(FB 1552523847 Timestamp) RESPONSE TO PILPUL AS CRITICISM OF P-LAW/LOGIC 1) You did not make an argument as to demarcation – meaning you made no argument as to anything other than self opinion. 2) You have not stated any ideologies and certainly no methodologies, (there aren’t any) 3) You have not answered how one would solve the problem of limiting interpretation to application. 4) You misrepresented in your experience offered as evidence as other than an opinion. It is an experience if you describe it (“i don’t know i only know” but an opinion if you offer it as argument (“in my experience… therefore”). 5) You instead practiced one of the techniques of Pilpul (semitic invention of lying via justification via scriptural interpretation) by solving for a presumption of reasonableness (trustworthiness) as a means of baiting into hazard – which is the principle means of deception I am working to dutifully exterminate. 6) And if “in conclusion, I have no issue being held liable for what I say” then you are exactly the target audience, because you just demonstrated the problem of men who think they are honest when they are merely vehicles for the transmission and propagation of the very disease of the mind that travels under the pretense of religion: abrahamism: false promise, baiting in to hazard, pilpul to justify, critique to straw man and undermine, GRRSM to avoid, solving for pragmatism, or consent, or reasonableness rather than truth and reciprocity, and the culmination of all these techniques to profit from the incremental destruction of host civilizations. You are, in your confidence, evidence of the crime I wish to, and hopefully shall, prosecute, and the education I wish to introduce as the completion of the scientific method. So that no more such pretenses may be practiced upon this earth for eternity, and the dark age of the abrahamists – the cancer that has cost us two thousand years, will be finally left behind forever.
Theme: Truth
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552483548 Timestamp) The number of people who use the word proof without knowing ‘proof of what?’ The number of people who use the term NAP without knowing the answer to “aggression against what?’ The number of people who use the term ‘moral’ without knowing the answer to ‘define moral’. These are term of convention – half truths. We use as if we have even the vaguest idea what they men other than to justify a prior.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552406197 Timestamp) The possible: Engineering The good: Philosophy The true: Law
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552523847 Timestamp) RESPONSE TO PILPUL AS CRITICISM OF P-LAW/LOGIC 1) You did not make an argument as to demarcation – meaning you made no argument as to anything other than self opinion. 2) You have not stated any ideologies and certainly no methodologies, (there aren’t any) 3) You have not answered how one would solve the problem of limiting interpretation to application. 4) You misrepresented in your experience offered as evidence as other than an opinion. It is an experience if you describe it (“i don’t know i only know” but an opinion if you offer it as argument (“in my experience… therefore”). 5) You instead practiced one of the techniques of Pilpul (semitic invention of lying via justification via scriptural interpretation) by solving for a presumption of reasonableness (trustworthiness) as a means of baiting into hazard – which is the principle means of deception I am working to dutifully exterminate. 6) And if “in conclusion, I have no issue being held liable for what I say” then you are exactly the target audience, because you just demonstrated the problem of men who think they are honest when they are merely vehicles for the transmission and propagation of the very disease of the mind that travels under the pretense of religion: abrahamism: false promise, baiting in to hazard, pilpul to justify, critique to straw man and undermine, GRRSM to avoid, solving for pragmatism, or consent, or reasonableness rather than truth and reciprocity, and the culmination of all these techniques to profit from the incremental destruction of host civilizations. You are, in your confidence, evidence of the crime I wish to, and hopefully shall, prosecute, and the education I wish to introduce as the completion of the scientific method. So that no more such pretenses may be practiced upon this earth for eternity, and the dark age of the abrahamists – the cancer that has cost us two thousand years, will be finally left behind forever.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552483548 Timestamp) The number of people who use the word proof without knowing ‘proof of what?’ The number of people who use the term NAP without knowing the answer to “aggression against what?’ The number of people who use the term ‘moral’ without knowing the answer to ‘define moral’. These are term of convention – half truths. We use as if we have even the vaguest idea what they men other than to justify a prior.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552406197 Timestamp) The possible: Engineering The good: Philosophy The true: Law
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552607161 Timestamp) MORE by James Fox Higgins (gold) I think you’ve misunderstood the purpose of propertarianism (as I had for a long time, and as many do). Curt is attempting to codify in language the natural law (the law of empirical science) first and foremost. Secondly, he’s writing a constitution that aligns with his natural law. If people choose to attempt to vie for power and implement this, then they may. But Propertarianism’s point is not to rule, it’s to be truthful. So, if your reputation is damaged by the TRUTH, then you have damaged your own property; which demonstrates foolishness, assuming the culture around you isn’t completely retarded. For instance, people like you and me Nicola already have a “reputation” among leftists as being “bigots” or whatever. We don’t care much because we know they’re idiots… but we care to the extent that it affects our prospects. So if you live in such a hypothetical society that equally values truth and your reputation is sullied by the truth of your actions being known, then nobody has imposed a cost upon you but you yourself. You can choose to continue in folly and let your reputation further diminish, or you can choose to repair and rebuild it through truthful action that the community smiles upon; thus engaging with the Christian practise of repentance and forgiveness, which is an ideal, and one that I wholly believe in. Propertarianism’s practical goal is to enshrine truth into law, and to defend truth by punishing lies. At no point have I suggested that violence is the only means by which people defend their reputation, nor is it often the appropriate means. Especially if your reputation is damaged by your own actions being know – getting violent won’t help at all. It would be completely irrational. You would be imposing a cost upon others. But again, you’re leaping forward into a hypothetical propertarian society to make a case against what is essentially a philosophical principle. You don’t need propertarianism or a propertarian society to recognise the different between ideals and realities (oughts and ises). We agree that people ought not use violence as the first choice in defence, but rather as a final recourse. That’s because we’re Christians. Many Muslims don’t agree or subscribe to this ideal, so they won’t care if we do. Moral arguments cower in the presence of actual violence. So just because we say “you ought not strike first” doesn’t mean others won’t strike first. The NAP is out the window when it’s not agreed to by the second party. You and I are only free to quibble about such things because a 3rd party (the state in this case) applies violence every day to ensure it. As the state begins to derelict its duty to violence, more onus falls upon us to engage with it directly (hence the breakdown of social cohesion and the requirement for preparation). You keep inferring that I hunger for violence. I don’t. I hunger for justice (i.e. the victory of truth). When words fail, violence is the last recourse and gold standard by which justice is dealt (and that is and always has been the empirically reality of man – that’s what our current legal system is; systemised violence). It may not be ideal, but it’s real.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552604083 Timestamp) ^I can only speak comfortably with James about christianity because he doesn’t try to weasel me into any position. Most of the time, when christians get me into a discourse they try to make me justify a falsehood. this forces me to retaliate. And I don’t like it. Because I have to attack the faith and that’s not constructive. I have a very simple principle: faith is faith, and science is science. In a dispute between faith and science it is science. However, science has nothing to say about faith. Principally because that which drives our faith may be scientifically EXPLICABLE, but it’s not scientifically SATISFIABLE. This is very similar to the mind body problem or the memory experience problem. That is, that there is a great deal of difference between explaining the physics of why we have the experiences we do, and the experience and result of that physics. I don’t find this hard to understand but apparently this is hard for most people to understand. This is why I was searching through the online christian leadership – because there aren’t any ‘great thinkers’ out there trying to solve ‘our problem’ which includes the problem of our faith post-darwin and einstein. Most are living in the past but not living in their faith. We must evolve our faith. Evolve it into a militant defensive faith. not one that is dependent upon a pagan aristocracy of arms and armor to provide it with survival. I want to restore a militant christianity just as the viking invasions restored a militant christianity, before which europe could not defend herself given the celtic holocaust, the germanic migrations to fill the vacuum, and the roman collapse and germanic and arab migrations to fill the vacuum. It may be that the west must always have pagan aristocracy and christian priesthood, and a commercial nobility in constant competition in order not to fall into the failings of each. The law is the vehicle. The natural law is compatible with christianity. The question is only whether christians will fight, or if this fight is in the hands of a few pagans who must once again save christianity from islamic and jewish conquest. If christians will fight then they are allies of our people. If they will not, then they are allies of our enemy and only pagans and heathens allies of our people. Only those who fight matter.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552599802 Timestamp) James Fox Higgins understands like few others the difference between discussing what is and what we can, desire to, and should be. Everyone else wants me to produce a via positiva ideology philosophy or religion. When all I am doing is producing the law that prevents reconquest of our people if we impose it. And I have not had this experience with any other christian thought leader. When we are talk I am free to say “I can only say that this is what is – that this is law. I do not say what should or must outside of that law.” This is my version of humility. I leave the good and preferable, the inspirational and the spiritual to those for whom those things are important. For me, I see heathenism (the dead and nature), paganism (social archetypes), christianity ( political ideals), Militia and Martial Participation as (spiritual), and stoic training in mindfulness as components of my religious portfolio. But I am ABLE to do so. Not all of us are able without training. Some are not able to do more than one. it is too much for them. My view of our future is of a god (universe) of many faces (archetypes), many levels (scales), and each of us practices a group of rites (debt payments to) the faces of that god we best depend (are indebted to). Natural law and jesus’ five rules are identical. The ten commandments are simply statements of property. —“You cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”… without an “if”.”— James Fox Higgins
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552599802 Timestamp) James Fox Higgins understands like few others the difference between discussing what is and what we can, desire to, and should be. Everyone else wants me to produce a via positiva ideology philosophy or religion. When all I am doing is producing the law that prevents reconquest of our people if we impose it. And I have not had this experience with any other christian thought leader. When we are talk I am free to say “I can only say that this is what is – that this is law. I do not say what should or must outside of that law.” This is my version of humility. I leave the good and preferable, the inspirational and the spiritual to those for whom those things are important. For me, I see heathenism (the dead and nature), paganism (social archetypes), christianity ( political ideals), Militia and Martial Participation as (spiritual), and stoic training in mindfulness as components of my religious portfolio. But I am ABLE to do so. Not all of us are able without training. Some are not able to do more than one. it is too much for them. My view of our future is of a god (universe) of many faces (archetypes), many levels (scales), and each of us practices a group of rites (debt payments to) the faces of that god we best depend (are indebted to). Natural law and jesus’ five rules are identical. The ten commandments are simply statements of property. —“You cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”… without an “if”.”— James Fox Higgins