Theme: Deception

  • The Erik Prince – Oliver North network is the smartest idea in decades. Market c

    The Erik Prince – Oliver North network is the smartest idea in decades. Market competition to contain the deep state and counter the fake news. @realDonaldTrump #Trump #NewRight #Libertarian #Conservative


    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-05 21:21:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/938156480422907904

  • The Erik Prince – Oliver North network is the smartest idea in decades. Market c

    The Erik Prince – Oliver North network is the smartest idea in decades. Market competition to contain the deep state and counter the fake news. @realDonaldTrump #Trump #NewRight #Libertarian #Conservative


    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-05 16:21:00 UTC

  • I realize I am not up on current events, but is it me, or has the “Russian Collu

    I realize I am not up on current events, but is it me, or has the “Russian Collusion” nonsense finally run its course? Because it looks dead to me. I mean, a totally legal conversation by flynn, and other totally legal conversations. And yet we are not investigating the clinton foundation… I mean, or are they waiting until this is over to go after the clinton foundation?
  • I realize I am not up on current events, but is it me, or has the “Russian Collu

    I realize I am not up on current events, but is it me, or has the “Russian Collusion” nonsense finally run its course? Because it looks dead to me. I mean, a totally legal conversation by flynn, and other totally legal conversations. And yet we are not investigating the clinton foundation… I mean, or are they waiting until this is over to go after the clinton foundation?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-04 16:09:00 UTC

  • I realize I am not up on current events, but is it me, or has the “Russian Collu

    I realize I am not up on current events, but is it me, or has the “Russian Collusion” nonsense finally run its course? Because it looks dead to me. I mean, a totally legal conversation by flynn, and other totally legal conversations. And yet we are not investigating the clinton foundation… I mean, or are they waiting until this is over to go after the clinton foundation?
  • The Technique – Insult, Repeat Central Argument, Exhaust.

    Nah. I don’t make argumentative fallacies. Whenever I think the other party is disingenuous or stupid I use Ad Hominems to increase their frustration and dampen their feeling of success, then restate the central argument, and repeat that process in response to every retort until the other party gives up. This allows me to construct an argument and appeal to the audience, rather than interact with the individual. It makes enemies that tend to leave you alone afterward as not being worth their trouble – which is the whole point. Meanwhile you’ve enlightened all the lurkers by using the useful idiot’s blathering as a promotional vehicle. I learned this technique back in the 80’s and i’ve maintained the zero-tolerance-policy and unforgiving retaliation since that time.
  • THE TECHNIQUE – INSULT, REPEAT CENTRAL ARGUMENT, EXHAUST. Nah. I don’t make argu

    THE TECHNIQUE – INSULT, REPEAT CENTRAL ARGUMENT, EXHAUST.

    Nah. I don’t make argumentative fallacies. Whenever I think the other party is disingenuous or stupid I use Ad Hominems to increase their frustration and dampen their feeling of success, then restate the central argument, and repeat that process in response to every retort until the other party gives up. This allows me to construct an argument and appeal to the audience, rather than interact with the individual. It makes enemies that tend to leave you alone afterward as not being worth their trouble – which is the whole point. Meanwhile you’ve enlightened all the lurkers by using the useful idiot’s blathering as a promotional vehicle. I learned this technique back in the 80’s and i’ve maintained the zero-tolerance-policy and unforgiving retaliation since that time.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-02 14:00:00 UTC

  • The Technique – Insult, Repeat Central Argument, Exhaust.

    Nah. I don’t make argumentative fallacies. Whenever I think the other party is disingenuous or stupid I use Ad Hominems to increase their frustration and dampen their feeling of success, then restate the central argument, and repeat that process in response to every retort until the other party gives up. This allows me to construct an argument and appeal to the audience, rather than interact with the individual. It makes enemies that tend to leave you alone afterward as not being worth their trouble – which is the whole point. Meanwhile you’ve enlightened all the lurkers by using the useful idiot’s blathering as a promotional vehicle. I learned this technique back in the 80’s and i’ve maintained the zero-tolerance-policy and unforgiving retaliation since that time.
  • It’s Never Been Capitalism Vs Socialism. That Was A Nonsense Game.

    The capitalism < — > socialism <—> communism debate has always been one framed by the jewish counter enlightenment. (It used to be referred to as ‘a jewish question’.) In the west, we have always held that the decision is only between rule of law under natural law which creates markets by necessity, or rule by arbitrary discretion which reduces markets by necessity. In history, in general, the natural nobility and aristocracy determined the use of taxes for the production of commons – in no small part because common people were often little more than semi-domesticated (superstitious) animals. The change from knights to riflemen, then from agrarianism to industrialism, altered the demand for influence over the commons such that far more people were participating in the market economy rather than the subsistence economy. and the emergent middle class wanted to direct proceeds to increasing markets, rather than territorial expansion of ‘aesthetic’ commons. Furthermore, once entered into the market common people were less and less ‘barely domesticated (superstitious) animals’. An american doesn’t really know what he is saying when he is dedicated to the constitution as if it is a sacred text, but he intuits it. And that is that western man – at least the aristocracy that until 1960 we all sought to aspire to imitate – has sought rule of law from which markets spread. And that commons should be produced by those contributing to its costs. And that the monarchy is welcome to spend its earnings as it wishes on commons or not. The ruling classes held more influence in french, less influence in german, and far less influence in english nations. And no one can rule the italians – even themselves. We reveled in the Italian aesthetic enlightenment. We all felt the vast shudder of the english enlightenment, more so the french counter-englightenment, more so the german counter enlightenment, and much more so the jewish counter enlightenment (marx, boas, freud), and its attempted fulfillment as the russian counter-enlightement (the USSR), – and since 1960’s the new French counter-enlightenment (postmodernism), and now the american left’s counter-enlightenment. Like all technologies, the counter enlightenment technologies all built upon one another, with outright lying (postmodernism) the replacement for supernatural lying. So. I argue, often, and for six to eight years now, that each people and each class of people requires an economic system suitable to their abilities. And that what we call a ‘mixed’ economy would be better termed a ‘hierarchical’ economy. Where just as in the past(present) we had(have) wild beasts (prisoners), slaves (soldiers), serfs(the majority of the underclasses), freemen (the majority laboring and working classes), citizens (the entrepreneurial and financial classes), Priests (the state, academy, media complex), Nobility (those few hundred very persistently wealthy inter-generational families) and Aristocracy (those few inter generational families that consistently produce warriors for the military). So I don’t see much in the 18th-21st century that tells me anything other than a series of attempts to impose a MONOPOLY economy of false equality on a hierarchy of people with different abilities each requiring a different economy to participate in. SO the future, in my mind, will consist, as it always has consisted, of a hierarchy of economies, that suit the needs of peoples. Will capitalism play out? Capitalism as we mean it, requires a mean of the distribution of talents above 105, if not above 110. Until we can cull enough of the lower classes again, so that the capitalist classes can carry the underclasses and the working classes, then I do not see how capitalism as we mean it (as that jewish extreme) can survive. However, i do see consumer capitalism remaining the dominant force in human affairs until we see some large enough leap in technology that a small number can organize the provision of consumption for all the rest. And if that happens we will return to slavery not liberty.
  • IT’S NEVER BEEN CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM. THAT WAS A NONSENSE GAME. The capitalis

    IT’S NEVER BEEN CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM. THAT WAS A NONSENSE GAME.

    The capitalism < — > socialism <—> communism debate has always been one framed by the jewish counter enlightenment. (It used to be referred to as ‘a jewish question’.)

    In the west, we have always held that the decision is only between rule of law under natural law which creates markets by necessity, or rule by arbitrary discretion which reduces markets by necessity.

    In history, in general, the natural nobility and aristocracy determined the use of taxes for the production of commons – in no small part because common people were often little more than semi-domesticated (superstitious) animals.

    The change from knights to riflemen, then from agrarianism to industrialism, altered the demand for influence over the commons such that far more people were participating in the market economy rather than the subsistence economy. and the emergent middle class wanted to direct proceeds to increasing markets, rather than territorial expansion of ‘aesthetic’ commons. Furthermore, once entered into the market common people were less and less ‘barely domesticated (superstitious) animals’.

    An american doesn’t really know what he is saying when he is dedicated to the constitution as if it is a sacred text, but he intuits it. And that is that western man – at least the aristocracy that until 1960 we all sought to aspire to imitate – has sought rule of law from which markets spread. And that commons should be produced by those contributing to its costs. And that the monarchy is welcome to spend its earnings as it wishes on commons or not. The ruling classes held more influence in french, less influence in german, and far less influence in english nations. And no one can rule the italians – even themselves.

    We reveled in the Italian aesthetic enlightenment. We all felt the vast shudder of the english enlightenment, more so the french counter-englightenment, more so the german counter enlightenment, and much more so the jewish counter enlightenment (marx, boas, freud), and its attempted fulfillment as the russian counter-enlightement (the USSR), – and since 1960’s the new French counter-enlightenment (postmodernism), and now the american left’s counter-enlightenment.

    Like all technologies, the counter enlightenment technologies all built upon one another, with outright lying (postmodernism) the replacement for supernatural lying.

    So. I argue, often, and for six to eight years now, that each people and each class of people requires an economic system suitable to their abilities. And that what we call a ‘mixed’ economy would be better termed a ‘hierarchical’ economy. Where just as in the past(present) we had(have) wild beasts (prisoners), slaves (soldiers), serfs(the majority of the underclasses), freemen (the majority laboring and working classes), citizens (the entrepreneurial and financial classes), Priests (the state, academy, media complex), Nobility (those few hundred very persistently wealthy inter-generational families) and Aristocracy (those few inter generational families that consistently produce warriors for the military).

    So I don’t see much in the 18th-21st century that tells me anything other than a series of attempts to impose a MONOPOLY economy of false equality on a hierarchy of people with different abilities each requiring a different economy to participate in.

    SO the future, in my mind, will consist, as it always has consisted, of a hierarchy of economies, that suit the needs of peoples.

    Will capitalism play out? Capitalism as we mean it, requires a mean of the distribution of talents above 105, if not above 110. Until we can cull enough of the lower classes again, so that the capitalist classes can carry the underclasses and the working classes, then I do not see how capitalism as we mean it (as that jewish extreme) can survive. However, i do see consumer capitalism remaining the dominant force in human affairs until we see some large enough leap in technology that a small number can organize the provision of consumption for all the rest. And if that happens we will return to slavery not liberty.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-02 13:42:00 UTC