If you can tax every corporation in the world you control the means of production by proxy. That is a rhetorical tautology of Communism. I am not against the possibility that Global Warming might exist and that humans might be responsible, but I know for a certainty that Global Communism isn’t the solution.
Let’s say that a hot dog factory has surpassed their carbon footprint. They say, “people are starving, we need to make more hot dogs.” The bureaucrats say, “Sorry, unless you can pay the fine you can’t make more hot dogs, that’s the Law.” The Hidden Subject is that the Global Communists want to reduce the population on the planet. When there are fewer humans you need less meat to feed them. Flatulence is a greenhouse gas.
According to Liberals and ANTIFA, Patriotism and National Pride is Fascism. Why did ANTIFA protest ICE? Because ANTIFA are Global Communist Fascists. From their perspective a National Identity is a threat to their agenda. The Cloward-Piven strategy is to bankrupt the United States with Welfare Leaches. Thus proving Capitalism wrong. Thus proving Communism correct. Therefore, Global Communism is the Liberal “Solution”.
This is a technique used by psychopaths, and toxic parents, it is a subtle form of emotional abuse in which a person will behave or communicate strategically in order to characterize you falsely to other people or even to yourself. Ponder, how is it that we are characterized? Are we not characterized by how others talk to us and interact with us? And over the course of our life time does this not communicate to us who we are? Not only the interactions we have but the recurrence of those interactions? Doesn’t that create our ego, or false sense of self? Who we errantly believe ourselves to be?
As a linguistic philosopher I spend a lot of time thinking abut what a word is. A word is like taking a lasso and throwing it around a bunch of random objects and then describing a relationship between the objects. Sentences are just longer versions of words as are paragraphs, chapters, and books. Words are embedded in a matrix called language. What a person says characterizes him, others, and the relationship between them. Modern research shows that we might actually remember things with the use of narrative. If that is the case then the character we are playing in the play that we think we are in (the story we are telling ourselves) determines what facts we remember, and how we string them together.
The mind is an association making machine. We remember things by how we associate them with other things we know. The stronger and more spontaneous the emotion the easier the association is to make and the stronger our ability too remember. Linguists like Stephen Pinker have done a good job of making it unpopular to be a linguistic determinist with their mockery and strategic rhetoric but they are only looking at how it is wrong with extreme prejudice.
One minute Pinker appears to be arguing for the Tabula Rasa and the next he is quoting Noam Chomsky to support his arguments and make himself look smart. There is no doubt that Stephen is smart but he is wrong about linguistic determinism.
I am a soft linguistic determinist. I believe taht words are thought tools. If you don’t know the word your brain can’t move in that pattern. Pinker’s arguments suggest that a child living in a Mexican barrio is as linguisticly sophisticated and as intellectually capable of making an educational contribution to the world as Ludwig Wittgenstein. Which is absurd as i will demonstrate in this book.
Barak Obama and the Liberal, Elitist, Feminist progressives are actively controlling how people think right now with their word assassination and equivocation (<span style=”text-decoration: line-through;”>TERRORIST</span> Freedom Fighter) George Orwell’s INGSOC is alive and well. Pinker’s rhetoric makes it easy to conceal the fact that female communication rituals in the form of Radical Political Correctness are being forced down the throats of Americans right now to emasculate their minds.
Many of the Neologisms and phrases that I coined and define in this book were created by me so that I could better understand how I think and so that other people could look at the world through my eyes and understand it as I do. As I was creating my psychological models and rationalizing modern psychology with the perspective of the ancient philosophers I realized that the world was becoming more and more psychopathic and this was undesirable as well as unsustainable. The only way to stop this downward spiral was for everybody to be able to recognize psychopathic strategies/narrative and be able to confront it or at least not participate with it. Imagine if we started instilling this knowledge in our children in grade school not indoctrinating them in what to think but teaching them how to think. They could pick better friends, invest in better relationships, and become better more successful people.
As a philologist and a student of Proto-indo-European. I have long been interested in what concepts and words move into what other languages and remain there, enshrined in a way, and done homage too by the people that remember and use those thought tools. Anyway, though you might not agree with me on everything I hope that as you read this book you will look through my eyes and see what I see.
Is a logical fallacy people make when looking at history or at the bible. In order to properly evaluate and judge what happened you have to understand what was happening at the time, the context in which a thing was said or done. The Abrahamic Law Code was created when Abraham was trying to separate the identity of his people from the invasive Tyrannical Babylonian Death Cults intent on submitting the entire world and spreading their influence all over the world with the practice of rape, genocide, back-door political alliances, bribing, lying and ransom. When you are fighting an evil enemy you have to use tactics that will succeed against that enemy, that doesn’t mean you are responsible for the state of the world or that tactics being used at that time. Atheists assume that the Judeo-Christian god condoned or even created rape or kidnapping, that is not…
View original post 799 more words