—“In the West, mass literacy under majoritarian democracy has definitely contributed to dysgenia inasmuch as it has served as vector for political Abrahamism (weaponization of the under classes).”— Inquisitor
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-21 22:43:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1043269519471456261
—“In the West, mass literacy under majoritarian democracy has definitely contributed to dysgenia inasmuch as it has served as vector for political Abrahamism (weaponization of the under classes).”— Inquisitor
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-21 18:43:00 UTC
Victor, I can’t quite understand this news. Can you help?
—“І от маємо чергову проміжну перемогу! Сьогодні комісія з самоврядування Київради підтримала місцеву ініціативу про відновлення райрад в столиці. Незабаром це надзвичайно важливе питання розглядатимуть в сесійній залі.”—
Dyakuyu.
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-21 15:47:00 UTC
THE THIRD QUESTION OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
The question isn’t how we get along, it’s Genghis Khan’s question:
“Why should the strong refrain from decimation, enslavement, enserfment, or rule for maximum profit?”
The only incentive for the strong is whether cooperation is preferable to conquest. It is only preferable for conquest if it is sufficiently preferable to conquest to refrain from conquest.
So, as the Great Khan said:
“Given that cooperation is not preferable or possible, and serfdom and slavery are costly, that leaves decimation, or rule for the maximization of profit.”
“We might prefer the former or the latter. However the enemy would undoubtedly prefer separation to decimation or rule under out maximization of profit. And this is the wise choice. Since we can still cooperate indirectly by trade while having no influence over one another within the same polity.”
The problem the Khan faced is that he lacked the ability to produce institutions capable of sustained rule, just as expansionary aryans lacked the ability to produce institutions of sustained rule for maximum profit.
The Indo-Aryans succeeded only under decimation and replacement in europe, not by any other means.
So the Khan was wrong. Decimation was actually the right answer.
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-21 13:26:00 UTC
September 21st, 2018 6:43 PM
—“In the West, mass literacy under majoritarian democracy has definitely contributed to dysgenia inasmuch as it has served as vector for political Abrahamism (weaponization of the under classes).”— Inquisitor
September 21st, 2018 1:26 PM THE THIRD QUESTION OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY [T]he question isn’t how we get along, it’s Genghis Khan’s question: “Why should the strong refrain from decimation, enslavement, enserfment, or rule for maximum profit?” The only incentive for the strong is whether cooperation is preferable to conquest. It is only preferable for conquest if it is sufficiently preferable to conquest to refrain from conquest. So, as the Great Khan said: “Given that cooperation is not preferable or possible, and serfdom and slavery are costly, that leaves decimation, or rule for the maximization of profit.” “We might prefer the former or the latter. However the enemy would undoubtedly prefer separation to decimation or rule under out maximization of profit. And this is the wise choice. Since we can still cooperate indirectly by trade while having no influence over one another within the same polity.” The problem the Khan faced is that he lacked the ability to produce institutions capable of sustained rule, just as expansionary aryans lacked the ability to produce institutions of sustained rule for maximum profit. The Indo-Aryans succeeded only under decimation and replacement in europe, not by any other means. So the Khan was wrong. Decimation was actually the right answer.
September 21st, 2018 6:53 PM
—The International Criminal Court (ICC) is “already dead to us” National Security Adviser John Bolton told the Federalist Society recently. The U.S. will, he said, resist the court “by any means necessary.” Why would the Trump Administration take such a hard line against “the world’s court of last resort”? Founded in 2002, in the wake of the Rwandan and Yugoslavian genocides and mass rapes, the international body was supposed to try evildoers who would otherwise escape justice due to broken legal systems in failed states. Opposing the court is not a new position for the U.S. or Ambassador Bolton. The Bush Administration refused to sign the court’s implementing treaty in 2003, contending that it would lead to trials of U.S. soldiers and spies by a politically turbo-charged body located in Europe. At the time, many European leaders opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq and questioned its actions in the war on terror, including rendition and holding prisoners indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay. Ambassador Bolton was even more prescient. He warned, in 1998, when the formation of body was first being debated in Rome, that it would be ineffective, unaccountable and overly political.”—-
THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND.
—-“I said this two years ago but it’s worth repeating;
The left thought Trump was OUR last hope. These idiots didn’t realize Trump was THEIR last hope. We aren’t scared of conflict. We’ve been pretty tolerant. This is literally their last chance.”— Arthur Roddam
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-20 21:10:00 UTC
SAM: Pls address the reason why the chinese authorities feel this is necessary: “Chinese people are not honest or trustworthy and this technology will help us transform china”. In other words, they are not northern europeans, and we are the ‘outliers’ in the world.
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-20 11:09:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042732575662456832
Reply addressees: @SamHarrisOrg @SteveStuWill
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042494191194890240
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042494191194890240
September 20th, 2018 9:10 PM
THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND.
—-“I said this two years ago but it’s worth repeating;
The left thought Trump was OUR last hope. These idiots didn’t realize Trump was THEIR last hope. We aren’t scared of conflict. We’ve been pretty tolerant. This is literally their last chance.”— Arthur Roddam