Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 14:06:00 UTC
Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 14:06:00 UTC

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/38679659_270690276861203_6526544612654317568_o_270690273527870.jpg MILITARY SERVICE: INVESTMENT IN THE COMMONS VS PARASITISM UPON IT
—“The parts of the country that are the most liberal are pulling the least weight with regard to military service. This has exponential effects, in that over time, as liberals do not take part in military service, the military becomes more conservative not through any movivated action of corruption by conservatives, but to liberals as a group electing not to serve, a fact which makes many, many conservatives very bitter to this day.”—
—“…most of the people in the military still come from lower middle and working class homes, and primarily from small towns. This is not to mention a major portion of the military coming from the the South with an awkward silence from wealthy New England states and the Midwest.”—
As I have said, the difference is largely in the scale of commons that one defends, and that commons is the inverse of population density.
What this map doesn’t tell you directly, is that the military is predominantly anglo-scotts-irish and that the germans do not serve in proportion to their territorial power. Which is not what you’d expect. But it’s true.
**Most of the military comes from lower middle and working class homes, and primarily from small towns.**
(The people I feel are underserved, yet most moral of all.)
This is where one ‘recruits’ the revolution.MILITARY SERVICE: INVESTMENT IN THE COMMONS VS PARASITISM UPON IT
—“The parts of the country that are the most liberal are pulling the least weight with regard to military service. This has exponential effects, in that over time, as liberals do not take part in military service, the military becomes more conservative not through any movivated action of corruption by conservatives, but to liberals as a group electing not to serve, a fact which makes many, many conservatives very bitter to this day.”—
—“…most of the people in the military still come from lower middle and working class homes, and primarily from small towns. This is not to mention a major portion of the military coming from the the South with an awkward silence from wealthy New England states and the Midwest.”—
As I have said, the difference is largely in the scale of commons that one defends, and that commons is the inverse of population density.
What this map doesn’t tell you directly, is that the military is predominantly anglo-scotts-irish and that the germans do not serve in proportion to their territorial power. Which is not what you’d expect. But it’s true.
**Most of the military comes from lower middle and working class homes, and primarily from small towns.**
(The people I feel are underserved, yet most moral of all.)
This is where one ‘recruits’ the revolution.

Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 13:56:00 UTC
WHY IS THE RIGHT SO ANGRY? THE SAME REASON AS THE FAR LEFT.
Civilization-cide, culture-cide, famil-cide, genocide, are good reasons to be angry. Especially since the means of destroying the great civilizations of the ancient world by supernatural and pseudo-historical deceits that take advantage of trust and tolerance, and the means of destroying the great civilization of the modern world by pseudoscientific, pseudo-historical, and pseudo-rational deceits that take advantage of trust and tolerance is identical and perpetuated by the same classes and ethnicities of peoples.
You cannot choose the future for others and not have them retaliate against you.
The only restitution for genocide, is genocide. The only restitution for culture-cide is culture-cide. The only restitution for Civilization-cide is Civilization-cide.
So be careful what you seek to impose on one another, whether dysgenic left or eugenic right. The only possible solution to this conflict of genetic interest is separation into separate states.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 11:01:00 UTC
Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 11:01:00 UTC
Spent yesterday with my (amazing) daughter, understanding her research work (cystic fibrosis) and learning about the proteins involved and the diagnostic and treatment protocols.
On the drive back she worked up what seemed like the courage to ask me about my work, and I was surprised that like most people both norm and left, she seemed to think that I’m all about imposition on others, rather than liberty of all peoples to create states that produce commons that they want – and to pay the cost of those commons whether they like them or not.
It was interesting to talk to someone who is on the other end of the spectrum in some ways (she’s pretty traditional actually), and work through the question of why we can’t separate and creat our own happy little universes.
For some reason this whole ‘we’ thing is a stumbling block for most people. The very idea that the USGovernemtn is imperial over multiple cultures rather than a defender of states and their various cultures, is rather … difficult for me to empathize with.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 10:13:00 UTC
Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-06 18:28:00 UTC
ON THE MATTER OF AMERICAN POLICE
There are a number of serious problems with current legislation:
1) The production of stress and vulnerability:
The use of single officers in patrol cars, rather than pairs or more of officers of different ranks patrolling together. The consequence is more violence because officers are under greater stress, because they are under greater risk. If you travel the world the idea of a single police officer is …. ridiculous.
Partly because of this our officers are taught significantly more about restraining individuals quickly and harshly, and using weapons aggressively, whereas in the rest of the world they are taught to use numbers and time to de-escalate, and not manhandle the citizenry – which creates the resentment. Just the fact of having six to ten men around you when you’re afraid and angry tends to reduce resentment.
2) Escalation of Charges bot by Police and By Prosecutors (Lying)
Let’s be honest. Cops lie all the time. The reason being that they are not allowed to err. The reason cops must fear error is that we expect too much from human beings who are too often too vulnerable, operating under stress, and having to make snap judgements, using training that accelerates violence rather than de-escalates.
3) Training and Trust
The failure to train citizens of all ages to submit to arrest (big, big, big problem) and trust the system. The only remedy to this problem is to reduce the stress of the suspect such that he is somehow rewarded for complicity and somehow punished for resistance. This whole ‘throw people to the ground’ has gotten out of hand. So the problem is we no longer reward people for telling the truth, and no longer reward people for not resisting arrest. And we no longer take the deescalation time such that they will tell the truth and resist arrest, and we do so because officers are too vulnerable acting in small numbers.
4) The Production of Police vs Citizen Stress and Anger:
The law is also no longer limited to simple rules that reinforce natural law, but put citizens and officers in conditions of opposition, and misunderstanding. The truth is that legislative law is incomprehensible, where as reciprocity (natural law) is both intuitive and comprehensible – and is largely how our courts adjudicate offenses. Most law just empowers the officers and prosecutors to intervene, whereas most adjudication simply looks into reciprocity (rights).
5) The Production of Social and Political Stress and Anger:
Why? Our current laws cause conflcit because they do not allow us to act in our interests in defense of our lives, family, property, status, honor, reputation, and family roles – much less our businesses, and even less our norms traditions, laws, and institutions. This change began with the civil war and continues for the same reasons: voluntary disassociation and defense of social as well as personal investment is necessary if for no other reason that the combination of proximity and inequality damages both groups which rely on signaling for happiness , friendship, mating, family preservation, and economic and political order.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-06 18:28:00 UTC
THERE CAN BE NO HYPOCRISY IN POSTMODERNISM
by Austyn Pember
There is no hypocrisy – only strategies of deceit for self-interest:
– The left is not hypocritical. They set up or use your moral framework as a tool against you. Whatever moral justification they are using to have their interests met is just a practical strategy of achieving said interests. they do not believe in truth, reciprocity, principle, reason, or science – only power.
– When they say “you are a racist,” they are using your moral guilt about that principle against you. They don’t actually adhere to the premise that ‘racism is bad’. It’s only that they don’t want yourself or your demographic resisting against the thing they are championing or demographic they are aligning themselves with – they do not believe in truth, reciprocity, principle, reason, or science – only power.
This can be shown when they are perfectly fine with ‘racism’ against whites, like the latest NYT editor.
ALL VIOLATION OF RECIPROCITY VIOLATES NATURAL LAW – AND ALL VIOLATION OF NATURAL LAW GRANTS LICENSE AND AUTHORITY FOR THE USE OF EXTRA-LEGAL ACTION.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-06 08:54:00 UTC
Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-06 08:54:00 UTC
Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-06 08:52:00 UTC