(dating problem continued) Listening to these women complain, and it’s simple: women are desirable but they are expensive, and fundamentally a luxury good. A man is judging what a woman costs like women judge what he will provide them. So they just rent each other vs own (marry).
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-24 04:44:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1452133908921868292
False promise of reproduction out side our class and sexual market value within that class. And the economy and laws driving the disequilibrium. https://t.co/i163cHO4wm
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-23 17:43:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1451967505673621511
1) OK, so reductive economic explanation of the dating market is an expansion of the tv-advertising expansion of the middle class market, both of which are funded by debt expansion not by eugenic reproduction, scientific, technological and economic discovery and innovation.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-21 16:16:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1451220930915704837
THEFT: All false pretenses of equality, end of scarcity, human nature and malleability, accumulated genetic load and natural selection, are attempts to evade VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE and to evade limiting insurance to charity in exchange for conformity: doing no harm to commons. The European (Germanic > English > British > American) reason for equality (equity) under the law (natural, common, empirical law, of dispute resolution, under individual sovereignty), is to drive us into peaceful voluntary cooperation DESPITE INESCAPABLE INEQUALITY. Women destroy all attempts at capitalization in order to hyperconsume. All behavior is reducible to expressions of discovery, acquisition, retention, consumption, or trade of calories. That’s the underlying algorithm. Cooperation merely helps us obtain retain consume calories. So we live within the limits of preservation of cooperation. I’m on the verge of addressing the female need for hyperconsumption, attention, validation, and hypergamy, seduction, and irresponsibility as necessary for suppression as is male dominance expression. Again, we must simply restore equal suppression of anti-social behavior. I should also talk about the difference between the complaining by the manosphere, the flawless EXPLANATION provided by James Lindsay, and my scientific explanation. As I’ve said, we must provide religious, literary, legal, and scientific frames of understanding to win, because the enemy has attacked all our institutions of cultural production.
THEFT: All false pretenses of equality, end of scarcity, human nature and malleability, accumulated genetic load and natural selection, are attempts to evade VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE and to evade limiting insurance to charity in exchange for conformity: doing no harm to commons. The European (Germanic > English > British > American) reason for equality (equity) under the law (natural, common, empirical law, of dispute resolution, under individual sovereignty), is to drive us into peaceful voluntary cooperation DESPITE INESCAPABLE INEQUALITY. Women destroy all attempts at capitalization in order to hyperconsume. All behavior is reducible to expressions of discovery, acquisition, retention, consumption, or trade of calories. That’s the underlying algorithm. Cooperation merely helps us obtain retain consume calories. So we live within the limits of preservation of cooperation. I’m on the verge of addressing the female need for hyperconsumption, attention, validation, and hypergamy, seduction, and irresponsibility as necessary for suppression as is male dominance expression. Again, we must simply restore equal suppression of anti-social behavior. I should also talk about the difference between the complaining by the manosphere, the flawless EXPLANATION provided by James Lindsay, and my scientific explanation. As I’ve said, we must provide religious, literary, legal, and scientific frames of understanding to win, because the enemy has attacked all our institutions of cultural production.
THEFT: All false pretenses of equality, end of scarcity, human nature and malleability, accumulated genetic load and natural selection, are attempts to evade VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE and to evade limiting insurance to charity in exchange for conformity: doing no harm to commons.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-21 14:37:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1451196014690328583
THE ORIGIN AND REASON FOR MARRIAGE – POLITICAL ECONOMY OF MARRIAGE — “we need to restore legal fault to (the mating) market. The entire courtship market was highly protected in the west until we “liberated” ourselves from law and men no longer can sue for crimes against their family.” — As you say, this is the primary institutional harm. However we also demand disclosure of the number and names of previous partners for marriage, must repair the economy so that it’s in favor of the working and middle classes, and provide basic education in human behavior. Family = Assets in a Private Corporation Just in case anyone tries to argue with me, the origin of the family is as a corporation of shared assets and liabilities, and marriage ritual as public insurance those assets from interference (theft) as commons are insured against interference. That’s the economy of marriage. So the idea that we invented the corporation for capitalism is just another leftist fraud. We can ONLY produce commons by reciprocal insurance of demonstrated interests (investments, assets, property), and the family, the tribe, the polity, the state, were all corporations. That’s what a corporation means: a collection of assets protected by limited liability and insured by the polity against the imposition of costs, whether by harm or privatization, by others. The family is the first corporation we insure. Because it’s the first reason men kill. And the destruction of the MARRIAGE MARKET IS THE PRIMARY REASON MEN REVOLT. Yep. it’s an evolutionary necessity. It can’t be otherwise. It’s the most common reason for revolutions in history. Because it’s an existential threat to the reason we exist: reproduction.
THE ORIGIN AND REASON FOR MARRIAGE – POLITICAL ECONOMY OF MARRIAGE — “we need to restore legal fault to (the mating) market. The entire courtship market was highly protected in the west until we “liberated” ourselves from law and men no longer can sue for crimes against their family.” — As you say, this is the primary institutional harm. However we also demand disclosure of the number and names of previous partners for marriage, must repair the economy so that it’s in favor of the working and middle classes, and provide basic education in human behavior. Family = Assets in a Private Corporation Just in case anyone tries to argue with me, the origin of the family is as a corporation of shared assets and liabilities, and marriage ritual as public insurance those assets from interference (theft) as commons are insured against interference. That’s the economy of marriage. So the idea that we invented the corporation for capitalism is just another leftist fraud. We can ONLY produce commons by reciprocal insurance of demonstrated interests (investments, assets, property), and the family, the tribe, the polity, the state, were all corporations. That’s what a corporation means: a collection of assets protected by limited liability and insured by the polity against the imposition of costs, whether by harm or privatization, by others. The family is the first corporation we insure. Because it’s the first reason men kill. And the destruction of the MARRIAGE MARKET IS THE PRIMARY REASON MEN REVOLT. Yep. it’s an evolutionary necessity. It can’t be otherwise. It’s the most common reason for revolutions in history. Because it’s an existential threat to the reason we exist: reproduction.
Our People overthink these things. The FBI is looking for people who are showing signs of mental instability and signaling individual or group potential for violence. They’ve asked me to be careful what I say, precisely because of the number of mentally unstable young men out there in the current generations, who are easily influenced. They are biased against the right because we are constraining state power, in an era where (beginning with Clinton and Obama) the state became aware that the probability of civil war because of heterogeneity would rapidly increase, especially after the 1992 tipping point (which most of you won’t remember was ‘a thing’.) The right is an existential threat to the state actors, as well as the financial sector, and the globalist financial sector, and the globalist movement that is just a reformation of communist authoritarianism, which was just a secular pseudoscientific reformation of the authoritarian monotheistic supernatural religions. So don’t posture with macho and bravado about violence or crime, but frame all your actions as political, not violent or criminal. If you review the leaked information on federal communications monitoring, almost all of it is an attempt to discover Islamic terrorists transferring money, organizing, or planning some actions. I don’t have knowledge of post-jan6th changes, and the information they’re extracting from FB/Google etc hasn’t leaked enough that we know what’s happening there versus through the telcos (I have knowledge of those technologies and techniques). The inequality of protection under the law between left and right was pretty obvious in the licensing of Globalist-Soros-Antifa-BLM terrorism, and the prosecution of the right’s opposition to their terrorism. The treatment of jan6th as some conspiracy theory rather than a protest that as one percent of the severity of any of the left protests during the sixties is demonstrated evidence of the government’s intention to eradicate the right, rule of law, the constitution, Christianity, the American experiment in a majority middle class meritocracy, and the whole of anglo, germanic, and broader European civilization. We have a political case. But we also have both separatist, secessionist, and repetitions of the founder’s common-law suit against the state that created the USA as options., Its only once those are exhausted we must resort to force. Because it is only once we have exhausted those options that we hold the moral high ground. Why? Because we are fighting over the right to self-determination. And the only reciprocity (morality) possible is the reciprocal exchange of that right to self-determination by self-determined means. And that requires we produce separate territories, polities, and governments.
Our People overthink these things. The FBI is looking for people who are showing signs of mental instability and signaling individual or group potential for violence. They’ve asked me to be careful what I say, precisely because of the number of mentally unstable young men out there in the current generations, who are easily influenced. They are biased against the right because we are constraining state power, in an era where (beginning with Clinton and Obama) the state became aware that the probability of civil war because of heterogeneity would rapidly increase, especially after the 1992 tipping point (which most of you won’t remember was ‘a thing’.) The right is an existential threat to the state actors, as well as the financial sector, and the globalist financial sector, and the globalist movement that is just a reformation of communist authoritarianism, which was just a secular pseudoscientific reformation of the authoritarian monotheistic supernatural religions. So don’t posture with macho and bravado about violence or crime, but frame all your actions as political, not violent or criminal. If you review the leaked information on federal communications monitoring, almost all of it is an attempt to discover Islamic terrorists transferring money, organizing, or planning some actions. I don’t have knowledge of post-jan6th changes, and the information they’re extracting from FB/Google etc hasn’t leaked enough that we know what’s happening there versus through the telcos (I have knowledge of those technologies and techniques). The inequality of protection under the law between left and right was pretty obvious in the licensing of Globalist-Soros-Antifa-BLM terrorism, and the prosecution of the right’s opposition to their terrorism. The treatment of jan6th as some conspiracy theory rather than a protest that as one percent of the severity of any of the left protests during the sixties is demonstrated evidence of the government’s intention to eradicate the right, rule of law, the constitution, Christianity, the American experiment in a majority middle class meritocracy, and the whole of anglo, germanic, and broader European civilization. We have a political case. But we also have both separatist, secessionist, and repetitions of the founder’s common-law suit against the state that created the USA as options., Its only once those are exhausted we must resort to force. Because it is only once we have exhausted those options that we hold the moral high ground. Why? Because we are fighting over the right to self-determination. And the only reciprocity (morality) possible is the reciprocal exchange of that right to self-determination by self-determined means. And that requires we produce separate territories, polities, and governments.