Theme: Deception

  • Moral, Ratio-Empirical Libertarians. Must tolerate the truth. Immoral, Rationali

    Moral, Ratio-Empirical Libertarians. Must tolerate the truth.

    Immoral, Rationalist Libertines. Must engage in deception.

    Immoral dysgenic progressives. Must justify their immoral dysgenia.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 11:20:00 UTC

  • PROGRESSIVES VS CONSERVATIVES – IRRESPONSIBILITY VS INCOMPETENCE. (I love how th

    PROGRESSIVES VS CONSERVATIVES – IRRESPONSIBILITY VS INCOMPETENCE.

    (I love how the socialists, progressives and the postmoderns have argued and transformed the language in favor of hedonism, and for irresponsibility for externalities; while conservatives argue for asceticism, stoicism and a prohibition on externalities, without having any idea that’s what they’re doing or why other than their moral intuitions.

    Everyone is talking past each other. Progressives are morally blind, and conservatives are rhetorically incompetent. Libertines are morally as bad or worse, and as morally blind as progressives.

    It’s no wonder we can’t resolve conflicts. )


    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 10:00:00 UTC

  • Looks like huffing to post is filtering out Russian propagandists now. Fast too

    Looks like huffing to post is filtering out Russian propagandists now. Fast too.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 01:40:00 UTC

  • ROTHBARDIANS AS FEMINIST CONSPIRATORS – THE PHILOSOPHY OF BETAS. It’s true that

    ROTHBARDIANS AS FEMINIST CONSPIRATORS – THE PHILOSOPHY OF BETAS.

    It’s true that rothbardians have constructed an elaborate system of justification, and a set of arguments to advance that justification. It is only that your argument requires belief and normative adoption. It’s a cult. And that cult has failed. Because only socially dysfunctional people are capable of holding that belief. And only with such an elaborately justified edifice to maintain that belief.

    Instead I am suggesting a social science that fully explains all political systems as evolutionary and competitive strategies, and that all belief is justification, while this particular science is an explanation.

    I choose aristocratic egalitarianism because I do not have to be socially dysfunctional, adopt a belief, suspend disbelief, or engage in justification. I must only observe and acknowledge man as he demonstrates himself, and understand which institutions are necessary to provide the incentives to produce Liberty – while suppressing all free riding, and therefore both demand for the State and ability to construct a state.

    You in the other hand require the fantasy – the fallacy – that ghetto ethics constitute a rational choice. They don’t. Which is why people won’t adopt them.

    No one wants jews and gypsies. We murdered Jews and gypsies. We are getting close to the same with Muslims. We didn’t try to imitate them. That would be to devolve our civilization. We conquered, ostracized, oppressed and killed them. Justifiably. Necessarily. Usefully. Even if immorally. What is remarkable is that unlike all other civilisations we are tolerant enough not to exterminate them. The reason we are tolerant is that we obtain status signals from maintaining their inferiority.

    No one wants low trust people’s. All lower trust people’s that one can possibly defend against, must be conquered, converted, oppressed, or killed. If not, in ghettos, whether real or virtual, we can keep low trust people as useful pets, and cheap status signals that remind us our our higher station, our superior civilization, and our superior ethics, morality, and institutions.

    Unfortunately, women have entered the political domain under open enfranchisement, and have not had to earn their enfranchisement through demonstrating good judgement. And have, therefore, devolved our society rapidly, by undermining the means of suppressing unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior, because women practice, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior in order to advance themselves and their offspring regardless of their merit.

    (wow. I think that’s about as offensively direct as I currently know how to construct the argument. lol )

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy


    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-06 09:52:00 UTC

  • deemed politically incorrect, hatespeech or other names for communicating fact t

    http://carcinisation.com/2014/10/02/socially-enforced-thought-boundaries/—“Everything deemed politically incorrect, hatespeech or other names for communicating fact touches the Core beliefs of the Cathedral.”—

    Johannes Meixner


    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-06 03:07:00 UTC

  • people and corruption: that’s why

    http://www.calgaryherald.com/touch/opinion/columnists/Martinuk+Audit+reveals+many+First+Nations/10195873/story.html?relIndigenous people and corruption: that’s why.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-03 09:33:00 UTC

  • The reason I frame propertarianism as philosophy, despite that it is a social sc

    The reason I frame propertarianism as philosophy, despite that it is a social science (system of measurement) is to kill the ability to use philosophy to lie. End postmodern pseudoscience.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-01 03:36:00 UTC

  • Maybe I am locked in a struggle though. I am locked in a struggle for the truth

    Maybe I am locked in a struggle though. I am locked in a struggle for the truth against the cult of mysticism, obscurantism, deception and justification.

    Truth is a great argument to base Aristocratic Egalitarianism and Propertarianism upon. It is very hard to defeat.

    Their only possible response is “I prefer to lie”.

    ——-

    Curt Doolittle wrote:

    Just had a thought last night as I questioned my own work: If one’s bias is one of conflict prevention, then what? Thats my bias (obviously from a childhood with too much conflict in it). How do I check my own bias?

    So while I agree with the argument that all human discourse is signaling, negotiating, and justification, I wonder if not all biases are non-neutral.

    Because a bias in favor of compatibilism rather than ‘winning’ seems to produce positive externalities, not biased ones.

    ——-

    Jonathan Haidt 8:33 PM (7 minutes ago)

    i like your point about externalities.

    i also think that if you are not part of a team locked in struggle with another team, you are more likely to see the truth.

    jh

    ——-


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-30 13:47:00 UTC

  • Camille Paglia: The Modern Campus Cannot Comprehend Evil | TIME

    Camille Paglia: The Modern Campus Cannot Comprehend Evil | TIME http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-29 16:28:00 UTC

  • BEST ANSWER YOU WILL FIND While you will hear objections to this, they are the e

    http://t.co/pTQV28O0q3THE BEST ANSWER YOU WILL FIND

    While you will hear objections to this, they are the exception not the rule. All university departments hold biases and suppress competing ideas, and the careers of the members of the department depend upon upholding those biases, because of the incentives to publish, and the authoritarian hierarchy of the university. Universities remain vestiges of the church – which invented the university. And for good reason: grad students make cheap slave labor.

    So, there is very little practical difference between the practice of ideology and the practice of academic research in this regard. In practice, ideas die with their originators and sponsors, not when they are successfully attacked. The incentive to over-invest in a paradigm to retain one’s position is too high. This is why students must choose departments based upon what the department members publish.

    Sowell’s recommended “fix” is to financially and organizationally separate research departments (that do not serve the interests of students whatsoever) from teaching departments (whose only concern is the students) but the administration (serving neither the students or the researchers) is currently consuming all the vast investment americans are making in educations (that have questionable return, and in some cases negative return.) Realistically if undergrad students paid teaching professors, not researchers, for their education, and we regulated administration and capital acquisition to 20% of fees, education would be absurdly inexpensive, and students would leave with little debt. We could then ask grad students and phd students and the government to bear the costs of research, rather than the undergrads. And we would shrink the administration back to it’s necessary and sufficient size. (Financially, academia now has absorbed all the costs originally saved by eliminating the church. For all intents and purposes, we have merely replaced academia and church with academia. In fact, I am pretty confident that academia is far more expensive than the post-enlightenment church was in every form of capital consumption.)

    But the university system is not designed for students and their careers, it is designed to provide economic rents to researchers and administrators, by selling faulty products to students, that in any other industry would be open to class action lawsuits for fraudulent representation, and possible only because of inflationary pressure on by the government, in the same way that the government created inflationary pressure on the housing industry leading to the 2008 crash.

    See Sowell’s work and Caplan’s work. Caplan is always someone you must be skeptical of nearly everything he says, so his his empirical work is what you can appreciate, but you must ignore all his conclusions. (Sort of like reading Marx.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-27 10:46:00 UTC