Critique != Criticism 

In Criticism the alternative choice must be defended.

In critique the alternative choice must be obscured.

The purpose of Criticism is to identify truth. The purpose of Critique is obscurantism: complex deception.

Critique is deception. Control by deception using  obscurantism.

We forgo our opportunity for violence in exchange for pursuit of the truth.

However if the opposition is not equally engaged in the pursuit of the truth, then we need not forgo the honesty of violence just to tolerate acts if deception.


Trust and Demand for the State



You know, I had bought into the ‘equality’ thing pretty deeply. But yet again, I”m overturning my own biases.

While patriarchy made possible by property helped to constrain female reproduction rates, and female reproductive parasitism, one of the northern european innovations was to further improve on the suppression of feminine reproductive parasitism, by delaying childbirth as well. Both patriarchy, the absolute nuclear family and manorialism further suppressed female reproductive parasitism.

The state by contrast, within just one generation of enfranchisement of women, was used by women to reverse thousands of years of innovations in the institutions of property which controlled female reproduction – particularly in the lower classes.

The state has not only been the source of predation but under universalism the sponsor of both dysgenia and suicide. The most paternal cultures are the most successful. The most aggressive males produce the most aggressive paternalism. The most aggressive paternalism produces the most aggressive family structure.

We weaponized norms and technology, while other groups of people weaponized reproduction, and yet others weaponized deception.

Why then should we abandon truth and violence so that we can be conquered by reproduction and deception?

(This was a conclusion I certainly didn’t expect to come to. Especially as a maker of alpha widows. The family is more important than my own demonstrated preferences illustrate.)



And of course there are other options: Land can be owned by no one. Land can be owned by one person. Land can be owned by a group of contractual shareholders. Land can be owned by normative shareholders.

The problem of a commons lies in determining use of a resource that CAN be consumed. However not all resources that are are useful can be consumed tragically. Some resources, and perhaps the most valuable resources are those which we agree NOT to consume. As such, those things we prohibit consumption of. All property consists of prohibitions. Commons consist of universal prohibitions. The tragedy of the commons applies ONLY to unelectable consumption, and the cost of administering unelectable consumption.

Shareholder agreements universally construct commons, but disallow consumption of those commons except as distributed under the terms of the agreement. So not only can we produce commons by shareholder agreement, nearly all commons are so produced. The problem is not the production of commons, or the constitution of commons or the existence of commons, but that statists license the consumption of commons, and as hoppe has illustrated, distribute the commons (consume it) rather than save it (as did monarchs).

Parks for example serve as monuments which produce ‘goods’ indefinitely if they are not consumed. We merely need to prevent consumption of the land, in order for the good produced by parks to persist. Of the many kinds of monuments, it is one of the hardest to prevent the consumption of. Because it is the easiest to consume.

Just as property rights, rule of law, and other norms are expensive monuments to construct, and to persist, without consuming them. And they can be consumed, easily, if we do not prevent their consumption.

Many norms require high constant costs of observation. Property as an informal institution does. Property rights are merely a legal definition of the norm of property. But the norm of property is produced as are all commons, by requiring a contribution (sacrifice of opportunity) and teh forcible prevention of consumption by that which is not normatively defined.

This is inescapable since property itself as an institution must be so constructed.


The “Libertines” simply try to license unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior by defining away norms. And while some norms may be arbitrary (signals or rituals), those norms that construct and persist commons are not.

Cosmopolitans just created an elaborate system of pseudo-rationalism to circumvent ethics and morality, in order to justify poly moral in-group-vs out-group morality that renders commons impossible to construct.

However, the Western competitive advantage over the rest of the world was the trust started by the initiatic brotherhood of warriors, which allowed the aristocracy to form, and which all others in society attempted to imitate not only to obtain status as a reproductive improvement, but because trust did in fact, non-symbolically, but functionally, produce consistently higher returns than non-trust.

Game. Set. Match. The end of the pseudoscientific century. Libertinism. Cosmopolitanism. Rothbardiansm. Misesianism are just like socialism and neoconservatism, cosmopolitan systems of pseudoscientific propaganda imitating the framing and overloading of abrahamic authoritarianism. Elaborate verbalisms.

(I have pretty much put a fork in it. Rothbard isn’t just wrong. It’s worse than that.)




You know, I’m chiseling away at correcting the enlightenment. I didn’t realize that’s what I was doing, but thats what, under the chisel, lies inside the stone, ready to emerge.

- Fallacy of the Anglo Enlightenment – universalism and the aristocracy of everybody – the people of the island. (the navy)

- The fallacies of the German enlightenment – the verbalist religion of german philosophers – the people of the land. (the armies)

- The fallacies of the Jewish enlightenment – the new mysticism of verbal pseudoscience – the people without land (the priests)

- The resistance of the Chinese to the enlightenment – the ruthless defense of power, tribe and family.

- The resistance of the muslims to the enlightenment – the ruthless defense of the priesthood, tribe and family.

The enlightenment authors used science to obtain power in an organized attack on the church and monarchy. But the result was that we let loose the barbarians not only in our own culture, but in every culture as well.

Reproduction Reigns. The family reigns. The tribe Reigns. Universalism is suicide.


We either tell the truth, and demand the truth in exchange, under penalty of violence, or we die.


( Lesterians ) ( Austrians )

Over the past better part of a year, Lee Waaks, a Lesterian who has taught me quite a bit about Jan Lester’s ideas, and to whom I am forever grateful, has been dutifully ‘correcting’ me, every time I use the term ‘self-deception’, because at least rationally, self deception should not be possible.

But my intuition has been relentlessly hounding me – because I can’t imagine that self deception isn’t possible. And I have a good reason: otherwise people are far more dishonest than I can imagine them being. Especially when we consider that there is a very high computational cost to dishonesty (lying consistently is expensive and hard work) and that under self deception that cost goes away – especially if the deception is clouded by verbalisms (‘fuzzy’ words that are analogical and whose properties are not necessarily ascertainable.) When you lie you must be conscious of it. When you practice persuasion under the influence of self deception, then at least, in theory, you are not lying – which requires at least intuitive intent.

Thanks to Kahneman’s framing of the mind as composed of System 2 (reason), System 1 (intuition – our ‘search engine’); And in addition to Systems 1 and 2, what I have coined as ‘System 0′ – the human reproductive bias that determines what property we must acquire, inventory, and defend, and therefore the cause that determines our different moral biases.

We possess intuitions At both the System 0 (reproductive instinct) and System 1( memory ) levels. And system 0 intuitions appear to operate as cognitive biases that we rarely can imagine as other than ‘the right and moral order of things’.

We work very hard at using language to JUSTIFY our moral intuitions. So each group that uses a different reproductive strategy, and each gender and class within each group, contains members who hold both marginally different and marginally indifferent values – each using signals to justify his or her needs (biases).

However, because of all this justification, when we cooperate we appear, at least within the group to share largely similar interests. And we do. We cooperate on means even if we do not always cooperate on ends. The opposing male and female reproductive strategies, and the compromise of serial monogamy are ever present properties of human existence yet we manage to cooperate and flourish within group and without.

As groups we further justify our group reproductive interests. Westerners justify universalism

Because we want to. WE overload our reason and our intuitions (System 1) by searching for verbal means of justifying (System 2) our reproductive strategy (System 0) such that we can cooperate in-group with group members, and compete against out-group members with different strategies..

The problem for us is coming up with a narrative that is both easy to advance, easy to justify, and easy to apply. The more detailed the story, the more cases that are covered by the narrative, the more that others can use the narrative, and the more pervasive is the narrative in our environment, then the more our intuition can be trained to ‘believe it’. This is why religions propagate despite the fact that they are obviously nonsense – they are really useful. And if enough people that you interact with ACT as if something is true, the more it appears to be. And the more you are deceived.

By ‘reality by chanting’. The more verbal, more literate, more sources of distribution and media that a people has, the easier it is to create self deceptive narratives.

Because it allows a group to create a mythos – a strategic form of warfare against out-group members, while retaining in-group cohesion.

While self deception for psychological purposes is probably something we want to preserve. Deception and self deception as political theft, and intercultural warfare, if not genocide are things we want to protect against. Aristocratic Egalitarianism, Propertarianism, Testimonial Truth, Operationalism, and the Scientific method, codified in law, with universal standing as means of enforcement, under loser-pays. We conquer it with truth-telling.

Every group creates deceptions, but some groups are better than others. Our own mythos is what we call the Enlightenment. While discrediting the church and giving promise to science, what we also did was create the mythos of the “aristocracy of everyone” : that it is both desirable and advantageous to join the aristocracy (it isn’t) and that an homogenous aristocratic (meritocratic) policy is in everyone’s interest (it isn’t). This self deception has been harmful for much of the world, and remains so. We promote democracy, when it’s bad for everyone, ourselves included. We promote majority rule, which is likewise bad for everyone. We promote consumerism, which also is bad for everyone. What we should promote is property rights, rule of law, truth telling and science, and the use of poly-systemic governments so that the underclasses may operate socialistic-ally and the upper aristocratically – just like we always have.

We currently have three old-world-peoples practicing different alternatives to truth living with us to study: Gypsies, Jews and Muslims. Although we do now encounter Asians as well. But the best research has been done on one group, the jews, and that work was done by Kevin Macdonald in his exhaustive study of the Jewish use of deception and self deception in intellectual movements.

But while Jewish authors are responsible for a disproportionate number of the pseudosciences, as well as monotheism, it is important to keep in mind that they are merely “HERE” with us, and that their work, while more prolific, and since the Jewish enlightenment, more pseudoscience rather than mythical, is no different from the Muslim narrative, the Russian, or the Chinese.

What follows are pointers to Macdonald’s notes on the self- deception, and deception of Jewish authors.

Just why Jewish authors are the worlds best a manufacturers of pseudoscience is probably (a) evolution verbalism by the requirement for memorizing literature, (b) the Talmudic teachings which which force dualism, and therefore dishonesty (c) the strategy of economic parasitism which rewards deception, (d) their genetic dislike of outsiders, and (e) justification for their in0group evolutionary strategy.

I will address in another article, why western truth is so important as an evolutionary strategy for a small, poor, illiterate people on the edge of the bronze age, who constantly had to defend themselves against superior numbers from wealthier civilizations.

Truth is an advantage for us. But deception is a greater value to others than truth. The Chinese, Jews, and Gypsies among them. Just as the totalitarian law of Islam is an advantage for the lower IQ peoples in low trust in-breeding societies.

This topic is endlessly fascinating.


—Determine whether the Jewish participants in those movements identified
as Jews AND thought of their involvement in the movement as advancing
specific Jewish interests. Involvement may be unconscious or involve self-deception, but for the most part it was quite easy and straightforward to find
evidence for these propositions. If I thought that self-deception was important (as
in the case of many Jewish radicals), I provided evidence that in fact they did
identify as Jews and were deeply concerned about Jewish issues despite surface
appearances to the contrary.—

—…deception may not be as important here as self-deception, ”a
common enough feature of Jewish intellectual history (see SAID, Chs. 7, 8).—

Macdonald. (1998a). Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary
Theory of Anti-Semitism. Westport, CT: Praeger.

—If life is truly without any evolutionary meaning, why have advocates propagated these ideologies so intensely and with such self-consciously political methods? Why have many of these same people strongly identified with their own ethnic group and its interests, and why have many of them insisted on cultural pluralism and its validation of minority group ethnocentrism as moral absolutes? By their own
assumptions, it is just a meaningless game. Nobody should care who wins or
loses. Of course, deception and self-deception may be involved. I have noted (p.
195) that a fundamental agenda has been to make the European-derived peoples
of the United States view concern about their own demographic and cultural
eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology.—

MacDonald. CofC

—Evolved mechanisms that facilitate the acceptance of maladaptive ideologies
among gentiles are not the whole story, however. In SAID (Ch. 8) I noted a
general tendency for self-deception among Jews as a robust pattern apparent in
several historical eras and touching on a wide range of issues, including personal
identity, the causes and extent of anti-Semitism, the characteristics of Jews (e.g.,
economic success), and the role of Jews in the political and cultural process in
traditional and contemporary societies.—

Macdonald. (1998a). Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary
Theory of Anti-Semitism. Westport, CT: Praeger.

—Self-deception may well be important in facilitating Jewish involvement in the movements discussed here. I have noted evidence for this in the case of Jewish political radicals, and Greenwald and Schuh (1994) persuasively argue that the ingroup ethnic bias exhibited by their sample of researchers on prejudice is not conscious. Many of the Jews involved in the movements reviewed here may sincerely believe that these movements are really divorced from specifically Jewish interests or are in the best interests of other groups as well as Jews.—

Greenwald, A. G., & Schuh, E. S. (1994). An ethnic bias in scientific citations.
European Journal of Social Psychology 24:623-639.

—They may sincerely believe that they are not biased in their associational patterns or in their patterns of citation in scientific articles, but, as Trivers notes (1985), the best deceivers are those who are self-deceived. Finally, theories of social influence deriving from social psychology are also relevant and may yield to an evolutionary analysis. I have suggested that the memes generated by these Jewish intellectual movements achieve their influence, at least at first, because of the processes of minority group influence. The issue of whether this aspect of social psychology may be viewed as part of the evolved design features of the human mind remains to be researched.—

Trivers, R. (1985). Social Evolution. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings.
———. (1991). Deceit and self-deception: The relationship between
communication and consciousness. In Man and Beast Revisited, ed. M.
Robinson & L. Tiger. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press.

—It is thus not surprising that although these theories were directed at
achieving specific Jewish interests in the manipulation of culture, they “could not tell their nameâ€; that is, they were forced to minimize any overt indication that
Jewish group identity or Jewish group interests were involved, and they could not
develop a specific rationale for Judaism acceptable within a post-Enlightenment
intellectual context. In SAID (Ch. 2) I noted that the Jewish contribution to the
wider gentile culture in nineteenth-century Germany was accomplished from a
highly particularistic perspective in which Jewish group identity continued to be
of paramount subjective importance despite its “invisibility.†Similarly, because of the need for invisibility, the theories and movements discussed here were forced to deemphasize Judaism as a social category—a form of crypsis discussed extensively in SAID (Ch. 6) as a common Jewish technique in combating anti-Semitism.—

—In the case of the Frankfurt School, “What strikes the current observer
is the intensity with which many of the Institute’s members denied, and in some cases still deny, any meaning at all to their Jewish identities†(Jay 1973, 32). The originators and practitioners of these theories attempted to conceal their Jewish identities, as in the case of Freud, and to engage in massive self-deception, as appears to have been common among many Jewish political radicals. Recall the Jewish radicals who believed in their own invisibility as Jews while nevertheless appearing as the quintessential ethnics to outside observers and at the same time taking steps to ensure that gentiles would have highly visible positions in the movement (pp. 91-93). The technique of having gentiles as highly visible exemplars of Jewish-dominated movements has been commonly used by Jewish groups attempting to appeal to gentiles on a wide range of Jewish issues (SAID, Ch. 6) and is apparent in the discussion of Jewish involvement in influencing immigration policy in the following chapter.—

Jay, M. (1973). The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School
and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950. Boston: Little, Brown.
———. (1980). The Jews and the Frankfurt School: Critical theory’s analysis of
anti-Semitism. New German Critique (#19):137-149.
———. (1984). Marxism and Totality: The Adventures of a Concept from
Lukács to Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.

—As an additional example, Irving
Louis Horowitz (1993, 91) contrasts the “high-profile,†special-interest pleading of the new ethnic and sexual minorities within sociology with the Jewish
tendency toward a low-profile strategy. Although Jews dominated American
sociology beginning in the 1930s, specifically Jewish interests and political
agendas were never made salient.—

Horowitz, I. L. (1987). Between the Charybdis of capitalism and the Scylla of
communism: The emigration of German social scientists, 1933-1945. Social
Science History 11:113-138.
———. (1993). The Decomposition of Sociology. New York: Oxford University



If you had told me that western philosophy contained such a catastrophic hole that we could be nearly destroyed by ideas even worse than monotheism, I would have told you to write science fiction novellas.

It turns out it’s true.

We treat truth and universalism as normal. But when our knowledge exceeded human scale, we adopted platonic truth, and at the very same time, the continentals and cosmopolitans swamped us with pseudoscience.

The european new right is wrong. We don’t need a religion. We don’t need to return to religion.

We just need to speak the truth.

And speaking the truth, it turns out, isn’t a philosophical proposition that is open to interpretation. You can either give an operational description or you can’t.

The truth is, that we’ve been poisoned as seriously as we were when Justinian closed the greek schools, and imposed middle eastern mysticism upon us.


(Hampering the fantasies of ordinary people everywhere, but giving them a note of solace in return…. Can an ordinary person significantly change society?)

An important and interesting question, So I will do my best. Although you might not like the answer.

1) Well, a common man certainly can make a positive impact on society merely by accumulating and making use of the Virtues.

2) Common many have made positive impact accidentally on the world by virtuous action at the right moment in time. But that is not to say that they possessed a brilliant idea or persuasive character. It means only that as virtuous people they seized an opportunity when it came before them, even if they did not construct that opportunity themselves.

3) The historical record suggests that most people who make a significant POSITIVE impact on society are not average. In fact, the record is almost absent of common individuals. The people who do make a significant impact tend to be above average, largely from the middle or upper middle classes – in other words, not common.

4) The interesting question is whether the common man, correctly estimates that his reasons, opinions or imaginations, would produce what is a POSITIVE impact upon society. If you imagine what a child sounds like to an adult; what a student sounds like to a professor; what a common citizen sounds like to a statesman or scholar – the result is always the same: that we are always unconscious of our incompetence. If we were aware of our incompetence we might lack the will to do anything at all. So we evolved confidence in the face of ignorance out of necessity.

So the question is really whether the common man has any significant value to add to society other than his assumption that he does. On the other hand, there are many people who are not average who none the less are not omniscient, always looking for ideas to use in changing the world.

And so, it is possible that an ordinary fellow might stumble across a good idea. But even if he did, is it possible for his idea to compete with the many many ideas, of all the individuals who are above average, and who are ALSO struggling to change the world?

The market for ideas is no different from the market for products and services. If you cannot sell your idea, that is because no one is buying it. If no one buys it then that is evidence that it isn’t wanted. If it isn’t wanted, then by definition, it isn’t ‘good’.

The greeks had it right you know: wisdom is found in increasing the knowledge of your own ignorance.


I don’t like the word patriot, because it suggests fealty to church or state. Instead: the obligation of every man who accepts the aristocratic contract is to deny power to any and all over any and all.

In this sense patriotism is impossible for members of the aristocracy because it implies a moral choice rather than a necessary contractual obligation to all other members of the aristocratic corporation.


If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.

It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.


Truth: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
Honest: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
Under testimonial truth, Honestly and Truthfully are synonymous.

Diplomats should not posture that they have the capacity to act, and choose not to act under the cover of justifications, when they have no capacity to act. This is dishonest. Politics is a dishonest business.


If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.
It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.

Caine conveniently reduced the scope of the argument to the first sentence in order to remove the information necessary to render the argument correspondent with reality. (Usually this is merely the error of novices, or people who don’t read the entire argument; but it falls under the category of either a fallacy -straw man- or a deception – selective inclusion of information in the argument. I assume that this is merely the error of a novice. As such cain is applying the technique of formal languages to correspondent and natural languages. This is a common error of ‘logicism’ (that is the word Max was looking for). I categorize all these kinds of errors as ‘empty verbalisms’. But Max was attempting to say the same thing. (I am more patient – the curse of aspie-ness.)

—” If one can not do something (it is not reasonably possible)” is no different from “shouldn’t” in the vast majority of cases when people utter those words.—-

This is yet another fallacy given that the counter argument that Cain put forward was a fallacy of formal language, minus the information necessary for it to be correspondent – then you Greg, counter with an argument to normative speech.

So now we have gone from a correspondent argument, to an internally consistent argument to a normative usage argument. Now, I suspect that in the end, Neither Cain nor Greg is probably aware of the different properties of these systems and you are justifying intuition not formal criticism.

I made a rhetorical statement, because i do not make verbalist statements. I am an active opponent of logicism as psuedoscientific when applied outside of formal bounds. I’m an operationalist
I didnt make an absolute statement now did I?

Nope. No hole there at all. Rock solid.


—If Nuclear war is unacceptable for you then in this context it’s both Can’t and Impossible Max, there he can muse on his Moral Should or not, Be or not to be all day long, 24/7—

“If you can conduct nuclear war then
you cant conduct nuclear war and
its impossible to conduct nuclear war
but you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.”


Nuclear war is unacceptable. (Meaning you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.)
You can conduct nuclear war, but you prefer not to.
You can’t conduct nuclear war, and it’s immaterial whether you prefer to or not.

“Can’t physically” != “Prefer not to.”


… But really we just get back to the central argument which is that you’re holding a double standard. You allow yourself the laxity of informal language with ‘…in this context…’ but do not allow me the same laxity of informal language given the context. Instead, you pull out a sentence and argue that I made a statement I did not. Then, you go and make the statements I just illustrated were nonsense above.

I made no universal statement. I did not make a statement regarding the necessary membership of sets. I stated that it is dishonest to posture. You may not have understood that. But this is your own hasty reading.

I then defended my position with an argument over your head.

And I am back to making the same argument in simple terms.

Well, I don’t see that as an insult. I don’t claim to be an academic. I don’t claim to be any thing. I claim I am correct. Otherwise that would mean I made an appeal to authority, which would be a fallacy. My arguments stand or they don’t, and they stand.

Says the guy who just made a clown of himself, did so with passion, did so under the cover of ad hominems.

–Falling back—

I didn’t make a mistake. My entire argument stands. I am good at what I do. Sorry. Just how it is. Get over it.


Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.