Theme: Class

  • Men = Material Economics,Physics, Constraint (Reals) Women = Emotional Economics

    Men = Material Economics,Physics, Constraint (Reals)
    Women = Emotional Economics, Manipulation, Consumption (feels).
    “M:Stress over failing to advance” versus “F:Fear of being left behind”.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 22:00:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184227511481389056

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184227510684471297


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    “… serves to police and enforce these social roles…” Or serves to constrain female hyperconsumption,hypergamy, undermining, and involuntary transfer of resources from males through preservation of reciprocity (exchanges).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184227510684471297


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    “… serves to police and enforce these social roles…” Or serves to constrain female hyperconsumption,hypergamy, undermining, and involuntary transfer of resources from males through preservation of reciprocity (exchanges).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184227510684471297

  • RT @Outsideness: To all those (very many) people who think “boomer” is an effect

    RT @Outsideness: To all those (very many) people who think “boomer” is an effective insult — “millennial” actually would be.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 20:34:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184205887566761991

  • 5) And we have no choice but to defeat genetic and economic red queens. Why? Dem

    5) And we have no choice but to defeat genetic and economic red queens. Why? Demographics is destiny. Your hyperconsumption has expanded the world underclass, reversing thousands of years of human domestication (economic and political eugenics).


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 13:58:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184106189665329153

    Reply addressees: @JonHaidt @EveningStandard

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184105849666584577


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @JonHaidt @EveningStandard 4) But cooperative necessity in social orders, like gravity in physical orders, is inescapable – and resistance is expected but ultimately futile. Your mistake is confusing PROGRESS with CONSUMPTION. And confusing OPPRESSION with DOMESTICATION.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184105849666584577


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @JonHaidt @EveningStandard 4) But cooperative necessity in social orders, like gravity in physical orders, is inescapable – and resistance is expected but ultimately futile. Your mistake is confusing PROGRESS with CONSUMPTION. And confusing OPPRESSION with DOMESTICATION.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184105849666584577

  • 3) The left is by demonstrated preference cognitively feminine: consumptive, rep

    3) The left is by demonstrated preference cognitively feminine: consumptive, reproductive, maternal, the right masculine: conservative, capital producing, paternal. And women resist tightening the belt more than men do. So you will continue to tighten your belt and resist it all.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 13:55:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184105414046162946

    Reply addressees: @JonHaidt @EveningStandard

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184104907894378497


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @JonHaidt @EveningStandard 2) Under vast asymmetry, like when inheriting a fortune or winning a lottery, we can afford to transgress previous norms and traditions that preserved our common interests. Conversely, having SPENT DOWN all that accumulated capital, we now return to the historical mean: nations.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184104907894378497


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @JonHaidt @EveningStandard 2) Under vast asymmetry, like when inheriting a fortune or winning a lottery, we can afford to transgress previous norms and traditions that preserved our common interests. Conversely, having SPENT DOWN all that accumulated capital, we now return to the historical mean: nations.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184104907894378497

  • 1) NO. NO. NO. We came out of a period of vast economic institutional, cultural,

    1) NO. NO. NO. We came out of a period of vast economic institutional, cultural, and genetic asymmetry and conspicuous consumption of compromises between genes, gender, class, and interests. We are no longer in conditions making possible conspicuous consumption of signal goods.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 13:50:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184104200759844864

    Reply addressees: @JonHaidt @EveningStandard

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184066817414828032


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184066817414828032

  • EXCERPTS FOR EMPHASIS BY LUCAS CORT by @[100008389721909:2048:Lucas Cort] Import

    EXCERPTS FOR EMPHASIS BY LUCAS CORT

    by @[100008389721909:2048:Lucas Cort]

    Important parts I’d like to emphasize:

    “We just were suckered yet again by the marxists into the false dichotomy of unfettered capitalism – monopoly of the middle class, or unfettered socialism – the monopoly of the underclass, rather than the successful european invention of rule of law, an unfettered monopoly of the upper, aristocratic, or martial class that derives its income from suppression of parasitism resulting in commission we call taxation.”

    “So in the twentieth century we destroyed (a) rule of law of tort, destroyed (b) the limits on reproduction of the underclasses, (c) destroyed the monetary and accounting system, (d) destroyed homogeneity of the population, and (e eliminated the monarchy and created a conflict for access to power to circumvent the market and obtain privileges and rents by the state, and (f) ended the prohibition on libel, slander, duel, hanging, fighting, civic defense and policing – all in order to accommodate those peoples not majority middle class (g) ended the family as a system of measurement by which resource consumption was measured.”

    “At the highest level we can disambiguate government into Rule (decisions), Government (production and administration of commons), Treasury (revenue and expenses), and insurer of last resort (both negative like military and positive like care taking).”

    “So there is no one static form of government producing the commons necessary for the current conditions, but one rule of law under which the production of commons varies according to the demand for commons.

    With P-law. we can produce any system of rule, production of commons, treasurer, and insurer of last resort.”

    “So I proposed a strictly constructed rule of law, with a monarchy as judge of last resort, a cabinet of professionals, subcontracted bureaucracies, houses for the classes and genders randomly selected like juries, requiring property and service, that have right of veto over taxes, fees. In this system no one is insulated from the law, and we create a market for the suppression of parasitism.

    There is more to it but that’s most of it. “This system scales up and down from authoritarian to redistributive as circumstances permit. “Updated Oct 14, 2019, 8:47 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 20:47:00 UTC

  • No The Problem Isn’t Race. It’s Demographics (Class) (In Arabic)

    No The Problem Isn’t Race. It’s Demographics (Class) (In Arabic) https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/13/no-the-problem-isnt-race-its-demographics-class-in-arabic/


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-13 15:49:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1183409368575946754

  • No The Problem Isn’t Race. It’s Demographics (Class) (In Arabic)

    1. هل يمكن لذوي الذكاء المنخفض مثل العرب أن يتفوقوا على الأوروبيين معنويا وعسكريا ودبلوماسيا وقانونيا واقتصاديا؟ من الخطأ دائمًا قول هذا. الذكاء البشري يختلف عن القوة. بعض قوي بعض أضعف ، وبعض ذكي ، وبعض غير ذكي. بغض النظر عن عدد الرجال ، رجل واحد سيكون دائما أكثر ذكاء ، وذكاء رجل واحد أكثر ميزة من قوة رجل واحد. إن المشكلة بالنسبة للعرب ، مثل إفريقيا ، مثل الهند ، مثل أمريكا الجنوبية ، هي أكبر من عدد الأشخاص الموجودين في القاع ، وهي أكبر بكثير من أعداد الأشخاص الموجودين في القمة. هذا هو كل شيء يعني الذكاء. يجب أن يكون الرقم أعلى حتى تكون الحقيقة وسيادة القانون ممكنة بدون فساد. ويجب أن يكون أعلى بالنسبة للناس لإنتاج السلع التي يمكن بيعها في الأسواق العالمية. ويجب أن يكون أعلى لتنظيم الناس عن طريق الحوافز التجارية بدلا من القواعد والأوامر. أي شخص يستخدم قانون P لدينا ، ويبطئ تكاثر الأشخاص السفليين ، سيصبح مثل الأوروبيين في 100 – 150 عامًا. هذا هو وقت قصير جدا لتغيير الحضارة. الديمقراطية لا تستطيع أن تفعل هذا. يمكن للملوك أو الجنرالات فقط القيام بذلك. لأن الفقراء يريدون الترفيه عن طريق الجسم (بسيط) والأثرياء يريدون الترفيه للعقل (معقد). هذه هي المشكلة. المساواة ، على امتداد فترات زمنية طويلة ، مدمرة. هذا هو الدرس المؤلم للمسيحية والإسلام ، والهندوستان ، والصين. ما نريده ليس جيدًا بالنسبة لنا. نريد المخدرات والكحول والدعارة والقتل والسرقة والغش والكذب ، لذلك نعتقد أننا متوسطون وليس القاع. بدلاً من ذلك ، يجب أن نختار الطريق الوسط بين ما نريد ، وما هو جيد بالنسبة لنا ، والسماح لنا بالوقت للقيام بذلك. آمل أن يكون هذا مفيدا.

    ENGLISH QUESTION: Can low-IQ people like Arabs be able to outperform Europeans morally, militarily, diplomatically, legally and economically?ANSWER: It is always a mistake to say this. Human intelligence is more different than strength. Some strong some weaker, Some smart, Some not smart. No matter how many men, one man will always be smarter, and one man’s intelligence more an advantage than one man’s strength. The problem for Arabs, like Africa, like India, like South America, is than the number of people in the bottom, are too many for the number of the people at the top. This is all IQ means. The number must be higher for truth and rule of law to be possible without corruption. And it must be higher for people to produce goods that can be sold on world markets. And it must be higher to organize the people by commercial incentives instead of rules and commands. Any people that uses our P-law, and slows the reproduction of the bottom people, will become like europeans in 100 – 150 years. This is a very short time to change a civilization. Democracy cannot do this. Only kings or generals can do this. Because the poor want entertainment by the body (simple) and the wealthy want entertainment of the mind (complicated). This is the problem. Equality, over long time spans, is destructive. This is the painful lesson of christianity and islam, and Hindustan, and China. What we want is not good for us. We want drugs, alcohol, prostitution, to murder, to steal, to cheat, to lie, so believe we are average rather than the bottom. Instead, we must choose the middle road between what we want, and what is good for us, and let time do it’s work on us. I hope this is helpful.

  • No The Problem Isn’t Race. It’s Demographics (Class) (In Arabic)

    1. هل يمكن لذوي الذكاء المنخفض مثل العرب أن يتفوقوا على الأوروبيين معنويا وعسكريا ودبلوماسيا وقانونيا واقتصاديا؟ من الخطأ دائمًا قول هذا. الذكاء البشري يختلف عن القوة. بعض قوي بعض أضعف ، وبعض ذكي ، وبعض غير ذكي. بغض النظر عن عدد الرجال ، رجل واحد سيكون دائما أكثر ذكاء ، وذكاء رجل واحد أكثر ميزة من قوة رجل واحد. إن المشكلة بالنسبة للعرب ، مثل إفريقيا ، مثل الهند ، مثل أمريكا الجنوبية ، هي أكبر من عدد الأشخاص الموجودين في القاع ، وهي أكبر بكثير من أعداد الأشخاص الموجودين في القمة. هذا هو كل شيء يعني الذكاء. يجب أن يكون الرقم أعلى حتى تكون الحقيقة وسيادة القانون ممكنة بدون فساد. ويجب أن يكون أعلى بالنسبة للناس لإنتاج السلع التي يمكن بيعها في الأسواق العالمية. ويجب أن يكون أعلى لتنظيم الناس عن طريق الحوافز التجارية بدلا من القواعد والأوامر. أي شخص يستخدم قانون P لدينا ، ويبطئ تكاثر الأشخاص السفليين ، سيصبح مثل الأوروبيين في 100 – 150 عامًا. هذا هو وقت قصير جدا لتغيير الحضارة. الديمقراطية لا تستطيع أن تفعل هذا. يمكن للملوك أو الجنرالات فقط القيام بذلك. لأن الفقراء يريدون الترفيه عن طريق الجسم (بسيط) والأثرياء يريدون الترفيه للعقل (معقد). هذه هي المشكلة. المساواة ، على امتداد فترات زمنية طويلة ، مدمرة. هذا هو الدرس المؤلم للمسيحية والإسلام ، والهندوستان ، والصين. ما نريده ليس جيدًا بالنسبة لنا. نريد المخدرات والكحول والدعارة والقتل والسرقة والغش والكذب ، لذلك نعتقد أننا متوسطون وليس القاع. بدلاً من ذلك ، يجب أن نختار الطريق الوسط بين ما نريد ، وما هو جيد بالنسبة لنا ، والسماح لنا بالوقت للقيام بذلك. آمل أن يكون هذا مفيدا.

    ENGLISH QUESTION: Can low-IQ people like Arabs be able to outperform Europeans morally, militarily, diplomatically, legally and economically?ANSWER: It is always a mistake to say this. Human intelligence is more different than strength. Some strong some weaker, Some smart, Some not smart. No matter how many men, one man will always be smarter, and one man’s intelligence more an advantage than one man’s strength. The problem for Arabs, like Africa, like India, like South America, is than the number of people in the bottom, are too many for the number of the people at the top. This is all IQ means. The number must be higher for truth and rule of law to be possible without corruption. And it must be higher for people to produce goods that can be sold on world markets. And it must be higher to organize the people by commercial incentives instead of rules and commands. Any people that uses our P-law, and slows the reproduction of the bottom people, will become like europeans in 100 – 150 years. This is a very short time to change a civilization. Democracy cannot do this. Only kings or generals can do this. Because the poor want entertainment by the body (simple) and the wealthy want entertainment of the mind (complicated). This is the problem. Equality, over long time spans, is destructive. This is the painful lesson of christianity and islam, and Hindustan, and China. What we want is not good for us. We want drugs, alcohol, prostitution, to murder, to steal, to cheat, to lie, so believe we are average rather than the bottom. Instead, we must choose the middle road between what we want, and what is good for us, and let time do it’s work on us. I hope this is helpful.

  • ANSWER TO ARABIC DEMOGRAPHICS POSTED ON OUR SITE FB censored the post where an A

    http://propertarianism.com/blogCENSORED ANSWER TO ARABIC DEMOGRAPHICS POSTED ON OUR SITE

    FB censored the post where an Arabic Speaker asked me to explain how a group with a lower average IQ could achieve european standards of living.

    I explained that it is not an IQ problem but a population demographic problem. And in fact, with very rare exceptions, this is in general, the rule for all human groups. The difference between groups is almost entirely the product of the possibility of reproduction by the lower classes. If it’s possible the problem will be worse, if it’s harder it will be better. This is just the boring science of why climate and farming together put so much pressure on developing intelligence and Conscientiousness. It didn’t make people smarter, it lowered the number of people that could survive farming and winters. In other words, different groups are not better or worse, but the sizes of the classes in different groups create economic and political difficulties for some, and eliminate difficulties for others. This is why middle and upper classes the world over get along just fine, but the lower middle, working, and underclasses cause conflicts with each other.

    Despite my attempt to provide a rebuttal to counter hate speech, someone reported the post, and facebook censored it. I agreed with the decision in order to prevent conflict.

    This is why I am careful about who I allow in my friends list – it’s not the people that friend me that are the problem, it’s the people in YOUR friends list.

    If you want the answer to the question in Arabic see our web site: propertarianism.com/blog http://propertarianism.com/blog “The Problem Isn’t Race It’s Demographics”.Updated Oct 13, 2019, 12:00 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-13 12:00:00 UTC