—“Monogamy is eugenic, not polygamy. That seems counterintuitive, because elite men can be much more reproductively successful under polygamy. And they are, with lower quality women, because that’s the only way elite men can have several, by mating down. So low status women are reproductively more successful under polygamy and high status women relatively less so. And the dysgenic effect for females predominates over the eugenic effect for males. Just look at societies with normative polygyny, Africa, the middle east…. In contrast, monogamous societies can institute moderately eugenic policies for men AND women under assortative mating.”=== Eli Harman
Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology
-
He Solution to Kevin Mac Donald’s Question of How and Why the Culture of Critique
(important) (core) 1) Ashkenazis succeeded in reversal of gender bias in cognitive ability, while maintaining pastoral aggression. (We can easily measure this, and all data I’ve seen supports it.) 2) The result has been adoption of the female group social strategy, 3) … and the Female primate’s reproductive strategy for constraining alphas. 4) Female Humans seek systemic free riding and parasitism upon the commons (force the tribe to pay the cost of her offspring), control reproduction and leadership by undermining, and undermine using disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, straw manning, heaping of undue praise, and spreading of undue criticism. They poison(pollute) the informational commons. All female behavior evolved to either control children at the lowest cost, obtain rents from men and the commons at lowest cost, and to increase the cost of her sex, affection, and political support (positive gossiping), by both scarcity of it an constant undermining in the absence of it. ( It’s a very simple algorithm really.) 5) So, Ashkenazi behavior and its damage to all host civilizations is just Instinct, common interest, common strategy, and not conspiracy: Neither women nor Ashkenazim know that they do. They both destroy unless their behaviors are severely limited. And the lesson is that males that cannot constrain their females (or their proxies) from undermining are too weak to rule (defend). Evolution does its work if men do not. 6) In other words: The Culture of Critique is just the Female Group Evolutionary Strategy making use of each innovation in “distribution” writing, traveling and preaching, printing, mass media, the priesthood and the academy, the entertainment industry and the media rallying women and the underclasses against the aristocracy (white males). 8) The Technological History is: Gossip > Monotheism(writing) > Pseudoscience(printing) > Industrialized Lying (major media) 7) This is the answer to @TOOEdit’s mystery. “They are all female” and act accordingly out of intuition to undermine at all opportunities, and to seek parasitic rents on the commons. 8) Our only mistake was ‘free speech’ rather than free warrantied (ie: truthful) speech. And our means of correction is quite simple. Extend the involuntary warranty we impose upon goods and services to that of speech (information); restore Defamation, (Libel, Slander), and physical retaliation for insult (fighting or ‘the judicial duel’); We let loose the industrialization of lying under the premise of false speech under the assumption that our high trust people and our high trust habits were universal to man. But they are not only unique to westerners, but unique to western males who aggressively police their honor (reputations) by the aggressive physical and legal suppression of falsehood, and the universal duty to do so. White males are the human race’s aristocracy and developed aristocratic technological civilization using heroism, truth, sovereignty, reciprocity( empirical law of tort), markets in everything, including a market government between the classes, and markets for information in multiple disciplines. Only the most competitive people can use meritocracy. The weak cannot. They will lose. Hence why no other civilization evolved what the west did. Truth, Testimony, Sovereignty, Natural Law of Reciprocity: Tort, Markets in everything as a consequence, and competition, reason, empiricism, and science to resolve differences between those markets. So excellence and superiority are not a question. They’re measurable. We pay the high cost of truth and duty regardless of the cost to the signal hierarchy (dominance or competence hierarchy). We invented truth reason empiricism science, market civilization because only we could – because only the most competitive can succeed under meritocracy. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
He Solution to Kevin Mac Donald’s Question of How and Why the Culture of Critique
(important) (core) 1) Ashkenazis succeeded in reversal of gender bias in cognitive ability, while maintaining pastoral aggression. (We can easily measure this, and all data I’ve seen supports it.) 2) The result has been adoption of the female group social strategy, 3) … and the Female primate’s reproductive strategy for constraining alphas. 4) Female Humans seek systemic free riding and parasitism upon the commons (force the tribe to pay the cost of her offspring), control reproduction and leadership by undermining, and undermine using disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, straw manning, heaping of undue praise, and spreading of undue criticism. They poison(pollute) the informational commons. All female behavior evolved to either control children at the lowest cost, obtain rents from men and the commons at lowest cost, and to increase the cost of her sex, affection, and political support (positive gossiping), by both scarcity of it an constant undermining in the absence of it. ( It’s a very simple algorithm really.) 5) So, Ashkenazi behavior and its damage to all host civilizations is just Instinct, common interest, common strategy, and not conspiracy: Neither women nor Ashkenazim know that they do. They both destroy unless their behaviors are severely limited. And the lesson is that males that cannot constrain their females (or their proxies) from undermining are too weak to rule (defend). Evolution does its work if men do not. 6) In other words: The Culture of Critique is just the Female Group Evolutionary Strategy making use of each innovation in “distribution” writing, traveling and preaching, printing, mass media, the priesthood and the academy, the entertainment industry and the media rallying women and the underclasses against the aristocracy (white males). 8) The Technological History is: Gossip > Monotheism(writing) > Pseudoscience(printing) > Industrialized Lying (major media) 7) This is the answer to @TOOEdit’s mystery. “They are all female” and act accordingly out of intuition to undermine at all opportunities, and to seek parasitic rents on the commons. 8) Our only mistake was ‘free speech’ rather than free warrantied (ie: truthful) speech. And our means of correction is quite simple. Extend the involuntary warranty we impose upon goods and services to that of speech (information); restore Defamation, (Libel, Slander), and physical retaliation for insult (fighting or ‘the judicial duel’); We let loose the industrialization of lying under the premise of false speech under the assumption that our high trust people and our high trust habits were universal to man. But they are not only unique to westerners, but unique to western males who aggressively police their honor (reputations) by the aggressive physical and legal suppression of falsehood, and the universal duty to do so. White males are the human race’s aristocracy and developed aristocratic technological civilization using heroism, truth, sovereignty, reciprocity( empirical law of tort), markets in everything, including a market government between the classes, and markets for information in multiple disciplines. Only the most competitive people can use meritocracy. The weak cannot. They will lose. Hence why no other civilization evolved what the west did. Truth, Testimony, Sovereignty, Natural Law of Reciprocity: Tort, Markets in everything as a consequence, and competition, reason, empiricism, and science to resolve differences between those markets. So excellence and superiority are not a question. They’re measurable. We pay the high cost of truth and duty regardless of the cost to the signal hierarchy (dominance or competence hierarchy). We invented truth reason empiricism science, market civilization because only we could – because only the most competitive can succeed under meritocracy. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
Of course you do. I answer the question all the time “Why is America more fragil
Of course you do. I answer the question all the time “Why is America more fragile than any other empire in history” and I explain why. Any idiot who reads anything knows that. You apparently don’t read much of VALUE. Is a revolution possible? Yes. Can it win? Yes. That’s why.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 20:04:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997930904835280897
Reply addressees: @Imperius__13 @Aristomedes @DSA_dienstmann
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997930266453856256
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997930266453856256
-
“Alexander looked out upon the breadth of his domain and wept, for there were no
—“Alexander looked out upon the breadth of his domain and wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer.”–
I look out upon the universe and say “We few are the gods who shall conquer it, bend it to our will, and make a paradise of it.”
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 16:02:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997870046985838592
-
LEARNING ART HISTORY You read Gardner – I mean that’s enough. You learn world hi
LEARNING ART HISTORY
You read Gardner – I mean that’s enough. You learn world history; you get a vague grasp of technological history -most of art history is the evolution of representational technologies on the one hand and mythos (symbolism) on the other.
Monumental art is expensive, and empires can afford the expensive, and it’s one of the few things that is extremely difficult to imitate without equal expense, so it has extraordinary signal value. Monuments are profoundly good investments in reality. There is no equivalent.
When you understand its all just money, and that military empires create good art because they both can afford to and politically need to then it’s all rather obvious.
From that knowledge base you can focus on the mastery of each of the crafts – all of which combine both technical knowledge with extraordinary repetition (training). And so I found working in fine art as tedious as playing chess: in order to be good enough you must spend ten years getting there and only after that have you any chance of making a difference.
As such, either you find an innovation in representational technology young and use it (like mathematicians do) or you develop deep talents like all craftsmen do.
The problem with literature at present (meaning) is that (((they))) have been working through marxism, POMO, feminism for over a century now to destroy all forms of excellence via critique – essentially soiling everything that is beautiful and excellent with the fecal matter of marxism/feminism/postmodernism.
I know that I read encyclopedias and history young, studied art and see human history as the evolution of arts and technologies. It was after I added economics and economic history that I developed a wholistic understanding of man.
Hence why I have a low opinion of the history of thought: it consists largely of the middle class writing opposition literature against the status quo by proposing ideals that are existentially impossible but agitating and cathartic none the less.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 10:57:00 UTC
-
Learning Art History
You read Gardner – I mean that’s enough. You learn world history; you get a vague grasp of technological history -most of art history is the evolution of representational technologies on the one hand and mythos (symbolism) on the other. Monumental art is expensive, and empires can afford the expensive, and it’s one of the few things that is extremely difficult to imitate without equal expense, so it has extraordinary signal value. Monuments are profoundly good investments in reality. There is no equivalent. When you understand its all just money, and that military empires create good art because they both can afford to and politically need to then it’s all rather obvious. From that knowledge base you can focus on the mastery of each of the crafts – all of which combine both technical knowledge with extraordinary repetition (training). And so I found working in fine art as tedious as playing chess: in order to be good enough you must spend ten years getting there and only after that have you any chance of making a difference. As such, either you find an innovation in representational technology young and use it (like mathematicians do) or you develop deep talents like all craftsmen do. The problem with literature at present (meaning) is that (((they))) have been working through marxism, POMO, feminism for over a century now to destroy all forms of excellence via critique – essentially soiling everything that is beautiful and excellent with the fecal matter of marxism/feminism/postmodernism. I know that I read encyclopedias and history young, studied art and see human history as the evolution of arts and technologies. It was after I added economics and economic history that I developed a wholistic understanding of man. Hence why I have a low opinion of the history of thought: it consists largely of the middle class writing opposition literature against the status quo by proposing ideals that are existentially impossible but agitating and cathartic none the less. May 19, 2018 10:57am
-
Learning Art History
You read Gardner – I mean that’s enough. You learn world history; you get a vague grasp of technological history -most of art history is the evolution of representational technologies on the one hand and mythos (symbolism) on the other. Monumental art is expensive, and empires can afford the expensive, and it’s one of the few things that is extremely difficult to imitate without equal expense, so it has extraordinary signal value. Monuments are profoundly good investments in reality. There is no equivalent. When you understand its all just money, and that military empires create good art because they both can afford to and politically need to then it’s all rather obvious. From that knowledge base you can focus on the mastery of each of the crafts – all of which combine both technical knowledge with extraordinary repetition (training). And so I found working in fine art as tedious as playing chess: in order to be good enough you must spend ten years getting there and only after that have you any chance of making a difference. As such, either you find an innovation in representational technology young and use it (like mathematicians do) or you develop deep talents like all craftsmen do. The problem with literature at present (meaning) is that (((they))) have been working through marxism, POMO, feminism for over a century now to destroy all forms of excellence via critique – essentially soiling everything that is beautiful and excellent with the fecal matter of marxism/feminism/postmodernism. I know that I read encyclopedias and history young, studied art and see human history as the evolution of arts and technologies. It was after I added economics and economic history that I developed a wholistic understanding of man. Hence why I have a low opinion of the history of thought: it consists largely of the middle class writing opposition literature against the status quo by proposing ideals that are existentially impossible but agitating and cathartic none the less. May 19, 2018 10:57am
-
The difference is that speech has been sacred in our civilization, and the oppos
The difference is that speech has been sacred in our civilization, and the opposite in (((theirs))).
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-18 12:16:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997450905762041857
-
The difference is that speech has been sacred in our civilization, and the oppos
The difference is that speech has been sacred in our civilization, and the opposite in (((theirs))).
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-18 08:16:00 UTC