Tyb
Using the enemy's assets against themselves. When you get your message to more people using their assets, you win using their resources.
Oh look, it's the unironic Marxist using Marxist logic to denigrate the group Marx was born into.
Kek
anon guesses it is 'randomly' distributing this meme multiple times each bread in an attempt to condition anons into hating pepe.
Chapter 1 of Flynn's book 5GW:
"The primary enemy is the one trying to get you to hate one another"
Please cite exactly what she said that you are concluding she is 'kissing his ass'.
This is the latest psyop from the cult
Torba (intel asset) riles up pro censorship logic with 'ban the ADL'.
Then both sides narrative spewed from the same source, to trick anons into believing in the same division of humanity logic is what has to shape any answer or reaction, get called a traitor or shill by both 'sides', all to rile up more division logic in humanity.
Nobody has ever proved the logical structure of the human mind differs between races, classes, or nations.
Like the CCP doesn't censor?
The ADL is a viciously racist hate group. It was only up until last year that they had up on their website that the definition of racism was 'white people'. Not kidding.
And, almost all of their smears and slanders are themselves anti-semitic, every time commit the fallacy of composition in responding to criticisms of individuals as somehow making all jews guilty by association.
They should be called the Defamation League, because they defame innocent people all the time.
Your post is also a psyop.
Falsely portraying 17 million individuals as one consciousness, one person, with one set of ideas that are magically perfectly consistent with no disagreements whatsoever.
Try harder.
To want censorship, to love censorship, to want to censor any org is itself a fascist logic.
>double answer guy
It's a way to save more posts for other anons,
This triggers the cult who post 'every double poster is cia' without any explanation or proof, you're just supposed to accept it, and anyone who does it or disagrees with it is baaaaaaaahhhhhhh baaaaahhhhhhd.
Try again.
You're treating millions of individuals who have their separate values as if they were one blob of consciousness.
"Whites are working together to destroy Jews"
This sentence is also false for the same reason.
You didn't explain how the LOGIC is different.
Nobody is denying the content can differ, but that's nothing to do with logical structure.
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Polylogism
Logical structure of mind does not differ between races, nobody has ever proved otherwise.
Or, fuck off with your useless opinion.
"The Marxians have resorted to polylogism because they could not refute by logical methods the theories developed by "bourÂgeois" economics, or the inferences drawn from these theories demonstrating the impracticability of socialism. As they could not rationally demonstrate the soundness of their own ideas or the unÂsoundness of their adversaries' ideas, they have denounced the accepted logical methods. The success of this Marxian stratagem was unprecedented. It has rendered proof against any reasonable criticism all the absurdities of Marxian would-be economics and would-be sociology. Only by the logical tricks of polylogism could etatism gain a hold on the modern mind."
"Polylogism is so inherently nonsensical that it cannot be carried consistently to its ultimate logical consequences. No Marxian was bold enough to draw all the conclusions that his own epistemological viewpoint would require. The principle of polylogism would lead to the inference that Marxian teachings also are not objecÂtively true but are only "ideological" statements. But the Marxians deny it. They claim for their own doctrines the character of absoÂlute truth. Thus Dietzgen teaches that "the ideas of proletarian logic are not party ideas but the outcome of logic pure and simÂple." The proletarian logic is not "ideology" but absolute logic. Present-day Marxians, who label their teachings the sociology of knowledge, give proof of the sameinconsistency".
Sound familiar? How many times do shills on qresearch engage anons and pretend to win arguments by attributing a 'background' to anon? Every. Single. Time.