Theme: Coercion

  • Feminine coercion, the hostile male vs female environment our society creates wi

    http://www.returnofkings.com/176102/i-served-my-country-in-iraq-to-return-to-a-false-rape-accusation-and-jail-time

    Feminine coercion, the hostile male vs female environment our society creates with all the negative incentives and the lack of punishment for telling lies. Every thing you talked about on the shoah summed up in a single case of what is actually a common occurrence. Not only lying, but flagrant lying that nearly killed a man is unpunished.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-27 14:45:00 UTC

  • “Do Men have a duty of violence or privilege of guardianship?”—Brian Barr

    —“Do Men have a duty of violence or privilege of guardianship?”—Brian Barr


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 22:02:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1000497479874424832

  • “Do Men have a duty of violence or privilege of guardianship?”—Brian Barr

    —“Do Men have a duty of violence or privilege of guardianship?”—Brian Barr


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 18:02:00 UTC

  • IF YOU OWN YOUR COMMONS AS A MEMBER OF THE SHAREHOLDERS WE CALL MILITIA – YOU HA

    IF YOU OWN YOUR COMMONS AS A MEMBER OF THE SHAREHOLDERS WE CALL MILITIA – YOU HAVE A DUTY OF VIOLENCE.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 17:00:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1000421439974072321

  • IF YOU OWN YOUR COMMONS AS A MEMBER OF THE SHAREHOLDERS WE CALL MILITIA – YOU HA

    IF YOU OWN YOUR COMMONS AS A MEMBER OF THE SHAREHOLDERS WE CALL MILITIA – YOU HAVE A DUTY OF VIOLENCE.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 13:00:00 UTC

  • VIA GATTO: LIBERTY REQUIRES DEADLY WEAPONS

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-IbGfdlHlsQUIGLEY VIA GATTO: LIBERTY REQUIRES DEADLY WEAPONS

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-IbGfdlHls


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 12:39:00 UTC

  • VIA GATTO: LIBERTY REQUIRES DEADLY WEAPONS

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-IbGfdlHlsQUIGLEY VIA GATTO: LIBERTY REQUIRES DEADLY WEAPONS


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 12:39:00 UTC

  • Eli on Female Coercion

    —“This is what women do. They mostly can’t think. And they mostly can’t argue. So to get their way, and to get what they want, they deploy “the feminine means of coercion” (shaming, ridicule, mockery, rallying, scolding, nagging, gossip, psychoanalysis) to try and raise the social and emotional costs of disagreement WITHOUT addressing legitimate points of controversy or noncomplience with their demands WITHOUT offering anything of value in return. These means are dishonest, because they can be deployed to attack any point of view to advance or defend any other. They have no necessary connection to the truth. They are parasitic, because they are means of attempting to secure the *benefits* of cooperation, for the practitioner, at a discount – without paying all of the necessary costs. And they poison the dialog and lead to a general breakdown in cooperation and good order, and to hostility, acrimony, and bile instead, often boiling over into violence and other, more costly forms of conflict (e.g. “fighting words.”) That’s why our ancestors punished and suppressed such behavior by a variety of means.But as restrictions on the use of violence and masculine coercion have proliferated and intensified, restrictions on rhetorical violence and feminine coercion have been lifted and abolished, feminizing and emasculating our society and placing it under the harping, nagging, screeching, demanding, devouring, parasitic, stifling, control of bitchy, entitled, overbearing, unplesent and mentally and emotionally fragile women. At a time like this, over a medium like this, physical retaliation or other means of imposing costs to discourage such behavior are not realistic. But I’m damn sure not going to back down in the face of such c-ntery. I’m only going to escalate and double down to deprive its practitioners of satisfaction and let them know that we are not cooperating, that I do not need or desire their cooperation, and if they are going to deploy dishonest and parasitic methods I am going to consider us to be in conflict and seek to escalate that conflict by any and all means at my disposal, principally (here) by retaliation in kind (insults.)”— Eli Harman
    May 25, 2018 8:09am
  • Eli on Female Coercion

    —“This is what women do. They mostly can’t think. And they mostly can’t argue. So to get their way, and to get what they want, they deploy “the feminine means of coercion” (shaming, ridicule, mockery, rallying, scolding, nagging, gossip, psychoanalysis) to try and raise the social and emotional costs of disagreement WITHOUT addressing legitimate points of controversy or noncomplience with their demands WITHOUT offering anything of value in return. These means are dishonest, because they can be deployed to attack any point of view to advance or defend any other. They have no necessary connection to the truth. They are parasitic, because they are means of attempting to secure the *benefits* of cooperation, for the practitioner, at a discount – without paying all of the necessary costs. And they poison the dialog and lead to a general breakdown in cooperation and good order, and to hostility, acrimony, and bile instead, often boiling over into violence and other, more costly forms of conflict (e.g. “fighting words.”) That’s why our ancestors punished and suppressed such behavior by a variety of means.But as restrictions on the use of violence and masculine coercion have proliferated and intensified, restrictions on rhetorical violence and feminine coercion have been lifted and abolished, feminizing and emasculating our society and placing it under the harping, nagging, screeching, demanding, devouring, parasitic, stifling, control of bitchy, entitled, overbearing, unplesent and mentally and emotionally fragile women. At a time like this, over a medium like this, physical retaliation or other means of imposing costs to discourage such behavior are not realistic. But I’m damn sure not going to back down in the face of such c-ntery. I’m only going to escalate and double down to deprive its practitioners of satisfaction and let them know that we are not cooperating, that I do not need or desire their cooperation, and if they are going to deploy dishonest and parasitic methods I am going to consider us to be in conflict and seek to escalate that conflict by any and all means at my disposal, principally (here) by retaliation in kind (insults.)”— Eli Harman
    May 25, 2018 8:09am
  • NO, AD HOM IN PROSECUTION IS NOT A DOUBLE STANDARD. —“How can [we] complain ab

    NO, AD HOM IN PROSECUTION IS NOT A DOUBLE STANDARD.

    —“How can [we] complain about ridicule, but then habitually use terms like “white knight” and “shieldmaiden””—

    1 – Reciprocity. Always (a) return the insult, (b) return to the central argument, (c) stay with the argument until the opponent is defeated or retreats.

    2 – Prosecution vs Coercion: Ad hom used in prosecuting attempted theft by coercion – the moral, vs ad hom as means of coercion in perpetuation of a theft – the immoral.

    3 – Usually (I run into this a lot) accusations of contradiction are only attempted frauds of false equality. Either one is trying to commit a theft or not. Ad hom for theft is simply true. Ad claiming equality when one is a prosecutor of attempted theft and another is an attempted thief, is just another attempted theft by fraud.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-25 10:18:00 UTC