That’s Not Rule of Law, and One Man Is Not a Movement https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/thats-not-rule-of-law-and-one-man-is-not-a-movement/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 21:40:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265035106244349952
Jan 17, 2020, 2:07 PM Don’t be the idiot in the meeting ‘reminding’ others of the obvious risks – it means you’re a coward and think in cowardly terms, and offer advice as pretense of courage. Instead, be the person looking for, seizing, and assisting on the seizure of opportunities to exploit. We need brave men, not cowardly women. You demonstrate what you are by what you say.
Jan 17, 2020, 2:07 PM Don’t be the idiot in the meeting ‘reminding’ others of the obvious risks – it means you’re a coward and think in cowardly terms, and offer advice as pretense of courage. Instead, be the person looking for, seizing, and assisting on the seizure of opportunities to exploit. We need brave men, not cowardly women. You demonstrate what you are by what you say.
Jan 18, 2020, 8:06 AM We can just as easily categorize the female brain and the male brain instead as breadth(experience, children)-first vs depth(time, environment)-first. When the paradigm you use is the high cost of brains, and high returns on brains, neural economy; division of reproductive, productive, and cognitive labor; economics of (returns on) cooperation; voluntary cooperation as calculation of group optimums; and reciprocity within the limits of proportionality as limits; and retaliation and altruistic punishment as preservation of returns on cooperation then you no longer are the victim of intuition and animal instinct, and no longer criticize how people feel, think, or want – only whether they negotiate and cooperate truthfully and reciprocally – and that wanting others to feel, think and want on your terms is merely searching for an unearned discount.
Jan 18, 2020, 8:06 AM We can just as easily categorize the female brain and the male brain instead as breadth(experience, children)-first vs depth(time, environment)-first. When the paradigm you use is the high cost of brains, and high returns on brains, neural economy; division of reproductive, productive, and cognitive labor; economics of (returns on) cooperation; voluntary cooperation as calculation of group optimums; and reciprocity within the limits of proportionality as limits; and retaliation and altruistic punishment as preservation of returns on cooperation then you no longer are the victim of intuition and animal instinct, and no longer criticize how people feel, think, or want – only whether they negotiate and cooperate truthfully and reciprocally – and that wanting others to feel, think and want on your terms is merely searching for an unearned discount.
Jan 18, 2020, 8:20 AM MONOGAMY by Erik Lukovsky Pagans had monogamy and rules to enforce it before Abrahamism came along Monotheism popularized those rules All people have polygamous and monogamous inclinations(genes), usually one more so than the other Monogamy existed(and still can exist) as a form of exchange, in which women offer sexual access and a guarantee that the males offspring is his(virginity) in exchange for the mans protection, economic resources, and attention(in some cases) It ” can ” be the most optimal strategy under the right conditions – there are also conditions under which other systems can work, but nevertheless, there has yet to be a successful civilization that practices polygamy(because men will revolt and kill other men if they don’t have access to women)
Jan 18, 2020, 8:20 AM MONOGAMY by Erik Lukovsky Pagans had monogamy and rules to enforce it before Abrahamism came along Monotheism popularized those rules All people have polygamous and monogamous inclinations(genes), usually one more so than the other Monogamy existed(and still can exist) as a form of exchange, in which women offer sexual access and a guarantee that the males offspring is his(virginity) in exchange for the mans protection, economic resources, and attention(in some cases) It ” can ” be the most optimal strategy under the right conditions – there are also conditions under which other systems can work, but nevertheless, there has yet to be a successful civilization that practices polygamy(because men will revolt and kill other men if they don’t have access to women)
Jan 18, 2020, 10:00 AM You know what I learned in Ukraine that applies?
Fire is more effective than firearms, and doesn’t need courage or risk to do it’s job, like the energizer bunny it keeps on going.
It takes a few hundred men to fight – the rest of the crowd serves as human shields the government can’t act against.
Occupying Govt Buildings is more effective than fighting
Controlling roads in and out is more effective than defending buildings.
A city is full of cars with tires that make berms, burn, and generate smoke, and gasoline for use as weaponry. Anything on fire makes dramatic photos and footage.
The government runs on water pressure, electricity, gasoline, both of which are in short supply, and without which there is little command and control.
Politicians, Bureaucrats, Military and Police are People Too – and have families they care for more than their jobs.
If you make clear reasonable demands, people don’t imagine the worst possible out come, and have incentive to settle.
Every single day you siege, you learn.
All I want out of the next few ‘attempts’ is to learn from the opposition. Because all that’s going to happen going forward is a continuous stream of escalation. Antifa(Black Hats) and the Right(Red Hats) have the same enemy, and if we separate into blue cities and red territories, we have the same goals. The enemy is the state and financial sector. Edit
Jan 18, 2020, 10:00 AM You know what I learned in Ukraine that applies?
Fire is more effective than firearms, and doesn’t need courage or risk to do it’s job, like the energizer bunny it keeps on going.
It takes a few hundred men to fight – the rest of the crowd serves as human shields the government can’t act against.
Occupying Govt Buildings is more effective than fighting
Controlling roads in and out is more effective than defending buildings.
A city is full of cars with tires that make berms, burn, and generate smoke, and gasoline for use as weaponry. Anything on fire makes dramatic photos and footage.
The government runs on water pressure, electricity, gasoline, both of which are in short supply, and without which there is little command and control.
Politicians, Bureaucrats, Military and Police are People Too – and have families they care for more than their jobs.
If you make clear reasonable demands, people don’t imagine the worst possible out come, and have incentive to settle.
Every single day you siege, you learn.
All I want out of the next few ‘attempts’ is to learn from the opposition. Because all that’s going to happen going forward is a continuous stream of escalation. Antifa(Black Hats) and the Right(Red Hats) have the same enemy, and if we separate into blue cities and red territories, we have the same goals. The enemy is the state and financial sector. Edit
Jan 19, 2020, 7:56 AM Sorry all. Mathiness, and mathematical fiction in physics is definitely a problem, and attention whoring among mathematical physicists by selling those fictions is ridiculous. But this is because they have no classical model (geometric) to explain their probabilism at the subatomic level. Even the most mathy idea – string theory – is likely very close to the explanation of how change moves through the underlying geometry – whatever it is. Electric universe theory is simply a material theory and therefore easier to grasp without the mathiness. That said, it’s absolutely positively pseudoscientific nonsense. Same for plasma. The reason all of these problems exist, whether mainstream mathy or fringe material, is that we simply haven’t figured out the underlying (and in my expectation, classical, structure of the universe at the sub-particle (wave) level.) There is an elegance to P because it operationalizes the psychological, social, political world of thought. But human action is at human scale. That elegance isn’t available to use in physics at the sub-particle level because we can’t yet operationalize it. So please don’t associate woo woo with my work because you RIGHTLY PREFER and TRUST a classical, geometric, material, operational description of reality instead of a mathy-probabalistic one. Realize this about YOURSELF and YOUR thought. Just because P solves a problem and mathy-physics doesn’t, doesn’t mean mathy physics is wrong. It means it’s incomplete – but yes, when it is complete, I don’t doubt it will be expressible in operational and material terms. Woo woo pseudoscience is what I say it is: nonsense.