DEAR CLERGY: GO F__K YOURSELVES
I don’t care about your fake grief. Rally europa to defend itself from invasion. What the hell is wrong with you. Has the devil made his home in christianity? Or was he behind it all along?
Damn. I can’t figure out who’s more stupid: europeans for abandoning the church for profit, or the church for abandoning europa to the hordes.
Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 17:32:00 UTC
(feminist trigger warning)(individualist trigger warning) RE: (https://www.reddit.com/…/renegotiating_the_marriage_contra…/ ) 1) Pretty good analysis. I’d recommend reading the origin and development of the family and property by Engels. That is a more accurate history. It’s short and well written. 2) Biologically, females were treated as (and therefore were) our property under hostile competition, they were an exchange of property between males in the pastoral era’s development of formal property, and ‘love’ (mate selection by attraction) is historically, a luxury good (and rare) – even if terribly eugenic for selection purposes. The development of property is what allowed males to re-take control of reproduction from females. 3) Polygamy was and is practiced by the majority of cultures, but all major religions and philosophies attempted to break this practice in order to ‘soak up’ the majority of ‘troublesome’ males who otherwise failed to reproduce (something like 30% of males failed to reproduce – although I have seen estimated numbers as high at 70%). And even once we encounter monogamy (property), something like 20-25% of births are caused by mates outside of marriage (which is a dirty secret that is showing up now that we have massive databases of family trees combined with genetics.) 4) Human Females still demonstrate r-selection behavior, much less in-group protection (more cheating), and lower loyalty. They are practical creatures. For most of history women were considered the root of all evil, and it was only in the victorian era that we stated otherwise – although this compromises the majority of our current literature. 5) One can position marriage as a compromise between reproductive strategies; or as a social convenience necessary for peace and prosperity; or as a epistemological necessity for the purpose of meritocratic calculation of reproductive utility, required of an advanced society and economy; Or all of the above. My standing concern is that women have more CONTROL than men do, and men higher RISK and shorter LIVES than women do. So to some degree, for us to persist, women remain a herd men control, or a herd other men control. Women are a resource – an expensive resource. 6) So under INDIVIDUALISM it is difficult to make take the position that marriage is beneficial for either man or woman. Under NATIONALISM (or tribalism or kinship) it is difficult to conceive of a condition under which males retain access to females without the cooperation, assistance, defense, of other males. 7) I want to protect my genes and my relations so I want my female kin to be free to do the best they can WITHOUT betraying my male relations control of the reproductive resource of women. In other words, private benefit of free reproduction is limited by public harm from free reproduction, because organization into groups matters. I think the last is the least pleasant most accurate analysis. And (unpleasantly) that is where I end up.
(feminist trigger warning)(individualist trigger warning) RE: (https://www.reddit.com/…/renegotiating_the_marriage_contra…/ ) 1) Pretty good analysis. I’d recommend reading the origin and development of the family and property by Engels. That is a more accurate history. It’s short and well written. 2) Biologically, females were treated as (and therefore were) our property under hostile competition, they were an exchange of property between males in the pastoral era’s development of formal property, and ‘love’ (mate selection by attraction) is historically, a luxury good (and rare) – even if terribly eugenic for selection purposes. The development of property is what allowed males to re-take control of reproduction from females. 3) Polygamy was and is practiced by the majority of cultures, but all major religions and philosophies attempted to break this practice in order to ‘soak up’ the majority of ‘troublesome’ males who otherwise failed to reproduce (something like 30% of males failed to reproduce – although I have seen estimated numbers as high at 70%). And even once we encounter monogamy (property), something like 20-25% of births are caused by mates outside of marriage (which is a dirty secret that is showing up now that we have massive databases of family trees combined with genetics.) 4) Human Females still demonstrate r-selection behavior, much less in-group protection (more cheating), and lower loyalty. They are practical creatures. For most of history women were considered the root of all evil, and it was only in the victorian era that we stated otherwise – although this compromises the majority of our current literature. 5) One can position marriage as a compromise between reproductive strategies; or as a social convenience necessary for peace and prosperity; or as a epistemological necessity for the purpose of meritocratic calculation of reproductive utility, required of an advanced society and economy; Or all of the above. My standing concern is that women have more CONTROL than men do, and men higher RISK and shorter LIVES than women do. So to some degree, for us to persist, women remain a herd men control, or a herd other men control. Women are a resource – an expensive resource. 6) So under INDIVIDUALISM it is difficult to make take the position that marriage is beneficial for either man or woman. Under NATIONALISM (or tribalism or kinship) it is difficult to conceive of a condition under which males retain access to females without the cooperation, assistance, defense, of other males. 7) I want to protect my genes and my relations so I want my female kin to be free to do the best they can WITHOUT betraying my male relations control of the reproductive resource of women. In other words, private benefit of free reproduction is limited by public harm from free reproduction, because organization into groups matters. I think the last is the least pleasant most accurate analysis. And (unpleasantly) that is where I end up.
[A]lmost all of philosophy after Aristotle up until Hume consists of a few feathers of wisdom and a vast amount of hand waving. Justification, wishful thinking and cunning lies. The the evolution of law is the only meaningful source of insight into western man’s mind. the evolution of art, the evolution of war, the evolution of money, banking, credit, interest and insurance; the evolution of mathematics. Of engineering. Of astronomy. Of our diets. Our dress. All add color. But philosophy consists of convenient lies by the church, polite begging of the middle class. Wishful thinking of the proletarians. And nonsensical pseudo mysticism of the academy.
[A]lmost all of philosophy after Aristotle up until Hume consists of a few feathers of wisdom and a vast amount of hand waving. Justification, wishful thinking and cunning lies. The the evolution of law is the only meaningful source of insight into western man’s mind. the evolution of art, the evolution of war, the evolution of money, banking, credit, interest and insurance; the evolution of mathematics. Of engineering. Of astronomy. Of our diets. Our dress. All add color. But philosophy consists of convenient lies by the church, polite begging of the middle class. Wishful thinking of the proletarians. And nonsensical pseudo mysticism of the academy.
( RE: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/tama-starr-ugly-art-trump-deals-article-1.2422470? ) [T]amara Starr is merely unsophisticated, and lacks understanding of the construction business, in which the majority of players first underbid to win, then engage in scamming the developer – the one who has the money – due to asymmetry of information: subcontractors know their craft and the developer cannot. So the developer’s rational strategy is to force all parties into negotiations post delivery. In general the rule of thumb is that profitability of construction projects is obtained in court, as the only possible way to force subcontractors into truthful accounting, because they are under threat of perjury, and prosecution for lying to the court rather than just to the developer. This is very similar to international relations where no parties deal ethically and most have little concept of it and many see ethical negotiation as stupidity or weakness. That is why trump is the perfect man for this stage of Americas development. Unfortunately, as ms Starr demonstrates, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Or more technically: The Dunning-Kruger effect is Everywhere. Curt Doolittle, the Propertarian Institute, Kiev Ukraine.
( RE: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/tama-starr-ugly-art-trump-deals-article-1.2422470? ) [T]amara Starr is merely unsophisticated, and lacks understanding of the construction business, in which the majority of players first underbid to win, then engage in scamming the developer – the one who has the money – due to asymmetry of information: subcontractors know their craft and the developer cannot. So the developer’s rational strategy is to force all parties into negotiations post delivery. In general the rule of thumb is that profitability of construction projects is obtained in court, as the only possible way to force subcontractors into truthful accounting, because they are under threat of perjury, and prosecution for lying to the court rather than just to the developer. This is very similar to international relations where no parties deal ethically and most have little concept of it and many see ethical negotiation as stupidity or weakness. That is why trump is the perfect man for this stage of Americas development. Unfortunately, as ms Starr demonstrates, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Or more technically: The Dunning-Kruger effect is Everywhere. Curt Doolittle, the Propertarian Institute, Kiev Ukraine.
(Important concept) (RE: http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/03/marc-andreessen-and-sheryl-sandberg-tech-is-not-driving-income-inequality/ ) [A] POLITICAL ECONOMIST’S ANALYSIS: 1) Yes, global inequality on a COUNTRY by COUNTRY level is declining (profoundly). This is because few countries fail to adopt and practice consumer capitalism (the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade, made possible by fiat money and credit: the use of shares in the nation’s government as a money substitute.) 2) BUT, as a consequence, the FIRM that you work for is now more influential than your COUNTRY in determining your relative income. *If you let that sink in, it will profoundly alter your perception of the world. The west developed rule of law (instead of rule by law), property rights, contract law, accounting, banking, credit, interest, fiat money, fiat credit, high-trust, and consumer capitalism – but like any technology, this consumer capitalism is open to adoption. Furthermore, it is this consumer capitalism that is the origin of western relative prosperity, and democracy is an expensive luxury good made possible by consumer capitalism and high trust. The west will continue to prosper as long as high-trust is preserved. But, preservation of this high trust – the extension of kinship trust to customers and neighbors – is incompatible with current political doctrine. Small homogenous scandinavian countries on the edge of a wet continent with no hostile borders, and no competitors are not role models – they are outliers.* Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
(Important concept) (RE: http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/03/marc-andreessen-and-sheryl-sandberg-tech-is-not-driving-income-inequality/ ) [A] POLITICAL ECONOMIST’S ANALYSIS: 1) Yes, global inequality on a COUNTRY by COUNTRY level is declining (profoundly). This is because few countries fail to adopt and practice consumer capitalism (the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade, made possible by fiat money and credit: the use of shares in the nation’s government as a money substitute.) 2) BUT, as a consequence, the FIRM that you work for is now more influential than your COUNTRY in determining your relative income. *If you let that sink in, it will profoundly alter your perception of the world. The west developed rule of law (instead of rule by law), property rights, contract law, accounting, banking, credit, interest, fiat money, fiat credit, high-trust, and consumer capitalism – but like any technology, this consumer capitalism is open to adoption. Furthermore, it is this consumer capitalism that is the origin of western relative prosperity, and democracy is an expensive luxury good made possible by consumer capitalism and high trust. The west will continue to prosper as long as high-trust is preserved. But, preservation of this high trust – the extension of kinship trust to customers and neighbors – is incompatible with current political doctrine. Small homogenous scandinavian countries on the edge of a wet continent with no hostile borders, and no competitors are not role models – they are outliers.* Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
—“Very inspiring and encouraging for me, after reading how rarely angels and venture capitalists fund women founders. There’s hope for me, even if the suits are sexist! Fighting for social justice online: how can we use the Internet to make the world a better place? “— Charlotte A.
[S]tatistics are Statistics. Data is Data. Fact is Fact.