Division of labor is capitalism. Expertise is capitalism. Herding and agriculture are capitalism. Technology is capitalism. Hunting and gathering is socialism. Raiding and looting is socialism. Collective farms are socialism.

Vocabulary clarification. The term “disagreement” is now obsolete. The correct term is now “bullying”.

Socialists should stop trying to live off of capitalists. Socialists should live off of socialism. Collective farms are REAL socialism.

Just a thought about AI: AI makes inferences from data aggregated that are largely public domain. Sensitive or proprietary data are often excluded. Example: product costs.

Research topics: ✔️Matt Mahan, San Jose Mayor ✔️Daniel Laurie, SF Mayor ✔️Barbara Lee, Oakland Mayor ✔️Fred Blackwell, CEO, SF Foundation ✔️San Francisco Foundation ✔️Stand Together Bay Area Fund ✔️Mission Asset Fund ✔️ALMA Fund ✔️Faith in Action ✔️SF Interfaith Council

Do non-Muslims in New York City pay a jizya tax?

What is a McGuffin?

The origin of the Critical Theory was an essay by Frankfurt School director Max Horkheimer, titled "Traditional and Critical Theory," written in 1937. It says the same crap we deal with today. The essence of Horkheimer's essay is that traditional theory, which is concerned with facts and figures and math and stuff, cares about understanding the world as it is without wanting to see beyond it or change it. Therefore, the traditional theorist reproduces the society in which he works, un-Critically. In fact, he doesn't even realize he's part of a historically contingent moment and just repeating and reaffirming the assumptions and class conflict of his time. (For Marxists, all of history, wrote Marx, is the history of (the evolution of) class antagonisms, so any particular moment in history is a particular set of class antagonisms based on a stage of historical development.) Horkheimer writes, "In this view of theory, therefore, the real social function of science is not made manifest; it speaks not of what theory means in human life, but only of what it means in the isolated sphere in which for historical reasons it comes into existence. Yet as a matter of fact the life of society is the result of all the work done in the various sectors of production. Even if therefore the division of labor in the capitalist system functions but poorly, its branches, including science, do not become for that reason self-sufficient and independent. They are particular instances of the way in which society comes to grips with nature and maintains its own inherited form." In short, knowing what you're talking about is just a means of reproducing the oppressive society, so it's not actually that good. In fact, Horkheimer says the Critical Theory is suspicious of the very idea that the society we have produces good things at all. Horkheimer writes, "On the contrary, [Critical Theory] is suspicious of the very categories of better, useful, appropriate, productive, and valuable, as these are understood in the present order, and refuses to take them as nonscientific presuppositions about which one can do nothing." For Horkheimer, there is no making anything "better, useful, appropriate, productive, or valuable" in the existing (capitalist) system because the whole thing is rotten and any improvements only make the situation worse by making people believe it is good or that it works. Dismal! The alternative is to adopt a Critical Theory as a second and dominant dimension of theoretical thinking. This style of thinking imagines a world outside of the current system that is more concerned with living the good life than it is with getting right answers about the world or making things better inside the system. Horkheimer writes, "In fact, however, the self-knowledge of present-day man is not a mathematical knowledge of nature which claims to be the eternal Logos [traditional theory, strawmanned badly], but a critical theory of society as it is, a theory dominated at every turn by a concern for reasonable conditions of life." This is the classic socialist strawman and sad-funny-dangerous confusion: only socialism has any "concern for reasonable conditions of life." Therefore, anything that isn't socialism is a system that doesn't have "concern for reasonable conditions of life." All of socialism is this conclusion in search of arguments and damage it can do to the existing system. My point isn't these details, though. I'm only showing you them so you can see that they're there from the start. My point is telling you what a Critical Theory is and always has been. It's the annoying claim that people who work to make the society we have better are upholding it and therefore a problem because they have decided the system we have is rotten at its very foundations and has to be replaced with socialism to be any good. It doesn't matter that not one society ever in the history of man has made a socialist society work, and they have produced little more than squalor, misery, struggle, and death. People just haven't conceived of it rightly yet. How should they conceive of it, then? The Critical Theorists don't tell us. In fact, Horkheimer said some 30 years later that they can't tell us. He said that it is not possible to describe a good or ideal society on the terms of the existing society. "We lack the means," he said in a 1969 interview. All they can do, he insisted, is bring up the negative aspects of the society we have that they wish to change. So Critical Theory is a belief that making society better is a moral wrong because it reproduces a society they hate. They cannot offer anyone a viable alternative, though. All they can do is complain about things that don't go perfectly until people come to hate the society they have for not being something they can't even describe.

Struggle session.

> Did you know that Western Civilization was saved by a Polish king? I only learned about this a couple months ago from YouTube. I'm astonished that my high school and college educations barely mentioned this. And I went to decent ("expensive") schools.

The French knights at Crécy and Agincourt were full of honor and panache. Beautiful horses, beautiful armor, beautiful feathers – formidable. Magnificent. The English were efficient. Guess who won? The longbowman was a peasant. No noble blood, no chivalric code, no magnificent plumes. He trained every Sunday by royal decree until he could put an arrow through armor at two hundred yards. He was not impressive to look at. He was devastating to face. The French knights found it offensive. To be killed by a commoner with a stick and a string – it violated the entire aesthetic of war. They charged anyway, because the code demanded it, because the horses were magnificent, because retreating was unthinkable for a man of honor. The arrows didn’t care about the code. This is the oldest story in Western civilization, told every century in a different costume. The beautiful system versus the efficient one. The one that looks right versus the one that works. The French had the better uniforms at Crécy, at Agincourt, at Waterloo, and in 1940. The pattern is not a coincidence. It is a civilizational tendency – the preference for the magnificent gesture over the effective one, for the noble form over the brutal function. The market is the longbow. Unglamorous, democratic, slightly disreputable in polite company – and devastating to any system that faces it while still believing that looking correct is the same as being right. The arrow doesn’t care about your panache. It never did.

Humanity is divided into two basic anthropological groups: ▪️Paleolithic ▪️Neolithic

Money is a measure of cost. Lefties don’t believe in costs. Every thing that humans need for a comfortable, stress-free existence is available in “the commons”. Production is extraction from the commons by capitalists to create private profits. Profit is bad. Extraction is bad.

History lesson; Hard ☑️ hunting ☑️ gathering ☑️ herding ☑️ agriculture Easy ☑️ raiding villages and taking their stuff ☑️ raising taxes

Bernie embraces change.

U. S. Self-Deportation Counseling and Assistance Agency. A tolerant and humane solution for illegal aliens and miserable, self-loathing citizens who are unhappy in America.

Republican-Democrat Capitalist-Socialist Conservative-Progressive Rightie-Leftie The distinction is always the same: What you have the opportunity to achieve versus what you are allowed to achieve. You have the opportunity to be a billionaire but you are not allowed to be,

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), domestic terrorism involves acts dangerous to human life that violate U.S. or state criminal laws, appearing intended to intimidate/coerce a civilian population, influence government policy, or affect government conduct via mass destruction, . . .

40% of individual federal tax filers do not pay income taxes. That’s why Democrats strongly favor tax increases. We need a tax system were the tax rates are set so that 51% of every income bracket opposes tax increases. That would be fair. And Democrats would pay a lot more.

Split one. Split pace. 31 seconds per mile.