photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/83848346_194238638640964_4816538035548061696_o_194238635307631.jpg UPDATED VERSION OF GSRRM
(fixes typo, and adds outraging)
Update. Fixed the new typo too. ;)UPDATED VERSION OF GSRRM
(fixes typo, and adds outraging)
Update. Fixed the new typo too. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-28 10:14:00 UTC
EXPOSING THE FALSE MORALITY OF THE FUNDAMENTALISTS WITH THE TRUTH OF SCIENTIFIC MORALITY
(important)
—“Without God who cares. Women can lie and men can harass them. There are endless ways for people to be unfair and cruel. Without the conscience that comes with a Christian civilization people will beg for tyranny to live in peace.”—Bill Amy Grady
If that was true then there would only be one interpretation of christianity instead of hundreds. Astrology, Numerology, and Scriptural Interpretation are the three most common forms of sophistry and deceit. And the jewish method of pilpul (lying by sophistry) was institutionalized by the three ‘books of pilpul’.
Instead, there is only one law with two faces, and that is the law of reciprocity: in the negative: prohibitions – that is the contribution of european man; and on the inverse, the law of exhausting interpersonal forgiveness : in the positive: demands – that is the contribution of christianity.
The rest of christianity is lies and parables that offer false promises of unwarrantable rewards, in an impossible life after death to simple illiterate people lacking knowledge of reason, logic, science, economics and mathematics.
The Jewish method is expressly evolved for the purpose of profiting from free riding, parasitism upon the dominant males, and undermining using false promise and deceit – by demanding verbal or intellectual skills.
The islamic method is the same form of parasitism but depends on blind imitation rather than verbal or intellectual skills.
The christian method was just, like communism, a false promise to the underclass, in the semitic war against the european, iranic, egyptian, and north african peoples.
There is but one law of life: persistence of that form of organization we call life by the defeat of entropy and capture of energy by doing so – and the only difference between the physical world and the human is that we have memories, and can account for debts and credits between each other with extraordinary precision. And as long as our accounts are in balance with one another, or at least as long as we can foresee our accounts balancing, then we can continue to cooperate and to take risks to cooperate.
Truth: you use god as a shield by which you can ignore other humans, fail to compromise with other humans, fail to face your worth to other humans, fail to join the collective efforts of other humans, and instead to descend into self centeredness, self-congratulation, ignorance and obedience like the muslims, all while claiming you are doing good.
But you are just the man praying while others do the work: free riding on the efforts and honesty of better men.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-28 09:55:00 UTC
PUBLIC DUELS BETWEEN SEXES PROVIDE PSYCHOLOGICAL RELEASE
—“The man fights while in a hole and the woman gets a weapon as a handicap for a fair duel. I imagine the comedic value alone of such an event was often enough to diffuse a situation lol”—John Papadopoulos
The truth of this statement, regarding pitting, dunking, stocks, and hangings, can’t be overstated. Public exorcism of frustrations is about as good as it gets for humans.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-28 09:39:00 UTC
—“As soon as the right embraced universal suffrage and equality etc, they became the right side of the left.”—Greg Hamilton
The folly of the Anglo Puritan fantasy of an aristocracy of everyone. The christianity cancer invading norman-anglo-saxon-germanic militarism.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-28 09:34:00 UTC
FIXING COURT AND STATE
(important)
–“Women are able to make false accusations (for example of domestic violence), and they can lie to the courts without repercussion. How would you deal with this?”—Will Peavy
This is one of the examples of ‘female privilege’ that has gotten out of hand. In my divorce, Allora said I had threatened to burn the house down as a means of coercing the court to lock the house and seize the assets. This was a lie. We had discovered black mold in the house, and I had said that we would have to burn the house down to fix it. But we all know how that false accusation was drummed up. I said I wouldn’t settle without withdrawal of that accusation. My lawyer said they wouldn’t do so because it was admission of perjury. If I hadn’t been rapidly declining from cancer (which they also used to manipulate me) I would have pursued the matter on principle. So, this happens every day and women get away with it every day because lying and undermining is the female strategy of warfare.
HOW DO YOU FIX IT?
You fix this by restoring punishment for it with zero tolerance. You fix zero tolerance by punishing judges, prosecutors, and lawyers for tolerating it.
And I am very close to preferring the British system of a three stage legal system (paralegal, lawyer, barrister, (plus specialized barristers) and specialized judges rather than this one size fits all american system.
In general, the British system has survived far better than the american system in a number of ways.
1. Our written “Transactional”, Natural Law” constitution is FAR better. Even if P-Law will take it further.
2. Our supreme court is a far better solution.
3. Our only failure was a process for returning undecidable propositions to the legislature, thereby preventing legislation from the bench.
4. A territorial senate like the house of lords has been erroneously diluted in both systems.
5. A Senate (house of lords) and Congress (parliament) like our roman and greek ancestors remains successful, but in both systems new houses should have been added for non-propertied (non-business owners), and another for women. In this way the classes could have continued trading instead of producing monopoly race to the bottom.
6. A monarch and prime minister is a better system than president. Washington was wrong.
7. The continental party system of proportional seating appears to have been more effective at producing coalitions(ideologies), and consistent policy, and the anglo system seems to have been better at producing classes(practicalities). So, in this sense
8. My goal is to end the monopoly of majoritarianism, and instead restore the original intent of the parliament: a market for commons between the classes of those demonstrating competence and contributions the commons: monarchy, senate (territory), commons (business), and consumers (labor, women). This failure to understand the rise of the consumer class and to provide a house for consumers – especially women, who are the vast majority of dependents and consumers, and who consume the vast majority of common goods – is probably the primary failure of post medieval political thought.
9. There is a good argument to be made that monarchy is without question the best form of government if mirrored by a militia and a constitution of natural law with universal standing – because there is no evidence that democratic governments are anywhere near as effective as monarchical. In western civilization – prior to napoleon – one ‘voted with one’s feet’ via negativa (right of exit). Something we do even more so today. The court provides individual defense via-negativa (right of juridical defense). And a parliament that must approve new law and new levies provides political defense via negativa (right of legislative dissent). With these three, we use POLITIES not parties or houses to compete. And this is the most effective market for political excellence, just as business is the most effective market for productive excellence.
10. However, if by common consensus democracy (voting) we obtain better loyalty to one another and the state(territory, constitution, laws, culture) and polity, and we obtain a sense of belonging and harmony, then as long as the constitution prohibits even the mention of the irreciprocal (unconstitutional) then this is a trade off we can make. As such we can choose the following choices:
a) Elected Representative Voters (vote initiatives up and down)[Works with multiple houses and creates a market]
b) Direct Household Voting (vote initiatives up and down)[works with multiple houses]
c) Direct Equalitarian Voting (vote initiatives up and down) [works with multiple houses]
d) Direct Economic Voting (vote to fund initiatives, and what’s funded passes, and unfunded closes) [requires most informed public]
e) Randomly Selected Jury (votes up and down – the original function of parliament) Parliament is an extension of the jury.
That should provide you with a bit of understanding.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-28 08:58:00 UTC
LIFE AFTER DEATH
(hard questions) (life after death)
—“Is there life after death? Watching my father die recently has made me question my faith and the meaning of existence.”—James Louis LaSalle
Do socrates, Alexander, and Jefferson still live? Do your ancestors still live? Our current understanding of the universe is that it is constructed of information (differences in state). We certainly live on as information. We certainly live on as information in both genes, words, deeds, and the debt we pass on to our ancestors.
But does that information in any way exist such that our memories can be accessed, our experiences revisited, new experiences felt, or new memories formed? No.
Of this we are scientifically certain I’m afraid – although I won’t go into the completeness we see today. There is no room in the universe for information that can interact with any information we are capable of sensing.
Conversely can the fragments of our genes, words, deeds, be assembled in ‘gists’ in the minds of those that follow us? Of course. How many of us have been in an ancient place and felt the generations, centuries, millennia, aeons pass? How many of us can ‘feel’ the lives of the generations that have lived in a medieval house? A gothic church? A roman ruin? An oak grove.
We make marks upon genetic, physical, and informational existence. And as such we make marks on our perception of eternity, just as surely as a craftsman leaves a mark on stone, an author ink on parchment, a philosopher or scientist on man, a mother and father on the generations to follow.
The greatest mark we can make is a war of liberty, conquest, or genocide. It’s these marks we make as a people. But it is those marks we leave in genetics, in our arts and letters, and in knowledge, that live forever.
So is there a life after death? Of course not. It was a lie told to those in exchange for obedience – a novel form of cheap slavery. An addictive drug for the weak and ignorant. One of the great lies of history – a lie that violates reciprocity because it cannot be warrantied.
But do we persist after death?
Only in the capital we create that persists after us.
Bear young. Live well. Speak the truth. And exit this life having made works that leave the world better for your having lived in it.
This is the promise of our people.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-27 11:30:00 UTC
INTERSEX “DISCIPLINE”
(hard questions) (judgemet of the natural law)
—“Serious question, is it ever justifiable to hit a woman if she grsm’s you too much? What is the recommended amount of force under P?”—Jack Hwite
This is a great example of how sovereignty has been used throughout our history. And why this question has such a long history in our law: because it’s a common problem.
Justifiable isn’t a meaningful term. Instead, under natural law, and under traditional european law, you can challenge anyone male of female to a duel, demand apology, demand satisfaction, and if refused exercise sovereignty in self defense.
Or put differently, in natural law, each of us is sovereign, whether male or female. But the sexes differ in our exercise of force.
“A male physical super-predator exchanges the forgoing of his violence with women so long as women social super-predators exchange forgoing their their undermining (GSRRM) in return. If this contract is broken then physical violence and undermining are both licensed.
Or the individuals may choose to forgo the duel and simply have at each other in words and hands.
A judicially sanctioned duel before peers is preferred, since differences in ability can be minimized by traditional pit and bag or other means.
A conflict can be brought before the court instead and settled there. Because “Scolding” is just as much a violation of sovereignty and the peach as is physical violence.
However, this is limited to discipline for insult, and when the other party lies down and submits the conflict must stop – otherwise the parties extend beyond the judicial duel into attempted murder.
This competition is the only way to prevent male and female warfare by their individual means.
We have constrained men’s violence but let loose women’s violence – and we are paying the price of undermining our civilization as a consequence.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-27 11:14:00 UTC
A rather strange bias we see in archaeology tries to explain everything they don’t undrestand as mystical or religous in origin.
We watch horror movies and tell campfire stories, and we enthrall each other with suspension of belief and woo woo, but that does not mean we are not eminently practical in real life.
While reading the ancients – even though it is very difficult – it’s very clear that they thought as rationally and practically as we do while still ‘going all woo woo’ over the same nonsense.
In fact, most letters are pretty tedious and could have been written a century ago.
It’s one thing to read the illiad today in translation and another to hear someone recite it in its rhyme and tempo. When you hear that tempo and rhyme you realize that homer whether one person or many, and shakespeare are the same man.
The difference that we cannot imagine today is the pervasive violence in everyday life of the ancient world,and how dependent we were upon family structures for mere survival, and how terrifying it was to be left along without their support – ostracization was a death sentence.
As for the general bicameral mind, this story has not played out well against the evidence. It’s true that each of us varies in cognitive agency, and we may even say that what differs most between us is agency (or ‘executive function’). It’s true that all language is a means of calculation and the more precise and non-false the terms and complete the linquistic transactions the more we are able to devote the processing power of our frontal cortex to yet another iteration of thought. So it’s more that language and knowledge increase the radius in time, space, population, and permutation of our thinking, just as prices assist us in imputing, and managing our resources and time.
But my understanding is that the wooo wooo apparent in ancient myth is just a tool for holding attention under suspension of disblief so that the narrative is accompanied by sufficient emotional novelty that the story is remembered.
That does not mean that a tribe of warriors conducting a raid or a set of 10k bc flint miners were doing or thinking any differently than we are.
I am old enough to remember that class of our fellow white men that could not read. They did not think any differently. They simply had less accumulated knowledge, and less confidence in their knowledge.
So you know, I don’t buy the whole thing because I see that there are woo woo people and empirical people in every generation across time.
As far as I know language will eventually emerge in any creatture with sufficient cognitive capacity (neural density in relation to body weight), that has a body that can move through space (because that is the origin of consiousness – spatial modeling).
Once you have langauge it is such a fucking competitive advantage every competitor is screwed.
So the bicameral mind is the result of two hemispheres needing to time their movements using the cerebellum.
But in our brains the corpus collosum especially in women ensures that the hemispheres are working on concert.
The major difference is that men are more longitudinally connected (fast, limited info, and time) and women more horizontally (slow, lots of info, in present moment). And even as such these are only limited biass not complete differences.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-27 10:10:00 UTC
Hard question day. What are some hard questions that you’re struggling with.
(most are undoubtably answered already)
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-27 10:06:00 UTC
Me and mine who pay for the commons because commons produce extraordinary returns, want to know why you shouldn’t be imprisoned, enslaved, enserfed, ostacized or hung for obtaining the benefits of our commons without paying for them.
Why should we permit you any freedom or liberty at all? Why is it that we don’t hang you? What’s your reason?
(The difference between capitalizing commons, common infrastructure that improves trade, and redistributive consumption that is not a commons – I assume is rather obvious.)
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-27 09:58:00 UTC