Those who seek to destroy sovereignty, rule of law by reciprocity, the intergenerational family as the purpose of policy, the compromise between the genders and classes, the markets in association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities, nations.
Reductively, “Parasites.”
“You”
😉
Source: Original Site Post
-
Who is “They”?
-
Who is “They”?
Those who seek to destroy sovereignty, rule of law by reciprocity, the intergenerational family as the purpose of policy, the compromise between the genders and classes, the markets in association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities, nations.
Reductively, “Parasites.”
“You”
😉
-
The Jewish Question Answered Yet Again
—“Scientific racism, a thread: In March, a journal published a paper defending the “theory” that Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychology, multiculturalism, Marxism and left-wing political movements in general are best understood in terms of “Jewish group evolutionary strategy.” — Simon Whitten @Simon_Whitten
It’s true Simon. Sorry. You can trace Aristotelian thought, you can trace Jewish thought. You can trace every civilization’s group strategy. I work on the female and jewish conflict technique of False Promise, Baiting, Pilpul (sophism), Critique (Undermining), GSRRM (avoidance), Polyethicalism, Feminine Conflict. … And the adaptation of the female conflict strategy (Undermining, reputation destruction, gossiping) to abrahamic religion in the ancient world, and Freud, Marx, Boas, Cantor, Frankfurt and Derrida and your generation in the post-marxist world. Forensics are rather easy whether symbolic, artistic, linguistic, argumentative, literary, metaphysical, technological, legal, even mathematical differences between civilizations, and jewish strategy has been consistent since at least the Abrahamic period if not before. Specializing in unproductive (parasitic) income sources, especially those that privatize the commons, especially the moral, using the profits to seek rents, baiting into moral hazard, justification by Pilpul, undermining by Critique, Non argument by GSRRM, alliance with the … … state against the people (See Benjamin Ginsberg), inability to create commons of their own, dependence on higher trust moral polities. Match this with differences in rates of mental illness and sexual dimorphism (cognitive, sexual, behavioral, criminal), I mean, you don’t know that you’re doing it right now. You think (as would all cognitively female humans) that you’re making an argument but you’re just engaging in reputation destruction rather than argument, and from a position of presumption bias and ignorance. We had laws against scolds (what you’re doing), and under the duel you would be silenced by threat, and until mid 20th you would be silenced by defamation laws for your action. When, in retrospect, this is a group strategy of females, jews, muslims and christians: undermining. So, perhaps you might do less to prove Macdonald (and me) right, by not demonstrating so obviously that the strategy of undermining has been the group strategy of females against dominant males, and the Jews against the great civilizations of the ancient and modern world. My people committed plenty of crimes under colonialism but we still dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of the semitic mystical dark ages, and we dragged most out of the second jewish attempt (marxism, libertarianism, postmodernism, neoliberalism, neoconservatism). What did your people accomplish as the most literate people in europe over 1800 years? Absolutely nothing except mysticism, tax collection, usury, prostitution, slaving, alcohol and drugs, conspiracy against the population, and being chased from one moral purge after another? Your people have mastered and institutionalized the art of female parasitism by false promise, baiting into hazard, pilpul (sophism) and critique(undermining) without producing young in exchange for our tolerance. Wasn’t one dark age of ignorance suffering and destruction enough? All debts are paid. How do you pay restitution for your crimes against not only our people, but european people, the 1B dead because of abrahamism, the lost peoples, empires, arts and literature of the ancient world, as you incite undermining at every opportunity, everywhere. The gig is up. We know. Judgement day comes.
-
The Jewish Question Answered Yet Again
—“Scientific racism, a thread: In March, a journal published a paper defending the “theory” that Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychology, multiculturalism, Marxism and left-wing political movements in general are best understood in terms of “Jewish group evolutionary strategy.” — Simon Whitten @Simon_Whitten
It’s true Simon. Sorry. You can trace Aristotelian thought, you can trace Jewish thought. You can trace every civilization’s group strategy. I work on the female and jewish conflict technique of False Promise, Baiting, Pilpul (sophism), Critique (Undermining), GSRRM (avoidance), Polyethicalism, Feminine Conflict. … And the adaptation of the female conflict strategy (Undermining, reputation destruction, gossiping) to abrahamic religion in the ancient world, and Freud, Marx, Boas, Cantor, Frankfurt and Derrida and your generation in the post-marxist world. Forensics are rather easy whether symbolic, artistic, linguistic, argumentative, literary, metaphysical, technological, legal, even mathematical differences between civilizations, and jewish strategy has been consistent since at least the Abrahamic period if not before. Specializing in unproductive (parasitic) income sources, especially those that privatize the commons, especially the moral, using the profits to seek rents, baiting into moral hazard, justification by Pilpul, undermining by Critique, Non argument by GSRRM, alliance with the … … state against the people (See Benjamin Ginsberg), inability to create commons of their own, dependence on higher trust moral polities. Match this with differences in rates of mental illness and sexual dimorphism (cognitive, sexual, behavioral, criminal), I mean, you don’t know that you’re doing it right now. You think (as would all cognitively female humans) that you’re making an argument but you’re just engaging in reputation destruction rather than argument, and from a position of presumption bias and ignorance. We had laws against scolds (what you’re doing), and under the duel you would be silenced by threat, and until mid 20th you would be silenced by defamation laws for your action. When, in retrospect, this is a group strategy of females, jews, muslims and christians: undermining. So, perhaps you might do less to prove Macdonald (and me) right, by not demonstrating so obviously that the strategy of undermining has been the group strategy of females against dominant males, and the Jews against the great civilizations of the ancient and modern world. My people committed plenty of crimes under colonialism but we still dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of the semitic mystical dark ages, and we dragged most out of the second jewish attempt (marxism, libertarianism, postmodernism, neoliberalism, neoconservatism). What did your people accomplish as the most literate people in europe over 1800 years? Absolutely nothing except mysticism, tax collection, usury, prostitution, slaving, alcohol and drugs, conspiracy against the population, and being chased from one moral purge after another? Your people have mastered and institutionalized the art of female parasitism by false promise, baiting into hazard, pilpul (sophism) and critique(undermining) without producing young in exchange for our tolerance. Wasn’t one dark age of ignorance suffering and destruction enough? All debts are paid. How do you pay restitution for your crimes against not only our people, but european people, the 1B dead because of abrahamism, the lost peoples, empires, arts and literature of the ancient world, as you incite undermining at every opportunity, everywhere. The gig is up. We know. Judgement day comes.
-
Uniting Conservatives with Understanding of One Another
Let’s put this in scientific prose: Conservatism is a genetic disposition evidenced in cognition, emotion, and action, of higher disgust response, higher preference for hierarchy (division of responsibility and labor), higher loyalty response. The fact that churcy christians use religion, moral christians use moralizing, educated moral christians use history, and educated moral, scientific christians use science and law is just a function of whether one is more dependent upon intuition, social interaction, or abstract reason. In other words, we are unified in our disgust response, we differ in our means of information processing, and because we differ in our means of information processing, we differ in our means of expression, advocacy ad argument. And because we are resistant to adaptation without overwhelming evidence, hypersensitive to loyalty, and hypersensitive to hierarchy, we want everyone to adopt our means of information processing and means of expression, advocacy and argument. But despite our differences in expression, what remains consistent across the faithful, the moral, the rational, and the scientific spectrum of conservatives is the natural law and the natural law’s intolerance for disgusting behavior whether intellectual, emotional, or physical, and whether in private, or the commons. If you cannot accept our cognitive tribes of conservatives as all unified under the natural law regardless of means of expressing that natural law as divine law, as moral utility, as rational practicality, and as scientific necessity, then YOU ARE THE REASON THE RIGHT FAILS. The faithful are the largest problem because they cannot tolerate their dogma as consisting only of wisdom literature (analogy and advice) rather than truth (description and decidability). Yet to win together we must deliver unto god what is god’s (faith we cannot testify to) and deliver unto caesar what is his (truth we can testify to). We cannot unite behind one paradigm of thinking, advocating, and arguing. We can only understand that we share the same instincts, wants, desires, goals for the same biological reasons regardless of their origin, and that we are right to save ourselves, our people, and humanity from disgusting thoughts, feelings and actions whether public or private. Because disgusting thoughts, feelings, and actions are imitated and spread like any disease, and man is more vulnerable to diseases of the mind than he is to those of emotions and body. We argue, and I argue, the faithful are the weakness in our civilization. It was evangelical women who brought about the chain of events that led to our current condition. It was catholic voters that brought about the leftist politicians. It was christians who gave passage to the ‘others’ who are the enemy. It is christians who idolize the enemy and its history instead of themselves and their history. So we must not argue excuses, because each conservative tribe argues with excuses within its paradigm. The only paradigm we need share is that we must eradicate what is disgusting from ourselves, our families, our polities, aour nations, and the world. And whether your god is Jehovah, Sky Father, Odin, Aristotle, the Constitution of natural law or the laws of the universe, none of them will tolerate disgust, and we will not survive without cleansing the world of it, and the universe of it afterward. We all know evil and it is disgusting and we share our disgust of thought, feeling, word, and deed. They are the disease. We are the cure. If that is not a god’s purpose for us then I know no other.
-
Uniting Conservatives with Understanding of One Another
Let’s put this in scientific prose: Conservatism is a genetic disposition evidenced in cognition, emotion, and action, of higher disgust response, higher preference for hierarchy (division of responsibility and labor), higher loyalty response. The fact that churcy christians use religion, moral christians use moralizing, educated moral christians use history, and educated moral, scientific christians use science and law is just a function of whether one is more dependent upon intuition, social interaction, or abstract reason. In other words, we are unified in our disgust response, we differ in our means of information processing, and because we differ in our means of information processing, we differ in our means of expression, advocacy ad argument. And because we are resistant to adaptation without overwhelming evidence, hypersensitive to loyalty, and hypersensitive to hierarchy, we want everyone to adopt our means of information processing and means of expression, advocacy and argument. But despite our differences in expression, what remains consistent across the faithful, the moral, the rational, and the scientific spectrum of conservatives is the natural law and the natural law’s intolerance for disgusting behavior whether intellectual, emotional, or physical, and whether in private, or the commons. If you cannot accept our cognitive tribes of conservatives as all unified under the natural law regardless of means of expressing that natural law as divine law, as moral utility, as rational practicality, and as scientific necessity, then YOU ARE THE REASON THE RIGHT FAILS. The faithful are the largest problem because they cannot tolerate their dogma as consisting only of wisdom literature (analogy and advice) rather than truth (description and decidability). Yet to win together we must deliver unto god what is god’s (faith we cannot testify to) and deliver unto caesar what is his (truth we can testify to). We cannot unite behind one paradigm of thinking, advocating, and arguing. We can only understand that we share the same instincts, wants, desires, goals for the same biological reasons regardless of their origin, and that we are right to save ourselves, our people, and humanity from disgusting thoughts, feelings and actions whether public or private. Because disgusting thoughts, feelings, and actions are imitated and spread like any disease, and man is more vulnerable to diseases of the mind than he is to those of emotions and body. We argue, and I argue, the faithful are the weakness in our civilization. It was evangelical women who brought about the chain of events that led to our current condition. It was catholic voters that brought about the leftist politicians. It was christians who gave passage to the ‘others’ who are the enemy. It is christians who idolize the enemy and its history instead of themselves and their history. So we must not argue excuses, because each conservative tribe argues with excuses within its paradigm. The only paradigm we need share is that we must eradicate what is disgusting from ourselves, our families, our polities, aour nations, and the world. And whether your god is Jehovah, Sky Father, Odin, Aristotle, the Constitution of natural law or the laws of the universe, none of them will tolerate disgust, and we will not survive without cleansing the world of it, and the universe of it afterward. We all know evil and it is disgusting and we share our disgust of thought, feeling, word, and deed. They are the disease. We are the cure. If that is not a god’s purpose for us then I know no other.
-
Abortion? Ok. One Immoral Trade for Another.
—“I have been fighting for reproductive rights for over 40 years, yet some forced birthers still appear to think that their justifications (exclusively religiously based) are so persuasive they will magically change my mind. Save your emails people, I’ve heard ’em all.”—Jane Caro @JaneCaro
An excellent example of Pilpul (Sophism). So, you want to restore the right of mothers alone to kill fetuses, just as women have killed newborns, and young children for thousands of years by exposure, suffocation, and strangulation when they were too much of a burden. Women have murdered more children then all the wars of men combined. In fact, women’s murder of children is outdone only to the great plagues and Islamic conquest. But let’s not pretend it’s not murder. It is. It’s just justifiable murder in a woman’s eyes. How about a trade? End alimony and child support in exchange for juridical license to murder before their born, rather than after? Restore man’s choice if we are going to restore woman’s? That is a Just trade. Men want their offspring and their genetic lines to survive because they have no other choice. Women don’t want the burden of bearing, birthing, surrendering to adoption, or caring. If women will not pay to birth them then men should not pay to raise them. That is a reciprocal exchange. Trade license for one immorality for another. Or is your moralizing just a shallow attempt to obscure the underlying costs and privileges? Are you just seeking another privilege for women at another cost born by men?
-
Abortion? Ok. One Immoral Trade for Another.
—“I have been fighting for reproductive rights for over 40 years, yet some forced birthers still appear to think that their justifications (exclusively religiously based) are so persuasive they will magically change my mind. Save your emails people, I’ve heard ’em all.”—Jane Caro @JaneCaro
An excellent example of Pilpul (Sophism). So, you want to restore the right of mothers alone to kill fetuses, just as women have killed newborns, and young children for thousands of years by exposure, suffocation, and strangulation when they were too much of a burden. Women have murdered more children then all the wars of men combined. In fact, women’s murder of children is outdone only to the great plagues and Islamic conquest. But let’s not pretend it’s not murder. It is. It’s just justifiable murder in a woman’s eyes. How about a trade? End alimony and child support in exchange for juridical license to murder before their born, rather than after? Restore man’s choice if we are going to restore woman’s? That is a Just trade. Men want their offspring and their genetic lines to survive because they have no other choice. Women don’t want the burden of bearing, birthing, surrendering to adoption, or caring. If women will not pay to birth them then men should not pay to raise them. That is a reciprocal exchange. Trade license for one immorality for another. Or is your moralizing just a shallow attempt to obscure the underlying costs and privileges? Are you just seeking another privilege for women at another cost born by men?
-
I Think Philosophy is Closed.
I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete. Philosophy now only tells us choice, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice. The top of the epistemic pyramid is not philosophy(rationalism) but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice. In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence), mathematics(measurement) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability.
-
I Think Philosophy is Closed.
I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete. Philosophy now only tells us choice, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice. The top of the epistemic pyramid is not philosophy(rationalism) but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice. In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence), mathematics(measurement) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability.