most successful societies with the highest standard of living are those that most successfully culled the underclasses and therefore domesticated man sufficiently to create a division of labor. This is the scientific explanation. Put it his way: if your standard of measure is wrong, or you basic axioms are wrong, all deductions from your standard of measure or your axiom are also wrong – and if they’re right then it’s just an accident. So, yes, marxism is pseudoscience, socially, psychologically, and economically, and Gramsci was yet another pseudoscientist. The fact that he bases his arguments on Marxist justificationism rather than Christian theologism, is merely a choice of words – words that were designed to achieve the same ends. —And they are a very eugenic group.— If that’s true then (a) why are they reproductively undesirable, (b) why do they have such high rates of inverted sexual dimorphism, homosexuality, schizophrenia, and disease? (c) (and the question that matters) why are they unable to hold territory of their own without a host to prey upon? I agree that jews are elites in populist circles but they are only temporarily so, just as anglos were elites during their enlightenment, french theirs, germans theirs, and jews theirs. Jewish enlightenment being the last can take advantage of the lessons learned from the first few. But in the end, the Jewish century just ended and the Jewish pseudosciences: boaz, marx, frued, cantor, mises, Rothbard, rand, frankfurt, will, as Hayek suggested, go down in history as the second attempt to create a lie as a revolt against western truthfulness (rationalism and science). –libertarianism is a straw dog — Well, I think marxism/socialism is a great lie, just like randian/rothbaridian liberarianism is a great lie, just like straussian/kristol/trotskyism is a great lie. BUT HERE IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING: “If lying works we should use it” AND HERE IS WHAT I AM SAYING “Make lying in the commons a crime and eliminate lying from the public discourse, and we will win by default” we are the most creative people that ever lived. And we have the bio data to tell us why now. TRUTH IS ENOUGH So stop trying to lie well, and instead learn how to tell the truth well, and how to prosecute liars well. That’s my response. 😉
Theme: Class
-
Time To Teach Elites They Are Nothing Without Their People
(by Eli Harman ) Elites are naturally less racist, less ethnocentric, more cosmopolitan, than the lower classes. Elites can interact with *other* elites as peers. They don’t have to squabble over pieces of pie because they can make pie.
But the lower classes are justifiably racist, nationalistic, xenophobic, because they are in direct competition over resources they don’t create, infrastructure, services, social spending, jobs, and so on and so forth. Additionally, the higher impulsivity of the lower classes increases the frictions that arise from differences and proximity. And they can’t afford to isolate themselves from these. The classes can cooperate on common interests. And elites can cooperate with foreign elites. But in order for these two imperatives not to conflict, and for classes not to conflict, elites must stop claiming, defending, exercising, and sacralizing a “right” to betray and sacrifice their lower classes to others. A people are less without their elites. But elites are nothing without their people. Time to teach them. H/t Curt Doolittle -
Time To Teach Elites They Are Nothing Without Their People
(by Eli Harman ) Elites are naturally less racist, less ethnocentric, more cosmopolitan, than the lower classes. Elites can interact with *other* elites as peers. They don’t have to squabble over pieces of pie because they can make pie.
But the lower classes are justifiably racist, nationalistic, xenophobic, because they are in direct competition over resources they don’t create, infrastructure, services, social spending, jobs, and so on and so forth. Additionally, the higher impulsivity of the lower classes increases the frictions that arise from differences and proximity. And they can’t afford to isolate themselves from these. The classes can cooperate on common interests. And elites can cooperate with foreign elites. But in order for these two imperatives not to conflict, and for classes not to conflict, elites must stop claiming, defending, exercising, and sacralizing a “right” to betray and sacrifice their lower classes to others. A people are less without their elites. But elites are nothing without their people. Time to teach them. H/t Curt Doolittle -
The Origins of the Left’s Effeminate R-Selection Bias
I think what is abhorrent to leftists is that business and productivity are innately competitive and consist of attempting to outwit other tribes of males for market territory. This is antithetical to the r-selection instincts of females and their effeminate offspring and the sexually inverted ((( tribes ))).
In their world they cannot compete and seek consensus and non-conflict and reciprocality. They do not see competition as calculation by trial and error of efficiencies in the interest of all. They sense only the short term experience rather than judge long term consequences. Hence why we must never take the feminine or effeminate opinion seriously. It is a temporal blindness and a moral blindness just like Color blindness. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine -
The Origins of the Left’s Effeminate R-Selection Bias
I think what is abhorrent to leftists is that business and productivity are innately competitive and consist of attempting to outwit other tribes of males for market territory. This is antithetical to the r-selection instincts of females and their effeminate offspring and the sexually inverted ((( tribes ))).
In their world they cannot compete and seek consensus and non-conflict and reciprocality. They do not see competition as calculation by trial and error of efficiencies in the interest of all. They sense only the short term experience rather than judge long term consequences. Hence why we must never take the feminine or effeminate opinion seriously. It is a temporal blindness and a moral blindness just like Color blindness. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine -
Sequence
Those who fight Those who judge Those who choose (risk) Those who discover (research) Those who organize ( manage ) Those who produce Those who reproduce Those who care Those who are unable Those who are criminal Those who betray.
-
Sequence
Those who fight Those who judge Those who choose (risk) Those who discover (research) Those who organize ( manage ) Those who produce Those who reproduce Those who care Those who are unable Those who are criminal Those who betray.
-
Cultural Observations Americans are ridiculously petty. I realise that pettiness
Cultural Observations
Americans are ridiculously petty.
I realise that pettiness increases as class decreases. But I had forgotten how petty Americans are.
America is evidence of the Peter principle writ large. In an attempt to create an aristocracy of everyone we have enabled people to live beyond their capacity.
Not the productive capacity, but their emotional and psychological and social capacity.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-06 18:16:00 UTC
-
Aristocracy vs Oligarchy is Simple…
Aristocracy Socializes Gains Into the Commons, and Oligarchy Privatizes Gains Out of The Commons. An Aristocracy increases the capital in the commons and an Oligarchy exploits it. That’s the difference. SIMPLE: ARISTOCRACY +COMMONS, OLIGARCHY -COMMONS
-
Aristocracy vs Oligarchy is Simple…
Aristocracy Socializes Gains Into the Commons, and Oligarchy Privatizes Gains Out of The Commons. An Aristocracy increases the capital in the commons and an Oligarchy exploits it. That’s the difference. SIMPLE: ARISTOCRACY +COMMONS, OLIGARCHY -COMMONS