They way to defeat facebook is to let them continue to bury themselves, and to produce a superior offering that is in the customer rather than company’s interests.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 22:07:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450946731491926016
Reply addressees: @hoeberian
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450942698970615813
THE RESTORATION OF MARRIAGE AS A BUSINESS VENTURE (The end of the luxury good of romantic marriage.)
1. The historical reason for pairing off. (Hunter-Gatherer)
2. The historical reason for Marriage (agrarianism and property)
3. The Invention of Romanic Love (The Plague). Romantic Love as we understand it was INVENTED and not that long ago. Marriage is a business proposition. If it isn’t it’s pointless to produce a corporation (which is what marriage consists of) instead of simply engaging in a market exchange until the opportunity’s exhausted.
4. The invention of Chivalry ( trade restoration, viking age, pre-state formation, )
5. The Invention of Female-On-A-Pedestal (Industrial Revolution)
6. Evolution of marriage relations and the value of the sexes and an Illustration of why the separation of church, law, and state are so important
7. The pre and postware capture of the church by the Jewish invasion of the academy, converting it from Christian cooperation to Jewish conflict and undermining
8. So we are stuck with the future where debt, economy, geostrategy, political systems, … and without a reformation that cannot be produced by an authority like the church, but must include the science, law, economics, AND moral narrative that makes us survive. Marriage is the first corporation, developed under agrarianism, which began the possibility of the accumulation of capital or what we call complex ‘property’, and the resulting far more complex common property that was then possible – the institutions of cultural production of cooperation destpie sex, class, age, family, clan, tribe and national differences. And that’s what relationships consist of: opportunities for reciprocal exchange, by the only condition in life where you can exchange putting another’s interests ahead of yours, because they are polar opposites. Exhaust opportunity, resource, or charge. It’s just physics. Sorry. This is a little closer to the voice I’m developing now that we’ve ended the century of romantic love. I think that’s the direction I want to work on, because that’s where I sense we are headed. The romantic dream American dream enlightenment dream all end together. Yep. We have a lot of relationship mythology to unlearn – and most of it was developed during the victorian era, but not practiced until later, just like the chivalric nonsense wasn’t practiced until far later. These are class mythos sold to uplifted lower classes.
THE RESTORATION OF MARRIAGE AS A BUSINESS VENTURE (The end of the luxury good of romantic marriage.)
1. The historical reason for pairing off. (Hunter-Gatherer)
2. The historical reason for Marriage (agrarianism and property)
3. The Invention of Romanic Love (The Plague). Romantic Love as we understand it was INVENTED and not that long ago. Marriage is a business proposition. If it isn’t it’s pointless to produce a corporation (which is what marriage consists of) instead of simply engaging in a market exchange until the opportunity’s exhausted.
4. The invention of Chivalry ( trade restoration, viking age, pre-state formation, )
5. The Invention of Female-On-A-Pedestal (Industrial Revolution)
6. Evolution of marriage relations and the value of the sexes and an Illustration of why the separation of church, law, and state are so important
7. The pre and postware capture of the church by the Jewish invasion of the academy, converting it from Christian cooperation to Jewish conflict and undermining
8. So we are stuck with the future where debt, economy, geostrategy, political systems, … and without a reformation that cannot be produced by an authority like the church, but must include the science, law, economics, AND moral narrative that makes us survive. Marriage is the first corporation, developed under agrarianism, which began the possibility of the accumulation of capital or what we call complex ‘property’, and the resulting far more complex common property that was then possible – the institutions of cultural production of cooperation destpie sex, class, age, family, clan, tribe and national differences. And that’s what relationships consist of: opportunities for reciprocal exchange, by the only condition in life where you can exchange putting another’s interests ahead of yours, because they are polar opposites. Exhaust opportunity, resource, or charge. It’s just physics. Sorry. This is a little closer to the voice I’m developing now that we’ve ended the century of romantic love. I think that’s the direction I want to work on, because that’s where I sense we are headed. The romantic dream American dream enlightenment dream all end together. Yep. We have a lot of relationship mythology to unlearn – and most of it was developed during the victorian era, but not practiced until later, just like the chivalric nonsense wasn’t practiced until far later. These are class mythos sold to uplifted lower classes.
The European Market for Neural Regulation, by Elites, Elite Institutions, and Elite Mythology, Rules, Rituals, and Oaths.
MODEL: Trifunctionalism: A triangle of the three possible means of coercion(Force, Trade, Seduction) with the population in the center of that triangle. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1450860986802520064
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 16:28:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450861416710344712
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1450860986802520064
THE DIRECTION OF DATING, MARRIAGE, MATING OVER THIS CENTURY I’m trying to predict the direction of marriage over the next century, especially as we pass through the coming shocks. And we’re increasingly returning to historical norms of serial relationships at the bottom and long-term relations at the top, mediated by predictable trait differences, and sexual phenotypical market value. In other words, just as we lifted many lower classes into middle-class consumption during the industrial revolution and postwar income bubble, we’re seeing a return to type as the economic capacity of middle, lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass males are no longer able to produce competitive advantage sufficiently to afford long term exclusive access to a female – and females can afford to NOT pay for the cost of maintaining a male. Marriage is an economic institution, and the insurance of marriage is a public good that prevents male-male violence, and females with children that must be supported through redistribution, because of the moral hazard of not doing so. We have un-insured marriage. And we have undermined the economy sufficiently such that women can survive in lower-income occupations for the first time – at least while they’re young – and men cannot produce sufficient income to generate demand for supply of resources in exchange for regular access to sex and reproduction. This means that we have destroyed the incentive for reproduction EXEPT for the UNDERCLASSES leading to expansion of dysgenia, crime, social conflict, political conflict, economic, technological, and scientific competitiveness necessary for preservation of statndards of living. In my work i’m trying to discover the policy and legal changes necessary to restore the market for reproduction, as well as production, and commons. Because without reproduction, we don’t have production and commons.
THE DIRECTION OF DATING, MARRIAGE, MATING OVER THIS CENTURY I’m trying to predict the direction of marriage over the next century, especially as we pass through the coming shocks. And we’re increasingly returning to historical norms of serial relationships at the bottom and long-term relations at the top, mediated by predictable trait differences, and sexual phenotypical market value. In other words, just as we lifted many lower classes into middle-class consumption during the industrial revolution and postwar income bubble, we’re seeing a return to type as the economic capacity of middle, lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass males are no longer able to produce competitive advantage sufficiently to afford long term exclusive access to a female – and females can afford to NOT pay for the cost of maintaining a male. Marriage is an economic institution, and the insurance of marriage is a public good that prevents male-male violence, and females with children that must be supported through redistribution, because of the moral hazard of not doing so. We have un-insured marriage. And we have undermined the economy sufficiently such that women can survive in lower-income occupations for the first time – at least while they’re young – and men cannot produce sufficient income to generate demand for supply of resources in exchange for regular access to sex and reproduction. This means that we have destroyed the incentive for reproduction EXEPT for the UNDERCLASSES leading to expansion of dysgenia, crime, social conflict, political conflict, economic, technological, and scientific competitiveness necessary for preservation of statndards of living. In my work i’m trying to discover the policy and legal changes necessary to restore the market for reproduction, as well as production, and commons. Because without reproduction, we don’t have production and commons.
THE DIRECTION OF DATING, MARRIAGE, MATING OVER THE CENTURY
I’m trying to predict the direction of marriage over the next century, especially as we pass through the coming shocks. And we’re increasingly returning to historical norms of serial relationships at the bottom and long-term relations at the top, mediated by predictable trait differences, and sexual phenotypical market value.
In other words, just as we lifted many lower classes into middle-class consumption during the industrial revolution and postwar income bubble, we’re seeing a return to type as the economic capacity of middle, lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass males are no longer able to produce competitive advantage sufficiently to afford long term exclusive access to a female – and females can afford to NOT pay for the cost of maintaining a male.
Marriage is an economic institution, and the insurance of marriage is a public good that prevents male-male violence, and females with children that must be supported through redistribution, because of the moral hazard of not doing so.
We have un-insured marriage. And we have undermined the economy sufficiently such that women can survive in lower-income occupations for the first time – at least while they’re young – and men cannot produce sufficient income to generate demand for supply of resources in exchange for regular access to sex and reproduction.
This means that we have destroyed the incentive for reproduction EXEPT for the UNDERCLASSES leading to expansion of dysgenia, crime, social conflict, political conflict, economic, technological, and scientific competitiveness necessary for preservation of statndards of living.
In my work i’m trying to discover the policy and legal changes necessary to restore the market for reproduction, as well as production, and commons.
Because without reproduction, we don’t have production and commons.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 15:30:48 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134572883970826
@Willow99 Not sure I understand what you’re intending to convey. I’m trying to predict the direction of marriage over the next century, especially as we pass through the coming shocks. And we’re increasingly returning to historical norms of serial relationships at the bottom and long-term relations at the top, mediated by predictable trait differences, and sexual phenotypical market value. In other words, just as we lifted many lower classes into middle-class consumption during the industrial revolution and postwar income bubble, we’re seeing a return to type as the economic capacity of middle, lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass males are no longer able to produce competitive advantage sufficiently to afford long term exclusive access to a female – and females can afford to NOT pay for the cost of maintaining a male. Marriage is an economic institution, and the insurance of marriage is a public good that prevents male-male violence, and females with children that must be supported through redistribution, because of the moral hazard of not doing so. We have un-insured marriage. And we have undermined the economy sufficiently such that women can survive in lower-income occupations for the first time – at least while they’re young – and men cannot produce sufficient income to generate demand for supply of resources in exchange for regular access to sex and reproduction.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 15:27:08 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134558417783568
THE RESTORATION OF MARRIAGE AS A BUSINESS VENTURE
(The end of the luxury good of romantic marriage.)
Romantic Love as we understand it was INVENTED and not that long ago. Marriage is a business proposition. If it isn’t it’s pointless to produce a corporation (which is what marriage consists of) instead of simply engaging in a market exchange until the opportunity’s exhausted.
And that’s what relationships consist of: opportunities for reciprocal exchange, by the only condition in life where you can exchange putting another’s interests ahead of yours, because they are polar opposites.
Exhaust opportunity, resource, or charge.
It’s just physics. Sorry.
This is a little closer to the voice I’m developing now that we’ve ended the century of romantic love. I think that’s the direction I want to work on, because that’s where I sense we are headed. The romantic dream American dream enlightenment dream all end together. Yep.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 14:28:44 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134328822050828
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 destruction of the MARRIGAGE 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 revolution in history. Becaues it’s an existential threat to the reason we exist: reproduction.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 14:26:50 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134321297810820