FIRST TO GET THIS OFF THE TABLE —“I wish I could assume that you are acting in good faith”— Well I will tell you how I DO NOT act in good faith: I dont have a classroom to experiment on students. I don’t have a research budget, and I don’t have graduate students (indentured labor) to conduct experiments for me. What I do have is access to a very inexpensive medium for experimenting with arguments. In my process of inquiry, I work very hard to construct conditions under which I can obtain what I consider honest or truthful information, vs reported information. I work very hard to understand how and why people hold positions, and to test my theories against those positions. So all my arguments are tests. I iterate these tests about ten times before they seem to be fairly good, and then over the next few years refine them until I can state them as aphorisms or series, or something incredibly dense – effectively as verbal proofs. I construct proofs. This work requires that I ‘get inside the heads’ of the people who hold these positions, and then reduce those positions to a series of testable criteria (incentives) regardless of position. And since I am a philosopher of science, and a falsificationist, I do this by attacking ideas until I see if and how they survive – or not. So I investigated sovereign monarchism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, neoreaction, and now the ‘nazis’ with sympathy to understand them then I attack those ideas to falsify them. And what remains is a set of ‘goods and bads’ from each model. In other words, in some ways, because I treat everyone I interact with in business and intellectual life, as a participant in an experiment, I am continually operating under conditions that you might consider disingenuous in the moment but profoundly moral in the end result. I learned most of this technique negotiating (i have bought a lot of companies, closed a lot of deals, and done deals that were meritous and some I regret today as immoral. But I see my chief problem in negotiation, simply living in a world full of relative upper class scoundrels, educated imbeciles and underclass zombies, and a middle and working class that appears to consist of the only moral people extant in western society, and they are the ones that least benefit from the current order – because they are being exterminated by it.) Now, there are a good number of people who follow me that know exactly what I am doing. And I think it is this form of cunning they appreciate almost as much as the output of my work. But in my world I am literally nothing more than a scientist using verbal experiments to investigate the human mind so that I can construct a body of law that will reverse the beneficiaries of the western order, and restore them to the middle and working classes, and save my people and our priceless civilization in doing so. So if that ‘disenginuity’ makes me immoral somehow in your world because I am ‘using’ people, when they are voluntarily engaging in these discussions, and I have to do nothing more than stand on the top of the hill and say I’m the king in order to get them to play this very elaborate verbal game, then I think you practice a woman’s morality, rather than a man’s. I take responsibiilty for not only myself, but for my people and for mankind, and I do so by asking people to play a game with me that they willingly play, are entertained by, and learn from. Frankly, if I didn’t have so much respect for you I wouldn’t say this but I know you are a moral man. What actually bothers me is that in my view the cost of dealing with all these shitty selfish people in all these ridiculous niches of political masturbation tires the hell out of me. But just as we must go live among the animals to understand them, and bear the costs and risks of doing so, I must do the same with every shitty immoral, selfish, justificationary, eddy of the human political tidal pool. That is the truth as I am most capable at the moment of speaking it. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
Theme: Deception
-
“Are You Acting in Good Faith?”
FIRST TO GET THIS OFF THE TABLE —“I wish I could assume that you are acting in good faith”— Well I will tell you how I DO NOT act in good faith: I dont have a classroom to experiment on students. I don’t have a research budget, and I don’t have graduate students (indentured labor) to conduct experiments for me. What I do have is access to a very inexpensive medium for experimenting with arguments. In my process of inquiry, I work very hard to construct conditions under which I can obtain what I consider honest or truthful information, vs reported information. I work very hard to understand how and why people hold positions, and to test my theories against those positions. So all my arguments are tests. I iterate these tests about ten times before they seem to be fairly good, and then over the next few years refine them until I can state them as aphorisms or series, or something incredibly dense – effectively as verbal proofs. I construct proofs. This work requires that I ‘get inside the heads’ of the people who hold these positions, and then reduce those positions to a series of testable criteria (incentives) regardless of position. And since I am a philosopher of science, and a falsificationist, I do this by attacking ideas until I see if and how they survive – or not. So I investigated sovereign monarchism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, neoreaction, and now the ‘nazis’ with sympathy to understand them then I attack those ideas to falsify them. And what remains is a set of ‘goods and bads’ from each model. In other words, in some ways, because I treat everyone I interact with in business and intellectual life, as a participant in an experiment, I am continually operating under conditions that you might consider disingenuous in the moment but profoundly moral in the end result. I learned most of this technique negotiating (i have bought a lot of companies, closed a lot of deals, and done deals that were meritous and some I regret today as immoral. But I see my chief problem in negotiation, simply living in a world full of relative upper class scoundrels, educated imbeciles and underclass zombies, and a middle and working class that appears to consist of the only moral people extant in western society, and they are the ones that least benefit from the current order – because they are being exterminated by it.) Now, there are a good number of people who follow me that know exactly what I am doing. And I think it is this form of cunning they appreciate almost as much as the output of my work. But in my world I am literally nothing more than a scientist using verbal experiments to investigate the human mind so that I can construct a body of law that will reverse the beneficiaries of the western order, and restore them to the middle and working classes, and save my people and our priceless civilization in doing so. So if that ‘disenginuity’ makes me immoral somehow in your world because I am ‘using’ people, when they are voluntarily engaging in these discussions, and I have to do nothing more than stand on the top of the hill and say I’m the king in order to get them to play this very elaborate verbal game, then I think you practice a woman’s morality, rather than a man’s. I take responsibiilty for not only myself, but for my people and for mankind, and I do so by asking people to play a game with me that they willingly play, are entertained by, and learn from. Frankly, if I didn’t have so much respect for you I wouldn’t say this but I know you are a moral man. What actually bothers me is that in my view the cost of dealing with all these shitty selfish people in all these ridiculous niches of political masturbation tires the hell out of me. But just as we must go live among the animals to understand them, and bear the costs and risks of doing so, I must do the same with every shitty immoral, selfish, justificationary, eddy of the human political tidal pool. That is the truth as I am most capable at the moment of speaking it. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
Yes, We Can Restore Western Civilization, and Easily
YES WE CAN RESTORE WESTERN CIVILIZATION – EASILY —“It appears that a golden bullet would be to reduce the value of [false] advertising, and this ineffectiveness would lead to the media industry being starved of revenue. Any suggestions on how this could be achieved?”—- Julian le Roux GREAT QUESTION!!!! YES!
EASILY: (a) require testimonial truth in all public speech. (b) rescind copyright protection, replacing it with creative commons protection. (you may not profit from it at civic expense, and then neither may anyone else.). This reduces copyright to a trademark and therefore fraud issue rather than a license for unnecessary and perversive rents. Honestly, it’s that simple. We would crush the entertainment, advertising, media, propaganda, public intellectual, political in 120 days. That is all the cash flow that they have to survive with. Even the threat of it would wipe out the industry. As we have seen with book authorship, artistic authorship, and even independent cinema, the creative works would continue to be produced no matter what. There is no reason to subsidize them if by doing so we subsidize the production of critique (propaganda). The impact on civilization – reversing the economic incentives and economic possibility of engaging in the industrialization of lying, would vanish. If intellectuals professors, advertisers and marketers, industry and politicians, media and artists must warranty their works as truthful, then the size, scale, and composition of the information system will return to that which is possible and rewarding: truthful. We have built a civilization funded by lying just as much as we built the internet funded by pornography. WE MADE IT POSSIBLE BY A GRATUITOUS VIOLATION OF NATURAL LAW. WE CAN UNMAKE THE POSSIBILITY BUT RESTORING NATURAL LAW. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Yes, We Can Restore Western Civilization, and Easily
YES WE CAN RESTORE WESTERN CIVILIZATION – EASILY —“It appears that a golden bullet would be to reduce the value of [false] advertising, and this ineffectiveness would lead to the media industry being starved of revenue. Any suggestions on how this could be achieved?”—- Julian le Roux GREAT QUESTION!!!! YES!
EASILY: (a) require testimonial truth in all public speech. (b) rescind copyright protection, replacing it with creative commons protection. (you may not profit from it at civic expense, and then neither may anyone else.). This reduces copyright to a trademark and therefore fraud issue rather than a license for unnecessary and perversive rents. Honestly, it’s that simple. We would crush the entertainment, advertising, media, propaganda, public intellectual, political in 120 days. That is all the cash flow that they have to survive with. Even the threat of it would wipe out the industry. As we have seen with book authorship, artistic authorship, and even independent cinema, the creative works would continue to be produced no matter what. There is no reason to subsidize them if by doing so we subsidize the production of critique (propaganda). The impact on civilization – reversing the economic incentives and economic possibility of engaging in the industrialization of lying, would vanish. If intellectuals professors, advertisers and marketers, industry and politicians, media and artists must warranty their works as truthful, then the size, scale, and composition of the information system will return to that which is possible and rewarding: truthful. We have built a civilization funded by lying just as much as we built the internet funded by pornography. WE MADE IT POSSIBLE BY A GRATUITOUS VIOLATION OF NATURAL LAW. WE CAN UNMAKE THE POSSIBILITY BUT RESTORING NATURAL LAW. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
The Reporter’s Primary Trick
REPORTER’S PRIMARY TRICK Force someone to reduce a complex set of ideas to a sound bite, then develop a straw man criticism of the sound bit that will attract attention by violating the moral intuitions of as many people as possible. Remember, the press is always lying. They are all the product of the Culture of Critique and Critical Theory, not the product of western Natural Law and truthful testimony. They are gossips for profit, not jurors.
THE TRUMP / NEGOTIATOR TRICK Give moral answers, general ‘goals’, and sew uncertainty as to details, so that the other side comes to the table having prepared for a multitude of eventualities, that make it costly and time consuming to obtain agreement upon. Feign preference for any of a set of ideas, meanwhile simply listing a priority of available terms that you are willing to accept. Bring an ultimate decider into the room, and then leave the other side scrambling to develop consensus, as you wear them down. Strike a deal, and when they come back to the table for more accuse them of bad faith, unethical conduct, incompetence, and disorganization. State your position as take it or leave it because the other side is not serious. Meanwhile keep leaking to the imbecilic press and whomever else is engaged in gossip for a living, that the other side is incompetent and dishonest. Walk away, say what you left on the table, and do what you left on the table that is in your interest. Curt Doolittle -
The Reporter’s Primary Trick
REPORTER’S PRIMARY TRICK Force someone to reduce a complex set of ideas to a sound bite, then develop a straw man criticism of the sound bit that will attract attention by violating the moral intuitions of as many people as possible. Remember, the press is always lying. They are all the product of the Culture of Critique and Critical Theory, not the product of western Natural Law and truthful testimony. They are gossips for profit, not jurors.
THE TRUMP / NEGOTIATOR TRICK Give moral answers, general ‘goals’, and sew uncertainty as to details, so that the other side comes to the table having prepared for a multitude of eventualities, that make it costly and time consuming to obtain agreement upon. Feign preference for any of a set of ideas, meanwhile simply listing a priority of available terms that you are willing to accept. Bring an ultimate decider into the room, and then leave the other side scrambling to develop consensus, as you wear them down. Strike a deal, and when they come back to the table for more accuse them of bad faith, unethical conduct, incompetence, and disorganization. State your position as take it or leave it because the other side is not serious. Meanwhile keep leaking to the imbecilic press and whomever else is engaged in gossip for a living, that the other side is incompetent and dishonest. Walk away, say what you left on the table, and do what you left on the table that is in your interest. Curt Doolittle -
Look, truthful speech is expensive, which is why humans practice it so rarely an
Look, truthful speech is expensive, which is why humans practice it so rarely and westerners alone were able to discover deflationary truth.
For a man, truthfulness is cost, but that cost comes as a form of self sacrifice to the pack, warriors, tribe, army, and nation – a means of paying for his share of the opportunity, just as his actions pay for a share of the kill.
For a woman it is a risk to speak the truth – no so much because of men, but because of what other women will do to her, and her greater dependence upon those women than upon the men, who most often treat her (in her opinion) as property, utility, or livestock.
I think all of us struggle for agency, and truth and discipline are the means by which we obtain it. But agency is of different value to different group evolutoinary strategies.
While i am certain that different classes possess different agency, I am just as certain that the jews my people complain about possess no more agency than the women they complain about, and for exactly the same reason: evolutionary biology.
I wonder how much agency east and southeast asians have despite their accomplishments. I mean, is it as simple as theh require the high context civilization to functoin, just as we funciton best in the low context civilization? Have our brains evolved likewise?
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 18:17:00 UTC
-
JAMES ON CONFLATION > DECEPTION > UNEARNED DISCOUNT (THEFT) (behold the parsimon
JAMES ON CONFLATION > DECEPTION > UNEARNED DISCOUNT (THEFT)
(behold the parsimony of genius)
By James Augustus
Propertarian Heuristic: where one observes conflation, one is likely to observe some degree of deception.
Corollary: where one observes deception, one is likely to observe some dimension of discount-seeking (parasitism).
And that can apply to:
(a) conflation as substitution for understanding of existential operations (seeking discounts on intellectual authority), and;
(b) conflation as means of limiting the scope of information considered on matters that require decidability (seeking discounts on exchange/cooperation).
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 16:00:00 UTC
-
ANSWER TO A LOW LEVEL CRITIC ^ i have no interest whatsoever in the general popu
ANSWER TO A LOW LEVEL CRITIC
^ i have no interest whatsoever in the general population, other than to save the working and middle classes from the lies of the left and the parasitism of the financial and political sector.
^ Every social science experiment requires asymmetry of information (playing dumb), or it would not work, you silly git.
^ if you can’t learn, cant understand, then that is the only criticism you can make. Someone writes in code, another in algebraic expression, another in a foreign language, and another in a formal logic, and you don’t understand it, then is that a criticism of the authors or one of you?
^ when I publish something I learn a lot by the people who respond and how they respond. This tells me how to improve my work for clarity. But I do not seek to reduce the knowledge requirement for understanding it. Only to improve the clarity with which I write it.
^If you aren’t the audience then just use arguments that you can. But dont expect me to make a ‘dummies’ version. Someone else will undoubtably do that.
^All that most people need to understand is that it is possible to modify the constitution and to modify how the treasury distributes liquidity, and to reduce copyright, until the financial entertainment media and political sectors are starved of cash, and we use the new law to prosecute them every time they lie until no opportunity to lie remains, because we have built a body of case law that limits people to truthful speech in the commons.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 17:27:00 UTC
-
PETERSON is advancing good morals by immoral means: conflationary programming. T
PETERSON is advancing good morals by immoral means: conflationary programming. That’s the problem. The construction of intuitional responses (training in preferences) rather than the construction of rational responses (training in decidability).
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 10:15:00 UTC