Warrior, Judge, Chevalier (caretaker), Artisan. Thats enough to master for any man.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if you went to university, to expressly develop each of these skills?
We used to do that you know.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:47:00 UTC
ALTRUISM IS NOT POSSIBLE AS A GENERAL RULE – IT CAN ONLY BE PRACTICED AS A HAND-CRAFT
(choice words)(great paragraphs)
—“Altruism is not a mindless general rule to be obeyed as an act of faith independent of measurement – it is a hand-craft to be mastered by individuals, and put to wise use – it is a local activity, limited to personal experience, that must be personally judged, and can never be centralized in the state, or church. It must always be limited to the individual and his voluntary decisions. The only thing that we can centralize is war, and the only certainty we can depend upon is truth-telling and a jury’s judgement of that truth, and the ruthless punishment of liars, obscurers and deceivers, and the careful cautious demand for restitution from those who merely err.”—
–“Redistribution of dividends from the respect for property rights, and contributions to the normative and physical commons that make the voluntary organization of production we call capitalism possible – is not a matter of altruism. It’s merely a matter of COMPENSATION. Yes we compensate each other in exchange when engaged in investment, production, distribution and trade. But for investment, production, distribution and trade to be possible we must possess property rights, and we possess property rights only because they are paid for by the forgone opportunities of all of us whether we are engaged in production or not. So what is the cost of constructing the voluntary structure of production we call capitalism, then? It is the difference in wealth between anarchy (no respect for property) and the respect for property, minus the wealth created by those engaged in production. The consequence of this logic is quite obvious: taking care of those who respect all norms necessary for the formation of property via dividends is merely just compensation for service performed. Conversely, those who do not, deserve nothing – and those who do not conform to the full spectrum of norms that reduce transaction costs in all walks of life, necessary for the formation of that voluntary organization of production, are not contributing ‘diversity’ but merely thieves. Race is irrelevant to the degree that one’s impulses are marginally indifferent. But norms are not. If you do not adopt the norms you are seeking rents, and are not due dividends.”–
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:11:00 UTC
ALTRUISM IS NOT A GENERAL RULE – IT IS A HAND-CRAFT
(choice words)(great paragraphs)
—“Altruism is not a mindless general rule to be obeyed as an act of faith – it is a craft to be mastered and put to wise use – it is a local activity, limited to personal experience, that must be personally judged, and can never be centralized in the state, or church. It must always be limited to the individual and his voluntary decisions. The only thing that we can centralize is war, and the only certainty we can depend upon is truth-telling and a jury’s judgement of that truth, and the ruthless punishment of liars, obscurers and deceivers, and the careful cautious demand for restitution from those who merely err.”—
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 09:54:00 UTC
THE PARABLE OF THE BULLS
The Old Bull and the Young Bull are standing on the hill top, high above the herd of cows. The Old Bull slowly schools the Young Bull into his role, responsibilities and rights.
Old Bull: “And our job is to reproduce and keep the herd healthy.”
Young Bull: “How exactly does that work?”
Old Bull: “Well, you can go down there, to the herd, and screw _any_ cow you want, at any time. That’s what I’m talking about.”
The Young Bull who is visibly excited, can’t contain himself any longer and bursts out, “Well, let’s go run down there and screw a couple cows right now!”
The Old Bull shakes his grizzled head and turns slowly to the Young Bull.
In his deepest, calmest voice, he says, “How about we WALK down there instead. And then screw them ALL”.
———
James Santagata ‘s advice on patience, planning, conservation of energy, and conquering your market completely.
Priceless.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 04:43:00 UTC
I love my female friends. They are amazing human beings. And they understand the point of my arguments – and taunts- is to teach us to understand one another’s motives, so that we can be happier and happier together.
My message is a simple one: men are contained by the family from perusing their best interests. The marriage is a compromise. And in a government over families, we all have the same interests due to that compromise.
So under one family one vote, the competition between the genders was conducted outside of the state, and the state served the majority interest: the family.
But upon achieving enfranchisement women sought increasingly to implement socialism, then to destroy the family, then arguably to dominate men through the female dominance of the electorate.
But this assumes men will continue demonstrating the behaviour outside the marriage that they demonstrated inside the marriage.
And this cannot and will not happen.
Instead the self interest of makes that we se expressed in the rest of the world will be the only logical approach for men to take.
All revolutions are created by a minority of angry men.
The western Man will only act to ham in his interest with moral authority.
And western man is beginning to understand that he has moral authority.
The pendulum has swung as far as it can.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 14:00:00 UTC
WHY?
You approval can be mere lie.
Your consent can be withdrawn.
Your submission can be escaped.
But your defeat cannot be unmade.
It is forever visible for all to see.
We don’t, I don’t, seek your approval,
your consent, or your submission.
We seek, I seek, your defeat.
And we will, I will, once committed,
never stop, ever, until you are defeated completely.
And the truth alone is sufficient weapon to defeat you.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 13:25:00 UTC
NUMBER ONE MATING CRITERIA IN THE WORLD, ACROSS BOTH GENDERS?
“Is this person nice to me?”
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 06:24:00 UTC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pHIB5osmZGA(women)
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 06:09:00 UTC
Simple solution: teachers must be separate from students they teach, by a generation, (ie:25 years).
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-05 01:49:00 UTC
MOST HELPFUL EXPLANATION I’VE EVER PROVIDED FOR STRONG WOMEN?
—“This is quite possibly the most helpful thing you have ever posted (at least for me).”—
Women fear and reject us (men) all the time, for a zillion reasons every day. And we don’t like it really. Especially crazy chicks (the vast majority of women) when we are just trying to be friendly or get along, or learn, or whatever.
One of the things that makes us feel emotionally and intellectually and socially safe is to be around women who aren’t ‘fragile’. Strong men like women who are strong.
**Being a man around women is a little like being a gorilla in a glass-shop: everything is really easily broken if we aren’t really careful at all times.**
Strong women make you feel ‘safe’ that you can talk and act like your natural gorilla-self without fear that the glasses will break (the crazy chicks will get over excited). And the crazy chicks will rally and shame other women and god forbid, other gorillas to punish you, for accidentally breaking a goblet, just cause, after all, you’re just a gorilla.
I mean, that’s the reality of it. It’s that simple. That’s why strong men like strong women.
Women often wish men thought more like them and men wish women thought more like them. We all wish others would think more like us. I mean, everything is easier the more similar that we are.
But men are faster, stronger, and extremely dangerous super-predators. and when we get strong women around us we feel safer. Weak men want less strong women. Because if we don’t feel STRONGER then we don’t believe women will be attracted to us. (And they aren’t).
So it’s a totally logical thing we’re talking abut here. Men want strong women that they wont break, and get in trouble for breaking (or lose opportunity for sex by breaking). And on the other hand, men don’t want women that are so strong that they won’t be attracted to us. The thing that works against mankind, is that women are so attracted to gorillas at the expense of everything else (no matter what they say, that’s the data), that women force regression toward the mean, because impulsive aggressive alphas aren’t as useful as un-impulsive, cunning alphas. So without monogamy, assortative mating, and property rights, women will cause dysgenic reproduction. And without assortative mating you get the middle east: invariant dysgenia holding at the mean.
So that’s the truthful narrative, not the fallacy that’s cast by feminists.
—“I also think men do have that whole scaling Everest thing. So something not easily obtained is worth working toward.”—
Let me reframe this a bit: Men are scared. We are disposable and we know it. We are constantly threatened by permanent loneliness that can easily drive us to suicide. We mature later, and die earlier. In exchange we are stronger and faster, less sensitive and more specialized. We are, each of us, an experiment that can succeed or fail.
About a third of us are undesirable as providers or gene suppliers, and about another third only marginally desirable as providers, not gene suppliers. Men try climb everest in order to capture the best genes that they can. It’s not complicated.
And, worse, just as women must lie to themselves to control their paranoid impulses for acceptance in the tribe, lest not be able to seek rents when needed against fellow tribe members, men must lie to themselves so that they continue to work in the service of their genes despite the near total likelihood of failure.
Men look in the mirror and see much better visions of themselves than others do, and women look and see worse than they do – the mirror always lies. And it must, or we would never keep the relentless pursuit of the interests our genes. Because what is rational in real time, is inconsequential to the intergenerational requirements of genes.
This is why women can collect so many men to help them with so may different aspects of life without actually giving them sex, but merely the most remotest of chances that sex and affection are possible. Because men must play ever option available to them. And the lower on the curve they are, the more important are those options. And the more desperate the man the more aggressive he can become in pursuit of them – his genes drive him to reproduce, and his reason is a mere mouse riding an elephant of intuition, that does everything possible to lie to the mouse in order to get what it wants.
I think of the elephant of intuition as blind, deaf and dumb and reliant on the mouse of reason. Intuition wants satisfaction for all intents and purposes must feed upon chemical satisfaction, and it only gets chemical satisfaction from rewarding the unconscious genes. The rider is a device for getting satisfaction. Everything is a compromise between the blind deaf and dumb elephant that has no problem lying to the rider, and the rider has eyes and ears and can speak and control the body, but little else.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-04 06:12:00 UTC