Theme: Truth

  • WESTERN ARISTOCRACY OR SEMITIC CHRISTIANITY? If “Western” means Aristocracy: …

    WESTERN ARISTOCRACY OR SEMITIC CHRISTIANITY?

    If “Western” means Aristocracy:
    … 1. The Militia of Every Able Bodied Man,
    … 2. Excellence and Heroism,
    … 3. Truth and Duty,
    … 4. Sovereignty and Reciprocity,
    … 5. Jury and the Natural Law of Reciprocity,
    … 6. Science and Technology;
    … 7. Ethnocentrism and Commons;
    … 8. Trust and Markets in every aspect of life: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, and polities.

    That is the west. We differ from all other peoples by those virtues, values and collective strategy.

    If “Western” means Christianity:
    … 1. Avoidance of Fighting rather than Pursuit of its Rewards.
    … 2. Minimum and Cowardice rather than Excellence and Heroism.
    … 3. Abrahamic Lies, and Hiding away instead of Truth and Duty.
    … 4. Submission and Rent seeking rather than Sovereignty and Reciprocity
    … 5. Priesthood and Scripture rather than Jury and Natural Law
    … 6. Superstition and Supernaturalism rather than Science and Technology
    … 7. Universalism and Free Riding, rather than ethnocentrism and Commons.
    … 8. Faith and Equality rather than Trust and Markets.

    That is Semitic desert poverty of ignorant herdsmen, not western.

    OLD WORLD AND NEW = LYING
    There is no difference between abrahamic lying in the old form of judaism christianity and islam and abrahamic lying in the new form of fundamentalism, marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and political correctness (denialism).

    Either you fight for the WEST and for all of us, or you fight against the WEST and all of us.

    Fight.

    If you show up to fight, we win.

    Show the F*k up.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 17:35:22 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102429682669112924

  • Jun 28, 2019, 9:32 AM THE TRUTH IS ENOUGH. —I’m a universal Nationalist. A wor

    Jun 28, 2019, 9:32 AM
    THE TRUTH IS ENOUGH.

    —I’m a universal Nationalist. A world of small homogenous high trust nation states. I advocate religious, political, legal, and cultural zero tolerance, ‘domestication’ (full integration) of ashkenazim who choose so, and repatriation of those who do not. And the reason is because – while jewish history has been laundered, as much as white history soiled, and Jews, like women, whose cognition they bred, lie like hell to avoid facing the reality of their historical behaviors, and like like hell to avoid taking responsibility for them. I know all too well that the punishment (persecution) was always and everywhere earned ten fold. And that’s just the reality of it. Russian/Eastern european history is the best and most suppressed example. But there is no condition counter to it in all of western european history. How do I know? I read legal(empirical) not literary(fictional) history.—

    Excellence and Heroism
    Truth and Duty
    Sovereignty and Reciprocity
    The Law and Jury
    and Markets in Everything:
    Association, Cooperation, Reproduction, Production, Commons, Polities, Nations.

    The truth is enough….
    … and separate, oppose, conquer, rule, or end those who display, speak, or act otherwise.

    The Oath of Transcendent Man.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 03:08:45 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426274991830724

  • Jun 28, 2019, 4:11 PM Um. It’s not difficult. Search for any given topic. Find a

    Jun 28, 2019, 4:11 PM
    Um. It’s not difficult. Search for any given topic. Find an article in a journal or serious publication (serious). Follow the link to the article. Find the authors. Go to google scholar and find the citations of the paper or read the papers cited in the paper. Read them. Search for the authors and keywords from the abstract. Do that until all the papers make the same damned point. This doesn’t take long. Nearly all research of substance on a topic is marginally indifferent. Find a book that’s good. use the bibliography. Repeat the process. you will be current on any topic in a few hours.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 02:59:52 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426240089224846

  • (…) 3. A Methodology: i) Epistemology: “The Completion of the Scientific Metho

    (…)

    3. A Methodology:
    i) Epistemology: “The Completion of the Scientific Method and its application to the full scope of human knowledge, resulting in a universal, formal, epistemological method sufficient for adjudication of differences in court.“

    ii) Ethics, Law, Politics: “The strict, algorithmic, construction of the natural, common law, of reciprocity (tort);”

    4. A Body of Law:
    ii) Law: “A body of law answering the cannon of questions – providing a common law of equally sovereign men, alternative to Roman, Napoleonic, and Continental law of unequally sovereign men”

    iii) Constitution: A Constitution of that law, completing the Aristotelian, Roman, British, and American Constitutional Project.”

    iiii) Policies: “A set of policies under that constitution, solving the otherwise unsolvable problems of the current age.”

    5. A Reformation:
    i) Reformation: “A reformation and unification of all fields”

    – Language, Logic, and Mathematics
    – Psychology, Sociology, and Group Strategy
    – Money, Credit-Finance, and Economics
    – Ethics, Law, and Politics
    – Mindfulness-Religion, Education-Academy, and Government-Rule

    6. A Solution
    i) A Solution: “A solution to the political problem of our age.”

    ii) A Declaration: “A Declaration demanding the implementation of this constitution, as reformations of, by amendments to, the existing American constitution, restoring the historical European, Germanic, English, British, and American rights of equally sovereign men, and a means of successful insurrection to force its adoption if force is required – which it will be.”

    THE LIST OF IDEAS
    Too long to list here but the overview lists all of the major themes in order by aristotelian category.

    From there you have to link to specific articles.

    ANd then there is the courseware.

    ANd finally I will ship the book when ready.

    (…)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 02:52:05 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426209481700160

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426205598779546


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    —“He needs to state it plainly and stop comparing himself to great philosophers. I’ve read Kant, Hegel, Locke, Darwin, and a lot more. They were far more eloquent and articulate with their ideas. Even Kant, who writes with even more arrogance than this guy, but at least deserved it.”— Frank Anthony Overton Jr. Frank, Summarize any three of aristotle, hume, kant, hegel, (locke and darwin are easy). They were creating paradigm shifts. Frank says (a) he doesn’t understand it, (b) by he can opine on it. If you read those people then read the Overview and comment. Otherwise you’re just jerking off in public. Criticism is a good thing – if it’s in fact criticism. THE VIDEO SUMMARIZES “Propertarianism consists of a collection of ideas. The core insight in that collection of ideas consists in the completion of the scientific method. The remaining body of work consists of the application of the scientific method to the full scope of human disciplines.” THE WEB SITE HOME PAGE, SUMMARIZES: “Propertarianism consists of the completion of the Scientific Method; its application to the totality of human knowledge; a universally commensurable language of all thought; its embodiment in the common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit from the commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational commons.” THE OVERVIEW SUMMARIZES An Explanation: i) The Uniqueness of Western Civilization: “The Group Strategy (Philosophy) of Western Civilization in Scientific Terms: Excellence and Heroism, Sovereignty and Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, The Jury and Markets in Everything.” ii) The Failure of the Enlightenment: “The Crisis of the 20th and 21st Centuries as a failure to apply that strategy and adapt to counter the industrialization of pseudoscience, sophism, denial, and deceit; iii) The Second Conquest of the West: The Crisis of the 20th and 21st century as a repetition of the revolt against western civilization, truth, reason, and law, under Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and the dark ages of ignorance and destruction that resulted from them.” 2. A System of Measurement, Logic, Vocabulary, and Grammar: i) System Of Measurement: ( … ) “A system of measurement – Propertarian – that provides universal commensurability in thought, display, word, and deed. (Action, Acquisitionism, Propertarian.)” ii) Vocabulary: “A set of fully commensurable cross-disciplinary definitions in operational language. iii) Grammars: “A reduction of language to the equivalent of a periodic table of the elements, and the underlying geometry of thought.” iiii) Logic: “An Operational Logic using Operational Grammar for using these definitions.” v) Value Neutral Language: “A Value Neutral Language of metaphysics, epistemology, psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy, suitable for the construction of law, delivery of testimony, and adjudication of differences in court.” (…)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426205598779546

  • CHOOSE ARYAN CHRISTIAN OF KIN OR SEMITIC CHRISTIAN AGAINST THEM I am, first, and

    CHOOSE ARYAN CHRISTIAN OF KIN OR SEMITIC CHRISTIAN AGAINST THEM

    I am, first, and foremost:
    1) An Aryan(The primacy of man, heroism, excellence, reciprocity, truth before face, aristocratic egalitarianism),
    2) Aristotelian(Naturalism, Truth regardless of cost), an;d
    3) Heathen (Debt only to Nature and Ancestors, Ward of Nature).

    I cannot be those things, if I practice the supernatural over the natural, the irrational over the rational, and false debt over existential debt.

    I can however, be:
    4) a scientific and rational christian, if I have adopted the teaching of christianity:
    i) the eradication of hatred from the human heart.
    ii) the extension of kinship love to non-kin.
    iii) the demand for personal acts of charity and personal cost,
    iiii) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war.

    These are truths. And no claim of truth nor good can require I:
    a) abandon the difference between man and animal by abandoning reason;
    b) claim belief in a falsehood;
    c) owe debt, loyalty, or fealty to other than my kith and kin.

    Yet it is Abrahamic Semitism that asks
    (a) abandon reason,
    (b) claim belief in falsehood, and
    (c) owe debt loyalty or fealty to other than my kith and kin.

    The Semitic technique of Abrahamic lying is:
    (a) False promise(lying),
    (b) Sophism(lying),
    (c) Straw Manning(lying),
    (d) Critique (lying), GSRRM(avoiding truth),
    (e) Denial(lying),
    (f) in exchange for ‘membership’ in a false family whose common interests is propagation of the lie, false promise, sophism, straw manning, critique, GSRRM, and denial.

    There is no difference between:
    (a) Judaism, (c) Christianity, (c) Islam and;
    (b) Marx-Freud-Frankfurt-Derrida et al: the marxists, socialists, psychologists, sociologists, feminists, postmodernists, denialists, and politically corrects (truth suppression)

    The First wave of Abrahamists created
    (a) Judaism to undermine,
    (b) Christianity to undermine further, and
    (c) Islam to conquer the undermined and weakened.
    … Against Aristocracy Reciprocity, Law, Commerce, and Reason.

    The Second wave of Abrahamists replaced religion of the supernatural false promise, sophism, critique, and denial, with two attempts:
    (a) first Abrahamic pseudoscientific false promises sophism critique, and denial in marxism-socialism-freudianism-feminism.
    (b) then the Abrahamic sophistic false promises sophism critique, and denial with postmodernism, neo-liberalism, and political correctness.
    … Against Reciprocity, Law, Commerce, and (Darwin!).

    (continued…)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 02:47:30 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426191435493947

  • HE ANTI-LIBERAL ARGUMENT (fresh weaponry for your use) Do you know the differenc

    HE ANTI-LIBERAL ARGUMENT
    (fresh weaponry for your use)

    Do you know the difference between virtue, rule, and outcome ethics?

    What about the difference between moral, normative, and outcome law?

    What is the difference between your line of argument(Empathy, Care Taking), Noah Revoy’s line of argument(Psychology, Success), and my line of argument(Law, Limits)?

    What is the genetic, institutional, traditional, normative, and psychological outcome of those three lines of argument?

    We demonstrate approximately six general moral rules (foundations) over the use of capital-in-toto. We demonstrate a bias between specializing in them: consumption (caretaking, proportionality) and dysgenia, production (opportunity, reciprocity) and eugenia, and preservation( disgust/purity, loyalty) and eugenia, while only the preservationists practicing all six equally, the productionists dropping loyalty, and the consumptionism dropping all but care and proportionality.

    These six moral rules roughly are divisible into private and common capital demands in exchange for our cooperation.

    These capital demands and moral demands roughly correspond to the feminine, ascendent male, and established male distributions.

    The structure of the human brain both physical, developmental, hormonal, and neurochemical corresponds to about the same distribution between female, beta male, and dominant male.

    The distribution of mental illness psychotic < solipsistic to < feminine < to > masculine > to autistic > anti-social reflects these brain structures and distributions.

    These developments appear to follow the general rule of 80% genetic and 20% something else (variation in developmental progress).

    (continued…)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 00:09:19 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102425569468533065

  • ( …. continued:) So given that reason and then science evolved from law, and l

    ( …. continued:)

    So given that reason and then science evolved from law, and law dependent upon testimony, and that we are seeking to produce in the science that degree of testimony we would produce in court, then I see nothing terribly novel about continuing and completing that evolutionary process. In other words, science adopted operational prose as a means of suppressing the untestifiable. And I can see no reason why we would not extend this from the sciences to the pseudosciences – especially those which are used to construct and enforce law.

    —“The reason I care at all about this metaphysics issue is because I must partially disagree with the last line in the 18MAR2018 statement. While the list Curt provides is a good start, it is just a start, just a tip, and I suspect there is a whole lot more as yet unseen and undescribed to that iceberg. “—

    Despite trying, and the efforts of tens of thousands of researchers we cannot find a single case that is inexplicable by naturalistic means. In other words, I can’t find a reason to put money on (demonstrated belief in) other than common cognitive artifacts.

    —“That course was SOM 212: Myth & Spirit – The Life of Joseph Campbell”—

    My argument is that if metaphysics refers to what exists, then what do we name the study of the imaginary and fictional. In other words, how do we disambiguate between the operational, and the non? That does not mean that we do not find solace, escape, entertainment, ideation, or wisdom in fictional worlds. it does mean that we cannot testify to them or use them in argument (truth testing, evidence, persuasion, law).

    —“I have observed many, many, demonstrations of this effect which go far beyond pop psych positive thinking, social group effect, and anything else reasonably explicable by conventional Newtonian understanding of a mechanistic universe. “—

    As far as I know we have understood this phenomenon since the late seventies as nothing more than synchronicity when subject to the same information. We cannot find a single case otherwise.

    —“Rather, an example of this metaphysical (meaning, we just do not yet know how the black box of the universe does it) effect would be my thinking about a certain extremely unusual item, which I have not seen for many years, while in a fuge state washing dishes in the evening, then the next day driving down the road find that this exact item has literally fallen out of the sky and is laying there on the center line of a deserted stretch of road right in front of me (fell off a truck, presumably).”—

    (continued….)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:44:40 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424764699895143

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424759624047899


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    —“We Sense The World Fine] with the extension that while I’d agree we sense it fine, we demonstrably do not sense it completely -at least, not via direct experience of our senses. For example, radio waves exist and contain information yet unless we have a loose filling in a tooth which happens to be tuned to the same frequency as a transmitter, we do not appreciate any information in the signal. Technology allows us to access radio waves while our unaided senses would be unaware they exist (thanks, Marconi).”— Yes, we sense only that which is actionable, since brains are extremely expensive, and the inactionable is a waste of calories. Hence why we can’t see the infrared. —“The second statement, or first if taken chronologically (18MAR2018: What Is Your Personal Philosophy As It Relates To Ethics and Metaphysics? Why?] elicits more agreement and a couple more caveats. The first is that “why” is a philosophical question rather than a scientific question,”— Incentives are just as scientific (open to description in general rules, constructed from observations (measurements).) As far as i know all human behavior is open to description by incentives and information error in our cognition. This might be because I am current on both cog sci, neurology, and comp sci. —“but my perception is that P is actually a philosophy at this point rather than a science (if it was a science then the question would asl “how” rather than “why”) so this is internally consistent.”—- I am not sure that defines the discipline of science because it produces an arbitrary distinction between our state of measurement of invariant processes (physical) with measurement of variant processes (cognitive), despite the fact that we have at present a fairly good understanding of the physical process which produce experience and cognition by physical means. Moreover, as far as I understand our present knowledge of the wave, particle and upward universe, there is no possibility for the transmission of information by other means within that state of the universe. My understanding of the discipline of science after a century of failure to articulate a via-positiva method, is that it consists of whatever due diligences are necessary such that through the use of observation, measurement, and deduction, to reduce that which is beyond our senses, perception, reason, and memory, to analogies to experience that can be tested(compared) within the limits of our sense, perception, reason, and memory, such that we can warranty that we do not engage in fiction, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, fictionalisms (sophism, pseudoscience, mysticism), fraud, or outright deceit. (continued….)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424759624047899

  • “We Sense The World Fine] with the extension that while I’d agree we sense it fi

    —“We Sense The World Fine] with the extension that while I’d agree we sense it fine, we demonstrably do not sense it completely -at least, not via direct experience of our senses. For example, radio waves exist and contain information yet unless we have a loose filling in a tooth which happens to be tuned to the same frequency as a transmitter, we do not appreciate any information in the signal. Technology allows us to access radio waves while our unaided senses would be unaware they exist (thanks, Marconi).”—

    Yes, we sense only that which is actionable, since brains are extremely expensive, and the inactionable is a waste of calories. Hence why we can’t see the infrared.

    —“The second statement, or first if taken chronologically (18MAR2018: What Is Your Personal Philosophy As It Relates To Ethics and Metaphysics? Why?] elicits more agreement and a couple more caveats. The first is that “why” is a philosophical question rather than a scientific question,”—

    Incentives are just as scientific (open to description in general rules, constructed from observations (measurements).) As far as i know all human behavior is open to description by incentives and information error in our cognition. This might be because I am current on both cog sci, neurology, and comp sci.

    —“but my perception is that P is actually a philosophy at this point rather than a science (if it was a science then the question would asl “how” rather than “why”) so this is internally consistent.”—-

    I am not sure that defines the discipline of science because it produces an arbitrary distinction between our state of measurement of invariant processes (physical) with measurement of variant processes (cognitive), despite the fact that we have at present a fairly good understanding of the physical process which produce experience and cognition by physical means.

    Moreover, as far as I understand our present knowledge of the wave, particle and upward universe, there is no possibility for the transmission of information by other means within that state of the universe.

    My understanding of the discipline of science after a century of failure to articulate a via-positiva method, is that it consists of whatever due diligences are necessary such that through the use of observation, measurement, and deduction, to reduce that which is beyond our senses, perception, reason, and memory, to analogies to experience that can be tested(compared) within the limits of our sense, perception, reason, and memory, such that we can warranty that we do not engage in fiction, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, fictionalisms (sophism, pseudoscience, mysticism), fraud, or outright deceit.

    (continued….)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:43:23 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424759624047899

  • “Good tort law punishes frivolous lawsuits sufficiently to keep them to a manage

    —“Good tort law punishes frivolous lawsuits sufficiently to keep them to a manageable level. If you want to sue somebody for not warranting their speech you are going to have to warranty the speech you use to accuse them in your lawsuit. … Reciprocity in all things.”—Noah J Revoy


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:33:12 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424719696889043

  • THE SCOPE OF PROPERTARIAN LAW ON TRUTHFUL SPEECH —“One of the counter currents

    THE SCOPE OF PROPERTARIAN LAW ON TRUTHFUL SPEECH

    —“One of the counter currents arguments was that in a Proprietarian system of law. privacy would be wrecked, because everyone would be suing each other for insufficient warranty of speech. So you would constantly have to justify that your speech was as good as it could have been according to your knowledge at the time. It does seem like a high bar no?”— Michael Churchill

    The bar is science, politics, economics, law, education, religion – in other words we avoid it anyway when speaking to one another. the SCOPE is advocacy of HARM.

    What would you want to sue intellectuals, public officials, news media, political activists for when making public speech?

    Both sides of the discourse want the other to stop. My argument is that once they stop they can only negotiate trades, and truthfully so.

    Which as far as I know solves the problem of politics: extension of market demand to all speech.

    In real life people adapt to laws that promote cooperation because its in their interests.

    Law that is enforceable under tort creates good people without state monitoring, interference, or monopoly out of individual and group self interest.

    Tort law is the via negativa market that mirrors the exchange via positiva market. we need both remunerative and restitutionary markets.

    Asymmetries permit abuses. and neutrality remains possible at all times.

    How this affronts privacy when public speech is by definition public not private, is beyond me.

    My understanding is that humans with interest in public affairs will seek education sufficient for truthful discourse, and that the education system will adapt to provide it.

    P-Law does not ask you to produce public speech and be right, only TRUTHFUL AND MORAL by practicing due dilligence sufficient for the demands, claims, or criticisms you are making.

    P teaches us that t is fairly easy to perform such due diligence if we are taught it like grammar and ethics as we were in the past.

    The socialists removed these from education in order to undermine our civlization – by design. We can not only restore these skills to the common people out of their own self defense, but state them in scientific terms and operational logic rather, than religious, traditional, normative and moral .. and in doing so restoring truth, sacredness of the commons, and good citizens ship to our people.

    I think things trough. 😉

    It’s my job. 😉

    -curt


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:32:59 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424718754657778