http://www.unz.com/akarlin/top-10-militaries-2015/WORLD MILITARY POWER: READ THIS AND YOU ARE INFORMED.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-19 05:46:00 UTC
Category: Politics, Power, and Governance
-
OF UPCOMING REVOLUTION GOES MAINSTREAM
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594036713/ref=tsm_1_fb_lkDISCUSSION OF UPCOMING REVOLUTION GOES MAINSTREAM
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-19 03:00:00 UTC
-
THE WESTERN WAY OF WAR : TIME PERCEPTION Don’t want war with Iran? Well, you don
THE WESTERN WAY OF WAR : TIME PERCEPTION
Don’t want war with Iran?
Well, you dont’ really get the choice, because we are at war with them and their state. We have been for decades. Just because someone does not practice the Western Way of War, (See Van Creveld) does not mean that one is not at war with others. We are at war. We just are not in an indo-european war. Any more than we are not in a sinic war. The fact that westerners conduct fast wars to settle problems quickly and move on, is a rarity. China takes centuries to conduct its wars, and islam takes many decades. One does not judge the truth or falsehood of such matters by subjective perception but of transformation of long term capital and opportunity cost.
SEE: The Culture of War by Martin Van Creveld.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-18 08:54:00 UTC
-
Q: —“What’s your solution to homelessness if you don’t mind me asking?”— If
Q: —“What’s your solution to homelessness if you don’t mind me asking?”—
If they desire to be homeless then there is no problem of homelessness. There is merely a problem of the maximum tolerance for care and feeding of them, and a (visious) prohibition on the homeless’ abuse of the charity of others.
If they do not desire to be homeless, then we are failing to devote temporary resources to people in need.
From what I can gather there is no homeless problem. We have a serious schizophrenia problem. We have a serious drug and alcohol problem. We have a serious unemployability problem (because of declining demand for work by underclasses). And we have a moderate low income housing program because we will not police them severely enough that they are preferable to the relative safety of the streets.
The primary reason people like to be homeless is socialization unavailable to them otherwise, and lack of criticism in a dynamic environment where social ostracization and pressure would give them negative feedback constantly otherwise.
One of the values of being homeless is the constant stream of public resources devoted to providing for you in times of need.
But the central problem is that we do not create and strictly police ‘villages’ for people who are merely unfortunate but well behaved. We no longer put the vast number of schizophrenics in ‘prisons’. We no longer purge public parks and spaces of ‘vagrants’.
We no longer raise the cost of their behavior on parasites such that it is preferable to seek inexpensive housing and care over the terrorism of being prohibited from fouling private property and beloved commons.
So in my opinion there is no ‘homeless’ problem per se. ANd it’s just politicking by women who need an oxytocin fix by ruminating over it, and the failure to remove liberty from those who cannot make use of it without harm to others.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-18 08:42:00 UTC
-
The moral fringe and lunatic fringe. Freedom fighter and terrorist
The moral fringe and lunatic fringe.
Freedom fighter and terrorist.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-18 07:31:00 UTC
-
“I pray the gods, deliver us unto kings, and save us from the people.”
—“I pray the gods, deliver us unto kings, and save us from the people.”—
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-18 05:50:00 UTC
-
De Monarchia Liber Europae Reges Magni De Philosophia Aristocratia De Nobilitate
De Monarchia
Liber Europae Reges Magni
De Philosophia Aristocratia
De Nobilitate et Scriptura
Viridis Bibliis Arianorum
The Cult of Heroism
The Doctrine of Non Submission
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-18 05:49:00 UTC
-
Q&A: NAME FOR PROTECTIONISM FOR THE NORMATIVE COMMONS? —“Curt… Can you help
Q&A: NAME FOR PROTECTIONISM FOR THE NORMATIVE COMMONS?
—“Curt… Can you help me find the correct term which describes a nationalist state that allows freedom as long as you don’t “go against the nation (the foundation of the nation and the heritage)”.—
Well, you do it with a set of rules (limits) and you give that a name. In the main, you’re describing a nationalist state which exercises the right of exclusion (which is required by natural law) to prohibit non-kin (non nationals) and the contractual (constitutional) provision that one may not export costs of association and trade onto other citizens’s common property:culture.
We have no name that I know of for such a thing other than Nationalism, and nationalism fits. But it is not constrained enough. So we must add the limitation of protectionism. But we must clarify protectionism not of trade but of culture. So I would say Culturally Protectionist Nationalism.
This conveys free trade allowing competition for goods and services, but not competition for culture, just as we do not allow competition for property rights, law, and government.
The Chinese do this aggressively. So do the Muslims. And presently the Russians have started.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-18 03:34:00 UTC
-
We cannot change people to suit our institutions. We must change institutions to
We cannot change people to suit our institutions. We must change institutions to enable cooperation rather than conflict between our peoples.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-17 10:43:00 UTC
-
MEN VS WOMEN: THE PROBLEM IS DEMOCRACY – INVENTING NEW GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT FEM
MEN VS WOMEN: THE PROBLEM IS DEMOCRACY – INVENTING NEW GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT FEMALE PARASITISM, JUST AS WE INVENTED GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT MALE PARASITISM
I agree with giving women property rights – it’s logically Impossible not to.
I am also ok with giving women a House, just as we gave the middle class a House and should have given the proletarians a House. Because Houses are necessary for the concentration competing interests such that they conduct mutually beneficial exchanges.
The conduct of exchanges allows us cooperate on means even if we share alternative ends, rather than fall prey to majority tyranny of the underclasses of which women who are single represent the minority.
Majority rule makes possible the selection of priorities for limited resources, but it does not make possible the cooperation on conflicting priorities which require no monopoly of resources/
We are not equal because we are competitors. If we are competitors, then we can ONLY compete via a market of voluntary exchanges and NOT through majority rule.
My criticism is not that women should be or can be different from how they are, but that democracy is a tragic institution by which the worst possible ambitions of our majority underclasses can be brought to suicidal fruition.
We invented government to reduce male predation by violence. We must now invent new government to reduce female predation through parasitism.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-17 08:48:00 UTC