Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • “All improvement in cooperation comes from parallel increases in informational q

    —“All improvement in cooperation comes from parallel increases in informational quality++ and theft/fraud/conspiracy suppression–.”— Something I posted on twitter in response to this question. Man is a rational actor. He acts in his rational self-interest at all times, choosing immoral and moral actions by intuitive cost vs benefit; and we can find no exceptions other than kin selection – and arguably that is also in one’s self-interest. For this reason we do not make the world a better place, but instead, we create institutions that raise the cost of unhelpful behaviors, and reduce the cost of helpful behaviors. Some of the methods we use to suppress immoral behaviors are obvious (law, restitution, punishment), and some are not (the conversion of property from material goods to partial-title) because they make theft more difficult. Others are difficult to admit to: that the differences between wealthier and poorer societies is generally explained by the relative sizes of the upper and lower genetic classes, meaning that no amount of effort will help some countries prosper because there are just too many people at the bottom to incentivize with the inventiveness and productivity at the top, using organization provided by the middle. So while a one-child policy is necessary in Africa, the Muslim world, and south america it cannot be implemented without the equivalent of the Red Army or the Revolutionary Guard. Which India’s weakness – even literacy has been a problem. So we cannot eliminate a tendency as much as eliminate generations with those tendencies, and provide institutions that preserve positive and suppress negative tendencies. Man evolves locally and fast. But we must help man do so just as we did under agrarianism – which was not a kind process to those who could not transition to it. They are largely gone. Just as the various other incarnations of man are gone. And we eliminated them from the planet, while walking on foot, over a comparatively small number of millennia. If we look back over the past century, most of the harm was done by the communist movement, the facist movement to resist it, and the capitalist movement to eradicate it. The communist movement promised utopian results to backward nations that had not transitioned through the enlightenment. Just as Islam is a utopian movement promising utopian results to backward nations, and using the same strategy as communism except distributed on moral and religoius grounds using weaponized reproduction rather than distributed on economic and political grounds using direct rebellion – a slower path to the same ends: changing the order to one suitable to the underclasses and less suitable to the middle and upper classes. The pseudoscientific communist economic movement(Marx) was accompanied by the pseudoscientific social science movement (boaz) and the pseudoscientific psychological movement (freud), and less harmflly the pseudoscientific mathematical moveent( Cantor). And then when by the pseudoscientific cultural movvement (the frankfurt school). So my prescription for improvement for mankind is that we can continue the suppression of new methods of theft and fraud by defending the informational commons the same way we defend the air, land, and water from pollution, our physical commons, infrastructure and monuments from physical damage, and our rule of law, govenrment from damage, and our religions and traditions from damage: By outlawing pseudoscience. We could not outlaw pseudoscience until very recently because we have only begun to understand truth at scale in the 20th century. But now that we know, we can force upon people a warranty of due diligence in speech inserted into the commons the same way we force a warranty of due diligenc upon people who provide goods and services. Those due diligences are (Painfully Briefly): 1 – categorical consistency (identity and non conflation) 2 – internal consistency (logical) 3 – external correspondence (empirical consistency) 4 – existential possibility (operational language) 5 – ethical consistency (consisting of fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same.) 6 – scope consistency (defining limits, full accounting, and parsimony) We have many such other requirements in the law, and we use these requirements with academics when publishing. And there is no reason we do not demand these same warranties of political speech, which is far more consequential than academic speech. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute KIev, Ukraine http://www.drewgl.com/posts/4241

  • “All improvement in cooperation comes from parallel increases in informational q

    —“All improvement in cooperation comes from parallel increases in informational quality++ and theft/fraud/conspiracy suppression–.”— Something I posted on twitter in response to this question. Man is a rational actor. He acts in his rational self-interest at all times, choosing immoral and moral actions by intuitive cost vs benefit; and we can find no exceptions other than kin selection – and arguably that is also in one’s self-interest. For this reason we do not make the world a better place, but instead, we create institutions that raise the cost of unhelpful behaviors, and reduce the cost of helpful behaviors. Some of the methods we use to suppress immoral behaviors are obvious (law, restitution, punishment), and some are not (the conversion of property from material goods to partial-title) because they make theft more difficult. Others are difficult to admit to: that the differences between wealthier and poorer societies is generally explained by the relative sizes of the upper and lower genetic classes, meaning that no amount of effort will help some countries prosper because there are just too many people at the bottom to incentivize with the inventiveness and productivity at the top, using organization provided by the middle. So while a one-child policy is necessary in Africa, the Muslim world, and south america it cannot be implemented without the equivalent of the Red Army or the Revolutionary Guard. Which India’s weakness – even literacy has been a problem. So we cannot eliminate a tendency as much as eliminate generations with those tendencies, and provide institutions that preserve positive and suppress negative tendencies. Man evolves locally and fast. But we must help man do so just as we did under agrarianism – which was not a kind process to those who could not transition to it. They are largely gone. Just as the various other incarnations of man are gone. And we eliminated them from the planet, while walking on foot, over a comparatively small number of millennia. If we look back over the past century, most of the harm was done by the communist movement, the facist movement to resist it, and the capitalist movement to eradicate it. The communist movement promised utopian results to backward nations that had not transitioned through the enlightenment. Just as Islam is a utopian movement promising utopian results to backward nations, and using the same strategy as communism except distributed on moral and religoius grounds using weaponized reproduction rather than distributed on economic and political grounds using direct rebellion – a slower path to the same ends: changing the order to one suitable to the underclasses and less suitable to the middle and upper classes. The pseudoscientific communist economic movement(Marx) was accompanied by the pseudoscientific social science movement (boaz) and the pseudoscientific psychological movement (freud), and less harmflly the pseudoscientific mathematical moveent( Cantor). And then when by the pseudoscientific cultural movvement (the frankfurt school). So my prescription for improvement for mankind is that we can continue the suppression of new methods of theft and fraud by defending the informational commons the same way we defend the air, land, and water from pollution, our physical commons, infrastructure and monuments from physical damage, and our rule of law, govenrment from damage, and our religions and traditions from damage: By outlawing pseudoscience. We could not outlaw pseudoscience until very recently because we have only begun to understand truth at scale in the 20th century. But now that we know, we can force upon people a warranty of due diligence in speech inserted into the commons the same way we force a warranty of due diligenc upon people who provide goods and services. Those due diligences are (Painfully Briefly): 1 – categorical consistency (identity and non conflation) 2 – internal consistency (logical) 3 – external correspondence (empirical consistency) 4 – existential possibility (operational language) 5 – ethical consistency (consisting of fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same.) 6 – scope consistency (defining limits, full accounting, and parsimony) We have many such other requirements in the law, and we use these requirements with academics when publishing. And there is no reason we do not demand these same warranties of political speech, which is far more consequential than academic speech. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute KIev, Ukraine http://www.drewgl.com/posts/4241

  • Nazis and Soros in Ukraine?

    Q&A –What’s the story with nazis funded by Soros in Ukraine?— The story is, this: Which is more believable: that in a Country the size and population of Canada, whose people look across the border enviously at the prosperity of their extended family in Poland – people who speak approximately the same language, possess approximately the same religion and values – would revolt when their president rejected joining the EU because he was bought and paid for, like everyone else in the government, by the Russian government, in hopes of collapsing the military and civil order sufficiently that Russia could claim a humanitarian excuse for repossessing the territory and restoring the Russian empire by the reuniting of Ukraine, belorus, Prussia, and possibly Kazakhstan? What’s NOT rational about the red necks in Ukraine like any other country with a surplus of unemployed men, would not gladly take out their frustrations on a government so corrupt that it makes Venezuela look like holy see? OK. So apparently people in these circumstances, tasting the chance that they might exit unnecessary poverty and corruption are going to be swayed by Soros’s money? The USA was flying almost 10M in cash a week into Ukraine to give to people. But no one in a million years thought the president would flee, because no one in a million years thought that the people would fight that hard. Soros funds a lot of things. BTW: I know these guys that are supposedly ‘nazis’ and if you call them right wing nationalists that’s true. They want to crush corruption of the bolsheviks in Russia the same way the germans wanted to crush the bolshevik movement in Europe. There isn’t anything bad about crushing bolshevism, communism, Russian expansion at all. The only thing we can really (over centuries) criticize the nazis about is overconfidence and running out of money to use resettlement camps as labor and finally starvation camps. Fascism is a rational response to communism. It worked. National socialism was a rational response to communism and bolshevism and Trotskyism. Soros should be in prison like Putin put the oligarchs in prison. I have no idea why we don’t just seize everything he owns and prosecute everyone who works for him. The hard right in ukraine is just a patriotic nationalist movement. We should not confuse putin’s legitimate constraint of american power, with putin’s illegitimate attempt to restore the russian empire and the corruption endemic to the russian sphere of influence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • Nazis and Soros in Ukraine?

    Q&A –What’s the story with nazis funded by Soros in Ukraine?— The story is, this: Which is more believable: that in a Country the size and population of Canada, whose people look across the border enviously at the prosperity of their extended family in Poland – people who speak approximately the same language, possess approximately the same religion and values – would revolt when their president rejected joining the EU because he was bought and paid for, like everyone else in the government, by the Russian government, in hopes of collapsing the military and civil order sufficiently that Russia could claim a humanitarian excuse for repossessing the territory and restoring the Russian empire by the reuniting of Ukraine, belorus, Prussia, and possibly Kazakhstan? What’s NOT rational about the red necks in Ukraine like any other country with a surplus of unemployed men, would not gladly take out their frustrations on a government so corrupt that it makes Venezuela look like holy see? OK. So apparently people in these circumstances, tasting the chance that they might exit unnecessary poverty and corruption are going to be swayed by Soros’s money? The USA was flying almost 10M in cash a week into Ukraine to give to people. But no one in a million years thought the president would flee, because no one in a million years thought that the people would fight that hard. Soros funds a lot of things. BTW: I know these guys that are supposedly ‘nazis’ and if you call them right wing nationalists that’s true. They want to crush corruption of the bolsheviks in Russia the same way the germans wanted to crush the bolshevik movement in Europe. There isn’t anything bad about crushing bolshevism, communism, Russian expansion at all. The only thing we can really (over centuries) criticize the nazis about is overconfidence and running out of money to use resettlement camps as labor and finally starvation camps. Fascism is a rational response to communism. It worked. National socialism was a rational response to communism and bolshevism and Trotskyism. Soros should be in prison like Putin put the oligarchs in prison. I have no idea why we don’t just seize everything he owns and prosecute everyone who works for him. The hard right in ukraine is just a patriotic nationalist movement. We should not confuse putin’s legitimate constraint of american power, with putin’s illegitimate attempt to restore the russian empire and the corruption endemic to the russian sphere of influence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • Defeating Cultural Marxism

    HOW TO DEFEAT CULTURAL MARXISTS USING THE WESTERN DEVELOPMENT OF LAW (very important ideas inside) 1-Find a Lie 2-Ask if it is really true. 3-Then just work through the whole argument until they run away. 4-Use their vanity to spam their channel or feed. AN ARGUMENT OVER WESTERN INVENTION OF LAW (number responds to the number of the tweet in the sequence. It’s just for my reference. Ignore it.) 1 Lets take the lie that we live under the code of Hammurabi. Now, Hammurabi made a list of standardized punishments. 3 But the greeks developed argument to order, but it was the stoics who created natural law. 4 The Romans were suspicious of Geek ‘excuse making’ and so they choose the stoic pragmatism. 5 The romans effectively industrialize ’empirical’ (natural) law. 6 Unfortunately, the combination of migration tribes, cost of land holding vs naval, and immigration of underclasses was almost impossible to manage without north african grain. 8 So when the first byzantine plague was followed by the islamic conquest of northern africa, and Islamic piracy and raiding destroyed trade as had the sea peoples in 1200 bc, the aristocracy and the demographic quality of the population was insufficient to maintain roman rule of law. 11 So administratin in europe collapsed and the roman mediteranean was victim of islamic piracy on a scale that the Vikings never matched, and only the sea peoples exceeded. 13 Now, to rebuild the lost population and rebuild the economy out of private feudal estates took time. 14 But Vienna supplied the byzantine navy, and the north sea trade, followed by the Hansa rebuilt trade just as the greeks, and romans, had built agean and mediterranean. And how the french dutch spanish and english built atlantic, and americans built pacific. Since it is not land but water that civilizations must hold in order to control trade routes, and the terms of trade, and the financing of trade. It was these generations who slowly merged roman law, church law, german law into an international body of DECIDABLE law, crossing all cultures: natural law. 20 It was this SCIENTIFIC law, that inspired Bacon, to invent empiricism, using law as a universal model, and cause the anglo empirical enlightenment and the development of science, medicine, technology, and NATURAL LAW. 22 The british then conquered the known world with guns, ships, accounting, banking, and a militia. 23 New Zealand is bigger than Britain. England had a tiny population. France reacted with a MORAL enlightenment preserving authority and culminating in dualist CONTINENTAL law. The germans reacted with rationalism (kant) by restating christian submission with obscurant speech. The ashkenazi responded with the pseudoscientific revolution: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Mises, Frankfurt and Americans responded by seizing this pseudoscience and expanding political correctness:Lying 28 Unfortunately, in the 20th century, all the philosophers – desperately trying to turn philosophy into a respectable science, were distracted by applying cantor’s set theory to language. 30 So all the thinkers of that era failed to defeat the Ashkenazi pseudoscientific revolution, and pseudosciences overtook academy, media, and state policy – only recently reversed by cognitive science, archeology, and genetic research. So since 1990 we have been slowly eradicating lies. 33 Now, what we did count on was the 1964 immigration bill’s attempt to flood the aristocratic west with underclasses that would allow the pseudoscientific era to expand just as Christianity had been spread by underclasses, women, and immigrants in the ancient world. What we did not count on, and cannot correct, is the flood of Caribbean and south americans and the voting patterns of single mothers in black, hispanic, and single white women. 38 So we neither had a chance to reform the law to prevent pseudoscience in public speech, nor could we defeat the rates of reproduction of the underclasses while employing and reducing the rate of reproduction of the women in the upper classes (germanic protestants). So our strategy seems to have failed and we cannot retain the continent, and our only solution is to force underclasses to revolt. If these underclasses revolt in sufficient numbers we will have the opportunity we seek. 43 So while others made rules, we made NATURAL LAW, and came close to strict construction: a formal logic of law. thereby recognizing finally, that it is natural law, that is the basis of western civilization’s ability to evolve FASTER than all other civilizations, despite being YOUNGER. 46 So there is no truth to the statement that the west did not invent law. Others invented commands. Still others codified superstition and norm into permanent and stifling and limiting rules. Others like china did neither and used vague moral philosophy to issue edicts (commands) not laws. But just as the west invented reason,rationalism,and science,the west invented social science: Law. 50 Now what I didn’t mention, is that I’m using the western rhetorical model to educate using truth. And you my friend, are using the Frankfurt schools technique of lies, propaganda, and overloading. 52 This technique is meant to raise the cost of argument to the point where the scientific party cannot respond and answer objections as fast as the liars can manufacture falsehoods (critique). 54 So thus endeth the lesson in the conduct of the economics of argument: cheap lies expensive truth. 55 It is not surprising that only westerners have developed a high-trust society. Truth is expensive. Truth is the most expensive norm we can develop, and produces the highest returns. But to develop the norm of truthfulness and high trust requires people capable of REASON. 58 My opponent demonstrates that he prefers rule by ashkenazi lies, then rule by anglo truth. The underclass never wins or rules, at best they are fooled by the master they prefer. The data is clear: it’s just demographics. Unless you can keep your median IQ over 106 and preserve truthfulness in public speech, you cannot obtain and hold the benefits of western civ. 62 We do not lose if we laugh at you for eternity – rebuild the favellas and slums. It’s your home. 🙂 I was not trying to achieve anything other than an excuse. I am very very good at what I do. That is why I am the most innovative contemporary philosopher of the American Right.

  • Defeating Cultural Marxism

    HOW TO DEFEAT CULTURAL MARXISTS USING THE WESTERN DEVELOPMENT OF LAW (very important ideas inside) 1-Find a Lie 2-Ask if it is really true. 3-Then just work through the whole argument until they run away. 4-Use their vanity to spam their channel or feed. AN ARGUMENT OVER WESTERN INVENTION OF LAW (number responds to the number of the tweet in the sequence. It’s just for my reference. Ignore it.) 1 Lets take the lie that we live under the code of Hammurabi. Now, Hammurabi made a list of standardized punishments. 3 But the greeks developed argument to order, but it was the stoics who created natural law. 4 The Romans were suspicious of Geek ‘excuse making’ and so they choose the stoic pragmatism. 5 The romans effectively industrialize ’empirical’ (natural) law. 6 Unfortunately, the combination of migration tribes, cost of land holding vs naval, and immigration of underclasses was almost impossible to manage without north african grain. 8 So when the first byzantine plague was followed by the islamic conquest of northern africa, and Islamic piracy and raiding destroyed trade as had the sea peoples in 1200 bc, the aristocracy and the demographic quality of the population was insufficient to maintain roman rule of law. 11 So administratin in europe collapsed and the roman mediteranean was victim of islamic piracy on a scale that the Vikings never matched, and only the sea peoples exceeded. 13 Now, to rebuild the lost population and rebuild the economy out of private feudal estates took time. 14 But Vienna supplied the byzantine navy, and the north sea trade, followed by the Hansa rebuilt trade just as the greeks, and romans, had built agean and mediterranean. And how the french dutch spanish and english built atlantic, and americans built pacific. Since it is not land but water that civilizations must hold in order to control trade routes, and the terms of trade, and the financing of trade. It was these generations who slowly merged roman law, church law, german law into an international body of DECIDABLE law, crossing all cultures: natural law. 20 It was this SCIENTIFIC law, that inspired Bacon, to invent empiricism, using law as a universal model, and cause the anglo empirical enlightenment and the development of science, medicine, technology, and NATURAL LAW. 22 The british then conquered the known world with guns, ships, accounting, banking, and a militia. 23 New Zealand is bigger than Britain. England had a tiny population. France reacted with a MORAL enlightenment preserving authority and culminating in dualist CONTINENTAL law. The germans reacted with rationalism (kant) by restating christian submission with obscurant speech. The ashkenazi responded with the pseudoscientific revolution: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Mises, Frankfurt and Americans responded by seizing this pseudoscience and expanding political correctness:Lying 28 Unfortunately, in the 20th century, all the philosophers – desperately trying to turn philosophy into a respectable science, were distracted by applying cantor’s set theory to language. 30 So all the thinkers of that era failed to defeat the Ashkenazi pseudoscientific revolution, and pseudosciences overtook academy, media, and state policy – only recently reversed by cognitive science, archeology, and genetic research. So since 1990 we have been slowly eradicating lies. 33 Now, what we did count on was the 1964 immigration bill’s attempt to flood the aristocratic west with underclasses that would allow the pseudoscientific era to expand just as Christianity had been spread by underclasses, women, and immigrants in the ancient world. What we did not count on, and cannot correct, is the flood of Caribbean and south americans and the voting patterns of single mothers in black, hispanic, and single white women. 38 So we neither had a chance to reform the law to prevent pseudoscience in public speech, nor could we defeat the rates of reproduction of the underclasses while employing and reducing the rate of reproduction of the women in the upper classes (germanic protestants). So our strategy seems to have failed and we cannot retain the continent, and our only solution is to force underclasses to revolt. If these underclasses revolt in sufficient numbers we will have the opportunity we seek. 43 So while others made rules, we made NATURAL LAW, and came close to strict construction: a formal logic of law. thereby recognizing finally, that it is natural law, that is the basis of western civilization’s ability to evolve FASTER than all other civilizations, despite being YOUNGER. 46 So there is no truth to the statement that the west did not invent law. Others invented commands. Still others codified superstition and norm into permanent and stifling and limiting rules. Others like china did neither and used vague moral philosophy to issue edicts (commands) not laws. But just as the west invented reason,rationalism,and science,the west invented social science: Law. 50 Now what I didn’t mention, is that I’m using the western rhetorical model to educate using truth. And you my friend, are using the Frankfurt schools technique of lies, propaganda, and overloading. 52 This technique is meant to raise the cost of argument to the point where the scientific party cannot respond and answer objections as fast as the liars can manufacture falsehoods (critique). 54 So thus endeth the lesson in the conduct of the economics of argument: cheap lies expensive truth. 55 It is not surprising that only westerners have developed a high-trust society. Truth is expensive. Truth is the most expensive norm we can develop, and produces the highest returns. But to develop the norm of truthfulness and high trust requires people capable of REASON. 58 My opponent demonstrates that he prefers rule by ashkenazi lies, then rule by anglo truth. The underclass never wins or rules, at best they are fooled by the master they prefer. The data is clear: it’s just demographics. Unless you can keep your median IQ over 106 and preserve truthfulness in public speech, you cannot obtain and hold the benefits of western civ. 62 We do not lose if we laugh at you for eternity – rebuild the favellas and slums. It’s your home. 🙂 I was not trying to achieve anything other than an excuse. I am very very good at what I do. That is why I am the most innovative contemporary philosopher of the American Right.

  • “Why is neo-progressivism so reliant upon the re-appropriation of Marxist doctri

    —“Why is neo-progressivism so reliant upon the re-appropriation of Marxist doctrine and Critical Theory?”— 1) Conservatism must speak in historical, moral, allegorical, and religious language because if stated ratio-scientifically it’s reducible to ‘eugenics in everything’, just as all of western civilization has been since the Kurgan invasions. So conservatives do not lie they just do not speak the truth. 2) Neo-Liberalism is just an attempt to turn america into the levant or south america so that an upper managerial caste can form and profit from administration of a vast underclass, just as the cosmopolitans did in eastern Europe before migrating to the states. They cannot say this. And there is no way to speak truthfully. Since they failed at pseudo-rational marxist religion, pseudoscientific economics and social science, and just gave up advocacy and started attacking western civilization at every level (cultural marxism / postmodernism / the frankfurt school). Democracy creates incentives to lie. Rule of law (constitutionalism) creates incentives to tell the truth. But conservatives don’t tell the truth, and neo-liberals just lie. Humans are vastly unequal and our evolution has been 5x that of the difference between humans and chimpanzees over the past 30k years alone. These differences are largely visible as differences in rates of maturity, depth of maturity, and sexual dimorphism, and the relative sizes of the lower and upper classes. This means that conservatism is true but a large domestic empire is impossible. It means that progressivism is false, and that a large domestic empire will produced colored casts very much like india with little or no rotation. Everyone lies. The only solution is to break up the empire and continue the BIG SORT.

  • How To Prosecute a Progressive

    HOW TO PROSECUTE A PROGRESSIVE (LEFTIST) In the western tradition, as a high trust people, we search for, and start from the assumption that the other party errs. These assumptions were originally necessary for military and juridical debate between peers specializing in violence, but evolved to traditional, then institutional, and now normative assumptions on how one should proceed in argument and discourse. But what I have tried to do, is revisit that assumption, and start from the premise that the other person is trying, because of the biases of his genetics, to commit fraud. And that error is often a trivial contributor to differences in assessment and that the various forms of fraud constitute the vast majority of argument. This is quite different from the rather tame victorian or jewish debate between peers, and the traditional western demand that the aristocracy JUDGE. As such my approach is prosecutorial rather than deliberative, since any deliberative stance in which we assume error rather than deception, merely gives the fraud permission to engage in propagandism, and prevents resolution of differences, since in discourse the liar does not admit his lies. So why am I saying this? Because if I prosecute your statement it will be rapidly obvious to the jury, regardless of whether you consent to the outcome or not, that you’re likewise engaged in an act of fraud. However, I’ll construct my argument briefly. First reductively, then causally. Reductively: *Foucault is to Frankfurt as Keynes is to Marx, but it was Marx and Frankfurt that developed the technique of critique by applying Jewish hermeneutic criticism of static scripture and its dysgenic consequences instead of European scientific extension of dynamic, common, natural law and its eugenic consequences.* Now lacking knowledge of my arguments, you assumed too much. Which is normal since it is always a question of the worth of investigating some set of ideas. But that argument is: 1) groups make use of the argumentative technique used by their civilization, and in most if not all cases this is reducible to the argumentative structure of our ancestral laws. 2) our ancestral laws in whatever form incorporated our group evolutionary strategies. 3) we all justify our individual and group evolutionary strategies in no small part because as metaphysical assumptions we are rarely aware of them, and contrary propositions are intuitively immoral (or just wrong). 4) during the enlightenment each culture attempted to express its method of argument, and it’s group evolutionary strategy, as a universal, rather than a particular. 5) every society was wrong in that while the British scientific method was correct its aspirational view of man was false; the french method of moral literary equality was a justificationary method of preserving authority and the moral view of man was false; the german rationalism model was false but the german understanding of man was true, and its prescription (truth telling and defense of it) was true. And the Jewish pseudoscientific pseudorational pseudolegal was designed from its origins as false, polylogical, poly ethical, and parasitic. And the nature of man irrelevant if it can be exploited. Each culture then made use of the technologies other cultures have used, and it is only since the late 1990’s with the combination of computers, cognitive science, medical imaging, and genetic research that we have started to become successful at overthrowing the last, and worst, enlightenment thinkers: the pseudoscientists and deceivers: the cosmopolitans: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School, Rand, Rothbard, Strauss, and the legion of others that have conducted a century-long campaign against common, natural, empirical, judge discovered, eugenic law. Once we falsify the pseudoscience in each then those who arose consequentially from the original will fall as well. Yes, Foucault(literary) like Keynes(probabilism) improved upon Frankfurt(pseudoscience, pseudorationalism), and Marx(pseudoscience, pseudoratioalism), but preserved the central theory: creating a straw man and criticizing it, rather than creating a positive argument and justifying it. We criticize science because we do not know its first principles, we justify morality because we do. we must. or sympathetic cooperation would be impossible for us as it is between most apes. Cheers.

  • How To Prosecute a Progressive

    HOW TO PROSECUTE A PROGRESSIVE (LEFTIST) In the western tradition, as a high trust people, we search for, and start from the assumption that the other party errs. These assumptions were originally necessary for military and juridical debate between peers specializing in violence, but evolved to traditional, then institutional, and now normative assumptions on how one should proceed in argument and discourse. But what I have tried to do, is revisit that assumption, and start from the premise that the other person is trying, because of the biases of his genetics, to commit fraud. And that error is often a trivial contributor to differences in assessment and that the various forms of fraud constitute the vast majority of argument. This is quite different from the rather tame victorian or jewish debate between peers, and the traditional western demand that the aristocracy JUDGE. As such my approach is prosecutorial rather than deliberative, since any deliberative stance in which we assume error rather than deception, merely gives the fraud permission to engage in propagandism, and prevents resolution of differences, since in discourse the liar does not admit his lies. So why am I saying this? Because if I prosecute your statement it will be rapidly obvious to the jury, regardless of whether you consent to the outcome or not, that you’re likewise engaged in an act of fraud. However, I’ll construct my argument briefly. First reductively, then causally. Reductively: *Foucault is to Frankfurt as Keynes is to Marx, but it was Marx and Frankfurt that developed the technique of critique by applying Jewish hermeneutic criticism of static scripture and its dysgenic consequences instead of European scientific extension of dynamic, common, natural law and its eugenic consequences.* Now lacking knowledge of my arguments, you assumed too much. Which is normal since it is always a question of the worth of investigating some set of ideas. But that argument is: 1) groups make use of the argumentative technique used by their civilization, and in most if not all cases this is reducible to the argumentative structure of our ancestral laws. 2) our ancestral laws in whatever form incorporated our group evolutionary strategies. 3) we all justify our individual and group evolutionary strategies in no small part because as metaphysical assumptions we are rarely aware of them, and contrary propositions are intuitively immoral (or just wrong). 4) during the enlightenment each culture attempted to express its method of argument, and it’s group evolutionary strategy, as a universal, rather than a particular. 5) every society was wrong in that while the British scientific method was correct its aspirational view of man was false; the french method of moral literary equality was a justificationary method of preserving authority and the moral view of man was false; the german rationalism model was false but the german understanding of man was true, and its prescription (truth telling and defense of it) was true. And the Jewish pseudoscientific pseudorational pseudolegal was designed from its origins as false, polylogical, poly ethical, and parasitic. And the nature of man irrelevant if it can be exploited. Each culture then made use of the technologies other cultures have used, and it is only since the late 1990’s with the combination of computers, cognitive science, medical imaging, and genetic research that we have started to become successful at overthrowing the last, and worst, enlightenment thinkers: the pseudoscientists and deceivers: the cosmopolitans: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School, Rand, Rothbard, Strauss, and the legion of others that have conducted a century-long campaign against common, natural, empirical, judge discovered, eugenic law. Once we falsify the pseudoscience in each then those who arose consequentially from the original will fall as well. Yes, Foucault(literary) like Keynes(probabilism) improved upon Frankfurt(pseudoscience, pseudorationalism), and Marx(pseudoscience, pseudoratioalism), but preserved the central theory: creating a straw man and criticizing it, rather than creating a positive argument and justifying it. We criticize science because we do not know its first principles, we justify morality because we do. we must. or sympathetic cooperation would be impossible for us as it is between most apes. Cheers.

  • Dunning Kruger Never Stops

    Dunning Kruger Never Stops To the idiot, the world conspires or lies. To the average, the more powerful conspires or lies. To the intelligent, the more intelligent conspires or lies. Differences in knowledge and understanding that are to you unimaginable are to those with far more just normal risk assessments they would make. I published this graphic many years ago in an attempt to explain the problem of false positive ethics and false negative ethics. The problem is, that when you FAIL, you look unethical, whereas if you succeed your look brilliant or heroic. I’m a more than ruthless guy. I don’t do symbolism. So I take the risk whether it will result in a false negative or not. Why? Skin in the game. You cannot cooperate on equal terms with unequals. Some men must be led if greatness is to be achieved. Sometimes we die in our attempt at greatness.