Theme: Coercion

  • COMMUNISM(ENVY) AND PONZI(GREED) SCHEMES “Why Won’t The Nightmare Dream Of Commu

    COMMUNISM(ENVY) AND PONZI(GREED) SCHEMES

    “Why Won’t The Nightmare Dream Of Communism Die?”

    A century of Communism achieved four main results: poverty, oppression, war, and mass death. So why does anybody still think collectivism is ‘idealistic’?

    Glenn Reynolds has, I think, the right answer:

    “For the same reason Ponzi schemes won’t stop. It’s an effective con that zeroes in on human weaknesses. Ponzi schemes capitalize on greed. Communism capitalizes on envy, which is why it’s largely sustained by intellectuals, in whose personalities envy tends to be a particularly powerful component.”


    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-22 19:39:00 UTC

  • Communism(Envy) And Ponzi(Greed) Schemes

    “Why Won’t The Nightmare Dream Of Communism Die?” A century of Communism achieved four main results: poverty, oppression, war, and mass death. So why does anybody still think collectivism is ‘idealistic’? Glenn Reynolds has, I think, the right answer: “For the same reason Ponzi schemes won’t stop. It’s an effective con that zeroes in on human weaknesses. Ponzi schemes capitalize on greed. Communism capitalizes on envy, which is why it’s largely sustained by intellectuals, in whose personalities envy tends to be a particularly powerful component.”
  • Improper Sexual Advancement

    We are gonna’ have a very hard time overturning improper male sexual advances as a particular universal, since men evolved to act as the sexual aggressors and women the choice makers. It is very hard for a man, as your influence increases, and women pay you outsized attention, to develop the ‘sensitivity’ to whether women are seeking favors or ‘exchanges’. I think most men of power go thru this ‘learning experience’. Unfortunately (a) for some men it works (Spacey, Weinstein) (b) some men are freaking clueless (Roy Moore, and the majority who get turned in), (c) some men develop skill with it (Bill clinton, Tiger Woods, Derek Jeeter), and (d) some men develop simple avoidance (most of us). As far as I know the principle problems are acting out of your age range, and acting out of your ‘market’. Most successfully aggressive ‘play downmarket’. (And yes, our genes are readily visible and we select and sort into classes.) Now, as a world traveller, I have, and one must, come to understand that this problem is a particularly western ridiculousness. In most of the world women and men avoid opportunistic circumstances in order to prevent misinterpretation of signals (and misuse of opportunities). This is the reason for most traditions. Furthermore, that in much of the world, age differences are seen as mutually advantageous. And in history, at least our history, it was common for 10 – 15 years of difference in age, wherein a man in his thirties married a girl in her teens. Why? both possessed optimum capital for a marriage: demonstrated success at accumulating property for the man and fertility for the woman. Now, as a man who has had women throw themselves at him, despite the fact that I’m short, and nerdy, for the simple reasons of power, money and charisma, (I do not consider myself desirable). And that women regularly do this despite the fact that you’re married or in a relationship, I know that this is a two way street. The difference is that men don’t find it uncomfortable or influential in their careers and women do. Have I made unwanted advances? I think at *least* four women in my past. Did they act as if they were making advances on me? Yes to me and others that seemed the case. But no, that wasn’t the case. They wanted to obtain an advantage for themselves by association. Which is what most women do. I don’t know how we regulate female use of that tactic. It tends to have the opposite effect on me. It pissess me off. Always has. Now, the workplace is where most people seem to meet mates. At least in my companies it has always seemed like everyone was sleeping with everyone else. It’s always been a subject of management humor. And so the problem is keeping your damned hands off, and mouth shut. (What is it with women asking me to come over, drink, and have a hot bath, shower, hot tub together?). Unfortunately, just as women are subject to temporary insanity on a regular basis over hormones, men are subject to temporary insanity on a regular basis over hormones. In the past we accepted our differences and created normative institutions to mitigate them. In the present we are pursuing equality that does not seek to mitigate these differences through institutionalization but through punishment. I am not sure why the current trend won’t work. I am fairly sure that it’s competitively disadvantageous. Men must control their impulses apparently but women not. That’s my understanding of the current vernacular debate. And while men evidently possess greater physical, mental, and emotional agency than women, it is only a marginal difference. But I guess, what I would rather see is training women and men BOTH to behave via positiva rather than arbitrary prosecution post- hoc via negativa.
  • Now that we’re going to legislate getting fresh with women, can we legislate wom

    Now that we’re going to legislate getting fresh with women, can we legislate women out of gossip? That’s their means of oppression.
  • Now that we’re going to legislate getting fresh with women, can we legislate wom

    Now that we’re going to legislate getting fresh with women, can we legislate women out of gossip? That’s their means of oppression.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-21 18:00:00 UTC

  • Now that we’re going to legislate getting fresh with women, can we legislate wom

    Now that we’re going to legislate getting fresh with women, can we legislate women out of gossip? That’s their means of oppression.
  • Beatings

    Plenty of women deserve a beating. Plenty of men deserve a beating. It’s not that people don’t deserve beatings. It’s that we have no longer a standard of deserving a beating. We beat each other by proxy now. Which is unfortunate. Because societies are much more civil where you can get a beating if you can’t watch your mouth.
  • BEATINGS Plenty of women deserve a beating. Plenty of men deserve a beating. It’

    BEATINGS

    Plenty of women deserve a beating. Plenty of men deserve a beating. It’s not that people don’t deserve beatings. It’s that we have no longer a standard of deserving a beating. We beat each other by proxy now. Which is unfortunate. Because societies are much more civil where you can get a beating if you can’t watch your mouth.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-21 17:50:00 UTC

  • Beatings

    Plenty of women deserve a beating. Plenty of men deserve a beating. It’s not that people don’t deserve beatings. It’s that we have no longer a standard of deserving a beating. We beat each other by proxy now. Which is unfortunate. Because societies are much more civil where you can get a beating if you can’t watch your mouth.
  • Q&a: “Should War Be Conducted Morally?”

    Q&A: “SHOULD WAR BE CONDUCTED MORALLY?” Simon asks two questions, and offers his analysis. I offer mine, with a very different answer. Cooperation is only valuable if it advances ones line, kin, and people. —“1) Should warfare be conducted morally or is that an oxymoron? In my opinion, the answer is yes, it should – and no, it is not an oxymoron. Because morality exists only in reciprocity, and warfare is in fact the ultimate instrument of reciprocity. 2) Should we follow internationally agreed upon regulations of warfare? Yes, until we don’t, which is at a point when signaling adherence to convention in order to maintain a reputation for maximizing future cooperative exchange is more costly, or too great of a discount granted, than the infamy incurred from shoving the charter up the enemy’s rear entry while appropriating his wealth using any imaginable means. A well calibrated algorithm of foreign policy will not abuse that course of action, but it will make prudent use of it, and without mercy.”— Simon ———- Simon, Violence is a resource that can be put to good (reciprocity) or ill (irreciprocity). From the entire spectrum of creation of reciprocity, restoration of reciprocity, or exhaustion of reciprocity, or conquest, or extermination. Reciprocity purchases future cooperation which is, in general, the means of advancing your line, kin, and people. However there are many conditions under which the purchase of cooperation is against the interests of your line, kin, and people. a) When cooperation is impossible due to extreme differences in ability, intention, or interest. b) Or when when the effects of long term cooperation are detrimental. c) Or when the returns on conquest or extermination are higher than the returns on cooperation. Now, the central issue is that once beyond the value of agrarian slavery, returns on conquest and extermination are ALWAYS higher than the returns on cooperation, it is just that given marginal differences its often unaffordable to do so. And that is our current situation. If conquest and extermination are not possible, then cooperation is preferable. If cooperation is not possible, or too costly, then resistance and boycott, and threat are preferable. But war, conquest, extermination are always more profitable than cooperation. As long as one does not build institutions that require continuous profiting from conquest and extermination. Or as long as one retains enough free capital from one’s expansion to organize a productive rather than predatory economy once efforts are completed. Because eventually one does run out of prey. However, if one succeeds in predation, at sufficient scale, then the people have no need or interest in the predatory order of economy and polity. As such there are two forces at work: either the underclass (abrahamic) warfare or the upper class (aristocratic) warfare that seeks genetic peerages. We have seen what happens in the underclass models and seen what happens in the aristocratic models. And the underclass model is merely devolutionary, while the aristocratic model is evolutionary – in fact, that is precisely what defines feminine, underclass, communal, equalitarian, and masculine upperclass, kinship, egalitarian. Christianity has been a cancer. The Romans were (as are we today) too greedy for consumption, and were the victims of dilution, and conquest by islam. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine