(FB 1546823810 Timestamp) PROPAGANDA AND MY RESPONSE TO IT. (heated topic warning) Some clown spreading propaganda….
Theme: Deception
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547246518 Timestamp) SO WHAT DOES GA BRING TO DERRIDA’S TABLE? All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide a pseudoscientific defense of Derrida, in that ‘well’ everything evolved from language therefore we can evolve anything with language. In other words, postmodernism. GA tells us nothing that we don’t already know. So, what is it that GA brings to the table? What can we deduce from it? What application can we put it to? What purpose does this theory solve? I understand language as consisting of continuous recursive production of transactional measurements and linguistic competition for demonstrated results as improving measurements (truth) and biasing measurements (frauds and deceits). Whether a cliff or a climb is irrelevant. The central problem is one of computational costs in that production versus time and energy costs of that production. In other words, language tends to be pragmatically adjusted for precision over time, given the context. So what? That means we can tell truth and lie. It means that competitive ability highly reflects linguistic precision. It means that competitive ability provides competitive advantage. Because otherwise physical marginal indifference provides too little competitive advantage. So what does postmodern literary drivel bring to an otherwise well understood table? What I hear is that ‘its a useful means of manipulating people by deceit.’ People lacking knowledge, power, achievement, and capital like the priests of the middle east attempting to destroy the empire with christianity judaism and islam. Lies are a competitive strategy. The entire abrahamic artifice is based upon the competitive utility of lying.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547244310 Timestamp) LIES OF RIGHT ABSOLUTISTS AND LEFT ABSOLUTISTS ARE STILL JUST LIES – AN ADMISSION OF FAILURE. The difference between this article and some bit of occult nonsense by Evola is simply the flavor of sophism. No one disputes that language makes possible a multitude of paradigmatic lies of coercion, but it makes only one most parsimonious paradigmatic truth of decidability. The Pretense of Wisdom in the Tempo of Syllables, and the power of suggestion by loading and framing inarticulate and untestable prose. “Woo Woo” for the post-theological era. Science requires knowledge. “Woo” takes advantage of ignorance. Leftist or right lies are indifferent. No one disputes the relationship between consciousness and language – only the degree. It still does not justify that the history of man is a long filter of anthropocentric perception and intuition as we gradually eliminate ignorance, error, bias and deceit – despite the priests. Termination of lies and liars regardless of herd or pack is in the interest of both herd and pack. https://thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/the-anthropoetics-of-power/
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547242782 Timestamp) EVERYTHING ROTHBARD SAYS IS A LIE
- Rothbard and Hoppe always start with some artificial moral license to property rather than that property produces a division of labor that is more rewarding than predation (for the able) and is the only reason for the able to cooperate, and the only means of cooperation at scale.
In the Free Rider Problem, the answer is that if you are a free rider you are consuming opportunity and resources that could by replaced by those who DO contribute to the commons that they benefit from. This is in fact what people demonstrably do: outcast free riders.
We inherit the investments of our ancestors we do not free ride upon them because they are ours by inheritance, in exchange for persisting the genes, civilization, culture and investments of those previous generations, just as we hope following generations will preserve ours.
—“must therefore be supplied outside the free market, by the coercive force of the government”– No, it is because it is an unsubstitutable good. There is no restitution for lost life nor substitution for risk of life. NONE.
… I can’t even continue refuting rothbard because it makes me so angry that we have lost two generations to (((more lies))). EVERYTHING ROTHBARD SAYS IS A (((LIE))) DEFENDED BY A HALF TRUTH, AND APPEAL TO REASONABLENESS. …. EVERYTHING. YES, ….. EVERYTHING. Rothbard is only useful in so far as we can study his excellence at Straw Manning, Undue Praise, Pilpul and Critique, and by that study, understand why we moral men are vulnerable to that category of (((lies))). It’s just lies. ROTHBARD IS JUST (((A LIAR))) THAT SUCKERS MIDDLE CLASS YOUNG MEN, LIKE MARXISM WORKING CLASS MEN, LIKE POSTMODERNISM WOMEN AND NON-MEN. Everything he says is false. Study rothbard to learn how to lie, so that we can end lying to our people.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547246518 Timestamp) SO WHAT DOES GA BRING TO DERRIDA’S TABLE? All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide a pseudoscientific defense of Derrida, in that ‘well’ everything evolved from language therefore we can evolve anything with language. In other words, postmodernism. GA tells us nothing that we don’t already know. So, what is it that GA brings to the table? What can we deduce from it? What application can we put it to? What purpose does this theory solve? I understand language as consisting of continuous recursive production of transactional measurements and linguistic competition for demonstrated results as improving measurements (truth) and biasing measurements (frauds and deceits). Whether a cliff or a climb is irrelevant. The central problem is one of computational costs in that production versus time and energy costs of that production. In other words, language tends to be pragmatically adjusted for precision over time, given the context. So what? That means we can tell truth and lie. It means that competitive ability highly reflects linguistic precision. It means that competitive ability provides competitive advantage. Because otherwise physical marginal indifference provides too little competitive advantage. So what does postmodern literary drivel bring to an otherwise well understood table? What I hear is that ‘its a useful means of manipulating people by deceit.’ People lacking knowledge, power, achievement, and capital like the priests of the middle east attempting to destroy the empire with christianity judaism and islam. Lies are a competitive strategy. The entire abrahamic artifice is based upon the competitive utility of lying.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547244310 Timestamp) LIES OF RIGHT ABSOLUTISTS AND LEFT ABSOLUTISTS ARE STILL JUST LIES – AN ADMISSION OF FAILURE. The difference between this article and some bit of occult nonsense by Evola is simply the flavor of sophism. No one disputes that language makes possible a multitude of paradigmatic lies of coercion, but it makes only one most parsimonious paradigmatic truth of decidability. The Pretense of Wisdom in the Tempo of Syllables, and the power of suggestion by loading and framing inarticulate and untestable prose. “Woo Woo” for the post-theological era. Science requires knowledge. “Woo” takes advantage of ignorance. Leftist or right lies are indifferent. No one disputes the relationship between consciousness and language – only the degree. It still does not justify that the history of man is a long filter of anthropocentric perception and intuition as we gradually eliminate ignorance, error, bias and deceit – despite the priests. Termination of lies and liars regardless of herd or pack is in the interest of both herd and pack. https://thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/the-anthropoetics-of-power/
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547572164 Timestamp) IN DEFENSE OF THE DEMAND FOR DUE DILIGENCE IN PUBLIC SPEECH, AND THE PUNISHMENT OF FALSE SPEECH. by John Mark (must read) (central argument) 1 – It is too difficult to teach Bullsh-t detection to masses of people with heavy biases and an avg IQ of 85-105 (depending on the nation). Half or more of the population (below 105-106) cannot tell what is true or not even if they try. The solution is not teaching; it won’t work. The solution is punishment. (Law) 2 – Allowing lying allows left-instinct people to rally using lies and false promises. It’s a Dangerous thing to allow. Too dangerous. 3 – Most people will have to refrain from making public pronouncements about matters which they have not done due diligence. This would be wonderful. 4 – You only have the “rights” you & your friends can defend. If someone wants to defend their “right” to be wrong, they are fighting in favor of lies against truth. (I will not be joining that team.) 5 – “More free speech” has failed. Because lying is faster, cheaper, easier than telling the truth. There is a world of difference between what the Left does (arbitrary, enforcing lies) & what we propose (scientific, enforcing truth). “The way most people want to live”…the left wants to pretend lies are true; the Right benefits from truth and wants the results of truth. The Right is better served by enforcing truth (punishing lies) than by allowing lies or “free speech” (aka lies winning). 6 – There would be more court cases for a while and then as people figure out what the consequences of their actions will be, the # of cases will drop significantly.
- John Mark
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547573280 Timestamp) Yes, it is more work to speak truthfully. It is more work to produce that engage in theft, and more work to engage in theft than parasitism. With every increase in the incremental suppression of parasitism by ‘means I can get away with because the exchange is voluntary’ those people who create parasitism object. When you disagree with me all you are saying is that you want to preserve your means of parasitism, or your means of exporting costs to the commons, just like any other thief or fraud.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547572164 Timestamp) IN DEFENSE OF THE DEMAND FOR DUE DILIGENCE IN PUBLIC SPEECH, AND THE PUNISHMENT OF FALSE SPEECH. by John Mark (must read) (central argument) 1 – It is too difficult to teach Bullsh-t detection to masses of people with heavy biases and an avg IQ of 85-105 (depending on the nation). Half or more of the population (below 105-106) cannot tell what is true or not even if they try. The solution is not teaching; it won’t work. The solution is punishment. (Law) 2 – Allowing lying allows left-instinct people to rally using lies and false promises. It’s a Dangerous thing to allow. Too dangerous. 3 – Most people will have to refrain from making public pronouncements about matters which they have not done due diligence. This would be wonderful. 4 – You only have the “rights” you & your friends can defend. If someone wants to defend their “right” to be wrong, they are fighting in favor of lies against truth. (I will not be joining that team.) 5 – “More free speech” has failed. Because lying is faster, cheaper, easier than telling the truth. There is a world of difference between what the Left does (arbitrary, enforcing lies) & what we propose (scientific, enforcing truth). “The way most people want to live”…the left wants to pretend lies are true; the Right benefits from truth and wants the results of truth. The Right is better served by enforcing truth (punishing lies) than by allowing lies or “free speech” (aka lies winning). 6 – There would be more court cases for a while and then as people figure out what the consequences of their actions will be, the # of cases will drop significantly.
- John Mark
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547642170 Timestamp) We are not ruled by money but by human greed – where that worst greed is called ‘equality’.