by Collin Turney I worked door-to-door selling educational books for families that helped from learning ABC’s to SAT college prep. I met a total of aprx 3000 families, and here is my analysis: 1 kid – highly stressed parents and child as a by product of the psychological stress that comes with the “all the eggs in one basket” mentality. This means strict grade requirements, strict curfews and other things that are small but total up to a large amount of stress on the child because he feels like it is his duty to never fail at anything. 2 kids: assuming tbe kids are close in age, aprx 8 years or less, creates a “versus” mentality in the family. One child is always against the other. This often will pit parents against each other as well as the kids are always trying to earn the favor of whichever parent likes them more. The younger child has a high propensity to be a polar opposite of their older sibling as they are so often compared to their older sibling and feel as if they are living in someone’s shadow and will become different out of spite to build their own identity. 3 kids: Nearing the breaking point. Not many negatives other than the youngest often can get away with murder and the middle one feels he has no identity as he is neither the oldest nor youngest. 4+ children: the parents at this stage are fully occupied with raising the kids and stop giving a crap about their own personal problems and just do what needs to be done to keep everyone fed. Also, they will just let kids be kids and not worry so much about if they are wrestling in the house or coloring on the walls or other petty things because the parents reach a point where they realize if they care to much about each individual thing the kids are doing they would go insane in less than a week. Also, at 4 or more kids the dynamic in the kids is such that the older kids often assume a part in raising the younger ones and everyone is held to the same standard rather than the “vs” mentality of the 2 kids family and the “baby, directionless middle child, and oldest most mature child” mentality of the 3 kids family. The chillest family I met had 8 kids under the age of 10 and the kids were in the middle of what seemed to be the toddler version of MMA in their front yard and the parents gave no hecks.
Form: Mini Essay
-
The King of The Hill Method of Teaching Online
—“…. largest problem is your obnoxious temperament 😉”— I bitch slap ignorance. yes. It’s so I can bait man-ginas. lol But listen….. You want my job? Do you have any idea how many overconfident, ignorant, sophomoric, posturing young single male ass-wipes there are on the internet? I have developed the “King of the Hill” strategy of discourse (teaching) because it is actually THE BEST method of teaching (masculine) men. I’ve been doing this since we used 300 baud dial up modems and 80 character monochrome screens. And I learned it early. Men can attack me and my ideas, without acting vulnerable, or submissive, or begging for attention, but by exercising their dominance. And they can fail and no one cares. This is actually the optimum method of reaching men: we create a dominance game of low risk. We learn from playing this dominance game. The secret is to reward dominance expression if it’s backed by insight, argument, or wit. And to stop on effeminate, abrahamic, and non-argument. I make serious arguments to teach. I make half arguments to encourage debate. And I push controversial ideas to encourage them to refute them. My role in this ‘game’ is to play king of the hill, and say ‘come get me’. I provide symbolic rewards (sharing quotes), and meaningful rewards (investing time in those with potential), and lifetime rewards (skill development). That is why this game works. Not everyone can play this game. But if they can play this game, and get good at it they will master a very special skill. And it’s that collection of talent I’m interested in creating. The internet does change. Men don’t change. The number of stupid men with access to digital discourse simply increases. The internet of such men requires street fighting, and I try to create a locker room for street fighters. In that locker room we play king of the hill. WE PUT DOMINANCE PLAY TO CONSTRUCTIVE USE. If you want beta-and-chick-friendly theatre watch TED videos. It’s a cult of pseudoscience. I teach argument.. I teach men. (And the occasional woman with character, intellectual honesty, and brains.) You might not realize I know this is a game, and that we are playing a game until you meet me in person or talk to me in an interview – because I’m not very much like my online persona. This is educational entertainment and theatre. 😉
-
The King of The Hill Method of Teaching Online
—“…. largest problem is your obnoxious temperament 😉”— I bitch slap ignorance. yes. It’s so I can bait man-ginas. lol But listen….. You want my job? Do you have any idea how many overconfident, ignorant, sophomoric, posturing young single male ass-wipes there are on the internet? I have developed the “King of the Hill” strategy of discourse (teaching) because it is actually THE BEST method of teaching (masculine) men. I’ve been doing this since we used 300 baud dial up modems and 80 character monochrome screens. And I learned it early. Men can attack me and my ideas, without acting vulnerable, or submissive, or begging for attention, but by exercising their dominance. And they can fail and no one cares. This is actually the optimum method of reaching men: we create a dominance game of low risk. We learn from playing this dominance game. The secret is to reward dominance expression if it’s backed by insight, argument, or wit. And to stop on effeminate, abrahamic, and non-argument. I make serious arguments to teach. I make half arguments to encourage debate. And I push controversial ideas to encourage them to refute them. My role in this ‘game’ is to play king of the hill, and say ‘come get me’. I provide symbolic rewards (sharing quotes), and meaningful rewards (investing time in those with potential), and lifetime rewards (skill development). That is why this game works. Not everyone can play this game. But if they can play this game, and get good at it they will master a very special skill. And it’s that collection of talent I’m interested in creating. The internet does change. Men don’t change. The number of stupid men with access to digital discourse simply increases. The internet of such men requires street fighting, and I try to create a locker room for street fighters. In that locker room we play king of the hill. WE PUT DOMINANCE PLAY TO CONSTRUCTIVE USE. If you want beta-and-chick-friendly theatre watch TED videos. It’s a cult of pseudoscience. I teach argument.. I teach men. (And the occasional woman with character, intellectual honesty, and brains.) You might not realize I know this is a game, and that we are playing a game until you meet me in person or talk to me in an interview – because I’m not very much like my online persona. This is educational entertainment and theatre. 😉
-
THE PROBLEM WITH THE GOLD STANDARD (LUDDISM) The problem with gold is (a) there
THE PROBLEM WITH THE GOLD STANDARD (LUDDISM)
The problem with gold is (a) there is too little of it, (b) and as such it is too volitile for long term pricing. (c) and it is too open to manipulation.
The problem with the fiat money system is only (a) we don’t have enough types of money, (b) we pay interest on borrowing from ourselves to create long term capital (housing, cars, appliances), which makes no damned sense at all, (c) we distribute liquidity through the financial sector and credit rather than just directly to consumers (citizens), and therefore cause the entire economy to reorganize and suffer the shocks, rather than simply having consumers correct the shock by shifting of consumption and debt.
Libertarians are pretty much always wrong, because they’re always only half right, and they’re half right not because they’re moral, but because they want to enable private sector rents rather than public sector rents, instead of eliminating rents altogether.
No man has any right to appreciation of a currency at the expense of others’ reduction of consumption or production. There is just no way to claim that. But it’s exactly the purpose of (((libertarian))) dogma: restoration of “the rents of the pale.”
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-18 10:25:00 UTC
-
THE KING OF THE HILL METHOD OF TEACHING ONLINE —“…. largest problem is your
THE KING OF THE HILL METHOD OF TEACHING ONLINE
—“…. largest problem is your obnoxious temperament 😉”—
I bitch slap ignorance. yes. It’s so I can bait man-ginas. lol
But listen….. You want my job? Do you have any idea how many overconfident, ignorant, sophomoric, posturing young single male ass-wipes there are on the internet?
I have developed the “King of the Hill” strategy of discourse (teaching) because it is actually THE BEST method of teaching (masculine) men. I’ve been doing this since we used 300 baud dial up modems and 80 character monochrome screens. And I learned it early.
Men can attack me and my ideas, without acting vulnerable, or submissive, or begging for attention, but by exercising their dominance. And they can fail and no one cares. This is actually the optimum method of reaching men: we create a dominance game of low risk. We learn from playing this dominance game. The secret is to reward dominance expression if it’s backed by insight, argument, or wit. And to stop on effeminate, abrahamic, and non-argument.
I make serious arguments to teach. I make half arguments to encourage debate. And I push controversial ideas to encourage them to refute them.
My role in this ‘game’ is to play king of the hill, and say ‘come get me’. I provide symbolic rewards (sharing quotes), and meaningful rewards (investing time in those with potential), and lifetime rewards (skill development). That is why this game works.
Not everyone can play this game. But if they can play this game, and get good at it they will master a very special skill. And it’s that collection of talent I’m interested in creating.
The internet does change. Men don’t change. The number of stupid men with access to digital discourse simply increases.
The internet of such men requires street fighting, and I try to create a locker room for street fighters. In that locker room we play king of the hill. WE PUT DOMINANCE PLAY TO CONSTRUCTIVE USE. If you want beta-and-chick-friendly theatre watch TED videos. It’s a cult of pseudoscience.
I teach argument.. I teach men. (And the occasional woman with character, intellectual honesty, and brains.)
You might not realize I know this is a game, and that we are playing a game until you meet me in person or talk to me in an interview – because I’m not very much like my online persona.
This is educational entertainment and theatre.
😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-18 10:01:00 UTC
-
The New Right Is the Scientific Right
CONSERVATIVES (ARISTOCRACY) WERE FROZEN IN ANCIENT ARGUMENT THE NEW RIGHT IS THE SCIENTIFIC RIGHT Conservatives were stuck with a moral, religious, traditional set of arguments without themselves understanding why our civilization had ‘sped faster than the rest’. Worse, they bought into the lie just as libertarians bought into the lie of an aristocracy (sovereignty) of everyone. THE NEW RIGHT = SCIENTIFIC RIGHT. The alt right uses ridicule, but by and large the new right differs from the old right in that we now have DATA and we have it from a century of failures with the falsehoods of classical liberalism, and the falsehoods of marxist-postmodernism. My work is just going back to our roots: impose the law with violence and incrementally suppress all transgressions of it. Men will naturally insure kin, so create nation states, or at least small local polities in the Swiss model with federal governments providing only reciprocal decidability over inter-state conflicts, and acting as insurer of last resort.
-
The New Right Is the Scientific Right
CONSERVATIVES (ARISTOCRACY) WERE FROZEN IN ANCIENT ARGUMENT THE NEW RIGHT IS THE SCIENTIFIC RIGHT Conservatives were stuck with a moral, religious, traditional set of arguments without themselves understanding why our civilization had ‘sped faster than the rest’. Worse, they bought into the lie just as libertarians bought into the lie of an aristocracy (sovereignty) of everyone. THE NEW RIGHT = SCIENTIFIC RIGHT. The alt right uses ridicule, but by and large the new right differs from the old right in that we now have DATA and we have it from a century of failures with the falsehoods of classical liberalism, and the falsehoods of marxist-postmodernism. My work is just going back to our roots: impose the law with violence and incrementally suppress all transgressions of it. Men will naturally insure kin, so create nation states, or at least small local polities in the Swiss model with federal governments providing only reciprocal decidability over inter-state conflicts, and acting as insurer of last resort.
-
Warriors and Tongue Waggers Liber-Tine/tarian-Ism Is Dead – It Was Always a Lie
Libertarians (libertines) and ancaps are statistically irrelevant. Predisposed to tongue wagging and not to violence necessary to impose rule of law. So the issue here is that libertinism (rothbardianism, ancapism) is dead. And that classical liberalism is largely dead. And that all that can be learned from the failures of the past 350 years, is that markets-in-everything mean that we should have given additional houses to additional classes as they became participatory, and preserved the houses as a market for commons between the classes, and likewise prohibited the production of law (legislation), only contract between the classes under usual contractual terms. We had the perfect government with the Scandianvian and germanic monarchies under sovereignty (rule of law of reciprocity, universal standing, and universal applicability), with the monarch as the judge of last resort, and able to dispense with bureaucracies or the government at a whim. THIS MEANS LIBERTARIANISM IN ALL FORMS WAS ALWAYS A LIE…… Both anglo (classical liberal) and jewish (libertine) were both lies. There is only one law and only one means of imposing it: the organized violence of enough men that the state cannot withstand their revolt.
-
Warriors and Tongue Waggers Liber-Tine/tarian-Ism Is Dead – It Was Always a Lie
Libertarians (libertines) and ancaps are statistically irrelevant. Predisposed to tongue wagging and not to violence necessary to impose rule of law. So the issue here is that libertinism (rothbardianism, ancapism) is dead. And that classical liberalism is largely dead. And that all that can be learned from the failures of the past 350 years, is that markets-in-everything mean that we should have given additional houses to additional classes as they became participatory, and preserved the houses as a market for commons between the classes, and likewise prohibited the production of law (legislation), only contract between the classes under usual contractual terms. We had the perfect government with the Scandianvian and germanic monarchies under sovereignty (rule of law of reciprocity, universal standing, and universal applicability), with the monarch as the judge of last resort, and able to dispense with bureaucracies or the government at a whim. THIS MEANS LIBERTARIANISM IN ALL FORMS WAS ALWAYS A LIE…… Both anglo (classical liberal) and jewish (libertine) were both lies. There is only one law and only one means of imposing it: the organized violence of enough men that the state cannot withstand their revolt.
-
Why Was the Empire Lost?
Well, it was lost by fighting a pair of unnecessary wars in which Germany was in the right, and thereby hollowing out Europe of it’s ancient cultural origins. Doing so collapsed the empire. And the people did not immediately replace a global imperial government with a local national one. As such Britain as much as France, drove marxist imperialism just as hard as the soviets. The problem was not gutting the government OR working with the USA to restore the British empire. One or the other. But in typical British fashion, just as the french lost their civilization at the loss of the monarchy, just as the Spanish civilization died at their loss of empire, and British lost theirs – and became as useless as the french and Spanish. Between 1830 and 1914 the British broke from germanic civilization and became Diasporics in every possible sense.