Theme: Deception

  • My accusation is this: – one can speak descriptively of the existential; one can

    My accusation is this:

    – one can speak descriptively of the existential; one can speak of a general rule as an ideal to obscure ignorance of causality, one can claim authority over the ideal by supernatural.

    – Man can speak testimonial by math, science, witness; man can speak honestly by memory or history; man can speak allegorically with literature, and illustratively (hyperbolically) through myth(supernormal but not supernatural). Man can also speak falsely by ideal (rationalism), by supernaturalism, by pseudoscience – the name for this is called ‘fictionalism’.

    – That man must have an incentive to speak by other than descriptively and demonstrable. What incentive is there to do so?

    The answer is to justify immoral, unethical, and anti-social argument, action, and strategy.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 14:28:00 UTC

  • “Who CAN be trusted with literary interpretation? I don’t trust people who are d

    —“Who CAN be trusted with literary interpretation? I don’t trust people who are dumber than me, because they are idiots. And I don’t trust people who are smarter than me, because they are probably up to something. I can’t necessarily say what, but they seem shady. People who are exactly as intelligent as me are probably alright, but only if they are related closely enough.”— Ely Harman

    (classic) lol

    Ergo. “Calculation.”


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-15 10:35:00 UTC

  • “CAN WE END THE USE OF LITERATURE FOR SUBVERSION OF THE WEST?”— Daniel Gurpide

    —“CAN WE END THE USE OF LITERATURE FOR SUBVERSION OF THE WEST?”— Daniel Gurpide

    WHEREAS

    I agree that the (abrahamist’s) strategy was to ally three underclasses (through women in particular), to communism as a means of defeating the aristocracy.

    Furthermore, I agree with the theory that the purpose for the licensing of christianity and the invention of the church was to defeat the “Old” aristocracy.

    And I think we can agree that Marxism/Communism/Postmodernism, are the modern version of the attack on the aristocracy, by replacing a supernatural cult’s promise of afterlife with a pseudoscientific cult’s promise of utopia within one’s lifetime.

    ASSERTION

    We can only kill a virus by killing its hosts. That seems to be out of the question – although not for the muslims it isn’t.

    We can regulate the spread of a virus(law). We can innoculate against the virus. (education). And these actions raise the cost of replication of the virus. To the point where it may live on, but not spread, because it can find no hosts.

    Now, just as we can operationalize language, by limiting it to warranty of due diligence, we can to the same for plots.

    Why? Because there is no difference between a literary recipes and legal recipes.

    For example, there is but one monomyth plot > so many archetypes > so many subplots (variations), and so many virtues and vices(sins). And we know that that hierarch refers to transcendence(learning), psychological portfolios, methods of resistance to transcendence, and an accounting of those changes virtues, vices. So we can in fact analyze any such literature. The evolution of post-literary persuasion will be through ‘harmonics’, which is a series of ‘reports’ the synthesis of whcy by any individual will feed a narrative. We can defend against this also by the same means.

    our primary problem is that we are denied the protection of the courts, and that church and state manage the commons rather than the MARKET manages the informational commons.

    So it is just as possible to perform a propertarian analysis of a piece of literature, no matter how subtle as it is to perform a propertarian analysis of advertisement, propaganda, or proposed law.

    The postmodern literary attempt was to circumvent the monomyth by creating little windows into the lives of people who were not heroic. THe postmodern and marxist artistic attempt was to circumvent the monomyth by removing narrative and relying entirely on design, and even then, anti-heroic design.

    And they do this under the auspices that the army common people fight in, and the economy common people labor in, and the families common people struggle with, are not in fact empirically better than they would be under non heroic civilizations that persist in ignorance and poverty. After all, the primary beneficiaries of consumer capitalism have not been the upper middle and upper classes. We have lost our status under capitalism to the middle and working classes. And we don’t like it very much.

    REVERSAL

    But we must remember that just as we must preserve cheaters in the gene pool to insure we retain defense against cheaters, we must preserve deceptions in the informational pool in order to preserve defense against deceptions.

    The northern europeans developed high trust to an extent where it was a fault. It was exploited. So it is not so much that we want to eliminate it as evolve in parrallel to it so that we preserve the ability to defeat it.

    I am attracted to the same general approach as the chinese: “these people are inferior’ but our solidarity is somewhat dependent upon their inferiority”

    in other words, it may be that we just need to create a wall and continuously defend against them otherwise there is no reason for the very heroism that has driven us despite our small numbers, to transcend the beast man.

    FORWARD

    I think this conversation would be very fruitful if you and I were to have it in a larger forum. Because this is the central question.

    I find nothing in middle eastern abrahamism that is good, that is not in pagan europeanism. I find no techniques in the world disciplines that are not in stoicism (action). And I find frightening parallels between the Roman authors of 0-100AD and the authors of 1880-1929.

    We have lost almost a century. The question is, can we save ourselves from what appears to be a certain dark age. Because while it is one thing to occupy and defeat a high trust people, once that high trust people, and their high trust are gone, it does not appear that other than levantine chaos and poverty remain.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-15 10:23:00 UTC

  • It’s because Island 120 can master testimonialism and teach it, but cannot be tr

    It’s because Island 120 can master testimonialism and teach it, but cannot be trusted with literary interpretation. That’s why. That’s why. You can’t manufacture 150s in large numbers.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-15 02:30:00 UTC

  • @ahaspel … the combination of 1 and 2: (a) signaling, (b) hermeneutics, (c) co

    @ahaspel … the combination of 1 and 2: (a) signaling, (b) hermeneutics, (c) cosmopolitanism, (d) marxist-postmodernism. False???


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:43:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885842272566345728

  • PILPUL: ONE ENGAGES IN THE ART OF FICTIONALISM: LYING —“Pilpul is the Talmudic

    PILPUL: ONE ENGAGES IN THE ART OF FICTIONALISM: LYING

    —“Pilpul is the Talmudic term used to describe a rhetorical process that the Sages used to formulate their legal decisions. The word is used as a verb: one engages in the process of pilpul in order to formulate a legal point. It marks the process of understanding legal ideas, texts, and interpretations.”—

    The purpose of pilpul is to find what is not there, or to place there what is not.

    Pilpul is the origin of the art of lying.

    The introduction of pilpul into anglo law was the means by which our constitution of natural law was destroyed.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 12:13:00 UTC

  • by Shanaynay Tomson Without arms and militias voting is simply a pretense. But w

    by Shanaynay Tomson

    Without arms and militias voting is simply a pretense. But worse than that!? It’s a tool for controlling the masses when coupled with endless public lies and a media that propagates falsehoods with regularity.

    Voting has nothing to do with “By The People” – it is a duplicitous and stunningly effective mass control mechanism by which propagandists Tell people what they should think they want -whatever fulfills the purposes and creates the desired outcomes – and what they will give them, then harvest their votes to make them think that what the individuals in power require to reach desired ends is what the people want.

    Voting is a mass control device to appease the sheeple and keep them docile or fired up when and where required.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 10:25:00 UTC

  • IT IS DONE. PAYBACK FOR THE LEFT ISN”T SO GOOD? I remember when professors were

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/cnn-staff-reeling-after-personal-info-leaked/HOW IT IS DONE.

    PAYBACK FOR THE LEFT ISN”T SO GOOD?

    I remember when professors were threatened by black panthers and told to teach different versions of history.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 18:35:00 UTC

  • (See. I TOLD you that if I started talking about currencies and interest I would

    (See. I TOLD you that if I started talking about currencies and interest I would lose the month of July…. sigh.)

    Anyway. I have spent a long time studying disinformation caused by fiat money, common shares, debt instruments, temporal universal redistribution as a replacement for intertemporal kinship redistribution through saving and lending.

    So instead of trying to work with (a) what you understand, (b) what you think is useful, and (c) what you think is ‘good’, why don’t we follow Testimonialism and as this question:

    “What is RECIPROCAL(Moral), what is CALCULABLE (auditable), and what is TRUE(not false)?”

    ok.

    Consumer credit capacity is calculable by actuarial tables. Most consumer debt failure is due to intentional hazard creation by credit issuers.

    I want to stop this. I know what happens to the ordinary people under this bullshit of offering credit and terms to people who can’t control it, then subjecting them to penalty and overcharge fees, and sending them to credit agencies. And I’ve spent too much time with the canadian and british and german models as well.

    Americans are preyed upon, and most will live in old age poverty. And this going to end. Not through some fucking redistribution scheme (new welfare) but through forced saving (singaporean model), elimination of consumer interest on consumption, ending entrapment and punishment contracts (using the european model) – particularly cable and cell phones, restoration of intergenerational support, elimination of fees, consolidation of regulations, and direct distribution of liquidity to consumers.

    In other words, no more hazard creation then punishment fees. I am tired of watching ordinary people be the victims of a system that works continually to enslave them and to reduce them to poverty in their old age, destroy their families, destroy their communities, and commit genocide against them.

    For those that have asked, it is always possible to add a redistribution to your retirement account or to spend it, or to add it to your savings/retirement account and invest other money.

    If you want to make investments, borrow from bank. If you want to consume, that is just a matter of borrowing aginst future taxes and income to consume now, and drive the engine of the economy, and pay later.

    What will people REALLY DO? They will live at the limit of their borrowing capacity just as they do now, and liquidity redistributions in times of correction and shock will be used to pay down their debt – completely out of their hands. Which they will then maximize again.

    That I know of, only a few of us recommended paying down mortgages to correct 2008/9. What would have been the consequences of paying down consumer (mortgage) debt from the treasury rather than flooding the economy with $X Trillion dollars? What would have happened to the world economy? To jobs, to home prices?

    fuk.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 15:29:00 UTC

  • “Women as a group are systemically discriminated against – both openly and subco

    —“Women as a group are systemically discriminated against – both openly and subconsciously – and their lives are poorer for it.”—

    Women display unconscious bias. Men display unconscious bias. Women display personality trait biases. Mental illness biases. Aesthetic biases. Temporal value biases. Friendship biases. Lower tolerance for diversity in friends. Lower loyalty in business. higher likelihood of being an undesirable manager. More likely to undermine other women in business. As likely as men in sociopathy. Far higher rates of mental illness. Women disapprove of far more than men disapprove of in every walk of life. Women display an array of cognitive biases, and we might venture that the entire world is worse for it. Women display voting biases consistently differently from men. Are not men systematically discriminated against? In what walks of life are men not systematically discriminated against by women? How long does it take to trust someone? How long for a man to trust a man, a man to trust a woman, a woman to trust a woman, and a woman to trust a man? Why are those rates different?

    How about this: we worry about whether things are TRUE and then fix what is wrong with people, rather than pretend that stereotypes are not the most accurate reprsentation of behavioral data on earth?

    True is true is true is true.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-05 18:46:00 UTC