Why The Left Can’t Think: Example? David Fuller

They Are Incapable of Reason

Editor’s Note: If the reason is impossible then negotiation is impossible, and then compromise are impossible, so then what are the choices? Well, bribery, or violence. So we have to educate the left to avoid bribery or violence.


Sense-Making  is very different from Truth-Seeking. Because truth-seeking produces a single, parsimonious, convergent, consistent, correspondent, paradigm, vocabulary, and logic, that is consistent with the formal, physical, cooperative, and evolutionary laws. And the vast majority of Sense-Making is an attempt to find opportunities that are unconstrained by the formal, physical, cooperative, and evolutionary laws. ;). That what ‘you all’ are doing. Trying to find a cunning way of circumventing the formal (logical, truthful),

Propertarianism (The Formal Logic of Natural Law of Tort) is a formal logic, in particular, a formal logic of law (conflict-avoidance and settlement, preserving cooperation) and more generally the rest of the behavioral sciences. The formal, physical, behavioral, cooperative, and evolutionary sciences are not kind to man. Given that all of those laws are all but hostile to man – in that they impose a cost on us.

America is only a failed experiment because of the end of integration into western civilization. The end of western civilization was by design, construction, and brought to the USA, adapting and advancing the model used in Russia,. And we have a long history of the literature to prove it. We know who said it, who wrote it, who spread it, how they spread it, what organizations institutionalize, and why ‘you folks’ gobble it up – it’s genetic you can’t help it without training. (Jon Haidt explains why.)

The coming civil war is deterministic. The question is whether we can avoid it or control it. Our goal doe `8 months was to capture the dissident right, to create the promise of a threat, in order to obtain media attention, so that we could force a negotiation on a settlement, or at least start the honest discourse on the settlement of our differences. This failed because we were cancelled by the right for NOT using violence.

Our primary goal is to force the political sphere back into trades between the classes. The most common trade would be redistribution for constructive rather than destructive behavior. But everyone wants to ride for free except the middle class (American definition of middle class). Our method of doing so is to correct the holes in the anglo system of law (natural law of tort) such that the law cannot be abused, and we are forced into exchanges in the market for commons ew call government. THERE IS NO MORE MORAL OBJECTIVE POSSIBLE FOR MAN. We know this and we can easily demonstrate that every alternative is just theft fraud and deceit. If you think we are pursuing the immoral because we use painful truth – you err. We are seeking to deprive everyone and all of the license to lie to circumvent the use of polities for the production of commons by voluntary exchange thereby continuing human adaptive evolution and preventing the collapse that all other civilizations have become subject to.

We care about ending the Left’s institutionalization of lying. We don’t care about race, we care about the uniqueness of western civilization (the only civilization to discover, adapt to, and apply the tragedy of the laws of the universe, and Christianity to tolerate it), preserving our civilization, and the costs of doing so.  The difference between races is only (substantively) in (a) universal human kin preference (b) vast difference in size of underclasses (c) differences in rates and depth of maturity (neoteny) and therefore aggression, (d) this generates different demand for norms, traditions, commons, institutions – therefore different polities. Will some people sort by race? Well, that’s likely. However, the reality is that we will continue to sort by tradition, class, and temperament. So the feminine (feels-empathy) left (See Haidt) and the masculine (reals-systematizing) right, can separate and speciate. And over time we will find compromises because we are no longer.

We have a lot of enemies. Darwin had enemies. The Anglo Empirical Revolution had enemies (Rousseau, Kant, Marx, et al.). Galileo had enemies. Aristotle and Socrates had enemies and Socrates was killed and Aristotle nearly. Throughout history, every single time we increase the suppression of irreciprocity those who benefit from it object. Throughout history whenever we increase the falsification of false promises (religion in particular) people who profit from those false promises (irreciprocities) object.

We are trying to recruit the few people who are capable of it. We use the adversarial, king of the hill method. This baits demonstrated behavior rather than reported behavior (that’s science). That’s why we have replicability and psychology, sociology, and political science have a reproducibility crisis.

Reciprocity requires Reciprocity in Display, Word, and Deed. Reciprocity consists of Voluntary, Productive, Exhaustively Informed, Warrantied, Transfer, Free of Externality that imposes costs upon the demonstrated interests.

Truth requires Testifiabliity: Realism, Naturalism, Identity, Consistency, Operational Possibility, Correspondence, Rational Choice, Reciprocity, Limits, Completeness, Warranty, and Liability.

Arguments are true or not. Statements are true or not. Whether or not they are offensive, desirable, likable.

When we are limited to the truth and reciprocity the only choice is peaceful exchange. While the market solves the problem of different personal wants and needs in CONSUMPTION. Only a market for polities solves the problem of groups have different wants and needs in the production of COMMONS.

We can measure at all times the reciprocity of all statements. That’s science. Science is not ideology. It consists of systemic acts of due diligence and warranty that one has eliminated ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, and can testify to the conclusions. Science is just the application of natural law outside of the courtroom. To claim we are practicing ideology is a lie. Science (Testimony) vs Denial->Deceit(Lying), Sophistry(Evasion), Ideology(Agitation), Philosophy(Persuasion), Theology(Command).

The left program has always consisted of freedom from Formal Laws (truth: postmodernism), physical laws (scarcity: marxism), behavioral laws (acquisitiveness, amorality, reciprocity, kin selection), social laws (woke-pc: human differences and the competing interests of sexes, classes, civilizations, races), Evolutionary Laws ( mutation, accumulated load, natural selection, neoteny, intelligence, the red queen).

If you find my formal logic of the behavioral sciences offensive, then that is your attempt to deny a painful truth that would force you to pay costs of reciprocity rather than sell false promise of freedom from the laws of the universe, that allows you to virtue signal, consume capital, and engage in theft and parasitism while claiming you’re moral or virtuous or of good character.

This is why we are offensive. We don’t just say you’re mistaken or you’re wrong, or we differ in preference – we correctly call you thieves. Because we aren’t practicing theology (escape), philosophy (accommodation), or ideology (power), but the science of law: decidability of the reciprocity of relations between individuals, groups, nations, civilizations and yes, races. No one likes the court. We’re practicing law: the formal logic of decidabilty in matters of conflict. Everyone leaves a courtroom dissatisfied. But because of it the polity survives.

If you can’t grasp this then you are unfit for the severity of the conversation that is required to determine our future peacefully rather than by the outcome of a war that is all but certain to occur, and a power vacuum that will drive the world into a catastrophe greater than the last, and another dark age of pseudoscientific ignorance that is less recoverable than the last dark age of superstition.

( Humor: BTW: Brandon doesn’t gossip. Why? We operate by incentives. We use value-neutral languages. So we just judge whether people are honest, truthful, and reciprocal, – or not. And most of the time we judge that we are all bots, running on genetic impulse, and fragmentary information, and desperately in search of truth, reciprocity, and security. )




Leave a Reply