Theme: Class

  • Games are escapism. That’s the equivalent asking for faith to be taken out of re

    Games are escapism. That’s the equivalent asking for faith to be taken out of religion, or class warfare to be taken out of politics.

    The commons (public), the involuntarily private (broadcast), the private (computer games, the living room, the bedroom, your fantasies.)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 20:17:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251605824130224128

    Reply addressees: @buldursgait @DeguTanya @BepDelta @Dark_TossEX @MarfamSilva @paxchristus0 @ReadLinkola

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251604788275564545

  • “Marxism is the tooth fairy of political beliefs. You can’t make a credible clai

    —“Marxism is the tooth fairy of political beliefs. You can’t make a credible claim to being an adult and still believe in that nonsense.”–Noah J Revoy

    —“Surplus value cannot exist. It’s the greatest lie to ever ensnare humans.”—Andrew M Gilmour

    —“Even if something like surplus value hypothetically could exist, I think the more important point is that there is no way of verifying or falsifying such a claim. He just insists that it does exist and that it can be calculated in terms of socially necessary labor time per hour. He’s just describing the attributes of a mythical tooth fairy without providing any way of verifying it.”—Predmetsky Rosenborg

    The question is this, why should I, having collected the savings fo dozens of families, invest in more than one companies, when only one will turn a profit, without expecting a return from the one company, that will profit enough to invest in any company, despite all but one losing money?

    Or more differently, given that all industrial capitalization, organization, marketing, sales, production, and receipt of payment is speculative, would the common laborers equally risk their income by investing labor and then waiting to see if the income would be returned?


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 14:54:00 UTC

  • I DON”T SPEND TIME REFUTING MARXISM. BUT IT”S TRIVIALLY EASY —“Is there an art

    I DON”T SPEND TIME REFUTING MARXISM. BUT IT”S TRIVIALLY EASY

    —“Is there an article in which you relate these claims to the specific Marxist tenets, like surplus value, the labor theory of value, historical materialism, alienated labour, and so on? … I noticed you didn’t mention any of these in your comment here, so I’m not sure we’re really talking about the same thing.​”—Morus Alba

    It is not necessary to refute marx since it’s been done for decades. Just the fallacy of the labor theory of value eradicates most of the work; the claim on profits without claim on risk and loss; the claim that the primary beneficiary of industrialization is not the working classes and the poor; the claim of equality and oppression rather than natural sortition by genetic ability individual and family; the claim of society as corporal over family and polity for family; the claim of oppression rather than continuation of natural selection; The means of argument and it’s monopoly proposition to undermine trifuncationalism, markets, and rule of law.

    I mean, I don’t think I need to do anything other than state correctly that it’s a pseudoscientific authoritarian religion that repeats the false promise of the supernatural authoritarian religion of judaism, christianity, and islam and sold to the poor in the modern world as freedom from physical law, just as freedom from physical law was sold to the underclases in the ancient world – and that gave us the dark ages of ignorance by judaism, christianity, and islam.

    That’s why we don’t teach marx in economics, only non-science.

    So if you want me to refute a given marxist proposition I will because it’s trivially easy. If you want me to refute ashkenazi capitalism I’ll refute that just as easily. If you want me to refute neoconservatism I’ll do that easily. If you want me to refute postmodernism or feminism I’ll do those just as easily.

    My goal of course is to expand the law so that false promise of freedom from physical, natural and evolutionary law, by baiting people into hazard is as illegal in political fraud as the same strategy is in commercial fraud.

    So most of my work is in exposing the strategy of abrahamic deception – which is as sophisticated a means of deceit as aristotelianism is a means of truth production – and writing laws that not only reverse it’s harms, but which prevent its future use … thereby restoring us to trifuncationalism, sovereignty, reciprocity, the natural law and jury, and markets in all aspects of life, including the suppression of the reproduction of the unproductive classes so that they do not return man to middle eastern ignorance and poverty as did christianity and islam, nor tolerate survival by parasitism as we have seen with judaism’s profiting from baiting host peoples into hazard with tax collection, usury, gambling, prostitution, drug and alcohol sales on credit, organized crime. propaganda, and rent seeking.

    BY ANALOGY

    We humans are just monkeys running software with more memory and cpu power.

    I’m removing ‘memory leak’ from the human software. And law ist he means by which we program humans via negativa, without needing to program them via-positiva, and therefore leaving them open to competition in adversarial markets continuing our rapid evolution during this brief geological respite between crisis that threaten mankind.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 13:37:00 UTC

  • QUESTION– Curt; in the paragraph: —Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), p

    –QUESTION–

    Curt; in the paragraph:

    —Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denialism, are all attempts at deception by: (a) claiming european self determination (sovereignty, reciprocity), tripartism (military, legal-commercial), and religious(family-faithful), mediated by law, and limiting us to markets, so that we preserve natural selection by demonstrated behavior, and devoting the proceeds to the production of commons, thereby maintaining the health,prosperity, and wealth of the people, and their competitive advantage is oppression, when all other peoples that did not do so were mired in poverty and suffering.’—

    Here, under (a), it says that Marxism is an attempt at deception by claiming European self-determination, tripartism and religious… (etc)

    Should that not read ‘undermining’, rather than claiming. They don’t claim those things, they undermine them.

    I don’t know if I’m missing something, here?

    It also says their competitive advantage is oppression? Technically aren’t the competitive advantages of the left AND right oppression? The left oppress the objectively strong, the right suppress (oppress) the objectively weak.

    I just want a little clarification here, that’s all. Thanks.

    –RESPONSE–

    Well you know, i) i write long complex sentences, including parentheticals and series, ii) I leave out what I consider extra words. And, that’s sometimes a burden. This comes from writing programming code, and it’s the combination of law, economics, programming, and the foundations of mathematics that let me develop P-law. So there is a high correlation between my sentence structure and programming code. In the four paragraphs below I’ve broken up the single paragraph into its constituent phrases and added back what I consider unnecessary terms in brackets [ ], resulting in

    “…Claiming that (all this stuff) is oppression (by these people).”

    “{(a) claiming [that] }



    {european self determination (sovereignty, reciprocity), tripartism (military, legal-commercial), and religious(family-faithful), mediated by law, [that limits] us to markets, so that we preserve natural selection [ in markets that existed before them,] by individually demonstrated behavior, }



    {and devoting the proceeds [of surpluses] to the production of commons, [instead of funding reproduction of additional non-contributors] thereby maintaining the health,prosperity, and wealth of the people [who are contributors], and their competitive advantage [against competing peoples]}



    {is oppression [by the middle and ruling classes], when all other peoples that did not do so [preserve natural selection using markets] were mired in poverty and suffering.}’”

    in other words, productivity must stay ahead of reproduction.

    What I could have said is that:

    “Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denialism, are all attempts at deception by: (a) claiming they’re oppressed by ….”

    Or some variation thereof.

    -Cheers

    —“Right wing – ensure productivity outpaces reproductivity, ensuring prosperity. Left wing – ensure reproductivity outpaces productivity, ensuring poverty (demand for redistribution).”—Scott De Warren


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 12:34:00 UTC

  • ROVING LIBERAL PARASITES —“Voters drain the liberal states they live in then m

    ROVING LIBERAL PARASITES

    —“Voters drain the liberal states they live in then move the more conservative States and drain those dates and move again roaming parasites.”—Corey Ihler


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-17 07:18:00 UTC

  • Our culture rewards status achievement by heroism at the cost of superiors, wher

    Our culture rewards status achievement by heroism at the cost of superiors, where sticking out is not generally tolerated elsewhere.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-17 02:07:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250969190875435009

    Reply addressees: @TruthRespecter @readomain @MattPirkowski @ThruTheHayes

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250952724990119949

  • “CURT WHAT ABOUT SOCIALISM” Define how you use the term socialism. I’m assuming

    “CURT WHAT ABOUT SOCIALISM”

    Define how you use the term socialism. I’m assuming you mean european socialism (french-german) not jewish socialism (jewish russian).

    Socialism means state control of the means of production.

    Mixed economy means using the borrowing power of the state to strategically finance what the private sector cannot or will not.

    My opinion is the same as most major economists – that the state does not capture the proceeds of those investments and return them to the common people.

    My opinion is that we should finance repatriation of all non-trivial industry AND automate the heck out of it, and that the state should take non-voting interest in these companies and demand dividends as income for the people.

    My opinion is that the financial sector is predatory and that consumer credit should be purely statistical and direct from the treasury eliminating all rent seeking from the financial sector.

    My opinion is that liquidity necessary to generate demand should not be distributed to the financial sector for credit multipliers, but as cash distribution directly to citizens that business and finance compete for.

    My opinion is that education is largely wasted income other than the high end stem fields, and that all other schooling takes one year to two years non-resident at most.

    My opinion is that teaching and research staffs should be separate corporations with separate controls, and that phd and research programs should be well funded and largely state funded.

    My opinion is that the military used to fund basic research, and that presently, basic research must be faked under medical or non-military, when in general the state should treat investment in research as a venture capitalists, seeking returns for the polity in longer time horizons than other peoples.

    My opinion is that the best education in the world should be offered to all citizens from the best educators in the world, and that this should be a continuous process, and it should cost almost nothing (200 per course or something)

    My opinion is that if universities admit students that if the student doesn’t compete two years or transfer the university eats the money. And that the university carries the loan entirely, even if the loan is borrow by the university from the government.

    My opinion is that if we did this we’d be back to one income households just fine.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-16 22:32:00 UTC

  • I don’t know where you are coming up with this but aristocracy is just the tradi

    I don’t know where you are coming up with this but aristocracy is just the traditional word for meritocracy.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-14 21:08:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250169059368460294

    Reply addressees: @jim_rutt @_Indirection

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250164665709137920

  • we are aristocracy. but we seem to be unwilling to fight hard enough to rule. I’

    we are aristocracy. but we seem to be unwilling to fight hard enough to rule.

    I’m willing. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-14 17:16:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250110695347310592

    Reply addressees: @jim_rutt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250090378130329600

  • if we were over domesticated there wouldn’t be an underclass or ‘external underc

    if we were over domesticated there wouldn’t be an underclass or ‘external underclasses’ especially when ‘libertarians ‘ (commons communists) advocate for open borders.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-14 15:48:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250088481839341568

    Reply addressees: @jim_rutt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250087743234945031