—“Libertarianism = Marxism of the commons = Public property Marxism”—Brandon Hayes
( Staying On Message. ๐ )
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-29 13:58:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056908110810546176
—“Libertarianism = Marxism of the commons = Public property Marxism”—Brandon Hayes
( Staying On Message. ๐ )
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-29 13:58:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056908110810546176
MARXISM IN EVERYTHING: THE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AT ALL LEVELS
Marxism: suppression of private property in the means of production, vs, Libertarianism: suppression of common property as the means of production, vs, Neo-conservatism: suppression of nations as the means of production.
All three promote MONOPOLIES (equalities) of the HERD (feminine reproductive strategy and intuition) rather than MARKETS (inequalities) of the PACK (make reproductive strategy and intuition).
An expression of:
—“the psychometric literature indicates, in regards to the masculine vs feminine, and the conservative vs liberal.
Low openness/high conscientiousness (orderly, sensitive to disgust, will to create borders and demarcate categories, committed to his/her own covenants)
High openness/low conscientiousness (imaginative, creative, disorderly, chaotic, tolerant of mess, fickle, temperamental, resistant of borders etc)
Itโs masculine vs feminine.
A noun-use bias is masculine because itโs a label for an actual solid thing (order)
A verb-use bias feminine because itโs the label for word describing an occurrence or something happening ie transformative ie chaotic – feminine.
Masculine – order (Pack)
Feminine – chaos. (Herd)”— Joel Harvey
Because of the brain structure variation between female and male brains (although we can, each of us, exist along this spectrum including the middle of it).
With Brandon Hayes and Joel Harvey
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-29 10:11:00 UTC
—“Libertarianism = Marxism of the commons = Public property Marxism”—Brandon Hayes
( Staying On Message. ๐ )
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-29 09:58:00 UTC
THE POSITION OF “LIBERTARIAN” LITERATURE IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY
As in most enlightenment literature, [Insert libertarian book name here] presumes an environmental condition that does not exist. The enlightenment has failed. The 20th century was the end of the experiment. Man was not oppressed. He was domesticated, until he could produce a sufficient pareto distribution that made a middle class possible given the technology available. we aren’t every going to ‘…. all just get along…”, only find the safest ways of evolutionary competition.
[they are] good books. But [they are] just plagued by the usual problems of the postwar ‘end of history’ movement between the anglo, french, and jewish versions of a middle class utopia.
My criticism of Rawls, Nozick, Barnett (et al), is that like many in the 20th, they too readily accepted the jewish libertine separatist literature – when that tradition never created liberty because the producers could never hold territory, because they were insufficiently martial – instead of the european tripartite (aristocratic) model of earning a condition of liberty through governance of animal man – by holding the territory and creating the institutions and capital necessary to domesticate him. So the Libertines “libertarians” produced works advocating Roving Preacher ‘liberty’ and the ‘Bazaar ethics of travelling merchants’ instead of the entics of the territorial military, independent jurist, the domestication from slavery to serfdom to freemen to citizen to peer, and the production of metal and capital rather than rent seeking and privatization of the commons.)
Just as we fought hard to survive the french german, and russian counter-empirical revolutions (enlightenments), and their ‘centuries’, the “jewish century” is over (having done more than all previous counter-revolutions combined). Marxism, Socialism, “Libertinism”, Neo-conservatism, “Jewish Austrianism”, Freudian and Boazian Pseudoscience, Frankfurt “critique” (undermining), french-jewish postmodernism (outright lying by reality by chanting), Propaganda by Pilpul and Critique, Globalism, and all universalisms (monopolies) of authoritarians have failed, with the balance of powers, nationalism, truth, and science replacing the century of fraud.
The question is whether we will regroup and defend ourselves against the restoration of the 1500 years of islamic conquest, as we have regrouped against the french, german, russian, and jewish revolts against modernity. It seems like the intellectual vanguard to undermine the west (the french and the jews), the political vanguard to undermine the west (the puritans and the french and the jews) and the islamic military and demographic masses to destroy, (restoration of the islamic conquest) is just repeating in the current world, the same process that occurred in the ancient – and gave us the Abrahamic Dark Ages of Ignorance.
Without women voters we would never be here. Because like the ancient world, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were spread to the women and the underclasses who are most susceptible to false promise (‘salvation’), pilpul (sophism), and critique (straw manning).
But despite women voters it appears that the world is revolting against the jewish century false promises, pilpul (sophisms), critique (straw manning), and the industrialization of undermining through media (gossip and reputation destruction.
Anglo 1600’s, French 1700’s, German middle 1800 to early 1900’s, Russian – Jewish Late 1800-early-1900’s – jewish postwar to present – Islamic late 1900s to present.
one empirica and one scientific enlightenment, offset by french, german, russian-jewish-chinese, western-jewish, and now Islamic counter-enlightenments.
in retrospect it’s amazing that (a) we fell for it a second time, and (b) still survived it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-29 09:55:00 UTC
13) … including association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, polities, and defense(war), in scientific terms (The One Language of Truthful Speech, under the One Law of Reciprocity).
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:32:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055452156504010752
Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680
IN REPLY TO:
@Jonas_Ceika
@curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680
October 24th, 2018 7:36 AM IT’S NOT JUST DENSITY BUT COST OF DEFENSE OF COMMONS
Does residential sorting explain geographic polarization? Gregory J. Martin (a1) and Steven W. Webster (a2) https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.44 Abstract Political preferences in the United States are highly correlated with population density, at national, state, and metropolitan-area scales. Using new data from voter registration records, we assess the extent to which this pattern can be explained by geographic mobility. We find that the revealed preferences of voters who move from one residence to another correlate with partisan affiliation, though voters appear to be sorting on non-political neighborhood attributes that covary with partisan preferences rather than explicitly seeking politically congruent neighbors. But, critically, we demonstrate through a simulation study that the estimated partisan bias in moving choices is on the order of five times too small to sustain the current geographic polarization of preferences. We conclude that location must have some influence on political preference, rather than the other way around, and provide evidence in support of this theory.
October 24th, 2018 7:36 AM IT’S NOT JUST DENSITY BUT COST OF DEFENSE OF COMMONS
Does residential sorting explain geographic polarization? Gregory J. Martin (a1) and Steven W. Webster (a2) https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.44 Abstract Political preferences in the United States are highly correlated with population density, at national, state, and metropolitan-area scales. Using new data from voter registration records, we assess the extent to which this pattern can be explained by geographic mobility. We find that the revealed preferences of voters who move from one residence to another correlate with partisan affiliation, though voters appear to be sorting on non-political neighborhood attributes that covary with partisan preferences rather than explicitly seeking politically congruent neighbors. But, critically, we demonstrate through a simulation study that the estimated partisan bias in moving choices is on the order of five times too small to sustain the current geographic polarization of preferences. We conclude that location must have some influence on political preference, rather than the other way around, and provide evidence in support of this theory.
https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.44PublishedIT’S NOT JUST DENSITY BUT COST OF DEFENSE OF COMMONS
Does residential sorting explain geographic polarization?
Gregory J. Martin (a1) and Steven W. Webster (a2)
https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.44
Abstract
Political preferences in the United States are highly correlated with population density, at national, state, and metropolitan-area scales. Using new data from voter registration records, we assess the extent to which this pattern can be explained by geographic mobility. We find that the revealed preferences of voters who move from one residence to another correlate with partisan affiliation, though voters appear to be sorting on non-political neighborhood attributes that covary with partisan preferences rather than explicitly seeking politically congruent neighbors. But, critically, we demonstrate through a simulation study that the estimated partisan bias in moving choices is on the order of five times too small to sustain the current geographic polarization of preferences. We conclude that location must have some influence on political preference, rather than the other way around, and provide evidence in support of this theory.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-24 07:36:00 UTC
October 21st, 2018 11:19 AM THE OPPORTUNITY COST OF DEFENDING OUR COMMONS by Bill Joslin (perfect example of economics and law of the commons) “When deciding upon defense of the social commons, We must continuously calculate “should I bear an opportunity cost (to crush the other) to maintain peace, trust, and cooperation, and therefore to preserve the status quo” versus “the opportunity cost of maintaining the status quo is too high to sustain trust, peace, and cooperation, because the property damages are too high- now we must defect or fight” “Our issue today is that our media, academia and state are forcing us to bear the opportunity cost (to not fight) while we watch our properties (decency, culture, transgenerational values, trust) are being dismantled by the mob. We’re at war, but its hard to identify because it is a war of demographics… an ill-defined group which IMO is why identitarianism is on the rise. We’re attempting to identify who, as a group (or army if you will) is under attack and who is attacking. We’re attempting to distinguish friend from foe.” And the media, academia and state are obscuring our personal interests under the moral ideal of “tolerance”. If we change the narrative to forbearance, then costs must be defined. If costs are defined, limits to tolerance must be discussed. If limits to tolerance are discussed then it becomes clear we have crossed the limit which demands tolerant to become intolerant ages ago… and if this is clear, then heads will roll.”
October 21st, 2018 11:19 AM THE OPPORTUNITY COST OF DEFENDING OUR COMMONS by Bill Joslin (perfect example of economics and law of the commons) “When deciding upon defense of the social commons, We must continuously calculate “should I bear an opportunity cost (to crush the other) to maintain peace, trust, and cooperation, and therefore to preserve the status quo” versus “the opportunity cost of maintaining the status quo is too high to sustain trust, peace, and cooperation, because the property damages are too high- now we must defect or fight” “Our issue today is that our media, academia and state are forcing us to bear the opportunity cost (to not fight) while we watch our properties (decency, culture, transgenerational values, trust) are being dismantled by the mob. We’re at war, but its hard to identify because it is a war of demographics… an ill-defined group which IMO is why identitarianism is on the rise. We’re attempting to identify who, as a group (or army if you will) is under attack and who is attacking. We’re attempting to distinguish friend from foe.” And the media, academia and state are obscuring our personal interests under the moral ideal of “tolerance”. If we change the narrative to forbearance, then costs must be defined. If costs are defined, limits to tolerance must be discussed. If limits to tolerance are discussed then it becomes clear we have crossed the limit which demands tolerant to become intolerant ages ago… and if this is clear, then heads will roll.”