—“Are you specifically maintaining there would be no libertarianism without marx, or merely that most contemporary libertarian rhetoric derives from the marxist tradition? For example, libertarian class theory preceded marx, and marx explicitly borrowed from it.”— Skye Stewart (a) there is no ‘libertarian’ theory that I know of prior to the 20th century, even though there were libertine and anarchist theories. (b) western liberty movements sought to preserve contractualism, but never decried commons – classical liberalism was a movement to do MORE with the commons, rather than privatize it by the nobility. To gain peerage with the nobility. An aristocracy of everyone. The western liberty movement peaks under jefferson’s natural law contractualism. And the rent seeking began all over again. But Marx restated jewish history “of the unwanted” as a universal, and cast the aristocracy as oppressors rather than domesticators and defenders – a tradition continued by the Frankfurt school. He created a class theory of oppression rather than domestication. He sought a revolution against the aristocracy, and an inversion of the aristocratic order. And he sought to do it by depriving the aristocracy of property as its means of domestication. Rothbard only changed the strategy; deprive the aristocracy of commons and retain your private property, and you will destroy the principle asset of western man: his unique ability to construct commons. Do I think marx and rothbard, as well as freud, mises, and boaz (jews), have any more of an idea what they’re doing than women do when they undermine our civilization? Do gypsies? Do Muslims? I don’t think these people operate by reason but by intuition, and they all intuit that the west is something to be preyed upon – and do so.
Theme: Deception
-
The Incentives of Leftist Parasites
By Eli Harman Why are leftists and social justice warriors so immune to facts, logic, and arguments? It’s because social justice warriors are lying, parasitic, pieces of shit. The aim of lying about equality, is to force transfers and redistribution from the more equal, to the less, including the extension of trust, that will be abused, and the extension of opportunity, which will not be fully realized. All of this is costly, so it represents a parasitic burden on the people forced to provide it. The assumption of that burden, and its maintenance, are compelled and enforced by shaming, scolding, nagging, gossip, rallying, all the “feminine means of coercion,” all the tools of moral, social, and economic, ostracism that can be mustered and deployed to raise the cost of disagreement or dissent rather than address the points of contention in good faith. But because this wholesale plunder and parasitism through fraud creates great boons for its beneficiaries, and salves their fragile egos, they will fight tooth and nail to protect it. And on account of the proceeds of this parasitic plunder and fraud, reliable pawns for leftist elites are bought and paid for; the lynch pin of their demographic and democratic dominance; which they are not willing and not able to maintain by keeping pace with conservatives reproductively. There are nearly insoluable conflicts of interests here that can only be resolved, at the very least, by the physical removal of millions, and the vigorous, violent, and proactive production and supply of incentives, against engaging in dysgenic parasitism, plunder, and fraud. Otherwise it’s too profitable. It will be done. And the more it is done, and the longer it is done, the costlier it will be either to continue, or to stop; for the cost of either can only ever grow, until the final reckoning, and the final toll is paid (whichever way it is paid…)
-
The Incentives of Leftist Parasites
By Eli Harman Why are leftists and social justice warriors so immune to facts, logic, and arguments? It’s because social justice warriors are lying, parasitic, pieces of shit. The aim of lying about equality, is to force transfers and redistribution from the more equal, to the less, including the extension of trust, that will be abused, and the extension of opportunity, which will not be fully realized. All of this is costly, so it represents a parasitic burden on the people forced to provide it. The assumption of that burden, and its maintenance, are compelled and enforced by shaming, scolding, nagging, gossip, rallying, all the “feminine means of coercion,” all the tools of moral, social, and economic, ostracism that can be mustered and deployed to raise the cost of disagreement or dissent rather than address the points of contention in good faith. But because this wholesale plunder and parasitism through fraud creates great boons for its beneficiaries, and salves their fragile egos, they will fight tooth and nail to protect it. And on account of the proceeds of this parasitic plunder and fraud, reliable pawns for leftist elites are bought and paid for; the lynch pin of their demographic and democratic dominance; which they are not willing and not able to maintain by keeping pace with conservatives reproductively. There are nearly insoluable conflicts of interests here that can only be resolved, at the very least, by the physical removal of millions, and the vigorous, violent, and proactive production and supply of incentives, against engaging in dysgenic parasitism, plunder, and fraud. Otherwise it’s too profitable. It will be done. And the more it is done, and the longer it is done, the costlier it will be either to continue, or to stop; for the cost of either can only ever grow, until the final reckoning, and the final toll is paid (whichever way it is paid…)
-
Actually, Bad Ideas Can Crowd Out Good Ideas, and Cause Tragedy, for Centuries.
–“BAD IDEAS, HOWEVER SACRED, CANNOT SURVIVE THE COMPANY OF GOOD ONES FOREVER.”— Sam Harris This statement is demonstrably false, primarily because the market for comforting falsehoods, is greater than the market for uncomfortable truths; and because the market for gossip that justifies one’s priors is greater than the market for uncomfortable truths that contradict one’s priors. Those are two empirically demonstrable statements that have been the subject of not insignificant study and debate. We could, instead say, that in the market for weapons of argument, usable on those subjects of argument – rather than gossip and propaganda – that more truthful (and therefore scientific) arguments defeat the less truthful (rational, reasonable, pseudo-rational, pseudoscientific, and supernatural). The problem we face is the difference in the scale and distribution of gossip, propaganda, justification and critical argument. Falsehood is a cheaper product than truth. In other words, as intellectuals we cannot for a moment cast ourselves as ‘average persons’. A third of the electorate (market for political choice) is fully committed to the dysgenic and feminine reproductive strategy (the left) and a third fully committed to the eugenic and masculine reproductive strategy (the right), and the third in the middle is not only uncommitted, but unconcerned, and largely uninformed, and demonstrably persuaded by what they empathize with, obtain information from friends (gossip), are exposed to the media (propaganda), and lack the general knowledge to engage in argument. (See The Myth of the Rational Voter). Imagining that the way you think is somehow average rather than one of a host of possible outliers, is merely demonstration of the various cognitive social biases wherein we attribute to others in general what applies to us in particular. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Actually, Bad Ideas Can Crowd Out Good Ideas, and Cause Tragedy, for Centuries.
–“BAD IDEAS, HOWEVER SACRED, CANNOT SURVIVE THE COMPANY OF GOOD ONES FOREVER.”— Sam Harris This statement is demonstrably false, primarily because the market for comforting falsehoods, is greater than the market for uncomfortable truths; and because the market for gossip that justifies one’s priors is greater than the market for uncomfortable truths that contradict one’s priors. Those are two empirically demonstrable statements that have been the subject of not insignificant study and debate. We could, instead say, that in the market for weapons of argument, usable on those subjects of argument – rather than gossip and propaganda – that more truthful (and therefore scientific) arguments defeat the less truthful (rational, reasonable, pseudo-rational, pseudoscientific, and supernatural). The problem we face is the difference in the scale and distribution of gossip, propaganda, justification and critical argument. Falsehood is a cheaper product than truth. In other words, as intellectuals we cannot for a moment cast ourselves as ‘average persons’. A third of the electorate (market for political choice) is fully committed to the dysgenic and feminine reproductive strategy (the left) and a third fully committed to the eugenic and masculine reproductive strategy (the right), and the third in the middle is not only uncommitted, but unconcerned, and largely uninformed, and demonstrably persuaded by what they empathize with, obtain information from friends (gossip), are exposed to the media (propaganda), and lack the general knowledge to engage in argument. (See The Myth of the Rational Voter). Imagining that the way you think is somehow average rather than one of a host of possible outliers, is merely demonstration of the various cognitive social biases wherein we attribute to others in general what applies to us in particular. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
The author forgot that they were also (a) the developers of the pseudosciences (
The author forgot that they were also (a) the developers of the pseudosciences ( Frankfurt/aesthetics and history, freud/psychology, boaz/anthropology, marx/sociology/economics, mises/economics, cantor/mathematical-platonism, (b) the conquest of the university by pseudoscience (all of the above), (c) as well as the organized attack on our constitution (Natural Law) by the selective prosecution of cases designed to incrementally break it, (d) as well as the current method of financial parasitism which we incorrectly call capitalism, but should call Rothchildian Monetary Fraud. There is nothing immoral about capitalism. But everything immoral about financialism. And they are the principle activists in propagandizing in the Entertainment, Media, and Advertising industries.
“The People Who Lie and Defraud.”
yeah, we arent exactly saints and teh british certainly take the cake during colonialism, but the consequences of their administration by rule of law turn out to be profoundly beneficial.
Americans basically are great sherrifs but the worst possible judges of anything. And between the british and americans we pretty much do everything WRONG except the law.
Thankfully THE LAW AND TRUTH ARE ENOUGH despite our multitude of utopian idealistic and entirely false fantasies about the nature of man.
The evil of (((their))) intuitions like the evil of women’s intuitions is not so much from intent but from parasitic impulse and lack of agency.
We must either conquer and rule, and rule by natural law, or be ruled and conquered.
Yes (((they))) and their islamic cousins are evil as hell. But that does not mean they cannot be domesticated like all other wild animals we have domesticated in the past.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 17:19:00 UTC
-
Response: Method To Verbal Attacks
THE STRATEGY FOR OPPOSING FRAUDS IS A COSTLY INVESTMENT IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS. I teach everyone the same strategy: 1) return ridicule or criticism, 2) restate the central argument 3) pose why the deception is necessary if one is correct. 4) repeat until the audience is numb to the rallying shaming and other emotional distractions, and has absorbed the central argument through repetition. Ergo, (in response to ad hom) 1) you’re a poser, and a liar, and a fraud, and can’t address the central argument. 2) The central argument that heterodox views are disproportionately expensive if not impossible to obtain citations in orthodox distribution channels. And that this problem is endemic to all market-driven (customer seeking) platforms. 3) That you have been engaging in distraction and shaming rather than addressing the central question (despite the variety of forms I’ve presented it in) and that you’re demonstrating exactly the infantilized behavior I accuse you of as a means of avoiding the fact that if you DID address that question you would lose face. 4) I am happy to continue to demonstrate how you and other libertarians use marxist and feminist argument (rallying, shaming, and avoidance) as a means of defending your pseudoscientific contra-rational malinvestment in a failed cult. It’s for the good of mankind. See how that works? See? Feminine rallying and shaming is predicated on the cheapness of those arguments, the expense of repeating the central argument, and the intuitionistic emotional reaction of infantilized audiences. However, through repetition we achieve what we cannot achieve through a single reasoned argument. And this is why it is so valuable to play losers like you as suckers. To demonstrate the success of the technique if you are willing to pay the cost of pursuing it – just as we pay high costs of altruistic punishment in all OTHER walks of life. The informational commons must be protected just as all other commons are protected, if we are to crush the criminal left, and the infantile regardless of affiliation.
-
Response: Method To Verbal Attacks
THE STRATEGY FOR OPPOSING FRAUDS IS A COSTLY INVESTMENT IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS. I teach everyone the same strategy: 1) return ridicule or criticism, 2) restate the central argument 3) pose why the deception is necessary if one is correct. 4) repeat until the audience is numb to the rallying shaming and other emotional distractions, and has absorbed the central argument through repetition. Ergo, (in response to ad hom) 1) you’re a poser, and a liar, and a fraud, and can’t address the central argument. 2) The central argument that heterodox views are disproportionately expensive if not impossible to obtain citations in orthodox distribution channels. And that this problem is endemic to all market-driven (customer seeking) platforms. 3) That you have been engaging in distraction and shaming rather than addressing the central question (despite the variety of forms I’ve presented it in) and that you’re demonstrating exactly the infantilized behavior I accuse you of as a means of avoiding the fact that if you DID address that question you would lose face. 4) I am happy to continue to demonstrate how you and other libertarians use marxist and feminist argument (rallying, shaming, and avoidance) as a means of defending your pseudoscientific contra-rational malinvestment in a failed cult. It’s for the good of mankind. See how that works? See? Feminine rallying and shaming is predicated on the cheapness of those arguments, the expense of repeating the central argument, and the intuitionistic emotional reaction of infantilized audiences. However, through repetition we achieve what we cannot achieve through a single reasoned argument. And this is why it is so valuable to play losers like you as suckers. To demonstrate the success of the technique if you are willing to pay the cost of pursuing it – just as we pay high costs of altruistic punishment in all OTHER walks of life. The informational commons must be protected just as all other commons are protected, if we are to crush the criminal left, and the infantile regardless of affiliation.
-
Your Method Tells Us Your Strategy
YOUR METHODOLOGY TELLS US YOUR IQ AND EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY by James Augustus —“A person’s/group epistemological methodology [literary, hermeneutic, mythological, occultist, theological, rationalist, pseudo scientific, asymmetrical empiricism] is most often derivative of the lies they seek to tell.”— James Augustus
-
Your Method Tells Us Your Strategy
YOUR METHODOLOGY TELLS US YOUR IQ AND EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY by James Augustus —“A person’s/group epistemological methodology [literary, hermeneutic, mythological, occultist, theological, rationalist, pseudo scientific, asymmetrical empiricism] is most often derivative of the lies they seek to tell.”— James Augustus