Eli Harman
June 14, 2017 ·
Christians call it “testifying” because it sounds better than “lying.” But words actually mean things. And properly speaking one can only “testify” about what is in one’s personal, first hand, knowledge, which never includes stories about life after death and rarely includes those about supposed events, miraculous or mundane, thousands of years ago. Conflating storytelling with testimony is just lying about testifying, and probably lying about the contents of those stories as well.
If one says “I believe that virtue in this life will be rewarded in another, in these particular ways” then one is simply testifying about the *beliefs* that motivate ones actions
But if one says, as if it is a matter of fact, “Virtue in this life is rewarded in another, and in these particular ways” then one is simply conflating theory with fact.
There is no problem with ADOPTING a theory and using it, with or without evidence, as long as the facts available do not contradict it (and sometimes even if they do.) But passing it off as fact, when it is not fact, is to make more of it than one honestly may.
Theme: Deception
-
The Lies of The Enlightenments
–“[we suffer from] ideological weakness”— Actually It’s classical liberal dishonesty combined with malincentives of global empire. There is no possibility of an aristocracy of everyone, nor are we in any way equal. That was just a ruse to sieze power from the landed aristocracy the same way the marxists/socialist/postmodernists have used similar arguments to undermine America – via women’s inclusion in the voting booth. The lie of the bourgeoise society – the theft of aristocratic civilization by classical liberal (middle class) ruse, the way it’s been stolen by the radical (underclass/academic) ruse by claiming oppression. That lie is what begins it all. There is no such thing as bourgeoise civlization other than the tents of diasporic trade route travelers and pirates, hawking goods in bazaars without liability of warranty. Aristocracy = Sovereignty. Aristocratic Egalitarians: those who will carry the burden of reciprocal insurance (sovereignty and reciprocity) may join the aristocracy.
-
The Lies of The Enlightenments
–“[we suffer from] ideological weakness”— Actually It’s classical liberal dishonesty combined with malincentives of global empire. There is no possibility of an aristocracy of everyone, nor are we in any way equal. That was just a ruse to sieze power from the landed aristocracy the same way the marxists/socialist/postmodernists have used similar arguments to undermine America – via women’s inclusion in the voting booth. The lie of the bourgeoise society – the theft of aristocratic civilization by classical liberal (middle class) ruse, the way it’s been stolen by the radical (underclass/academic) ruse by claiming oppression. That lie is what begins it all. There is no such thing as bourgeoise civlization other than the tents of diasporic trade route travelers and pirates, hawking goods in bazaars without liability of warranty. Aristocracy = Sovereignty. Aristocratic Egalitarians: those who will carry the burden of reciprocal insurance (sovereignty and reciprocity) may join the aristocracy.
-
VETTING YOUR FRIENDS LIST FROM FB GHOST ACCOUNTS (Facebook as well as leftwing a
VETTING YOUR FRIENDS LIST FROM FB GHOST ACCOUNTS
(Facebook as well as leftwing activists are creating fake accounts to monitor you with. Talk about dishonest spying…)
—“I’m sure a few others can attest to this. I’m at a point now where I must vet my friend list. An new profile type has emerged which appears along side the normal honey pot and troll accounts.
I’m not going to detail it but it seems to be accounts geared to look friendly but are obviously fake. Ive concluded they are accounts set up to monitor activity.
Most likely, these are the accounts which get you banned. They don’t post or participate but watch, record and report. I call them ghost accounts.”— Bill Joslin
—“Correct. they are house accounts set up to monitor activity in the hope of banning.”— Curt
—“Spot on Bill, I think I’ve seen the same thing a few times over the last months – and we know who is behind it and what it’s for.”—Thorsten Stuart Norgate
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-16 14:50:00 UTC
-
LETS NOTE THAT (((THEY))) ARE THE AUTHORITARIANS. AND THAT THIS PSEUDOSCIENCE WA
LETS NOTE THAT (((THEY))) ARE THE AUTHORITARIANS. AND THAT THIS PSEUDOSCIENCE WAS PROJECTION.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-15 01:35:00 UTC
-
Eli Harman June 14, 2017 · Christians call it “testifying” because it sounds bet
Eli Harman
June 14, 2017 ·
Christians call it “testifying” because it sounds better than “lying.” But words actually mean things. And properly speaking one can only “testify” about what is in one’s personal, first hand, knowledge, which never includes stories about life after death and rarely includes those about supposed events, miraculous or mundane, thousands of years ago. Conflating storytelling with testimony is just lying about testifying, and probably lying about the contents of those stories as well.
If one says “I believe that virtue in this life will be rewarded in another, in these particular ways” then one is simply testifying about the *beliefs* that motivate ones actions
But if one says, as if it is a matter of fact, “Virtue in this life is rewarded in another, and in these particular ways” then one is simply conflating theory with fact.
There is no problem with ADOPTING a theory and using it, with or without evidence, as long as the facts available do not contradict it (and sometimes even if they do.) But passing it off as fact, when it is not fact, is to make more of it than one honestly may.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-14 21:26:00 UTC
-
SOPHISMS: WILL TO POWER AND NON AGGRESSION The will to power and the non aggress
SOPHISMS: WILL TO POWER AND NON AGGRESSION
The will to power and the non aggression principle, are both incomplete sentences for a reason: to sound profound without actually being profound. The will to power of or over what? Non aggression against what? Unless you answer those questions both propositions are just sophisms. They require substitution on the part of the individual. And as such tell us nothing other than whatever it is we already presume.
AGENCY, SOVEREIGNTY, AUTONOMY, …. with what resources?
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-13 11:49:00 UTC
-
“In short, Adams says Trump is a “master persuader” and that his style involves
—“In short, Adams says Trump is a “master persuader” and that his style involves making exaggerated claims, fewer facts, and triggering a reciprocity response from the other to fill those gaps at their expense.”—Andrew Clayton
Yep.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-12 20:27:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1006634205932130304
-
“In short, Adams says Trump is a “master persuader” and that his style involves
—“In short, Adams says Trump is a “master persuader” and that his style involves making exaggerated claims, fewer facts, and triggering a reciprocity response from the other to fill those gaps at their expense.”—Andrew Clayton
Yep.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-12 16:27:00 UTC
-
THE ORIGIN OF TRUMP’S NEGOTIATING STRATEGY: COLD WAR HOSTILE NEGOTIATIONS Again,
THE ORIGIN OF TRUMP’S NEGOTIATING STRATEGY: COLD WAR HOSTILE NEGOTIATIONS
Again, Trump takes the WORST POSSIBLE NUMBER and states it, thereby FORCING THE PRESSS TO CORRECT HIM, and as a consequence USING THE PRESS to promote his agenda.
Trump plays the press like a fiddle.
He did this same strategy all through the campaign and has continued it all through his presidency, and he owns the dialog because of it.
He knows exactly what he is doing which is why he is such an amazing hostile negotiator. He always forces the other side to own the facts, and in doing so explain their position.
I mean, you can actually study these techniques (I have) but he’s a master of them.
If you study how cold war intelligence organizations conducted hostile negotiations, that’s where trump took his lessons.
Read how Arafat negotiated. Hostile. Brilliant.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-11 22:20:00 UTC