SUMMARY OF CONSERVATIVE POSITION
—“I’ve had enough of Mos Eisley. I want Mayberry.”— Susan
Well, that really says it all, doesn’t it?
๐
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-15 15:32:00 UTC
SUMMARY OF CONSERVATIVE POSITION
—“I’ve had enough of Mos Eisley. I want Mayberry.”— Susan
Well, that really says it all, doesn’t it?
๐
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-15 15:32:00 UTC
P METHODOLOGY PRODUCES OPTIMUMS, THIS IS IDEAL
By: Luke Weinhagen (via Brandon Hayes) (edited for clarity)
1) Presentation of content creates a cost of consumption,
2) Brands compete on that cost to the producer and discount to the consumer:
3) P competence – creates the ability to generate functional output with P
4) P craftsmanship – creates the ability to generate functional output with P that survives market competition
Various markets will value differing aesthetics(interests, concerns, values), meaning different expressions of craftsmanship will survive in different markets.
So the first barrier is the development of competence (be able to make it your own), and the second barrier is developing and executing appropriate craftsmanship for a specific market (be able to speak it into your audience).
I do not know that any of us has cracked the code on a single way to bring P to every audience. We are still crafting our messages to audiences.
Bill demonstrated this very effectively recently. He expressed a desire to elevate his craftsmanship in P and created an audience, a market, receptive to this expression of P.
Others of us are going to have to slum it, speaking with less precision and using more colloquial language, in order to serve audiences receptive at that level.
Both function to improve P as inputs can be pulled back in from all markets. And in my opinion all increases in craftsmanship, regardless of market, serve to benefit the overall widespread adoption of P methodology.Updated Feb 15, 2020, 3:31 PM
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-15 15:31:00 UTC
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=132132124968433&id=100045149375062Updated Feb 15, 2020, 3:14 PM
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-15 15:14:00 UTC
FROM AN INSIGHTFUL DISPUTE BETWEEN AFRICANS AND AMERICANS ON TWITTER
(Content Warning!!!) (This might be offensive!!!)
This conversation is important. Why? Because we still find disputes between the more developed more rational and scientific, and less developed civilizations – particularly indian, islamic, jewish, and african.
And we still find disputes between the classes: theological-occult-sophistry, marxist-postmodernist-feminist pseudoscience, and those of us in confucian-aristotelian civilizations (science and reason).
While the dispute between Protestant-Catholic-Russian, Chinese, korean-japanese, and even christian pacific is limited to what is in our interest and in our preferences, and in our political organization and social responsibility that is the limit of our variation. We are all aristotelians now. But we have also succeeded at soft eugenics.
So here is the (content warning!!!) dispute between an african referring to ‘african epistemology’ instead of ‘justification for group strategy’. And what I assume are members of the anglosphere explaining european epistemology.
“Whiteness” is the pejorative term used by the african fellow to refer to the group strategy of western civlization.
So “Whiteness” = “Racism” and use of Whiteness ~= A Marxist Critique.
—“WHITENESS: Whiteness questions African epistemology simply because there’s no room in their normative framework to process this! I bet there’s a non-African you know who is an “expert” on African matters.”—
—“Is there ever a scenario in which a white person questioning the thought in your head might do so because the thought itself, regardless of its origin, is nonsensical, unkind, and/or disturbing–in theory?”—
—“No. And even you asking that is whiteness in action because you seem to think that white people can read other people’s thoughts.”—
—“So in your opinion, any thought originating from a white person is automatically invalidated, correct?”—
ยท
—“That’s not what I’m saying. Understand “whiteness” devoid of race. Whiteness is an ideology of domination. Its diabolical. Its anti- spiritual. Its anti-human. The more need to have it understood, deconstructed and demystified.”—
1) Whiteness = Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Empiricism(Science), Reciprocity and Truth Regardless of Cost(Natural Law), Voluntary Markets in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities(Meritocracy), and suppression of underclass reproduction.
2) Whiteness = Profiting from the domestication of animal man into civilized man using science, natural law, meritocracy, suppression of underclass reproduction, and direction of those savings to the production of the high returns on high trust commons.
3) Whiteness = The fastest means of evolving man into gods we imagine by the use of the most adaptive artistic, intellectual, economic, social political means possible, under the most prosperous, peaceful, and enjoyable means possible.
4) Whiteness = The means by which we dragged mankind kicking and screaming, one civilization and generation at a time, out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, hunger, starvation, disease, suffering, early death, and victimhood under an uncaring universe.
5) Whiteness = Aristocracy, Elitism, Heroism, Excellence, Beauty, Truth, Reciprocity, Duty. And the reason you hate “Whiteness” is because you cannot meet that standard of excellence. It is because your genes cannot lie, like your mind and your words.
6) But here is the test: While only europeans could have invented Whiteness, any people can practice “Whiteness” if they are willing to suppress the reproduction of the underclasses – which for some nations constitutes the vast majority of the people – so it’s politically impossible or impractical.
8) Whiteness is the desire to transcend into gods, and not to devolve into animals again. Whiteness (white man’s burden) was our desire to profit from dragging mankind with us into godhood under the presumption that we could all be equal. But you rejected us – and we agreed.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-15 12:53:00 UTC
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/biologists-wsj-only-two-sexes-male-and-female-there-no-sex-spectrum?fbclid=IwAR2oA7JRn2db9DyI5Hkjlv3UcO3NZgqdJxr2CIZ7wMhC61zTu_OkkCARw2A#utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cns&utm_campaign=b-WSJ2BiologistsSayOnly2Sexesby @[100042296131950:2048:Predmetsky Rosenborg]
There is atypical variation in unusual cases like Klinefelter’s syndrome and other chromosomal abnormalities, but these are rare, and they rarely impact phenotypic presentation significantly, and they are objective rather than having anything to do with subjective “identification”
===
CD: the constitution states that there are only two sexes. It also states the difference between marriage (insured for the production of children) and partnership (personal consumption).Updated Feb 15, 2020, 8:13 AM
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-15 08:13:00 UTC

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/86696113_207738573957637_3174905495253155840_o_207738567290971.jpg

Source date (UTC): 2020-02-14 21:43:00 UTC
Seriously. Something is going on. Lots of new people are joining again. Other oddity: people are saying my feed is showing up in their feeds again. Another even odder thing: my feed is showing up in google alerts again? Still can’t search my back posts. FB index isn’t working.
No idea where all the newbs are coming from but it’s wonderful. ๐
Welcome. ๐
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-14 21:15:00 UTC
NO. TOLL ROADS ARE NOT PERMITTED UNDER P-CONSTITUTION
—-“How would P-Law handle toll roads. More specifically, our current highway into Houston is a regular tax funded highway, with an oversized median between the two directional lanes… however they’re in the process of building a new toll road in the median & converting the current highway into a feeder road with all the hassles of stop lights. At present, it’s a 45 minute non stop trip on a publically paid for highway. How would P-law handle the govt changing our current highway into a toll road?”—Clinton McLaggan
It’s a debatable and technical point, however, P-Constitution prohibits toll roads. While at first blush it would appear possible under natural law, its a violation of two criteria: first, the only necessary right of a commons – of movement in two dimensional space, and secondly: it’s open to rent seeking – a fee without contributing to production. In other words if you want a road you can build one, but you can’t create such a commons and extract tolls for it. Same for bridges. Not for ferries.
NOTE:
One of P’s prohibitions is non-exclusory use of property. Meaning you can’t wall someone out of access to territory. This is a very old common law tradition. If you want to wall something off you have to provide passage along the borders.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-14 21:10:00 UTC
I categorize P as describing the intellectual foundations for western civlization that the populists currently are demanding but don’t know how to express in rational and scientific terms.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-14 20:52:00 UTC
It’s Propertarianism, Sovereigntarianism, or The Natural Law of the European People.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-14 20:28:00 UTC