Understand. Other than domestically, there is only one problem: the size of the underclass population (under say, 100). That’s it. We will some day soon have to face the fact that it’s populations under 115 that are the problem for humanity and for the planet – and that all the talk-talk-talk in history is created by people above 115, who simply can’t grasp the world of the people under 100.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-20 11:34:00 UTC
Understand. There is only one problem. Women voters. That’s the only problem we have. It’s the only problem we have ever had. The question is not ‘what do we do’ but ‘how do we do it’. If women can destroy the civilization by vote, then what means do we use to prevent their abilty to destroy the civilization by vote?
Seriously. The problem isn’t complicated at all.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-20 11:32:00 UTC
( It is very hard for me to approve sock accounts that are generated using the same name algorithm as the spammers use….)
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-20 09:56:00 UTC
I thought Spencer overplayed his hand last fall, but he’s upped his game, and he’s exceptional.
I’m not into racism but I’m an advocate for nationalism, monarchy, and natural law for everyone.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 21:10:00 UTC
Every movement first attracts risk takers seeking leverage to compensate for their outsider-ness. As the movement evolves you try to attract people who ‘get it’ and advocate it. As the movement evolves you try to attract talent that provides competitive advantage against other movements. If the movement has legs it will attract thinkers, advocates, organizers, actors. And the need for the outsiders will decline – they fill their purpose. And they are often angry about it.
This is how it works.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 13:43:00 UTC
TRY NOT TO LOOK TOUGH AND ACT STUPID
I’ve had a bunch of these the past few days. I’ll translate them as this: “Don’t talk tough, I’m tougher than you, I’m more alpha, and I want alpha attention, so here are my peacock feathers”. Animal talk. Monkey words.
—-“Your “interesting” essay showed up on my feed yesterday. When I read such rambunctious call to action, I immediately get interested in the persona. After reading your bio I had two questions: 1) When is the last time you lifted, ran or explosively sprinted? 2) What would you do if, during a test of physical prowess, I slapt that steroid inhaler out of your hands while you are gasping for air? I’m thinking you would Doolittle.”—Andi Mell
1) This morning I sprinted. It’s spring. It sucked. Explosino isn’t my problem. Hiking isn’t a problem. Toggling between rest and exertion is the problem. Lifting isn’t available to me at the moment.)
As if it mattered, It doesn’t. It’s a kind of stupid question isn’t it? A sort of claim of equality that doesnt exist? Besides, I’m willing to fight anyone who challenges me over an argument. It’s part of the ethic. But you sure you wanna take a risk with someone that much smarter than you are?
2) You could have done the same to Marx right? would that have saved 100M deaths? Who is more dangerous? A Marx , an Eisenhower, or a Guy with six inches and thirty pounds on me? I mean, It makes you look kind of stupid right?
I always think these are childish comments. I mean, who started the revolution? a guy with a gun or a guy with a pen? Who was more powerful? Rousseau or an infrantryman? Who was a better warrior, Napoleon (who was about my build) or some british soldier?
I know my job. My job is to produce for my people to conduct war, what marx produced to war against my people. Strength in war is the result of strategy, logistics, and numbers.
Man up to that if you can. (Not gonna happen.)
Otherwise be a good boy, and learn something.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 12:05:00 UTC
We pretty much have to write off the millennial generation until the age of 60, right? I mean, they’ve been infantilized. Do we need to just skip a generation or two? 😉
We don’t let children do much. Infantilized adults.. I mean, are they really fully human yet?
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 11:37:00 UTC
CONSENT?
We can’t hold people to specific implicit consent because we can’t really state that they understood what they were doing. What we tend to do is hold people account for continuous implicit consent because they can’t say they didn’t understand.
this is how the law works today.
You can demonstrate your consent by benefiting from something. You cannot demonstrate your consent to some specific agreement that you may or may not have understood. This is why board members and all sorts of organiations vote. It’s a claim that ‘I understand’.
This is not true in government and that’s a problem. If liablity were applicable to polticians like it is to boards and officers then we woould ahve 1% of the political problems that we do.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 10:51:00 UTC
ROTHBARDIANS ARE EXCEPTIONAL AT DEMONSTRATING THE EVOLUTION OF LYING
I love destroying Rothbardians. It’s…. it’s such a great way of showing the way that Pilpul > Scriptural Justification > Hermeneutics > Legal Rationalism > and Lying by Rationalism > Lying by Pseudoscience, has evolved from the origins of scriptural monotheism until today.
Wisdom Literature > Scriptural (Authoritarian) LIterature > Pilpul > Hermeneutics > Legal Rationalism > Kantian Rationalism > Marxist Rationalism > Rothbardian Rationalism > Postmodern Pseudo-Rationalism > Postmodern Pseudoscience.
THE EVOLUTION OF LYING
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 09:32:00 UTC
(Most memorable insult: “I’m…I’m actually proud of how much I hate you.”)
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-17 18:27:00 UTC