RT @LibsHateUs: @WallStreetSilv Vote for mass deportations. Our rent will decrease.
Source date (UTC): 2024-06-03 17:55:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1797688551230111756
RT @LibsHateUs: @WallStreetSilv Vote for mass deportations. Our rent will decrease.
Source date (UTC): 2024-06-03 17:55:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1797688551230111756
No. And having worked in that world a bit I find both the idea and the right wing’s search for conspiracy where there is just logical incentive rather silly. He’s a centrist to center leftist and he’s been consistent.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 20:56:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796647049657504148
Reply addressees: @AWKleinheksel @PeterZeihan
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796639750712930681
Which is why I said “Change from moving people to capital to moving capital to people”.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 00:53:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796344252919849437
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796337517492322317
Well, you know, we need a better way. And it’s not by serving the financial sector. π
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-29 17:59:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795877593326972998
Reply addressees: @Susan_Yogini
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795870894734118952
RT @Omer_Ekic: @curtdoolittle @WallStreetSilv Well said: ”Men are going to continue to go this direction until market demand forces womenβ¦
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-29 15:48:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795844560616333720
THE CAUSE OF WOMEN’S BEHAVIOR AND SOLUTION TO THE INTRODUCTION OF WOMEN INTO ECONOMY AND POLITY
( Update: I should have completed the argument. π )
–“So as Machiavelli, the Romans, and the Spartans have warned us, inclusion of women in politics, like universal enfranchisement,β¦ https://twitter.com/Lord__Sousa/status/1795598031234253048
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-28 23:49:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795603381823639565
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-28 22:01:54 UTC
Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1795576258794868753
Dating Mating And Marriage
Men aren’t scared. Women always project female emotions where men don’t have them. Instead, it’s that “the market for affection” has failed, and costs and risks of interacting with women are such that no effort at discovering a ‘coincidence of wants’ is worth the investment.
Men grasp that women live ‘within time’ and men live ‘across time’. That women seek consumption at lowest investment, and men seek capitalization at lowest investment. As such women demonstrate devotion in time but not loyalty over time, while men my vary devotion in time, they will maintain loyalty over time.
Men understand that most women are looking for entertainment (consumption) rather than investment in the production of a family. And even then, women will nearly always leave, and take have the men’s investments.
Then women can still pursue a new relationship by selling sex, affection and care, but men are no longer able to sell exclusivity of attention and investment to another woman.
And worse, it means men are impoverished in later age because women have thus not only extracted the capital material relationship, and caretaking capital that men produced, but prevented them from creating new capital.
Men understand that this system can’t continue because the rate of marital and reproductive collapse, and with it, men’s incentive to accumulate capital for themselves and for the polity, means the end of our political system, our economy, our various social security, and very likely our cohesion as a single territory.
Men are going to continue to go this direction ‘until market demand forces women to bring a different product to market’.
We are seeing the breakdown of the magical thinking of the feminists at the moment, just as we saw the breakdown of the marxist in the past. It may take a while to work through the population but it will do so.
Unfortunately, we are at the point where the combination of feminism and the collapse of reproduction, women’s advocacy of massive immigration and diversity, and the end of the developing world being technologically and economically behind, and are about to enter what appears to be a depression that will last a few decades, including a new technology that will largely affect women in administrivia roles.
So, I’m a little worried that just like the Italians, Germans, Russians, and Chinese, we’ll be beyond the point of demographic cultural economic and political recovery by the time that women’s behavior adapts to the new circumstances.
So as Machiavelli, the Romans, and the Spartans have warned us, inclusion of women in politics, like universal enfranchisement, simply poisons the well of responsibility upon which all civilizations depend for their persistence.
I think there is a solution to the problem of including women, and that’s simply the equal suppression in law of female antisocial and anti political behavior as that of men. (Which is what our traditional western ethics sought and achieved.)
And from that perspective, the problem is fixable.
It’s just a question of whether we’re too late, or on time. π
Cheers
CD
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-28 21:58:54 UTC
Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1795575501441875968
MEN AREN’T SCARED – THEY’RE JUST RATIONAL
Men aren’t scared. Women always project female emotions where men don’t have them. It’s that “the market for affection” has failed, and costs and risks of interacting with women are such that no effort at discovering a ‘coincidence of wants’ is worth the investment.
Men grasp that women live ‘within time’ and men live ‘across time’. That women seek consumption at lowest investment, and men seek capitalization at lowest investment. As such women demonstrate devotion in time but not loyalty over time, while men my vary devotion in time, they will maintain loyalty over time.
Men understand that most women are looking for entertainment (consumption) rather than investment in the production of a family. And even then, women will nearly always leave, and take have the men’s investments.
Then women can still pursue a new relationship by selling sex, affection and care, but men are no longer able to sell exclusivity of attention and investment to another woman.
And worse, it means men are impoverished in later age because women have thus not only extracted the capital material relationship, and caretaking capital that men produced, but prevented them from creating new capital.
Men understand that this system can’t continue because the rate of marital and reproductive collapse, and with it, men’s incentive to accumulate capital for themselves and for the polity, means the end of our political system, our economy, our various social security, and very likely our cohesion as a single territory.
Men are going to continue to go this direction ‘until market demand forces women to bring a different product to market’.
We are seeing the breakdown of the magical thinking of the feminists at the moment, just as we saw the breakdown of the marxist in the past. It may take a while to work through the population but it will do so.
Unfortunately, we are at the point where the combination of feminism and the collapse of reproduction, women’s advocacy of massive immigration and diversity, and the end of the developing world being technologically and economically behind, and are about to enter what appears to be a depression that will last a few decades, including a new technology that will largely affect women in administrivia roles.
So, I’m a little worried that just like the Italians, Germans, Russians, and Chinese, we’ll be beyond the point of demographic cultural economic and political recovery by the time that women’s behavior adapts to the new circumstances.
So as Machiavelli, the Romans, and the Spartans have warned us, inclusion of women in politics, like universal enfranchisement, simply poisons the well of responsibility upon which all civilizations depend for their persistence.
I think there is a solution to the problem of including women, and that’s simply the equal suppression in law of female antisocial and anti political behavior as that of men. (Which is what our traditional western ethics sought and achieved.)
And from that perspective, the problem is fixable. It’s just a question of whether we’re too late, or on time. π
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @WallStreetSilv
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-28 21:22:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795566322027253761
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795475471850697022
Hard to say. In the spectrum of Conquest, Thievery, Private Sector, Government, or Church, which utilizes capital better and which spurs more capital as a consequence? Private, government, and church all can. But what capital did the church produce other than magnificent edifices a clergy that was tragically corrupt at the cost of nearly a quarter of local GDP? Had the church performed education rather than indoctrination or at least in addition to it, we could easily claim the church. Otherwise it’s kind of hard to see how it differs from the state.
Reply addressees: @queen_calder
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-27 14:38:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795102278803726336
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795101301707001995