Theme: Coercion

CLOSE BUT NO. SEDITIOUS YES. POPPER’S A LIBERTARIAN –
But Libertarianism Is Almost as Bad as Leftism. and Soros Isnt a Leftist as Much as Advancing Jewish Interests

1. Popper’s epistemology is the source of respect for his work. Critical Rationalism was half of the solution to the hard problem of Darwinian truth (science as testimony that survives falsification). Like hayek, popper’s project was directionally correct but incomplete because he couldn’t solve the entire problem of epistemology because it was harder than he (anyone) imagined.
2. Popper is advancing jewish libertarianism like rothbard and rand, not leftism – by taking the optimistic and heroic view of man.
3. Popper is to libertarianism (diaspora, statelessness, anarchism) what Plato is to the state.
4. Soros weaponized Popper’s open society to advance jewish intersts not leftist interests. Leftists are tools of Soros (and many others).
5. Jewish thought isn’t trifunctional as is western thought – it’s all monopolies: Marxist underclass, libertarian middle class, feminist and neocon upper class. Jewish thought is structurally authoritarian: universalist (female).
6. Libertarianism is just as seditious as marxism, neomarxism, postmodernism, feminism, neoconservatism, and pc-woke cancel culture.
7. European trifunctionalism is interesting because it uses the negative rule of law as referree, but maintains the ‘game’ of maximum rates of innovation, adaptation, and evolution of our people between the three possible elites and the three classes these elites bias in favor of: (-) feminine social religon and inclusion/exclusion, (=) ascendent male economy and production by trade/boycott, (+) dominant male political state and force/defense.

So, not authority of religon(faith) or fascism(state) or libertarianism(individuals) but market by trifunctionalism: Faith, Law, State for lower, middle, upper classes. God(faith), Constitution(law), Country(state), Guns(us, the militia). The only insurer of trifunctionalism is the people who are armed and defend it.

I won’t criticize Keith because he made a reasonable attempt for an amateur to address a difficult question.

I probably should criticize Keith and his followers for failing to grasp the scientific and subsequent logical foundations of western civ because its the failure to grasp them that has led to so many 20th c and more recent failures to defend our civilization.

Because y’all are well meaning, passionate, terribly overconfident and the enemy keeps winning precisely because you don’t know the logic of western civ and how to defend it. And that’s because western civ (other than indian) is the most complex of all.

We’re the weird ones. 😉

Cheers

Reply addressees: @jialaowai @KeithWoodsYT