We are supposed to love women and care for them. We are not supposed to debate with them over true or false. Only whether a want is possible for the two of us, or impossible for the two of us. Our education, commerce, and politics places too much emphasis on true or false or good or bad, and too little upon possible and impossible. Women are precious creatures if they are honest. There is no reason we must worry about good and true. Only possible and harmful. It does not matter if what they want is good or true, only whether it is possible and not harmful. We are happy to ask women not to ask us to think as women. But we too infrequently fail to reciprocate by not asking women to think as men. Women nest at home, seek signal status with their peers, and try to overload their children, and none of these three impulses have any limit other than her exhaustion. An exhaustion which she will transfer to you. So do not ask woment to be men and think of limits and efficiency. Just love them, and do what is possible. The suffering occurs when we engage in transfers and not exchanges. and the enemy of exchanges is lethargy caused by lack of fitness, and lack of will.
I think what is abhorrent to leftists is that business and productivity are innately competitive and consist of attempting to outwit other tribes of males for market territory.
This is antithetical to the r-selection instincts of females and their effeminate offspring and the sexually inverted ((( tribes ))).
In their world they cannot compete and seek consensus and non-conflict and reciprocality.
They do not see competition as calculation by trial and error of efficiencies in the interest of all.
They sense only the short term experience rather than judge long term consequences.
Hence why we must never take the feminine or effeminate opinion seriously.
It is a temporal blindness and a moral blindness just like Color blindness.
The Propertarian Institute
HOW TO PROSECUTE A PROGRESSIVE (LEFTIST)
In the western tradition, as a high trust people, we search for, and start from the assumption that the other party errs. These assumptions were originally necessary for military and juridical debate between peers specializing in violence, but evolved to traditional, then institutional, and now normative assumptions on how one should proceed in argument and discourse.
But what I have tried to do, is revisit that assumption, and start from the premise that the other person is trying, because of the biases of his genetics, to commit fraud. And that error is often a trivial contributor to differences in assessment and that the various forms of fraud constitute the vast majority of argument.
This is quite different from the rather tame victorian or jewish debate between peers, and the traditional western demand that the aristocracy JUDGE. As such my approach is prosecutorial rather than deliberative, since any deliberative stance in which we assume error rather than deception, merely gives the fraud permission to engage in propagandism, and prevents resolution of differences, since in discourse the liar does not admit his lies.
So why am I saying this? Because if I prosecute your statement it will be rapidly obvious to the jury, regardless of whether you consent to the outcome or not, that you’re likewise engaged in an act of fraud.
However, I’ll construct my argument briefly. First reductively, then causally.
Reductively: *Foucault is to Frankfurt as Keynes is to Marx, but it was Marx and Frankfurt that developed the technique of critique by applying Jewish hermeneutic criticism of static scripture and its dysgenic consequences instead of European scientific extension of dynamic, common, natural law and its eugenic consequences.*
Now lacking knowledge of my arguments, you assumed too much. Which is normal since it is always a question of the worth of investigating some set of ideas.
But that argument is:
1) groups make use of the argumentative technique used by their civilization, and in most if not all cases this is reducible to the argumentative structure of our ancestral laws.
2) our ancestral laws in whatever form incorporated our group evolutionary strategies.
3) we all justify our individual and group evolutionary strategies in no small part because as metaphysical assumptions we are rarely aware of them, and contrary propositions are intuitively immoral (or just wrong).
4) during the enlightenment each culture attempted to express its method of argument, and it’s group evolutionary strategy, as a universal, rather than a particular.
5) every society was wrong in that while the British scientific method was correct its aspirational view of man was false; the french method of moral literary equality was a justificationary method of preserving authority and the moral view of man was false; the german rationalism model was false but the german understanding of man was true, and its prescription (truth telling and defense of it) was true. And the Jewish pseudoscientific pseudorational pseudolegal was designed from its origins as false, polylogical, poly ethical, and parasitic. And the nature of man irrelevant if it can be exploited.
Each culture then made use of the technologies other cultures have used, and it is only since the late 1990’s with the combination of computers, cognitive science, medical imaging, and genetic research that we have started to become successful at overthrowing the last, and worst, enlightenment thinkers: the pseudoscientists and deceivers: the cosmopolitans: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School, Rand, Rothbard, Strauss, and the legion of others that have conducted a century-long campaign against common, natural, empirical, judge discovered, eugenic law.
Once we falsify the pseudoscience in each then those who arose consequentially from the original will fall as well.
Yes, Foucault(literary) like Keynes(probabilism) improved upon Frankfurt(pseudoscience, pseudorationalism), and Marx(pseudoscience, pseudoratioalism), but preserved the central theory: creating a straw man and criticizing it, rather than creating a positive argument and justifying it.
We criticize science because we do not know its first principles, we justify morality because we do. we must. or sympathetic cooperation would be impossible for us as it is between most apes.