P is actually very inclusive with the key being is that whoever participants from the different camps/tribes/clans they must be disciplined to follow P bylaws. You can be multiethnic, multi-religious, and variances of gifts/talents. Meaning stay within your in-group “clubs, cults, gossip circles” when expressing your cultural, religious, cognitively bias preferences. BUT, when within the commons you speak only one language, and it’s law is supreme “P RECIPROCITY.” That’s our unity sanctuary. That’s how we compromise and prosper and not destroy our ancestral heritage.
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/95897385_273884627343031_8933192037608456192_o_273884620676365.jpg photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/96102822_273885477342946_2118672384608174080_o_273885470676280.jpg photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/95489626_273885537342940_144587634478415872_o_273885530676274.jpg photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/95875216_273886190676208_1169880307529154560_n_273886187342875.jpg A USEFUL IDIOT ILLUSTRATES MARXIST PILPUL TRYING TO RETALIATE AGAINST MY (MAINSTREAM) ARGUMENT AGAINST MARX
Before we begin, if you want to counter a scientific proposition raised from the underlying data you have to address the data. I know the underlying data in most every field other than chemistry and molecular biology (which I consider ‘icky’ subjects )
So as an example if you wanted to counter my arguments on the five factor model, the facet model under it, you could argue the foundation (that it’s top down diagnosis not bottom up) and I would respond with say, the diagrams attached, and show the biological construction of different emotional impulses. If pressed I would explain how different facets would emerge simply by simple differences in developmental connectivity between regions both in utero and during the first two years of development. And I would move from the diagrams to the literature.
In other words, as in all things, as a practitioner of operationalism, I would explain the physical construction of behavioral differences in humans from the bottom up. And from there I would link you to the vast literature on the subject which would take you (anyone) somewhere between a year and four years to comprehend.
If you questioned it then I would take you to the research on the duplication of human brain functioning in computer science and the differences between what we are able to accomplish in computers, and in what biology can accomplish that computers cant and why.
Now, you know, I know the average idiot doesn’t have access to people like me. But I also know that the average idiot has been taught pseudoscience for the past seventy years or more.
In the following ‘rebuttal’ from a useful idiot, please note he’s not once used a scientific argument. he’s actually applying sophistry (as if I’m making a rhetorical argument) and applying sophistry (as if I’m making a philosophical argument) to what is a scientific question: “is this from observations sufficient to suppress human tendency to error bias and deceive by due diligence against error base, wishful thinking, fictionalisms and deceits. Is this consistent with realism, naturalism, and operationalism, and is it categorically consistent, internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally constructed, fully accounted, parsimonious, competitive.
SUMMARY: (To Lee Meyers)
You use the word ‘Vague’ to reverse blame. You use “Suspect” to accuse. You do both to claim I’m vague or ill intentioned when you’re ignorant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. You use your ignorance as the test or measure of deep rich complex scientific literature of which you clearly have no demonstrated knowledge whatsoever.
You employ philosophical rationalism that was developed for legal and scriptural interpretation of language, against evidentiary claims – without consciousness of the difference between axiomatic(declared), rational(deduced)), and scientific (laws). In doing so you practice sophistry becuase you aren’t sufficiently cognizant of the misapplication of the method of testing – or if intentional you’re making false claims dependent on others ignorance of your deceit.
You cast the foundations of all my statements such as the fact of existential sexes as if they are arbitrary categories of sex preference. You imply that marginal differences and their causes and consequences in individuals and groups are immaterial. You cast a century of economic evidence, decades of rigorous science in psychology, cognitive science, and neurobiology as presumptions from general observation.
You pose as if you are more than a petulant schoolchild. You presume that your opinion has value, rather than people like me (us) seek to limit the harm you do to the informational commons with you ignorance and self importance. You do this because you’re operating under the pretense that your approval, or agreement is somehow necessary despite your demonstrated ignorance.
And that the collective you have any choice whatsoever if those of us who find you undesirable and disgusting, from separating from you. And you illustrate better than the less articulate but equally ignorant and incompetent why we must separate from you so that the harm you do by your very display, word, deed – even your very existence, can be contained like the biology of plagues, the pseudosciences of marxism, communism, and theology of islam have been contained.
CURRENT USEFUL IDIOT:
=== by: @lee.myers.148 Lee Myers ===
Man premise objections
—“1) Stereotypes are the most accurate measures in the social sciences”—
Premise 1 is just false
(CD: non-argument)
—“2) While personality factors are relatively similar between the sexes other than male disagreeablness-domnance-political-physical, and female agreeableness-submission-interpersonal-empathic that the underlying personality facets of each factor differs by sex accordingly”—
Premise 2 is false and subscribed to a completely unjustified normative claim on maleness and Feminity
(CD: False. Ascribed to structural and behavioral differences in cognitive development, in the evidentiary record. )
—“3) that we all vary in the distribution of male and female cognitive biases, but that collectively (in distributions) we cluster in three stereotypical traits: i) the female (socialist) ii)the ascendent male (libertarian), and the established or dominant male (conservative).”—
Premise 3 again is false, and the typology is not justified or grounded at all.
(CD: false it is in fact scientifically grounded in empirical measurements of sex differences and… I’m not sure how you can even disagree with xx xy chromosome differences and their expressions in brain structure.)
—“4) that nature-nurture debate is over via twin studies and genetic studies, and that 80% of behavior is genetic, and the other 20% is the result of idiosyncratic developmental differences.”—
Premise 4 is not only false, but arrogant and unbecoming of actual scientific discourse.
(CD: No argument. Not an argument)
—“5) that intelligence is a personality trait and that it may be indistinguishable from openness to experience,”—
Premise 5 is vague.
(no argument, not an argument. it’s a common question in the literature.)
–“6) that individuals and groups differer by genetic load (accumulation of errors not of excellences),”–
CD: Premise 6 is incredibly vague and partly incoherent.
(It’s a simple statement: look up ‘genetic load’. the lower classes carrier heavier genetic loads (defects). which is rather obvious if you look at photos of large numbers of people.)
—“7) that the differences between races, subraces, and classes is due largely but not entirely to:
… i) the group’s development of neoteny which produces cognitive agency,
… ii) the local adaptation to local environmental conditions such as disease gradients in africa, closed group winter living along the ice, time under agrarianism, time under eastern or western manorialism (or worse, under middle east agrarianism)
… iii) the group’s genetic load which we express as the ratio of the genetic underclass (those that cannot learn by at least reading), versus those that can learn by reading self study self investigation or self theorizing.”–
Premise 7 is racist, incoherent, not justified or grounded, false and completely unaware of the history of race construction
(CD: non argument. false. yes it’s grounded in data. and I am certain I can recount the history of race construction from aristotle to the present, which is why i’m the most citied person on the subject in Quora.)
–“8) that a group’s relative condition is dependent upon the median of the group’s abilities more so than the outliers,”–
Premise 8 is unfalsifiable and extremely vague and therefor not apt to Popperian-scientific testing.
(CD: it’s easily falsifiable. It’s not falsified. There is a whole literature on it. (See IQ and the wealth of nations))
(CD And at present I’m the leading theorist in the completion of the scientific method. and while the subject is over your head because it’s over almost everyone’s head, I’ll debate any philosopher living on the subject and it won’t be a contest.) And that said you clearly don’t know what falsification means in popperian reasoning.
—“9) that unless a group can organize a pareto hierarchy of voluntary organization of production it cannot compete in the world market for goods services and information and drag the population out of poverty.”—
Premise 9 assumes General Equilibrium and Pareto Optimality holds in the world market as a wealth building mechanism and is a necessary precondition for engagement as such when in fact neither completely hold empirically.
(CD It doesn’t assume anything. It’s that pareto identified it a century and a half ago and we can’t find a single counter-example nor rationally explain how alternative is possible, and every attempt at alternatives has failed.)
None of these are actual premises for an argument and appear to look like they divine some type of ideal or current humanity, I’m not completely sure, but all around unclear as to why these are premised as such.
(CD: you mean you can’t comprehend it? Lack the knowledge to comprehend it? because clearly thousands of others do comprehend it. So why can’t you comprehend it? The premise is pretty simple: man demonstrates all these behaviors – that’s the evidence. Can you counter that these are evidentiary claims? No. you can’t. That’s why you didn’t.
—“Given the current accelerating rate of ideological and racial polarization, how likely is it in America that the country will enter an era of large-scale sectarian violence at some point in this century?”— A Friend
by Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine
I’ve stated since 2006 that we would have a violent revolution between 2020 and 2025. I stated that the economy would fail by 2008 (it did) would not recover until at least ‘14 (I was right), that would peak its recovery in ‘17/18 (I was right) and that the next correction would coincide with demographic, political, and economic collapse, at the very same moment that american military and political power would be impossible to sustain the remains of the british empire we inherited at the war’s end. (I will be correct.)
I know this because of economics, demographics, the conflict of civilizations, and the great power struggles that result. The entire suite of socialist experiments worldwide across the 20th century have failed, and so the right (classical liberal rule of law) would have won if not for immigration overwhelming the country via the six massive-immigration-cities. However, since the left was successful in achieving through third world immigration and the destruction of the nuclear family what they could not achieve through their ideas, the only solution to intolerable conflict is separation.
Both Communist-Antifa/BLM/Soros and the Nationalist-Right Coalitions were very close to starting a war after the Trump victory overturned the left’s belief in victory, and had Charlottesville been slightly more violent such that the Right wingers defended themselves with the rather vast arsenal they had with them, it would have started there. But all that occurred in the aftermath has been the elimination of the nazi symbolism from the hard right, and the down-funding of BLM/Antifa by Soros, who has instead switched to funding the anti-gun movement to achieve the same ends.
What’s occurring right now is that the Trump administration is serving as a sufficient proxy for violence. The right’s current plan is to wait until the left attempts to prosecute Trump for (correctly) attempting to shut down. The left is waiting for their long awaited win.
Meanwhile the very few adults left in positions of power understand that any misstep by either side will result in the bloodiest civil war in human history. And I say that having a very clear understanding of how fragile our prosperity is, and how easy it is to fall into all against all fighting for food and water.
We are going to have some sort of civil war, the outcome of which I suspect will be devolution of central powers to the states or regions, since this is the only means of preserving the military, retirement, and medical services, while cities, states, and regions determine their cultures, norms, and values. The principle change is that laws on permissible behavior and therefore citizenship will fragment into the old european model. After which the european experiment will follow suit.
I know, this ‘reformation’ will occur, because I’m going to make certain of it. And I’m going to make certain of it for the simple reason that the civil war will happen and a random outcome after millions are dead and the world descends into war, is far worse than an agreeable settlement.
IT’S OUR DUTY TO PROTECT THOSE VICTIMIZED BY BAITING INTO HAZARD
by Scott De Warren
Noblesse oblige. Yes, ironically, It is our duty to protect our people, especially the majority that lack agency and the discernment to detect the enemy’s propaganda that baits them into hazard (and pulls the rest of us down with them).
The irony is that these, our own people, constantly betray us by siding with the enemy.
In England, France, and even America our people were encouraged to rebel against their king and aristocracy – often on the thinnest of pretexts.
In the American revolution, for ex., Samuel Adams organized the rough dock workers to attack the upper classes and destroy their fine houses over what was essentially a 1% tax imposed by Britain on legal papers.
Now the descendants of those dockworkers pay 50% taxes without blinking. Yet they will still rail against kings and aristocrats – the ones that taxed them 1% to protect them militarily while praising foreign hostiles that tax them 50% while taking way their borders, liberties, and that sponsor third world invasions because it is all sold as ‘democratic’.
No, the people will be protected from such lies going forward by making the liars answerable in a court of law.
—“You have no duty to those that have betrayed you. If anything, the duty to those that haven’t betrayed you is to punish those that have.”—Martin Štěpán
Yes common people are comparatively simple. I don’t do simple. I don’t know how. That said, I LOVE the common man. I live to SERVE the common man. My work is in the INTEREST of the common man. That doesn’t mean I can speak his language. It doesn’t mean I consider us peers. Aristocracy does not coddle by denying class differences. We show loyalty despite our class differences. BEcause loyalty is enough. Because it is reciprocity. And we are kin.
Why is that unpopular? it’s obvious. Hence rothbard’s fallacy of libertarian anarcho-capitalism imitating the pale, hoppe’s fallacy of covenant communities imitating german free cities, or american’s imitating the fresh continent to conquer: Russia, German, British Empire Defense
1) I learned from napoleon that the best general does not plan for a single strategy, but plans a strategy of seizing opportunity.
2) I learned from Mao that the countryside can always and everywhere defeat the cities.
3) I learned from ISIS to move move move and resource resource, and profit profit profit, because, concentration of force is difficult, and it deprives opposition of resources, and it motivates the men.
4) I learned from the arab spring how fast revolutions spread to people with similar anxieties, and that we are in the same condition.
5) I learned from the IRA that you always win with time, especially if you use both political and military actions.
6) I learned from the past twenty years that americans cannot fight and win a fourth generation war.
7) I learned from the civil rights movement that the government caves to demands rather than face chaos.
8) I learned from the the LA, Baltimore, and KC riots – and charlottesville – that the police are only symbolically powerful – and only for as long as they aren’t outmaneuvered.
9) I learned from strategic research that the USA cannot survive power outages and road checkpoints for more than a few weeks.
10) I learned from the data that there are very few people capable of resisting a movement that originates in multiple places at once.
11) I learned from the past four years that the deep state will not ‘go’ without ‘a fight’.
12) I learned from the data that a constitutional solution will be supported by the majority of men in the military especially if accompanied by the right incentives.
13) I learned from the evidence that left and right might align on taking out the financial sector, and gutting the state if we both agree to separate.
14) I learned from the past thirty years that the left in all its forms is confident it can win and must be stopped permanently.
15) I learned that it is relatively easy to restore our place in human history and lift our people again in to a renaissance if we win.
—“In the 1960’s the radicals were too small a percentage of the population to be a real threat, so their bombings was not regarded as the tip of any iceberg (except when blacks got involved and there was concern that all blacks would revolt). … Today the revolt against over-reach represents a larger group of people, and therefore has to be taken more seriously.”—Red-State Secession
These posts are an illustration of the current form of warfare – fourth generation warfare. This is the dominant form of warfare – as illustrated by iran – because military action is no longer possible by most actors. Therefore the use of “irregulars” is once again returning to norm after the long ‘rules of war’ institutionalized by europeans to the point where we assumed our ‘pacification of warfare’ was a given.
