Mar 8, 2020, 9:28 PM (P in context. Excellent) “Schumer says justices will “pay the price” (politically) and that Chief Justice deliberately misinterpreted something he said (aka accused the head of the Supreme Court of lying). Schumer uses the technique of undermining by critique (power seeking). “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price … you won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” – Schumer “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,” -Roberts said in the statement. “All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.” -Roberts What is Schumer guilty of? He lies by omission of the fact that he means politically facing a price (false promise). He baits the Chief Justice into hazard by lying. He advocates threat by suggestion (pilpul). He threatens and defends by critique (critical theory) when he said “you won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions”. He escapes liability and warranty as categorizing his dangerous lie as a deliberate misinterpretation. He accused the Chief Justice of lying based on his pretense of plausible deniability. He deliberately avoids due diligence (failed to mention it is only a “political price”, obscuring the ability to disambiguate his meaning). Deliberately doubles down and doubles down for “Attention, Reward (profit), Influence (power), Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict ” (and retaliation cycles) “, Generating Demand for Authority” and demand for a state with even greater monopolistic authoritarian discretionary power rather than power from rule of law for protecting trust and markets. He’s a public figure lying to the public, in matters public, which results in real world damage to capital and property. It will not be allowed under a propertarian constitution. You can sue these people, take them to court and get rewarded restitution in court against these a-holes once in for all. It applies to both sides, though. No more lies! This….only this. End this. “Using False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard, Advocated by Pilpul, Defended by Critique, Escaping Liability and Warranty, by Pretense of Plausible Deniability, Despite Deliberate Avoidance of Due Diligence, And Deliberate Evasion of Warranty, Deliberate Escape From Liability, Given the Asymmetry of Knowledge, the Presence of Malincentives by both Agent(s) and Victim(s) – And Pursued for the Purpose of Attention, Reward (profit), Influence (power), Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict, Generating Demand for Authority to Control by the Hazard Maker.” ~ Adam Jacob Robert Walker
Source: Original Site Post
-
P in context of Schumer’s Speech. Excellent
Mar 8, 2020, 9:28 PM (P in context. Excellent) “Schumer says justices will “pay the price” (politically) and that Chief Justice deliberately misinterpreted something he said (aka accused the head of the Supreme Court of lying). Schumer uses the technique of undermining by critique (power seeking). “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price … you won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” – Schumer “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,” -Roberts said in the statement. “All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.” -Roberts What is Schumer guilty of? He lies by omission of the fact that he means politically facing a price (false promise). He baits the Chief Justice into hazard by lying. He advocates threat by suggestion (pilpul). He threatens and defends by critique (critical theory) when he said “you won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions”. He escapes liability and warranty as categorizing his dangerous lie as a deliberate misinterpretation. He accused the Chief Justice of lying based on his pretense of plausible deniability. He deliberately avoids due diligence (failed to mention it is only a “political price”, obscuring the ability to disambiguate his meaning). Deliberately doubles down and doubles down for “Attention, Reward (profit), Influence (power), Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict ” (and retaliation cycles) “, Generating Demand for Authority” and demand for a state with even greater monopolistic authoritarian discretionary power rather than power from rule of law for protecting trust and markets. He’s a public figure lying to the public, in matters public, which results in real world damage to capital and property. It will not be allowed under a propertarian constitution. You can sue these people, take them to court and get rewarded restitution in court against these a-holes once in for all. It applies to both sides, though. No more lies! This….only this. End this. “Using False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard, Advocated by Pilpul, Defended by Critique, Escaping Liability and Warranty, by Pretense of Plausible Deniability, Despite Deliberate Avoidance of Due Diligence, And Deliberate Evasion of Warranty, Deliberate Escape From Liability, Given the Asymmetry of Knowledge, the Presence of Malincentives by both Agent(s) and Victim(s) – And Pursued for the Purpose of Attention, Reward (profit), Influence (power), Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict, Generating Demand for Authority to Control by the Hazard Maker.” ~ Adam Jacob Robert Walker
-
The Competition Between Monarchy and Participatory Government
Mar 8, 2020, 10:01 PM Hereditary monarchies eliminate the tragedy of the commons, and the problem of participatory government is tragedy of the commons. The competition between monarchy and participatory government prevents both privatization and tragedy of the commons.
-
The Competition Between Monarchy and Participatory Government
Mar 8, 2020, 10:01 PM Hereditary monarchies eliminate the tragedy of the commons, and the problem of participatory government is tragedy of the commons. The competition between monarchy and participatory government prevents both privatization and tragedy of the commons.
-
Neoteny Works – Fast
Mar 9, 2020, 11:17 AM Scandinavian women are more feminine in bone structure than they were in the viking era and earlier. Scandinavians are an ~almost even mix of pre-germanic-mesolithic, italo-celtic-germanic-bronze age, and balto-slavic-germanic bronze age. It was common for earlier archaeologists to have difficulty distinguishing women from men. Staying on message: the 10K year explosion and the rapidity of neotonic domestication. Simple man version: 5’4″ petite brunettes have the most children.
-
Neoteny Works – Fast
Mar 9, 2020, 11:17 AM Scandinavian women are more feminine in bone structure than they were in the viking era and earlier. Scandinavians are an ~almost even mix of pre-germanic-mesolithic, italo-celtic-germanic-bronze age, and balto-slavic-germanic bronze age. It was common for earlier archaeologists to have difficulty distinguishing women from men. Staying on message: the 10K year explosion and the rapidity of neotonic domestication. Simple man version: 5’4″ petite brunettes have the most children.
-
Advanced P-Testimonialism
Mar 9, 2020, 11:37 AM Andrew M Gilmour and I discussing the order of the tests (falsifications) in testimony. In the discussion, Andrew is correctly comparing the Aristotelian Trivium’s order of testing statements: “How it exists, How we know it, and is it logical”, with the Testimonial method and asking why is the P-Testimony checklist in order that begins with categorical consistency, and logical consistency, then empirical, then operational. And we answer that question. ANDREW: For the most part I use the Trivium (Aristotelian) system. For an utterance to be true it must follow a specific order; and can be examined at each level for truth/accuracy: 1 – Ontic, how it exists (objective/subjective, mode of being, categories) 2 – Epistemic, how we know it (empirical, rational, falsification, justification) 3 – Logical, a thing becomes a logical entity once it exists and we know it. Grammatical, a logical entity can be named making it a grammatical entity. Rhetorical, a grammatical entity can be communicated. P-method seems to broadly use the classical method; but with a few tweeks to assist in disambiguation and enforce realism, naturalism, empiricism in speech. ERIC DANELAW Correct, realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism (causality), plus limits and completeness (defense against cherry picking), and rational choice and reciprocity (economics, morality). Updated to add physical science, economics, natural law, using programming rather than set logic. ANDREW M GILMOUR One thing that doesn’t make sense to me is your truth candidate order reverses logical and empirical from the traditional method. To me it cannot be a logical entity until it is known (epistemic) What was the reasoning behind this? ERIC DANELAW Great question. I organized from most simple and internal to most complex and external of the tests, when processing speech (text) in the sciences. Sometimes i’ll organize them for a specific problem. example ANDREW M GILMOUR Ok, in that list empirical precedes logic in the traditional way. So the order is only reversed to quicky disqualify a truth candidate. That order used is for efficiency, not absolute hierarchy of thought? ERIC DANELAW Not sure which question your asking. 1-the order is in ascending information (complexity) 2-that’s because it’s a checklist not a recipe 3-There are sets of related tests (see image above) … not-illogical, … not-impossible, … not-immoral, … not-incomplete, … not-unwarrantied. 4-Some questions do not require all tests (some questions are amoral for example) 5-Some questions rely on moral pretense, verbal pretense, or physical pretense. Some all three. 6-So it’s more a question of choosing the first tool for the job. I’m wondering if the shift from aristotelian presumption of honesty under idealism to testimonialism’s presumption of deceit under pseudoscience, sophistry, and immorality is what you’re intuiting. I think that might be the answer. In other words, the traditional “is the statement not false” under presumption of honesty and error, vs “is this person speaking falsely” under presumption of dishonesty and deception. I think that’s it. One of the first things I noticed in 09 or so, was that what I then considered the victorian and western in-group presumption of goodwill testing for error, was no longer sufficient for defeating the modern abrahamic presumption of dishonesty and undermining seeking deceit. So this is another example of ‘complete falsification’. I think the extension of that change has been that we’re much more ‘bots’ than ‘agents’. And that is why we’ve had to move from lying by design (via positiva) to lying by falure of due diligence (via negativa) So: Presumption of lack of agency. Presumption of deceit Presumption of deceit by failure of due diligence. Guilt by failure of due diligence not just intent. Make sense?
-
Advanced P-Testimonialism
Mar 9, 2020, 11:37 AM Andrew M Gilmour and I discussing the order of the tests (falsifications) in testimony. In the discussion, Andrew is correctly comparing the Aristotelian Trivium’s order of testing statements: “How it exists, How we know it, and is it logical”, with the Testimonial method and asking why is the P-Testimony checklist in order that begins with categorical consistency, and logical consistency, then empirical, then operational. And we answer that question. ANDREW: For the most part I use the Trivium (Aristotelian) system. For an utterance to be true it must follow a specific order; and can be examined at each level for truth/accuracy: 1 – Ontic, how it exists (objective/subjective, mode of being, categories) 2 – Epistemic, how we know it (empirical, rational, falsification, justification) 3 – Logical, a thing becomes a logical entity once it exists and we know it. Grammatical, a logical entity can be named making it a grammatical entity. Rhetorical, a grammatical entity can be communicated. P-method seems to broadly use the classical method; but with a few tweeks to assist in disambiguation and enforce realism, naturalism, empiricism in speech. ERIC DANELAW Correct, realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism (causality), plus limits and completeness (defense against cherry picking), and rational choice and reciprocity (economics, morality). Updated to add physical science, economics, natural law, using programming rather than set logic. ANDREW M GILMOUR One thing that doesn’t make sense to me is your truth candidate order reverses logical and empirical from the traditional method. To me it cannot be a logical entity until it is known (epistemic) What was the reasoning behind this? ERIC DANELAW Great question. I organized from most simple and internal to most complex and external of the tests, when processing speech (text) in the sciences. Sometimes i’ll organize them for a specific problem. example ANDREW M GILMOUR Ok, in that list empirical precedes logic in the traditional way. So the order is only reversed to quicky disqualify a truth candidate. That order used is for efficiency, not absolute hierarchy of thought? ERIC DANELAW Not sure which question your asking. 1-the order is in ascending information (complexity) 2-that’s because it’s a checklist not a recipe 3-There are sets of related tests (see image above) … not-illogical, … not-impossible, … not-immoral, … not-incomplete, … not-unwarrantied. 4-Some questions do not require all tests (some questions are amoral for example) 5-Some questions rely on moral pretense, verbal pretense, or physical pretense. Some all three. 6-So it’s more a question of choosing the first tool for the job. I’m wondering if the shift from aristotelian presumption of honesty under idealism to testimonialism’s presumption of deceit under pseudoscience, sophistry, and immorality is what you’re intuiting. I think that might be the answer. In other words, the traditional “is the statement not false” under presumption of honesty and error, vs “is this person speaking falsely” under presumption of dishonesty and deception. I think that’s it. One of the first things I noticed in 09 or so, was that what I then considered the victorian and western in-group presumption of goodwill testing for error, was no longer sufficient for defeating the modern abrahamic presumption of dishonesty and undermining seeking deceit. So this is another example of ‘complete falsification’. I think the extension of that change has been that we’re much more ‘bots’ than ‘agents’. And that is why we’ve had to move from lying by design (via positiva) to lying by falure of due diligence (via negativa) So: Presumption of lack of agency. Presumption of deceit Presumption of deceit by failure of due diligence. Guilt by failure of due diligence not just intent. Make sense?
-
Active versus Passive – Own Your Faith
Mar 9, 2020, 12:05 PM by Luke Weinhagen It is the passive statefulness that has engulfed Christianity that is the problem. The active faithful, living in full ownership of their faith (including the defense of that faith against parasitism), aligns well enough with P to not be much of an issue or conflict with P-Law. This is why I keep harping on AvP – the good in any of our institutions comes when we are in active statefulness within them – and passive always leaves us vulnerable to the bad I often refer mentally back to this excerpt as an example of the expression of highly active statefulness in a belief system If you do not own your faith, fully and completely (even the unknown of it), that faith is likely in a passive state… Passive is Poison.
-
Active versus Passive – Own Your Faith
Mar 9, 2020, 12:05 PM by Luke Weinhagen It is the passive statefulness that has engulfed Christianity that is the problem. The active faithful, living in full ownership of their faith (including the defense of that faith against parasitism), aligns well enough with P to not be much of an issue or conflict with P-Law. This is why I keep harping on AvP – the good in any of our institutions comes when we are in active statefulness within them – and passive always leaves us vulnerable to the bad I often refer mentally back to this excerpt as an example of the expression of highly active statefulness in a belief system If you do not own your faith, fully and completely (even the unknown of it), that faith is likely in a passive state… Passive is Poison.