(FB 1549744557 Timestamp) @Victor Blanc Well, I mean: —“Lacking better alternatives, I’d become NatSoc/Fascist if it meant survival, and with the exception of Propertarianism, not much else is being provided (or at least popularised) in way of solutions.”—Victor Blanc That’s my argument as well. “Show me something better.”
Theme: Crisis
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549735766 Timestamp) THE CRIME HAS BEEN DONE. THE BOOMER PUNISHMENT AWAITS —“Sorry boomer prophets, in order to fix our society after you wrecked it we had to use all your retirement money and take all your second homes and 3rd cars and boats to afford it. The rest will still have retirement though.”—James Knowles 😉 relish the opportunity.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549735766 Timestamp) THE CRIME HAS BEEN DONE. THE BOOMER PUNISHMENT AWAITS —“Sorry boomer prophets, in order to fix our society after you wrecked it we had to use all your retirement money and take all your second homes and 3rd cars and boats to afford it. The rest will still have retirement though.”—James Knowles 😉 relish the opportunity.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549735651 Timestamp) WHY CALLS FOR REVOLUTION AND CIVIL WAR —“Can you explain this call to violence, revolution, or civil war?”—Justin Ptak If enough people talk about it the general discourse changes sufficiently to discuss alternatives to the status quo.) Same as ‘the best way to prevent a war is to be ready to crush any opponent easily at all times”. The best way to bring an opponent to the negotiating table is the certainty (lower risk) that it is better than the alternative.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549735651 Timestamp) WHY CALLS FOR REVOLUTION AND CIVIL WAR —“Can you explain this call to violence, revolution, or civil war?”—Justin Ptak If enough people talk about it the general discourse changes sufficiently to discuss alternatives to the status quo.) Same as ‘the best way to prevent a war is to be ready to crush any opponent easily at all times”. The best way to bring an opponent to the negotiating table is the certainty (lower risk) that it is better than the alternative.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549847452 Timestamp) GETTING IT DONE My understanding of the current situation is that the previous generation of the alt right is dead, and that certain people need to disappear for progress to be made without them boat-anchoring everyone. There are, as always, three different clans that reflect the possible means of exercising power… authoritarian <–> market <-> religious … with overlap, and as in all things, that these clans have common genetic interests, but uncommon methods of achieving them. My preference is that this is the standard we all approach the clans with, and that we agree to fight the status quo from three angles. But that we do not try to determine which order is best, since all orders are necessary, to serve the three power structures, and the elites in each of the three power structures. The reality is that there are limited options available to us. And that those options will favor a legalistic solution as the lowest cost price of entry. That religion has zero hope of anything other than obtaining exclusivity, and that authority requires individuals to emerge capable of that roles – and we have none outside of the military. We have anglos (north and west) the anglo scots irish (the south), and the germans and the scandinavians (the center). The evidence is that of them, the only ones who fight and have military experience are the southerners. The germans never fight. The scandinavians are still cucks, and the anglos are too privileged to do much. We have a potential of going mainstream, while the religious can follow us if we gain momentum, they can do nothing on their own. All the authoritarians can do is form special forces (prosecutors of enemies) so to speak. That is all that can happen. Our (and my) position is that we are better off ‘leaving the alt right behind’ as a failed movement, and will gain normie cred if we either do so, distance ourselves from, or are ‘enemies’ of the hard right. This election is basically our last demographic and political chance so I am not terribly interested in pragmatisms. This sh-t has to get done.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549847452 Timestamp) GETTING IT DONE My understanding of the current situation is that the previous generation of the alt right is dead, and that certain people need to disappear for progress to be made without them boat-anchoring everyone. There are, as always, three different clans that reflect the possible means of exercising power… authoritarian <–> market <-> religious … with overlap, and as in all things, that these clans have common genetic interests, but uncommon methods of achieving them. My preference is that this is the standard we all approach the clans with, and that we agree to fight the status quo from three angles. But that we do not try to determine which order is best, since all orders are necessary, to serve the three power structures, and the elites in each of the three power structures. The reality is that there are limited options available to us. And that those options will favor a legalistic solution as the lowest cost price of entry. That religion has zero hope of anything other than obtaining exclusivity, and that authority requires individuals to emerge capable of that roles – and we have none outside of the military. We have anglos (north and west) the anglo scots irish (the south), and the germans and the scandinavians (the center). The evidence is that of them, the only ones who fight and have military experience are the southerners. The germans never fight. The scandinavians are still cucks, and the anglos are too privileged to do much. We have a potential of going mainstream, while the religious can follow us if we gain momentum, they can do nothing on their own. All the authoritarians can do is form special forces (prosecutors of enemies) so to speak. That is all that can happen. Our (and my) position is that we are better off ‘leaving the alt right behind’ as a failed movement, and will gain normie cred if we either do so, distance ourselves from, or are ‘enemies’ of the hard right. This election is basically our last demographic and political chance so I am not terribly interested in pragmatisms. This sh-t has to get done.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1549971692 Timestamp) MORE ON THE REPLICATION CRISIS IN PSYCHOLOGY (PSEUDOSCIENCE) What if the reason we have not developed a framework, and why psychology cannot convert to a science, is because we may like what we find? I’ve been working on the problem as a byproduct of my work (method) and I think it’s relatively simple and solid. We just won’t like it. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0522-1 ==== by Valerio Caprario (via james santagata) Incredibly deep paper: – the replicability crisis in psychology is not only driven by methodological and statistical shortcomings – it’s mainly driven by a lack of theoretical frameworks – Psychology needs to be turned into a formal science Abstract (Gated) The replication crisis facing the psychological sciences is widely regarded as rooted in methodological or statistical shortcomings. We argue that a large part of the problem is the lack of a cumulative theoretical framework or frameworks. Without an overarching theoretical framework that generates hypotheses across diverse domains, empirical programs spawn and grow from personal intuitions and culturally biased folk theories. By providing ways to develop clear predictions, including through the use of formal modelling, theoretical frameworks set expectations that determine whether a new finding is confirmatory, nicely integrating with existing lines of research, or surprising, and therefore requiring further replication and scrutiny. Such frameworks also prioritize certain research foci, motivate the use diverse empirical approaches and, often, provide a natural means to integrate across the sciences. Thus, overarching theoretical frameworks pave the way toward a more general theory of human behaviour. We illustrate one such a theoretical framework: dual inheritance theory.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1549971692 Timestamp) MORE ON THE REPLICATION CRISIS IN PSYCHOLOGY (PSEUDOSCIENCE) What if the reason we have not developed a framework, and why psychology cannot convert to a science, is because we may like what we find? I’ve been working on the problem as a byproduct of my work (method) and I think it’s relatively simple and solid. We just won’t like it. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0522-1 ==== by Valerio Caprario (via james santagata) Incredibly deep paper: – the replicability crisis in psychology is not only driven by methodological and statistical shortcomings – it’s mainly driven by a lack of theoretical frameworks – Psychology needs to be turned into a formal science Abstract (Gated) The replication crisis facing the psychological sciences is widely regarded as rooted in methodological or statistical shortcomings. We argue that a large part of the problem is the lack of a cumulative theoretical framework or frameworks. Without an overarching theoretical framework that generates hypotheses across diverse domains, empirical programs spawn and grow from personal intuitions and culturally biased folk theories. By providing ways to develop clear predictions, including through the use of formal modelling, theoretical frameworks set expectations that determine whether a new finding is confirmatory, nicely integrating with existing lines of research, or surprising, and therefore requiring further replication and scrutiny. Such frameworks also prioritize certain research foci, motivate the use diverse empirical approaches and, often, provide a natural means to integrate across the sciences. Thus, overarching theoretical frameworks pave the way toward a more general theory of human behaviour. We illustrate one such a theoretical framework: dual inheritance theory.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550078378 Timestamp) WHAT WILL THE REST OF THE WORLD DO? —“Hmmmmm. So when the dust settles, do you see any outliers doing anything you might not have thought of already?”—Monica Marquez The world will seek historical equilibrium in their spheres of influence, and the military will have to return to the continent rather than protecting europe, thereby forcing europe and russia and eastern europe into their historical alliance (christendom). The outlier is the UK, and I do not know how but it would be preferable to restore the british empire as the alliance of english speaking (and british) peoples. Incentives are relatively obvious at this point. We are the pin that holds the world together. But nuclear arms are what they are. So I suspect that all it will do is accelerate what everyone in every think tank in the world suggests: Return to normal across the world.