Theme: Coercion

  • MILITARY POWER: READ THIS AND YOU ARE INFORMED

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/top-10-militaries-2015/WORLD MILITARY POWER: READ THIS AND YOU ARE INFORMED.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-19 05:46:00 UTC

  • Q: —“What’s your solution to homelessness if you don’t mind me asking?”— If

    Q: —“What’s your solution to homelessness if you don’t mind me asking?”—

    If they desire to be homeless then there is no problem of homelessness. There is merely a problem of the maximum tolerance for care and feeding of them, and a (visious) prohibition on the homeless’ abuse of the charity of others.

    If they do not desire to be homeless, then we are failing to devote temporary resources to people in need.

    From what I can gather there is no homeless problem. We have a serious schizophrenia problem. We have a serious drug and alcohol problem. We have a serious unemployability problem (because of declining demand for work by underclasses). And we have a moderate low income housing program because we will not police them severely enough that they are preferable to the relative safety of the streets.

    The primary reason people like to be homeless is socialization unavailable to them otherwise, and lack of criticism in a dynamic environment where social ostracization and pressure would give them negative feedback constantly otherwise.

    One of the values of being homeless is the constant stream of public resources devoted to providing for you in times of need.

    But the central problem is that we do not create and strictly police ‘villages’ for people who are merely unfortunate but well behaved. We no longer put the vast number of schizophrenics in ‘prisons’. We no longer purge public parks and spaces of ‘vagrants’.

    We no longer raise the cost of their behavior on parasites such that it is preferable to seek inexpensive housing and care over the terrorism of being prohibited from fouling private property and beloved commons.

    So in my opinion there is no ‘homeless’ problem per se. ANd it’s just politicking by women who need an oxytocin fix by ruminating over it, and the failure to remove liberty from those who cannot make use of it without harm to others.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-18 08:42:00 UTC

  • The moral fringe and lunatic fringe. Freedom fighter and terrorist

    The moral fringe and lunatic fringe.

    Freedom fighter and terrorist.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-18 07:31:00 UTC

  • MEN VS WOMEN: THE PROBLEM IS DEMOCRACY – INVENTING NEW GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT FEM

    MEN VS WOMEN: THE PROBLEM IS DEMOCRACY – INVENTING NEW GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT FEMALE PARASITISM, JUST AS WE INVENTED GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT MALE PARASITISM

    I agree with giving women property rights – it’s logically Impossible not to.

    I am also ok with giving women a House, just as we gave the middle class a House and should have given the proletarians a House. Because Houses are necessary for the concentration competing interests such that they conduct mutually beneficial exchanges.

    The conduct of exchanges allows us cooperate on means even if we share alternative ends, rather than fall prey to majority tyranny of the underclasses of which women who are single represent the minority.

    Majority rule makes possible the selection of priorities for limited resources, but it does not make possible the cooperation on conflicting priorities which require no monopoly of resources/

    We are not equal because we are competitors. If we are competitors, then we can ONLY compete via a market of voluntary exchanges and NOT through majority rule.

    My criticism is not that women should be or can be different from how they are, but that democracy is a tragic institution by which the worst possible ambitions of our majority underclasses can be brought to suicidal fruition.

    We invented government to reduce male predation by violence. We must now invent new government to reduce female predation through parasitism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-17 08:48:00 UTC

  • TURNING THE PACIFISM OF THE “DISENFRANCHISED” MOVEMENT INTO AGGRESSIVE WARFARE W

    TURNING THE PACIFISM OF THE “DISENFRANCHISED” MOVEMENT INTO AGGRESSIVE WARFARE

    Well I learned something from the debate with the new nietzscheans over the past few days. But what it has taught me is that I must take down the ‘individual disenfranchised male is superior” movement and transform it from a pacifist obscurantist justification justification of, and admission of defeat, to a rebellion that uses masculine violence to institute change. It is one thing to abandon self sacrifice for women, and quite another to abandon yourself and your people to conquest.

    So. Great. (sarcasm) I get to make more ‘friends’ by demonstrating the fallacy of their false heroism as mask for their admission of beta standing, just so that I can deprive them of the opportunity to engage in another ‘libertarian’ equivalent of seasteading (defeat), or another socialist equivalent of the commune (defeat).

    But, a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.

    One does not chat one’s self up by casting failure as heroic (that’s jewish and christian ethics for you).

    One does not chat one’s self up by chuffed-up confidence-building over beer or the digital equivalent (internet) with those who agree with you.

    Instead, One makes a plan in which he has confidence and he executes it with discipline, absent emotion, and in particular, absent of fear: (McVeigh,Kaczynski,Breivik, millions of communists, and thousands of radicalized muslim men).

    Christianity taught us to extirpate hatred from our hearts and minds. Military training taught us to extirpate impulse from our hearts and minds – and to hold formation, and execute in formation. Science taught us to extirpate imagination from our hearts and minds.

    Modernity does not require we work in great numbers, or that we even work in formation. The muslims conquered weakened Byzantium and Persia by quick strikes and retreat into the desert. The same way that muslims conquer today by quick raids and retreat into the cities, slums, suburbs and deserts.

    Our western way of war is terribly expensive, because it relies upon technology, planning, and professional warriors to defeat superior numbers through concentration of force, maneuver, and supply lines.

    But we face not military enemies who may conquer us by our FAMILIAR means, but religious enemies who have already conquered and occupied our territory: the alliance of the neo-puritans, feminists, socialists, postmodernists, into the Academy, state, media complex under the banner of democratic secular socialist humanism – but which is no more than profiteering by members of the academy, state and media, by privatizing in to their own corporation, the civilization we have built.

    Just as they force elderly from their homes through taxation and reduce us all to renters of our territory who are cast out when we can no longer perform, they seek to cast our tribe, culture, and race and transferring our nations into rental property – a process which they are currently succeeding with.

    We have been conquered. We are being exterminated. Cowards retreat. The rest of us go to war. And If you do not fight then you are by definition not worthy of survival. There is no heroism in going your own way. There is merely death and defeat of you and your people – evidence of your inferiority.

    You were born with a wealth of violence and through the shaming of women taught not to master it, not to love and care for it, not to build and improve it – so that they could conquer you and defeat you.

    Violence is a virtue. Excellence in violence may be the highest virtue. That is because violence is the determinant of all orders of mankind, and the orders of mankind determine a group’s survival.

    The hundreds of generations of men who came before you fought for your standing, only to have one or two generations abandon it for the pleasure of our women.

    Kill, fight, or perish.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-17 05:15:00 UTC

  • When Is External Aggression Warranted?

    [W]AR

    External aggression is warranted when a lower trust polity causes harm to a higher trust polity, and the result of aggression will be an increase in the level of non-parasitism. In other words, it tis always moral and warranted to export high trust against the will of lower trust peoples. The problem is, it can almost never be done without colonizing and ruling them, and bearing the expense of doing it. Most often it is cheaper and easier to punish them severely so that you raise the cost of their low trust behavior until they adopt high trust out of practical convenience.

  • When Is External Aggression Warranted?

    [W]AR

    External aggression is warranted when a lower trust polity causes harm to a higher trust polity, and the result of aggression will be an increase in the level of non-parasitism. In other words, it tis always moral and warranted to export high trust against the will of lower trust peoples. The problem is, it can almost never be done without colonizing and ruling them, and bearing the expense of doing it. Most often it is cheaper and easier to punish them severely so that you raise the cost of their low trust behavior until they adopt high trust out of practical convenience.

  • The Virtue Of Hanging (Frequently)

    [U]nfortunately, the whole expansion of the franchised ruined our excellent ancient tradition of watching your words, through liberal use of the duel. Unfortunately, the whole expansion of the franchise ruined our excellent tradition of telling the truth, by the dilution of libel and slander.

    Unfortunately the whole post-slavery thing ruined our excellent ancient tradition of genetic pacification thru liberal application of hanging. Unfortunately mass immigration ruined our excellent tradition of genetic pacification through sheriffs, posses, and civic duty of every man to defend the commons. Too many unfortunate things for aristocracy to tolerate.   —“A well hanged man rarely reoffends.”—Shaun Moss
  • The Virtue Of Hanging (Frequently)

    [U]nfortunately, the whole expansion of the franchised ruined our excellent ancient tradition of watching your words, through liberal use of the duel. Unfortunately, the whole expansion of the franchise ruined our excellent tradition of telling the truth, by the dilution of libel and slander.

    Unfortunately the whole post-slavery thing ruined our excellent ancient tradition of genetic pacification thru liberal application of hanging. Unfortunately mass immigration ruined our excellent tradition of genetic pacification through sheriffs, posses, and civic duty of every man to defend the commons. Too many unfortunate things for aristocracy to tolerate.   —“A well hanged man rarely reoffends.”—Shaun Moss
  • Differences in Criminal, Ethical, and Moral Rules

    (Riffing off Michael Philip) [D]ifferences between Criminal, ethical, moral. CRIMINAL: The criminal spectrum consists of imposition of costs by manual means.

    ETHICAL: The ethical spectrum consists of imposition of costs by means of information asymmetry. MORAL: The moral spectrum consists of costs imposed by anonymous means. Norms may or many not be objectively moral. Laws may or may not be objectively moral. Under Propertarianism all law is required to be constructed by objectively moral means and everything else must be constructed as a contract for multiple exchanges the net of which must be productive, fully informed, warrantied and free of externality of the same criteria. Curt Doolittle