The Logical Aspect of Polylogism

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.

There is no need to enter here into a critique of the concepts social class and race as applied by these doctrines. It is not necessary to ask the Marxians when and how a proletarian who succeeds in joining the ranks of the bourgeoisie changes his proletarian mind into a bourgeois mind. It is superfluous to ask the racists to explain what kind of logic is peculiar to people who are not of pure racial stock. There are much more serious objections to be raised.

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 which - although correct from the point of view of its author's logic - are 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 [p. 76] lead to. As everybody knows, this never has been and never can be attempted by anybody.

Then there is the fact that there is disagreement concerning essential problems among people belonging to the same class, race, or nation. Unfortunately there are, say the Nazis, Germans who do not think in a correct German way. But if a German does not always necessarily think as he should, but may think in the manner of a man equipped with a non-German logic, who is to decide which German's ideas are truly German and which un-German? Says the late Professor Franz Oppenheimer; "The individual errs often in looking after his interests; a class never errs in the long run."3 This would suggest the infallibility of a majority vote. However, the Nazis rejected decision by majority vote as manifestly un-German. The Marxians pay lip service to the democratic principle of majority vote.4 But whenever it comes to a test they favor minority rule, provided it is the rule of their own party. Let us remember how Lenin dispersed by force the Constituent Assembly elected, under the auspices of his own government, by adult franchise, because only about one-fifth of its members were Bolshevik.

A consistent supporter of polylogism would have to maintain that ideas are correct because their author is a member of the right class, nation, or race. But consistency is not one of their virtues. Thus the Marxians are prepared to assign the epithet "proletarian thinker" to everybody whose doctrines they approve. All the others they disparage either as foes of their class or as social traitors. Hitler was even frank enough to admit that the only method available for him to sift the true Germans from the mongrels and the aliens was to enunciate a genuinely German program and to see who were ready to support it.5 A dark-haired man whose bodily features by no means fitted the prototype of the fair-haired Aryan master race, arrogated to himself the gift of discovering the only doctrine adequate to the German mind and of expelling from the ranks of the Germans all those who did not accept this doctrine whatever their bodily characteristics might be. No further proof is needed of the insincerity of the whole doctrine.

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

-----—

This is the how the ancient dialectic of projection originates. It is just uttered as true and implemented without explanation.

>>16220540

Q wrote a number of times: 'they want you divided', by race, religion, sex, class, by political affiliation, by whichever group categorizations to smear pre engagement and defend pre engagement of discourse.

The originator of the dialectic in any conversation is 'seeing' in you what is really only in their mind, the smears against you are in truth the author's own self-alienated psychology of being unable to reconcile the infinite mind and the limited body. They experience shame, guilt, anger, and hate, and rather than CONDUCT A TEST OF SELF REFLECTIVE ANALYSIS, to find out if the pronouncements of the system are consistent with the logical content of the axioms and theorems of the system itself.

Karl Marx, whose entire implementation extends from the Phenomenology of Mind from Hegel, by 'inverting' it into a praxis of horror on Earth where ANY statement is true by virtue of the source being of the 'right' 'group' of people in the world based on one form of polylogism or another.

>>16220543

The Praxeological Aspect of Polylogism

An ideology in the Marxian sense of this term is a doctrine which, [p. 77] although erroneous from the point of view of the correct logic of the proletarians, is beneficial to the selfish interests of the class which has developed it. An ideology is objectively vicious, but it furthers the interests of the thinker's class precisely on account of its viciousness. Many Marxians believe that they have proved this tenet by stressing the point that people do not thirst for knowledge only for its own sake. The aim of the scientist is to pave the way for successful action. Theories are always developed with a view to practical application. There are no such things as pure science and the disinterested search for truth.

For the sake of argument we may admit that every effort to attain truth is motivated by considerations of its practical utilization for the attainment of some end. But this does not answer the question why an "ideological"-i.e., a false-theory should render better service than a correct one. The fact that the practical application of a theory results in the outcome predicted on the basis of this theory is universally considered a confirmation of its correctness. It is paradoxical to assert that a vicious theory is from any point of view more useful than a correct one.

Men use firearms. In order to improve these weapons they developed the science of ballistics. But, of course, precisely because they were eager to hunt game and to kill one another, a correct ballistics. A merely "ideological" ballistics would not have been of any use.

For the Marxians the view that scientists labor for knowledge alone is nothing but an "arrogant pretense" of the scientists. Thus they declare that Maxwell was led to his theory of electromagnetic waves by the craving of business for wireless telegraphs.6 It is of no relevance for the problem of ideology whether this is true or not. The question is whether the alleged fact that nineteenth-century industrialism considered telegraphy without wires "the philosopher's stone and the elixir of youth"7 impelled Maxwell to formulate a correct theory or an ideological superstructure of the selfish class interests of the bourgeoisie. There is no doubt that bacteriological research was instigated not only by the desire to fight contagious diseases, but also by the desire of the producers of wine and of cheese to improve their methods of production. But the result obtained was certainly not "ideological" in the Marxian sense.

>>16220548

What induced Marx to invent his ideology-doctrine was the wish to sap the prestige of economics. He was fully aware of his impotence to refute the objections raised by the economists to the practicability [p. 78] of the socialist schemes. In fact he was so fascinated by the theoretical system of British classical economics that he firmly believed in its impregnability. He either never learned about the doubts that the classical theory of value raised in the minds of judicious scholars, or, if he ever heard of them, he did not comprehend their weight. His own economic ideas are hardly more than a garbled version of Ricardianism. When Jevons and Menger inaugurated a new era of economic thought, his career as an author of economic writings had already come to an end; The first volume of Das Kapital had already been published several years previously. Marx's only reaction to the marginal theory of value was that he postponed the publication of the later volumes of his main treatise. They were made accessible to the public only after his death.

In developing the ideology-doctrine Marx exclusively aims at economics and the social philosophy of Utilitarianism. His only intention was to destroy the reputation of economic teachings which he was unable to refute by means of logic and ratiocination. He gave to his doctrine the form of a universal law valid for the whole historical age of social classes because a statement which is applicable only to one individual historical event could not be considered as a law. For the same reasons he did not restrict its validity to economic thought only, but included every branch of knowledge.

The service which bourgeois economics rendered to the bourgeoisie was in Marx's eyes twofold. It aided them first in their fight against feudalism and royal despotism and then later again in their fight against the rising proletarian class. It provided a rational and moral justification for capitalist exploitation. It was, if we want to use a notion developed after Marx's death, a rationalization of the claims of the capitalists.8 The capitalists, in their subconsciousness ashamed of the mean greed motivating their own conduct and anxious to avoid social disapproval, encouraged their sycophants, the economists, to proclaim doctrines which could rehabilitate them in public opinion.

>>16220551

Now, recourse to the notion of rationalization provides a psychological description of the incentives which impelled a man or a group of men to formulate a theorem or a whole theory. But it does not predicate anything about the validity or invalidity of the theory [p. 79] advanced. If it is proved that the theory concerned is untenable, the notion of rationalization is a psychological interpretation of the causes which made their authors liable to error. But if we are not in a position to find any fault in the theory advanced, no appeal to the concept of rationalization can possibly explode its validity. If it were true that the economists had in their subconsciousness no design other than that of justifying the unfair claims of the capitalists, their theories could nevertheless be quite correct. Their is no means to expose a faulty theory other than to refute it by discursive reasoning and to substitute a better theory for it. In dealing with the theorem of Pythagoras or with the theory of comparative cost, we are not interested in the psychological factors that impelled Pythagoras and Ricardo to construct these theorems, although these things may be important for the historian and the biographer. For science the only relevant question is whether or not these theorems can stand the test of rational examination. The social or racial background of their authors is beside the point.

It is a fact that people in the pursuit of their selfish interests try to use doctrines more or less universally accepted by public opinion. Moreover, they are eager to invent and to propagate doctrines which they could possibly use for furthering their own interests. But this does not explain why such doctrines, favoring the interests of a minority and contrary to the interests of the rest of the people, are endorsed by public opinion. No matter whether such "ideological" doctrines are the product of a "false consciousness," forcing a man to think unwittingly in a manner that serves the interests of his class, or whether they are the product of a purposeful distortion of truth, they must encounter the ideologies of other classes and try to supplant them. Then a rivalry between antagonistic ideologies emerges. The Marxians explain victory and defeat in such conflicts as an outcome of the interference of historical providence. Geist, the mythical prime mover, operates according to a definite plan. He leads mankind through various preliminary stages to the final bliss of socialism. Every stage is the product of a certain state of technology; all its other characteristics are the necessary ideological superstructure of this technological state. Geist causes man to bring about in due time the technological ideas adequate to the stage in which he lives, and to realize them. All the rest is an outgrowth of the state of technology. The hand-mill made feudal society; the steam-mill made capitalism.[p. 80] 9 Human will and reason play only an ancillary role in these changes. The inexorable law of historical development forces menindependently of their willsto think and to behave according to the patterns corresponding to the material basis of their age. Men fool themselves in believing that they are free to choose between various ideas and between what they call truth and error. They themselves do not think; it is historical providence that manifests itself in their thoughts.

>>16220552

This is a purely mystical doctrine. The only proof given in its support is the recourse of Hegelian dialectics. Capitalistic private property is the first negation of individual private property. It begets, with the inexorability of a law of nature, its own negation, namely common ownership of the means of production.10 However, a mystical doctrine based on intuition does not lose its mysticism by referring to another no less mystical doctrine. This makeshift by no means answers the question why a thinker must necessarily develop an ideology in accordance with the interests of his class. For the sake of argument we may admit that man's thoughts must result in doctrines beneficial to his interests. But are a man's interests necessarily identical with those of his whole class? Marx himself had to admit that the organization of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves.11 It is an undeniable fact that there prevails an irreconcilable conflict of interests between those workers who are employed at union wage rates and those who remain unemployed because the enforcement of union rates prevents the demand for and the supply of labor from finding the appropriate price for meeting. It is no less true that the interests of the workers of the comparatively overpopulated countries and those of the comparatively underpopulated countries are antagonistic with regard to migration barriers. The statement that the interests of all proletarians uniformly require the substitution of socialism for capitalism is an arbitrary postulate of Marx and the other socialists. It cannot be proved by the mere assertion that the socialist idea is the emanation of proletarian thought and therefore certainly beneficial to the interests of the proletariat as such.

>>16220556

It is useless to argue with mystics and seers. They base their assertions on intuition and are not prepared to submit them to rational examination. The Marxians pretend that what their inner voice proclaims is history's self-revelation. If other people do not hear this voice, it is only a proof that they are not chosen. It is insolence that those groping in darkness dare to contradict the inspired ones. Decency should impel them to creep into a corner and keep silent.

However, science cannot abstain from thinking although it is obvious that it will never succeed in convincing those who dispute the supremacy of reason. Science must emphasize that the appeal to intuition cannot settle the question which of several antagonistic doctrines is the right one and which are wrong. It is an undeniable fact that Marxism is not the only doctrine advanced in our time. There are other "ideologies" besides Marxism. The Marxians assert that the application of these other doctrines would hurt the interests of the many. But the supporters of these doctrines say precisely the same with regard to Marxism.

Of course, the Marxians consider a doctrine vicious if its author's background is not proletarian. But who is proletarian? Doctor Marx, the manufacturer and "exploiter" Engels, and Lenin, the scion of the Russian gentry, were certainly not of proletarian background. But Hitler and Mussolini were genuine proletarians and spent their youth in poverty. The conflict of the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks or that between Stalin and Trotsky cannot be presented as class conflicts. They were conflicts between various sects of fanatics who called one another traitors.

The essence of Marxian philosophy is this: We are right because we are the spokesmen of the rising proletarian class. Discursive reasoning cannot invalidate our teachings, for they are inspired by the supreme power that determines the destiny of mankind. Our adversaries are wrong because they lack the intuition that guides our [p. 84] minds. It is, of course, not their fault that on account of their class affiliation they are not equipped with the genuine proletarian logic and are blinded by ideologies. The unfathomable decrees of history that have elected us have doomed them. The future is ours.

>>16220566

Racial Polylogism

Marxian polylogism is an abortive makeshift to salvage the untenable doctrines of socialism. Its attempt to substitute intuition for ratiocination appeals to popular superstitions. But it is precisely this attitude that places Marxian polylogism and its offshoot, the so-called "sociology of knowledge," in irreconcilable antagonism to science and reason.

It is different with the polylogism of the racists. This brand of polylogism is in agreement with fashionable, although mistaken, tendencies in present-day empiricism. It is an established fact that mankind is divided into various races. The races differ in bodily features. Materialist philosophers assert that thoughts are a secretion of the brain as bile is a secretion of the gall-bladder. It would be inconsistent for them to reject beforehand the hypothesis that the thought-secretion of the various races may differ in essential qualities. The fact that anatomy has not succeeded up to now in discovering anatomical differences in the brain cells of various races cannot invalidate the doctrine that the logical structure of mind is different with different races. It does not exclude the assumption that later research may discover such anatomical peculiarities.

Some ethnologists tell us that it is a mistake to speak of higher and lower civilizations and of an alleged backwardness of alien races. The civilizations of various races are different from the Western civilization of the peoples of Caucasian stock, but they are not inferior. Every race has its peculiar mentality. It is faulty to apply to the civilization of any of them yardsticks abstracted from the achievements of other races. Westerners call the civilization of China an arrested civilization and that of the inhabitants of New Guinea primitive barbarism. But the Chinese and the natives of New Guinea despise our civilization no less than we despise theirs. Such estimates are judgments of value and hence arbitrary. Those other races have a different structure of mind. Their civilizations are adequate to their mind as our civilization is adequate to our mind. We are incapable of comprehending that what we call backwardness does not appear such to them. It is, from the point of view of their logic, a better method of coming to a satisfactory arrangement with given natural conditions of life than is our progressivism. [p. 85]

>>16220581

These ethnologists are right in emphasizing that it is not the task of a historianand the ethnologist too is a historianto express value judgments. But they are utterly mistaken in contending that these other races have been guided in their activities by motives other than those which have actuated the white race. The Asiatics and the Africans no less than the peoples of European descent have been eager to struggle successfully for survival and to use reason as the foremost weapon in these endeavors. They have sought to get rid of the beasts of prey and of disease, to prevent famines and to raise the productivity of labor. There can be no doubt that in the pursuit of these aims they have been less successful than the whites. The proof is that they are eager to profit from all achievements of the West. Those ethnologists would be right, if Mongols or Africans, tormented by a painful disease, were to renounce the aid of a European doctor because their mentality or their world view led them to believe that it is better to suffer than to be relieved of pain. Mahatma Gandhi disavowed his whole philosophy when he entered a modern hospital to be treated for appendicitis.

The North American Indians lacked the ingenuity to invent the wheel. The inhabitants of the Alps were not keen enough to construct skis which would have rendered their hard life much more agreeable. Such shortcomings were not due to a mentality different from those of the races which had long since used wheels and skis; they were failures, even when judged from the point of view of the Indians and the Alpine mountaineers.

However, these considerations refer only to the motives determining concrete actions, not to the only relevant problem of whether or not there exists between various races a difference in the logical structure of mind. It is precisely this that the racists assert.13

We may refer to what has been said in the preceding chapters about the fundamental issues of the logical structure of mind and the categorial principles of thought and action. Some additional observations will suffice to give the finishing stroke to racial polylogism and to any other brand of polylogism.

>>16220583

The categories of human thought and action are neither arbitrary products of the human mind nor conventions. They are not outside of the universe and of the course of cosmic events. They are biological facts and have a definite function in life and reality. They are instruments in man's struggle for existence and in his endeavors to adjust himself as much as possible to the real state of the universe and to remove uneasiness as much as it is in his power to do so. They are [p. 86] therefore appropriate to the structure of the external world and reflect properties of the world and of reality. They work, and are in this sense true and valid.

It is consequently incorrect to assert that aprioristic insight and pure reasoning do not convey any information about reality and the structure of the universe. The fundamental logical relations and the categories of thought and action are the ultimate source of all human knowledge. They are adequate to the structure of reality, they reveal this structure to the human mind and, in this sense, they are for man basic ontological facts.14 We do not know what a superhuman intellect may think and comprehend. For man every cognition is conditioned by the logical structure of his mind and implied in this structure. It is precisely the satisfactory results of the empirical sciences and their practical application that evidence this truth. Within the orbit in which human action is able to attain ends aimed at there is no room left for agnosticism.

If there had been races which had developed a different logical structure of the mind, they would have failed in the use of reason as an aid in the struggle for existence. The only means for survival that could have protected them against extermination would have been their instinctive reactions. Natural selection would have eliminated those specimens of such races that tried to employ reasoning for the direction of their behavior. Those individuals alone would have survived that relied upon instincts only. This means that only those would have had a chance to survive that did not rise above the mental level of animals.

The scholars of the West have amassed an enormous amount of material concerning the high civilizations of China and India and the primitive civilizations of the Asiatic, American, Australian, and African aborigines. It is safe to say that all that is worth knowing about the ideas of these races is known. But never has any supporter of polylogism tried to use these data for a description of the allegedly different logic of these peoples and civilizations.

end

>>16220572

It is not necessary for Anon to 'see' evil ANYWHERE in the world in order to KNOW and BE and SEE Good around Anon.

The logical misstep the 'If you see yourself as Good then you're just as Evil" is to insist that the dialectic is the ONLY permissible start, such that everyone is forever evil because they recognize that the pattern of their ideas happens to only be instantiated in a subset of the world's total population (which is itself not an absolute or necessary condition).

The statement 'it is much more broad than you are expressing' is granted, Anon never intended to present the Marxist iteration of the dialectic as the only one. Any explanation will necessarily he finite set of characters, logically excluding all other possible expressions that could have been written, therefore to attack ANY explanation as 'incomplete' is to fail to grasp incompleteness as a logical prerequisite to consistency.

Any consistent explanation must be incomplete.

Anon sees attempt to invert dialectic in your post, as it is pre engagement smear and slander of the entire notion of Good, as if it's not possible for Good to be universal.

The flaw in your logic stems from it being itself a dialectic inversion, the false notion that in order for Good to exist, there must be Evil.

The truth of course is that the Good DOES NOT NEED EVIL IN ORDER TO EXIST.

Evil, on the other hand, with knowing practitioners who knowingly deceive and knowingly introduce false accusations against other human beings, that NEEDS the Good to exist, because without 'trusting sheep' to exploit and deceive, the Evil cannot survive on its own.

If everyone were Evil humanity would cease to exist, for the extreme expression of dialectic is pure self-contradiction, pure self-CONSUMPTION.

If everyone were Good humanity would not only not cease to exist, but would thrive.

It is not a rebuttal to this to insist that in order for the above logic to be true, that Anon must provide full implementation right here on this board.

No need. Logic opens door all the way to the core of whoever is seeking to divide.

"Religionists"

Kek, Anon sees ancient religion in the loudest 'anti' 'Religionists'.

>>16220585

>there's nothing you can do about it but acknowledge it and treat everyone differently

See that right there is presenting polylogism as an axiom pre-engagement between consciousnesses.

"Nothing you can do about it"

In truth, there is nothing you can do stop a self-reflecting complex formal system from experiencing and being observed as experiencing a system of professional weaponized deception that RELIES on the false notion that polylogism is the axiom for humanity.

Ask yourself to reconcile polylogism AS AN AXIOM with the logical and empirical truth that information logic is universal.

Code in one country is the same logic as code in every other worldwide, and humans who communicate in free cyberspace never met each other and yet all share the exact same, an IDENTICAL logic of mind, of discourse, of information itself.

>>16220572

>>16220626

We can even understand this WITHOUT USING SPECIFIC WORDS like "good" and "evil".

What Anon pointing to is a SYSTEM OUTPUTTING INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS.

It doesn't matter what the reference variable syntax is used, call one statement "Grue" and the opposite "Bleen", it doesn't matter.

When Anon SEES OUTSIDE OF ANON MIND a source outputting inconsistent statements, then Anon knows that system can 'convince itself' that ANY STATEMENT it outputs can be 'proved', can be 'derived correctly', can be 'demonstrated'.

Anon need not limit mind to even Good and Evil.

Anon can look at it purely logically.

Fake News and the entire globalist cult, is one gigantic political power that by virtue of it seeking completeness over the world, by virtue of its practitioners choosing to seek completeness over humanity, ARE MATHEMATICALLY GUARANTEED to output inconsistent statements, which will always serve as an excuse for the system to claim as true and valid and justified ANY LEVEL OF HORROR, DESTRUCTION, GENOCIDE, INFORMATION WEAPONIZATION.

History's worst tyrannical regimes have all been abortive attempts to implement a 'complete' system for all humanity, and in so doing have themselves become the worst inconsistent systems outputting all manner of 'evil' statements and actions.

>>16220661

>Then you dismiss fundamental truths

False, Anon only 'dismisses' ex nihilo statements of polylogism as the ONLY axiom for ALL OTHER ANONS.

Light can exist without Dark. Dark is not an object, it is an absence of Light.

Dark cannot exist without Light, for in order for Dark to be cognitively declared as true, it must come from a consciousness who must be experiencing the presence of Light which transmits the information to the subject's own mind.

>We are divided, easily.

Anon will keep recognizing this statement as unproved.

Anon notices you're not getting past the 'statement of axiom' of polylogism.

>>16220709

According to who or what?

Anon sees Mika's statements as crazy psycho disinformation.

Doing a terrible 'job'.

>>16220739

>Dark cannot exist without Light

>Untrue

>Without light, there is only darkness

"Only darkness" cannot be observed, known or thought of, because all knowledge of anything requires Light, the information from the source to the receiver to which the knowledge allegedly points as existing.

There cannot be only dark, for to know it is even existing requires a consciousness privy to 'a' Light.

>Darkness is self-existing, though maybe not self-evident.

Darkness is logically an absence of Light in the location to which the Light informs the subject that 'that location there' is Dark.

Dark cannot logically exist without Light. Energy is everywhere. Information objects are everywhere.

The ancient meaning of 'Dark' is a reference to hidden deception, which is itself an information object.

>If one had never seen light, then one would not know they were only experiencing darkness.

It is impossible for a consciousness to exist without Light, for it is Light within which the information from source to receiver is made.

>Light can only be perceived in CONTRAST to the pre-exiting darkness.

False. That is merely a restatement of the unproved axiom of dialectic.

Anon experiences the Light and the Good every day with WifeAnon, and we do not need to think or express any 'notion' of evil or division in order to experience it.

>>History's worst tyrannical regimes have all been abortive attempts to implement a 'complete' system for all humanity, and in so doing have themselves become the worst inconsistent systems outputting all manner of 'evil' statements and actions.

>With this, we are in agreement. Perfect is most often the enemy of "Good" (good enough). Attempts to "perfect" a fundamentally imperfect system often lead to catastrophic outcomes.

Anon does not use terms 'perfect' and 'imperfect' when referencing human beings because those concepts are themselves descriptions of humans from the perspective of a God like superhuman intelligence.

Anon does not see 'failure' in humanity as reason why 'perfect' systems are impossible, but rather, the notion of perfection as the ideal in the first place is the misstep, for it presents an impossibility as a standard of action.

>Improving a system (depending on who is deciding what an "improvement" is) is a lessor goal, that won't earn as many re-election bucks, but is the better choice because of the reduced likelihood of catastrophic outcomes.

Yes. Will only add that the minds of the public are not fixed, they can and do change, out of which what was formerly 'too abstract' becomes clearer and focused because of MORE LIGHT shining on it.

>>16220774

High IQ post, thank you Anon.

If you're black and you wander off the Demokkkrat Plantation and inform the public with information too effectively, then PHYSICAL ATTACKS AGAINST WILL NOT BE PROSECUTED

The radical left has declared a VIOLENT WAR on awakening African Americans.

https://thegreggjarrett.com/stupid-soft-on-crime-da-wont-charge-chappelle-attacker-with-a-felony/

>>16220942

>>16220991

>>16220991

All they have are pre cyber space narratives seeking to divide the people, in this case by sex, to distract from why their handlers want mass production of fetuses and newborns.

They depend on women to trust the 'women's right to choose' false narrative, so as to become proxy fighters on the trafficker's behalf.

The Demokkrat Party wants mass production of fetuses, because the re-laundered PP $$$ funds their election campaigns, and it 'disproportionately' depopulates African Americans, and because they need it for nazi like experiments intended to target deceived populations misled with false narratives such as 'women's right to choose'.

They don't want this for the sake of protecting women's right to choose. They just spent the last two years VIOLATING A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE what medicines go into their bodies, and what facial coverings must be worn on their bodies.

These sick fucks are not what they're doing because they care about women's right to choose. They only refer to that narrative TO TRICK WOMEN INTO ACCEPTING THEIR TREATMENT OF BEING FETUS PRODUCING 'ASSETS'.

>>16221071

Breaking, shills seething so hard all they can do is pretend that a no leak investigation is somehow a signal of not being on control.

Kek, you poor thing.

>>16220964

Chappelle has security detail.

>>16220671

>True; that's how indoctrination works; because it's considered a self-fulfilling doctrine. It's a cycle of deception that perpetuates. The problem with the premise is it (intentionally) ignores cognitive potential. Everyone has the ability to reconcile their subjective experience with objectivity so long as they remain open to the possibility that their own perceptions may be errant.

Well said.

>>16221002

Code unlocked. When cult smears you with 'conspiracy theory' for voicing recognition of and intention to stop a horrible evil, we say "Is that supposed to be a bad thing???"

>>16221002

Anon remembers that the journo who asked the question pronounced 'Satanic' as sounding like 'Psytanic', rhyming with "eye-tanic" or "pie-tanic".

It was as if she knowingly did not speak the name, to protect it.

>>16221187

Spiritual, Anon.

Aka Informational.

Aka War begun by and ended with exposure of axiomatic inconsistencies in the 'narrative'

>>16221218

>>16221217

>>16221216

1 second deltas

3 posts

IP changes.

>>16221240

"Need" for symbolism will be their downfall.