Source: Original Site Post

  • Right on Schedule. Like Clockwork

    Oct 23, 2019, 4:04 PM RIGHT ON SCHEDULE. LIKE CLOCKWORK How much more evidence d’ y’all need. I’m very good at what I do. Because I use data, demographics, and incentives, not wishful thinking. The worm turns… By the pricking of my thumbs, this way Revolution Comes!!!

  • Right on Schedule. Like Clockwork

    Oct 23, 2019, 4:04 PM RIGHT ON SCHEDULE. LIKE CLOCKWORK How much more evidence d’ y’all need. I’m very good at what I do. Because I use data, demographics, and incentives, not wishful thinking. The worm turns… By the pricking of my thumbs, this way Revolution Comes!!!

  • People Chose Their Self Interest – One Created for Them to Choose, but Which Was

    People Chose Their Self Interest – One Created for Them to Choose, but Which Was Suicidal https://t.co/zC051nrIPl

  • People Chose Their Self Interest – One Created for Them to Choose, but Which Was Suicidal

    PEOPLE CHOSE THEIR SELF INTEREST – ONE CREATED FOR THEM TO CHOOSE, BUT WHICH WAS SUICIDAL

    —“… so People figured out the game was a losing battle & decided to withdraw from society & their obligations to that society? So People have chosen an easier route, stop including those which make their lives harder… So we grow cold toward on another?”—Mak McDaddy @MakMcdaddy

    We don’t just go cold (a feminine concern), we go to war (a masculine concern). People chose to follow their interests, which were interests created deliberately by our enemies: undermine rule of law, trust, norms, traditions, and the intergenerational family as the central institution of society, b/c of its natural effect of limiting parasitism and dysgenia. The used Marxism to undermine compromise between the classes, Feminism to undermine compromise between genders, Postmodernism to undermine identities, families, traditions, eugenics, science, and truth itself – and outright denial (political correctness) to suppress debate. Progressivism = lying and undermining for the purpose of hyperconsumption, largely of virtue signals.

  • People Chose Their Self Interest – One Created for Them to Choose, but Which Was Suicidal

    PEOPLE CHOSE THEIR SELF INTEREST – ONE CREATED FOR THEM TO CHOOSE, BUT WHICH WAS SUICIDAL

    —“… so People figured out the game was a losing battle & decided to withdraw from society & their obligations to that society? So People have chosen an easier route, stop including those which make their lives harder… So we grow cold toward on another?”—Mak McDaddy @MakMcdaddy

    We don’t just go cold (a feminine concern), we go to war (a masculine concern). People chose to follow their interests, which were interests created deliberately by our enemies: undermine rule of law, trust, norms, traditions, and the intergenerational family as the central institution of society, b/c of its natural effect of limiting parasitism and dysgenia. The used Marxism to undermine compromise between the classes, Feminism to undermine compromise between genders, Postmodernism to undermine identities, families, traditions, eugenics, science, and truth itself – and outright denial (political correctness) to suppress debate. Progressivism = lying and undermining for the purpose of hyperconsumption, largely of virtue signals.

  • Right on Schedule. Like Clockwork

    Right on Schedule. Like Clockwork https://t.co/s0d7GyraUx

  • Right on Schedule. Like Clockwork

    RIGHT ON SCHEDULE. LIKE CLOCKWORK How much more evidence d’ y’all need. I’m very good at what I do. Because I use data, demographics, and incentives, not wishful thinking. The worm turns… By the pricking of my thumbs, this way Revolution Comes!!! Note from me: After the (to me, rather amusing) initial reaction from a (from what I can tell, relatively small) group of people furiously counter-signaling any talk of “civil war”, I said that they and their concerns would end up being irrelevant as the Overton window continued to move. Trump used the term “civil war” in a tweet. (Thinly veiled threat.) Ann Coulter recently tweeted “the country needs to split up.” She has been going full beast mode (even more than usual) recently regarding immigration, saying, “continued immigration (including legal immigration) means we lose everything.” Glenn Beck recently talked about civil war (I don’t know what he said, someone told me about it.) Michael Savage too. Rush Limbaugh getting close to parroting our talking points on immigration. Bill O’Reilly said if the Left wins an election, “all our freedoms will be gone”. Once you understand humanity to the extent Propertarianism explains, it’s not hard to predict the broad strokes. (A key insight is understanding why the left & large segments of humanity cannot be reasoned with.) Edit

  • Right on Schedule. Like Clockwork

    RIGHT ON SCHEDULE. LIKE CLOCKWORK How much more evidence d’ y’all need. I’m very good at what I do. Because I use data, demographics, and incentives, not wishful thinking. The worm turns… By the pricking of my thumbs, this way Revolution Comes!!! Note from me: After the (to me, rather amusing) initial reaction from a (from what I can tell, relatively small) group of people furiously counter-signaling any talk of “civil war”, I said that they and their concerns would end up being irrelevant as the Overton window continued to move. Trump used the term “civil war” in a tweet. (Thinly veiled threat.) Ann Coulter recently tweeted “the country needs to split up.” She has been going full beast mode (even more than usual) recently regarding immigration, saying, “continued immigration (including legal immigration) means we lose everything.” Glenn Beck recently talked about civil war (I don’t know what he said, someone told me about it.) Michael Savage too. Rush Limbaugh getting close to parroting our talking points on immigration. Bill O’Reilly said if the Left wins an election, “all our freedoms will be gone”. Once you understand humanity to the extent Propertarianism explains, it’s not hard to predict the broad strokes. (A key insight is understanding why the left & large segments of humanity cannot be reasoned with.) Edit

  • Anglo Saxon Law (Germanic Law)

    Anglo Saxon Law (Germanic Law) https://t.co/x3hv7vXRoo

  • Anglo Saxon Law (Germanic Law)

    ANGLO SAXON LAW (GERMANIC LAW) Anglo-Saxon law, the body of legal principles that prevailed in England from the 6th century until the Norman Conquest (1066). In conjunction with Scandinavian law and the so-called barbarian laws (leges barbarorum) of continental Europe, it made up the body of law called Germanic law. Anglo-Saxon law was written in the vernacular and was relatively free of the Roman influence found in continental laws that were written in Latin. Roman influence on Anglo-Saxon law was indirect and exerted primarily through the church. There was a definite Scandinavian influence upon Anglo-Saxon law as a result of the Viking invasions of the 8th and 9th centuries. Only with the Norman Conquest did Roman law, as embodied in Frankish law, make its influence felt on the laws of England. Anglo-Saxon law was made up of three components: the laws and collections promulgated by the king, authoritative statements of custom such as those found in the Norman-instituted Domesday Book, and private compilations of legal rules and enactments. The primary emphasis was on criminal law rather than on private law, although certain material dealt with problems of public administration, public order, and ecclesiastical matters. Before the 10th century, the codes often merely presented lists of compositions—money paid to an injured party or his family—but by the 10th century a new penal system had evolved based on outlawry (declaring a criminal an outlaw), confiscation, and corporal and capital punishment. By this time there also had been an increased development of the law relating to administrative and police functions. The Anglo-Saxon legal system rested on the fundamental opposition between folkright and privilege. Folkright is the aggregate of rules, whether formulated or not, that can be appealed to as an expression of the juridical consciousness of the people at large or of the communities of which it is composed. It is tribal in origin and is differentiated on highly localized bases. Thus, there was a folkright of East and West Saxons, Mercians, Northumbrians, Danes, and Welshmen, and these main folkright divisions persisted even after the tribal kingdoms disappeared in the 8th and 9th centuries. The responsibility for the formulation and application of the folkright rested, in the 10th and 11th centuries, with the local shire moots (assemblies); the national council of the realm, or witan, only occasionally used folkright ideas. The older laws of real property, succession, contracts, and compositions were mainly regulated by folkright; the law had to be declared and applied by the people themselves in their communities. FOLKRIGHT Folkright could, however, be broken or modified by special enactment or grant, and the foundation of such privileges was royal power, especially once England became a single kingdom in the 10th century. In this manner a privileged land tenure was created; the rules pertaining to the succession of kinsmen were replaced by concessions of testamentary power and confirmations of grants and wills, and special privileges as to levying fines were conferred. In time, the rights originating in the royal grants of privilege came to outweigh folkright in many respects and were the starting point for the feudal system. Before the 10th century an individual’s actions were considered not as exertions of his own will but as acts of his kinship group. Personal protection and revenge, oaths, marriage, wardship, and succession were all regulated by the law of kinship. What began as a natural alliance later became a means of enforcing responsibility and keeping lawless individuals in order. As the associations proved insufficient, other collective bodies, such as guilds and townships, assumed these functions. In the period before the Norman Conquest, much regulation was formalized by the king’s legislation in order to protect the individual. In the area of property, for example, witnesses were required at cattle sales, not to validate the sale but as protection against later claims on the cattle. Some ordinances required the presence of witnesses for all sales outside the town gate, and others simply prohibited sales except in town, again for the buyer’s protection. The preservation of peace was an important feature of Anglo-Saxon law. Peace was thought of as the rule of an authority within a specific region. Because the ultimate authority was the king, there was a gradual evolution of stringent rules and regulations against violating the king’s peace.