Advice to Libertarian(ideology), Constitutional (rule of law), Right(normative tradition), and Religious(theological tradition): Avoid “Traditional” as it’s indefensible. (FWIW; it means ’empirically successful in pre technological history because of the division of labor necessary under intergenerational agrarianism.’) Better argument is “Biological gender roles constitute the optimum Nash equilibrium under which all of us do the best we can even if none of us or few of us do as well as we’d wish, without imposing irreciprocal hardship upon one another.” This is why we evolved paring off and serial monogamy, and only developed long term monogamy as (a) we lived longer (b) we developed property and productivity and (c) were able to perform intergenerational care in exchange for intergenerational inheritance. Because of the narrower distribution of desirable men, and the wider distribution of desirable women and the increase in the division of labor such that women are freed from manual household labor like men are (largely)freed from manual environmental labor, we can no longer expect postwar rates of marriage, and will return to pre-industrial rates of marriage – preserving it more commonly among the better classes who have greater interests in property and its returns, and the working and laboring classes who possess sufficient in-class sexual social market value, and sufficient conscientiousness and reciprocity, and returning to serial or parallel relations around maternal households living on the edge of self sufficiency. However, we can eliminate ir-reciprocity for MEN in the current era, by (a) ending marriage to the state (redistribution); (b) ending community property, alimony, child support, (c) restore liability for interference in a marriage; (e) restore voluntary disassociation so that men can reform paternal institutions of reciprocal support in lieu of marriage; and (d) forcible savings for retirement that is unattachable by anyone and everyone as insurance by and for the polity from your moral hazard of self insufficiency. In other words, we can restore reciprocal interest in the returns on investment in a partnership, by restoring the disincentive to parasitically live off others permitted by their intuition of reciprocity against moral hazard.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Don’t Hate, We Don’t Need To
We don’t need to ‘hate’ anyone, we simply need the “rule of law of reciprocity”, and must insist on truthful and reciprocal speech to the public in public matters, as well as voluntary association and disassociation. The left are the haters and can’t succeed without lying and sowing discord between genders, classes, and identities. With the “Winning Right”, the rule of law of RECIPROCITY, insistence on truth, voluntary association and disassociation, the losing left would group together in localities where they can create their own local laws and norms suited to their wants and needs. What’s great about that? They couldn’t infect the rest of us with their ideological hell. Thanks to: John Mark and Curt Doolittle
-
Don’t Hate, We Don’t Need To
We don’t need to ‘hate’ anyone, we simply need the “rule of law of reciprocity”, and must insist on truthful and reciprocal speech to the public in public matters, as well as voluntary association and disassociation. The left are the haters and can’t succeed without lying and sowing discord between genders, classes, and identities. With the “Winning Right”, the rule of law of RECIPROCITY, insistence on truth, voluntary association and disassociation, the losing left would group together in localities where they can create their own local laws and norms suited to their wants and needs. What’s great about that? They couldn’t infect the rest of us with their ideological hell. Thanks to: John Mark and Curt Doolittle
-
Nothing Else Really Defines Alternatives with Actionable Solutions.
(worth repeating)
—“Millenials and Gen Z are mad that we have no community, society, fair ratio of marriageable women, reason to invest at all. Most of us would trade what we have now for communism, anarchy or any number of flawed systems. Philosophically speaking, fight club or the joker are more compelling than most or the abstract appeals pitched at us in the past 50 years. Except for P. Nothing else really defines or offers appealing alternatives with actionable solutions.”— GL Sevier
-
Nothing Else Really Defines Alternatives with Actionable Solutions.
(worth repeating)
—“Millenials and Gen Z are mad that we have no community, society, fair ratio of marriageable women, reason to invest at all. Most of us would trade what we have now for communism, anarchy or any number of flawed systems. Philosophically speaking, fight club or the joker are more compelling than most or the abstract appeals pitched at us in the past 50 years. Except for P. Nothing else really defines or offers appealing alternatives with actionable solutions.”— GL Sevier
-
Q: Biggest Programming Mistakes?
Q: Biggest programming mistakes? (from elsewhere) All my big mistakes are the same, and I remember them. I keep working when I’m too tired to keep working: So, I wrote more functionality than I needed to; I forget that I wrote something and wrote it again; I forget that I wrote it over there and wrote it here. I forgot that I did it that way and so did it this way, and now I have to fix one or the other. I made only one architectural mistake with a new product because I rushed with it. The rest are all the same. Tired = stupid. I keep lots of notes, I plan my work, I use diagrams to design it. I usually do databases for rules, then services, then ui designs; Then the class architecture. I pseudocode the work, I write code for readability first; I document as I go; I (mostly) write test then code, the reason I’m slower I think I should be is that I test more than I should, especially UI functionality, and so I revise too much. I refactor a lot. and sometimes I shouldn’t. I should focus on functionality coverage so that I have a better understanding of how different services interact in practice. Most recent mistakes that sit with me is the message bag in Oversing, where I’d replaced one technique with another and then forgot I’d done so until … oops. The other is writing one set of panels one week using one method of data propagation, and coming back the next week and writing another set of panels with a slightly different method of data propagation, when I should have used a different method of data propagation. My general strategy is to make it work, make it work together, make it durable, then make it elegant. I stopped writing code myself because there are people who are faster and better and my core strength is user interface design, business rules, and data structures, and not wiring everything together. And the reason is that with all the visual cues I do better than I do in code editors without them. ie: as I usually complain my weakness is short term memory. I remember almost everything. but that’s not the same as working memory. But in general, tired = stupid. Don’t write code tired. Don’t send emails tired (or angry)
-
Q: Biggest Programming Mistakes?
Q: Biggest programming mistakes? (from elsewhere) All my big mistakes are the same, and I remember them. I keep working when I’m too tired to keep working: So, I wrote more functionality than I needed to; I forget that I wrote something and wrote it again; I forget that I wrote it over there and wrote it here. I forgot that I did it that way and so did it this way, and now I have to fix one or the other. I made only one architectural mistake with a new product because I rushed with it. The rest are all the same. Tired = stupid. I keep lots of notes, I plan my work, I use diagrams to design it. I usually do databases for rules, then services, then ui designs; Then the class architecture. I pseudocode the work, I write code for readability first; I document as I go; I (mostly) write test then code, the reason I’m slower I think I should be is that I test more than I should, especially UI functionality, and so I revise too much. I refactor a lot. and sometimes I shouldn’t. I should focus on functionality coverage so that I have a better understanding of how different services interact in practice. Most recent mistakes that sit with me is the message bag in Oversing, where I’d replaced one technique with another and then forgot I’d done so until … oops. The other is writing one set of panels one week using one method of data propagation, and coming back the next week and writing another set of panels with a slightly different method of data propagation, when I should have used a different method of data propagation. My general strategy is to make it work, make it work together, make it durable, then make it elegant. I stopped writing code myself because there are people who are faster and better and my core strength is user interface design, business rules, and data structures, and not wiring everything together. And the reason is that with all the visual cues I do better than I do in code editors without them. ie: as I usually complain my weakness is short term memory. I remember almost everything. but that’s not the same as working memory. But in general, tired = stupid. Don’t write code tired. Don’t send emails tired (or angry)
-
The Enemy’s Strategy
- The expansion of the technique invented by usury into a group strategy for the destruction of civilizations, and the reversal of human evolution, restoring man to condition of animal.
Baiting in to Hazard, by use of False Promise, Argued by Sophism, Under cover of Moral Pretense, Justified by Critique, for the purpose of profiting from undermining truth, reason, delay of gratification, manners, ethics, morals, traditions, cooperation between classes, organization of the classes, creating conflict, destroying trust, generating demand for authority, that recursively issues another iteration of false promise, until all accumulated genetic, cultural, normative, artistic, economic, institutional and political has been consumed by expansion of the underclasses whose reproduction had been limited by productivity, law, property, market, natural aristocracy.
The female group strategy of undermining organizations of males that are producing eugenic civilization (quality), by the direction of proceeds of production to the production of returns on commons, at the expense of female dysgenic reproduction (quantity), and her irresistible hyperconsumption.
List the false promises of the enemy? It’s a long list.
-
The Enemy’s Strategy
- The expansion of the technique invented by usury into a group strategy for the destruction of civilizations, and the reversal of human evolution, restoring man to condition of animal.
Baiting in to Hazard, by use of False Promise, Argued by Sophism, Under cover of Moral Pretense, Justified by Critique, for the purpose of profiting from undermining truth, reason, delay of gratification, manners, ethics, morals, traditions, cooperation between classes, organization of the classes, creating conflict, destroying trust, generating demand for authority, that recursively issues another iteration of false promise, until all accumulated genetic, cultural, normative, artistic, economic, institutional and political has been consumed by expansion of the underclasses whose reproduction had been limited by productivity, law, property, market, natural aristocracy.
The female group strategy of undermining organizations of males that are producing eugenic civilization (quality), by the direction of proceeds of production to the production of returns on commons, at the expense of female dysgenic reproduction (quantity), and her irresistible hyperconsumption.
List the false promises of the enemy? It’s a long list.
-
The Post Marx-Keynes Economy: Our Restoration
Oct 31, 2019, 11:33 AM
—“There’s plenty wrong with GDP as a global measure of system performance. One of those problems is that no one has yet to come up with a better one.”—Duke Newcomb
Income != balance sheet. That’s the problem. (Really). GDP P/C @ PPP = Standard of living. Change in Balance Sheet = Gain or Loss (productivity); GDP = Debt Capacity = Military Capacity = Coercive Capacity and that’s all it means. The problem is false productivity, were in consumption of capital is obscured by velocity, in order to maintain keynesian employment as a (bad) means of restoring economic velocity (which is the error) – where under digital and fiat money, liquidity distribution directly to the people will make employment a measure only of demographic utility (which is what the left is afraid of) and the correction of which (as I recommend) will re-suppress immigration, and re-suppress underclass reproduction, and restore middle class reproduction.The only way to increase wealth in this model is reproduction of the middle class, employment of young and old, payment for labor necessary to create an aesthetic commons, one child policy for those who are dependent, and following the japanese in automation.