Men really need to speak to other men, without women in the room for the same reason women like to speak to women without men in the room. There are market value vulnerabilities that build trust between men but women abuse, and visa versa.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Purpose of Public Debate?
If your goal is to improve an idiot – it’s hopeless. if your goal is to reduce the spread of idiocy – it’s not hopeless but nearly. If your goal is to improve your ability to communicate your ideas, argue your ideas, and argue against ignorance, error, bias and deceit – then that’s something else. The chief value of public discourse is not conversion – it’s self improvement.
-
The Purpose of Public Debate?
If your goal is to improve an idiot – it’s hopeless. if your goal is to reduce the spread of idiocy – it’s not hopeless but nearly. If your goal is to improve your ability to communicate your ideas, argue your ideas, and argue against ignorance, error, bias and deceit – then that’s something else. The chief value of public discourse is not conversion – it’s self improvement.
-
The Value of The Classes
There is a very great difference between transforming the state of the physical world by physical coercion (labor), and transforming the choices and organization of people using incentives (layers of entrepreneurship and management). The physical world can’t choose between options. Man can choose between options unless he is in fact a slave – thereby lacking exit. Now, one might say that exit is not itself a favorable choice, but then it is a choice for labor, and not a choice for slaves. The Communist and Socialist wants to create serf labor – lacking exit but the management (state) takes ownership for the survival of the serfs. The Democratic socialist wants to preserve voluntary organization of production but monopolize involuntary production of commons by maximum extraction of the profits of the market. The classical liberal wants to preserve the private production of goods, services, and information, and the private production of all commons it is possible to produce in that market, while limiting the involuntary production of commons to those of via-negativa constraint: Military, Justice, Law. The anarchist (libertarian) wants to prohibit the production of involuntary commons (despite this is as impossible as communism since there is no incentive to participate in an uncompetitive polity, when a polity is and of itself, a commons. We cannot restore pastoralism(zero-commons). Even if those peoples that have never succeeded at agrarianism and been through it’s evolutionary grinder, desperately want to restore it and resist civilization at every opportunity. All the potential value is created by the martial aristocracy. All the value is created by the entrepreneurial class. The vast amount of the benefit is obtained by the laboring classes, and the underclasses that would otherwise be dead. The beneficiary of civlization is largely labor. The principle benefit of the few at the top, and the minority in the middle, is signaling that preserves their identification as those who successfully organize potential, organize production distribution and trade, and organize the labor that requires little other than the physical to transform the physical world.
-
The Value of The Classes
There is a very great difference between transforming the state of the physical world by physical coercion (labor), and transforming the choices and organization of people using incentives (layers of entrepreneurship and management). The physical world can’t choose between options. Man can choose between options unless he is in fact a slave – thereby lacking exit. Now, one might say that exit is not itself a favorable choice, but then it is a choice for labor, and not a choice for slaves. The Communist and Socialist wants to create serf labor – lacking exit but the management (state) takes ownership for the survival of the serfs. The Democratic socialist wants to preserve voluntary organization of production but monopolize involuntary production of commons by maximum extraction of the profits of the market. The classical liberal wants to preserve the private production of goods, services, and information, and the private production of all commons it is possible to produce in that market, while limiting the involuntary production of commons to those of via-negativa constraint: Military, Justice, Law. The anarchist (libertarian) wants to prohibit the production of involuntary commons (despite this is as impossible as communism since there is no incentive to participate in an uncompetitive polity, when a polity is and of itself, a commons. We cannot restore pastoralism(zero-commons). Even if those peoples that have never succeeded at agrarianism and been through it’s evolutionary grinder, desperately want to restore it and resist civilization at every opportunity. All the potential value is created by the martial aristocracy. All the value is created by the entrepreneurial class. The vast amount of the benefit is obtained by the laboring classes, and the underclasses that would otherwise be dead. The beneficiary of civlization is largely labor. The principle benefit of the few at the top, and the minority in the middle, is signaling that preserves their identification as those who successfully organize potential, organize production distribution and trade, and organize the labor that requires little other than the physical to transform the physical world.
-
Your Choice of Personal Philosophy Is Limited by Others Choice of Political Philosophy
Dear idiots. You don’t get to choose a personal philosophy that isn’t bound by a political philosophy agreed to by others – and still survive competition in that polity. Just as groups don’t get to choose a political philosophy that can’t survive the market for territories. It doesn’t matter what you alone think or want. A personal philosophy is, almost without exception, either a means of succeeding within a political philosophy, or a means of escapism from a political philosophy one is bound by. Further, one can create personal fantasies of escapism; personal philosophies of resistance; personal philosophies of navigation (survival); and of success (competition), and of excellence (heroism). A political philosophy ( meaning a social, economic, political, and military order) empowers enough of the people such that the group survives competition. Political philosophies change when a group either surrenders to competition (multiculturalism), resists competition, or seeks an opportunity for superior competition. But the individual is only as useful and only possesses so much choice, as his philosophy serves the interests of the body politic in the persistence of their group strategy ( what we call ‘philosophy’). So one either assists, is dead weight, or is a drag on the group’s strategy. And by and large, within the margins, one’s success is determined by the relationship one chooses wth the groups strategy. The only choice is creating a large enough group with an new enough strategy that one can disrupt the order and replace it with one that serves the same interests in the new order. In the case of the current order, we have let the evil people go too far in undermining the ‘Third Way’ provided by America in contrast to the other underclass and authoritarian civilizations. We were foolishly optimistic christians, and not empirical Aryans. As such it is very unlikely that without vast bloodshed, we will exit the next crisis with the entire continent. But we will exit the next crisis with self determination. They will decay from demographic weight alone. There is nothing they can do.
-
Your Choice of Personal Philosophy Is Limited by Others Choice of Political Philosophy
Dear idiots. You don’t get to choose a personal philosophy that isn’t bound by a political philosophy agreed to by others – and still survive competition in that polity. Just as groups don’t get to choose a political philosophy that can’t survive the market for territories. It doesn’t matter what you alone think or want. A personal philosophy is, almost without exception, either a means of succeeding within a political philosophy, or a means of escapism from a political philosophy one is bound by. Further, one can create personal fantasies of escapism; personal philosophies of resistance; personal philosophies of navigation (survival); and of success (competition), and of excellence (heroism). A political philosophy ( meaning a social, economic, political, and military order) empowers enough of the people such that the group survives competition. Political philosophies change when a group either surrenders to competition (multiculturalism), resists competition, or seeks an opportunity for superior competition. But the individual is only as useful and only possesses so much choice, as his philosophy serves the interests of the body politic in the persistence of their group strategy ( what we call ‘philosophy’). So one either assists, is dead weight, or is a drag on the group’s strategy. And by and large, within the margins, one’s success is determined by the relationship one chooses wth the groups strategy. The only choice is creating a large enough group with an new enough strategy that one can disrupt the order and replace it with one that serves the same interests in the new order. In the case of the current order, we have let the evil people go too far in undermining the ‘Third Way’ provided by America in contrast to the other underclass and authoritarian civilizations. We were foolishly optimistic christians, and not empirical Aryans. As such it is very unlikely that without vast bloodshed, we will exit the next crisis with the entire continent. But we will exit the next crisis with self determination. They will decay from demographic weight alone. There is nothing they can do.
-
We Can’t Get out Of It. People at The Bottom Will Increase Drag
The OECD also highlights a decoupling between productivity growth and higher real average wages in many countries, resulting in continued declines in labour’s share of national income. In turn, the Compendium shows that the contribution of labour utilisation (hours worked per capita) to GDP growth has risen markedly in a number of countries, notably in the United Kingdom and the United States. However, rises in labour utilisation reflect two opposing effects: higher employment rates but lower average hours per worker, which points to more part-time working, often in low productivity jobs. Higher employment rates are welcome. But the fact that they, rather than increases in labour productivity, have been the most important driver of GDP per capita growth in many economies in recent years is a concern for long-term economic prospects, it adds. The OECD says productivity is ultimately a question of “working smarter” – measured by ‘multifactor productivity’ – rather than “working harder”. It reflects firms’ ability to produce more output by better combining inputs through new ideas, technological innovations, as well as by way of process and organisational innovations, such as new business models. May 14, 2018 2:23pm
-
We Can’t Get out Of It. People at The Bottom Will Increase Drag
The OECD also highlights a decoupling between productivity growth and higher real average wages in many countries, resulting in continued declines in labour’s share of national income. In turn, the Compendium shows that the contribution of labour utilisation (hours worked per capita) to GDP growth has risen markedly in a number of countries, notably in the United Kingdom and the United States. However, rises in labour utilisation reflect two opposing effects: higher employment rates but lower average hours per worker, which points to more part-time working, often in low productivity jobs. Higher employment rates are welcome. But the fact that they, rather than increases in labour productivity, have been the most important driver of GDP per capita growth in many economies in recent years is a concern for long-term economic prospects, it adds. The OECD says productivity is ultimately a question of “working smarter” – measured by ‘multifactor productivity’ – rather than “working harder”. It reflects firms’ ability to produce more output by better combining inputs through new ideas, technological innovations, as well as by way of process and organisational innovations, such as new business models. May 14, 2018 2:23pm
-
New World Order: The First Step Was to Kill the Kings
New World Order = Rule by Merchants. by Bill Anderson The first step was to kill all the kings. Completed via WWII. The king is the Father of the Nation, biologically related to his subjects, the embodiment of the genetic self-interest of a nation. The moderns are very careful to propagandize monarchy as evil and wicked, because the king has the incentive to limit the opportunities of the merchant class to profit from the consumption of capital of the nation. The Merchants frame the story of America as the culmination of the defeat of kings, raising anti-monarchy to religious fervor, and sacralizing the value. Monarchy is a heresy to them. This value system led America to become the Kingslayer and kinslayer in both WWI and WWII. Little did we know that when we slew the Fathers of the nations, that we were killing our Father in our collective cultural psyche, rendering a final judgement against authoritarianism as evil, and enshrining that value system. It’s the value system of the Son in rebellion against the Father. Now we see this anti-Father value system reaching the flower of its expression : where all masculinity is toxic, where men no longer defend their borders or their breeding rights. The restoration of Men, of patriarchy (rule by fathers), requires the re-sacrilization of the Father in our value system. This requires the destruction of the mythos of the merchants, including the propaganda that the American project was noble or virtuous only because it destroyed kings. The was virtue in being explorers and conquerors, but not in leading the charge to institute rule by merchant.