Americans are simply tired of choosing between the cowardly and stupid republican party, and the evil and lying democratic party.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 19:29:00 UTC
Theme: Class
-
AS A SOVEREIGN-IST I’M AN EGALITARIAN (merit) NOT AN EQUALITARIAN (without merit
AS A SOVEREIGN-IST I’M AN EGALITARIAN (merit) NOT AN EQUALITARIAN (without merit)
—“Classism is just as exclusionary as racism and sexism.”—Fredrick George Welfare
And? so what? I didn’t say I’m not exclusionary, I said I’m a eugenicist – because it is the only criteria of decidability that is logical at the epistemological limits of perception.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 17:33:00 UTC
-
DEAR IGNORANT F—KS. PLEASE MAKE YOUR STATEMENTS WITH LESS CONFIDENCE AND MORE
DEAR IGNORANT F—KS. PLEASE MAKE YOUR STATEMENTS WITH LESS CONFIDENCE AND MORE QUESTION SO THAT I DON’T HAVE TO WASTE MY TIME CORRECTING YOUR IDIOCY.
—“He also ignores that Marxism and Fascism descend from Platonism. Fascism is the Republic playing out in real life.”— A NEWB
I don’t ignore any of that at all. And I’ve written on that subject elsewhere. the OP asked a question about what we got from those cities. I gave a brief answer.
Fascism is not the zenith of western thought, it is merely a temporary solution to the problem of universalism by applying napoleonic total war to economics and political conflict more so than military conflict. Its just the equivalent of appointing a roman general as dictator in time of war.
The zenith of western thought is sovereignty, natural law, and the markets in everything, by which the aristocracy domesticates the animal man for profit.
positioning fascism as a zenith is both ignorant of the cause, consequence, and limits, as well as ignorant of the factors that differentiate western eugenic rule from eastern dysgenic rule.
What the Fascists did at the time was use the new media to create an AESTHETIC movement for Fascism, to replace the religious aesthetic that had been lost by the scientific and darwinian revolutions. Propaganda and control of expensive media made it possible. But it also made the lies of marxists possible.
We have moved warfare from multiple agents within territories, to state monopoly of warfare between territories, to state and credit total war between territories, to economic and credit warfare between territories, to principally finance and trade war between territories limited only by nuclear war.
Just as we have moved predation from raids to the suppression of violence, then theft, then fraud, then conspiracy, and slowly through economic predation (fraud) and now we are at the fringes of suppressing financial predation (state credit and financialization) and suppressing fraud in all aspects of propagandizing.
We always shift the war but we still conduct it.
So in closing, I don’t feel the need (given my volume of work) to make every argument in every post. And the post above – as an answer to a simple question – did not warrant it.
cheers
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 17:31:00 UTC
-
so tired of the peasantry. do they deserve to lose their civilization? Lose your
so tired of the peasantry. do they deserve to lose their civilization? Lose your aristocracy and you are nothing. everyone who does dies. is overwhelmed by the competing bottom.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 17:09:00 UTC
-
DO WE NEED THE UNDERCLASSES TO FIGHT FOR US? NO. THIS IS GOING TO UPSET YOU THE
DO WE NEED THE UNDERCLASSES TO FIGHT FOR US? NO.
THIS IS GOING TO UPSET YOU THE AVERAGE IQ IS: 106. MEANING THE 65TH PERCENTILE. MEANING THE (GENETIC) WORKING AND MIDDLE CLASSES.
So quite differently from what the underclass supposes, they are dead military weight as well as dead political weight, as well as dead economic weight as well as dead social weight. As far as I can tell, below 95, you’re dead weight on humanity, and any value you have in the military, political, economic, and social organizations of society is simply displacing the young and ignorant, and the old and tired from fulfilling work in the service of self and others.
sure, it’s possible to do menial labor, and not be a problem, but basically below 95, everyone is dead weight. Why?
95 to learn by (costly) repetition – and use machines and equipment.
105 to learn by instruction – and to repair machines – and speak ideas clearly.
115 (college) to learn by self reading
125 (graduate) to learn by self investigation
135 to interpret and distill information for others to learn by.
145 to innovate purely in ideas.
Honestly I can’t see a lot of difference over 145 in practical terms, because at that point it seems that your discipline, general knowledge, and time devoted to innovation are more influential than additional intelligence. (although I can be wrong). For example, i can tell that Hayek and I are similar in many ways, and I can tell that Chomsky and Wittgenstein have superior verbal abilities (substantially) – but they were both wrong. And when I read the works of other people I think are very bright It seems to me that they have more discipline than I do. (and less autism). So what does that mean?
From what I can see, there is no reason why we could not breed up to 125 median without encountering consequences I do not yet know how to deal with. But my observation of english history and jewish history is that the closer you get to 115 median, the closer you get to social, economic, political, and military nirvana so to speak. I am not sure that without technological enhancements we do much better than that with homo sapiens sapiens.
—“the military is the greatest middle class redistribution system in America”— (forget his name at the moment)
VIA SAILER:
—“Following the latest John Kerry brouhaha, a reader asked what the average IQ of U.S. military personnel is. From table 2.8 of the is Department of Defense document, I estimate that the average for new enlisted men in 1998 was about 105.
This would be in the 60th to 65th percentile compared to all the young people in America when the Armed Forces Qualification Test was normalized in 1980 on the National Longitudinal Study of Youth’s sample of 13,000 people ages 15-23. (This is the same enormous study that provides the data in Section 2 of The Bell Curve.)”—
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 19:17:00 UTC
-
I AM A CLASSIST BECAUSE I AM A SCIENTIST AND NO OTHER OPTION SURVIVES
I AM A CLASSIST BECAUSE I AM A SCIENTIST AND NO OTHER OPTION SURVIVES.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 13:45:00 UTC
-
DO WE NEED THE UNDERCLASSES TO FIGHT FOR US? NO. What is the IQ cutoff for enlis
DO WE NEED THE UNDERCLASSES TO FIGHT FOR US? NO.
What is the IQ cutoff for enlisted men (the troops) in the US military service?
THIS IS GOING TO UPSET YOU THE AVERAGE IQ IS: 106. MEANING THE 65TH PERCENTILE. MEANING THE (GENETIC) WORKING AND MIDDLE CLASSES.
So quite differently from what the underclass supposes, they are dead military weight as well as dead political weight, as well as dead economic weight as well as dead social weight. As far as I can tell, below 95, you’re dead weight on humanity, and any value you have in the military, political, economic, and social organizations of society is simply displacing the young and ignorant, and the old and tired from fulfilling work in the service of self and others.
sure, it’s possible to do menial labor, and not be a problem, but basically below 95, everyone is dead weight. Why?
95 to learn by (costly) repetition – and use machines and equipment.
105 to learn by instruction – and to repair machines – and speak ideas clearly.
115 (college) to learn by self reading
125 (graduate) to learn by self investigation
135 to interpret and distill information for others to learn by.
145 to innovate purely in ideas.
Honestly I can’t see a lot of difference over 145 in practical terms, because at that point it seems that your discipline, general knowledge, and time devoted to innovation are more influential than additional intelligence. (although I can be wrong). For example, i can tell that Hayek and I are similar in many ways, and I can tell that Chomsky and Wittgenstein have superior verbal abilities (substantially) – but they were both wrong. And when I read the works of other people I think are very bright It seems to me that they have more discipline than I do. (and less autism). So what does that mean?
From what I can see, there is no reason why we could not breed up to 125 median without encountering consequences I do not yet know how to deal with. But my observation of english history and jewish history is that the closer you get to 115 median, the closer you get to social, economic, political, and military nirvana so to speak. I am not sure that without technological enhancements we do much better than that with homo sapiens sapiens.
—“the military is the greatest middle class redistribution system in America”— (forget his name at the moment)
VIA SAILER:
—“Following the latest John Kerry brouhaha, a reader asked what the average IQ of U.S. military personnel is. From table 2.8 of the is Department of Defense document, I estimate that the average for new enlisted men in 1998 was about 105.
This would be in the 60th to 65th percentile compared to all the young people in America when the Armed Forces Qualification Test was normalized in 1980 on the National Longitudinal Study of Youth’s sample of 13,000 people ages 15-23. (This is the same enormous study that provides the data in Section 2 of The Bell Curve.)”—
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 13:44:00 UTC
-
CLASSISM NOT RACISM Reminder. You wanna talk about differences in the distributi
CLASSISM NOT RACISM
Reminder. You wanna talk about differences in the distributions of ability between genders, classes, tribes, nations, and races, or between laws, ideologies, philosophies, religions, and civilizations, then I am all for it. But I am a CLASSIST and NATIONALIST not a RACIST, and I talk about solutions for us not criticisms of others. So sorry, I love my kin above all others, but that does not equate to the hate of others. It merely says that in all choices I do not permit the externalization of any cost upon my kin by others and their kin, because this violates Natural Law of reciprocity by which ALL tribes, races, and nations can ascend – as long as they continuously limit the size of their underclasses.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 11:45:00 UTC
-
I’m only menacing to the underclass, and only to the under class of other tribes
I’m only menacing to the underclass, and only to the under class of other tribes – since my tribe’s underclass are my kin. If one finds me menacing, then this says only that one is himself a member of the underclass. 😉
(a rebuke)(from elsewhere)
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 08:41:00 UTC
-
“The patrician class that made up the officer corp of the Roman military, as wel
—“The patrician class that made up the officer corp of the Roman military, as well as the civilian leadership of their society during the Republican era lived in villas outside the city center.
They weren’t unlike knights who lived as small scale rural lords and had their station due to being able to maintain their accouterments, go on extended campaigns without financial ruin (because their wealth was based on ownership and not labor) and could provide additional soldiers from among the vassals in their patronage networks. Which is how Roman society was structured with patricians having a direct relationship with a particular constituency of plebs. Rome was not ruled by an “urban” population initially and it was noted by Romans themselves that their society had decayed when their ruling cohort became strictly urban and the patricians no longer had a direct connection to any particular constituency and whose wealth was self-perpetuating and non-generative.
The various Greek polis had many different systems and not all of them had an urbanized ruling coalition and they were also independent of each other. Athens had an urban ruling cohort but it was a maritime trading city built on a rocky peninsula. There almost wasn’t such a thing as a rural Athenian to have divergent interests with.
If New York was an independent city-state whose interests lay with maintaining relationships to people who could feed them and in maintaining its’ own class of defenders so as to not be conquered by this rural population its’ people and leadership would have a vastly different outlook. Ancient cities didn’t start out full of consumerist free riders, nor did rulers descend from such a cohort.”—
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 01:03:00 UTC