May 26, 2020, 11:31 PM RELIGION Martyrs were killed because: (a) they would not demonstrate even token loyalty to the empire – instead disloyalty and treason. (b) they were considered atheists (god deniers) and impious in an era where pleasing the gods was considered necessary. (c) they were spreading a falsehood that tacitus correctly called a ‘mischievous superstition’. (d) the religion they were spreading was a hatred of the human race, and of life and joy itself. (e) the religion they were spreading put itself above reality and the state rather than a peerage to reality and the state. (f) they were fomenting an underclass rebellion against the empire’s demonstrated benefits the majority valued with a false promise of supernatural benefits of a hostile minority. (g) they were creating conflict between sects and forenting social unrest. (h)they were reversing the aryan program of incremental domestication of the underclasses and the gradual earning of freedom, liberty, and sovereignty (privilege) creating peers in a majority “middle class” (propertied) civilization. They were rightly considered anti social and treasonous. Just as we rightly consider the ((())) marxists, postmodernists, feminists, hbd-denialists, and anti-traditionalists, ant-moralists, anti-martialists, anti-familists, and sexual deviants today as a means of undermining the aristocracy. The romans were far too kind, have been far too kind during the middle ages, and just as we are far too kind today. They should have exterminated them to the last man woman and child. And in doing so saved europe from the dark ages.
Theme: Deception
-
Why Were Christians Justly Prosecuted (and Why Aren’t Marxist-Pomos?)
May 26, 2020, 11:31 PM RELIGION Martyrs were killed because: (a) they would not demonstrate even token loyalty to the empire – instead disloyalty and treason. (b) they were considered atheists (god deniers) and impious in an era where pleasing the gods was considered necessary. (c) they were spreading a falsehood that tacitus correctly called a ‘mischievous superstition’. (d) the religion they were spreading was a hatred of the human race, and of life and joy itself. (e) the religion they were spreading put itself above reality and the state rather than a peerage to reality and the state. (f) they were fomenting an underclass rebellion against the empire’s demonstrated benefits the majority valued with a false promise of supernatural benefits of a hostile minority. (g) they were creating conflict between sects and forenting social unrest. (h)they were reversing the aryan program of incremental domestication of the underclasses and the gradual earning of freedom, liberty, and sovereignty (privilege) creating peers in a majority “middle class” (propertied) civilization. They were rightly considered anti social and treasonous. Just as we rightly consider the ((())) marxists, postmodernists, feminists, hbd-denialists, and anti-traditionalists, ant-moralists, anti-martialists, anti-familists, and sexual deviants today as a means of undermining the aristocracy. The romans were far too kind, have been far too kind during the middle ages, and just as we are far too kind today. They should have exterminated them to the last man woman and child. And in doing so saved europe from the dark ages.
-
Counsel: Philosophy vs Sophism
Oct 1, 2019, 11:55 AM Given any term, always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. I prefer 8 to 12 whenever I can get them, and english because it has so vast a vocabulary of working, governing, intellectual, logical, and scientific origins is extremely useful for creating constellations of constant relations whether in one series, or a competition between series we call ‘supply and demand curves’. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Example: Good < Moral < Ethical < Amoral > Unethical > Immoral > Evil constant relations: 1… change in capital whether positive, neutral, or negative 2… degree of intent, accidental, self interest, other interest 3… degree of informational distance between actors and victims (ethical interpersonal, moral inter social, evil both.) Most sophistry in philosophy consists of: 1… using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; 2… using the verb to be (is are was were, be, being) rather than the means of existence; 3… conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; 4… and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between pseudoscience, theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more. ORIGINS Mathematics has only one constant relation (position) consisting of a single ratio, which provides scale independence, and cost independence which produces fully deterministic and testable descriptions. Yet philosophers since the time of the greeks have be trying to imitate it’s utility to no avail, and instead, have created textual and verbal interpretation under the premise the the triviality of one-dimensional positional logic can provide the same utility in deduction and prediction (induction) as the constant relations of mathematics. Animism > Readings (Divination) > Astrology > Scriptural interpretation > Textual interpretation > legal interpretation > numerology > postmodern linguistic divination all constitute the same: finding what is not there as an appeal to an non-existent authority. The only peer to mathematics in language is serialization: lines that test the constant relations between points (terms), and supply demand curves that test the relationship between lines ( propositions.). Edit
-
As Deluded as Marx but With Some Economic Literacy Thrown in The Mix to Dazzle and Confuse People.
Oct 5, 2019, 11:04 AM By: Daniel Jordan via Michael Hayes I think it’s difficult for some people to get their brain out of a certain loop. Once someone destroys the illusion that the wealthy are not by necessity rich due to exploitation of the poor because the pie isn’t fixed (only the past is a fixed pie). The next illusion that gets propped up is created by applying this logic to other avenues of life. The idea that mass migration cannot possibly effect you because again the ‘pie isn’t fixed’ or that it simply should not effect you if not for bad policies (excessive welfare state brought onto you by force of the government) and so the next illusion that is propped up in tandem with the non fixed pie view of immigration is the NAP(non aggression principal). And this farcical idea of speculative harm being out of the question for use of force. Now we see the axiom that lays at the root of the ex socialist, neo-liberal. The most important commodity in the commons is trust. Trust that for various biological/cultural reasons can be eroded. NAP can collapse on its own merits if we even allow one iota of punishment for the most heinous of crimes such as murder. It’s not an axiom/ethic congruent with our nature to simply let evil walk free in the name of NAP. Consider the fact that the whole reason you lock someone up for murder is based on speculative future harm. Take the idea of air pollution or water pollution. The latter can generally be solved efficiently through property rights and give people all the protection we need. The former requires targeted regulation due to the nature of the problems and that it’s not really possible to have someone own the air (other than perhaps air traffic rights). Both of these things however have to be backed up by the courts (force, aggression if you will) and both require proactive (speculative) measures. Libertarians generally get economic issues, but they do not have a consistent view of the use of force. I suppose they are perfectly consistent if they are genuine ancaps, but really very few of them are, and that kind of Rothbardian view of humanity is pure fantasy, just as deluded as Marx but with some economic literacy thrown in the mix to dazzle and confuse people.
-
As Deluded as Marx but With Some Economic Literacy Thrown in The Mix to Dazzle and Confuse People.
Oct 5, 2019, 11:04 AM By: Daniel Jordan via Michael Hayes I think it’s difficult for some people to get their brain out of a certain loop. Once someone destroys the illusion that the wealthy are not by necessity rich due to exploitation of the poor because the pie isn’t fixed (only the past is a fixed pie). The next illusion that gets propped up is created by applying this logic to other avenues of life. The idea that mass migration cannot possibly effect you because again the ‘pie isn’t fixed’ or that it simply should not effect you if not for bad policies (excessive welfare state brought onto you by force of the government) and so the next illusion that is propped up in tandem with the non fixed pie view of immigration is the NAP(non aggression principal). And this farcical idea of speculative harm being out of the question for use of force. Now we see the axiom that lays at the root of the ex socialist, neo-liberal. The most important commodity in the commons is trust. Trust that for various biological/cultural reasons can be eroded. NAP can collapse on its own merits if we even allow one iota of punishment for the most heinous of crimes such as murder. It’s not an axiom/ethic congruent with our nature to simply let evil walk free in the name of NAP. Consider the fact that the whole reason you lock someone up for murder is based on speculative future harm. Take the idea of air pollution or water pollution. The latter can generally be solved efficiently through property rights and give people all the protection we need. The former requires targeted regulation due to the nature of the problems and that it’s not really possible to have someone own the air (other than perhaps air traffic rights). Both of these things however have to be backed up by the courts (force, aggression if you will) and both require proactive (speculative) measures. Libertarians generally get economic issues, but they do not have a consistent view of the use of force. I suppose they are perfectly consistent if they are genuine ancaps, but really very few of them are, and that kind of Rothbardian view of humanity is pure fantasy, just as deluded as Marx but with some economic literacy thrown in the mix to dazzle and confuse people.
-
The Conflict Between Democracy and Eugenics
Oct 6, 2019, 12:34 PM The First Cause of Western Decline is the conflict between Democracy and Eugenics caused by the industrial revolution. The enemy may Lie and Deny reality, but Western people will not face the truth themselves: we outpaced the rest because our civilization has been eugenic since its founding, and survived the middle ages despite the Church’s attempt to reverse that dysgenia through maximizing reproduction. Contractualism, Manorialism, Law, Hanging, Plagues, Winter, War, and the Reformation achieved what the church fought against, and what Women and the Left fight against today, and what the Left weaponizes against western civilization: dysgenia destroys what the west has made.
-
The Conflict Between Democracy and Eugenics
Oct 6, 2019, 12:34 PM The First Cause of Western Decline is the conflict between Democracy and Eugenics caused by the industrial revolution. The enemy may Lie and Deny reality, but Western people will not face the truth themselves: we outpaced the rest because our civilization has been eugenic since its founding, and survived the middle ages despite the Church’s attempt to reverse that dysgenia through maximizing reproduction. Contractualism, Manorialism, Law, Hanging, Plagues, Winter, War, and the Reformation achieved what the church fought against, and what Women and the Left fight against today, and what the Left weaponizes against western civilization: dysgenia destroys what the west has made.
-
Return to Communism vs Naziism as The Basis of Argumentative Extremes
Oct 7, 2019, 10:28 AM by James Louis LaSalle As psychotically obsessed the Left is with racism, Nazis, and white supremacists, the Right should be just as obsessed with communism. To the point where we shouldn’t even acknowledge it when they say anything about racism, Nazis, or white supremacists. Ignore it completely. And don’t even be subtle about it. If a Leftist asks you if you’re a Nazi or some nonsense like that, don’t say a word about it; change the subject to the evils of communism immediately. “Are you a Nazi?” “Did you know communism was responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century?” “What? I asked you if you were a Nazi. Answer the question!” “You know, the concept of a “means of production” is a total reification fallacy. It’s the human mind that decides whether things have value or not. That’s why communism is always communal ownership of the means of production in theory and state ownership of human beings in practice. Because human beings ARE the means of production.” Leftist: Why do you keep talking about communism? I’m trying to talk to you about the evils of Nazism! Rightist: Why don’t you want to talk about the evils of communism? Are you a communist? Do you support communism? Play their game against them, and be better at it. There have been many comments from the usual quarters about the supposed illegitimacy of putting the “alt right” and “antifa” on “the same moral plane.” But mostly, Alt-right and Antifa ARE on the same moral plane, the moral plane where you use force to counter an existential threat to you and to your group. The main difference is a factual one, not a moral one, in that alt-right represents normalcy to excellence, while Antifa represents defective and inferior people. The former can, in principle, be victorious, while the latter can never be. Even if they, Antifa, communists, degenerates, win, they still lose, because it is not merely superior people against whom they rebel, but the reality of their own inadequacy; which ever remains. Once they destroy their betters, antifa will have no one left to parasitize, and they, too, shall perish. Their grasping, covetous, and insatiable appetites are just as real as their inability to satisfy them without seeking discounts at the expense of others, more capable. But they have no choice but to try, because meritocracy, accountability, and responsibility in the face of abler competitors would prove just as lethal to them as devouring those finally and completely. Without knowing it, without being able to moderate themselves, they are actually trying to straddle these extremes to the only evolutionary strategy that can sustain them, parasitism that is not severe enough to kill their only food source. But don’t expect them to realize that. And there is nothing to lose by simply wiping them out, as one would any other species of pest. (There is a moral difference between parasites and producers.)
-
Return to Communism vs Naziism as The Basis of Argumentative Extremes
Oct 7, 2019, 10:28 AM by James Louis LaSalle As psychotically obsessed the Left is with racism, Nazis, and white supremacists, the Right should be just as obsessed with communism. To the point where we shouldn’t even acknowledge it when they say anything about racism, Nazis, or white supremacists. Ignore it completely. And don’t even be subtle about it. If a Leftist asks you if you’re a Nazi or some nonsense like that, don’t say a word about it; change the subject to the evils of communism immediately. “Are you a Nazi?” “Did you know communism was responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century?” “What? I asked you if you were a Nazi. Answer the question!” “You know, the concept of a “means of production” is a total reification fallacy. It’s the human mind that decides whether things have value or not. That’s why communism is always communal ownership of the means of production in theory and state ownership of human beings in practice. Because human beings ARE the means of production.” Leftist: Why do you keep talking about communism? I’m trying to talk to you about the evils of Nazism! Rightist: Why don’t you want to talk about the evils of communism? Are you a communist? Do you support communism? Play their game against them, and be better at it. There have been many comments from the usual quarters about the supposed illegitimacy of putting the “alt right” and “antifa” on “the same moral plane.” But mostly, Alt-right and Antifa ARE on the same moral plane, the moral plane where you use force to counter an existential threat to you and to your group. The main difference is a factual one, not a moral one, in that alt-right represents normalcy to excellence, while Antifa represents defective and inferior people. The former can, in principle, be victorious, while the latter can never be. Even if they, Antifa, communists, degenerates, win, they still lose, because it is not merely superior people against whom they rebel, but the reality of their own inadequacy; which ever remains. Once they destroy their betters, antifa will have no one left to parasitize, and they, too, shall perish. Their grasping, covetous, and insatiable appetites are just as real as their inability to satisfy them without seeking discounts at the expense of others, more capable. But they have no choice but to try, because meritocracy, accountability, and responsibility in the face of abler competitors would prove just as lethal to them as devouring those finally and completely. Without knowing it, without being able to moderate themselves, they are actually trying to straddle these extremes to the only evolutionary strategy that can sustain them, parasitism that is not severe enough to kill their only food source. But don’t expect them to realize that. And there is nothing to lose by simply wiping them out, as one would any other species of pest. (There is a moral difference between parasites and producers.)
-
There Are No Critics of P – Just of Me. but Why?
Oct 7, 2019, 10:47 AM
—“In my encounters, it always seems to be criticism of you, or of your writing style, but never actually about P.”–Benjamin Ireland
Always. People don’t want to prove that they have the knowledge of the convictions in which they have courage. 😉 Part of preventing the hero, cult label, or priest attributions requires I don’t adopt the staging of hero, cult leader, or priest, and stick with king of the hill games. “Come and get me.” or “I’m coming for you.” This offends people who want a priest (F), not a king (M) And that’s partly intentional. You automatically get respect from a priest (F), but you must earn it from a king (M). This ‘never appeal to them by any means but argument, and never reward anything but argument’ is ‘disrespectful’ to the more feminine minds. Because I have to keep it about THE WORK and not ME. And anyone who has followed me long enough knows it. People desperately want leaders with agency. I desperately want to create leaders with agency. I’d undermine myself if I tried to be the cult leader people accuse me of or want. It’s about the work. You can make a P argument or not. It’s about making leaders. Not me leading. It’s about creating a movement to counter and reverse the century of lying. It’s about a constitution that is durable, and provides a market for the defense of our civilization.