All “bliks” should be arrested, tried, and sentenced to jail now!

Everywhere you go there are bliks. They are a danger to society and must be incarcerated in the interest of public safety. I know you all have bliks stories to tell and I sympathize with your having a bad experience. We need to legislate new laws to monitor, and arrest all bliks.

You can tell a person is a blik by the fact that they will immediately will deny that they are bliks. Some confess to being bliks and are proud of it, and some claim we can never prove that there are bliks. This is more evidence that bliks are everywhere. I don’t want to hear any defenses for bliks, and about any of their blik problems.

In fact, all people who are not bliks should wear a red armband and carry a gun so we can know that they are not really bliks in disguise.


[Note: A “blik” is a term coined by philosopher R.M. Hare in dealing with the problem of religious language. A “blik” is an unfalsifiable belief that is also a meaningful worldview that cannot be proved or unproved by empirical evidence alone. A blik is a paradigm.]

 

Worst troll thread yet

 

Isn't "troll" a violation of rule #2? Or you really didn't mean it? How would you like if I called you a "blik?"

 

David Neiwert is an expert on Right-Wing extremism aka Alt-Right, and his writes can be found at Orcinus. I have read his research for many years.

The term "antifa" is an Agitprop term for "antifascist" of which over 400,000 Americans died fighting fascism in WWII. According to Jacques Ellul (Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes), agitation propaganda comes from the top down and is not designed to convince their followers of their policies, but to ready followers to act. The cable news network knowingly plays a key role here.

But also "antifa" is a convenient nomative term to write into law since there must be an object that corresponds to the word like "unicorn" must refer to an object.

The narrative about “antifa” that has been generated on right-wing media over the past three years is an almost entirely false one. By David Neiwert

 

Alt-Right extremists have done 30 car attacks in the last two weeks on black lives matter protesters. France also had a number of car/truck terrorists attacks, but in America the police reluctant to even get a license plate number in some cases, or issue traffic citations in other cases (truck attack in Minneapolis). American police are selectively enforcing the law based on political ideology just as the Nazis declined to punish assassins of leftists.

And here is just one parallel.

 

I don't want to sound sarcastic, but thanks for the 'likes' Lucifer!

 

The meaningless term "antifa" was created by the Right-Wing extremists to reset the race debate with a new vague term to de-rail public discussions about the rise of the White Supremacist fascism in US society.

My essay, The Ayn Randian Propagandistic Trope Concerning Postmodernism, examined the popular term "post-modernism" as another deliberately ambiguous term used in media discourses about Left-Right ideologies.

Another such empty equivocating term is "cancel culture" that has recently become a new popular catch word created by media personas that have monopoly status in the media industry. The fascists really know how to game the free speech and censorship issue: If you are for free discourse, the right-wing will publicly advocate the murder of the Left-wing; however, if you are for suppressing hate speech, the elites will attack the left for not being for free speech--either way they jam the channels of communication with chatter.

For example, the White Supremacists may want fascist Ann Coulter, or White Supremacist Richard Spencer to speak at some university, but if the student body objects they are accused of free speech intolerance. On the other hand, allow the "debate" to occur on campus and people get shot by Right-wing provocateurs.

Tyler Tenbrink, 28; William Fears, 30; and his brother, 28-year-old Colton Fears fired a shot at anti-Nazi protesters following a speech at the University of Florida by a white nationalist in Gainesville

The so called "Free Speech" debate was just a disguised ambush. The ultimate aim is to portray the Universities as radical and out of control by injecting chaos.

In another example, on May 3, 2015 (before the general election), two enraged Islamist gunmen opened fire at the exhibit for cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in Garland, Texas. The contest featured leading spokespersons in the Islamophobia industry that included anti-Muslim demagogue Pamela Geller and extreme-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders.

A year later, the news program "60 Minutes" verified that the Muslim cartoon contest was a planned ambush by Texas police meant to enrage the Muslim population under the cover of “free speech.”

How the FBI Played a Central Role in the First ISIS Attack on U.S. Soil: Investigation finds an undercover agent encouraged a shooter in Garland to "tear up Texas." It gets worse.
"An FBI trainer suggested in an interview with "60 Minutes" that, had the attack been bigger, the agency's numerous ties to the shooter would have led to a congressional investigation....As lurid as this sounds, it fits with the findings of human rights organizations, which have noted the FBI has a long history of pushing Muslim Americans into alleged terror plots they might not have otherwise been engaged in or connected to."

Below is a critique by journalist lawyer, Glenn Greenwald, on the new propaganda term "cancel culture." I don't agree with Greenwald on every issue, but he addresses the term "cancel culture" thoroughly in his video.

​

 

Yes, there are many 'bliks'. Just as I am a 'blik' for believing globalism is a ploy to subjugate the global masses under a world government run by the corporate elite, despite their claims that its the road to an egalitarian utopia, those that are certain President Trump is a Nazi bent on White Supremacy in America despite absolutely zero efforts made by him to make it such are also 'bliks.'

 

You aren't fooling anyone. I've been watching live on the ground, uncut streams of Antifa for years.

That they are anti-heirarchy anarchists does not mean they do not exist.

Hour long uncut footage is rather difficult to falsify or take out of context.

I am a staunch supporter of free expression. I am yet to meet anyone with a stronger standard. Therefore, I have no issue with any individual peacefully protesting.

Any individual throwing explosives into crowds (seen with my own eyes), throwing molotov cocktails into buildings (seen with my own eyes), or assaulting others should be arrested with any force necessary.

Anyone else should be left alone. That's a pretty permissive standard, which is why I'm consistently surprised I get flak for it.

You aren't allowed to fracture someone's skull, what a novel idea.

 

The op and his follow up post put one in mind of '1984' combined with a good measure if gas lighting ignoring the obvious and extreme verbal flatulence.

 

I think all persons using the term blik in a serious manner, should be chained to a bedpost and forced to listen to Rebecca Black songs for eternity.

 

We hear that human beings are expendable everyday from the Neo-Liberal Free Market prophets of the Market/Machine god paradigm.

Definitions:
(∀x) = for all x
⊃ = Logical operator for implication: If, then.
N = Nature
M = Machine
H = Human
E = Expendable
x = variable
y = variable
/∴ = Therefore; conclusion.

1.) (∀x)(Nx ⊃ Mx)
“All Nature is a machine”


2.) (∀x)(Hx ⊃ Nx)
“All Humans are of Nature”


3.) (∀x )(Mx ⊃ Ex) /∴(∀x)(Hx ⊃ Ex)
“All machines are expendable.” Therefore: “All Humans are expendable”


4.) My ⊃ Ey
Premise 3, UI, to strip away quantifiers to show sentence form.


5.) Ny ⊃ My
1, UI sentence form


6.) Hy ⊃ Ny
2, UI, sentence form


7.) Hy ⊃ My
5,6 Hypothetical Syllogism


8.) Hy ⊃ Ey
4,7 Hypothetical Syllogism


9.) (∀x)(Hx ⊃ Ex)
8, UG

 

You took the words right out of my mouth!

 

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”--Voltaire​

The U.S. Department of Heimat Security is attempting to connect T.H.R.U.S.T to the mythological evil force known as "Antifa" which is an right-wing euphemism meaning the antithesis of fascist which is "anti-fascism" that offends the ears of certain persons whose best friends are fascists.

For the above reason an euphemism is better than the original meaning in the sense that the definition of fascism can be changed to something else less direct like "fascism is ruthless war tactics" which is a tautology since wars are ruthless by definition. The absurd meaningless term "Antifa" as used is the best American legal minds have to offer from the White House.

DHS has reported that there might be ties between the Kurds and "Antifa" which is a dangerous terrorist organization in Northern Syria that are also secretly "Antifa," but are more dangerous for having been trained and supplied with state of the art American weaponry from the DEPARTMENT OF HOME LAND SECURITY AND OTHER OLDER US INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATIONS SINCE THE 1970's.

Trump Administration Is FORCING an Antifa Narrative By Any Means Possible

​

The history of the Britain, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and America’s dealings with the Kurds is one of the most disgraceful stories of America's involvement in the Middle East. The Kurds’ hope for freedom was raised and then deliberately dashed as they were used as pawns over and over again to instigate war and instability in the region. Noam Chomsky mentions a little of the history below.

"Chomsky: The relationship with the Kurds goes back a little ways beyond that. In the 1920s that was British turf, not U.S. turf, and we might remember that it was the British that used poison gas largely against the Kurds. Against others too, but largely the Kurds, as part of their terror campaign when they tried to establish the state of Iraq under British control, as they cut it out of the Ottoman Empire. That was Winston Churchill's contribution to peace and joy among nations. He was the official who authorized the use of poison gas and bitterly denounced the "squeamishness" of people who were opposed to using the modern means of warfare.

There's an older history, too. But starting around the early 1970s there was a Kurdish revolt supported by Iran. The Shah at that time was the main U.S. ally. He wanted to cause some trouble for Iraq. One of the ways of causing trouble was to sponsor a Kurdish revolt in the north. The U.S. then under Kissinger went along with that, helped out. Later revelations by the Pike Committee were leaked and published in the Village Voice, though as far as I know I don't think they were published in book form in the U.S. They were published in a book in England, by a small publisher. Nobody wanted to see this stuff, but it was a very important report. The Pike Committee report, which had a lot of documentation, included cables and other statements, with the names blanked out, but it's obvious who it is, between Kissinger and Iran, making it very clear that neither the U.S. nor Iran wanted the Kurds to win. In fact, they didn't want the Kurds to win, they wanted them to fight and bloody Iraq, but not to win. That was crucial. They were frank about that. This was intended as pressure on Iraq to settle some border issue about access to the Gulf." (Chronicles of Dissent, Chomsky, p.308).

Decades later W. H. Bush betrayed the Kurds, and then Trump.

​

 

The news isn't bad all the time! The coalition group includes Center for Public Justice, Prison Fellowship, the American Bible Society, the Asian American Christian Collaborative, the National Day of Prayer and World Relief.

Christian Groups Launch Police Reform Initiative:World Relief, the National Association of Evangelicals, and other groups that lean conservative on social issues have started a criminal justice reform project.

 

One thing for sure, Kyklos sure knows how to stir up a hornets nest! I can't decide if they believe what they post or just being contrarian for the fun of it.

 

While Barr's DOJ is looking for some definition of "antifa" that isn't embarrassingly stupid, and includes most Americans' sentiment since 1933, Trump's armed henchmen mixed in with federal troops are practicing taking over State houses, and killing Americans with cars and guns while recording snuff films of US citizens being chocked to death.

All of these acts of treason are happening while at least 191,000 Americans were sacrificed for profit gouging, and the Market gods of Wall Street who are bullying Americans into risking their life and their family's lives. Scientists, like Dr. Fauci, are attempting to advise and control the pandemic are getting death threats from Maggot extremists who are being encouraged by mafia boss Trump himself!

‘Right-wing extremists’ are responsible for 100% of political murders during last two years

 

I'll bite. What is a blik?

 

QAnon? Hard to believe Trump is giving that group support

 

It is just chaos crisis propaganda to muddy the waters by flooding the media with conspiracy theories to conceal actual conspiracies engaged by the Trump mafia syndicate--"Oh, another conspiracy tinfoil hat...ect. ect."

Yves Smith's "Naked Capitalism" is a good source. The financial ties are shocking.
Apollo’s Leon Black, Found in Serial Child Rapist Jeffrey Epstein’s Black Book, Patronized Strip Club in Russia With Trump Posted on August 20, 2020 by Yves Smith

 

What does "blik" mean in the states?

Here in UK it means black on black, or some who is so black skinned they are "blik" or purple... an example is the notorious Akinwale "Purple Aki" Arobieke... so black he is blik...

 

Ah British colloquialism. I had never heard it. Thanks.

 

A “blik” is a term coined by philosopher R.M. Hare in dealing with the problem of religious language. A “blik” is an unfalsifiable belief that is also a meaningful worldview that cannot be proved or unproved by empirical evidence alone. A blik is a paradigm.

see Hare's introduction to the concept here:
Chapter 8 Religious Language World Views and Reason

 

It's a great explanation of "systemic racism".

If you're white, you're racist. If you are white and deny being racist, you're an EVEN BIGGER RACIST!!

 

Actually, the is exactly right. "If you are progressive, you are a communist, and if you deny it, you're an even more of a communist." Any term can be used as a unfalsifiable world-view: "All reality is material; therefore, everything is material," (The Materialist tautology). A blik is a circular belief.

"No true Christian would do X," is another good example of a proposition that could be used as a unfalsifiable blik. Hare used the parable of a mad man's belief his professor is trying to kill him.

"A certain lunatic is convinced that all dons want to murder him. His friends introduce him to all the mildest and most respectable dons that they can find, and after each of them has retired, they say, 'You see, he doesn't really want to murder you; he spoke to you in a most cordial manner; surely you are convinced now?' But the lunatic replies, 'Yes, but that was only his diabolical cunning; he's really plotting against me the whole time, like the rest of them; I know it I tell you'. However many kindly dons are produced, the reaction is still the same." (From "Symposium on Theology and Falsification," Antony Flew, R. M. Hare and Basil Mitchell.)

Another example of a blik is the old “No True Scotsman ” logical fallacy parable.

The Ontological Ambiguity of Paradigmatic Propositions

“Ontological Ambiguity” of paradigmatic statements is the best name I could come up with. “Ambiguity of Propositional Logical Status” could of been used instead to describe how paradigms can linguistically alternate in use as definitions on the one hand, and then as factual statements on the other--depending on what the situation calls for.

This paradigmatic ambiguity is best explained by understanding why an argument form known as the “No True Scotsman” is a logical fallacy. The “No True Scotsman" logical fallacy parable goes like this--but there are many versions. The police arrest a Scotsman for vandalism. The local newspaper announced “A Scotsman” was arrested for vandalism! The town Scotsman however become very upset and said, “No Scotsman would do such a thing.” What Scotsman would vandalize property? He obviously was not a “Scotsman.”

What is causing the disagreement of fact? The police were making a factual statement, “The arrested man was of Irish heritage.” This is a “factual” statement. In logic it’s called a “synthetic proposition.” All factual statements are synthetic statements: X is (or has the attributes of ) A, B, C, and D qualities like color, shape, and so on. Factual statements can be either true, or false.

However, the Irish citizens were making a different kind of statement than the police blotter. They were saying, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing because a Scotsman would never vandalize a building.” They were creating a “definition,” or in logical terms, stipulating an “analytical definition ” of a Scotsman. Analytic statements are true by definition. To deny, for example, the analytical statement “Circles are around,” is to deny a definition, and this is always false--unless you change the definition. You’re not going to get a Scotsman to do that without an argument! If a Scotsman defines an “Scotsman” as someone that would never vandalize a building, and another is claiming a historical fact--you got an irresolvable disagreement. Would you call the numerous historical Catholic Inquisitions "Christian?" Many persons debate a position and are unaware that they are switching from pre-constructed definitions to empirical statements in their arguments and back again.

Intentionally, or unintentionally switching from interpreting a proposition as a “synthetic statement” and then later to an “analytical statements” for tautologous definitions and then back again to a factual interpretation is just logically circular. I find this logical fallacy all the time on the discussion board.

Paradigmatic statements can be used, or function as a 1. Analytic statement, 2. or used as Synthetic statements without explaining, or recognizing the shifts in meaning.

Examples of analytic propositions, on Kant's definition, include:

• "All bachelors are unmarried."
• "All triangles have three sides."

Analytic propositions are un-falsifiable.

• “Not all bachelors are unmarried.”
• “Some triangles have less than two sides.”

Examples of synthetic propositions, on Kant's definition, include:

• "All bachelors are unhappy."
• "All creatures with hearts have kidneys."

It is necessary to report factual statements and create definitions, but it is also important to always consciously know if there is a change in how a proposition is being used.

Paradigms have the circularity of definitions that make them immune to contradicting phenomena, or evidence.