Theme: Predation

  • GENDER THREATS TO THE CIVIC ORDER by Joel Davis Men threaten civic order primari

    GENDER THREATS TO THE CIVIC ORDER

    by Joel Davis

    Men threaten civic order primarily with predatory violence.

    Women threaten civic order primarily with parasitic demands.

    In both cases, they fail/refuse to negotiate interpersonal reciprocity, thereby reducing the net incentives of the people affected by their behaviour to interpersonally negotiate in good faith – threatening the stability of civic order.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-14 08:11:00 UTC

  • Gender Threats To The Civic Order

    by John Dow Men threaten civic order primarily with predatory violence. Women threaten civic order primarily with parasitic demands. In both cases, they fail/refuse to negotiate interpersonal reciprocity, thereby reducing the net incentives of the people affected by their behaviour to interpersonally negotiate in good faith – threatening the stability of civic order.

  • Gender Threats To The Civic Order

    by John Dow Men threaten civic order primarily with predatory violence. Women threaten civic order primarily with parasitic demands. In both cases, they fail/refuse to negotiate interpersonal reciprocity, thereby reducing the net incentives of the people affected by their behaviour to interpersonally negotiate in good faith – threatening the stability of civic order.

  • Whatever is sufficient to fund the next raid. The purpose of raids is not accumu

    Whatever is sufficient to fund the next raid. The purpose of raids is not accumulation of capital but defeat of the enemy through attrition.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-01 15:14:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/903637239992909827

    Reply addressees: @MartianHoplite

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/903597575906877440


    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartianHoplite

    @curtdoolittle Re: your Vikings post.

    What’s the portable wealth for raiders to carry off? Women? What else?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/903597575906877440

  • IT’S TIME FOR VIKING!!! The purpose of raids is not accumulation of capital but

    IT’S TIME FOR VIKING!!!

    The purpose of raids is not accumulation of capital but defeat of the enemy through attrition. All that is necessary to target in each raid is that which is sufficient to fund the next raid.

    Increase your cash, your equipment, your weapons.

    And burn everything else to the ground. (so to speak)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-01 11:17:00 UTC

  • PRETTY SIMPLE DICHOTOMY: – ARISTOCRACY: PROPERTARIANISM – SOCIALISM: PARASITISM

    PRETTY SIMPLE DICHOTOMY:

    – ARISTOCRACY: PROPERTARIANISM

    – SOCIALISM: PARASITISM


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-22 10:48:00 UTC

  • The 21st CENTURY QUESTION FACING EUROPEAN AND EAST ASIAN MAN The 21st Century Qu

    The 21st CENTURY QUESTION FACING EUROPEAN AND EAST ASIAN MAN

    The 21st Century Question Facing Anglo-European- Slavic, and Chinese-Korean-Japanese Man

    “I can conquer and enslave you, and it will be profitable for me and mine, and unprofitable for you. The only reason not to conquer and enslave you and profit from it, is if we can agree to perfect reciprocity – Natural Law – such that it is more profitable to cooperate in markets than to conquer and enslave you. For the past century it has been more profitable to create markets to exchange with you, despite the high costs to us of building those markets, than it has been to conquer and enslave you. But given that due to the worldwide adoption of our technologies and the leveling of the global work force, the profitability of markets is rapidly declining, and the value of markets will shortly end, it is perhaps, no longer in our interests to tolerate the consequences of trying to trade with you, and instead, conquer and enslave you as our primary and most profitable industry. So why not, rather than allow you to exterminate us by means of our own markets, do not we simply return to conquering and enslaving you and living off of the returns of doing so?

    That is the question. In fact, that is the question that American/european/slavic and chinese/korean/japanese men must answer.

    Because at present, it seems much more profitable to return to colonization and enslavement than to tolerate the consequences of trying to domesticate you into adopting our markets.

    And there is nothing that you could do to stop it if Western and Eastern Man decide that our attempts to civilize you have failed.

    All theories have limits beyond which they fail. The value of markets is not infinite. And it appears that our limit has been reached.”


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-18 12:45:00 UTC

  • “Removing a parasite is never an unprofitable action.”—Steve Pender

    —“Removing a parasite is never an unprofitable action.”—Steve Pender


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-18 11:39:00 UTC

  • GENOCIDE Here is our license. FULL TEXT: David Cole broke down Abed’s academic p

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/muslim-professor-ca-university-genocide-white-racists-morally-required/RECIPROCITY: GENOCIDE

    Here is our license.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/muslim-professor-ca-university-genocide-white-racists-morally-required/

    FULL TEXT:

    David Cole broke down Abed’s academic paper “The Concept of Genocide Reconsidered” which was originally published in 2006. Cole says in a Taki’s Mag post:

    Abed reasons, it’s sometimes “morally required” to commit genocide, and he hasn’t been shy about advancing that argument in a series of lectures and essays that have somehow managed to stay under the radar of the media (especially the right-leaning media) over the past few years.

    Abed lays out his central thesis in the paper’s abstract: “Genocide is not in any sense distinctively heinous. Nor is it necessarily immoral.”

    Morally justified genocide? Abed realizes this might be a tough sell:

    Many will no doubt be shocked by these claims. Surely a view that has such unsavory implications should be rejected. In fact, it ought to be condemned in no uncertain terms. Reactions of this sort are overblown.

    Of course, any such objections by fellow academics were almost certainly silenced once Abed named the skin color of the targets of his “moral genocide”:

    One can certainly concoct a hypothetical scenario in which the deliberate annihilation of a group’s way of life is a “moral and political imperative.” And there may be a case for classifying as genocide campaigns of social destruction that are widely considered to be not only excusable but morally required. The institution of slavery in the American South was, arguably, a comprehensive way of life and worldview to which many whites were profoundly attached. It would not be wildly implausible to say that their investment in the culture and norms of the slave-owning community rivaled in its social meaning and significance an individual’s affiliation with a national or religious group. But because the kidnapping, enslavement, and lifelong exploitation of innocent human beings was a constitutive and thus ineliminable feature of the life led by many Southern whites, annihilating their way of life was a moral imperative. The right course of action was to strip them of an identity that gave meaning to their lives.

    Interestingly and to no one’s shock, when Mohammad Abed was confronted about the Europeans facing extinction or at least an annihilation of their way of life after millions of Muslim migrants have flooded their countries, Abed argues that Muslims intend to adopt the customs of their host country rather than alter them. 1400 years of Islamic destruction is evidence to the contrary, but when have facts ever mattered to Islamic supremacists?

    Peculiar, secondly, because although it was no doubt the case that people were motivated to leave their countries of origin by a wide range of considerations, I suspect that the desire to make a better life for themselves and future generations of their families was one of the most common. If this is the case, then surely there must be something about the traditions, practices and norms of European countries that are valued and respected by immigrants. But then why set out to systematically undermine the social, cultural and political foundations of those societies?… Why would immigrants attempt to systematically undermine norms and institutional structures that guarantee their democratic freedoms, including their right to be culturally different and to practice their religion without hindrance?

    Mohammad Abed is a professor at a public California university who believes it’s morally required to rid the world of evil white racists but Muslims can do no wrong. In fact, he completely ignores how Islam spread from the Arabian peninsula to other nations.

    Northern Africa, Indonesia, Iran, just to name a few, were’t originally Islamic nations. They were conquered by Islamic armies. Europe will suffer the same fate as millions of Muslims flood in and out-populate the indigenous people. This Muslim invasion is a Hijrah which is jihad by emigration. Abed knows exactly what is happening, as a Hijrah is a highly meritorious act and it promises Muslims great rewards in heaven.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-11 13:11:00 UTC

  • by Simon Ström We may choose at all times to cooperate, disassociate or aggress.

    by Simon Ström

    We may choose at all times to cooperate, disassociate or aggress. The market equilibrium of such agency produces an institutional phenotype which reflects the distribution of agency, and tends to approximate the highest possible degree of voluntary cooperation between peers, because that is most mutually beneficial.–Until it’s not.

    A great discrepancy in agency between agents creates more incentives for the superior part to aggress, to the point of *that* no longer being most profitable (e.g. destruction of the subjugated).

    Natural law maximizes cooperation but only among those who willingly cooperate–the militia.

    It does so as much as it discourages the granting of discounts to outgroups for a reason that in no way is profitable for the ingroup.

    A militia of sovereigns is contingent on some degree of homogeneity of agency which is why its membership is generally limited to a subset of a population.

    And, is why the age of American ‘liberty’ was also one of colonialism, ethnic cleansing and conquest, and slavery and segregation.

    (curt: well done)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-08 14:17:00 UTC