GET IT THRU. LEFT = DYSGENIC
—“When the “normie”conservatives realize we’re simply fighting against the kids that got picked last in dodgeball as children and recognize these people are not a threat unless we do nothing.”—Jesse Daughtry
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 13:07:00 UTC
MORE ALKE THAN DIFFERENT IS A VERY BAD LIE
—“While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%”—via Tim Abbott
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 13:05:00 UTC
ATTEMPTS TO CREATE MULTIPLE INCOMPATIBLE WORLD VIEWS
by Predmetsky Rosenborg
Heidegger is oftentimes very near the surface when it comes to post-structuralist advocacy of diversity, especially in the work of someone like Chantal Mouffe who draws on Derrida, the later Wittgenstein and Carl Schmitt to try to articulate a scenario in which multiple incompatible worldviews could coexist in the same region.
R selected types like conflict because they extract resources from the conflict itself and from its leftovers. She tries to modify Schmitt’s view of politics as inherently antagonistic and rooted in the friend enemy distinction, by advocating friendly agonism rather than lethal antagonism.
But underneath this is this Heideggerian idea that people basically don’t think that their own ideas correspond to a mind-independent reality; that a MusIim and a Christian can be convinced to discard whatever is “problematic” in their worldview and settle for a highly redacted and westernized counterfeit.
You see this especially in obnoxious Heideggerian readings of Christianity in “neo-Orthodox” theologians like Rudolf Bultmann who argues that it doesn’t even matter for Christianity if Jesus really died because it’s all about the experience of the story.
Most people don’t actually think like this though. They think that their beliefs are true and that their truth matters and they aren’t willing to pretend like it’s just a meaningless story whose truth-value is irrelevant. People take their worldviews very seriously, and as Carl Schmitt understood, they are often willing to kill or die in their defense.
—-
CD: I admire this work. I cannot engage in this kind of literary analysis and exposition of emotion and intuition without first converting it to existential “laundered” (value neutral) terms. I only work with what is false, possible, impossible, and irreciprocal or reciprocal. The challenge is finding the VERY FEW others that can discuss these subjects in a scientific paradigm of consistent rational terms, and organizing what I consider sophistry, or secular theology into the scientific frame but while comparing and maintaining the frame of each original author. I suspect this is why i just can’t stand reading what I consider sophistry and secular theology – because converting it is extraordinarily burdensome, and *I perceive every sentence as an attempt to lie*.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 13:01:00 UTC
أصدقائي المصريين، رغم أن الصبر مؤلم، لكننا نكافح جميعًا من أجل المستقبل -مستقبلنا، ومستقبل عائلاتنا وشعبنا.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 12:52:00 UTC
WHY WILL NEW LAWS WORK?
—-“My point is how is a new set of laws going to change human nature? We are a nation of many different peoples with many different religions , cultures and morals.
What one group of people see as acceptable another group sees as unacceptable.
I do agree that whatever laws we have , and few they should be, should apply equally to everyone regardless of any status.”—John Lafferty
GOOD QUESTION
1) Under the natural law, we are each sovereigns (kings of different countries). Our contract with one another is an alliance that insures one another’s sovereignty. That is our ‘social contact’- it’s not social at all. It’s military. As such we are all equal before the law, because the law is nothing more than reciprocal insurance of one another’s sovereignty, and therefor the requirement for reciprocity in all interactions; and that in any violation of reciprocity, they may request defense restitution and punishment from the allies. So we are unequal in ability, unequal in value to one another, equal under the law, and equally insured. But we are sovereign, autonomous mini-countries, with each man, woman, and children and their land the smallest possible nation.
2) Natural law is a description of human nature. It is the MOST descriptive of human nature. Reciprocity is the same as the law of thermodynamics – but with our memory we can create credits(give help) and debts(receive help) with one another: But reciprocity is unavoidable because people demonstrably spend heavily on punishing irreciprocity – both interpersonally by retaliation, judicially by restitution, and socially by what we call altruistic punishment.
3) No, while people WANT differently, people all see irreciprocity equally: bad. They see proportionality differently. In other words, the right sees capitalizing, meritocracy, hierarchy and reciprocity more important than proportionality, and the left sees consumption, equidistribution, equality, and proportionality more important than reciprocity.
This is just an expression of cognitive differences in development since these reflect female consumptive short term dysgenic, and male capitalizing long term eugenic strategies.
4) Given that we express different strategic demands, under the same natural law we can separate and pursue our different strategies (and the left will die off), or we can be eradicated by the left and all die off in another dark age, or we can eradicate the left and transcend man into the gods we imagine.
The only solutions are separation to produce our commons, conquest, or failure.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 12:41:00 UTC
CHANGING THE JESUS NARRATIVE TO FIT ORIGINAL INTENT
To change the narrative requires only that we say Jesus – as some have hypothesized – is the son of a roman soldier and a jewish prostitute, who rebelled against both roman conquest of Judea and Jewish abuse of one another, with a message of love one another – surrender your frustration, anger, jealousy, to heaven in exchange for building the bond of trust. And for his rebelliousness against both jews and rome, both rome and jews killed him. And then the jews took his message of love and wrapped it in lies, to create a victim hero to replace the greco roman hero Achilles and the Epic Cyle of the aristocracy, and continue the jewish narrative of the underclasses (slaves, slave traders, money changers-usurers instead.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 12:21:00 UTC
—-“The Left’s triune false god is Equality, Tolerance, and Inclusivity.”—- ???
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 12:14:00 UTC
Updated Feb 4, 2020, 12:13 PM
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 12:13:00 UTC
WESTERN ARISTOCRACY TESTIFIES
Greg’s comment that GSRRM is witness intimidation and his suggestion that we maintain a consistent western paradigm accessible to the people sparked an insight that I had to stew on overnight. But it consists of three parts: first that we have always used both positive religious and negative judicial priesthoods – even though we invented philosophy as a bridge. That westerners are always testifying as if before thang or court, or reporting as if before officers. That our piety is both judicial and aspirational. And that our commons of truth is the result of this compartmentalisation of ethics and our justification of action across the spectrum from intolerant law to forgiving religion thereby providing both maximal opportunity and graceful failure on one end and maximum decidability and intolerance exposing failure on the other.Updated Feb 4, 2020, 10:46 AM
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 10:46:00 UTC
THEY JUST WANT TO CONSUME
—“I think you nailed it a few years ago. We’re primarily focused on improvement and transcendence while they don’t even want to participate just seize, re-distribute, and spend down capital and wealth.”—James Santagata
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 09:46:00 UTC