https://t.co/1PIJVNzekc
Source: Original Site Post
-
“The most obvious sophism in the above post, is : ‘Marxism advocates nothing lik
—“The most obvious sophism in the above post, is : ‘Marxism advocates nothing like uniform income’.”— Tutu
Not directly, but he presumes (a) people are relatively equal in value, or worse, that many people are not harmful to others by their mere existence; When it is the excess of harmful people that are more influential to the current condition than the beneficial people; (b) western success was as much a product of our thousands of years of eugenics, as it was our truth telling, traditional law of sovereigns, and preference for technology and magic we controlled, over supernaturalism and the occult that controlled us. (c) labor is other than yet another fungible resource, and organization of production takes all the risk and creates all the value – automation has made this painfully obvious over the past fifty years – and it’s escalating. Marx was recommending a repeat of the semitic dark ages, this time in pseudoscience instead of supernaturalism, that would expand the underclasses we sought so hard to gracefully reduce, and restore the communalism of the herd, which is the feminine cognitive bias, that appears to separate semitic from european thought, in metaphysical, preferable, intuitionistic, and argumentative methods, including the use of feminine means of conflcit: false promise, baiting into hazard, profiting from the hazard, plausible deniability as pretense of moral cover, using pilpul (sophism) critique(undermining), in a continuous effort to prevent dominant males from organizing a hierarchy, which would cause loyalty gains, asymmetrically more influential than feminine demands for consumption in exchange for sex, affection, and ingroup advocacy.
-
“The most obvious sophism in the above post, is : ‘Marxism advocates nothing lik
—“The most obvious sophism in the above post, is : ‘Marxism advocates nothing like uniform income’.”— Tutu
Not directly, but he presumes (a) people are relatively equal in value, or worse, that many people are not harmful to others by their mere existence; When it is the excess of harmful people that are more influential to the current condition than the beneficial people; (b) western success was as much a product of our thousands of years of eugenics, as it was our truth telling, traditional law of sovereigns, and preference for technology and magic we controlled, over supernaturalism and the occult that controlled us. (c) labor is other than yet another fungible resource, and organization of production takes all the risk and creates all the value – automation has made this painfully obvious over the past fifty years – and it’s escalating. Marx was recommending a repeat of the semitic dark ages, this time in pseudoscience instead of supernaturalism, that would expand the underclasses we sought so hard to gracefully reduce, and restore the communalism of the herd, which is the feminine cognitive bias, that appears to separate semitic from european thought, in metaphysical, preferable, intuitionistic, and argumentative methods, including the use of feminine means of conflcit: false promise, baiting into hazard, profiting from the hazard, plausible deniability as pretense of moral cover, using pilpul (sophism) critique(undermining), in a continuous effort to prevent dominant males from organizing a hierarchy, which would cause loyalty gains, asymmetrically more influential than feminine demands for consumption in exchange for sex, affection, and ingroup advocacy.
-
The Grammar people use tells you everything about their argument
The Grammar people use tells you everything about their argument https://t.co/kY5xPsKb1r
-
The Grammar people use tells you everything about their argument
I’ve noticed over time, that what grammar people use almost always tells you everything about their argument. And that if they’re using GSRRM, it’s collectivist,and if it’s scientific it’s cooperativist. And I think it might be better to say GSRRM=Parasitism, and Cooperativist=Balanced, and Fascist-Elmination of all parasitism
-
The Grammar people use tells you everything about their argument
I’ve noticed over time, that what grammar people use almost always tells you everything about their argument. And that if they’re using GSRRM, it’s collectivist,and if it’s scientific it’s cooperativist. And I think it might be better to say GSRRM=Parasitism, and Cooperativist=Balanced, and Fascist-Elmination of all parasitism
-
I Wouldn’t Know how To ‘Test’ Secret Society Membership
I Wouldn’t Know how To ‘Test’ Secret Society Membership. https://t.co/DXSVllsIho
-
I Wouldn’t Know how To ‘Test’ Secret Society Membership.
Oct 26, 2019, 12:08 PM
—“Does the P constitution support citizen legislatures by prohibiting lawyers, foreign nationals, and secret society membership? The original #13A”—Kurt King @KurtKurtking
Caution: P-Law only tests for reciprocity. P-law can be used to write any constitution whatever, for any polity, as long as it’s transparent. But, if you mean our proposed US constitution, its Prohibitions are: Lawyers, Govt., Immigrants under six generations, and Foreign Nationals; restores houses for the classes and genders; and requires demonstrated achievement in military, family, biz. I wouldn’t know how to ‘test’ secret society membership. I think all of it’s pretty much conspiracy theory – I mean religions? I would say instead that all organizations pursuing irreciprocity are by definition criminal, and criminals cannot sit The Jury of any House. There is very little reason for a federal legislature under P-law because we revert to european tradition wherein the Houses Juries but not majoritarian bodies. This means that anyone can propose a contract of the commons that does not violate the law, and then the houses (juries) vote whether to deny it. The selection of jurors of the houses is random, and so it’s impossible to use special interests to achieve your ends. Instead all contracts of the commons are subject to transparent public debate under which all statements thereof must be truthful and reciprocal and not in violation of the Law of reciprocity, or the constitution. This de-politicizes the country, and reduces people to either reading ‘proposals’ themselves, or using public intellectuals who are also limited to truthful reciprocal speech, to debate for and against different groups interests. ANy attempt to conspire between these intellectuals to deceive the public is also prosecutable. That means far better more talented smarter people will lead the public intellectual discourse. And even so, ‘parasites’ (liberals) will be prohibited from federal discourse if not all discourse. My preference is a return to monarchy, so that the process of forwarding ideas to the jury for decision is pre-filtered by the Cabinet, or the Cabinet is overridden by request of the people from the jury. However, that said, the federal government is devolved back to the original constitution as a provisioner of insurance of last resort limited to military, judicial, treasury, and insurance functions, and prohibited from interference in norms within the ‘states’. In other words he constitution restores the historical relationship between the catholic church as a juridical body between the states, and thes state as a local body, except using rule of law by P-law of reciprocity.
-
I Wouldn’t Know how To ‘Test’ Secret Society Membership.
Oct 26, 2019, 12:08 PM
—“Does the P constitution support citizen legislatures by prohibiting lawyers, foreign nationals, and secret society membership? The original #13A”—Kurt King @KurtKurtking
Caution: P-Law only tests for reciprocity. P-law can be used to write any constitution whatever, for any polity, as long as it’s transparent. But, if you mean our proposed US constitution, its Prohibitions are: Lawyers, Govt., Immigrants under six generations, and Foreign Nationals; restores houses for the classes and genders; and requires demonstrated achievement in military, family, biz. I wouldn’t know how to ‘test’ secret society membership. I think all of it’s pretty much conspiracy theory – I mean religions? I would say instead that all organizations pursuing irreciprocity are by definition criminal, and criminals cannot sit The Jury of any House. There is very little reason for a federal legislature under P-law because we revert to european tradition wherein the Houses Juries but not majoritarian bodies. This means that anyone can propose a contract of the commons that does not violate the law, and then the houses (juries) vote whether to deny it. The selection of jurors of the houses is random, and so it’s impossible to use special interests to achieve your ends. Instead all contracts of the commons are subject to transparent public debate under which all statements thereof must be truthful and reciprocal and not in violation of the Law of reciprocity, or the constitution. This de-politicizes the country, and reduces people to either reading ‘proposals’ themselves, or using public intellectuals who are also limited to truthful reciprocal speech, to debate for and against different groups interests. ANy attempt to conspire between these intellectuals to deceive the public is also prosecutable. That means far better more talented smarter people will lead the public intellectual discourse. And even so, ‘parasites’ (liberals) will be prohibited from federal discourse if not all discourse. My preference is a return to monarchy, so that the process of forwarding ideas to the jury for decision is pre-filtered by the Cabinet, or the Cabinet is overridden by request of the people from the jury. However, that said, the federal government is devolved back to the original constitution as a provisioner of insurance of last resort limited to military, judicial, treasury, and insurance functions, and prohibited from interference in norms within the ‘states’. In other words he constitution restores the historical relationship between the catholic church as a juridical body between the states, and thes state as a local body, except using rule of law by P-law of reciprocity.
-
We Have Less than Twelve Months (Until Oct 2020)
We Have Less than Twelve Months (Until Oct 2020) https://t.co/Wchf69V50S