Theme: Truth

  • La izquierda carece de masculinidad

    La izquierda tiene que usar la indignación y las ofensas porque es absolutamente incapaz de usar la verdad sin exponerse a sí misma. Así que ante la incapacidad de utilización de la verdad, los izquierdistas extraen sus procederes cooperativos y amenazan con retirarse. Debemos responder a las amenazas de la retirada tan severamente como respondemos a las amenazas o a quien nos hace trampa o nos engaña. Esto es profundamente importante como concepto a estudiar en el comportamiento enfermizo de los izquierdistas. Existe mucha investigación que confirma la forma en la cual nosotros reaccionamos ante ese tipo de mentiras y rechazos, esas diferencias son biológicas, existen y están ampliamente difundidas. Y esas mismas investigaciones han demostrado que el sexo femenino es más sensible a ellas, es por ello que la izquierda ha buscado apoderarse de la vanguardia que son las mujeres. Como hombres debemos luchar a toda costa para retener la integridad de nuestro grupo. Estamos programados genéticamente por la naturaleza para hacerlo. Y nos afecta en niveles cognitivos de la misma manera que la música nos afecta. La influencia de nuestra fuerza es la estrategia definitiva para derrotar a la izquierda, sabotear sus normativas, retar sus convenciones al ser brutalmente honestos provoca la retirada en masa de las mentiras que los izquierdistas lanzan a diario hacia nosotros. Si elevamos no sólo el nivel del debate, sino nuestra capacidad de crear una vanguardia que arrincone a la izquierda, habremos ganado la guerra ideológica by default. El costo de la cohesión y preferencias a lo interno por el grupo propio, cooperar con nuestros pares, y cuidar a nuestras mujeres y niños crea en la izquierda una serie de dudas que consideran amenazas peligrosas para su supervivencia ya que los izquierdistas apelan a lo que no protegemos como grupo para ellos crear vanguardia. La izquierda rechaza el carácter masculino de la lucha y lo sustituye por la lucha de clases, al ponernos en un terreno en donde somos iguales en una lucha que no existe. Si rechazamos la lucha de clases y exultamos el verdadero significado de la sangre, sudor y lágrimas que los hombres han derramado para poder hacer que sus naciones sean grandes, habremos hecho de nuestras naciones grandes de nuevo y le habremos ganado a la izquierda.

    La masculinidad es positiva, deseable y atractiva para el sexo opuesto

    Así como la feminidad es fundamental para lograr la civilización, preservar la especie, y cultivar relaciones amorosas duraderas, la masculinidad es necesaria para poder preservar el carácter y la fibra moral de nuestra nación. La izquierda con sus mentiras busca separarnos de nuestras mujeres y niños y ponerlos en nuestra contra. Las élites izquierdistas, con su falsa intelectualidad producen ideas tontas y engañosas que obtienen su estatus a raíz del mérito de quien las escupe y que dichas ideas (feminismo, ideología de género) parasitan el orden de confianza superior de nuestra nación. Estas élites y quienes les siguen creen que ellos ganarán, y quizá lo hagan a menos que no les tengamos paciencia y que no alteremos las condiciones bajo las cuales son capaces de explotar el orden superior de confianza sobre el cual nuestra nación depende. Si nuestro orden superior de confianza es tan superior que es infranqueable para la izquierda, conservaremos una sociedad y nación que podrá prosperar de forma homogénea, una táctica que la izquierda, tan étnica, moral, e ideológicamente heterogénea es incapaz de preservar sin entrar en las contradicciones fundamentales de sus propios ideales. Es por ello que la izquierda es incapaz de obtener y mantener la lealtad de los intereses de las otras clases sin mantener una propia clase guerrera y masculina propia. Alberto R. Zambrano U. en colaboración para El Instituto Propietarista.

  • La izquierda carece de masculinidad

    La izquierda tiene que usar la indignación y las ofensas porque es absolutamente incapaz de usar la verdad sin exponerse a sí misma. Así que ante la incapacidad de utilización de la verdad, los izquierdistas extraen sus procederes cooperativos y amenazan con retirarse. Debemos responder a las amenazas de la retirada tan severamente como respondemos a las amenazas o a quien nos hace trampa o nos engaña. Esto es profundamente importante como concepto a estudiar en el comportamiento enfermizo de los izquierdistas. Existe mucha investigación que confirma la forma en la cual nosotros reaccionamos ante ese tipo de mentiras y rechazos, esas diferencias son biológicas, existen y están ampliamente difundidas. Y esas mismas investigaciones han demostrado que el sexo femenino es más sensible a ellas, es por ello que la izquierda ha buscado apoderarse de la vanguardia que son las mujeres. Como hombres debemos luchar a toda costa para retener la integridad de nuestro grupo. Estamos programados genéticamente por la naturaleza para hacerlo. Y nos afecta en niveles cognitivos de la misma manera que la música nos afecta. La influencia de nuestra fuerza es la estrategia definitiva para derrotar a la izquierda, sabotear sus normativas, retar sus convenciones al ser brutalmente honestos provoca la retirada en masa de las mentiras que los izquierdistas lanzan a diario hacia nosotros. Si elevamos no sólo el nivel del debate, sino nuestra capacidad de crear una vanguardia que arrincone a la izquierda, habremos ganado la guerra ideológica by default. El costo de la cohesión y preferencias a lo interno por el grupo propio, cooperar con nuestros pares, y cuidar a nuestras mujeres y niños crea en la izquierda una serie de dudas que consideran amenazas peligrosas para su supervivencia ya que los izquierdistas apelan a lo que no protegemos como grupo para ellos crear vanguardia. La izquierda rechaza el carácter masculino de la lucha y lo sustituye por la lucha de clases, al ponernos en un terreno en donde somos iguales en una lucha que no existe. Si rechazamos la lucha de clases y exultamos el verdadero significado de la sangre, sudor y lágrimas que los hombres han derramado para poder hacer que sus naciones sean grandes, habremos hecho de nuestras naciones grandes de nuevo y le habremos ganado a la izquierda.

    La masculinidad es positiva, deseable y atractiva para el sexo opuesto

    Así como la feminidad es fundamental para lograr la civilización, preservar la especie, y cultivar relaciones amorosas duraderas, la masculinidad es necesaria para poder preservar el carácter y la fibra moral de nuestra nación. La izquierda con sus mentiras busca separarnos de nuestras mujeres y niños y ponerlos en nuestra contra. Las élites izquierdistas, con su falsa intelectualidad producen ideas tontas y engañosas que obtienen su estatus a raíz del mérito de quien las escupe y que dichas ideas (feminismo, ideología de género) parasitan el orden de confianza superior de nuestra nación. Estas élites y quienes les siguen creen que ellos ganarán, y quizá lo hagan a menos que no les tengamos paciencia y que no alteremos las condiciones bajo las cuales son capaces de explotar el orden superior de confianza sobre el cual nuestra nación depende. Si nuestro orden superior de confianza es tan superior que es infranqueable para la izquierda, conservaremos una sociedad y nación que podrá prosperar de forma homogénea, una táctica que la izquierda, tan étnica, moral, e ideológicamente heterogénea es incapaz de preservar sin entrar en las contradicciones fundamentales de sus propios ideales. Es por ello que la izquierda es incapaz de obtener y mantener la lealtad de los intereses de las otras clases sin mantener una propia clase guerrera y masculina propia. Alberto R. Zambrano U. en colaboración para El Instituto Propietarista.

  • WHY REJECT AN OFFER OF DEBATE WITH A THEIST? —“You rejected his invitation to

    WHY REJECT AN OFFER OF DEBATE WITH A THEIST?

    —“You rejected his invitation to debate him on his podcast”—

    —“Yeah, what gives?”—

    —“please explain”—

    We can make excuses for justifying our desires by pursuit of, discovery of, choice of, and advocacy of, faith, or its equivalent in the supernatural, or the platonic, or the pseudorational, or the pseudoscientific. And we make those excuses in many ways.

    There are any number of people who I debate on a regular basis who acknowledge that they merely choose that article of faith in all its forms. I choose my faith in my god, and I choose to ‘believe it’ despite knowing with near certainty my self delusion, and the psychological device god functions to fulfill. But I never use this faith in interpersonal ARGUMENT (truth) I only use this faith in personal CHOICE (preference).

    There are those people who are unable to choose not to rely on either faith by choice, or introspection regardless of choice, because of biological (genetic constraints) – the most obvious being women’s various collectivist cognitive biases.

    There are those people who deny that a choice is possible, because they cannot conceive of decidability by other means.

    There are those people that engage in justification for that choice or their inability to choose otherwise, and do so by moral means.

    There are those people who engage in self and other deceit to defend that choice or their inability to choose otherwise, and do so by moral means.

    There are those who advocate self and other deceit to defend that choice or their inability to choose otherwise, and do so by immoral means.

    Jay makes use of:

    0-supernaturalism,

    1-platonism,

    2-pseudorationalism,

    but worst of all, he makes use of:

    3-cosmopolitan pseudoscience in the form of psychologizing,

    4-cosmopolitan propagandizing, in the form of ridicule, shaming, and rallying.

    5-the ad hom attack to obtain attention.

    and furthermore

    6-he preys upon those lacking the ability, knowledge, and experience to circumvent his deceits.

    7-he has highly (over) invested in the creation of a persona in order to obtain attention, and like all ‘priests’ attempts to capture enough of that attention to create an environment in which he can experience his deceptions as if they are natural rather than fictional phenomenon.

    Any debate depends upon the presumption that the other party can (a) understand your arguments if you can construct them well enough (b) participate honestly, (c) constrain one’s self to that which is categorical, reasonable, rational, and empirical – testable by the other party.

    I have no confidence that jay can (a) understand that he errs, nor can he understand testimonialism, (b) can conduct a debate honestly, (c) can constrain himself to the testable, and (d) refrain from his adopted cosmopolitan (marxist) techniques of ridicule, rallying, shaming, pseudoscience (psychologizing), and therefore (e) debate whether testimonialism is testifiable vs whether his ‘metaphysical dependencies’ are testifiable.

    Testimonialism and Propertarianism are not something I ask people to believe. It is a logical, operational, methodology for testable speech that empowers people to demonstrate whether they and others understand their arguments, and to construct alternative explanations from those arguments put forward, by means of strict construction. Propertarian statements are subjectively testable, they do not require ‘belief’ (faith).

    So, I see no value in the pretense of debate, since NO ACT OF DEBATE IS POSSIBLE between logical and nonsensical propositions.

    And honestly, as long as he and his followers do not trouble me too much, I don’t really have any interest other than the odd curiosity that there is a market for nonsense of all kinds.

    So that’s you’re answer. “It would be a waste of time.”

    –“It would not”–Tristann J. DM

    Then you would need to explain to me why not.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-10 18:55:00 UTC

  • If, in your reasoning, you do not account for costs, you are not a philosopher b

    If, in your reasoning, you do not account for costs, you are not a philosopher but a mystic at best, and a fraud at worst. Good luck finding many philosophers who survive that test. Most are frauds and the rest are mystics.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 10:43:00 UTC

  • ( There are ways to criticize my work. Doing so helps me. I love good criticism.

    ( There are ways to criticize my work. Doing so helps me. I love good criticism. And you’ll usually get a ‘thank you’ from me for it. But criticizing me is useless. It wastes my time, and you just expose your weakness. Besides, I am far harsher on myself than you can imagine being, and I have more knowledge of myself to work with. )


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 08:30:00 UTC

  • False argument to positivism. The REAL is not discovered by confirmation but by

    False argument to positivism.

    The REAL is not discovered by confirmation but by LIMITS.

    We know something is a truth candidate only when we cannot find a method of it being false.

    The fact that some idea ‘works’ tells us far less, than when some variant of that idea fails to work.

    much of sophomoric philosophy is predicated on the desire for low cost epistemology: confirmation. While science and most advanced philosophy is predicated on the use of high cost epistemology: falsification.

    So the example you give (as well as almost all sophomoric philosophy or religion) is an attempt for those without resources, those without patience, or those who are lazy, to find a discounted means of achieving their ends.

    There are no free lunches.

    Knowledge is expensive. Promises of cheap knowledge through the mind are merely deceits. Comforting deceits.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 08:07:00 UTC

  • The left have to use outrage and offense because they cannot use the truth witho

    The left have to use outrage and offense because they cannot use the truth without exposing themselves. so in the absence of the ability to use the truth, they withdraw their cooperation and threaten to defect. We respond to threats of withdrawl (defection) as severely as we respond to threats or cases of cheating.

    This is a profoundly important concept in the study of the left’s behavior.

    There is a lot of research now confirming our reaction to cheaters and the high costs we are willing to pay to punish and prevent it. MEN are more sensitive to it.

    But there is less research on how to confirm our reaction to defectors and rejection. WOMEN are more sensitive to it.

    We struggle at all times to retain group integrity. We are wired for it. It affects us pre-cognitively, just as music affects us pre-cognitively (as a holdover from our pre-rational past).


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 06:52:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANISM EXPOSED (by joel davis) —“By a priori reasoning (conflating the

    LIBERTARIANISM EXPOSED

    (by joel davis)

    —“By a priori reasoning (conflating their own imaginary “moral” precepts with observable operations) they determine humans are universally entitled to property rights.

    Yet for property rights to have existential possibility they require enforcement. This enforcement COSTS the enforcers. Non-enforcers must PAY for this service.

    If an individual does not pay for the enforcement of his property rights, he receives them as a parasite.

    By extension, members of society require property rights to mutually gain from cooperative social cohesion.

    Enforcing payment for the costs of the enforcement of property protects society against the higher costs of non-cooperation.”—Joel Davis


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-07 21:19:00 UTC

  • Peter (all), (again, probably epistemologically too technical for this crowd) RE

    Peter (all),

    (again, probably epistemologically too technical for this crowd)

    RE: https://www.facebook.com/peter.boettke/posts/10158213805095389

    IT’S NOT A CASE OF MISINTERPRETATION BUT MISREPRESENTATION, AND IGNORANCE

    There is a difference between:

    (a) misinterpretation and misrepresentation.

    (b) monopoly/authoritarianism(subjective/apriorism/operationalism vs objective/existential/empiricism) and competition(survival from criticism in both apriorism and empiricism)

    (c) scientists(survival from criticism) and ideologues (justificationism as in misesian/rothbardians)

    ASSERTION

    Any and every statement of social science proposed as a truth claim must survive the following forms of criticism, of which AUSTRIAN economist’s operationalism/intuitionism (misnamed ‘methodological individualism’) provides the first INNOVATION in science in over a century.

    1) categorical consistency (identity – non conflation)

    2) logical consistency (internal consistency)

    3) empirical consistency (external correspondence)

    4) existential consistency (operational language/intuitionism/methodological individualism)

    5) reciprocal consistency (objectively moral: productive, fully in formed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externalities)

    6) scope consistency (full accounting, limits, and parsimony – where full accounting includes the difference in opportunity costs: the seen, unseen / intended, unintended / caused, uncaused.)

    That completes the scientific method.

    When a mainstream quantitative (correlative) economist issues his findings, in almost NO case does he test (4)(5)(6), and arguably they rarely test (1). In other words, most mainstream (correlative) economists cherry-pick in order to defend priors and desired measures.

    We succeed at what we measure. We fail at what we don’t.

    WHO IS AT FAULT

    1) The Mises Institute has polluted the informational commons for 30 years, if for no other reason than they are philosophically sophomoric to the last man. Their propagandizing by making innovative use of the internet to capture interest has created large numbers of activists who lack breadth of knowledge necessary to judge (test) the ideology they absorb.

    2) While the Christian Austrians (austrians proper) maintained a metaphysical (subconscious) accounting of the challenge of organizing the commons (an aristocratic bias), many if not all of the Cosmopolitan Austrians (jewish Austrians), like the Rousseau, ignored the cost of organizing the commons, under the pretense that man was oppressed – rather than domesticated by the aristocracy (like any other animal) through the use of war, governance, law, and policy. Yes, domesticating man was profitable. It continues to be. That does not mean man was oppressed if it means forcing him into the market and to respect life, liberty, and property.

    3) Academic Practitioners of operationalism / intuitionism / methodological-individualism AND empirical observation are almost equally philosophically sophomoric in their understanding of the innovation of the Austrian method, as the first instance of operationalism/intuitionism discovered in ANY of the sciences.

    This is because (a) philosophers were distracted by the pseudoscientific effort of trying to make analytic philosophy of language into a ‘science’. (b) Popper/Kuhn failed to complete the scientific method sufficiently to explain why it worked so successfully, and therefore how to apply it to adaptive systems (social science), and while Hayek correctly identified information as the model we should study in social science, and correctly identified the common natural law as the means of regulating that information, he failed to learn from Simmel, Weber and Mises, as well as Brouwer and Bridgman how the scientific method could be captured in law and used to regulate that information. (c) the Incentive to take advantage of fiat currency (stock in the state’s revenue and income potential) was so great that economists were as equally distracted by the use of it to obtain legitimacy and influence as were philosophers distracted by the philosophy of language to obtain legitimacy and influence.

    WHY DOES AUSTRIAN ECON MATTER?

    1) because operationalism is more important in social science than physical science, and physical science more important than in mathematics, for the simple reason that the difference between the methods of observation and survival (proof/test/criticism) are trivial in mathematics, limited in physical science, and expansive in social and cognitive science.

    2) because Austrians discovered operationalism in economics where it is most important of all sciences other than perhaps psychology.

    3) because by discovering operationalism in economics, Austrians largely completed the scientific method – despite failing to grasp that they had done so.

    KNOWING THIS, HOW DO WE REPOSITION AUSTRIAN ECON?

    1) By using both empirical and operational methods, Austrian econ’s are engaged in social science: the study of human cooperation those markets for reproduction, production of private goods and services and information, production of common goods, services, and information, and production of competition against other groups (group evolutionary strategy). THEY PRACTICE SCIENCE.

    2) By attempting to correct accumulated misinformation in the economy and assist networks of sustainable specialization and trade in adaptation, Chicago (freshwater) economists are attempting to (a)remain within rule of natural law (social science) and preserving the individual’s (b) ability to forecast and plan, (c) protection from retroactive legislation (policy) required by natural law. THEY PRACTICE MORAL SCIENCE.

    3) By attempting to maximize consumption, mainstream economists ignore social science, violate natural law, and insert disinformation into the economy to the point where disinformation and malincentives accumulate on longer time horizons at greater scale, than individuals, organizations, the economy, the nation, and the civilization can adapt to. THEY PRACTICE DECEITFUL, IMMORAL, PSEUDOSCIENCE.

    WHERE CAN YOU LEARN MORE ABOUT AUSTRIAN ECON’S PLACE IN HISTORY?

    This post contains pointers to a series of articles that position Menger/Mises and their discovery in intellectual history as part of the movement of late 19th and early 20th century that failed, and allowed us to be subject to 100 years of social pseudoscience.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/750994611656577/

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-07 09:54:00 UTC

  • Joshua Claiming to have provided a warranty of due diligence against error, bias

    Joshua

    Claiming to have provided a warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism (pseudorationalism, pseudoscience) and deceit, without having done so.

    In practice this means following the scientific method, but the completeness of that method’s practice is the question.

    In social science as in psychology, we know that reported preference data is basically impossible to trust, whereas demonstrated preference data largely contradicts reported data.

    We know that in psychology, they’ve spent the past 30 years trying to escape pseudoscience, because projection in psychology (observation) is as impossible as reported data.

    We konw that both economics (vs social science) and cognitive science (vs psychology) caused both disciplines to reform. We know genetics and archaeology ( vs anthropology ) caused the discipline to to begin (slowly) to reform. And a present we are seeing demographic and voting patterns refute both educational ‘science’ and ‘political science’. All for the same reasons: subjective reporting is impossible wither it be self observation or other-observation.

    So, when we say that the scientific method requires a warranty of due diligence, and that we require empircal due diiligence in particular, then the means by which we warranty that we are free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit largely depends upon the construction of instrumentation, and the recording of data that is not subject to subjective interpretation.

    Secondly, the most common error after subjective reporting, is temporal variability or what is often called ‘externalities’. In other words, you might measure something and think it’s a good, but you fail to measure the externalities (consequences) which might be very bad (the energy consumption of producing a photovoltaic panel has until recently been far in excess of its lifetime productivity.)

    Thirdly, one must report on one’s criteria of decidability in the statement of a judgement of good, neutral, or bad. Meaning, one cannot take for granted that one’s value judgements are rational, and certainly not scientific. What are those priors? have we tested them? Or in other words, you cannot deduce from false premises, and you cannot equally deduce from false value judgements – doing so is an other form of reporting error.

    But that is not the full scope we must warranty against. That full scope is:

    1 – categorical consistency (identity)

    2 – logical consistency (internally consistent)

    3 – empirical consistency (externally correspondent)

    4 – existential consistency (by use of operational language)

    5 – scope consistency (full accounting, limits, and parsimony – where full accounting includes deltas in opportunity costs.)

    6 – reciprocity consistency (or what we call objective morality)

    Unfortunately, while most people are reluctant to comment on the physical sciences when they do not feel that they understand them, the average person at every level of society feels qualified to comment on psychological, social, political, and economic phenomenon that are in fact quite more complex than the physical.

    But then this is a cognitive bias we all share. That’s because we evolved to negotiate on behalf of our reproductive interests (genes) and not to tell the truth. The average person equates truth with ‘in my, my kin’s, my alliances’, and my nation;s reproductive interests.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Curt Doolittle,

    The Propertarian Institute,

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-05 11:31:00 UTC