Apr 3, 2020, 10:46 AM By Daniel Roland Anderson If you ever want to understand Natural Law, this is a critical principle. If you have not performed Due Diligence, and you serve as a conduit for falsehood, you are “lying” under the P definition of lying. So sometimes when we call you liar, we aren’t saying you are wicked. It could be you are simply . . . simple.
Theme: Reciprocity
-
Reverse Accusations of Gsrrm
Apr 5, 2020, 11:34 AM GSRRM must be used to avoid an argument by substituting disapproval for truth. Shaming is necessary and warranted demand for restitution by suppression of the crime of avoiding an argument by substitution of disapproval.
—“Doolittle: “do as I say not as I do”—Tamzin Millikan @MillikanTamzin
Shaming for disapproval to avoid the argument, falsehood, irreciprocity, and failure of due diligence, is a demand for restitution, under test of reciprocity. The opposite is not. Learn the law. You will be better for it. Me: “Speak to the audience in a compromise grammar.” So: (a) I’m speaking to the audience in a compromise grammar (market). (b) You are disapproving without doing due diligence (assuming you understand and not asking why I’m doing so),(c) counter-signaling my shaming of your for failure of due diligence. Learn the law. End error.
-
Reverse Accusations of Gsrrm
Apr 5, 2020, 11:34 AM GSRRM must be used to avoid an argument by substituting disapproval for truth. Shaming is necessary and warranted demand for restitution by suppression of the crime of avoiding an argument by substitution of disapproval.
—“Doolittle: “do as I say not as I do”—Tamzin Millikan @MillikanTamzin
Shaming for disapproval to avoid the argument, falsehood, irreciprocity, and failure of due diligence, is a demand for restitution, under test of reciprocity. The opposite is not. Learn the law. You will be better for it. Me: “Speak to the audience in a compromise grammar.” So: (a) I’m speaking to the audience in a compromise grammar (market). (b) You are disapproving without doing due diligence (assuming you understand and not asking why I’m doing so),(c) counter-signaling my shaming of your for failure of due diligence. Learn the law. End error.
-
But I’m Not Creating a Popular Political Movement I’m Creating a Revolution and A Body of Law
Apr 15, 2020, 10:11 AM (and frankly y’all got nobody else at all other than me with anything to offer.)
—“Curt: Don’t you realize that what you are trying to do is start a political movement? P must be a political movement if it’s ever going to get off the ground. You can talk all you want about it being the final conclusion to logic and science. You know what? That and $4 will get you a cup from Starbucks. I would personally like to see some P principles in our constitution. But it ain’t gonna happen if you don’t build constituencies. And the number one group that could be in your corner is conservative Christians. But that isn’t going to happen because you are too dogmatic about the folly of Christianity. I am offering you some advice. Delete all negative references to Christianity in your writings. Stop telling Christians they are foolish, failures, weak, arrogant, disobedient and wasting their time believing in the fake man in the sky. You are trying to build a political movement (herd) whether you choose to admit it or not. Who is going to be followers of the P movement? Marxists? Socialists? Antifa? The leftist academic elitists? The deep state? The parasitic democrats dependent on government transfer payments, single mothers, millions of recent immigrants, the AOC & Bernie millennials? No. It’s Euro Americans of which a huge number are Christian. And you’re going to piss them off. You are NOT going to gain any traction by alienating what should be your core constituency. You can be self-righteous in your P dogma and lose. Or you can try to win by forging alliances with those who can help you move forward. Choose wisely.”— Herod Bedford
Go to my twitter page. What does the pinned tweet say? Here. I’m going to post it below for you. My response is that instead you stop making excuses for the truth in order to burying your head in the sand using faith as an excuse. You can never have a theocracy. You can only have trifunctionalism, or you can disappear from this earth. Truth and Law vs Wisdom and Faith. I’m not looking for a majority, any more than were the founders. I’m looking for 1% or less of the population that will fight to restore the constitution and our civilization without pandering to anyone, whether christian, or fascist, or marxist-socialist-postmodernist-feminist, or anything in between – we are made from rule of law and christianity, fascism, liberalism, and leftism are all privileged cults of fantasy that are possible because the few – the very few – were willing to pick up, carry arms, sally forth, and fight to preserve them despite cowards like you. Either your civilization and its operating system of law comes first, or you are an enemy of our people. If your faith is before your people, or you are the enemy of our people. if it comes before our law, our people, and our civilization then you are the enemy of your people. Your privilege of faith is due to our civilization, and our law, and the truth within our law that you deny in order to maintain your faith. Christian self congratulatory delusions are only possible, as is judaism, because real men fight for the law to have the freedom to provide you with that self indulgence. The few strong, reciprocal, and brave, do not need the approval of the many weak, irreciprocal, and cowardly. So grow up, man up, shut up, and fight for our law. Because the survival of your faith is predicated on it.
-
But I’m Not Creating a Popular Political Movement I’m Creating a Revolution and A Body of Law
Apr 15, 2020, 10:11 AM (and frankly y’all got nobody else at all other than me with anything to offer.)
—“Curt: Don’t you realize that what you are trying to do is start a political movement? P must be a political movement if it’s ever going to get off the ground. You can talk all you want about it being the final conclusion to logic and science. You know what? That and $4 will get you a cup from Starbucks. I would personally like to see some P principles in our constitution. But it ain’t gonna happen if you don’t build constituencies. And the number one group that could be in your corner is conservative Christians. But that isn’t going to happen because you are too dogmatic about the folly of Christianity. I am offering you some advice. Delete all negative references to Christianity in your writings. Stop telling Christians they are foolish, failures, weak, arrogant, disobedient and wasting their time believing in the fake man in the sky. You are trying to build a political movement (herd) whether you choose to admit it or not. Who is going to be followers of the P movement? Marxists? Socialists? Antifa? The leftist academic elitists? The deep state? The parasitic democrats dependent on government transfer payments, single mothers, millions of recent immigrants, the AOC & Bernie millennials? No. It’s Euro Americans of which a huge number are Christian. And you’re going to piss them off. You are NOT going to gain any traction by alienating what should be your core constituency. You can be self-righteous in your P dogma and lose. Or you can try to win by forging alliances with those who can help you move forward. Choose wisely.”— Herod Bedford
Go to my twitter page. What does the pinned tweet say? Here. I’m going to post it below for you. My response is that instead you stop making excuses for the truth in order to burying your head in the sand using faith as an excuse. You can never have a theocracy. You can only have trifunctionalism, or you can disappear from this earth. Truth and Law vs Wisdom and Faith. I’m not looking for a majority, any more than were the founders. I’m looking for 1% or less of the population that will fight to restore the constitution and our civilization without pandering to anyone, whether christian, or fascist, or marxist-socialist-postmodernist-feminist, or anything in between – we are made from rule of law and christianity, fascism, liberalism, and leftism are all privileged cults of fantasy that are possible because the few – the very few – were willing to pick up, carry arms, sally forth, and fight to preserve them despite cowards like you. Either your civilization and its operating system of law comes first, or you are an enemy of our people. If your faith is before your people, or you are the enemy of our people. if it comes before our law, our people, and our civilization then you are the enemy of your people. Your privilege of faith is due to our civilization, and our law, and the truth within our law that you deny in order to maintain your faith. Christian self congratulatory delusions are only possible, as is judaism, because real men fight for the law to have the freedom to provide you with that self indulgence. The few strong, reciprocal, and brave, do not need the approval of the many weak, irreciprocal, and cowardly. So grow up, man up, shut up, and fight for our law. Because the survival of your faith is predicated on it.
-
Either Way We Have to Outlaw Social Construction by False Promise
Apr 21, 2020, 12:28 PM (worth repeating) So if (((the))) war on western-sensemaking: our realism, naturalism, operationalism, sovereignty, reciprocity, testimony, commons, and eugenics, is a continuation of their ancient world rebellion against the masculine empires, and an involuntary rebellion against evolution-eugenics. This means if it’s genetic, as it is in our women,it’s irreparable, and separation is the only possibility. If it’s purely cultural (doesn’t appear to be) then it’s a matter of separating from their culture. Either way we have to outlaw it by requiring truthful reciprocal speech. Which is the purpose of my work on the law: to end the repeatedly successful use of abrahamic technique at destroying civilizations from within by false promise, baiting into hazard, selling to vulnerable women and the underclasses, and reversing east and west eugenics.
-
Either Way We Have to Outlaw Social Construction by False Promise
Apr 21, 2020, 12:28 PM (worth repeating) So if (((the))) war on western-sensemaking: our realism, naturalism, operationalism, sovereignty, reciprocity, testimony, commons, and eugenics, is a continuation of their ancient world rebellion against the masculine empires, and an involuntary rebellion against evolution-eugenics. This means if it’s genetic, as it is in our women,it’s irreparable, and separation is the only possibility. If it’s purely cultural (doesn’t appear to be) then it’s a matter of separating from their culture. Either way we have to outlaw it by requiring truthful reciprocal speech. Which is the purpose of my work on the law: to end the repeatedly successful use of abrahamic technique at destroying civilizations from within by false promise, baiting into hazard, selling to vulnerable women and the underclasses, and reversing east and west eugenics.
-
No, free trade… no.
Apr 22, 2020, 12:00 PM
—“This nation was not built on free trade.”—Nathan Borup
Free trade is a ((())) leftist agenda. We either have fully reciprocal trade or not. If we have fully reciprocal trade we will have the freest trade reciprocally possible – and that is the optimum.
-
No, free trade… no.
Apr 22, 2020, 12:00 PM
—“This nation was not built on free trade.”—Nathan Borup
Free trade is a ((())) leftist agenda. We either have fully reciprocal trade or not. If we have fully reciprocal trade we will have the freest trade reciprocally possible – and that is the optimum.
-
End the False Dichotomy: Rule of Law Produces All
Apr 22, 2020, 12:06 PM The optimum balance between market economy and non-market economy is calculated by tests of reciprocity. In other words, good capitalism is the result of rule of law of reciprocity and bad capitalism is the result of failing at rule of law of reciprocity. Just as good combination of market economy(liberty), mixed economy (freedom), state provision (serfdom), and military service (indentured servitude) is calculated by rule of law of reciprocity. The ((())) lie of the left was another monopoly, another idealism, that one way is somehow superior to tri-functionalism and rule of law producing markets in everything INCLUDING consumption (markets for goods, services, and information) and markets for commons (mixed economy), state production (serfdom) and state military servitude (indentured servitude) Edit