Athens (and Rome for that matter) was policed by young aristocratic males as part of their duty of service. Aristocrats had to rotate offices. Nobility performed ceremonies. Men earned the franchise (right to own land) through military service. Men who owned land were required to provide military service. When I was in Ukraine, during the revolution, groups of 100 young men would form a line and travel the streets. I never felt safer in my life unless I was hunting with other men with rifles. While the de-facto need for military service (preservation of the commons) requires a broader (or at least different) range of skills, the construction of infrastructure (engineers), and the increase in beauty (aesthetics, decoration, maintenance) is just as necessary a function for a polity. There is no reason we cannot shift from all this rent seeking, to employment of men in the service of the commons in exchange for the franchise. We would produce more socialized, stronger, healthier boys and men. Since the primary desire of the aristocracy from the rest is to behave in construction, preservation, and improvement of the commons – including their behavior, there is no reason why we cannot implement shareholder returns to citizens the same way we do so to common shareholders in corporations. This would radically restructure compensation since if we did so, people could just about survive on those dividends, and then work wages could free-float, and be used for entertainment not survival. As such the construction of commons can be produced at far lower costs – rivaling the rest of the world’s infrastructure costs – by the virtue of shifting the compensation methods from high rent to no rent.
Form: Mini Essay
-
An Alternative Economic Order …
Athens (and Rome for that matter) was policed by young aristocratic males as part of their duty of service. Aristocrats had to rotate offices. Nobility performed ceremonies. Men earned the franchise (right to own land) through military service. Men who owned land were required to provide military service. When I was in Ukraine, during the revolution, groups of 100 young men would form a line and travel the streets. I never felt safer in my life unless I was hunting with other men with rifles. While the de-facto need for military service (preservation of the commons) requires a broader (or at least different) range of skills, the construction of infrastructure (engineers), and the increase in beauty (aesthetics, decoration, maintenance) is just as necessary a function for a polity. There is no reason we cannot shift from all this rent seeking, to employment of men in the service of the commons in exchange for the franchise. We would produce more socialized, stronger, healthier boys and men. Since the primary desire of the aristocracy from the rest is to behave in construction, preservation, and improvement of the commons – including their behavior, there is no reason why we cannot implement shareholder returns to citizens the same way we do so to common shareholders in corporations. This would radically restructure compensation since if we did so, people could just about survive on those dividends, and then work wages could free-float, and be used for entertainment not survival. As such the construction of commons can be produced at far lower costs – rivaling the rest of the world’s infrastructure costs – by the virtue of shifting the compensation methods from high rent to no rent.
-
The Adaptability of Women and A Lesson for Men
The specialty of women is their ability to adapt to whatever local condition is necessary, whether it be her children, the women who she supports and is supported by, the micro polity she is constrained within, the macro polity she is constrained within – the polity consisting of the constraints of men. Men cannot do this – we specialize for fit into groups, and we lose our ability to adapt fairly quickly, and as such are at long term disadvantages under change of groups. The problem of women’s extraordinary adaptability is the illusion of agreement and shared understanding that they demonstrate when ‘adapting’ to a male. For example, it’s very common for a man (me included) to love his exe’s but understand their incompatible. Or even to cast a woman as crazy but still love her. But women very often un-adapt to men (my ex wife for example), and produce anything from dislike, to antagonistic anger, to absolute hatred of him. What men forget is that this is part of the seductive capability of a woman. And that their loyalty is to their children, and rarely to their husbands, and in those cases where there is loyalty it certainly appears to be reducible to social and economic security. Whereas for most men, loyalty is the most important emotion we feel, and govern our behavior by. (For evolutionary reasons it was necessary for group survival.) So all but a very few women have far less agency than we do. And because of that we are easily convinced that they are more compatible and loyal than we are. They are very different, they are less loyal, they possess lower agency, but they adapt extraordinarily. For this reason a woman is very different about every seven years of her life. While a man is fairly fixed in temperament by his late teens, and once he matures in his early to mid twenties, he will simply have more knowledge and less energy as the years pass. It is extremely important that you share core values and roles, because over time, sexual attraction, the social status of marriage, the financial benefit of a shared household, the economic utility of incomes. But you must never forget that in general she has less agency, and more adaptability, and less loyalty than you do. Love women. Help them nest. Increase their social status with her friends at every opportunity. Listen. Demonstrate understanding. Do not argue or reason with women about what is good or preferable. The only answer is yes we can, yes I can, yes I can but not until next year, no I can’t, no I won’t. Help her be the best she can be. Never let them nag you ever. It is a cancer that women evolved for the raising and training of children which must never be directed to a male. Never let them take you for granted. Never give them control of your income, only some agreed upon portion of it. The first time you see her give you a ‘disgust response’ in her facial expressions (including eye rolls) sell all the assets you can, separate the assets you can’t sell, and leave or divorce her. Once a woman has given you the disgust response it is only a matter of her planning her exit.
-
The Adaptability of Women and A Lesson for Men
The specialty of women is their ability to adapt to whatever local condition is necessary, whether it be her children, the women who she supports and is supported by, the micro polity she is constrained within, the macro polity she is constrained within – the polity consisting of the constraints of men. Men cannot do this – we specialize for fit into groups, and we lose our ability to adapt fairly quickly, and as such are at long term disadvantages under change of groups. The problem of women’s extraordinary adaptability is the illusion of agreement and shared understanding that they demonstrate when ‘adapting’ to a male. For example, it’s very common for a man (me included) to love his exe’s but understand their incompatible. Or even to cast a woman as crazy but still love her. But women very often un-adapt to men (my ex wife for example), and produce anything from dislike, to antagonistic anger, to absolute hatred of him. What men forget is that this is part of the seductive capability of a woman. And that their loyalty is to their children, and rarely to their husbands, and in those cases where there is loyalty it certainly appears to be reducible to social and economic security. Whereas for most men, loyalty is the most important emotion we feel, and govern our behavior by. (For evolutionary reasons it was necessary for group survival.) So all but a very few women have far less agency than we do. And because of that we are easily convinced that they are more compatible and loyal than we are. They are very different, they are less loyal, they possess lower agency, but they adapt extraordinarily. For this reason a woman is very different about every seven years of her life. While a man is fairly fixed in temperament by his late teens, and once he matures in his early to mid twenties, he will simply have more knowledge and less energy as the years pass. It is extremely important that you share core values and roles, because over time, sexual attraction, the social status of marriage, the financial benefit of a shared household, the economic utility of incomes. But you must never forget that in general she has less agency, and more adaptability, and less loyalty than you do. Love women. Help them nest. Increase their social status with her friends at every opportunity. Listen. Demonstrate understanding. Do not argue or reason with women about what is good or preferable. The only answer is yes we can, yes I can, yes I can but not until next year, no I can’t, no I won’t. Help her be the best she can be. Never let them nag you ever. It is a cancer that women evolved for the raising and training of children which must never be directed to a male. Never let them take you for granted. Never give them control of your income, only some agreed upon portion of it. The first time you see her give you a ‘disgust response’ in her facial expressions (including eye rolls) sell all the assets you can, separate the assets you can’t sell, and leave or divorce her. Once a woman has given you the disgust response it is only a matter of her planning her exit.
-
VETTING YOUR FRIENDS LIST FROM FB GHOST ACCOUNTS (Facebook as well as leftwing a
VETTING YOUR FRIENDS LIST FROM FB GHOST ACCOUNTS
(Facebook as well as leftwing activists are creating fake accounts to monitor you with. Talk about dishonest spying…)
—“I’m sure a few others can attest to this. I’m at a point now where I must vet my friend list. An new profile type has emerged which appears along side the normal honey pot and troll accounts.
I’m not going to detail it but it seems to be accounts geared to look friendly but are obviously fake. Ive concluded they are accounts set up to monitor activity.
Most likely, these are the accounts which get you banned. They don’t post or participate but watch, record and report. I call them ghost accounts.”— Bill Joslin
—“Correct. they are house accounts set up to monitor activity in the hope of banning.”— Curt
—“Spot on Bill, I think I’ve seen the same thing a few times over the last months – and we know who is behind it and what it’s for.”—Thorsten Stuart Norgate
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-16 14:50:00 UTC
-
MALE AND FEMALE LOYALTY BIAS = OUR MORAL BIAS —“Men marry and fall I love with
MALE AND FEMALE LOYALTY BIAS = OUR MORAL BIAS
—“Men marry and fall I love with a women with the belief that he will be the most important part of her life. This is the start of the destruction of so many marriages. Once the female has children her first loyalty becomes those children. The males loyalty still lay with the female. This creates a dangerous dynamic were the Male tries increasingly to become the females first priority to no avail.”— Eric Bumpus
I’m going to state it pejoratively: men mistakenly marry a wife under the presumption of the same priority he was treated by his mother. Women marry a husband with the presumption that her children will be given the same priority by the man as she gives them.
Both of these are false presumptions. Men are loyal to tribe, fellows, wife, and children. Women are loyal to children to the exclusion of all others.
This reflects genetic differences in morality. Males and conservatives tend to value all six Moral Dimensions relatively equally. Women and liberals tend to value Harm/Care almost exclusively.
The fallacy of equality is one of the greatest catastrophes since the invention of false gods, and marxist pseudoscience.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-16 14:42:00 UTC
-
THE ADAPTABILITY OF WOMEN AND A LESSON FOR MEN The specialty of women is their a
THE ADAPTABILITY OF WOMEN AND A LESSON FOR MEN
The specialty of women is their ability to adapt to whatever local condition is necessary, whether it be her children, the women who she supports and is supported by, the micro polity she is constrained within, the macro polity she is constrained within – the polity consisting of the constraints of men. Men cannot do this – we specialize for fit into groups, and we lose our ability to adapt fairly quickly, and as such are at long term disadvantages under change of groups.
The problem of women’s extraordinary adaptability is the illusion of agreement and shared understanding that they demonstrate when ‘adapting’ to a male.
For example, it’s very common for a man (me included) to love his exe’s but understand their incompatible. Or even to cast a woman as crazy but still love her. But women very often un-adapt to men (my ex wife for example), and produce anything from dislike, to antagonistic anger, to absolute hatred of him.
What men forget is that this is part of the seductive capability of a woman. And that their loyalty is to their children, and rarely to their husbands, and in those cases where there is loyalty it certainly appears to be reducible to social and economic security. Whereas for most men, loyalty is the most important emotion we feel, and govern our behavior by. (For evolutionary reasons it was necessary for group survival.)
So all but a very few women have far less agency than we do. And because of that we are easily convinced that they are more compatible and loyal than we are. They are very different, they are less loyal, they possess lower agency, but they adapt extraordinarily. For this reason a woman is very different about every seven years of her life. While a man is fairly fixed in temperament by his late teens, and once he matures in his early to mid twenties, he will simply have more knowledge and less energy as the years pass.
It is extremely important that you share core values and roles, because over time, sexual attraction, the social status of marriage, the financial benefit of a shared household, the economic utility of incomes.
But you must never forget that in general she has less agency, and more adaptability, and less loyalty than you do.
Love women. Help them nest. Increase their social status with her friends at every opportunity. Listen. Demonstrate understanding. Do not argue or reason with women about what is good or preferable. The only answer is yes we can, yes I can, yes I can but not until next year, no I can’t, no I won’t. Help her be the best she can be.
Never let them nag you ever. It is a cancer that women evolved for the raising and training of children which must never be directed to a male. Never let them take you for granted. Never give them control of your income, only some agreed upon portion of it.
The first time you see her give you a ‘disgust response’ in her facial expressions (including eye rolls) sell all the assets you can, separate the assets you can’t sell, and leave or divorce her. Once a woman has given you the disgust response it is only a matter of her planning her exit.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-16 13:15:00 UTC
-
AN ALTERNATIVE ECONOMIC ORDER … Athens (and Rome for that matter) was policed
AN ALTERNATIVE ECONOMIC ORDER …
Athens (and Rome for that matter) was policed by young aristocratic males as part of their duty of service. Aristocrats had to rotate offices. Nobility performed ceremonies. Men earned the franchise (right to own land) through military service. Men who owned land were required to provide military service. When I was in Ukraine, during the revolution, groups of 100 young men would form a line and travel the streets. I never felt safer in my life unless I was hunting with other men with rifles. While the de-facto need for military service (preservation of the commons) requires a broader (or at least different) range of skills, the construction of infrastructure (engineers), and the increase in beauty (aesthetics, decoration, maintenance) is just as necessary a function for a polity. There is no reason we cannot shift from all this rent seeking, to employment of men in the service of the commons in exchange for the franchise. We would produce more socialized, stronger, healthier boys and men. Since the primary desire of the aristocracy from the rest is to behave in construction, preservation, and improvement of the commons – including their behavior, there is no reason why we cannot implement shareholder returns to citizens the same way we do so to common shareholders in corporations. This would radically restructure compensation since if we did so, people could just about survive on those dividends, and then work wages could free-float, and be used for entertainment not survival. As such the construction of commons can be produced at far lower costs – rivaling the rest of the world’s infrastructure costs – by the virtue of shifting the compensation methods from high rent to no rent.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-16 12:07:00 UTC
-
PANDORA’S BOX OF DEMOCRACY There are always weak men. They are never sufficient
PANDORA’S BOX OF DEMOCRACY
There are always weak men. They are never sufficient in numbers, and easily shamed by the strong. There are however far too many weak women, and they will not be shamed by the strong, only doubling-down on their impulses. As such, opening Pandora’s Box by the inclusion of women into the process of political decisions, without expressly limiting the impulses of women, allowed for the combination of weak men, weak women, and those who would profit from enabling weak men and weak women – the inverse of those who traditionally carried the burden to shaming and policing weak men and weak women.
A separate house for women would have done it.
Limiting the vote to married households would have done it.
Limiting the vote to married households with children and property would have done it best of all.
But while as families we share common interests, as individuals we do not.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-16 11:38:00 UTC
-
THE FAILURE OF PARADIGMS (WAYS OF THINKING) There is a reason the world is conti
THE FAILURE OF PARADIGMS (WAYS OF THINKING)
There is a reason the world is continuously coalescing to the vocabulary and grammars of science: and that is because of the commensurability and therefore falsificationary value of the single most parsimonious vocabulary and grammar consisting entirely of continuous relations from the very small below human scale, through to human scale, to the very large beyond human scale – the semantics of which consist of analogies to observable experience: human scale.
Any idiot can come up with a paradigm that provides some sort of explanatory power, in the same way that a fairy tale, legend, or mythos provides explanatory power: by analogy. And idiots come up with new paradigms all the time, in an effort to elucidate some set of relations or other. And the they congratulate themselves on their insight and next seek to preserve that insight by justification: a forever-failing attempt to find a way for the rest of human knowledge to fit that paradigm. They over-invest. They fail.
It is quite different to start with an attempt to discover the grammar and semantics of science itself, and with that ambition to correct the minor incompatibilities between the arts and sciences, thereby increasing commensurability and falsifiability across all arts and sciences – producing a universal grammar and semantics and as such rendering all human knowledge more parsimonious and synthetic.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-16 11:18:00 UTC