(Modern Warfare Generations) The idea that governments are uniquely able to start fight and finish wars is a product of the treaty of Westphalia. This ‘irregularity’ of western civilization survived long enough that the average idiot can’t… https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/1015638886 —“This is a pretty gross misreading of history.”— Ed Rotski That’s not an argument. Make one. “Modern War begins after Westphalia.” “Westphalia Gave The State A Monopoly on War.” “Through all of history families, clans, cities, ethnic groups, religions, private companies (conquest of india) … fought wars.” “The Church lost it’s ability to conduct warfare in Europe” —“1. Treaty of Westphalia is hardly unique. 2. The whole arc of state building in the middle ages was to arrogate war making to the central government, that is, to abolish private war. That process was largely done by turn of the 16th century.”—- Ed Rotski —-“Whoever told you modern war starts with Westphalia is just wrong.”— Ed Rotski I will let you argue with William Lind, and every other military historian. Rather than waste my time with someone lacking basic knowledge of the generations of modern warfare and their beginnings in the 1640’s. —“Really? Talk to Delbruck, or Kauper, or Lynn, Potter, Wilson, Weigley, Dodge, Duffy, Chandler, Nosworthy, or even Comines. Your assertions are not just bad, they’re “the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor” bad. You are hideously ignorant.”—- 1) OK. Game on. It’ll be good education for the audience. Here is the Generations of Warfare definition I made use of. 2) Delbruck defines ‘modern’ as beginning with the italian renaissance. Kaeuper is a medievalist and I don’t know how he defines ‘modern’. … 3) As far as I know Lynn defines modern as 1650 – the end of ‘pillaging’. So he agrees. Potter doesn’t make a distinction that I know of and I don’t know why you’d include him. Same with Wilson unless you’re referring to someone other than the Tower collection historian. 4) Same for Nosworthy? Are you just spamming names? 5) And Why not Lind, Keegan, or Van Creveld? Why aren’t they in your list? 6) Just search for “Generations of Warfare”. 7) And how does any author you listed have anything to do with my OP and its argument? How does it have anything to do with 4/5gw and the return of non-state actors? What rock do you live under? 8) an endless stream of morons waste my time. —“Modern warfare doesn’t start until nation in arms and mass conscription, and the final adoption of the modern organizations, battalion, brigade, division, corps. That is so clear. And Lynn is wrong if he thinks people stopped pillaging in the 1650s.”— Ed Rotski OMFG. Look, do you know how many historical models and cycles have been proposed? You can make any distinction yuo want. However, the one that I referred to was the one that every theorist I know and every other think tank I know of, uses. So between your …. ‘opinion’. Your ‘straw men’ list, and the fact that the only person on your list who said anything close agrees with 1650, and that I pointed to a reference for an index of generations that gets 36M google hits, I”m gonna cast you as a basement dwelling loon. May 29, 2018 7:39pm
Category: Politics, Power, and Governance
-
God Was Enthusiastic with His Moron Wand
(Modern Warfare Generations) The idea that governments are uniquely able to start fight and finish wars is a product of the treaty of Westphalia. This ‘irregularity’ of western civilization survived long enough that the average idiot can’t… https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/1015638886 —“This is a pretty gross misreading of history.”— Ed Rotski That’s not an argument. Make one. “Modern War begins after Westphalia.” “Westphalia Gave The State A Monopoly on War.” “Through all of history families, clans, cities, ethnic groups, religions, private companies (conquest of india) … fought wars.” “The Church lost it’s ability to conduct warfare in Europe” —“1. Treaty of Westphalia is hardly unique. 2. The whole arc of state building in the middle ages was to arrogate war making to the central government, that is, to abolish private war. That process was largely done by turn of the 16th century.”—- Ed Rotski —-“Whoever told you modern war starts with Westphalia is just wrong.”— Ed Rotski I will let you argue with William Lind, and every other military historian. Rather than waste my time with someone lacking basic knowledge of the generations of modern warfare and their beginnings in the 1640’s. —“Really? Talk to Delbruck, or Kauper, or Lynn, Potter, Wilson, Weigley, Dodge, Duffy, Chandler, Nosworthy, or even Comines. Your assertions are not just bad, they’re “the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor” bad. You are hideously ignorant.”—- 1) OK. Game on. It’ll be good education for the audience. Here is the Generations of Warfare definition I made use of. 2) Delbruck defines ‘modern’ as beginning with the italian renaissance. Kaeuper is a medievalist and I don’t know how he defines ‘modern’. … 3) As far as I know Lynn defines modern as 1650 – the end of ‘pillaging’. So he agrees. Potter doesn’t make a distinction that I know of and I don’t know why you’d include him. Same with Wilson unless you’re referring to someone other than the Tower collection historian. 4) Same for Nosworthy? Are you just spamming names? 5) And Why not Lind, Keegan, or Van Creveld? Why aren’t they in your list? 6) Just search for “Generations of Warfare”. 7) And how does any author you listed have anything to do with my OP and its argument? How does it have anything to do with 4/5gw and the return of non-state actors? What rock do you live under? 8) an endless stream of morons waste my time. —“Modern warfare doesn’t start until nation in arms and mass conscription, and the final adoption of the modern organizations, battalion, brigade, division, corps. That is so clear. And Lynn is wrong if he thinks people stopped pillaging in the 1650s.”— Ed Rotski OMFG. Look, do you know how many historical models and cycles have been proposed? You can make any distinction yuo want. However, the one that I referred to was the one that every theorist I know and every other think tank I know of, uses. So between your …. ‘opinion’. Your ‘straw men’ list, and the fact that the only person on your list who said anything close agrees with 1650, and that I pointed to a reference for an index of generations that gets 36M google hits, I”m gonna cast you as a basement dwelling loon. May 29, 2018 7:39pm
-
Our Incremental Destruction
OUR INCREMENTAL DESTRUCTION The Rebellion Against Evolution 1 – Christianity was bad enough. 2 – Adding women to the voting pool worse 3 – Replacing the Militia and Conscription with Voluntary Service worse. 4 – Allowing (((Aliens))) to engage in propaganda, parasitism, and deceit the worst. 5 – Adding women to the military a final catastrophe. THE PROPAGANDA OF INCREMENTAL DESTRUCTION The organized destruction of the militia that is the origin of the uniqueness of western civilization. 1 – Effeminate Religion, 2 – Marxism, 3 – Cosmopolitanism, 4 – Feminism, 5 – Postmodernism, Devolution by the Feminine. THE UNIQUENESS OF THE WEST: The order of the militia: the distributed dictatorship of sovereign men. 1 – Sovereignty, Reciprocity, 2 – Truth, Duty, 3 – Rule of Law, Markets in Everything. Evolution by the Masculine.
-
Our Incremental Destruction
OUR INCREMENTAL DESTRUCTION The Rebellion Against Evolution 1 – Christianity was bad enough. 2 – Adding women to the voting pool worse 3 – Replacing the Militia and Conscription with Voluntary Service worse. 4 – Allowing (((Aliens))) to engage in propaganda, parasitism, and deceit the worst. 5 – Adding women to the military a final catastrophe. THE PROPAGANDA OF INCREMENTAL DESTRUCTION The organized destruction of the militia that is the origin of the uniqueness of western civilization. 1 – Effeminate Religion, 2 – Marxism, 3 – Cosmopolitanism, 4 – Feminism, 5 – Postmodernism, Devolution by the Feminine. THE UNIQUENESS OF THE WEST: The order of the militia: the distributed dictatorship of sovereign men. 1 – Sovereignty, Reciprocity, 2 – Truth, Duty, 3 – Rule of Law, Markets in Everything. Evolution by the Masculine.
-
“There is no real way to “take violence off the table” but only a borrowing of p
—“There is no real way to “take violence off the table” but only a borrowing of peace from the future. Eventually any reality which people seek to avoid comes back on them – and with interest.”— Noah J Revoy
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-30 16:42:00 UTC
-
“Curt: How should the (ideal) relationship between homosexuals and society exist
—“Curt: How should the (ideal) relationship between homosexuals and society exist or be constructed, to make homosexuals experience of society be the best it can be, while also making society’s experience of homosexuals be the best it can be? There are a lot of mixed messages out there… and you actually make sense and can justify why you make sense. I would appreciate your comment.”—
Ok, Here is a rough outline of the argument in natural law:
WHEREAS
1) As far as I know homosexuality is a non-rare in utero developmental disorder. I suspect this current scientific hypothesis to survive – although we might discover the cause is or is not an immune system reaction to testosterone (which it appears to be), and we may discover that it can be limited by natal treatments in the future – it does run in families.
2) If you read enough of my work, you’ll encounter the hypothesis that humans are not only able to adapt intellectually and emotionally to changes but that we can create very different distributions of traits in populations using very small variations in endocrine expression. We can express these by stresses and by selection. The male-vs female physical, and male-vs-female reward systems, and male vs female brain structures included in those distributions.
3) It is unclear whether or not the ability to produce homosexuals of either gender is a necessary consequence of our ability to produce those distributions. And secondly, whether or not the result is harmful or not. (apparently not). the reason being that there is *greater value in productivity in service of reproduction than reproduction*.
4) It is unclear how much of homosexuality is produced in utero, in early development, and in late development. My understanding at present, is that many sexual identity disorders can occur during development without sufficient physical exercise, and sufficient role play by either gender. (And that is before we account for the hormones in the modern chemical environment.)
AND WHEREAS
That we incrementally demonstrate our fitness (non parasitism, and productive contribution) by:
1) Forgoing crimes both private and public.
2) Demonstrate payment for the franchise by continuous military/militial/sheriff service.
3) Demonstrating worthiness by self sufficiency by productive contribution, thereby forgoing free riding and parasitism
4) Demonstrate worthiness to the intergenerational polity by marriage and family and the support thereof.
5) Demonstrate worthiness to productivity by the voluntary organization of business and industry.
7) Demonstrate worthiness to the polity by organization of the finance, industry, business, trade, and labor in a territory.
8) Demonstrate worthiness by the correct adjudication of disputes between in and out group members under the natural law of reciprocity.
AND WHEREAS
1) That the family is the first demonstration of organizational capacity upon which the intergenerational family is dependent.
2) That families are a costly but necessary contribution to the family, clan, tribe, nation, and polity.
3) That families must work tirelessly to insulate generations from consumptive and hedonistic interests and behaviors.
4) That individuals who do not serve, do not produce families, do not produce businesses or industries, do not manage territories, or do not adjudicate differences under the natural law of property, are at best not harmful, and if engaged in criminal or free riding or parasitic activities are a a dead weight loss to the family, clan, tribe, nation, and polity.
THEREFORE
1) Homosexuality is a birth defect, and not voluntary. Women are less sexually dedicated than males. Trauma in women especially can cause homosexuality at any point in life.
2) Anything that occurs between adults in private is a voluntary exchange between them and nothing else.
3) Anything that occurs in public (speech/sound, sight/display, or behavior/action) imposes an involuntary cost upon others.
4) Any speech, display, or action that is contrary to the preservation of the intergenerational investment in the commons, and in particular conspicuous hedonism or conspicuous consumption is damaging to the informational commons, and damaging to those who pay higher costs within it.
5) Marriage is a contract for corporation between a man, a woman, and the polity, for the intergeneration production of offspring, and reciprocal care, and reciprocal insurance. However, this contract consists almost entirely of (a)a transfer of all personal property to community property, (c) a reciprocal grant of power of attorney. (d) reciprocal ownership of offspring until the age of maturity. (e) an implied but unenforced insurance against hardship, infirmity, and old age. This corporation dramatically reduces the cost of household production and maintenance. Without this relationship household costs rise distproportionately and therefore standards of living drop accordingly. (as we have seen)
6) Natural Reproduction and parenting by individual homosexuals by whatever means, and by pairs of homosexuals by whatever means, is difficult to argue with, however any suggestion or influence by such parents that their children’s gender is flexible, that male and female minds and bodies are not different, and that male and female roles in family and society are not necessary, must be prosecuted as a developmental crime on the scale of any other child abuse or torture.
7) Public displays of affection in furtherance of paying the high cost of reproductive persistence, training an intergenerational family, and ensuring that families can produce intra and intergenerational insurance of one another rewards those that so contribute.
8) Public displays of non-reproductive affection shall be limited to those that are demonstrated between heterosexual members of the same sex.
9) Under no condition shall heterosexual and homosexual males be forced into one another’s company. Homosexual males are unfit for military participation by virtue of a birth defect that may hinder trust.
10) Prosecution of homosexual hedonism in any public form shall be vigorous such that it is entirely suppressed. (ie: no more of this public bathroom nonsense and drug use.)
CLOSING
In other words, the low temporal investment of homosexuals must be removed from visibility in the commons so that there is every incentives for the high intertemporal investment in families.
The direction of homosexual relations to the construction of families despite the extraordinary fragility of such families due to the fragility of homosexual relationships, and suppression of public hedonism has proven a successfully means of both reducing public hostility to homosexual behavior and increased the positive signaling behavior of homosexuals.
SPECIAL TREATMENT
the only special treatment we must give to any behavior in society is that which perpetuates investment in the high cost of producing high investment families. The age of individualism has been a catastrophe for the very reason it was intended to be: to destroy the influence of intergenerational middle and upper middle class families. Just as the ancient attack on the aristocracy was an attack on intergenerational aristocracy.
(The Ten Planks were available for all to see.)
—MORE—
NATURAL LAW ON GENDER
https://propertarianism.com/2017/06/02/natural-law-on-gender/
TWO GENDERS, MANY DISORDERS
https://propertarianism.com/2017/09/14/two-genders-many-disorders/
GAY MARRIAGE
https://propertarianism.com/2013/05/31/why-are-gay-people-asking-for-the-right-to-marry-if-it-is-legal-stuff-they-are-asking-for-cant-they-go-to-some-separate-setup-for-partners/
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-30 12:47:00 UTC
-
RULE IS THE MOST PROFITABLE INDUSTRY Let’s Return To Our Original Occupation
RULE IS THE MOST PROFITABLE INDUSTRY
Let’s Return To Our Original Occupation
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-30 11:54:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001794055251156992
-
OUR INCREMENTAL DESTRUCTION The Rebellion Against Evolution 1 – Christianity was
OUR INCREMENTAL DESTRUCTION
The Rebellion Against Evolution
1 – Christianity was bad enough.
2 – Adding women to the voting pool worse
3 – Replacing the Militia and Conscription with Voluntary Service worse.
4 – Allowing (((Aliens))) to engage in propaganda, parasitism, and deceit the worst.
5 – Adding women to the military a final catastrophe.
THE PROPAGANDA OF INCREMENTAL DESTRUCTION
The organized destruction of the militia that is the origin of the uniqueness of western civilization.
1 – Effeminate Religion,
2 – Marxism,
3 – Cosmopolitanism,
4 – Feminism,
5 – Postmodernism,
Devolution by the Feminine.
THE UNIQUENESS OF THE WEST:
The order of the militia: the distributed dictatorship of sovereign men.
1 – Sovereignty, Reciprocity,
2 – Truth, Duty,
3 – Rule of Law, Markets in Everything.
Evolution by the Masculine.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-30 08:04:00 UTC
-
RULE IS THE MOST PROFITABLE INDUSTRY Let’s Return To Our Original Occupation
RULE IS THE MOST PROFITABLE INDUSTRY
Let’s Return To Our Original Occupation
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-30 07:54:00 UTC
-
WARS ARE FOR PROFIT ADVENTURES Venture Capitalism At It’s Finest
WARS ARE FOR PROFIT ADVENTURES
Venture Capitalism At It’s Finest.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-30 07:53:00 UTC