(FB 1551984149 Timestamp) LIES AND DEFEATING THEM – THE RED QUEEN OF EUROPEAN VS SEMITIC CIVS —“They are incredibly good at deceit. Very good. However, we’re very good at identifying it”—CD —“The Red Queen.”—Martin Å tÄpán
Theme: Deception
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551983153 Timestamp) JOSEPH POSTMA DRILLS DOWN TO THE NET OF IT —“They are incredibly good at deceit. Very good. However, we’re very good at identifying it, and the ONLY reason they’ve gotten away with it this far is because they own the media, and the ability to lie to the commons. That ends with Propertarianism. The thing is, it only takes a single one of us to identify their deceit and to make it known to others, while for them it takes a trillion-dollar media global enterprise to maintain it.”—Joseph E. Postma Under law, it takes only one of us.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551982215 Timestamp) I’m against the ancestral method of competition: false promise, baiting in to moral hazard, pilpul, critique, and profiting from capture of hazards, and capitalizing those captures as systems of rents.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552057171 Timestamp) DIVISIVE? DIVISIVE? STUPIDITY IS WHAT’S DIVISIVE (the answer to the right) I worked to save my people from that false promise of liberty, and its baiting into moral hazard, by our ancestral enemy, under rothbardian libertinism. I was divisive in attacking rothbard and less so mises and hoppe. But I didn’t punch right unless someone punched me first. Although, I have to confess when I felt the fascists were going to continue to us down after C-ville, I more than considered it – and rightly so. Next, the New Right Wing Postmodernists came after me – seeking attention. Then Spencer came out with a quip, and then The Woo Woo Christians felt emboldened and rallied, and now the fascists are laying ground once again. There is zero reason to talk about me. There is zero reason for infighting between: – Fascists (rule of man by inspiration), – Nomocrats: Rule of Law by science, and; – Christians (Rule of Priests by woo woo). If you want to criticize rule of law, rule of man, or rule of ‘religion’ then do so. I do. But then, if you personalize that attack by taking on ‘one of the right’ rather than the general rule, you’re just a click-seeking attention-whore, doing the right a disservice. These are the three ancestral classes of our elites:
- Warriors, Soldiers (Masculine Defense),
“Those who Fight (Father)”
-and- Judges and Governors(Cooperation), Burghers, Business, Farmers
“Those who Work (Brother)”
-and-
- Priests and Public Intellectuals (Feminine Consumption)
“Those Who Pray (Educate, Mother)”
And we use our three classes of elites to our advantage and we keep them incompetition to ensure that we can use each as needed. At present all three classes: Fascists (Dominant Force ), Nomocrats (Practical Trade) and the Religious (Submissive Resistance) all all searching for a solution given that the Right Has Failed. Now, I’m pretty sure that y’all got nuthin, because (a) there is no fascist leader of any ability and there won’t be until fascism is re-articulated in adult language, (b) religion of the christian type only survived as a wife to the aristocracy – and islam is winning the war of ‘monopolies’, And at present, christianity is past its expiration date – because without operational means of governing an educated population it’s irrelevant and relegated to either the bible belt, or providing comfort to the outcast and underclass in the rest of the country. So only a fascist or a group of nomocrats are possible, and christianity has to simply pick one or both to bet on because christians have no answer – and frandkly appear ‘cucked’ and perhaps the source of current ‘cuckery’. So as far as I know we need a fascist (strong man leader), nomocracy (rule of law by which to govern a complex polity), and christians as a block to move the body faithful out of a condition of failure. It takes all three. However, the only means of governing a polity is and always will be law and economic information, because they are the ONLY POSSIBLE MEANS of operating a polity of greater scale than a village congregation.
- Warriors, Soldiers (Masculine Defense),
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551988756 Timestamp) “THE GOYIM KNOW” Their technique consists of false promise, baiting in to moral hazard, pilpul, critique, and profiting from capture of hazards, and capitalizing those captures as systems of rents. It’s not just usury. Usury is the most common example of baiting into hazard. Instead, it’s every possible means of baiting into hazard, defending this bait by pilpul and crique, profiting from the hazard – both private and public – then taking the accumulated capital and seeking rents against the population until they revolt and prosecute their revenge. … There is a reason this technique works with high trust europeans but not elsewhere. There is a reason it works with women and underclasses but not established men. Because our democracy makes us vulnerable to false promise, and the underclasses are easily baited by false promise, we are tolerant of meritocracy until too late. Worse, it is easiest to exploit our social order of MARKETS and LAGGING legal codes in defense of those markets and our people. And lagging technology for replacing each of the means of parasitism: financial, commercial, educational, informational, political, social, normative, and traditional. It ends now. De-financialization, De-politicization, De-distinformationalization, and restoration of our eugenic group evolutionary strategy in our own self interest. It’s easy. The law. The most intolerant law ever made. With the law we make the extirpation of parasites a for-profit business for every citizen of character Propertarianism.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552147611 Timestamp) By: Pat Ryan America expended its goodwill as the great equality experiment via democratic tradition during the two World Wars, ensuring the mythology was monopolized by grass-is-greener communism. …. America traded mythological hope for material justice. Guess when discontent institutionalized?
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552174894 Timestamp) i say that there is only one metaphysics but many fictions. And therefore the use of fictions is not in fact metaphysical. And as such people who claim otherwise are engaged in fraud. As far as i know the physical, cognitive, and linguistic sciences explain every concept metaphysicians claim in their purview. As far as time an causality these are subjects sophomorically conflated but causality exists, but like all else reduced to speech can never be complete, only necessary sufficient and contingent. The same for time : which time are we talking about? What makes the change in state possible, the rate of change vary, and our memory of passage vary, and our perception of the rate of change vary? all of these answers we know. zeno was a bit of a sophist. My current understanding is that there exists nothing that cannot be explained scientifically. and thats certainly going to hold. A scientific explanation is not the same as the experience we describe with that science – this is true. If we want a separate aesthetic language for the experience that is commensurable with the scientific then that is fine. if we want to discuss the different fictions that different groups operate under thats still one metaphysics and many fiction that allow people to conceive of that beyond their direct perception then that is a vehicle for hypothesizing by analogy. I am pretty certain i can produce a proof of construction that is so parsimonious it will survive all criticism. there is nothing left that i know of other than the relationship between personality traits and reward systems and i think others know this. But one cannot work on artificial intelligence My reductionist approach requires operational language under the argument that if you cannot do so you cannot claim that you know of what you speak, and that therefore cannot make a truth claim, because you cannot claim to testify what you cannot operationally describe. and even then you may not and likely may not infer anything from you explanation. There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. that paradigm cannot be expressed as other than analogy to operational experience without the introduction of fiction. the narrative requires categories to limit sequential prose to that which is possible for human minds. all such paradigms worldwide are converging on the scientific (scientific naturalism small number of consisten universal rules). I mean. until you find a set of case that are not open to natural explanation anything anyone says about metaphysics is just nonsense. AFAIK philosophy is currently relegated to choice of preference or good an the rest is science. And i cant find an exception to that rule.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552174894 Timestamp) i say that there is only one metaphysics but many fictions. And therefore the use of fictions is not in fact metaphysical. And as such people who claim otherwise are engaged in fraud. As far as i know the physical, cognitive, and linguistic sciences explain every concept metaphysicians claim in their purview. As far as time an causality these are subjects sophomorically conflated but causality exists, but like all else reduced to speech can never be complete, only necessary sufficient and contingent. The same for time : which time are we talking about? What makes the change in state possible, the rate of change vary, and our memory of passage vary, and our perception of the rate of change vary? all of these answers we know. zeno was a bit of a sophist. My current understanding is that there exists nothing that cannot be explained scientifically. and thats certainly going to hold. A scientific explanation is not the same as the experience we describe with that science – this is true. If we want a separate aesthetic language for the experience that is commensurable with the scientific then that is fine. if we want to discuss the different fictions that different groups operate under thats still one metaphysics and many fiction that allow people to conceive of that beyond their direct perception then that is a vehicle for hypothesizing by analogy. I am pretty certain i can produce a proof of construction that is so parsimonious it will survive all criticism. there is nothing left that i know of other than the relationship between personality traits and reward systems and i think others know this. But one cannot work on artificial intelligence My reductionist approach requires operational language under the argument that if you cannot do so you cannot claim that you know of what you speak, and that therefore cannot make a truth claim, because you cannot claim to testify what you cannot operationally describe. and even then you may not and likely may not infer anything from you explanation. There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. that paradigm cannot be expressed as other than analogy to operational experience without the introduction of fiction. the narrative requires categories to limit sequential prose to that which is possible for human minds. all such paradigms worldwide are converging on the scientific (scientific naturalism small number of consisten universal rules). I mean. until you find a set of case that are not open to natural explanation anything anyone says about metaphysics is just nonsense. AFAIK philosophy is currently relegated to choice of preference or good an the rest is science. And i cant find an exception to that rule.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552596289 Timestamp) GET OVER THE NAP. IT MEANS YOU’RE A USEFUL IDIOT No. NAP looks like another semitic (abrahamic, marxist, libertarian, postmodern) pretense to reciprocity and rule of law, that (a) does not require reciprocity be earned, (b) retains the semitic means of deceit by fraud by omission enabling blackmail, enabling conspiracy, (c) (d) continuing the semitic method of baiting well meaning fools into hazard thru piplup and deceit. NAP is to Reciprocity as Labor Theory of Value is to Subjective Value, and as money proper is to money substitutes – it’s another fraud. Other things may look like reciprocity. But they are not. They are all substitutes for reciprocity because they are means of circumventing reciprocity. So since they are all worse than reciprocity, one must answer the question why one seeks something less than reciprocity, and as such why one seeks to preserve means of irreciprocity. I mean, we know why our ancient enemy wants to preserve irreciprocity – to preserve parasitism upon the productive people.
-
(FB 1552580899 Timestamp) I need to make one of these for deceits
(FB 1552580899 Timestamp) I need to make one of these for deceits