Twitter cuts (#119)

Yes, it was an odd conversation …

March 8, 2017admin 41 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Aesthetics

TAGGED WITH : ,

41 Responses to this entry

  • wu-wei Says:

    This is a poorly disguised statement about skin pigment, isn’t it

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 8th, 2017 at 6:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Great metaphorical treatment of the root problem of modernity: Austen, Burroughs, Tolkien, Celine.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 8th, 2017 at 6:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    You lot are Orccidental, I’ve said it before, just a load of ungainly and brutish, ogre-inferiors!
    In LOTR, it’s the Orccidental brutes who do the industrial revolution!
    QED

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    A good rule of thumb is if you’re getting Little Artxell’s panties in a bunch you’re doing something right.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Big W, you shouldn’t assume everyone wears ‘panties’, it tells a lot you. LOL

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Should have been ” tells a lot about you”.

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    Nah.

    “Easterlings were enemies of the Free Peoples and were allies of Sauron.”

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    If I had a choice between participating in this forum with representatives of India and China and not I’d choose the former, though doubtlessly for reasons neither of you would like.
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    That typoglyph is you holding up your skirt.
    We can see your ‘panties’! LOL

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    They’re not Oriental, they’re Orccidental.

    Easterlings, ” Men who lived in the east of Middle-earth”

    “Tolkien’s inspiration

    Tolkien expanded on the term “Easterling”, a word long used in England to denote “a native of a country eastward of another.”[2] In dispatches, English ambassadors of the 16th century despaired of the Easterlings, those merchant traders from the Baltic coasts who on more than one occasion “retained” other countries’ ships at sea.[3] In the classic and often-reprinted Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation (1589), Englishman Richard Hakluyt describes the Easterlings in detail. “Eastland is a very large land and there be many cities and townes within it, and in every one of them is a king: whereby there is continually among them great strife and contention. … There is no ale brewed among the Easterlings but of meade there is plenty. The wealthiest men drinke commonly Mares milke and the poore people and slaves meade.”[4]”

    [Reply]

    Salmed Reply:

    Indians and other non-Whiteys wuz kangz before Whitey showed up.

    [Reply]

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    Well, yes, its likely that his Easterlings had more Arabic than Oriental influence. Still, he was a medievalist and the Other was a hodgepodge imo.

    Claiming superiority one way or another is tedious to me.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Says “In dispatches, English ambassadors of the 16th century despaired of the Easterlings, those merchant traders from the Baltic coasts”, not Arabic.

    Come on, Daniel, have a sense of humour, we’re talking about a Tolkein fantasy.
    It’s a bit strange that you’re financially supporting Neoreaction, which entertains all the All-Trite ‘white supremacy’ concerns, as it were, that you rightfully consider ‘tedious’.
    I guess you are financing the downfall of the West.

    [Reply]

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    Fantasy’s most interesting use is as artifacts of a transconscious map. I.e. as products of the structure-operation of language. Thus of hierarchy.

    What does an artifact signify? What does it most favorably correlate with for operative purposes? For man-eu-vering.

    Certainly, as we already inhabit more virtualised spheres, imperialism is somewhat outdated. Yet everyone will do their readings of artifacts of fantasy, for their territorialisation however virtual or not.

    « The Empire never ended » — Philip K. Dick.

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    Or rather as a mapping factor of the transconscious.

    » The great German sociologist, Max Weber (1953), has written of the social process he called “the routinization of charisma.” This is the process whereby the living concepts and ideas of a great charismatic leader come, especially after his death, to be reduced or frozen into a range of simple but lifeless formulae to be routinely administered by unimaginative bureaucrats in the institutions set up in the leader’s name. »

    When the mapping process has become too stale, it is said to be bureaucratic.

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    @Artxell Knaphni

    Patchwork will answer all of the meaningful questions.

    @Goth Eiríksson

    An interesting observation, and especially true by Dirk’s reckoning. Thank you for sharing.

    Wagner Reply:

    Dan, Patchwork has already answered all the meaningful questions, it was called Countries, and China and India proved deficient. The talk of supremacy is tedious to you because you’re the underdog and you want the game to be leveled so your brethren get a second chance.

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    My pleasure, Mr. Daniel Chieh. I have taken steps on a path of becoming a Jordan B Peterson remixed with Zizek, — just what the Right needs.

    Which is no promise of attaining anything close to their stature or output, in terms of quantity anyway.

    Altho nutrients and asceticism help with that sometimes, neuroticism influences my output, for good or ill, — which is not to say Žižek doesn’t look neurotic at least in the 1775 etymological sense.

    ▬» Eliade’s reflections on hermeneutics and his interpretation of the intentionality and meaning of the religious data contain such synthesizing terms as integration, unification, harmonious whole, revalorisation, homologisation, and cosmicisation. For example, religious symbolism will be seen to have a function of unification in which diverse, fragmented, multivalent, often contradictory aspects of experience are synthesized within coherent, meaningful, spiritual wholes. And much of Eliade’s critique of modern, desacralized culture will be seen as arising from his claim that it lacks this creative power of synthesis. »

    China’s multi-millennia body of kulturwerk will be most useful for this monkey to find its roots
    again — in Heaven, as it were (visita interiora terrae rectificando invenies occultum lapidem).

    We shall have to do our best also, translating the prisca sapientia into mechanistic or machinic language, considering the venue and the age.

    » The early 16th century discovery of the general solution of cubic polynomials is regarded by some people as a significant turning point in scientific history, because this was the first time a “modern” man made a significant discovery that went beyond the ancient knowledge. (Needless to say, there were acrimonious disputes between Cardano, Ferro, Tartaglia about who deserved to be credited with this discovery.) The tantalizing prospect of “bettering” the ancients was thus raised, and was an incredibly powerful incentive for making intellectual discoveries. Of course, far more important for convincing Europeans that it was possible to know more than the ancients was the discovery of The New World, beginning with Columbus’s voyage in 1492, a world of which the ancients had not even dreamed.

    Nevertheless, the belief that the ancients had possessed a vast body of knowledge, of which we have only fragments and scattered hints, persisted. As late as the 1600’s men like Fermat were developing their original ideas in the form of speculative “reconstructions” of lost works from antiquity. For example, Fermat completed a re-construction of Appolonius’ lost work on “Plane Loci”, and Fermat himself said that this effort led directly to his development of what we now call analytic geometry. (Needless to say, there was an acrimonious dispute about whether Fermat or Descartes deserves credit for this discovery.)

    Newton was convinced that “the ancients” had used analytical methods to arrive at their results, and then consciously concealed their methods by expressing the results in synthetic form. Regarding the solution of the locus problem, Newton remarked

    ‘…they [the ancient geometers] accomplished it by certain simple proportions, judging that nothing written in a different style was worthy to read, and in consequence concealing the analysis by which they found their constructions.’

    Even with regards to the calculus, Christianson’s biography of Newton tells us that

    ‘…in May 1694…Newton had recently completed his brilliant mathematical treatise ‘De quadratura’ which introduced the now familiar dot notation for fluxions, and he expressed the belief [to David Gregory] that its contents were known to the Greeks, who had destroyed all evidence of algebraic analysis in favor of more elegant geometrical proofs.’

    In discussing the question of why Newton, the inventor of the calculus, avoided any explicit use of it in his Principia, Christianson says

    ‘Had he been more forthright, he would have simply admitted to his preference for classical geometry on the grounds that it was more elegant than the analytic algorithms of the fluxional calculus, and to his belief that it had enabled the ancients to discover what he was only rediscovering some two millennia later.’ » »

    Descartes [claimed] that the ancients not only kept their true methods secret, but did so for the basest of reasons, to cover up the fundamental simplicity of these results when approached analytically. Essentially Descartes accuses the ancient sages of perpetrating a conscious fraud on the uninitiated — and on posterity. » lol

    http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath066/kmath066.htm

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    Sure, if you wish to believe that.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    You know I’m right, Chieh-pet.

    collen ryan Reply:

    dan not only are nations patches in any meaningful definition; This country began as an actual sovcorp the virginia company. It also eventually became a federation of sovereign states.Patchwork isnt a panacea, when their is geographic and political room for exit it creates fresh start an opportunity to do away with the dross and encourages the pioneer spirit. You can observe this in all the patches white men founded around the world, other races not so much they tend to simply do more of the same.

    Eventually however these patches are beset by the same problem no matter what politics they chose. Elites subverting the good of the patch for the interests of the elite. Elites will do this whether they are ministers to a king, apparatchiks to totalitarian, or Davos types in a modern democracy.They are smart and clever and want what they want and tend to get it. What has restrained them best is strong culture. A strong culture has a definite purpose articulated by religion head of state, archetype, culture etc. usually all of the above interacting with current events.

    As soon as nations became too complex to be ruled by a single man by force this idea that monarchy can short circuit interests counter to the patch became obsolete. Besides it had always been competing with religion and only sometimes won against religion.

    Elites will satisfy themselves vying for their portion until a society is successful enough to have more elites than it needs then they will begin making work for themselves,and exploiting the less powerful, eventually some of them decide these exploited less powerful could be used as muscle. This was hard until small arms printing press,independent economy, and still these proles really are not looking to get involved so they must first be severely exploited to be motivated.

    Its absurd to think a state would be efficient with the vast majority of its population left to rot in the fields, while its alleged best inbred to imbecility.Meritocracy is a good thing to call it demotism is retarded.Please explain how the mechanism of meritocracy works without some form of democracy, and how democracy is functionally different from evolution and capitalism and provide examples of low IQ democrats that are not actually led and funded by elites interfering in the efficiency of any state.

    Elites that neglect their less gifted brethren invite demotic exploitation. It is really hard to get the proles to revolt, it is really stupid to not integrate and cultivate them not simply to avoid insurrection and because they actually own the patch by right of might, but because they are a great resource as a labor force, consumer market,genetic pool,military force,cultural repository, conservative counter weight, and yes even restraint on elite ambition.No where in here does it say the proles are to lead the elites.

    Using a king to keep the elites in line is an oxymoron, and since its already established meritocracy and some form of democracy is going to be needed to efficiently renew ones nation and no king can possibly have a clue whats going on in a modern realm hes at a disadvantage to his ministers. even with the resources of USG presidents and congressmen have no idea whats going on.When you imagine barack or trump with unlimited power you are only imagining what you want to imagine not how retarded it would actually turn out. I know you dont want to let go of you moldbug secret decoder ring that the pocket protector set is so envious of but you haven’t solved the equation

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    Patchwork does not require any single form of government. The very notion is to allow multiple experiments to run simultaneously.

    Meritocracy is independent of democracy; several examples of that are present in history, not the least being the military method of promotion, Roman Emperors adopting “sons” as successors, or the Chinese bureaucracy. It simply requires some form of standard or metric which is chosen.

    Aristocracy is simply the expectation that certain traits including leadership and intelligence are hereditary to a greater or lesser extent, something that we know is true now. Furthermore, the Pareto Principle demonstrates that 20% of individuals are likely doing 80% of the work anyway; insofar as giving purpose and production to the less gifted, they can be led without necessarily giving them overt participation in the governing process. Indeed, such groupthink has been pretty much demonstrated to cause an overall decline in the final decision made.

    Monarchies have historically proven capable of taming the ambitions of the elites. Indeed, the monarch playing the masses against the elite is a classic trope.

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    » Constructivists are in broad agreement regarding the basic character of the late medieval “international system”. They agree, for example, that this system was “heteronomous” in nature – that is, that its constituent political units were separated from one another not on the basis of “sovereignty” and its associated exclusive form of territoriality, but on some other grounds that did not entail such territorial exclusivity. Indeed, most constructivists agree that, as the constitutive norm of “sovereignty” was an early modern invention – linked in part to the emergence of distinctively early modern discourses of property rights – it could not have been the basis of what Ruggie calls the medieval “mode of differentiation”. Constructivists also agree that, because the late medieval international system was heteronomous, Latin Christendom was segmented politically into a number of non-territorial political units: the Holy Roman Empire, the Church, city-states, urban leagues, feudal lordships, principalities, kingdoms, and even guilds and monasteries. They further agree that the resulting “medieval system of rule reflected ‘a patchwork of overlapping and incomplete rights of government’… which were ‘intextricably superimposed and tangled,’ and in which ‘different juridical instances were geographically interwoven and stratified, and plural allegiances, asymmetrical suzerainties and anomalous enclaves abounded’”. Add to this a general agreement that the late medieval “state”, to the extent that “the concept makes any sense at all”, was “feudal” in nature (i.e. composed of chains of feudal lord-vassal relations), that hierarchy (ecclesiastical, imperial and/or feudal) was its ordering principle, and that a “great divide” radically separates the late medieval system of rule from its early modern counterpart and one has a more or less complete picture of what constructivists typically assume, assert or argue about the international system of the late Middle Ages. »

    Posted on March 8th, 2017 at 6:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    Speaking of tails, I actually was just talking about my stepford wives idea; while its fun to force a 145 IQ female into submission, having a bunch of oppressed 145 Iq females around is an open invitation to reboot leftism and so we should probably just breed them to be dumb and docile and when we want kids just implant a zygote. Of course first we need to get rid of the “other” invitations to leftism.

    [Reply]

    Garr Reply:

    Subordination would have to be a game that’s fun for smart women to play — Victorian gentlemen never “forced” their 145 IQ females into submission; nor are Satmar or Amish women “forced” to submit. Class-subordination of male “beta” experts to “alpha” lords was (and will be) similarly voluntary; life’s just more fun for everyone when it’s properly hierarchical. Women only stopped playing the subordination game because men had already stopped playing it with each other.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    what planet are you on no men I know have stopped playing whos the alpha, and no women I know ever fail to notice

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    But maybe you miss my point while some of us have made an art out of getting women to submit and though submission is in their genes like all our behavior traits they can be subverted so high IQ women are really not safe to keep around if your plan is patriarchy, its a needless risk stepford wives is the way to go

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Seems odd, I’m not sure why intelligence in of itself would cause insubordination. Rather it’s the issue of subordinating to someone of inferior intellect that causes the mere correlation of intelligence with insubordination. Sure if you put a 145IQ woman in a position to submit to a man of inferior intelligence but why would that be the case? First of all men have a higher standard deviation so far more intelligent men to go around for the fewer intelligent women. Thus if you’re sorting eugenically all the men in a 145IQ woman’s social class would be smarter than her making submission easy, nor would it be as if a high class woman would have to interact with low class men except to order a servant about. If you had a bunch of unmarried 145IQ women, or worse, married to men of inferior intellect, then you have problems. Ugly 145IQ women are the issue, if you breed women beautiful as they should be then you don’t have those problems.

    If you have weak men, it doesn’t matter a bit how smart the women are, they will walk all over them regardless. The real issue is on the opposite end of the bell curve since there are more dumb men than dumb women, for double digit IQ couples it’s common to have the woman smarter than the man. So to maintain their authority it may even become necessary for unintelligent men to beat their wives and the unfortunate yoke of tyranny placed on the double digit IQ woman who is of no threat to anyone except the conscience of weak men.

    Garr Reply:

    In a properly hierarchical social structure members of the expert-class willingly subordinate themselves to members of the leader-class even though the average IQ of experts is higher than the average IQ of leaders. Following this example, women willingly subordinate themselves to men, even to less intelligent men. A woman married to a man who’s less intelligent that she is might have to guide him from behind a bit, in the same way that the Assistant Undersecretary for Fiscal Policy (IQ 145) might have to guide the Duke who runs the MInistry of Wealth (IQ 125) from behind to some extent.

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    This is why some women in the Middle-Ages were Cloistered.

    Posted on March 8th, 2017 at 8:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    @collen ryan

    un exploited power attracts those seeking power, idle women will be an entry once again for leftism. you cant leave vast swaths of society disenfranchised or someone will offer them a deal, expel them kill them, re engineer them, or give them more than anyone else will.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 9th, 2017 at 7:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    seems Malik Obama has gone full alt right got some tonton Macout kek going on tweeting his brother is the thot cuck and tweeted Obamas kenyan birth cert lol

    https://twitter.com/ObamaMalik

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    wonder if you could pull dna off the footprint, that would make him a british citizen. guess its too much too hope its real, Have to admit Im a secret birther, well i thought maybe the reason they still have not released the original is it says hes muslim but this would be proof that the deep state puts up candidates with secrets they can hold over like McCains little radio show for the north vietnamese

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Ugh mike there’s a word on the tip of my tongue for when a black man opportunistically stabs his own brother in the back… What is it??? N- Na- Nog- Um???

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 10th, 2017 at 1:42 am Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    @collen ryan

    someone ought to save that in case its real cause if it is they gonna shut him down

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 10th, 2017 at 1:43 am Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    Burgess turns 100 tight on

    Burgess was a Conservative (though, as he clarified in an interview with The Paris Review, his political views could be considered “a kind of anarchism” since his ideal of a “Catholic Jacobite imperial monarch” wasn’t practicable[48]), a (lapsed) Catholic and Monarchist, harbouring a distaste for all republics.

    [Reply]

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    A king could have absolute autocracy with robots, zero politics and no meddling “nobles” class.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Yeah Lands correct about that, but what in it for my chimp ass? And what makes him think he can stop me chimping out on his little idea?For that matter land and his neck beards could just have a videogame of that larp and leave us humans the fuck out of his larp.

    Land doesn’t actually have a robot armythough, its just his revenge of the nerds fanatsy. Darpa has a robot army which Darpa intends to use to enforce one world progressivism on everyone but the Davos set and their minions, What land really ought to do is just join the Davos set his tyoe of Ted Talk philosphy is exactly their cup of tea, and he can hobnob with all the cogelites as he fantasizes doing, he can have a share in DARPAS robot armies, its EXACTLY what he wants. There is no discernable difference from Landian reaction and DAVOS.

    [Reply]

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    ROFL

    Posted on March 10th, 2017 at 2:00 am Reply | Quote
  • Goth Eiríksson Says:

    Cold french fries and red wine are a top tier combo.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 10th, 2017 at 5:02 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment