—“Globalist agenda is disguised as solution to’ colonizer guilt ‘ an equalizer, to pay penance for ancestors atrocities ,guilt by association is the White Mans albatross ,one that’s psychologically reinforced by not fighting the accusers for fear of appearing indeed racist”—Lezlee Dutton
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-16 09:54:00 UTC
The boomers were ((())) seduced and they are the ‘sucker’ generation.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-15 13:40:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1106550727391014926
—“The boomers are easily the single worst generation in US history”–Stephen Thomas
Because they were most affected by our ancient enemy.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-15 12:59:00 UTC
The boomers were ((())) seduced and they are the ‘sucker’ generation. The postwar heroic myth did them in.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-15 09:40:00 UTC
^I can only speak comfortably with James about christianity because he doesn’t try to weasel me into any position. Most of the time, when christians get me into a discourse they try to make me justify a falsehood. this forces me to retaliate. And I don’t like it. Because I have to attack the faith and that’s not constructive.
I have a very simple principle: faith is faith, and science is science. In a dispute between faith and science it is science. However, science has nothing to say about faith. Principally because that which drives our faith may be scientifically EXPLICABLE, but it’s not scientifically SATISFIABLE. This is very similar to the mind body problem or the memory experience problem. That is, that there is a great deal of difference between explaining the physics of why we have the experiences we do, and the experience and result of that physics. I don’t find this hard to understand but apparently this is hard for most people to understand.
This is why I was searching through the online christian leadership – because there aren’t any ‘great thinkers’ out there trying to solve ‘our problem’ which includes the problem of our faith post-darwin and einstein. Most are living in the past but not living in their faith. We must evolve our faith. Evolve it into a militant defensive faith. not one that is dependent upon a pagan aristocracy of arms and armor to provide it with survival.
I want to restore a militant christianity just as the viking invasions restored a militant christianity, before which europe could not defend herself given the celtic holocaust, the germanic migrations to fill the vacuum, and the roman collapse and germanic and arab migrations to fill the vacuum.
It may be that the west must always have pagan aristocracy and christian priesthood, and a commercial nobility in constant competition in order not to fall into the failings of each.
The law is the vehicle. The natural law is compatible with christianity. The question is only whether christians will fight, or if this fight is in the hands of a few pagans who must once again save christianity from islamic and jewish conquest.
If christians will fight then they are allies of our people. If they will not, then they are allies of our enemy and only pagans and heathens allies of our people.
Only those who fight matter.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-14 18:54:00 UTC
One day at a time we defeat the postmodern as we did the marxist, as we did the jewish(christian).
But what a horrid price we pay for defeating the great lies of mysticism, pseudoscience and sophism.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-14 17:32:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1106246806143262720
GET OVER THE NAP. IT MEANS YOU’RE A USEFUL IDIOT
No. NAP looks like another semitic (abrahamic, marxist, libertarian, postmodern) pretense to reciprocity and rule of law, that (a) does not require reciprocity be earned, (b) retains the semitic means of deceit by fraud by omission enabling blackmail, enabling conspiracy, (c) (d) continuing the semitic method of baiting well meaning fools into hazard thru piplup and deceit.
NAP is to Reciprocity as Labor Theory of Value is to Subjective Value, and as money proper is to money substitutes – it’s another fraud.
Other things may look like reciprocity. But they are not. They are all substitutes for reciprocity because they are means of circumventing reciprocity. So since they are all worse than reciprocity, one must answer the question why one seeks something less than reciprocity, and as such why one seeks to preserve means of irreciprocity.
I mean, we know why our ancient enemy wants to preserve irreciprocity – to preserve parasitism upon the productive people.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-14 16:44:00 UTC
One day at a time we defeat the postmodern as we did the marxist, as we did the jewish(christian).
But what a horrid price we pay for defeating the great lies of mysticism, pseudoscience and sophism.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-14 13:32:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53792641_10157048081242264_801758054998605824_o_10157048081232264.jpg I need to make one of these for deceitsI need to make one of these for deceits
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-14 12:28:00 UTC
i say that there is only one metaphysics but many fictions. And therefore the use of fictions is not in fact metaphysical.
And as such people who claim otherwise are engaged in fraud.
As far as i know the physical, cognitive, and linguistic sciences explain every concept metaphysicians claim in their purview.
As far as time an causality these are subjects sophomorically conflated but causality exists, but like all else reduced to speech can never be complete, only necessary sufficient and contingent.
The same for time : which time are we talking about? What makes the change in state possible, the rate of change vary, and our memory of passage vary, and our perception of the rate of change vary? all of these answers we know. zeno was a bit of a sophist.
My current understanding is that there exists nothing that cannot be explained scientifically. and thats certainly going to hold.
A scientific explanation is not the same as the experience we describe with that science – this is true. If we want a separate aesthetic language for the experience that is commensurable with the scientific then that is fine. if we want to discuss the different fictions that different groups operate under thats still one metaphysics and many fiction that allow people to conceive of that beyond their direct perception then that is a vehicle for hypothesizing by analogy.
I am pretty certain i can produce a proof of construction that is so parsimonious it will survive all criticism. there is nothing left that i know of other than the relationship between personality traits and reward systems and i think others know this. But one cannot work on artificial intelligence
My reductionist approach requires operational language under the argument that if you cannot do so you cannot claim that you know of what you speak, and that therefore cannot make a truth claim, because you cannot claim to testify what you cannot operationally describe. and even then you may not and likely may not infer anything from you explanation.
There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. that paradigm cannot be expressed as other than analogy to operational experience without the introduction of fiction. the narrative requires categories to limit sequential prose to that which is possible for human minds. all such paradigms worldwide are converging on the scientific (scientific naturalism small number of consisten universal rules).
I mean. until you find a set of case that are not open to natural explanation anything anyone says about metaphysics is just nonsense.
AFAIK philosophy is currently relegated to choice of preference or good an the rest is science. And i cant find an exception to that rule.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-09 18:41:00 UTC