DEFINITIONAL NITS: I USE:0. Natural Law of Reciprocity1. State: Portfolio of Assets (Capital)2. Monarchy (Judge of Last Resort)3. Rule (Decide conflicts): Judiciary4. Govern (Manage Operations) : Ministers, Cabinet, etc5. Market For Commons (Funding) : Parliament, Congress.6. Market for goods and services (economy): Economy7. Nation (market for association, cooperation, reproduction)
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-15 22:04:05 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/10637304557148664
THE QUESTION OF MARRIAGE: SURVIVAL
lolz…. yeah, well, you know, it turns out that men living largely with men, f-cking a range of women, and letting them keep the kids (how africa works) is much better… for men. The boys will defect as soon as they can, and join the men. Restoring the masculine feminine divergence. In these worlds women to much more of the work, and men much less because our needs are so much less.
We just built all this marriage sh-t so that we could keep capital (property) in the family (See the Marxists on Family).
Realistically unless you’re a hypergamic windfall, women don’t love us or want us they just want their matrilineal family and a few men to fuck for fun, manipulation, market value testing (status), and resources.
The only material value of a dedicated mate is that compromise is cheap and habituated so you get a real ‘friend’ – as long as hypergamy(upward) or opportunity(lateral) don’t interfere too much.
So given that this is true, what does the future of society mean when property (capital) is no longer meaningful because we are too productive (stuff is too cheap, we are too wealthy) to need each other.
I mean, in the end men are sovereign by default but women want sovereignty so the choice of marriage, matrilineal family, or single motherhood because it’s affordable, is a matter of obtaining sovereignty by one means or the other.
I dont’ see this as complicated. But you know, people don’t want to admit that the homogeneous society is falling apart because we are too wealthy to need one another for anything other than sex and entertainment.
My understanding from the evidence is that since the rate of reproduction wins, and dedicated motherhood wins reproduction, then those who practice marriage will exterminate those who don’t and that’s certainly what the evidence is showing.
In this sense it’s better to separate politically into intergenerational and surviving, vs generational consumption and extinction.
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-15 22:03:43 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/10637302357148622
—Are you capable of making ONE rebuttal that doesn’t result to personal attack? GSRRM all over this.—Victoria Medley
In any argument that is untruthful (unscientific) or attempts to shame, i use a very simple method that I publish frequently:(a) return the same (gsrrm)(b) provide answers or education to improve understanding (c) repeat the central argument, (d) repeat until the person… i) understands, (consent, success)… ii) goes away to think (undecided, conditional)… iii) demonstrates exhaustion, frustration, or anger. (failure)(e) never give up because immoral, stupid, and wrong will always be defeated by moral, intelligent, and true.
So I always return GSRRM as punishment for using it, as a means of educating the opposition in their tactic, and removing its utility through exposition.
In other words, use argumentative opportunity to educate. Vary it by intellectual honesty, degree of previous consideration of the subject, and degree of empirical evidence to support position. I basically abuse intellectually dishonest people into frustration; incrementally educate intellectually honest but overconfident (ignorant) people. and I just fking answer questions…. lol.
It takes YEARS for some people to come around. And only a few of them every make it to disambiguation, serialization, reciprocity, supply, and demand.
I can count those people on my fingers. It’s fking hard.Hence the need for course and book.Hence the need for different explanations for different classes each of which is searching for how it’s relevant and beneficial to them.
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-15 22:02:01 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/10637292157148479
AGENCY AND Pby Noah J Revoy
As P filters into the mainstream there will be two types of people.
1) The people who understand P, operational language, etc. and use it to rule.
2) The people who dont understand P and are ruled.
There is no system that can make every one free because not everyone has sufficient intelligence and Agency to rule themselves.
Low Agency people can not tolerate a system of freedom, they need to have an authority over them telling them what to do.
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-15 22:01:00 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/10637286057148380
Libertarians believe the ‘oppression’ narrative rather than the ‘domestication’ narrative. Evidence is that leadership domesticates the lower classes. Better leadership culls them deliberately.
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-15 22:00:37 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/10637283757148341
NAP VS P(r)
Technically NAP = Principle, and P(reciprocity) = LAW
I think that’s a very important distinction between lack of closure in a principle (NAP) and closure in a law (P).
NAP=Ghetto Low Trust, P(r)=Aristocratic High Trust.
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-15 21:59:41 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/10637278157148262
One of the most effective tactics I saw in ukraine was building walls of tires, filling them with dirt, gravel, rocks, or anything, and lighting some of them on fire to create smoke. Tires are everywhere in a city. a vehicle without tires is barrier and concealment. And tires filled with dirt are cover, ‘berms’, that stop bullets. Smoke provides concealment, and men in concealment can throw molotovs. There was no way to get into the center except on foot. tanker trucks, bridges, tires, smoke. siege. It is very difficult for a military or police to fire on citizens and have a government survive. Ever policeman or soldier is signing his own warrant. Every commander betting he won’t be hung. It is easy to talk about it. It is very difficult to do it. Conversely, It is very easy to fire on military and police who attack civilian positions of resistance in a siege.the military uses concrete and heavy machines. the citizenry uses tires, dirt, gasoline, glass, and a lot of arm and leg work. the central problem is not this strategy it is as simple as supplying the citizens with porta-potty’s food, bottles, and gasoline. Then the gradual taking, looting, offices so that the bureaucracy cannot go to work and organize, and the politicians gradually lose power, and the police and firemen start to stay home. In ukraine they were stalking police back to their homes. Eventually, as long as the pressure of continuous expansion of citizen held territory expands, and more and more institutions are inoperable, and banks close, and businesses close, and traffic stops, and gasoline runes out, the state must choose to become what they claim they are not, or to acquiesce as they have every single time in the past. Therefore the problem a revolution faces is simply making moral demands on behalf of the people, so that it is possible for the government to give in.
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-15 21:58:16 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/10637269657148129
WHAT WILL YOU DO?1. I will close with the enemy.2. I will seek out the enemy for the people who will close with the enemy, and cover those that close with the enemy.3. I will defend egress and exit of those that close with or seek out the enemy.4. I will run supplies to those that close with the enemy, seek out the enemy, or defend egress and exit to those that do.5. I will build defenses, feed, and heal those that close with the enemy, seek out the enemy, defend egress and exit to those that do, or run supplies to those that do.6. I will scavenge for anything possible that is needed by those that close with the enemy, seek out the enemy, defend egress and exit to those that do, run supplies to those that do,or build defenses, feed, and heal those that do.
WHAT WILL YOU DO?
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-15 21:57:50 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/10637267057148088
REVOLUTIONIn the USA it is far easier to end up with 100M dead than 10M. It’s not the revolution that’s complicated. It’s almost trivial. The problem is limiting it.
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-14 23:36:39 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/10629219957064286
DEFINING GSRRM / RRGSM The Female Conflict Strategy: Gossiping, Shaming, Ridicule, Rallying, Moralizing, Undermining, and Reputation Destruction.Relentless Disapproval and Undermining rather than Disagreement, Argument, and Non-Cooperation.Males to organized, Females to destroy.https://propertarianism.com/2019/02/23/definition-gsrm-or-gsrrm/
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-14 16:50:21 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/10626782157032936