Our People overthink these things. The FBI is looking for people who are showing signs of mental instability and signaling individual or group potential for violence. They’ve asked me to be careful what I say, precisely because of the number of mentally unstable young men out there in the current generations, who are easily influenced. They are biased against the right because we are constraining state power, in an era where (beginning with Clinton and Obama) the state became aware that the probability of civil war because of heterogeneity would rapidly increase, especially after the 1992 tipping point (which most of you won’t remember was ‘a thing’.) The right is an existential threat to the state actors, as well as the financial sector, and the globalist financial sector, and the globalist movement that is just a reformation of communist authoritarianism, which was just a secular pseudoscientific reformation of the authoritarian monotheistic supernatural religions. So don’t posture with macho and bravado about violence or crime, but frame all your actions as political, not violent or criminal. If you review the leaked information on federal communications monitoring, almost all of it is an attempt to discover Islamic terrorists transferring money, organizing, or planning some actions. I don’t have knowledge of post-jan6th changes, and the information they’re extracting from FB/Google etc hasn’t leaked enough that we know what’s happening there versus through the telcos (I have knowledge of those technologies and techniques). The inequality of protection under the law between left and right was pretty obvious in the licensing of Globalist-Soros-Antifa-BLM terrorism, and the prosecution of the right’s opposition to their terrorism. The treatment of jan6th as some conspiracy theory rather than a protest that as one percent of the severity of any of the left protests during the sixties is demonstrated evidence of the government’s intention to eradicate the right, rule of law, the constitution, Christianity, the American experiment in a majority middle class meritocracy, and the whole of anglo, germanic, and broader European civilization. We have a political case. But we also have both separatist, secessionist, and repetitions of the founder’s common-law suit against the state that created the USA as options., Its only once those are exhausted we must resort to force. Because it is only once we have exhausted those options that we hold the moral high ground. Why? Because we are fighting over the right to self-determination. And the only reciprocity (morality) possible is the reciprocal exchange of that right to self-determination by self-determined means. And that requires we produce separate territories, polities, and governments.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Understand Incentives: Conservative Paranoia In Public Speech, Because of The FBI and Police State
Our People overthink these things. The FBI is looking for people who are showing signs of mental instability and signaling individual or group potential for violence. They’ve asked me to be careful what I say, precisely because of the number of mentally unstable young men out there in the current generations, who are easily influenced. They are biased against the right because we are constraining state power, in an era where (beginning with Clinton and Obama) the state became aware that the probability of civil war because of heterogeneity would rapidly increase, especially after the 1992 tipping point (which most of you won’t remember was ‘a thing’.) The right is an existential threat to the state actors, as well as the financial sector, and the globalist financial sector, and the globalist movement that is just a reformation of communist authoritarianism, which was just a secular pseudoscientific reformation of the authoritarian monotheistic supernatural religions. So don’t posture with macho and bravado about violence or crime, but frame all your actions as political, not violent or criminal. If you review the leaked information on federal communications monitoring, almost all of it is an attempt to discover Islamic terrorists transferring money, organizing, or planning some actions. I don’t have knowledge of post-jan6th changes, and the information they’re extracting from FB/Google etc hasn’t leaked enough that we know what’s happening there versus through the telcos (I have knowledge of those technologies and techniques). The inequality of protection under the law between left and right was pretty obvious in the licensing of Globalist-Soros-Antifa-BLM terrorism, and the prosecution of the right’s opposition to their terrorism. The treatment of jan6th as some conspiracy theory rather than a protest that as one percent of the severity of any of the left protests during the sixties is demonstrated evidence of the government’s intention to eradicate the right, rule of law, the constitution, Christianity, the American experiment in a majority middle class meritocracy, and the whole of anglo, germanic, and broader European civilization. We have a political case. But we also have both separatist, secessionist, and repetitions of the founder’s common-law suit against the state that created the USA as options., Its only once those are exhausted we must resort to force. Because it is only once we have exhausted those options that we hold the moral high ground. Why? Because we are fighting over the right to self-determination. And the only reciprocity (morality) possible is the reciprocal exchange of that right to self-determination by self-determined means. And that requires we produce separate territories, polities, and governments.
-
Curt: “Is Duggin Right About Religous Awakenings?” (no?)
CURT: IS DUGGIN RIGHT ABOUT RELIGIOUS AWAKENINGS? (NO?) There are no religious ‘awakenings’ only ‘reformations’ Communism is a reformation of Judaism, pomo-pc-woke-feminism is a reformation of Christianity. Islamism is a reformation of Islam using communist strategy and tactics. Buddhism is a reformation of Hinduism, and only the Japanese maintained the only ‘true’ and natural religion (ancestor worship). Duggin is hard to judge because he is vastly more sophisticated in his use of theology, philosophy, and science as means of rhetorical ideation than the rest of European thinkers (which is to be expected given Russian literary superiority) – but I doubt he’s right on Christianity. Religiosity declines faster and faster with every decade. So instead what’s occurring is we’re all seeking demand for another religious reformation. And we’re looking to the past for ideas and examples when it’s not surviving because we’re no longer ignorant agrarian peasants. The entirety of Christianity failed to reform in response to Empiricism and Darwin. We’ve had no Augustine (400s) or Aquinas (1200s) in the 1800’s and so the church was replaced by the academy, and the academy converted to marxism-neo-marxism-feminism-pomo-woke. In retrospect, we can see that the Catholics almost got it right, but that the church as a FORMAL institution was unable to reform because of its economic and careerist incentives, just as our current government and academy cannot reform because of their careerist incentives. The Orthodox remained a nationalist church, and outside of Byzantium, didn’t try to compete with greco-roman reason, did not compete with the state, and rule over the state, but assisted the state, and so avoided the Augustinian, Aquinian, and Natural Law Reforms. So it didn’t experience the protestant reformation, the Germanic Romantic movement that almost restored classicalism, nor postwar secular humanism. And so the Orthodox church is the only one to ‘survive’ into modernity. Unfortunately, the Germans were defeated by Napoleon, and the end of the monarchy was the end of European civilization because the monarchies (as opposed to the church) created a market for status by adversarial (competitive) excellence in the material world of military and economic technology and arts. Once we lose the monarchies we lose Europa – and are reduced to feminine caretaking, not competitive excellence, as the final deciding factor in social economic and political organization. In other words: stagnation and decline.
-
Curt: “Is Duggin Right About Religous Awakenings?” (no?)
CURT: IS DUGGIN RIGHT ABOUT RELIGIOUS AWAKENINGS? (NO?) There are no religious ‘awakenings’ only ‘reformations’ Communism is a reformation of Judaism, pomo-pc-woke-feminism is a reformation of Christianity. Islamism is a reformation of Islam using communist strategy and tactics. Buddhism is a reformation of Hinduism, and only the Japanese maintained the only ‘true’ and natural religion (ancestor worship). Duggin is hard to judge because he is vastly more sophisticated in his use of theology, philosophy, and science as means of rhetorical ideation than the rest of European thinkers (which is to be expected given Russian literary superiority) – but I doubt he’s right on Christianity. Religiosity declines faster and faster with every decade. So instead what’s occurring is we’re all seeking demand for another religious reformation. And we’re looking to the past for ideas and examples when it’s not surviving because we’re no longer ignorant agrarian peasants. The entirety of Christianity failed to reform in response to Empiricism and Darwin. We’ve had no Augustine (400s) or Aquinas (1200s) in the 1800’s and so the church was replaced by the academy, and the academy converted to marxism-neo-marxism-feminism-pomo-woke. In retrospect, we can see that the Catholics almost got it right, but that the church as a FORMAL institution was unable to reform because of its economic and careerist incentives, just as our current government and academy cannot reform because of their careerist incentives. The Orthodox remained a nationalist church, and outside of Byzantium, didn’t try to compete with greco-roman reason, did not compete with the state, and rule over the state, but assisted the state, and so avoided the Augustinian, Aquinian, and Natural Law Reforms. So it didn’t experience the protestant reformation, the Germanic Romantic movement that almost restored classicalism, nor postwar secular humanism. And so the Orthodox church is the only one to ‘survive’ into modernity. Unfortunately, the Germans were defeated by Napoleon, and the end of the monarchy was the end of European civilization because the monarchies (as opposed to the church) created a market for status by adversarial (competitive) excellence in the material world of military and economic technology and arts. Once we lose the monarchies we lose Europa – and are reduced to feminine caretaking, not competitive excellence, as the final deciding factor in social economic and political organization. In other words: stagnation and decline.
-
CURT: IS DUGGIN RIGHT ABOUT RELIGOUS AWAKENINGS? (NO) There are no religious ‘aw
CURT: IS DUGGIN RIGHT ABOUT RELIGOUS AWAKENINGS? (NO)
There are no religious ‘awakenings’ only ‘reformations’ Communism is reformation of judaism, pomo-pc-woke-feminism is a reformation of chrsitianity. Islamism is a reformation of islam using communist strategy and tactics. Buddhism is a reformation of hinduism, and only the Japanese maintained the only ‘true’ and natural religion (ancestor worship).
Duggin is hard to judge, beause he is vastly more sophisticated in his use of theology, philosophy, and science as means of rhetorical ideation – but I doubt he’s right. Religiosity declines faster and faster with every decade. So what’s occurring is we’re all seeking demand for another religious reformation.
The entirety of chrsitianity failed to reform in response to darwin. We’ve had no Augustine 400s or Acquinas 1200s in the 1800’s and so the church was replaced by the academy, and the academy converted to marxism-neo-marxism-feminism-pomo-woke.
In retrospect we can see that the catholics almost got it right, but that the church as a FORMAL institution was unable to reform beause of its economic and careerist incdentives, just as our current government and academy cannot reform becaus of their careerist incentives.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 16:24:08 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134782587215714
-
The Direction of Dating, Marriage, Mating Over this Century
THE DIRECTION OF DATING, MARRIAGE, MATING OVER THIS CENTURY I’m trying to predict the direction of marriage over the next century, especially as we pass through the coming shocks. And we’re increasingly returning to historical norms of serial relationships at the bottom and long-term relations at the top, mediated by predictable trait differences, and sexual phenotypical market value. In other words, just as we lifted many lower classes into middle-class consumption during the industrial revolution and postwar income bubble, we’re seeing a return to type as the economic capacity of middle, lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass males are no longer able to produce competitive advantage sufficiently to afford long term exclusive access to a female – and females can afford to NOT pay for the cost of maintaining a male. Marriage is an economic institution, and the insurance of marriage is a public good that prevents male-male violence, and females with children that must be supported through redistribution, because of the moral hazard of not doing so. We have un-insured marriage. And we have undermined the economy sufficiently such that women can survive in lower-income occupations for the first time – at least while they’re young – and men cannot produce sufficient income to generate demand for supply of resources in exchange for regular access to sex and reproduction. This means that we have destroyed the incentive for reproduction EXEPT for the UNDERCLASSES leading to expansion of dysgenia, crime, social conflict, political conflict, economic, technological, and scientific competitiveness necessary for preservation of statndards of living. In my work i’m trying to discover the policy and legal changes necessary to restore the market for reproduction, as well as production, and commons. Because without reproduction, we don’t have production and commons.
-
The Direction of Dating, Marriage, Mating Over this Century
THE DIRECTION OF DATING, MARRIAGE, MATING OVER THIS CENTURY I’m trying to predict the direction of marriage over the next century, especially as we pass through the coming shocks. And we’re increasingly returning to historical norms of serial relationships at the bottom and long-term relations at the top, mediated by predictable trait differences, and sexual phenotypical market value. In other words, just as we lifted many lower classes into middle-class consumption during the industrial revolution and postwar income bubble, we’re seeing a return to type as the economic capacity of middle, lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass males are no longer able to produce competitive advantage sufficiently to afford long term exclusive access to a female – and females can afford to NOT pay for the cost of maintaining a male. Marriage is an economic institution, and the insurance of marriage is a public good that prevents male-male violence, and females with children that must be supported through redistribution, because of the moral hazard of not doing so. We have un-insured marriage. And we have undermined the economy sufficiently such that women can survive in lower-income occupations for the first time – at least while they’re young – and men cannot produce sufficient income to generate demand for supply of resources in exchange for regular access to sex and reproduction. This means that we have destroyed the incentive for reproduction EXEPT for the UNDERCLASSES leading to expansion of dysgenia, crime, social conflict, political conflict, economic, technological, and scientific competitiveness necessary for preservation of statndards of living. In my work i’m trying to discover the policy and legal changes necessary to restore the market for reproduction, as well as production, and commons. Because without reproduction, we don’t have production and commons.
-
THE DIRECTION OF DATING, MARRIAGE, MATING OVER THE CENTURY I’m trying to predict
THE DIRECTION OF DATING, MARRIAGE, MATING OVER THE CENTURY
I’m trying to predict the direction of marriage over the next century, especially as we pass through the coming shocks. And we’re increasingly returning to historical norms of serial relationships at the bottom and long-term relations at the top, mediated by predictable trait differences, and sexual phenotypical market value.
In other words, just as we lifted many lower classes into middle-class consumption during the industrial revolution and postwar income bubble, we’re seeing a return to type as the economic capacity of middle, lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass males are no longer able to produce competitive advantage sufficiently to afford long term exclusive access to a female – and females can afford to NOT pay for the cost of maintaining a male.
Marriage is an economic institution, and the insurance of marriage is a public good that prevents male-male violence, and females with children that must be supported through redistribution, because of the moral hazard of not doing so.
We have un-insured marriage. And we have undermined the economy sufficiently such that women can survive in lower-income occupations for the first time – at least while they’re young – and men cannot produce sufficient income to generate demand for supply of resources in exchange for regular access to sex and reproduction.
This means that we have destroyed the incentive for reproduction EXEPT for the UNDERCLASSES leading to expansion of dysgenia, crime, social conflict, political conflict, economic, technological, and scientific competitiveness necessary for preservation of statndards of living.
In my work i’m trying to discover the policy and legal changes necessary to restore the market for reproduction, as well as production, and commons.
Because without reproduction, we don’t have production and commons.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 15:30:48 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134572883970826
-
THE RESTORATION OF MARRIAGE AS A BUSINESS VENTURE (The end of the luxury good of
THE RESTORATION OF MARRIAGE AS A BUSINESS VENTURE
(The end of the luxury good of romantic marriage.)Romantic Love as we understand it was INVENTED and not that long ago. Marriage is a business proposition. If it isn’t it’s pointless to produce a corporation (which is what marriage consists of) instead of simply engaging in a market exchange until the opportunity’s exhausted.
And that’s what relationships consist of: opportunities for reciprocal exchange, by the only condition in life where you can exchange putting another’s interests ahead of yours, because they are polar opposites.
Exhaust opportunity, resource, or charge.It’s just physics. Sorry.
This is a little closer to the voice I’m developing now that we’ve ended the century of romantic love. I think that’s the direction I want to work on, because that’s where I sense we are headed. The romantic dream American dream enlightenment dream all end together. Yep.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 14:28:44 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134328822050828
-
THE ORIGIN AND REASON FOR MARRIAGE – POLITICAL ECONOMY OF MARRIAGE — “we need t
THE ORIGIN AND REASON FOR MARRIAGE – POLITICAL ECONOMY OF MARRIAGE
— “we need to restore legal fault to (the mating) market. The entire courtship market was highly protected in the west until we “liberated” ourselves from law and men no longer can sue for crimes against their family.” —
As you say, this is the primary institutional harm. However we also demand disclosure of the number and names of previous partners for marriage, must repair the economy so that it’s in favor of the working and middle classes, and provide basic education in human behavior.
Family = Assets in a Private Corporation
Just in case anyone tries to argue with me, the origin of the family is as a corporation of shared assets and liabilities, and marriage ritual as public insurance those assets from interference (theft) as commons are insured against interference. That’s the economy of marriage.
So the idea that we invented the corporation for capitalism is just another leftist fraud. We can ONLY produce commons by reciprocal insurance of demonstrated interests (investments, assets, property), and the family, the tribe, the polity, the state, were all corporations.
That’s what a corporation means: a collection of assets protected by limited liability and insured by the polity against the imposition of costs, whether by harm or privatization, by others. The family is the first corporation we insure. Because it’s the first reason men kill.
And destruction of the MARRIGAGE MARKET IS THE PRIMARY REASON MEN REVOLT. Yep. it’s an evolutionary necessity. It can’t be otherwise. It’s the most common reason for revolution in history. Becaues it’s an existential threat to the reason we exist: reproduction.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 14:26:50 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134321297810820