DEVOTE WOMEN OUTBREED ATHEISTS. Well, we know that because atheism is a form of hyperconsumption. And signaling a form of hyper consumption. Religion teaches mindfulness that insulates us from susceptibility to signal competition. https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1055059408881938432
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 20:06:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056276034167934977
Men talk to women as potential customers, and women talk to men as vendors. You know. that’s the best analogy I’ve seen yet.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 15:28:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056206029233577984
Most of the time, a consulting company acts as an agent that is outside of the political process, so yes. Conversely, almost universally, the upper 1/2 of any consulting organization is far better than the upper 1% of any department they work for. The reason is simple: all companies that hire consultants within a 3 to 5 year window, are solving the same problems in all their customers within different political and incentive structures – and so none of the problems are ever difficult – only getting them done in the political structure of the organization. The problem is simple economics: people in companies invest in what they do, and change, success, or falure, threaten those investments (their property). A good consultant discovers these investments and promotes them and illustrates how they contributed to the current success. Unfortunately for example, most tech innovation other than improving user interface workflow tends to be a waste of money and all strategy and marketing and strategic consulting is just a way of circumventing a management organization malinvested in a prior.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 09:30:00 UTC
Actually, no. It requires understanding (scientifically) the vocabular, grammar, arguments, correspondence, non-correspondence, and incentive given the available options. In other words: The Science (Truth) of what is argued, not the MEANING.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 23:29:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055602157213442048
Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558906066415616
IN REPLY TO:
@Jonas_Ceika
@curtdoolittle @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN Putting forth an account of developments in philosophy requires actually understanding the debates within it.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558906066415616
REMOVE THE SILLY SPIRITUALITY NONSENSE AND THE POINT IS SOLID.
If you read the research on the success of the alt/hard right, it is very clear: “the key people put together text and video that explains the subject matter and this education is the reason for their success.”
In this post, the author is reiterating Mao’s message that ‘education’ is necessary for guerrilla warfare, and the western proposition that it is unnecessary and undesirable in a standing army is a reflection of our dependence upon rule of law and markets rather than authority and managed economy.
===
by Elders of the Black Sun 3 (some kid i don’t knw who)
“In the United States, we go to considerable trouble to keep soldiers out of politics, and even more to keep politics out of soldiers.
Guerrillas do exactly the opposite.
They go to great lengths to make sure that their men are politically educated and thoroughly aware of the issues at stake.
A trained and disciplined guerrilla is much more than a patriotic peasant, workman, or student armed with an antiquated fowling-piece and a home-made bomb.
His indoctrination begins even before he is taught to shoot accurately, and it is unceasing.
The end product is an intensely loyal and politically alert fighting man.
Guerrilla leaders spend a great deal more time in organization, instruction, agitation, and propaganda work than they do fighting, for their most important job is to win over the people.
“We must patiently explain,” says Mao Tse-tung.
“Explain”, “persuade”, “discuss”, “convince”—these words recur with monotonous regularity in many of the early Chinese essays on guerrilla war.
Mao has aptly compared guerrillas to fish, and the people to the water in which they swim.
If the political temperature is right, the fish, however few in number, will thrive and proliferate.
It is therefore the principal concern of all guerrilla leaders to get the water to the right temperature and to keep it there.”
Brigadier General Samuel B. Griffith, USMC
—
“The political goal must be clearly and precisely indicated to inhabitants of guerrilla zones and their national consciousness awakened.” – Mao tse-Tung
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 18:09:00 UTC
by Brandon Cheshire
Here’s the liberal algorithm, ready?
BEGIN
… 10 Vote for Socialism
… 20 WAITFOR Collapse()
… 30 Flee to Capitalism
… 40 GOTO 10
END
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-24 22:12:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055220466888163328
—“The relative inequality that causes violence is much more likely a deep seated sense of unfairness (manifesting in the world as inequality) but actually the result of policy being unfair [unjust is the issue, not unequal; or unjust application]. Unduly favoring certain people over others within the same geographic space [most likely differences in enforcement due to class].”— Brandon Hayes
IMO Violence = Proximity + Inequality = Signal Deprivation.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-22 11:55:00 UTC
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0082WHY PEOPLE PREFER UNEQUAL SOCIETIES
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0082
–“When people are asked about the ideal distribution of wealth in their country, they actually prefer unequal societies. We suggest that these two phenomena can be reconciled by noticing that, despite appearances to the contrary, there is no evidence that people are bothered by economic inequality itself. Rather, they are bothered by something that is often confounded with inequality: economic unfairness.”—
People do not seek equality, but reciprocity and proportionality.
(via @[11019687:2048:Brandon Hayes] )
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-22 11:48:00 UTC
THE OPPORTUNITY COST OF DEFENDING OUR COMMONS
by Bill Joslin
(perfect example of economics and law of the commons)
“When deciding upon defense of the social commons,
We must continuously calculate “should I bear an opportunity cost (to crush the other) to maintain peace, trust, and cooperation, and therefore to preserve the status quo” versus “the opportunity cost of maintaining the status quo is too high to sustain trust, peace, and cooperation, because the property damages are too high- now we must defect or fight”
“Our issue today is that our media, academia and state are forcing us to bear the opportunity cost (to not fight) while we watch our properties (decency, culture, transgenerational values, trust) are being dismantled by the mob. We’re at war, but its hard to identify because it is a war of demographics… an ill-defined group which IMO is why identitarianism is on the rise. We’re attempting to identify who, as a group (or army if you will) is under attack and who is attacking. We’re attempting to distinguish friend from foe.”
And the media, academia and state are obscuring our personal interests under the moral ideal of “tolerance”. If we change the narrative to forbearance, then costs must be defined. If costs are defined, limits to tolerance must be discussed. If limits to tolerance are discussed then it becomes clear we have crossed the limit which demands tolerant to become intolerant ages ago… and if this is clear, then heads will roll.”
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-21 11:19:00 UTC
October 20th, 2018 8:27 AM
—“Did your views on allocation of public funds change at all when you had children from when you didn’t?”— Dan Springhorn
[N]o. It was just study of economics and history: data. And most importantly, when I understood the uniqueness of western civilization as commons. Now, there are no such thing as ‘public funds’ other than credit money. The rest is private funds that have been possible because of the political order of property rights. So, there is a difference between redistribution for consumption, and redistribution into commons, and the externalities whether consumptive or common. In general, parks, infrastructure, and insurance are good commons, but charity needs be private so that it produces the optimum externalities (charity) vs the worse possible externalities (welfare that breeds dysgenia). ( As a side note, I (me, myself) don’t figure into my thinking much at all. My test is reciprocity, capital production, competition, eugenics, and evolution-transcendence. )