WOMEN’S MURDERING OF THEIR CHILDREN IS MORE COMMON THEN MEN MURDERING THEIR ENEMIES I suppose I could estimate the stats, but I’m pretty sure there is an even balance between the number of men killed by violence, and the number of children killed by their mothers. There are very good reasons women are treated as dangerous throughout all of history, and it was only the victorians and romanticists that changed that in order to encourage the barbarians to behave once let loose in society by the industrial revolution. === —“An woman has confessed to killing her own children and setting fire to them, after claiming she could no longer support them. Divorcee Elena Karimova, who has 21,000 subscribers for her online cosmetic sales business, is being investigated for strangling her daughter, Khadizha, four, and son Suleiman, two, in the back seat of her rented Kia Rio. The Russian woman – who had fallen behind with loan repayments after being divorced by her husband – then bought fuel from a petrol station, drove the bodies to a forest and set fire to her dead children. Fearing she would be spotted by locals, the 27-year-old put the charred bodies back in her car and returned home. The next day she put the corpses in an abandoned warehouse near Nizhny Novgorod in western Russia and set fire to it.”— You know. I just can’t get my head around it. I just can’t. You know, I can understand walking away. I just can’t understand killing your kin and setting them on fire.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Libertarianism Fails But Sovereignty Doesn’t
LIBERTARIANISM FAILS BUT SOVEREIGNTY DOESN’T ––“How does libertarian/anarcho capitalism and aim to prevent company cooperation? If four health companies decided that they would hike prices and violently attack competition, what would stop them? They are health companies so can’t be boycotted.”—- Quora User Well, let’s keep in mind that Libertarianism is just Pilpul (Sophistry) for the suggestible but morally disposed. And so we can’t take anything Mises, Rothbard, or Hoppe or their anglo equivalents very seriously. While their work has grains of truth here and there, it’s only to obscure it’s falsehoods, deceptions, impossibilities and malincentives. Instead, if we simply look at western SOVEREIGNTY meaning RULE OF LAW, under RULE OF LAW of Torts, we individually own some things, familially own others, privately organize to own others, and publicly organize to own others. The only open community property we can seize is the opportunity created by the vast decrease in opportunity cost created by our the combination of our proximity and demand for reciprocity. So that without the state to interfere by providing license (privileges) to families, individuals, organizations, corporations of all kinds, then individuals and groups could bring suits in courts against violations of reciprocity (natural law) in any of those forms of property. As such while governments originally provided limited liability insurance that limited liability to the money invested in the corporation, they also granted all sorts of privileges by denying individuals and groups the right to sue private and public organizations for personal, private, and public property violations in the markets for goods, services, and information. So there is no reason you couldn’t organize a group of people to produce a ‘class action’ against a polluter, or a market manipulator under Rule of Law. The fact that you can’t today, means that we do not live under rule of law, but rule by legislation.
-
Libertarianism Fails But Sovereignty Doesn’t
LIBERTARIANISM FAILS BUT SOVEREIGNTY DOESN’T ––“How does libertarian/anarcho capitalism and aim to prevent company cooperation? If four health companies decided that they would hike prices and violently attack competition, what would stop them? They are health companies so can’t be boycotted.”—- Quora User Well, let’s keep in mind that Libertarianism is just Pilpul (Sophistry) for the suggestible but morally disposed. And so we can’t take anything Mises, Rothbard, or Hoppe or their anglo equivalents very seriously. While their work has grains of truth here and there, it’s only to obscure it’s falsehoods, deceptions, impossibilities and malincentives. Instead, if we simply look at western SOVEREIGNTY meaning RULE OF LAW, under RULE OF LAW of Torts, we individually own some things, familially own others, privately organize to own others, and publicly organize to own others. The only open community property we can seize is the opportunity created by the vast decrease in opportunity cost created by our the combination of our proximity and demand for reciprocity. So that without the state to interfere by providing license (privileges) to families, individuals, organizations, corporations of all kinds, then individuals and groups could bring suits in courts against violations of reciprocity (natural law) in any of those forms of property. As such while governments originally provided limited liability insurance that limited liability to the money invested in the corporation, they also granted all sorts of privileges by denying individuals and groups the right to sue private and public organizations for personal, private, and public property violations in the markets for goods, services, and information. So there is no reason you couldn’t organize a group of people to produce a ‘class action’ against a polluter, or a market manipulator under Rule of Law. The fact that you can’t today, means that we do not live under rule of law, but rule by legislation.
-
Promiscuity and Markets
PROMISCUITY AND MARKETS (important post) Promiscuity breaks the compromise between male and female reproductive strategies and undermines the necessity of the family as the first organization (production of generations), in the hierarchy of cooperative organizations. The French and Italians solve the problem through the sacredness of the family and ‘graceful philandering’ by both genders. Whether you adopt the zero tolerance of the anglos or the high tolerance of the french, is a choice of higher or lower stress. When we think of ourselves as equal rather than opposites that are compatible, and adopt individualism rather than compromise, we achieve in the intergenerational social order, what we achieve in the socialist economy: an inability to calculate and cooperate, and a destruction of the intergenerational means of production.
-
Promiscuity and Markets
PROMISCUITY AND MARKETS (important post) Promiscuity breaks the compromise between male and female reproductive strategies and undermines the necessity of the family as the first organization (production of generations), in the hierarchy of cooperative organizations. The French and Italians solve the problem through the sacredness of the family and ‘graceful philandering’ by both genders. Whether you adopt the zero tolerance of the anglos or the high tolerance of the french, is a choice of higher or lower stress. When we think of ourselves as equal rather than opposites that are compatible, and adopt individualism rather than compromise, we achieve in the intergenerational social order, what we achieve in the socialist economy: an inability to calculate and cooperate, and a destruction of the intergenerational means of production.
-
Rights
RIGHTS In practice, you have the property and property rights that the people around you are willing to concede that you have, and willing to help you defend and uphold. One man cannot stand alone against the world. But enough in confederation can hold hostile hordes at bay indefinitely. Property and property rights are obtained in exchange. You recognize and uphold mine and I’ll do the same for yours. The necessary standard to make property rights durable is mutual insurance, not just “respect mine and I’ll respect yours” but “DEFEND mine and I’ll DEFEND yours.” Practically speaking, you can’t have any rights without positive duties and obligations. Libertarians go wrong when they make a distinction between “positive” and “negative” rights. All rights are positive rights because NO rights can be enjoyed without enforcement and defense; and enforcement and defense must be proactive and have positive costs (although the benefits may be greater.) Any claims by libertarians that rights are “natural,” “God-given”, “innate,” “inalienable,” “selfevident,” or anything of the sort are moralistic attempts to obtain rights at a discount, without paying the full cost of asserting, maintaining, and defending them, by convincing others to PROVIDE them at their expense. But there can be no such thing, in practice, as a right not to contribute to the maintenance and defense of rights that one demands. Rights, in practice, have to be maintained and defended. Non-contribution to the maintenance and defense of rights is not conducive to their maintenance and defense. Demands for rights while refusing to enter into reciprocal duties and obligations to defend rights is a violation of reciprocity and an act of parasitism, not conducive to long term cooperation. Without cooperation, no rights can successfully be maintained and defended. Eli Harman
-
Rights
RIGHTS In practice, you have the property and property rights that the people around you are willing to concede that you have, and willing to help you defend and uphold. One man cannot stand alone against the world. But enough in confederation can hold hostile hordes at bay indefinitely. Property and property rights are obtained in exchange. You recognize and uphold mine and I’ll do the same for yours. The necessary standard to make property rights durable is mutual insurance, not just “respect mine and I’ll respect yours” but “DEFEND mine and I’ll DEFEND yours.” Practically speaking, you can’t have any rights without positive duties and obligations. Libertarians go wrong when they make a distinction between “positive” and “negative” rights. All rights are positive rights because NO rights can be enjoyed without enforcement and defense; and enforcement and defense must be proactive and have positive costs (although the benefits may be greater.) Any claims by libertarians that rights are “natural,” “God-given”, “innate,” “inalienable,” “selfevident,” or anything of the sort are moralistic attempts to obtain rights at a discount, without paying the full cost of asserting, maintaining, and defending them, by convincing others to PROVIDE them at their expense. But there can be no such thing, in practice, as a right not to contribute to the maintenance and defense of rights that one demands. Rights, in practice, have to be maintained and defended. Non-contribution to the maintenance and defense of rights is not conducive to their maintenance and defense. Demands for rights while refusing to enter into reciprocal duties and obligations to defend rights is a violation of reciprocity and an act of parasitism, not conducive to long term cooperation. Without cooperation, no rights can successfully be maintained and defended. Eli Harman
-
Personality: Personal: Trauma Etc. (Confessions)
TRAUMA ETC (open book policy is the best self defense) Nah. No secret. Easy: Aspiness, Alcoholic father (but Amazing mother), violent childhood with lots of fist fighting. Long history of illness, Cancer twice, some nasty biz stuff. So, I’m not special in any of those regards. Autism can be best explained by the “intense world hypothesis” which basically means we have fewer filters. So everything is LOUDER (more intense) so to speak. It took a lot of work to develop enough filters (mindfulness). Hence my understanding of the combination of the stoics on method and Nietzsche and aryanism on the ‘overman’. I’m hyper competitive and I love it, and I have low agreeableness, and an off the chart sense of orderliness, so you know…. I can (and love to) fight through anything – unfortunately, that too often includes my body’s ability to sustain life (and good judgement). lol. So it’s nothing complicated. Aspieness is just an amplifier, so Aspie+Trauma is … challenging. And that is why I try to help other guys on the spectrum. Because I understand there is very little help out there for them. When I went through it we didn’t know this stuff. I’d save others the pain if I can. It’s cathartic.
-
Personality: Personal: Trauma Etc. (Confessions)
TRAUMA ETC (open book policy is the best self defense) Nah. No secret. Easy: Aspiness, Alcoholic father (but Amazing mother), violent childhood with lots of fist fighting. Long history of illness, Cancer twice, some nasty biz stuff. So, I’m not special in any of those regards. Autism can be best explained by the “intense world hypothesis” which basically means we have fewer filters. So everything is LOUDER (more intense) so to speak. It took a lot of work to develop enough filters (mindfulness). Hence my understanding of the combination of the stoics on method and Nietzsche and aryanism on the ‘overman’. I’m hyper competitive and I love it, and I have low agreeableness, and an off the chart sense of orderliness, so you know…. I can (and love to) fight through anything – unfortunately, that too often includes my body’s ability to sustain life (and good judgement). lol. So it’s nothing complicated. Aspieness is just an amplifier, so Aspie+Trauma is … challenging. And that is why I try to help other guys on the spectrum. Because I understand there is very little help out there for them. When I went through it we didn’t know this stuff. I’d save others the pain if I can. It’s cathartic.
-
Yes, Stupid People Create More Crime
YES, STUPID PEOPLE CREATE MORE CRIME People commit crimes across the spectrum. State and Local IQ corresponds to crime rates. Stupid people get caught more often. Stupid people tend to pursue low risk low reward crimes. (those requiring little planning and high opportunism) When it comes to murder a surprisingly high percentage of murderers are caught. I use the term evil 80’s but the average criminal has an IQ of 93, which only serves to confirm my position that while the median of the distribution is 100, the medium of the distribution needs to be above 106, and closer to 110, leaving a full standard deviation between the median and the border of criminality 95 to preserve a high trust society. But in general the evil 80’s (probably up to 95) demographic (a) is universally outcast, (b) undesirable even to each other, (c) cannot trust information, particularly from each other, (d) personalizes it to ‘oppression’ rather than “avoidance”, (e) justifies his behavior as retaliation for that treatment (f) is still smart enough to profit from immorality if not smart enough to profit from morality. (g) this includes the ability to practice all forms of criminal behavior and develop skill at avoiding being caught. Not surprisingly (which is worth noting) criminals consistently measure with lower verbal ability. Hence my arguments that I’m not sure that the primary evolution out of africa is almost entirely verbal. —“Lower verbal ability is due to the structure of the brain. The recognition of feeling occurs in the left hemisphere while the ability to speak is governed in the right. When there is a little cross over between the hemispheres alexithymia is common. Common in the people who demonstrate alexithymia are executive function defects.”— Liam Eddy So just as you see greater verbal ability in ashkenazi, greater spatial in east asians, a balance in whites, you see deficiencies in every other group. But out of these deficiencies, (a) personality defects (b) cultural reinforcement of those defects, and (c) lower verbal IQ – exaggerate the problem. Worse, the ‘multiplier’ is aggression. Meaning that the higher the aggression in the personality the more expressed is the criminality of low IQ. Again, this is why I’m a critic of adding peoples who have not undergone the manorial transformation (filter) to the european gene pool, and social and political orders. They bring with them permanently defective genes. We forget that the primary difference between whites and ashkenazi of same ability is aggression, and that this aggression is as much or more responsible for their ability to carry intellectual workloads as well as make use of their intelligence competitively. African americans are highly pro social (extroverted), but very negatively distributed, and even in that distribution they are negatively biased in verbal ability, AND they mature much earlier, faster, and deeper.