The structure of phrases, sentences, paragraphs, stories, and interwoven stories of increasing length is dependent upon practice and upon rhythm. That practice and rhythm can come from speaking, reading, or both. And our patience with ourselves and our audience’s patience with our oratory, cannot diverge without either’s loss of context.
Hence our ability to remember songs, and the classic iambic pentameter (heartbeat: da DUM da DUM da DUM da DUM da DUM ), dactylic hexameter ( breath capacity: ssL – ssL – ssL – ssL – ssL – s or L).
In other words, our ability to produce computational sequences is assisted by rythms. And this ability vaguely corresponds to our intelligence.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Gilad At His Best Once Again.
A Lesson in Jewish PR By Gilad Atzmon Towards the end of my most recent book, Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto, I elaborate on Jewish controlled opposition strategies. I contend that when Jews detect that that something associated with them has become problematic they quickly form satellite dissent movements: they are first to oppose themselves. When Capitalism was identified as a Jewish problem, Marx was first to offer a coherent alternative. Once Palestine emerged as an acknowledged Jewish problem, a Jewish solidarity industry (JVP, IJAN, Mondoweiss, IJV) formed to dominate the opposition discourse on Israel. The intellectual debate on Zio-con immoral interventionist wars has been reduced into an internal Jewish debate between Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky. I expect soon we’ll see Jews leading the fight against sexual predatory behaviour in Hollywood and beyond. None of this is necessarily conspiratorial. It is normal for people to be embarrassed by members of their tribe who are associated with bad and criminal behaviour. The documentary, Independent Jewish Voices: 100 Years After Balfour, is a fascinating window into the world of Jewish controlled opposition. The documentary provides a retrospective on the Balfour declaration from the Jewish progressive perspective. It was spectacularly produced by IJV, a “network of Jews in Britain who share a commitment to certain principles, especially with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in mind: putting human rights first.” It is shocking that, despite the fact that the Balfour Declaration led to a century of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, not one Palestinian voice is featured in the Jewish film. More significant, the scholarship presented was carefully selected to fit within the Jewish ‘progressive narrative. Not once are we reminded of the crucial fact that the Balfour Declaration points at the dominance of the Jewish Lobby in Britain at least as early as 1917. Nor does it mention that the declaration was made to pull America into the war by appealing to American German-Jewish bankers who were initially pro German and anti British. This indicates the dominance of Jewish bankers in the USA in the early 20th century. Naturally the ‘independent’ Jewish Voices are committed to the concealment of these facts. The documentary asks us to accept the Jewish so-called progressive historical narrative, a tale designed to convey an image of profound Jewish ethics, Jewish values and Jewish peacefulness. I wish I could support any of it. The attempt is, in itself, duplicitous and reflects badly on the so-called ‘independent Jews’ and their ‘voices’. Most crucially, and it must be stated once again– there is no such a thing as ‘Jewish ethics.’ In Judaism, obedience to Mitzvot (commandments and laws) replaces the ethical. Adherence to such rules and laws (Talmud) replaces the judgment process inherent in the notion of ethics. It is far from clear what ‘Jewish values’ are and whether they are at all universal. Bizarrely, early Zionism in its initial promise to ‘civilize the Jews’ by means of ‘homecoming’ vowed to bring out the ethical and the universal in the Jews. In practice, the project collapsed and, if anything, achieved the opposite as Brian Klug pretty much admits in the documentary. While early Zionism was a secular anti Judaic movement, it was soon hijacked by Judaism (יהדות) and Jewishness (יהודיות). If early Zionism promised to make Jews ‘people like all other people,’ Judaism and Jewishness ensured that Jews were kept different — clinging to the notions of choseness and tribal exceptionalism. Once again, I suggest to the Independent Jewish Voices that independence means freedom- the unique act of thinking freely and creatively as opposed to tribally and collectively. To be independent is to unshackle oneself, to become ethical and universal for real, to stop concealing the truth on behalf of putative tribal interests. To be an independent voice is to stop acting as ‘voices.’ Is it that being independent and being Jewish is a political oxymoron? The Independent Jewish Voices may want to decide whether they prefer to operate politically as Jews or independently as ordinary, ethical human beings. Until they make a coherent decision, they may want to bear in mind that we have dissected Jewish progressive tactics and we are not entirely impressed with this film despite the stunning production. -
Gilad At His Best Once Again.
A Lesson in Jewish PR By Gilad Atzmon Towards the end of my most recent book, Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto, I elaborate on Jewish controlled opposition strategies. I contend that when Jews detect that that something associated with them has become problematic they quickly form satellite dissent movements: they are first to oppose themselves. When Capitalism was identified as a Jewish problem, Marx was first to offer a coherent alternative. Once Palestine emerged as an acknowledged Jewish problem, a Jewish solidarity industry (JVP, IJAN, Mondoweiss, IJV) formed to dominate the opposition discourse on Israel. The intellectual debate on Zio-con immoral interventionist wars has been reduced into an internal Jewish debate between Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky. I expect soon we’ll see Jews leading the fight against sexual predatory behaviour in Hollywood and beyond. None of this is necessarily conspiratorial. It is normal for people to be embarrassed by members of their tribe who are associated with bad and criminal behaviour. The documentary, Independent Jewish Voices: 100 Years After Balfour, is a fascinating window into the world of Jewish controlled opposition. The documentary provides a retrospective on the Balfour declaration from the Jewish progressive perspective. It was spectacularly produced by IJV, a “network of Jews in Britain who share a commitment to certain principles, especially with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in mind: putting human rights first.” It is shocking that, despite the fact that the Balfour Declaration led to a century of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, not one Palestinian voice is featured in the Jewish film. More significant, the scholarship presented was carefully selected to fit within the Jewish ‘progressive narrative. Not once are we reminded of the crucial fact that the Balfour Declaration points at the dominance of the Jewish Lobby in Britain at least as early as 1917. Nor does it mention that the declaration was made to pull America into the war by appealing to American German-Jewish bankers who were initially pro German and anti British. This indicates the dominance of Jewish bankers in the USA in the early 20th century. Naturally the ‘independent’ Jewish Voices are committed to the concealment of these facts. The documentary asks us to accept the Jewish so-called progressive historical narrative, a tale designed to convey an image of profound Jewish ethics, Jewish values and Jewish peacefulness. I wish I could support any of it. The attempt is, in itself, duplicitous and reflects badly on the so-called ‘independent Jews’ and their ‘voices’. Most crucially, and it must be stated once again– there is no such a thing as ‘Jewish ethics.’ In Judaism, obedience to Mitzvot (commandments and laws) replaces the ethical. Adherence to such rules and laws (Talmud) replaces the judgment process inherent in the notion of ethics. It is far from clear what ‘Jewish values’ are and whether they are at all universal. Bizarrely, early Zionism in its initial promise to ‘civilize the Jews’ by means of ‘homecoming’ vowed to bring out the ethical and the universal in the Jews. In practice, the project collapsed and, if anything, achieved the opposite as Brian Klug pretty much admits in the documentary. While early Zionism was a secular anti Judaic movement, it was soon hijacked by Judaism (יהדות) and Jewishness (יהודיות). If early Zionism promised to make Jews ‘people like all other people,’ Judaism and Jewishness ensured that Jews were kept different — clinging to the notions of choseness and tribal exceptionalism. Once again, I suggest to the Independent Jewish Voices that independence means freedom- the unique act of thinking freely and creatively as opposed to tribally and collectively. To be independent is to unshackle oneself, to become ethical and universal for real, to stop concealing the truth on behalf of putative tribal interests. To be an independent voice is to stop acting as ‘voices.’ Is it that being independent and being Jewish is a political oxymoron? The Independent Jewish Voices may want to decide whether they prefer to operate politically as Jews or independently as ordinary, ethical human beings. Until they make a coherent decision, they may want to bear in mind that we have dissected Jewish progressive tactics and we are not entirely impressed with this film despite the stunning production. -
by Eli Harman “I will offer that it is not “white knighting” to simply call out
by Eli Harman “I will offer that it is not “white knighting” to simply call out bad ideas; just as it is not “white knighting” to interfere in an act of domestic abuse. When one individual seeks to dominate another individual, regardless of the specific characteristics of these individuals, it is incumbent upon those who actually believe in liberty to speak out. Believe it or not some people are more concerned with what is right and good than with what others think of them.” ———- Most people demonstrably prefer dominance hierarchies, even dominance hierarchies they aren’t at the top of. You would have to coerce them, violating your own principles, in order to override that preference. You’re unlikely to persuade them. A stable dominance hierarchy passes along enough benefits, even to those near the bottom, to secure their willing support. What do you offer people? Freedom and responsibility most of them can’t handle, don’t want, and wouldn’t know what to do with? Good luck selling that. What is right: imaginary. What is good: subjective. What others think of you: not the be all end all, but of more consequence than your autistic brain weights it. Of course, some people just like to kick sh_t over or burn it down. And there is no problem with suppressing such troublemakers, if what they are trying to upset is of value to most. Then it just becomes a question of who will prevail. Every so often, the status quo really is rotten and corrupt, and won’t survive that clash. Now is probably one of those times. But you don’t have the medicine we need. -
by Eli Harman “I will offer that it is not “white knighting” to simply call out
by Eli Harman “I will offer that it is not “white knighting” to simply call out bad ideas; just as it is not “white knighting” to interfere in an act of domestic abuse. When one individual seeks to dominate another individual, regardless of the specific characteristics of these individuals, it is incumbent upon those who actually believe in liberty to speak out. Believe it or not some people are more concerned with what is right and good than with what others think of them.” ———- Most people demonstrably prefer dominance hierarchies, even dominance hierarchies they aren’t at the top of. You would have to coerce them, violating your own principles, in order to override that preference. You’re unlikely to persuade them. A stable dominance hierarchy passes along enough benefits, even to those near the bottom, to secure their willing support. What do you offer people? Freedom and responsibility most of them can’t handle, don’t want, and wouldn’t know what to do with? Good luck selling that. What is right: imaginary. What is good: subjective. What others think of you: not the be all end all, but of more consequence than your autistic brain weights it. Of course, some people just like to kick sh_t over or burn it down. And there is no problem with suppressing such troublemakers, if what they are trying to upset is of value to most. Then it just becomes a question of who will prevail. Every so often, the status quo really is rotten and corrupt, and won’t survive that clash. Now is probably one of those times. But you don’t have the medicine we need. -
We do not consent with nature. We do not avoid it or deny it. We defeat it
We do not consent with nature. We do not avoid it or deny it. We defeat it. -
We do not consent with nature. We do not avoid it or deny it. We defeat it
We do not consent with nature. We do not avoid it or deny it. We defeat it. -
“Curt, I’m a female with autism, what does that make me?”— A Friend It makes y
—“Curt, I’m a female with autism, what does that make me?”— A Friend It makes you a female with autism. Just as it makes a male with psychosis just a male with psychosis. When I say (or Baron Cohen says), Female Psychotic or Solipsistic vs Male Aspergers or Autistic, we are only saying that the distribution of brain structures from the conflationary fast growth, to the deflationary slow growth, tend to be distributed in what we consider ‘normal’ individuals, by gender. We associate these brain structures with the dominant distribution of those brain structures. For example, homosexuality, at least in males is most likely an in utero developmental defect. For women, they are always more ‘fungible’ with regard to sexuality. But ‘butch’ lesbians are fairly identifiable as having more masculine personalities. Two say that there are only two genders is true. To say that there are wide distributions of gender traits is something else. To say that gender norms are determined by both genetic, in utero, developmental, habituation (circumstantial demand, or training), or mental illness (developmental failure) is simply obvious. I love being an aspie with other aspies. I love being a normie with normies. I prefer to be with both. The primary problem for aspies is finding each other so that we can develop relationshipos. And then finding women we can mate with and reproduce. Thankfully we have internet and internet dating. -
“Curt, I’m a female with autism, what does that make me?”— A Friend It makes y
—“Curt, I’m a female with autism, what does that make me?”— A Friend It makes you a female with autism. Just as it makes a male with psychosis just a male with psychosis. When I say (or Baron Cohen says), Female Psychotic or Solipsistic vs Male Aspergers or Autistic, we are only saying that the distribution of brain structures from the conflationary fast growth, to the deflationary slow growth, tend to be distributed in what we consider ‘normal’ individuals, by gender. We associate these brain structures with the dominant distribution of those brain structures. For example, homosexuality, at least in males is most likely an in utero developmental defect. For women, they are always more ‘fungible’ with regard to sexuality. But ‘butch’ lesbians are fairly identifiable as having more masculine personalities. Two say that there are only two genders is true. To say that there are wide distributions of gender traits is something else. To say that gender norms are determined by both genetic, in utero, developmental, habituation (circumstantial demand, or training), or mental illness (developmental failure) is simply obvious. I love being an aspie with other aspies. I love being a normie with normies. I prefer to be with both. The primary problem for aspies is finding each other so that we can develop relationshipos. And then finding women we can mate with and reproduce. Thankfully we have internet and internet dating. -
“Men must be taught as if you taught them not, and things unknown proposed as th
“Men must be taught as if you taught them not, and things unknown proposed as things forgot.”