dChan
Anonymous ID: 1159da Oct. 23, 2020, 11:45 a.m. No.11239993   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0044 >>0085

BREAKING UPDATE: President Trump has just announced that at least five additional countries want to join in a peace deal with Israel, and says Saudi Arabia is one of them. Says there will be a big signing event at the Whitehouse.

 

Yes yes! WELCOME THE SAUDI PEOPLE WWG1WGA!

 

GOD BLESS MUSLIMS, JEWS AND CHRISTIANS!

 

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1319682278528876546

 

☪✝✡🙏✡✝☪

Anonymous ID: 1159da Oct. 23, 2020, 12:10 p.m. No.11240448   🗄️.is 🔗kun

How Karl Marx's entire political philosophy is predicated on a false presumption of DIVISION IN LOGIC ITSELF

 

Marxian polylogism asserts that the logical structure of the mind is different with the members of various social classes. Racial polylogism differs from Marxian polylogism only in so far as it ascribes to each race a peculiar logical structure of mind and maintains that all members of a definite race, no matter what their class affiliation may be, are endowed with this peculiar logical structure.

 

Neither the Marxians nor the racists nor the supporters of any other brand of polylogism ever went further than to declare that the logical structure of mind is different with various classes, races, or nations. They never ventured to demonstrate precisely in what the logic of the proletarians differs from the logic of the bourgeois, or in what the logic of the Aryans differs from the logic of the non-Aryans, or the logic of the Germans from the logic of the French or the British. In the eyes of the Marxians the Ricardian theory of comparative cost is spurious because Ricardo was a bourgeois. The German racists condemn the same theory because Ricardo was a Jew, and the German nationalists because he was an Englishman. Some German professors advanced all these three arguments together against the validity of Ricardo's teachings. However, it is not enough to reject a theory wholesale by unmasking the background of its author. What is wanted is first to expound a system of logic different from that applied by the criticized author. Then it would be necessary to examine the contested theory point by point and to show where in its reasoning inferences are made whichalthough correct from the point of view of its author's logicare invalid from the point of view of the proletarian, Aryan, or German logic. And finally, it should be explained what kind of conclusions the replacement of the author's vicious inferences by the correct inferences of the critic's own logic must lead to. As everybody knows, this never has been and never can be attempted by anybody.

 

https://mises.org/library/human-action-0/html/pp/657