Form: Critique

  • Rand is a Young Adult level of thinker, and merely spreading the middle class as

    Rand is a Young Adult level of thinker, and merely spreading the middle class ashkenazi separatist group strategy, rather than the militialism that made the excellences of the west – but for… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=289832934946937&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-02 22:04:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1036374217602883587

  • Rand is a Young Adult level of thinker, and merely spreading the middle class as

    Rand is a Young Adult level of thinker, and merely spreading the middle class ashkenazi separatist group strategy, rather than the militialism that made the excellences of the west – but for most young men (and some women) she provides a literary and non-technical method of opening the door to philosophical thought via an incentive that is important and intuitive to young aspirants. She’s a high school teacher. But she’s a damned good high school teacher.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-02 18:03:00 UTC

  • A Thing is Demonstrated not Claimed. Ergo, yes false.

    —Christianity is Not ‘false’, just figurative. Not literal. John Warner Mathisen has shown that the stories of the worlds religions are figurative stories(myths) describing the constellations of the night sky. This understanding is called Astro-Theology.”— A Friend Correct in their origin, but two problems with that presumption: 1) A statement is figurative if used figuratively (meaning) and false if used argumentatively (truth). How are the jewish, christian, and islamic statements used? Figuratively (analogically) or argumentatively (persuasively)? In other words, how something is used determines its constitution. There is very little evidence it was used figuratively. Especially given the doubling down by fundamentalists after the empirical, scientific, and technological revolutions. 2) The content of those statements is true if the means produce the promised or even beneficial ends. The statements are false if the means do not produce promised or beneficial ends. Judaism contributed nothing to humanity despite the most educated population in caucasia. Christianity destroyed the aristocracy of the roman world just as it was designed to do. Islam destroyed the great civilizations of the ancient world. And together these three religions ushered in 1B deaths, and a thousand year dark age we have spent the last five hundred years trying to escape – with christianity dying off, but judaism and islam still working diligently to destroy western civilization, with only the chinese, japanese, and koreans holding out. So The statements were and are not acted upon as figurative (analogies, myths) but wisdom, law, and civilizational objective. The outcome is not paradise in the afterlife, or under the pseudoscientific version of judaism (Marxism), christianity (libertarianism), Islam (neo-conservatism), prosperity and peace in this world. These three religions – all variations on abrahamism whether ancient semitic judaism, christianity, and islam, or modern marxism, feminism, and postmodernism – designed by intent to destroy “critique” the great civilizations by weaponizing the female competitive strategy of undermining and reputation destruction by disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, and rallying, and doing so by taking advantage of the means of communication and immigration and publication created in the ancient world and the modern. The are not just false in statement, false in promise, but malicious in intent.

  • A Thing is Demonstrated not Claimed. Ergo, yes false.

    —Christianity is Not ‘false’, just figurative. Not literal. John Warner Mathisen has shown that the stories of the worlds religions are figurative stories(myths) describing the constellations of the night sky. This understanding is called Astro-Theology.”— A Friend Correct in their origin, but two problems with that presumption: 1) A statement is figurative if used figuratively (meaning) and false if used argumentatively (truth). How are the jewish, christian, and islamic statements used? Figuratively (analogically) or argumentatively (persuasively)? In other words, how something is used determines its constitution. There is very little evidence it was used figuratively. Especially given the doubling down by fundamentalists after the empirical, scientific, and technological revolutions. 2) The content of those statements is true if the means produce the promised or even beneficial ends. The statements are false if the means do not produce promised or beneficial ends. Judaism contributed nothing to humanity despite the most educated population in caucasia. Christianity destroyed the aristocracy of the roman world just as it was designed to do. Islam destroyed the great civilizations of the ancient world. And together these three religions ushered in 1B deaths, and a thousand year dark age we have spent the last five hundred years trying to escape – with christianity dying off, but judaism and islam still working diligently to destroy western civilization, with only the chinese, japanese, and koreans holding out. So The statements were and are not acted upon as figurative (analogies, myths) but wisdom, law, and civilizational objective. The outcome is not paradise in the afterlife, or under the pseudoscientific version of judaism (Marxism), christianity (libertarianism), Islam (neo-conservatism), prosperity and peace in this world. These three religions – all variations on abrahamism whether ancient semitic judaism, christianity, and islam, or modern marxism, feminism, and postmodernism – designed by intent to destroy “critique” the great civilizations by weaponizing the female competitive strategy of undermining and reputation destruction by disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, and rallying, and doing so by taking advantage of the means of communication and immigration and publication created in the ancient world and the modern. The are not just false in statement, false in promise, but malicious in intent.

  • How Desperately Addicts Seek to Preserve their Lies.

    I engage in science and law, [You] conflate philosophizing (reasoning independent of falsification) with science (reason dependent upon falsification) and you conflate testimony which one must warranty with threat of punishment with self reporting which one does not. THAT IS PILPUL. “Excuse Making” THE SIMPLE ANSWER: Religion: what we can get away with? (mysticism), Philosophy: what I can get away with? (sophism), -vs- Science: What we can’t get away with (diligence and warranty). Law: What you can’t get away with (liability). Pseudorationalisms: Astrology, Theology, Numerology, Philosophy, Pilpul, Critique. -vs- Sciences: History, Economics, Accounting, Law, Science, Mathematics, logic (proper). How desperately addicts seek to preserve their lies.

  • How Desperately Addicts Seek to Preserve their Lies.

    I engage in science and law, [You] conflate philosophizing (reasoning independent of falsification) with science (reason dependent upon falsification) and you conflate testimony which one must warranty with threat of punishment with self reporting which one does not. THAT IS PILPUL. “Excuse Making” THE SIMPLE ANSWER: Religion: what we can get away with? (mysticism), Philosophy: what I can get away with? (sophism), -vs- Science: What we can’t get away with (diligence and warranty). Law: What you can’t get away with (liability). Pseudorationalisms: Astrology, Theology, Numerology, Philosophy, Pilpul, Critique. -vs- Sciences: History, Economics, Accounting, Law, Science, Mathematics, logic (proper). How desperately addicts seek to preserve their lies.

  • Example of J-Critique

    Note that (a) I am defending Einstein. (b) he doesn’t understand that I am but is having a feminine reaction to criticism of one of her children, (c) claims expertise but only demonstrates the use of gossip (praise) rather than addressing any of the criticisms of Einstein (that are false). Once you realize their women, and you know how women cognate, then they are very simple. What I am most fascinated by, is the fact that when a pseudo-male uses feminine argument, we respond differently than if a females uses feminine argument. It demonstrates that we in fact do not take women seriously, and we take men who argue in the feminine (pilpul and critique) less seriously despite the fact that their WORDS INFLUENCE WOMEN MORE THAN OURS. WOMEN ARE OUR WEAKNESS.  

    40143670_287522638511300_2463544488811823104_o.jpg
    40263494_287522668511297_1979326457066815488_n.jpg
  • Example of J-Critique

    Note that (a) I am defending Einstein. (b) he doesn’t understand that I am but is having a feminine reaction to criticism of one of her children, (c) claims expertise but only demonstrates the use of gossip (praise) rather than addressing any of the criticisms of Einstein (that are false). Once you realize their women, and you know how women cognate, then they are very simple. What I am most fascinated by, is the fact that when a pseudo-male uses feminine argument, we respond differently than if a females uses feminine argument. It demonstrates that we in fact do not take women seriously, and we take men who argue in the feminine (pilpul and critique) less seriously despite the fact that their WORDS INFLUENCE WOMEN MORE THAN OURS. WOMEN ARE OUR WEAKNESS.  

    40143670_287522638511300_2463544488811823104_o.jpg
    40263494_287522668511297_1979326457066815488_n.jpg
  • McCain crashed 5 planes. Graduated fifth from bottom of his class at Annapolis.

    McCain crashed 5 planes. Graduated fifth from bottom of his class at Annapolis. Killed another pilot, lasted 20 hours in combat, before he was captured, and treated as a hero for basically living? Is that right? (I don’t know.) So he has 1.4 medals per hour of ‘service’?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-26 13:28:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033707664612777990

  • McCain crashed 5 planes. Graduated fifth from bottom of his class at Annapolis.

    McCain crashed 5 planes. Graduated fifth from bottom of his class at Annapolis. Killed another pilot, lasted 20 hours in combat, before he was captured, and treated as a hero for basically living? Is that right? (I don’t know.) So he has 1.4 medals per hour of ‘service’?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-26 09:28:00 UTC