It’s not that women didn’t select their own mates: … (a) parents had the spectrum: control > veto > influence; … (b) dependent upon the age at marriage, with parental influence declining the later the age of marriage … (c) insurance was provided by the family, and income (self insurance) harder to come by. So the family had an interest in the success of the marriage. … (d) adult death was common, and children without a father or mother put pressure on the family network to feed children in eras where productivity had not been industrialized, and food was always scarce, and a lot of work to produce (which is why women killed so many children) … (e) property was often transferred and it was of such value that it had to be restorable to the family. One of The Big Lies, is that traditions are arbitrary rather than of economic necessity in the context in which they are practiced. These ‘big lies’ are the feminine means of psychologizing and moralizing that which is fact, so that they can undermine by fomenting conflcit between people who are ignorant, rather than argue the facts of reality.
Theme: Agency
-
The Origins of Political Conflict in Women’s Genetic Strategy
The Origins of Political Conflict in Women’s Genetic Strategy https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/the-origins-of-political-conflict-in-womens-genetic-strategy-2/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 00:36:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267253768648888320
-
The Origins of Political Conflict in Women’s Genetic Strategy
Mothers must talk to their children in moral language in order to control them at low cost – their approval and disapproval – when children are dependent upon mother for cognitive processing and security. Women try to scale this technique to men where it only works in exchange for sex and affection instead of shared cognitive processing and security. Women try to scale this technique to politics where it only works by undermining political orders, by obscuring the physical and economic reality of parasitism they’re pursuing as if they are still feeding their own children, or trading sex with men for resources and security. This is why politics has become impossible. Because women have made us compete by undermining and lying rather than informing and educating the public. Because emotional appeals that justify intuitions of the ignorant semi-domesticated animal is much easier to distribute than knowledge, understanding, and necessity. Tis wouldn’t be possible and we had given women a separate house of commons, and retained the historical competition between women’s emotionality, manipulation, half-truths, and undermining, and men’s calculation under threat of physical retaliation. We cannot any longer use violence against our women for gossiping, rallying, ridiculing, shaming, moralizing, psychologizing to create deceit by obscuring truth with disapproval, in matters of truth and falsehood. So without a market for exchange-and-compromise on truthful contract terms, and without the ability to punish women’s approval before truth, and punish men’s face before truth, we are reduced to a small number of men perpetuating the origins of the success of western civilization and women’s privileges that derive from them, by demanding truth before face, truth before approval or disapproval, and contractual exchange on truthful reciprocal terms. The same is true for the jewish (feminine lying) and muslim (masculine lying) means of undermining western civilization’s universal demand for truth regardless of cost in all circumstances. We are the only people who practice truth before face, and truth before approval, forcing contractual exchange on truthful reciprocal terms, dragging humanity out of ignorance and poverty. And expansion of the franchise to those who have not yet demonstrated truth before face (masculine), and truth before approval (feminine), was our only substantial mistake. And we made that mistake because we did not understand the oath of adulthood, the jury, the size of the jury, the thang, the senate, the senate and house of commons, the house of lords and house of commons, as markets between classes with different responsibilities and abilities and demonstrated FAMILY competencies, just as we had produced markets for goods, services, and information. And we have only realized today that the market for information is as, if not more important, than the market for goods and services in an information economy. As such we must restore our past mistakes, restore our markets, and restore our prosecution, and our zero tolerance, for anything other than truth before face, regardless of the cost to self or others, so that we may produced contracts of reciprocity. Thus Endeth The Lesson Curt Doolittle November 1, 2019
-
The Origins of Political Conflict in Women’s Genetic Strategy
Mothers must talk to their children in moral language in order to control them at low cost – their approval and disapproval – when children are dependent upon mother for cognitive processing and security. Women try to scale this technique to men where it only works in exchange for sex and affection instead of shared cognitive processing and security. Women try to scale this technique to politics where it only works by undermining political orders, by obscuring the physical and economic reality of parasitism they’re pursuing as if they are still feeding their own children, or trading sex with men for resources and security. This is why politics has become impossible. Because women have made us compete by undermining and lying rather than informing and educating the public. Because emotional appeals that justify intuitions of the ignorant semi-domesticated animal is much easier to distribute than knowledge, understanding, and necessity. Tis wouldn’t be possible and we had given women a separate house of commons, and retained the historical competition between women’s emotionality, manipulation, half-truths, and undermining, and men’s calculation under threat of physical retaliation. We cannot any longer use violence against our women for gossiping, rallying, ridiculing, shaming, moralizing, psychologizing to create deceit by obscuring truth with disapproval, in matters of truth and falsehood. So without a market for exchange-and-compromise on truthful contract terms, and without the ability to punish women’s approval before truth, and punish men’s face before truth, we are reduced to a small number of men perpetuating the origins of the success of western civilization and women’s privileges that derive from them, by demanding truth before face, truth before approval or disapproval, and contractual exchange on truthful reciprocal terms. The same is true for the jewish (feminine lying) and muslim (masculine lying) means of undermining western civilization’s universal demand for truth regardless of cost in all circumstances. We are the only people who practice truth before face, and truth before approval, forcing contractual exchange on truthful reciprocal terms, dragging humanity out of ignorance and poverty. And expansion of the franchise to those who have not yet demonstrated truth before face (masculine), and truth before approval (feminine), was our only substantial mistake. And we made that mistake because we did not understand the oath of adulthood, the jury, the size of the jury, the thang, the senate, the senate and house of commons, the house of lords and house of commons, as markets between classes with different responsibilities and abilities and demonstrated FAMILY competencies, just as we had produced markets for goods, services, and information. And we have only realized today that the market for information is as, if not more important, than the market for goods and services in an information economy. As such we must restore our past mistakes, restore our markets, and restore our prosecution, and our zero tolerance, for anything other than truth before face, regardless of the cost to self or others, so that we may produced contracts of reciprocity. Thus Endeth The Lesson Curt Doolittle November 1, 2019
-
Nov 1, 2019, 4:02 PM 1) If you can’t write the dialog you haven’t observed the c
Nov 1, 2019, 4:02 PM 1) If you can’t write the dialog you haven’t observed the category of people your character is a proxy for in similar circumstances. Go study people instead of reading books about it. Do your research. 2) If you can’t write the scene, you can’t role play your characters init, because you haven’t studied people like your characters. Most of the time your characters are talking (crap) is because you’re actually writing to yourself to convince yourself, because your scenes and your characters aren’t acting rationally in context, in furtherance of the plot, because you can’t empathize with them. (Most people write lower middle class characters in middle class conditions, with upper middle class resources, because that’s all the people they know, the contexts they find attractive, and the wealth making the condition possible. The classes think, speak, act very differently.) Do your research. 3) Dramatic tension is only possible for people who share concerns that would provide them with tension. What constitutes tension for gender, class and age varies. Status and self image is important at the bottom, wealth as you rise, but insults mean nothing, and power at the top because money is plentiful – but power is given to leaders they don’t ‘have’ it. It’s all loyalty alliances and opportunity with similar people who merely ‘shop’ for opportunities. Do your research. 4) Leave open mystery, have the characters react, rather than explain, and use mystery (the unknown, uncertainty)…. Do your research. If you did your research the story will come out of you. If you think you have ‘talent’ then you have failed before you put prose to print.
-
Nov 1, 2019, 4:02 PM 1) If you can’t write the dialog you haven’t observed the c
Nov 1, 2019, 4:02 PM 1) If you can’t write the dialog you haven’t observed the category of people your character is a proxy for in similar circumstances. Go study people instead of reading books about it. Do your research. 2) If you can’t write the scene, you can’t role play your characters init, because you haven’t studied people like your characters. Most of the time your characters are talking (crap) is because you’re actually writing to yourself to convince yourself, because your scenes and your characters aren’t acting rationally in context, in furtherance of the plot, because you can’t empathize with them. (Most people write lower middle class characters in middle class conditions, with upper middle class resources, because that’s all the people they know, the contexts they find attractive, and the wealth making the condition possible. The classes think, speak, act very differently.) Do your research. 3) Dramatic tension is only possible for people who share concerns that would provide them with tension. What constitutes tension for gender, class and age varies. Status and self image is important at the bottom, wealth as you rise, but insults mean nothing, and power at the top because money is plentiful – but power is given to leaders they don’t ‘have’ it. It’s all loyalty alliances and opportunity with similar people who merely ‘shop’ for opportunities. Do your research. 4) Leave open mystery, have the characters react, rather than explain, and use mystery (the unknown, uncertainty)…. Do your research. If you did your research the story will come out of you. If you think you have ‘talent’ then you have failed before you put prose to print.
-
PACK VS HERD
PACK VS HERD by Bill Joslin INWARD: Life in a herd – “You’re a member to become a target to reduce the relative risk of all members – your survival depends upon your ability to compete for resources with ingroup members without generating retaliation. The herd is gregarious but if you deviate, or if you require defense, you(and your offspring) will be abandoned.” – the mob – conform. OUTWARD: Life in a Pack – “You’re a member because you fulfill a role within a division of labor. Your survival depends upon your success at this role and how it contributes to the group’s ability to compete with outgroups and external pressures (benefit scales with success). If you deviate, we’ll not abandon you, but suppress your potential for causing damage by reassigning your role (even if as nothing more than an outlet for our tensions)” – the family – be good for something, even if it’s just to be laughed at.
-
Incentives at The Bottom
Nov 3, 2019, 9:39 AM (Michael Churchill ) There is no incentive for the people on the sub-optimal side of the curve to voluntarily go along with the extinction of their own DNA line. There is declining incentive for the people at the top to enforce laws to prevent reproduction of those who are on the sub-optimal side of the curve. And there are strong IN-centives for both capital and fifth-columnists to encourage reproduction on the sub-optimal side of the curve. Overall human DNA is weakening in western societies, and the effect is cumulative over generations. (Curt Doolittle) The Incentive for people on the sub-optimal side of the curve is compensation NOT to reproduce, as well as prosecution IF they reproduce. (Martin Štěpán) I do see that. We’ve let it go too far. But if we isolate from the left though, I’m pretty sure there won’t be that many on the sub-optimal side of the spectrum. And ones that are, what can you really do with them besides paying them to obey the law and not reproduce, at least not more than one kid? If that’s not okay and they still commit crime, they need to be disposed of. And if we keep doing that, we’ll slowly keep improving. I advocated for the same thing in healthcare as welfare, actually. You either pay your own or you use the tax-subsidized healthcare but in the latter case, you submit to one-child policy too, at least unless you manage to pay the money back. (Curt Doolittle) Yes. That’s the correct Incentive and policy.
-
Incentives at The Bottom
Nov 3, 2019, 9:39 AM (Michael Churchill ) There is no incentive for the people on the sub-optimal side of the curve to voluntarily go along with the extinction of their own DNA line. There is declining incentive for the people at the top to enforce laws to prevent reproduction of those who are on the sub-optimal side of the curve. And there are strong IN-centives for both capital and fifth-columnists to encourage reproduction on the sub-optimal side of the curve. Overall human DNA is weakening in western societies, and the effect is cumulative over generations. (Curt Doolittle) The Incentive for people on the sub-optimal side of the curve is compensation NOT to reproduce, as well as prosecution IF they reproduce. (Martin Štěpán) I do see that. We’ve let it go too far. But if we isolate from the left though, I’m pretty sure there won’t be that many on the sub-optimal side of the spectrum. And ones that are, what can you really do with them besides paying them to obey the law and not reproduce, at least not more than one kid? If that’s not okay and they still commit crime, they need to be disposed of. And if we keep doing that, we’ll slowly keep improving. I advocated for the same thing in healthcare as welfare, actually. You either pay your own or you use the tax-subsidized healthcare but in the latter case, you submit to one-child policy too, at least unless you manage to pay the money back. (Curt Doolittle) Yes. That’s the correct Incentive and policy.
-
It’s the most accurate measure of (g) we have. Trait-intelligence “g”, combined
It’s the most accurate measure of (g) we have. Trait-intelligence “g”, combined with trait-conscientiousness, and your trait-neuroticism we can largely predict everything about your life. Add the new antisocial personality tests measures just developed and it’s deterministic.
Reply addressees: @cayley_s @Simon_Whitten @rasmansa