Theme: Responsibility

  • Superiority will never end. Supremacy in the sense of rule, then yes, because re

    Superiority will never end. Supremacy in the sense of rule, then yes, because responsibility for white man’s burden of domesticating fellow humans has ended – we found you unworthy of the peerage. 😉 This is why Nationalism returns. The false hope in your ability to join us.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 00:00:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1183895509829935104

    Reply addressees: @911Netizen @Bipin_karki @CGTNOfficial

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1183887511187275777


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1183887511187275777

  • “If one is profiting from the commons one must reciprocate by being responsible

    —“If one is profiting from the commons one must reciprocate by being responsible to maintain the commons.”—Christopher Kilgore


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 15:08:00 UTC

  • YES I ADVOCATE COLLECTIVE (GROUP) PUNISHMENT. it’s how we end the game against u

    YES I ADVOCATE COLLECTIVE (GROUP) PUNISHMENT.

    it’s how we end the game against us.

    If you gain value from an identity from a membership, then you must insure the rest of us from the consequences of the organization you fund by your membership.

    Families insure individuals, individuals insure groups, and no one is free of insuring others.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-13 11:33:00 UTC

  • THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ERROR AND FRAUD —“The difference between error and frau

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ERROR AND FRAUD

    —“The difference between error and fraud is that an error implies good intentions, and people want to trade in their good intentions for a discount on the costs they themselves pay for the results of their error.”—Rustle More


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-12 13:45:00 UTC

  • While I understand the intent of the bill, meaning that they can’t be held accou

    While I understand the intent of the bill, meaning that they can’t be held accountable for the domestic use of information in an age of the internet, it is worded so poorly that it does in fact license propaganda by the state.
    Under P-Law this would be prohibited.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-11 20:36:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182756957758918656

    Reply addressees: @financydrew

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182742281104875521


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182742281104875521

  • “Have to…” isn’t in my vocabulary – only: I want to”, “I agree to”, and “Make

    “Have to…” isn’t in my vocabulary – only: I want to”, “I agree to”, and “Make me.”


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-10 11:43:00 UTC

  • WE CAN ONLY BE EQUAL IN MORALITY AND THE LAW TO ENFORCE IT by Dr. Richard T. Hün

    WE CAN ONLY BE EQUAL IN MORALITY AND THE LAW TO ENFORCE IT

    by Dr. Richard T. Hünerkoch

    Equality is an artifice, it’s a concept, an “ideal” and the problem with ideals is that they are not obtainable by mortals. Perfection does not exist in the mortal realm.

    Equality in it’s most literal definition is an impossibility it’s an idealistic but unrealistic goal.

    —“If you start with a faulty premise and try to solve problems within that premise you find that none of your solutions work. The faulty premise is “equality” and everyone proposes solutions within that world view. The people you call “racist” are trying to explain this to you.”—

    The best thing that you can hope to achieve is as much legal equality as you possibly can but make no mistake it’s not the similarities that make us similar it’s the differences that make us different.

    Men are not even equal to other men so how could women possibly measure up?

    Equality as the left defines it means iniquity between “privileged” and “victims.” They want to make you dumb, hamstring your physicality and put a paper bag over your head so that the smart, strong and beautiful are “equal” to the stupid, weak and ugly. That’s what they mean.

    Equality is a worthy goal in and of itself but the only way things can be equal is through homogeneity. The closer we get to a homogenous culture, the closer we can get to equality. If the United States has the homogeneity of Iceland, we could be closer to equals.

    However though, because of diversity and heterogeneity, we have to adjust our target baseline of equality because we have to account for many extraneous variables.

    If we didn’t need to adjust for IQ differences that are miles apart, we could all be more equal.

    The only kind of equality that exists on Earth is the equality of mortality. We will all die someday and while we all have that in common, that is where the similarities end.

    The social terrorist left is trying to make us all “mortally equal” because that’s the only equality that truly exists in the mortal realm.

    Needless to say, the fact that we will all die someday is not enough reason to throw away our culture with reckless abandon.

    In case I haven’t made my point enough.

    Equality, as defined by the social terrorist left, is simply just communism masquerading as compassion.

    Don’t fall for this facade, the true visage behind the mask is the ugly bloated face of Karl Marx himself.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-10 07:33:00 UTC

  • Some pseudoscientific philosophies like Buddhism seek to achieve mindfulness by

    Some pseudoscientific philosophies like Buddhism seek to achieve mindfulness by forgoing agency in the world, and instead developing it in yourself – to tolerate the status competition and all other difficulties in the world.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-08 18:30:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181638078835941377

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181638077942509569


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    But Agency again is for those with mental, emotional, physical, familial, social, economic, political or military ability and resources. Some Philosophies seek to achieve mindfulness by limiting agency to one’s abilities: The stoic method of self authoring, and epicurean thought.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1181638077942509569


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    But Agency again is for those with mental, emotional, physical, familial, social, economic, political or military ability and resources. Some Philosophies seek to achieve mindfulness by limiting agency to one’s abilities: The stoic method of self authoring, and epicurean thought.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1181638077942509569

  • RT @SandraLeeKoeni2: May Your Gods Have Mercy on You. Because We Will Not. via @

    RT @SandraLeeKoeni2: May Your Gods Have Mercy on You. Because We Will Not. https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/05/the-truth-is-painful-so-are-restitution-and-prevention/ via @curtdoolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-08 17:31:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181623220010672129

  • I don’t ‘believe’ much, but in general, it appears capital punishment is certain

    I don’t ‘believe’ much, but in general, it appears capital punishment is certainly preferable than its absence. Our ancient ancestors didn’t practice it until the romans except for adultery and cowardice in battle – they called it sacrifice instead, and put criminals to good use.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-06 21:38:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180960608470159360

    Reply addressees: @fryskefilosoof

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180896965661474817


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180896965661474817