MINDFULNESS OF ASCETICISM
It is hard to prosecute an ascetic since it is through property one is most easily prosecuted by the state. Living overseas in a private hotel, you realize the luxury of no driver’s license, no car, no insurance, no bills, no anything other than pay-as-you-go phone bill and monthly hotel bill. Living well without property is extremely cheap – as long as you have balance sheet wealth somewhere.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-12 13:52:00 UTC
A COMPARISON OF THREATS
by Steve Pender
What percentage of privately owned semiautomatic rifles in the US have been used in mass shootings? What percent of immigrant or first generation Muslims in the US have been involved in terrorism? What percent of unmarried fatherless black adult men in the US have been involved in violent crime?
Only rifles are targeted despite there being higher threats. Why? Because fatherless blacks and Muslims can’t hit a treasonous politician from a few hundred yards.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-12 13:44:00 UTC
GOING FULL FASH
So yeah, as the day of revolution draws nearer, and the hate for my people has increased, and the threat to my people has increased, the genocide against my people has been openly promoted, I’ve gone “Full Fash” so to speak – just that it’s Natural Law Fascism. And in my understanding it’s prosecutorial, zero-tolerance, militaristic, expansionist, Natural Law Fascism – White sharia all the way.
Why? (a) Cooperation is only valuable until non-cooperation is preferable, and non-cooperation is only valuable until conflict is more valuable – and conflict is at present more valuable.
(b) Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy.
(c) Ethnocentrism under Natural Law is the optimum economic and technical strategy, and;
(d) Natural Law Fascism is the optimum political strategy, and;
(e) Ethnocentric Natural Law Fascism cannot be practiced by any of our competitors due to genetic distribution and rates of neoteny.
(f) And lastly, we have, over the past 3500 years or more, dragged mankind out of superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature – kicking and screaming against their genetic, cultural, and personal wills.
We are not heroes to our debtors. We are gods in the making. Truth, Duty, Reciprocity, Markets in Everything, and Continuous Transcendence into the Gods we imagine.
I will not betray my forefathers, my people, and all those of my people who might yet come to be, nor the future of mankind, the Gods we might be, and the universe’s need for our gardening of it, because weak men and women fear the sound of our marching feet, our works, our voices, and the truth of our words.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 16:32:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
THE ORIGINS OF PATERNALISM: WAR
I have a terrible habit, developed over many years, from defending myself, my management and staff, and my companies, and out of pure necessity, of changing from argument to defense against litigation. In other words, from working with friends, allies, and customers, to fighting against enemies.
Any politician, negotiator, or litigator develops this talent (and must), and many if not all lawyers must develop a lighter version of it.
And that is to create a defensive frame (narrative) and speak and act within the defensive frame, such that all evidence that you leave behind in word and deed corresponds to the narrative.
This is not truthful. It’s lying. But it’s lying in the context of war. Once you have decided you are no longer cooperating, nor no longer negotiation, but actively engaged in self defense by a hostile party with malincentives, there is no question of crime, ethics, morality or evil with one’s opponents. We are just at war.
And courts are quite stupid really, and they follow the evidence (results of framing) and develop their frame (network of decidability) from that evidence. So in almost all cases politicians, negotiators, and litigators develop and leave evidence correspondent and consistent with the frame.
I view this behavior on my part as (a) a result of my rather difficult childhood as defending myself from an abusive alcoholic father, (b) my obsessive study of weapons, warfare, and history from the second grade onward, (d) my early career work almost exclusively with a (((certain))) demographic (e) my membership in the “Wall Street” generation of Yuppies, and the litigation that resulted from my risk taking, and (f) My prosecution of members of said (((demographic))) by the Justice Department, (g) the later career constant defense of the company from frivolous lawsuits with progressive origins (h) self defense in divorce.
In this sense I have a very martial (international) bias to my ethics and morality (pessimistic). Whereas the average person as a more familial and civic ethics and morality (optimistic).
International law, and in particular, war, has no test other than reciprocity. It’s the family (female) and male (civic) ethics and morality of those who have had few resources, few responsibilities, and few risks of devastating outcome or exceptional reward that can afford to mistakenly extend the economics ethics and morality of the family and community of competition to the international arena of conflict, where the difference is not simply one of lost or gained opportunity, but one of lost or gained severity.
For this reason, paternalism is necessary until such a point that all, or at least most men, are one again trained in the art of war, so that they understand the difference between the economics, ethics and morality of the family, the polity, and those against whom we war.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 13:51:41 UTC
I have a terrible habit, developed over many years, from defending myself, my management and staff, and my companies, and out of pure necessity, of changing from argument to defense against litigation. In other words, from working with friends, allies, and customers, to fighting against enemies. Any politician, negotiator, or litigator develops this talent (and must), and many if not all lawyers must develop a lighter version of it. And that is to create a defensive frame (narrative) and speak and act within the defensive frame, such that all evidence that you leave behind in word and deed corresponds to the narrative. This is not truthful. It’s lying. But it’s lying in the context of war. Once you have decided you are no longer cooperating, nor no longer negotiation, but actively engaged in self defense by a hostile party with malincentives, there is no question of crime, ethics, morality or evil with one’s opponents. We are just at war. And courts are quite stupid really, and they follow the evidence (results of framing) and develop their frame (network of decidability) from that evidence. So in almost all cases politicians, negotiators, and litigators develop and leave evidence correspondent and consistent with the frame. I view this behavior on my part as (a) a result of my rather difficult childhood as defending myself from an abusive alcoholic father, (b) my obsessive study of weapons, warfare, and history from the second grade onward, (d) my early career work almost exclusively with a (((certain))) demographic (e) my membership in the “Wall Street” generation of Yuppies, and the litigation that resulted from my risk taking, and (f) My prosecution of members of said (((demographic))) by the Justice Department, (g) the later career constant defense of the company from frivolous lawsuits with progressive origins (h) self defense in divorce. In this sense I have a very martial (international) bias to my ethics and morality (pessimistic). Whereas the average person as a more familial and civic ethics and morality (optimistic). International law, and in particular, war, has no test other than reciprocity. It’s the family (female) and male (civic) ethics and morality of those who have had few resources, few responsibilities, and few risks of devastating outcome or exceptional reward that can afford to mistakenly extend the economics ethics and morality of the family and community of competition to the international arena of conflict, where the difference is not simply one of lost or gained opportunity, but one of lost or gained severity. For this reason, paternalism is necessary until such a point that all, or at least most men, are one again trained in the art of war, so that they understand the difference between the economics, ethics and morality of the family, the polity, and those against whom we war.
I have a terrible habit, developed over many years, from defending myself, my management and staff, and my companies, and out of pure necessity, of changing from argument to defense against litigation. In other words, from working with friends, allies, and customers, to fighting against enemies. Any politician, negotiator, or litigator develops this talent (and must), and many if not all lawyers must develop a lighter version of it. And that is to create a defensive frame (narrative) and speak and act within the defensive frame, such that all evidence that you leave behind in word and deed corresponds to the narrative. This is not truthful. It’s lying. But it’s lying in the context of war. Once you have decided you are no longer cooperating, nor no longer negotiation, but actively engaged in self defense by a hostile party with malincentives, there is no question of crime, ethics, morality or evil with one’s opponents. We are just at war. And courts are quite stupid really, and they follow the evidence (results of framing) and develop their frame (network of decidability) from that evidence. So in almost all cases politicians, negotiators, and litigators develop and leave evidence correspondent and consistent with the frame. I view this behavior on my part as (a) a result of my rather difficult childhood as defending myself from an abusive alcoholic father, (b) my obsessive study of weapons, warfare, and history from the second grade onward, (d) my early career work almost exclusively with a (((certain))) demographic (e) my membership in the “Wall Street” generation of Yuppies, and the litigation that resulted from my risk taking, and (f) My prosecution of members of said (((demographic))) by the Justice Department, (g) the later career constant defense of the company from frivolous lawsuits with progressive origins (h) self defense in divorce. In this sense I have a very martial (international) bias to my ethics and morality (pessimistic). Whereas the average person as a more familial and civic ethics and morality (optimistic). International law, and in particular, war, has no test other than reciprocity. It’s the family (female) and male (civic) ethics and morality of those who have had few resources, few responsibilities, and few risks of devastating outcome or exceptional reward that can afford to mistakenly extend the economics ethics and morality of the family and community of competition to the international arena of conflict, where the difference is not simply one of lost or gained opportunity, but one of lost or gained severity. For this reason, paternalism is necessary until such a point that all, or at least most men, are one again trained in the art of war, so that they understand the difference between the economics, ethics and morality of the family, the polity, and those against whom we war.
THE ORIGINS OF PATERNALISM: WAR
I have a terrible habit, developed over many years, from defending myself, my management and staff, and my companies, and out of pure necessity, of changing from argument to defense against litigation. In other words, from working with friends, allies, and customers, to fighting against enemies.
Any politician, negotiator, or litigator develops this talent (and must), and many if not all lawyers must develop a lighter version of it.
And that is to create a defensive frame (narrative) and speak and act within the defensive frame, such that all evidence that you leave behind in word and deed corresponds to the narrative.
This is not truthful. It’s lying. But it’s lying in the context of war. Once you have decided you are no longer cooperating, nor no longer negotiation, but actively engaged in self defense by a hostile party with malincentives, there is no question of crime, ethics, morality or evil with one’s opponents. We are just at war.
And courts are quite stupid really, and they follow the evidence (results of framing) and develop their frame (network of decidability) from that evidence. So in almost all cases politicians, negotiators, and litigators develop and leave evidence correspondent and consistent with the frame.
I view this behavior on my part as (a) a result of my rather difficult childhood as defending myself from an abusive alcoholic father, (b) my obsessive study of weapons, warfare, and history from the second grade onward, (d) my early career work almost exclusively with a (((certain))) demographic (e) my membership in the “Wall Street” generation of Yuppies, and the litigation that resulted from my risk taking, and (f) My prosecution of members of said (((demographic))) by the Justice Department, (g) the later career constant defense of the company from frivolous lawsuits with progressive origins (h) self defense in divorce.
In this sense I have a very martial (international) bias to my ethics and morality (pessimistic). Whereas the average person as a more familial and civic ethics and morality (optimistic).
International law, and in particular, war, has no test other than reciprocity. It’s the family (female) and male (civic) ethics and morality of those who have had few resources, few responsibilities, and few risks of devastating outcome or exceptional reward that can afford to mistakenly extend the economics ethics and morality of the family and community of competition to the international arena of conflict, where the difference is not simply one of lost or gained opportunity, but one of lost or gained severity.
For this reason, paternalism is necessary until such a point that all, or at least most men, are one again trained in the art of war, so that they understand the difference between the economics, ethics and morality of the family, the polity, and those against whom we war.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 09:51:00 UTC
by Steve Pender What percentage of privately owned semiautomatic rifles in the US have been used in mass shootings? What percent of immigrant or first generation Muslims in the US have been involved in terrorism? What percent of unmarried fatherless black adult men in the US have been involved in violent crime? Only rifles are targeted despite there being higher threats. Why? Because fatherless blacks and Muslims can’t hit a treasonous politician from a few hundred yards.
by Steve Pender What percentage of privately owned semiautomatic rifles in the US have been used in mass shootings? What percent of immigrant or first generation Muslims in the US have been involved in terrorism? What percent of unmarried fatherless black adult men in the US have been involved in violent crime? Only rifles are targeted despite there being higher threats. Why? Because fatherless blacks and Muslims can’t hit a treasonous politician from a few hundred yards.
It is hard to prosecute an ascetic since it is through property one is most easily prosecuted by the state. Living overseas in a private hotel, you realize the luxury of no driver’s license, no car, no insurance, no bills, no anything other than pay-as-you-go phone bill and monthly hotel bill. Living well without property is extremely cheap – as long as you have balance sheet wealth somewhere.