Form: Quote Commentary

  • IT IS DONE Sharing this for the M o r o n s (for some reason, largely christians

    https://youtu.be/7EnrXkWpKtkHOW IT IS DONE

    Sharing this for the M o r o n s (for some reason, largely christians) that said I was delusional.

    You know, some of us read what think tanks write, not what nitwits say on youtube, twitter, and discussion forums.

    Understand. The government cannot protect the electrical grid. It’s not possible. Or the roads. Or rail. Or telecom lines. Or gas pipelines. Concentrated areas like ports and airports yes. Distributed technology, no.

    If power is lost it will take a year to get it back.

    That’s how war is conducted today.

    Not by street protests.Updated Jan 6, 2020, 8:57 AM


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-06 08:57:00 UTC

  • OVERPLAYING THEIR HAND by Alexander Brown (OMG Alexander Brown is back!! ) Two t

    OVERPLAYING THEIR HAND

    by Alexander Brown

    (OMG Alexander Brown is back!! )

    Two things are clear to me over Qassem. Major General Qassem Soleimani served his master Khomenie, was loyal, did some very disgusting things while at it, and overplayed his hand with regards to the Trump administration. For all that violations against foreign powers ( mainly the United States and regional allies Israel + Saudi Arabia ), Qassem deserved to die and was duly marked for death. The when, why, and how that execution, was simply a matter of time. So that, his miscalculation over US territory in Iraq while spearheading Iranian foreign policy in same country, spelt his doom as would be expected by watchers of these events. He was foolish to not realise that he could have been FOUND, FIXED and FINISHED so accurately, there need to be no soldier on the ground to do it directly. Question is, in reciprocity, could Iran do same to ANY US/Israeli/Saudi general? Why not?

    Capability issues? Operational challenges? Dreading the cyclical retaliation?

    Two. The Iranian regime as it is today, is not necessarily serving the interest of Iran; the Iranian people; the region; and is not acting as a respectful member of the existing international structure, systems, and or order. It may be argued that the existing world architecture is in itself distasteful, and require reform +/- an overthrow amd replacement. But if this provides the standard to which all including the US are being held to, WHY must Iran continue to be the rogue under such an establisment and not be expected to be retaliated against or held responsible for its actions that violate existing norms, rules, laws?

    Attacking the US Mission in Iraq was stupid, regardless of whether it was done indirectly by proxies or not. It was to be retaliated against in proportion or more for the DETERRENCE value and to eliminate the significant chest piece ( Qassem ) who was also such a powerful regional security figure. Such a personage should not be anti American interest. And IF or as he were, he deserved what came to him in the scheme of things. Post his death, the response from Tehran is even revealing.

    Supreme leader Ayatollah A. Khamenie is at his abusive best, ‘singling’ out Trump for invectives while threatening US interests and assets in the Strait of Hormuz. And, he would not hesitate to violate the already defective and paralyzed JCPOA that favoured Iran to the exclusion of its regional rivals, and global security interests. In another miscalculation, he announced a withdrawal from the agreement. What does that say about the Iranian leadership?

    It may not be suicidal, but it isnt that very smart.

    Khamenie could be fixed any day by US drones. And so could his replacement for Qassem, the brigadier general Ghaani. Any wise actor then would recognise this reality and approach this whole situation or challenge, rather differently. But to pacify the Iranian street, Khamenie went even more lunatic. While at it, he claimed “death to America” is for the US leadership, and NOT Americans. And insists that Qassem would be avenged. Is this actor, a fellow we should cry for?

    Gaddafi was delusional as well. When he had lucid moments, he made the fatal error of trusting rats like Tony Blair, Sarkozy and Obama and paid dearly for it with his goddamed life after some hard sodomy without lubrication. Saddam was foolish too. He played to the Iraqi street to his ignominious hanging. Can Khamenie NOT learn from those and from Qassem?

    If he would not, why cry for him and keep scrutiny of the unhinged US killing machine?

    Thing is that, Israel rules via Trump in that region. Israel want this regime in Iran gone for a leadership favorable to interests in Jerusalem / Tel Aviv. This ayatollah and Qassem should have known this and act better, than to keep pushing the shia crescent agenda to Israeli doorsteps while violating US sovereignty and in such an ineffective way, that they risk leadership DECAPITATION and military humiliation!

    Any way. The 42% or so Persians may be waiting to to help form a new Government in Tehran, post the Azerbaijani Khamenie. Khamenie’s legacy is aboit being obliterated because he miscalculated multiply, just as Qassem just did to his untimely death!


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-05 17:40:00 UTC

  • DIFFERENCES IN STANDARDS by Vengefül Bobmoran High trust people require not only

    DIFFERENCES IN STANDARDS

    by Vengefül Bobmoran

    High trust people require not only the absence of conflict of interest, but also the absence of *appearance* of conflict of interest, as the appearance itself is enough to erode trust and imposes a huge cost on everyone.

    The left applies the bare minimum ghetto ethic (no provable conflict of interest – cheap, easy deniability and pilpul) to its own, but will gladly apply our standards (no appearance of conflict of interest – expensive compliance) to us.

    They don’t even care about maintaining trust; they just intuit the huge costs of adherence to our standards and attack us with it, in the same way that they use the judicial process itself, rather than the judgement, as a weapon. This also explains how they can suddenly be more Catholic than the Pope when criticizing us: it’s all about maximizing the costs (damages) they can impose.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-05 14:53:00 UTC

  • THE CULT OF COMPETENCE by Luke Weinhagen —“… the freedom we have enjoyed in

    THE CULT OF COMPETENCE

    by Luke Weinhagen

    —“… the freedom we have enjoyed in America is not the fruit of fortuitous accident, of great natural resources, or of mere isolation from the tangled skein of European politics. It is the direct result of purposeful thinking and hard work. It is the child of the cult of competency—intellectual competency, physical competency, moral competency…”—

    Source ( http://ergo-sum.net/literature/CultOfCompetency.pdf)

    The address the above excerpt is pulled from has become something of an inspiration for me in defining and pursuit of a cult of competence.

    The problems we are working to provide solutions for now have been plaguing man for at least as long as we’ve been writing it story down.

    The cult of competence has always been there in some form wherever dangerous free individuals pursue fruitful and virtuous interaction with other dangerous free individuals.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-05 14:40:00 UTC

  • “PROPERTARIANISM IS THE WORST CULT I’VE EVER SEEN” by Stephen Thomas Propertaria

    “PROPERTARIANISM IS THE WORST CULT I’VE EVER SEEN”

    by Stephen Thomas

    Propertarianism is the worst cult I have ever seen.

    There are no financial requirements.

    There are no social requirements.

    There are no official leaders.

    There are only 2 things required to “join”.

    Honesty

    Intelligence

    Honest people don’t engage in RRGSM unless provoked by dishonesty or RRGSM.

    Intelligent people can learn the excruciatingly difficult, monetarily free material.

    I don’t know of any cults intentionally pursing honest and intelligent people. Seems counterintuitive.

    —“We’re the cult of non submission completed.”—Alain Dwight


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-05 11:00:00 UTC

  • MARKETS NOT MAJORITARIANISM by Martin Štěpán Why do people keep assuming we only

    MARKETS NOT MAJORITARIANISM

    by Martin Štěpán

    Why do people keep assuming we only want to make slight changes to universal suffrage? The optimum outcome is scraping the whole thing and putting in several houses for classes with different interests that have to negotiate.

    They have been indoctrinated into the fallacy of the good of democracy’s majoritarian tyranny, and made ignorant of the market as a means of calculating optimums despite differences.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-04 12:07:00 UTC

  • ECONOMICS IS JUST PHYSICS WITH DEBITS AND CREDITS (MEMORY) —“Women crave privi

    ECONOMICS IS JUST PHYSICS WITH DEBITS AND CREDITS (MEMORY)

    —“Women crave privilege and license. Men desire liberty and justice. Prove me wrong.”—Joshua Fox

    Turn that statement into economic language: women desire consumption and men desire opportunity for production – the consequence of which is trading sex and reproduction for resources: a division of labor organized by voluntary exchanges.

    —“To the root!”–Joshua Fox

    Human behavior is all physics. It has to be.

    Economics is just physics with debts and credits.

    Our consciousness is just a vehicle for negotiating terms of cooperation.

    Cooperation is just a means of obtaining higher returns on investments of time and calories.

    Marriage – especially universal marriage – is the optimum compromise and the optimum means of calculating reproduction.

    The feminists are under the impression that men will behave by current means if the compromise of marriage and therefore exchange disappears. But if universal marriage and exchange of productivity for sex and offspring without imposing costs on others no longer exists, men will either invent new ways or revert to old ways that do not require cooperation.

    Women choose individually.

    Men choose collectively.

    Marriage and family is the compromise.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-04 10:43:00 UTC

  • ECONOMICS IS JUST PHYSICS WITH DEBITS AND CREDITS (MEMORY) —“Women crave privi

    ECONOMICS IS JUST PHYSICS WITH DEBITS AND CREDITS (MEMORY)

    —“Women crave privilege and license. Men desire liberty and justice. Prove me wrong.”—Joshua Fox

    Turn that statement into economic language: women desire consumption and men desire opportunity for production – the consequence of which is trading sex and reproduction for resources: a division of labor organized by voluntary exchanges.

    —“To the root!”–Joshua Fox

    Human behavior is all physics. It has to be.

    Economics is just physics with debts and credits.

    Our consciousness is just a vehicle for negotiating terms of cooperation.

    Cooperation is just a means of obtaining higher returns on investments of time and calories.

    Marriage – especially universal marriage – is the optimum compromise and the optimum means of calculating reproduction.

    The feminists are under the impression that men will behave by current means if the compromise of marriage and therefore exchange disappears. But if universal marriage and exchange of productivity for sex and offspring without imposing costs on others no longer exists, men will either invent new ways or revert to old ways that do not require cooperation.

    Women choose individually.

    Men choose collectively.

    Marriage and family is the compromise.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-04 10:38:00 UTC

  • “confusing friend and enemy -the current state of the dissident right”—Thorin

    —“confusing friend and enemy -the current state of the dissident right”—Thorin Moriaz

    There is nothing new about factions on any side, it’s just that the masculine resistance to verbal cooperation (disagreeableness) is higher than the feminine, but the feminine resistance to physical cooperation is higher than the masculine.

    We don’t need to agree on words, we only need to agree to fight.

    We are men. 😉

    At least those who will fight are men. 😉 lol


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-03 12:42:00 UTC

  • I have no idea why this book has no reviews when economists recommend it so freq

    https://www.amazon.com/Best-Karl-Marx/dp/1630691844/(review)

    I have no idea why this book has no reviews when economists recommend it so frequently. The author’s introduction alone summarizes the argument against Marx and his entire body of work: it’s based upon false premises that were exposed by the Marginalists before he died, and the reason Marx having read them, never finished his works – he just kept taking money from Engels under the promise he would. Marx was the most influential of the Jewish Pseudoscientists: Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Bohr, Adorno, Fromm et al, Friedan et all, Derrida et al, Rand and Rothbard et al;. But it has taken a century to falsify each, leaving only Bohr surviving, and only Bohr (and in part Einstein) surviving past 2010, with current mathematics and physics still lost in mathematical sophistry – and few others, mostly in computer science ( Wolfram ) and molecular biology and genetics plugging away while physics spins.

    https://www.amazon.com/Best-Karl-Marx/dp/1630691844/Updated Jan 2, 2020, 7:33 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-02 19:33:00 UTC