Correct. The state manipulates the media, and the media advances and manipulates the state.
Without our ability to use the courts in defense of the informational commons we are powerless to stop the industrialization of lying.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-16 17:39:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239607161434472453
Reply addressees: @RickyBobby_USA @JohnMarkSays
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239605386979749890
Our solution unites Science with Law in defense of the informational commons, regardless of who testifies (speaks), and the manner in which he speaks (spoken, written, media) – and what he testifies to, when in public to the public about matters public.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-16 17:14:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239601000568291328
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239600997271506944
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
Philosophy considers lying an act of intention. The Law considers lying (or any irreciprocity) a failure of due diligence regardless of intention. Science differs from Law only in Science’s defense of the informational commons from false testimony by scientists.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1239600997271506944
(And what are you talking about? The USA gets NOTHING back from europe. We pay for world finance, transport and trade, and they free-ride on it; Europeans created the euro to stop our taxing them for defense with petro-dollars; France is our enemy at every possible opportunity.)
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-15 18:34:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239258793684451328
Reply addressees: @KalleBoris @StefanMolyneux
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239257346842537984
Hereditary monarchies eliminate the tragedy of the commons, and the problem of participatory government is tragedy of the commons. The competition between monarchy and participatory government prevents both privatization and tragedy of the commons.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-09 01:56:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1236833080272437248
Hereditary monarchies eliminate the tragedy of the commons, and the problem of participatory government is tragedy of the commons. The competition between monarchy and participatory government prevents both privatization and tragedy of the commons.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-09 01:55:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1236832993500684289
Reply addressees: @EricLiford
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1236832620559962113
It is possible to update our laws to prohibit unwarranted speech, false promise, baiting into hazard, and undermining of the commons.
Most of my (our) work has been directed to developing amendments to the constitution that prohibit the jewish methods of warfare from within.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-27 16:42:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233070022639177729
Reply addressees: @ToneUnknown
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233069810948460549
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@ToneUnknown They have chosen anti-darwinian sophistry pseudoscience and outright lying in order to rally those under darwinian pressure against our darwinian civilization – that has dragged mankind in the ancient and modern worlds out of ignorance, poverty, starvation, and disease.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1233069810948460549
Jews compete with the female means of parasitism on the commons of male hosts, by specializing in baiting into hazard, using the Abrahamic method of deceit baiting into hazard by false promise, pilpul (sophistry),and critique (undermining). They are hostile to every host.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-27 16:38:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233068974423838720
Reply addressees: @ToneUnknown
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233068196464381952
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@ToneUnknown I don’t reduce deep and complex sets of ideas into trivial essences that can be misinterpreted or misrepresented.
All it does is make more work for me. So you have to spend the time to learn the argument posted and not distill it down to some grade school triviality.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1233068196464381952
[T]echnically speaking, market demand for the production of a commons(institution) that creates natural rights of appeal for defense before an insurer of some sort (court), demonstrably exist. The market demand exists. Sure. Like any commons, markets succeed or fail at producing them. As far as I know, the only natural right that is possible is reciprocal insurance of sovereignty against trespass(imposition of costs upon our demonstrated interests), in life(mind, body, family), liberty (privacy, movement, action, word, display, association, cooperation, production), estate (demonstrated interest, several property, share property, common property, capital), and defense (security, of life, liberty, estate). So Natural Rights: “Reciprocity in Sovereignty, Life, Liberty, Property, and Defense” created by “An insurer to whom one can appeal for restitution, prevention, punishment of offenders.” Lock didn’t get it right unfortunately. We can further enumerate each of these rights in order to prevent others from attempts to usurp them through sophistry and deceit. The declaration of human rights contains a lot of nonsense like ‘dignity’, mostly duplication, and at the end, impossible aspirations that cannot be construed as rights,
[T]echnically speaking, market demand for the production of a commons(institution) that creates natural rights of appeal for defense before an insurer of some sort (court), demonstrably exist. The market demand exists. Sure. Like any commons, markets succeed or fail at producing them. As far as I know, the only natural right that is possible is reciprocal insurance of sovereignty against trespass(imposition of costs upon our demonstrated interests), in life(mind, body, family), liberty (privacy, movement, action, word, display, association, cooperation, production), estate (demonstrated interest, several property, share property, common property, capital), and defense (security, of life, liberty, estate). So Natural Rights: “Reciprocity in Sovereignty, Life, Liberty, Property, and Defense” created by “An insurer to whom one can appeal for restitution, prevention, punishment of offenders.” Lock didn’t get it right unfortunately. We can further enumerate each of these rights in order to prevent others from attempts to usurp them through sophistry and deceit. The declaration of human rights contains a lot of nonsense like ‘dignity’, mostly duplication, and at the end, impossible aspirations that cannot be construed as rights,
MONOGAMY AS COMPETITIVE NORMATIVE COMMONS
by Alain Dwight
Sex transactions outside of monogamous, familial structures can constitute a damage against monogamy, stable families, and investment in children as social norms, which is the optimum strategy for some groups.
Arguably, it’s the best overall strategy since the groups who have done this, have become the dominant force on the planet – and to the degree that status is challenged, we are slipping into a dark age.
It’s still possible other strategies could work. In any case, imposing a cost on normative commons will be met with retaliation, our choice is if that retaliation is at a disorganized street level or in an organized institutional level. I suggest both, as I prefer to have people bear their own costs as opposed to free riding on commons that they choose to undermine.
These normative commons provide such a competitive advantage that it’s questionable if any groups that fail to offer sufficient defense/retaliation will even continue to exist or forward any of their values they claim to champion.
It might be worth it to allow some elite members to operate outside monogamy but without maintaining monogamy as a norm, competitive advantage is often or always compromised.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 11:35:00 UTC