October 13th, 2018 10:08 AM GROUP STRATEGY OF THE TRIBES [Y]ou don’t understand. [I]slam is a Militial Order of the poor and illiterate tribal alliances, devoting all resources to reproduction and predation thru raiding. Their wisdom literature, is the myth of the expansionary warrior, the raider, and their laws. (Herdsmen, and raiding) [E]uropeanism is a Militial order of the technological, upwardly redistributing resources and reproduction through kinship warriors, creating markets. Our wisdom literature is the law: reciprocity of heroes: conquest of self, man, nature, and the universe. (cattle, hose, and holding the land to feed them, and domesticating beast, land, and man for profit) [S]inism is a bureaucrat order of administrators upwardly redistributing resources and reproduction to administrators, administering their market. Their wisdom literature is literally ‘wisdom literature’ of Sun Tzu, Confucius, Lao Tzu and Mao. The literature of ‘harmony’. (Administering kin for profit). [J]udaism is a reactionary order of pacifist separatists (Female strategy) upwardly redistributing resources and reproduction through teachers, parasitically dependent upon the markets of others. Their wisdom literature is their history and their law – the literature of ‘suffering’. (Sustaining kin through Trade and Moral Hazard) [H]induism (‘The Way of Life”) is the optimum hierarchical social order for the massive poor. It is just defenseless and can afford to be given the isolation of the continent by oceans, mountains, and deserts. Buddhism attempts to reform hinduism but spawns something very different, because it is personal. TRIBAL ORDERS ALL.
Theme: Ethnoculture
-
Those with A History of Slavery and Peasantry Use Feminine Reasoning
October 13th, 2018 4:24 AM THOSE WITH A HISTORY OF SLAVERY AND PEASANTRY USE FEMININE REASONING
—“lots of words, lots of confusion mixed with lots of true facts which are unfortunately unrelated to the topic. It’s all very simple: The essence of Marx and Marxism is economic class. Marx and real Marxists focus on economic class–rich vs. poor, owners vs. employees, etc. Real Marxists call themselves “Marxists”. So-called “cultural Marxists” do not call themselves “cultural Marxists”, and they mainly ignore economic class. They focus instead on everything BESIDES economic class. Their thinking is in many important ways the OPPOSITE of Marxism. It’s very simple. I don’t know why so many people refuse to even acknowledge these basics.”– Illarion B. Bykov
[B]ecause you’re confusing what people intend with what occurs. Instead it matters: 1) What method of argument (sophism, and self deception) 2) Whether they are making true or false claims on true or false premises, 3) What people intend(or claim) vs the operations and consequences that they produce, 4) Whether they are advocating reciprocity and production and eugenics, or proportionality, parasitism, and dysgenics. IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT YOU MEAN. It matters what you do, and the consequences of doing so. and whether you’re advocating theft and dysgenia, or reciprocity and eugenia. 1) People were not oppressed. inferior humans were incrementally domesticated just like all other animals, in the most peaceful way possible: manorialism, criminal prosecution, incompetence in the face of nature, and winter, disease, and war weeding them. And; 2) The classes exist because of competency despite nepotism and regression to the mean, because (a) we are materially different in the distribution of personality traits, and weighted to the bottom without continuous eugenic administration; (b) we are different in utility to one another due to Pareto distribution of ability (ten percent of people do half the work, recursively unto the last person); and (c) man MUST organize by Pareto (power) distributions for the same reason that the Iron Law of Oligarchy exists: decisions must be made from a distribution of coincidences of wants. And; 3) There are only three means of organizing people with those traits: force, remuneration (reward), and ostracization (conformity vs reputation destruction). And; 4) There are only three means of transforming the universe for our use: labor (physical transformation), calculation (numbers, science, etc), organization (priests, managers, executives), and rule (force law violence war). The use of which means of coercion (force/law/truth/science, religion/philosophy/ideology, commerce/law/credit) can be specialized into a monopoly (east), specialized into a market (west), or conflated into a monopoly (egypt, mesopotamia. 5) We do not believe, and the evidence is, marxists-postmodernist-feminists (and the feminine equalitarian mind in general) does not, possess the AGENCY (self awareness) to understand what they do, only what the experience and intuit and therefore seek to justify. It is inconceivable to a masculinist (conservative, aristocracy, meritocracy, reciprocity, loyalty, purity) how much time and effort marxist/postmodernist/feminist/ex-serf/slave (liberal, socialist, equalitarian, proportionality, individualist, devotional, impurist) worries about ‘being left behind’ (equality). Why? The pack can intuit the herd, but the herd can’t intuit the pack. Masculine Great Ape Packs, Female Great Ape Herds. And our minds (brains) are structured (evolved) for each bias. SO YES IT’S SIMPLE: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT EXCUSES YOU MAKE FOR THE ARGUMENTS, ACTIONS, AND OUTCOMES YOU ADVOCATE.
-
France: 2 decades or less
October 13th, 2018 1:01 PM
—“The more sane question is when the real civil war begin in France. You know, when the Muslims take over. 2 decades or less.”— Jim Leis
-
France: 2 decades or less
October 13th, 2018 1:01 PM
—“The more sane question is when the real civil war begin in France. You know, when the Muslims take over. 2 decades or less.”— Jim Leis
-
Unpacking “Democracy Requires Homogeneity”
October 13th, 2018 4:18 PM UNPACKING “DEMOCRACY REQUIRES HOMOGENEITY” by Richard Nikoley
—“Markets allow us to cooperate on means despite disparate ends. Democracy, only on same ends. Democracy requires homogeneity.”— CD
Let me unpack this a bit for those unfamiliar. Markets, or trade, is inherently win-win or the trade doesnât happen and there is no market. When you buy a pound of apples for $1, itâs because you want the apples more than you want the dollar and the tradesman wants the dollar more than he wants the pound of apples. This happens billions of times a day, globally. How many trades do you do in a single day, on average? 5-10, maybe? Multiply that by 7 Billion. Thatâs upwards of 70 billion trades daily and as a win-win, thatâs a lot of happiness. We should be thankful. Moreover, markets are typically ideologically, racially, gender, culturally, etc. agnostic or neutral. Itâs the great mediator. Traders tend not to care a bit who the other person is or what they believe, and yet they serve each other. How amazing. How fortunate we are. Now, contrast that with democracy. Democracy is winner take all. Either you keep your dollar AND get his pound of apples, or he keeps his apples and gets your dollar. Itâs windfall win-lose. It only tends to work reasonably well in homogenous populations or institutions. Think Japan and Scandinavian counties (as they used to be before the Muslim influx). Relatively small populations of largely the same race, culture, national history. Or, consider a large public company where directors are elected quasi-democratically by shareholders, but everyone is more or less on the same page of making capital gains and paying dividends. Democracy does not scale to something like a European Union or a United States. Totally dumb idea, especially extending the franchise to those with no stake (no property, no financial assets, no business concern with employees, etc.).
-
Unpacking “Democracy Requires Homogeneity”
October 13th, 2018 4:18 PM UNPACKING “DEMOCRACY REQUIRES HOMOGENEITY” by Richard Nikoley
—“Markets allow us to cooperate on means despite disparate ends. Democracy, only on same ends. Democracy requires homogeneity.”— CD
Let me unpack this a bit for those unfamiliar. Markets, or trade, is inherently win-win or the trade doesnât happen and there is no market. When you buy a pound of apples for $1, itâs because you want the apples more than you want the dollar and the tradesman wants the dollar more than he wants the pound of apples. This happens billions of times a day, globally. How many trades do you do in a single day, on average? 5-10, maybe? Multiply that by 7 Billion. Thatâs upwards of 70 billion trades daily and as a win-win, thatâs a lot of happiness. We should be thankful. Moreover, markets are typically ideologically, racially, gender, culturally, etc. agnostic or neutral. Itâs the great mediator. Traders tend not to care a bit who the other person is or what they believe, and yet they serve each other. How amazing. How fortunate we are. Now, contrast that with democracy. Democracy is winner take all. Either you keep your dollar AND get his pound of apples, or he keeps his apples and gets your dollar. Itâs windfall win-lose. It only tends to work reasonably well in homogenous populations or institutions. Think Japan and Scandinavian counties (as they used to be before the Muslim influx). Relatively small populations of largely the same race, culture, national history. Or, consider a large public company where directors are elected quasi-democratically by shareholders, but everyone is more or less on the same page of making capital gains and paying dividends. Democracy does not scale to something like a European Union or a United States. Totally dumb idea, especially extending the franchise to those with no stake (no property, no financial assets, no business concern with employees, etc.).
-
“The more sane question is when the real civil war begin in France. You know, wh
—“The more sane question is when the real civil war begin in France. You know, when the Muslims take over. 2 decades or less.”— Jim Leis
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-13 17:01:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051155958079086594
-
UNPACKING “DEMOCRACY REQUIRES HOMOGENEITY” by Richard Nikoley —“Markets allow
UNPACKING “DEMOCRACY REQUIRES HOMOGENEITY”
by Richard Nikoley
—“Markets allow us to cooperate on means despite disparate ends. Democracy, only on same ends. Democracy requires homogeneity.”— CD
Let me unpack this a bit for those unfamiliar.
Markets, or trade, is inherently win-win or the trade doesn’t happen and there is no market. When you buy a pound of apples for $1, it’s because you want the apples more than you want the dollar and the tradesman wants the dollar more than he wants the pound of apples.
This happens billions of times a day, globally. How many trades do you do in a single day, on average? 5-10, maybe? Multiply that by 7 Billion. That’s upwards of 70 billion trades daily and as a win-win, that’s a lot of happiness. We should be thankful.
Moreover, markets are typically ideologically, racially, gender, culturally, etc. agnostic or neutral. It’s the great mediator. Traders tend not to care a bit who the other person is or what they believe, and yet they serve each other. How amazing. How fortunate we are.
Now, contrast that with democracy. Democracy is winner take all. Either you keep your dollar AND get his pound of apples, or he keeps his apples and gets your dollar. It’s windfall win-lose.
It only tends to work reasonably well in homogenous populations or institutions. Think Japan and Scandinavian counties (as they used to be before the Muslim influx). Relatively small populations of largely the same race, culture, national history. Or, consider a large public company where directors are elected quasi-democratically by shareholders, but everyone is more or less on the same page of making capital gains and paying dividends.
Democracy does not scale to something like a European Union or a United States.
Totally dumb idea, especially extending the franchise to those with no stake (no property, no financial assets, no business concern with employees, etc.).
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-13 16:18:00 UTC
-
Patterns of Shared Identity Are Implied by Terminology
October 12th, 2018 9:18 AM EUROPEAN KINSHIP AND FAMILY SYSTEMS A “Cognition and Practice” Approach to an Aspect of European Kinship Patrick Heady First Published May 6, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397117707184
Abstract Despite the long history of kinship studies, we still lack agreed theories capable of explaining the connection between terminological systems and kinship practice. This article argues for a cognitive approach centering on two distinct but complementary aspects of identity. It is argued that patterns of shared identity are implied by terminology and combine with other factors to motivate practice in a feedback loop which transmits influences between terminological systems and political and economic institutions. The argument is illustrated by statistical and historical analyses of an aspect of European kinship.
link: journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1069397117707184
-
Patterns of Shared Identity Are Implied by Terminology
October 12th, 2018 9:18 AM EUROPEAN KINSHIP AND FAMILY SYSTEMS A “Cognition and Practice” Approach to an Aspect of European Kinship Patrick Heady First Published May 6, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397117707184
Abstract Despite the long history of kinship studies, we still lack agreed theories capable of explaining the connection between terminological systems and kinship practice. This article argues for a cognitive approach centering on two distinct but complementary aspects of identity. It is argued that patterns of shared identity are implied by terminology and combine with other factors to motivate practice in a feedback loop which transmits influences between terminological systems and political and economic institutions. The argument is illustrated by statistical and historical analyses of an aspect of European kinship.
link: journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1069397117707184