—“Most professors outside of the very top tier don’t break the 120 -130 range (not bright enough to move the dial). I was fortunate to have an outstanding Harvard educated law school professor, however, who was both intelligent (plus 3.83-4 standard deviations) and erudite. His course on contemporary legal theory alerted me to the enemy’s 20th c. techniques (Gramscian long march, Fabian infiltration, Frankfort cultural critique, feminism, post-modernism, and unrestrained legal positivism). Thank you Professor Durham.”—Scott De Warren
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Other Reason for Academic Reform: Use Tech to Scale the Best, and Exit the Rest.
-
Defining Socialism for Yang
Defining Socialism for Yang https://t.co/hz6wDsBgab
-
Defining Socialism for Yang
—“Journalists who come to Des Moines tomorrow with an open mind will have those minds blown. #Yangapalooza secure the center secure the future”—@AndrewYang —“Its not socialist to tax big tech companies and give everyone a $1,00 a month. Everyone gets it, its pay for with technology. Its not socialist!”— @ironpatriot2016 —“Curt?”—
Rule of law = Sovereignty, Property(Demonstrated Interest), Reciprocity, Court,Testimony, Jury, Resulting in markets. Socialism = Borrowing by the state, to make investments by the state, in industries producible by the state, and the redistribution of earnings into the commons. Authoritarianism = Borrowing by individuals, Investment by individuals, in industries producible by individuals, producing returns for individuals, that is appropriated (stolen) by the state, and redistributed to non-borrowers, investors, producers. The principle means by which jews,christians,muslims, in the old world, and marxists, postmodernists, and feminists in the modern world, is to use words people don’t comprehend in operational terms, to conduct false promises by sophisms that do little but bait fools into hazard. Unfortunately there are a lot of fools to bait into hazard. Unfortunately we let them vote into a single house of representatives, creating rule by majority-of-fools best deceived by false promise. When if we had created houses for commoners, and women we could debate and trade. I would happily debate Andrew because I am not aware of anyone else living who understands issues of modernity as well as I do. Because some of his desire can be produced by moral rather than immoral means. But really, he’s not very smart he just says ‘free stuff!’ for attention. And fools come for the bait.
-
Defining Socialism for Yang
—“Journalists who come to Des Moines tomorrow with an open mind will have those minds blown. #Yangapalooza secure the center secure the future”—@AndrewYang —“Its not socialist to tax big tech companies and give everyone a $1,00 a month. Everyone gets it, its pay for with technology. Its not socialist!”— @ironpatriot2016 —“Curt?”—
Rule of law = Sovereignty, Property(Demonstrated Interest), Reciprocity, Court,Testimony, Jury, Resulting in markets. Socialism = Borrowing by the state, to make investments by the state, in industries producible by the state, and the redistribution of earnings into the commons. Authoritarianism = Borrowing by individuals, Investment by individuals, in industries producible by individuals, producing returns for individuals, that is appropriated (stolen) by the state, and redistributed to non-borrowers, investors, producers. The principle means by which jews,christians,muslims, in the old world, and marxists, postmodernists, and feminists in the modern world, is to use words people don’t comprehend in operational terms, to conduct false promises by sophisms that do little but bait fools into hazard. Unfortunately there are a lot of fools to bait into hazard. Unfortunately we let them vote into a single house of representatives, creating rule by majority-of-fools best deceived by false promise. When if we had created houses for commoners, and women we could debate and trade. I would happily debate Andrew because I am not aware of anyone else living who understands issues of modernity as well as I do. Because some of his desire can be produced by moral rather than immoral means. But really, he’s not very smart he just says ‘free stuff!’ for attention. And fools come for the bait.
-
Nov 1, 2019, 4:02 PM 1) If you can’t write the dialog you haven’t observed the c
Nov 1, 2019, 4:02 PM 1) If you can’t write the dialog you haven’t observed the category of people your character is a proxy for in similar circumstances. Go study people instead of reading books about it. Do your research. 2) If you can’t write the scene, you can’t role play your characters init, because you haven’t studied people like your characters. Most of the time your characters are talking (crap) is because you’re actually writing to yourself to convince yourself, because your scenes and your characters aren’t acting rationally in context, in furtherance of the plot, because you can’t empathize with them. (Most people write lower middle class characters in middle class conditions, with upper middle class resources, because that’s all the people they know, the contexts they find attractive, and the wealth making the condition possible. The classes think, speak, act very differently.) Do your research. 3) Dramatic tension is only possible for people who share concerns that would provide them with tension. What constitutes tension for gender, class and age varies. Status and self image is important at the bottom, wealth as you rise, but insults mean nothing, and power at the top because money is plentiful – but power is given to leaders they don’t ‘have’ it. It’s all loyalty alliances and opportunity with similar people who merely ‘shop’ for opportunities. Do your research. 4) Leave open mystery, have the characters react, rather than explain, and use mystery (the unknown, uncertainty)…. Do your research. If you did your research the story will come out of you. If you think you have ‘talent’ then you have failed before you put prose to print.
-
Nov 1, 2019, 4:02 PM 1) If you can’t write the dialog you haven’t observed the c
Nov 1, 2019, 4:02 PM 1) If you can’t write the dialog you haven’t observed the category of people your character is a proxy for in similar circumstances. Go study people instead of reading books about it. Do your research. 2) If you can’t write the scene, you can’t role play your characters init, because you haven’t studied people like your characters. Most of the time your characters are talking (crap) is because you’re actually writing to yourself to convince yourself, because your scenes and your characters aren’t acting rationally in context, in furtherance of the plot, because you can’t empathize with them. (Most people write lower middle class characters in middle class conditions, with upper middle class resources, because that’s all the people they know, the contexts they find attractive, and the wealth making the condition possible. The classes think, speak, act very differently.) Do your research. 3) Dramatic tension is only possible for people who share concerns that would provide them with tension. What constitutes tension for gender, class and age varies. Status and self image is important at the bottom, wealth as you rise, but insults mean nothing, and power at the top because money is plentiful – but power is given to leaders they don’t ‘have’ it. It’s all loyalty alliances and opportunity with similar people who merely ‘shop’ for opportunities. Do your research. 4) Leave open mystery, have the characters react, rather than explain, and use mystery (the unknown, uncertainty)…. Do your research. If you did your research the story will come out of you. If you think you have ‘talent’ then you have failed before you put prose to print.
-
“A republic will always end up run by an aristocracy or an oligarchy. In the cas
—“A republic will always end up run by an aristocracy or an oligarchy. In the case of the (originally) aristocratic republic of the US, incremental democratization (esp. after 1828), mass lower class immigration and democratic control of the popular media (industrialization of propaganda)was the means by which a largely foreign oligarchy was able to supplant the formerly ruling WASP aristocracy in the 20th c. to the detriment of us all.”—Scott De Warren
-
“A republic will always end up run by an aristocracy or an oligarchy. In the cas
—“A republic will always end up run by an aristocracy or an oligarchy. In the case of the (originally) aristocratic republic of the US, incremental democratization (esp. after 1828), mass lower class immigration and democratic control of the popular media (industrialization of propaganda)was the means by which a largely foreign oligarchy was able to supplant the formerly ruling WASP aristocracy in the 20th c. to the detriment of us all.”—Scott De Warren