Twitter cuts (#106)

(I haven’t listened to it. Tracey’s description is enough.)

December 13, 2016admin 13 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Pass the popcorn

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

13 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    For Leftists, image is all. It is why any sane society would purge them.


    Posted on December 13th, 2016 at 2:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Melanie L'Heuremaudit Says:

    SJWs at Ivy League school replace picture of Shakespeare with a black feminist lesbian, who looks like a man:


    Posted on December 13th, 2016 at 3:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • brainwashed idiot Says:



    Posted on December 13th, 2016 at 5:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    — « “The limitless violence of runaway mimesis or the peace of the kingdom of God”
    To understand Thiel’s outlook, you have to look at mimetic theory, an idea developed by René Girard, whom Thiel studied with at Stanford and in whose name he sponsors an institute.

    “I’ve noticed that it takes a long time to really sink in,” Thiel said in 2014 about Girard’s theories. “You can understand what his words mean as philosophical concepts without understanding how those concepts play out in life.”

    Like Girard, Thiel believes that …

    … mankind’s extraordinary capacity for mimesis, aka imitation, leads to envy.

    Human see, human want.

    In ancient cultures, this often resulted in chaos.

    “The fundamental problem in these cultures was that there were all sorts of conflicts everywhere,” Thiel said in a 2012 class, according to notes by his former student Blake Masters, which we’ll treat as verbatim.

    … society controls tensions through scapegoating.

    “Where warring civilizations didn’t just collapse entirely, the most common resolution involved polarizing and channeling all the hostility into one particular person,” Thiel told his class. »


    Posted on December 13th, 2016 at 6:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Vtlra Says:

    *Literally Maniacally Smirking*


    Posted on December 14th, 2016 at 3:00 am Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    I’m still game to entertain Marx’s hermeneutic of suspicion that relegates RACIS IQ SCIENCE to material, economic factors we’re nearly unconscious of. Anyone else? (Besides the Artxell/Haines shills).


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    This is the proper economy:

    « Mortal creatures have one overall concern. This they work at by toiling over a whole range of pursuits, advancing on different paths, but striving to attain the one goal of happiness. This is the good which once attained ensures that no one can aspire to anything further. Indeed, it is the highest of all goods, and gathers all go[o]ds within itself. If any good were lacking to it, it could not be the highest good, since some desirable thing would be left outside it. Thus it is clear that happiness is the state of perfection achieved by the concentration of all goods within it. All mortals, as I have said, strive to attain it by different paths; for this longing for the true good is naturally implanted in human minds, but error diverts them off course towards false “goods”. »


    Pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    >but striving to attain the one goal of happiness.

    Stopped reading there.

    Any theory that presumes that happiness is the ultimate animating object for most varieties of ape creature is a castle on quicksand.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    This is the 6th century Roman statesman Boethius.

    I don´t think you get what he´s saying.


    Pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    Emotions are, among other things, a sense for detecting changes from the usual state of affairs.

    Emotional ranges adapt to certain levels of stimuli, like an eye adapts to certain levels of light.

    Exhorting people to hold happiness as the ultimate object induces neurosis and ironically even lower levels of happiness than might be otherwise as they beat themselves up over inevitably not feeling happy all the time.

    An emotion that is always ‘on’ (or always *off*), is an *malfunctioning* emotion.


    Pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    I get what hes getting at.

    He (or the translator) is just using a poor word to describe it.

    Posted on December 14th, 2016 at 4:51 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Here´s the MP3:


    Posted on December 14th, 2016 at 7:10 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment