We must all advocate for our kin first. Yes. But small-state nationalism is the answer.
—“…if you’re not racist…”– A ‘friend’
Racial Realism is very different from racism (criticism of others). Other races or tribes, or cults, or parties are only a problem if YOU LET THEM BE.
The primary difference between the races appears to be degree of neotonic evolution, and the degree of suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses.
The higher the distribution (suppression of the underclass) and the higher the neoteny (slowing of maturity) the greater the trust, the higher the velocity, the greater the production of knowledge and wealth.
As far as I know, that’s the science.
My opinion remains: if you’re bitching about others you’re just like some woman gossiping because she doesn’t like her position in the status hierarchy.
If you say act to alter that condition for the preservation of your kin, and your status, due to the competitive advantage of your elites, by changing yourself, your government, to preserve that advantage from competitors, then that’s just boring ordinary scientific rationality.
Theme: Deception
-
You’re either a soulless heartless ‘man’ that ignores all female manipulation, o
You’re either a soulless heartless ‘man’ that ignores all female manipulation, or an easily manipulable tool (good man), or a sexual predator.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-30 11:05:00 UTC
-
You’re either a soulless heartless ‘man’ that ignores all female manipulation, o
You’re either a soulless heartless ‘man’ that ignores all female manipulation, or an easily manipulable tool (good man), or a sexual predator. -
You’re either a soulless heartless ‘man’ that ignores all female manipulation, o
You’re either a soulless heartless ‘man’ that ignores all female manipulation, or an easily manipulable tool (good man), or a sexual predator. -
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substa
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substantial” number of women.
2) nbc management found out from staff.
3) they had prior knowledge for years.
4) tolerance of it pierces board and officer protections ( i have had this problem with a male exec who was harmless, even cute, and none of the women wanted to prosecute, but counsel is adamant)
5) they had no choice but to act and act before outed by the nyt.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-29 22:40:00 UTC
-
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substa
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substantial” number of women. 2) nbc management found out from staff. 3) they had prior knowledge for years. 4) tolerance of it pierces board and officer protections ( i have had this problem with a male exec who was harmless, even cute, and none of the women wanted to prosecute, but counsel is adamant) 5) they had no choice but to act and act before outed by the nyt. -
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substa
1) the nyt was in the process of producing an expose. they interviewed a “substantial” number of women. 2) nbc management found out from staff. 3) they had prior knowledge for years. 4) tolerance of it pierces board and officer protections ( i have had this problem with a male exec who was harmless, even cute, and none of the women wanted to prosecute, but counsel is adamant) 5) they had no choice but to act and act before outed by the nyt. -
ONLY HUMAN ENOUGH TO NOT SOIL ONE’S SELF IN PUBLIC. I just went through the comm
ONLY HUMAN ENOUGH TO NOT SOIL ONE’S SELF IN PUBLIC.
I just went through the comment and it consists of standard language from law, philosophy, social science, and economics. The fact that I am knowledgeable in many fields is uncommon, but the language is neither opaque, or difficult to research, which is – usually – what people do, rather than ascribe to terms of art common in disciplines the vulgar assumption of ‘private speech’.
If you lack knowledge of social science, philosophy, law, economics, and perhaps at least the methodology of the physical sciences, then why is it one would render opinions on such matters?
That comment’s bit of text is quite worthy of contemplation.
If you are not yet able to contemplate it because you lack the vocabulary and knowledge to do so that’s understandable. If you can’t discern its possible value, then that’s understandable. If you can’t glean enough from the pattern of argument that you might infer there is something to be learned here, then that is
Your world is simple with simple problems requiring simple answers. But your post’s question is not one of a simple world with simple answers. It is instead, the accumulated record of 10k years of the resolution of disputes between peoples from the interpersonal to the international scale. International law is constructed by testes of reciprocity.
“Authority (coercion) in defense of voluntary reciprocity whether prescriptive, or proscriptive is always just, regardless of the opinion of the person coerced.”
And the implication is, that people who don’t grasp that are …. let’s say … Primitive? Adolescent? Only human enough not to soil themselves in public?
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-28 17:39:00 UTC
-
Only Human Enough To Not Soil One’s Self In Public.
I just went through the comment and it consists of standard language from law, philosophy, social science, and economics. The fact that I am knowledgeable in many fields is uncommon, but the language is neither opaque, or difficult to research, which is – usually – what people do, rather than ascribe to terms of art common in disciplines the vulgar assumption of ‘private speech’. If you lack knowledge of social science, philosophy, law, economics, and perhaps at least the methodology of the physical sciences, then why is it one would render opinions on such matters? That comment’s bit of text is quite worthy of contemplation. If you are not yet able to contemplate it because you lack the vocabulary and knowledge to do so that’s understandable. If you can’t discern its possible value, then that’s understandable. If you can’t glean enough from the pattern of argument that you might infer there is something to be learned here, then that is Your world is simple with simple problems requiring simple answers. But your post’s question is not one of a simple world with simple answers. It is instead, the accumulated record of 10k years of the resolution of disputes between peoples from the interpersonal to the international scale. International law is constructed by testes of reciprocity. “Authority (coercion) in defense of voluntary reciprocity whether prescriptive, or proscriptive is always just, regardless of the opinion of the person coerced.” And the implication is, that people who don’t grasp that are …. let’s say … Primitive? Adolescent? Only human enough not to soil themselves in public? -
Only Human Enough To Not Soil One’s Self In Public.
I just went through the comment and it consists of standard language from law, philosophy, social science, and economics. The fact that I am knowledgeable in many fields is uncommon, but the language is neither opaque, or difficult to research, which is – usually – what people do, rather than ascribe to terms of art common in disciplines the vulgar assumption of ‘private speech’. If you lack knowledge of social science, philosophy, law, economics, and perhaps at least the methodology of the physical sciences, then why is it one would render opinions on such matters? That comment’s bit of text is quite worthy of contemplation. If you are not yet able to contemplate it because you lack the vocabulary and knowledge to do so that’s understandable. If you can’t discern its possible value, then that’s understandable. If you can’t glean enough from the pattern of argument that you might infer there is something to be learned here, then that is Your world is simple with simple problems requiring simple answers. But your post’s question is not one of a simple world with simple answers. It is instead, the accumulated record of 10k years of the resolution of disputes between peoples from the interpersonal to the international scale. International law is constructed by testes of reciprocity. “Authority (coercion) in defense of voluntary reciprocity whether prescriptive, or proscriptive is always just, regardless of the opinion of the person coerced.” And the implication is, that people who don’t grasp that are …. let’s say … Primitive? Adolescent? Only human enough not to soil themselves in public?