IF people are genetically homogenous and lack resources they will vote their pocketbooks and the expense of their gene pool.
THerefore the solution to voting in all cases is the reduction of conflict between the groups in the polity by denying access to rents, and homogenizing interests through prosperity. THis is achieved largely through export and suppression of underclasses.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-12 13:12:00 UTC
People only vote their pocketbooks if they are genetically homogeneous. If they are genetically homogenous they have lower resistance to sharing their pocketbooks. If they are genetically heterogeneous they will vote their pocketbooks over their genetics if their interests are aligned. Their interests are best aligned if commerce is available for status seeking but political rents are unavailable for status seeking.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-12 13:10:00 UTC
Every government mandate is a lost opportunity to gain good behavior in exchange for material gain.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-12 11:01:00 UTC
http://twitter.com/dacian_draco/status/708319912243154945/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=708438637424340993Retweeted Dacian Draco (@dacian_draco):
There Is No Capitalist or Socialist Economic Rationale 4 Mass Immigration (Pls follow Dr. Duchesne @eurocanadians) https://t.co/Yfd9bhv2ms
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-11 18:45:00 UTC
we are always genetic and biologically motivated. We never convince anyone. We just sell them a new means of profiting
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-08 20:39:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/707304880558501889
Reply addressees: @retroch @soapjackal
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/707304427468800001
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/707304427468800001
A woman is the most expensive asset that you can acquire. More so than your home, your education, your vehicle. Easy women are a bad investment. Don’t confuse vacation with residency, or entertainment with work, or rent with purchase. A woman cares first for her children, second for herself, third for her nest, and last for you. Don’t expect her to do otherwise. Dont choose one that is comfortable in any circumstance. Because a the least discomfort she will choose a different one. And all your costs will have been wasted. The return on a woman is in old age. The return on you for a woman is in the support of her children. The only method of staying together is either friendship or economic necessity. So work to preserve friendship, and never make it possible for her to leave you while extracting resources and income. It means you will be deprived of a woman’s care in your older ages. And for men this usually means early death.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-08 10:46:00 UTC
Women are slutty because it’s empirically easier to decide who you will not tire of by trial and error than reason and evidence. They are no longer mating for economic viability but personal satisfaction and in this way sexual compatibility is the deciding factor.
If a woman is slutty so that she can capture better genes than she can obtain in marriage, then I cannot criticize this either.
I don’t see why this matters. What I see that matters is that they are bearing children at will while extracting rents from men without sex, affection and care in return. If we deprive them of this aiblity then that will solve the problem for those it needs a solution. End child support. End spousal support. End common property. Return to articulated marriage contracts with separate provisions on children, assets, and power of attorney. And prohibit credit companies from mutual association of negative credit information. In fact, punish the hell out of credit companies for any inaccuracy and charge them by the minute for it, at compounding rates.
H/t Felicity Sharpe
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-08 08:18:00 UTC
(riffing off eli’s elites)
As a member of the 1% (on and off at least), and due to my avocation, I have the incentives of elites. And I cannot dismiss myself from eli’s criticism. On the other hand, my family is quite old, and carries old traditions, and in those old traditions I understand the obligations of the nobility(elites).
I understand them be cause we are dependent upon our commoners, as they are upon us. This is what makes the libertarians and jews weak: they have to appropriate some other group’s warriors for defense. But aristocracy may organize man into orders. And within those orders man may prosper. But without us to organize man, or without men to organize, we are both defenseless against competing men and a ruthless universe that could not care whether we succeed or fail.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-04 06:43:00 UTC
BUFFET’S LETTER TO SHAREHOLDERS? 31 PAGES. SEE?
See? It’s not just me. I always get crap for my long missives to shareholders, but the truth is – aside from investors with ADD – people read them and learn from them.
I also got crap from people thinking I manipulate the board when I ask for advice from the board. It isn’t true. I think pretty scientifically: if I cannot convince the board then I shouldn’t do it. If I can convince the board (even if it takes a lot of work) then I probably should do it. Although, this strategy backfires when you think the economy will collapse and take your business down with it, and you can’t convince your board that you’re right. And sure, it depends upon whether your board consists of professional executives or not. But, I don’t pitch to the board as if I’m asking their permission. I am not sure I have respect for the board process at all. In my experience, it’s been nothing other than a legally sanctioned venue for fucking common shareholders. I use the board for testing theories. Particularly acquisitions.
Buffet’s amazing. So is greenspan. I keep thinking that I could lose some of my higher faculties in the next decade. But then I look at other men of capacity and I realize that if you avoid alcohol and keep reasonably active and busy that you can be effective until 90’s. I kind of doubt that after 70 I’ll have the kind of insights that I’ve had in my 50’s – which, aside from my 20’s, has been my most intellectually fruitful period. But Hayek did great work late in life, and he is the mind I most closely associate with.
In the absence of knowledge all we can do is struggle onward. 🙂
Curt
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-02 04:16:00 UTC
Too many people on this earth still assume that they are oppressed, and if empowered they can shower prosperity on their own.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-01 15:43:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/704693473065172992
Reply addressees: @ForeignPolicy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/704692931450564608
IN REPLY TO:
@ForeignPolicy
Not all of Bolivia’s indigenous people are happy with Evo Morales, the country’s first indigenous president. https://t.co/0StAWxrcsl
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/704692931450564608