(FB 1541539548 Timestamp) NO. ANIMALS AND AI’S DON”T HAVE AND CAN’T HAVE RIGHTS. WE ENACT NEGATIVE RIGHTS TO PROTECT THEM.
Form: Argument
-
Christian (federated) Monarchies (rule of Law Kings) Are the Optimum Political Order
(FB 1541953554 Timestamp) CHRISTIAN (FEDERATED) MONARCHIES (RULE OF LAW KINGS) ARE THE OPTIMUM POLITICAL ORDER @Lord_Keynes2 Monarchs have a very bad record. They engage in war and conquest, acquire multi-ethnic empires, become cosmopolitans, and then it all falls apart: e.g., Ottoman empire, Russian empire, Austro-Hungarian empire, etc. Replying to @Lord_Keynes2 I notice you aren’t mentioning the german manorial states, the scandinavian, the french polish or italian…. Replying to @Lord_Keynes2 Empires capture trade routes. Monarchies captured productive land. Both centralize rents in exchange for increasing local economic velocity. Study of european castle distribution illustrates rather easily the exceptional relationship between martial+judicial and std of living. Replying to @Lord_Keynes2 Ergo the issue is not empire nor monarchy, but ETHNICITY. ie: ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy, and trading ethnocentricity for rents at the cost of multicultural conflict is a short term win at long term cost.
-
The Experiment Is Over and The Jury Is In
(FB 1541951913 Timestamp) THE EXPERIMENT IS OVER AND THE JURY IS IN The jury is in. Monarchs produce better commons. the fewer the people in politics the better. The more powerful the law in resisting the king, a government, or each other, and the more powerful the militia in resisting all above, the better. Liberalism in the sense of rule of law won. Monarchy in the sense of production of commons won. Fascism in the sense of state nationalism, ethnocentrism, state capitalism, and intolerance for competition on other than economic means, won. Why? it’s the optimum decision making structure because it is the optimum means of accommodating differences in knowledge and incentives.
-
Christian (federated) Monarchies (rule of Law Kings) Are the Optimum Political Order
(FB 1541953554 Timestamp) CHRISTIAN (FEDERATED) MONARCHIES (RULE OF LAW KINGS) ARE THE OPTIMUM POLITICAL ORDER @Lord_Keynes2 Monarchs have a very bad record. They engage in war and conquest, acquire multi-ethnic empires, become cosmopolitans, and then it all falls apart: e.g., Ottoman empire, Russian empire, Austro-Hungarian empire, etc. Replying to @Lord_Keynes2 I notice you aren’t mentioning the german manorial states, the scandinavian, the french polish or italian…. Replying to @Lord_Keynes2 Empires capture trade routes. Monarchies captured productive land. Both centralize rents in exchange for increasing local economic velocity. Study of european castle distribution illustrates rather easily the exceptional relationship between martial+judicial and std of living. Replying to @Lord_Keynes2 Ergo the issue is not empire nor monarchy, but ETHNICITY. ie: ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy, and trading ethnocentricity for rents at the cost of multicultural conflict is a short term win at long term cost.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1541986041 Timestamp) MACRON TODAY Listen. Paris is the enemy of europe. Without question. Yes, Europe should develop its own military and pay for it, so that the USA doesn’t have to continue to carry the burden of competing with the world. But paris is merely attempting to seize this opportunity once again to defeat germany. why? paris has a viable military and viable petroleum independence. What does germany have? The Mark (euro), An Export Economy, A superior work force, a more strategic geography, and a natural cultural and strategic alliance with Russia. So who is it better to unite? Germany and France, or Germania, The Intermarium, and Russia excluding France?
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1541985403 Timestamp) Well I mean, white men ADDED to humanity lifting all. But Adding women and underclasses to the workforce has not been an increase for men, it has been a redistribution from men to women and underclasses – a LOSS. It is one thing to redistribute to your kin. It is another to redistribute to the enemy who seeks to eradicate you.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1541960540 Timestamp) —“Will you allow the greatest civilization ever built to be destroyed because you fear being called a racist? Or because you accepted the false God of equality? Or because liberalism and capitalism brainwashed you into mass consumerism and materialism? Or because of the obsession over ever expanding “rights”? Why do you accept the insanity that people lower than you should be “equal in the eyes of the law”? You know they’re not equal to you for a reason, right? Or will you stand for truth, duty, reciprocity, and rule of law at any cost?”— @Chris M. Silbaugh
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542066101 Timestamp) My argument is always the same. Separate the feminine/r-selected/herd/dysgenic pool from the masculine/k-selected/pack/eugenic pool. We are wealthy enough to afford the production of preferred but DIFFERENT commons, and if the dysgenic herd wants to produce their preferred commons and the eugenic pack wants to produce their preferred commons the only thing preventing both achieving their goals is the current monopoly commons. The solution is to separate (secede) and devolve normative regulation and commons production to the groups and let them speciate. The question MIGHT be race, but it’s not. It’s genetic strategy. The dysgenic and the eugenic. I’m perfectly happy if you folks want to construct india and brazil as long as those of us who want otherwise continue the western tradition of eugenic social order and continuous production of prosperity.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542053522 Timestamp) THE FACT THAT I (WE) HAVE BOTH ADVOCATES AND CRITICS IS EVIDENCE OF THE VERACITY OF THE IDEAS —“Hello, I hear youâre a Bad Man with some extreme views. Someone posted screen caps of you. Your position seemed reasonable to me so thought Iâd friend request you. We have mutual friends who are in both camps about you: pro and against.”— A New Friend Hi. Well, ‘bad man’ is probably due to my online persona which is a little over the top for marketing (and education) purposes. The fact that I have pro and against camps is merely evidence of the success of the system of thought generating debate. (one way or another at least men have something worthy of debate). The truth is I CANNOT FIND A CRITIC with any argument any longer. All I can find is people who have yet to understand what I argue, or who argue the sufficiency of the solution, or who argue the practicality of the solution. In general – and I am serious – it is extremely unlikely that for the next few generations at least (if ever), anyone will propose a counter argument any more than they will propose one counter to darwin…. ð (Seriously, I have had no critic emerge other than the sufficiency of the argument, to provide a via-positiva solution to satisfy the market demand for a personal philosophy. And it will become very clear over the coming months that what I said would happen, has – that people who want to produce the via positiva around the aesthetic (elite), martial (physical) and the emotional (stoicism), have emerged to satisfy that market demand – meaning we will in fact produce physical, emotional, and intellectual programs with coherent and consistent themes. The fact that we have reached critical mass recently is probably becoming obvious – even if that critical mass has come more so from the personal philosophical side of the movement than the analytical that I produce.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542127381 Timestamp) Anyway, you asked, I’ll repeat it again…. EIther make an argument against my proposition or stop wasting my time. 1) We lack agency. Our genes provide intuitionistic decidability. That intuitionistic decidability in matters of cooperation can be expressed on a spectrum from psychotic and solipsistic to ‘normie’ to analytic and autistic. This spectrum describes the differences in male and female brain structures (see Baron Cohen.). We assume we are making choices but we are not. We are merely following instinct. In this distribution the male and female brains produce biases that reflect their caloric and reproductive demands, with female the herd,r,offspring, and male,k,pack and this measurement shows up in all aspects of life from METHOD OF SPEECH, content of gossip, chatter, and banter, selection of terms, means of argument, value judgements, personality profile differences, job selection, time allocation, consumer product purchases, voting records. However, given the industrial technological era, and the independence of females from demand for male income we are seeing demand for ‘fulfillment’ (divergence) in not only gender preferences (toward the extremes) but in class and reproductive preferences (insurance from risk, vs achievement liberty). The more equal the more we diverge in demand for fulfillment of our reproductive strategies. At present we have those of us who prefer to separate from those of you. We experience you as ‘disgusting’ whereas you see fear we see disgust. This is because you are setting off our ‘harm to the tribe’ response. This is also genetic on our end. Truth, Loyalty, Purity are all anti-disgust demands. So in our perception of the world, you are not fully human, but simply semi-domesticated animals that can speak. We do not say this but it is how we perceive you. So we prefer to satisfy our disgust response they way you want to satisfy your fear of being left behind response, and separate from you. The alternative is warfare. Which is frankly more desirable but less profitable. 2) Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy, nationalism the optimum means of protecting it, nomocracy and markets in everything, the optimum means of political order to achieving it, and soft eugenics (regulating underclass rates of reproduction) a necessity of defeating regression to the mean, such that demographics correspond to states of development rather than regress the standards of living, because together they produce rates of adaptation faster than all possible alternatives. The mediocre seek safety in the herd and speech and defense from the pack. The exceptional seek achievement and action – and to leave its dead weight behind. We can afford to speciate by reproductive strategy. You and yours are welcome to speciate by your preferred means, if me and mine are by our preferred means. That is reciprocity. If we cannot agree to reciprocity, then defeat, conquest, enserfment, enslavement, and extermination are preferable to loss. The Herd seeks equality, proportionality, and the Pack hierarchy and reciprocity. These are genetic and therefore intuitionistic and pre-cognitive expressions of fitness for social orders. So we can Revolt, Separate, Prosper (or not), and Speciate or we can war. The coming civil war is not over race – it is over our new found wealth sufficient to speciate. Or in historical terms, we continue the conflict between masculine indo-european-asian and feminine anatolian-semitic-afro-asiatic. This means that we have the opportunity to exit the unfit from our order, and the undesirable from yours. Or we have the opportunity to have the bloodiest conflict in human history – and one that it is very hard to imagine the ‘right’ will not win. The people who talk, teach, and preach, vs the people who act, produce, and invent. If this isn’t acceptable to your and yours, then enemies you choose to be. So, this is why we must separate. We don’t need to agree. It’s just going to happen. So the question is only how unpleasant it will be. 3) We want separation. We don’t want cooperation or balance when the other side daily engages in hate speech against me, my people, my civilization and advocates for our eradication, and the browning of the country in order to exterminate us. SO no. You don’t compromise with those who want genocide —- YOU RETURN THE SAME. We don’t WANT YOU AT ALL. You are disgusting. Really. you ruin everything. Our neighborhoods, our schools, our history, our education, our governments, our city streets, our parks, our stores, our religion, our festivals, are armies, or civic order, even our gene pool… .. I mean…. you’re just bad people. We don’t want you. You are like locusts that consume everything beautiful. You are a plague against our people, our civilization, and the efforts of our ancestors. So no. We don’t need you. CIvilizations prosper most by getting rid of the underclass through prosecution and harsh winter starvation. And the fewer of you the better for us and for the planet, and for the future of mankind. You are a living breathing waste of the planet and mankind’s potential. We want to ‘leave you behind’.