Eric and Brett: The Weinstein Brothers Reach-Around


[A] central theme of my work is the difference in civilizational methods of argument, especially European-male scientific-juridical adversarial-testimony of advancing stated interests openly versus Jewish-female gossiping-undermining justification-consensus method of advancing unstated or hidden interests by undermining oppositions interests.

Watch any Brett or Eric Weinstein video and count how many times they  1) use ‘heaping undue praise’. 2) use a ‘test of reasonableness instead of truth‘, 3) use ‘critique of the system‘ that they cannot create, or get access to (loyalty, commons defect). 4) Use “pilpul to cover a presumption” someone didn’t know something prior, or that a concept wasn’t known, or a tradition didn’t exist in western civ. 5) ‘straw man‘ a group of people and their incentives. 6) Using dialectic to commit all of the above frauds in order to position themselves as capable. This is the Abrahamic method of deceit. It’s a process of undermining by overloading with suggestion and deceit rather than truthful description. This is the female method of indirect communication in order to limit offense and show support of allies, or in order to undermine enemies, but without every trying to come up with solutions. And any man that’s had to learn women don’t want solutions to problems and men only want solutions to problems will be aware of this difference in the techniques of the genders.  In other words, all jews are cognitively female.  And this is a particularly useful strategy in an era of radio and television an not as useful a strategy in the age of print – which is rather obvious when comparing Jewish and European authors.

Once you know what they’re doing it’s unbearable. They’re gossiping. And they’re just gossiping about interesting nerdy stuff. And the point of their gossip is to increase one another’s self-image and reputation by gossiping in public, to create the pretense that either party is worth listening to at all. When in fact they aren’t. They don’t have solutions. You wouldn’t trust either of them to implement a solution. They just complain.  Which is the ancient criticism of the jews: the work hard (like women), and they complain (like women). But every Jewish solution is suicidal: Christianity, Islam, Marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, anti-male-feminism, political correctness (HBD denialism). Those are for no other purpose than to undermine male hierarchical eugenic competitive, solution-focused, technology providing, man-enabling civilization. And that’s is why jews accomplished nothing in their entire history except the art of baiting-into-hazard until their plausible deniability was no longer deniable and they were cast out of over a hundred countries. Yet once offered entry into western civilization’s social order in exchange for adopting Aristotelianism they were able to make achievements – at the cost of undermining western civilization from within as they had every other civilization before us.

And once again, after a century of Jewish liberty in the west, from Bolshevism, Naziism to resist bolshevism, and the movement of bolshevism to America, and its transformation from marxism (class undermining); to neo-marxism (cultural undermining); to postmodernism (truth undermining); to Anti-male Feminism (marriage undermining); to political correctness (HBD and eugenic denialism) – their crimes against host peoples are no longer plausibly deniable: they are antithetical to civilization, and they consider their success at mastering the criminal art of baiting-into-hazard,  and profiting from undermining host peoples, a laudable achievement – rather than parasitism upon host peoples by crimes that are difficult to outlaw and prosecute without impinging upon the opportunities a high trust people can capture because we don’t engage in that undermining ourselves.


Math is tedious and burdensome on short term memory.  It is not, however, ‘difficult’. It’s just a language for measurement of points (references) using positional names, by distilling causality to the number of dimensions the human mind is capable of tracking with symbols. That’s why math fails at the very small and very large: we run out of things to average into points (positional names).

a) Eric does not grasp the foundations of mathematics which is why he can’t discern its limits. b) He doesn’t address that wolfram’s new continuous computational math is more likely correct, and more likely to solve the underlying problem. Or, that above and beyond wolfram’s continued use of point’s and vectors there is a geometric version of his work that doesn’t have the problem of time and sequence – although wolfram might yet discover it c) Or that Eric’s deduction (from his lectures) was a failure – he hasn’t solved it and no one has even chosen to run with it. d) Or why Eric is right that economics is ‘using the wrong calculus’ but that even if they use the right calculus the information doesn’t exist to calculate with, and they still aren’t accounting for changes in all capital so we’re in far worse shape than what the productivity data shows. e) That the interesting mathematics in economics is the emergency of symmetries that could compensate for the lack of information – at least at the macro scale.
b) Brett panders to him. But for example, look at the conservative crab-bucket dragging all others down, and the Jewish ant-ladder to help people up. That’s the point of heaping of undue praise (creating undeserved reputations) versus critique (undermining deserved reputations).

This is why Dialectic = Pilpul = Gossiping = Undermining


I don’t even like attention. It’s just necessary to do my work. But my work is in pursuit of a set of solutions, and my body of work a set of solutions to the great problems of history: the formal logic of language, psychology, sociology – the human, sentient, or soft sciences. And its embodiment in law.

That solution includes the means of outlawing Jewish specialization in undermining by false promises that bait people into hazard for profit (including attention and status) until plausible deniability that they function as an organized crime family profiting from civilizational capital destruction is no longer tenable.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute

Notice that  Kevin Macdonald (Psychology, Science, Intellectual History) @TOOEdit , Ricardo Duchesne (Sociology, Philosophy, Intellectual History) @DuchesneRicardo, and I, Curt Doolittle (Economics, Law, Computability) @CurtDoolittle all arrive at the same basic conclusion from different fields over the course of thirty years. Not because we set out to solve that problem but once we discovered it we were astounded by the impact – that the Abrahamic Method of Deceit is as powerful a method of lying as the Aristotelian Method of Testimony is a powerful method of speaking the truth. 

Leave a Reply