http://angrybearblog.com/2013/08/zombie-companies-live.htmlTHEY COME AROUND TO OUR POINT OF VIEW … EVENTUALLY
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-05 05:16:00 UTC
http://angrybearblog.com/2013/08/zombie-companies-live.htmlTHEY COME AROUND TO OUR POINT OF VIEW … EVENTUALLY
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-05 05:16:00 UTC
http://www.propertarianism.com/2012/01/13/changes-in-identity/CHANGING IDENTITY: FROM ENGLISH TO BRITISH TO AMERICAN TO DISASPORIC – TO EXTINCT.
(Re-Post)
I made an unfortunate choice of terms when I started working on this theme. The idea I was trying to communicate was that the corporeal states that we have made with our extended family – our ‘race’ of the English people, have become the instrument of our extermination as a nation, a culture, a tradition, a people, a collection of tribes, and an extended family.
We are subjects of various corporations. We are property. Farm animals. But we are no longer a people in the sense that we have the fortress of a nation state that we use to advance the interests of our extended family.
Instead we are prisoners of the monstrous empires our family created. Those empires have become, as all empires must, corporations – organizations of financial rather than genetic interest. And that set of corporations is slowly forcing our extinction as a people in order to perpetuate the interests of the employees of the corporation itself.
At the time I used the term ‘englishman’, the loading of which I didn’t really understand. I meant that I wanted to return to my rights as an Englishman, in the ancient sense of the word. Meaning: personal sovereignty: meaning property rights to myself and my possessions.
And by sovereignty, I mean that I don’t want to be a farm animal. I am willing to sacrifice for my family. For my extended family. For my tribe. For my people. For my culture. That is always in my interest.
But I am not wiling to be farmed for the benefit of a corporation at the expense of my genetic and cultural heritage.
This is nothing more than killing off a herd to feed another herd.
Nothing more.
The state is the instrument of our extermination. What is the difference between a Death Camp and the American or British Governments except the time frame that they use to cause our extinction?
There isn’t any.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-04 05:53:00 UTC
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2250585A LAW DEGREE STILL PAYS – EVEN IF IT ISN”T WHAT IT WAS, ITS STILL WORTH IT
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-04 05:29:00 UTC
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2013/07/on-being-an-attractive-woman-and-being-taken-seriously-in-philosophy.htmlWHAT DOES AN ATTRACTIVE WOMAN DO TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND REMAIN FEMININE (IN ANY OCCUPATION) WITHOUT DRESSING ‘DOWN’ or DOWDY?
Other commenters left very strange advice, to what common people on the street would consider a very strange question. 🙂
Confusing separate issues:
1) The rather strange idea that you’re different from any other woman. The fact is, you’re MORE DESIRABLE so you’re going to attract more attention, and more ENTHUSIASTIC attention.
2) Femininity is attractive to males and that won’t stop – if it does, extinction is a possible consequence. 🙂
3) The rather strange idea that you want to SIGNAL femininity to yourself, or to others, but not produce an equivalent RESPONSE.
4) The rather strange idea that the problem is something in society rather than in your understanding and behavior – a strangeness that is pretty common in the feminist movement.
5) What do you SIGNAL to males, in ADDITION to your physical attraction, femininity, and intelligence? Does that include ACCESSIBILITY? AVAILABILITY?
6) How do all the other capable and beautiful and feminine women in the world handle this issue? Do they complain about the fact that if they SIGNAL desirability that they produce the appropriate ACTION in the population?
As an practitioner of economic philosophy, incentives are what we deal with (in addition to prices.) And any micro-economist or behavioral economist would say this: you want X,Y,and Z benefits without paying A,B,and C, costs. In your case, it’s likely that you want to attract attention, including the heightened self image that comes from attracting attention, but you don’t want to pay the cost of rejecting the unwanted attention. (In the extreme interpretation, ethically, this means that you’re a thief, or fraud, so to speak. 🙂
And it isn’t necessary (and it’s probably counter-productive) to ask this question of successful women in business (there are plenty). Or politics (the entertainment industry for unattractive people.) Instead, there are ready research subjects everywhere. If you were to go to high end restaurants and clubs in any major city, on the west coast, but more so in Europe, and certainly in eastern Europe, and ask the attractive female waitresses and bartenders how they deal with SIGNALING femininity, desirability, without signaling accessibility or availability, they’ll tell you – the same craft that women have used since the dawn of time. It’s how you interact with others. You do not need to dress dowdy. You might consider wearing a rock of an engagement ring – fake stone included. You do have to learn how to live as a human being in a world that is unfortunately peopled by human beings. And the honest thing to do in any social circumstance is not to advertise something then say it’s not for sale – so to speak. Or to wish that the world was not peopled by a pair of genders that have competing reproductive strategies because of asymmetry of costs and desires.
But then, trying to commit micro thefts – get discounts as we call it in economics – is as natural a human behavior as being attracted to more fit genes. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-04 04:48:00 UTC
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/exclusive-4-5-us-face-near-poverty-no-work-0″ITS STARTING TO LOOK A LOT LIKE EU….ROPE. E…..verywhere I go…..”
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-28 12:42:00 UTC
CHINESE NATURAL EUGENICS – AND THE BRITISH PARALLEL
“…although just 1 percent of American high-school graduates each year have ethnic Chinese origins, surname analysis indicates that they currently include nearly 15 percent of the highest-achieving students, a performance ratio more than four times better than that of American Jews, the top-scoring white ancestry group.”
“…the enormous population growth of recent centuries had gradually caught up with and overtaken China’s exceptionally efficient agricultural system, reducing the lives of most Chinese to the brink of Malthusian starvation; and these pressures and constraints were believed to be reflected in the Chinese people. For example, Stoddard wrote: … Winnowed by ages of grim elimination in a land populated to the uttermost limits of subsistence, the Chinese race is selected as no other for survival under the fiercest conditions of economic stress. At home the average Chinese lives his whole life literally within a hand’s breadth of starvation. Accordingly, when removed to the easier environment of other lands, the Chinaman brings with him a working capacity which simply appalls his competitors.”
LIKE WE USED TO BE
Manorialism was little different from the Chinese experience. But within 150 years we have redistributed our median IQ from being equal to that of the Ashkenazim to the mean.
The puritan ethic was the natural product of needing to demonstrate fitness in order to gain access to land. And access to land meant access to reproduction.
We not only have no criteria for reproduction now. We have inverted it so that the lower the criteria the more we can reproduce. And worse, that we have eliminated the criteria for voting.
QUOTES
“During the second half of the 20th century, ideological considerations largely eliminated from American public discourse the notion that many centuries of particular circumstances might leave an indelible imprint upon a people. But with the turn of the new millennium, such analyses have once again begun appearing in respectable intellectual quarters.
“The most notable example of this would surely be A Farewell to Alms, Gregory Clark’s fascinating 2007 analysis of the deep origins of Britain’s industrial revolution, which was widely reviewed and praised throughout elite circles, with New York Times economics columnist Tyler Cowen hailing it as possibly “the next blockbuster in economics” and Berkeley economist Brad DeLong characterizing it as “brilliant.”
“Although Clark’s work focused on many different factors, the one that attracted the greatest attention was his demographic analysis of British history based upon a close examination of individual testaments. Clark discovered evidence that for centuries the wealthier British had left significantly more surviving children than their poorer compatriots, thus leading their descendents to constitute an ever larger share of each generation. Presumably, this was because they could afford to marry at a younger age, and their superior nutritional and living arrangements reduced mortality rates for themselves and their families. Indeed, the near-Malthusian poverty of much ordinary English life during this era meant that the impoverished lower classes often failed even to reproduce themselves over time, gradually being replaced by the downwardly mobile children of their financial betters. Since personal economic achievement was probably in part due to traits such as diligence, prudence, and productivity, Clark argued that these characteristics steadily became more widespread in the British population, laying the human basis for later national economic success.”
(FROM: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-social-darwinism-made-modern-china-248/)
YOU GET WHAT YOU ASK FOR
You just get all the consequences along with it.
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-25 12:01:00 UTC
REMEDIAL ENGLISH IN COLLEGE
“In 100 years we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to teaching Remedial English in college.” – Joe Sobran
DATA
% of population with 4 year degree :
in 1910: 2.7%
in 2010: 31%
Every 15 points is one standard deviation in IQ.
You need 115 points to COMPREHEND college material.
That means 15% of the population can actually obtain an education, and that all other eduction is remedial, dumbed down to the non empirical, or wasted, and not in fact college education level material.
If we educate 50% of the population with some level of college, that means that we are wasting education on 35% of the population who should, as in the GERMAN MODEL GET APPRENTICESHIPS where they can learn by observation and imitation rather than abstraction and inference. Even at this, it appears, that all universities do is sort us by IQ, and improve departmental selection of slave labor for graduate programs – and we learn very little there.
IQ IS NOT ENVIRONMENTAL, ITS GENETIC, AND IT’S MEANINGFUL IN LIFE. Aside from impulsivity and physical symmetry is the most important genetic attribute, and all that you can teach your kids is good manners, and how to not do anything terribly stupid.
QUOTE
“There is no magic point at which a genuine college-level education becomes an option, but anything below an IQ of 110 is problematic. If you want to do well, you should have an IQ of 115 or higher. Put another way, it makes sense for only about 15% of the population, 25% if one stretches it, to get a college education. And yet more than 45% of recent high school graduates enroll in four-year colleges. Adjust that percentage to account for high-school dropouts, and more than 40% of all persons in their late teens are trying to go to a four-year college — enough people to absorb everyone down through an IQ of 104” – Murray
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-25 07:01:00 UTC
http://blog.independent.org/2013/07/22/obamacare-all-your-intimate-details-available-to-almost-anyone/WE KEEP INCREDIBLY GOOD DATABASES ON OUR LIVESTOCK
Now we can treat people even more like livestock.
I am a cow to be milked. I understand. I understand.
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-23 14:21:00 UTC
BOETTKE’S HYPOTHESIS WHY AUSTRIANS ARE NOT MAINSTREAM
“Verbal logic is not adequate to explain economic relationships. In the absence of formal logic, one cannot really test propositions. In other words, syntactic logic matters more than semantic logic.” (Hypothesis H4)
AND
“Science is not about absolutes, but about refutation. If AE is about (apodictic) certainty, then it is not a science, but a pastime.” (Hypothesis H5)
Well I disagree with AE as apodictic unless it’s complete. As I’ve written elsewhere it’s not complete. However, if expressed as complete, then it’s possible to propose means of falsification. And “m not sure it isn’t possible to model. Just very, very difficult, because we need much, much more data than we have today. Tis is where experimental psychology comes in.
In this sense, AE has a higher bar, because it tries to provide greater explanatory power than mainstream economics.
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-23 11:17:00 UTC
http://scienceblog.com/64835/want-to-be-safe-move-to-the-city-no-really/IT’S A PHYSICALLY DANGEROUS WORLD OUT HERE IN RURAL AMERICA 🙂
And you wonder why people are conservative there….. Conservatism is a prohibition on hubris. Rural opportunity costs are high, risk is higher. But most of rural danger come from just fixing your house, and driving a car. 🙂
“Although the risk of homicide is higher in big cities, the risk of unintentional injury death is 40 percent higher in the most rural areas than in the most urban. And overall, the rate of unintentional injury dwarfs the risk of homicide, with the rate of unintentional injury more than 15 times that of homicide among the entire population. “
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-23 09:59:00 UTC