Father=Property=Civilization —“So was Gimbutas, the woman behind the Kurgan hypothesis, which postulated that the Proto-Indo-Europeans originated on the East European steppe. She said that the Old Europeans were peaceful, matriarchal goddess-worshippers while the Proto-Indo-Europeans were warlike, patriarchal nomads in an attempt to construe their invasion as a negative event, and yet the opposite ensued and people were glad that they got rid of the degeneracy of the previous population. She wanted things to be a certain way and it backfired.”—Alexander Zavialov Well, (a) yes it’s gimbutas that ‘discovered’ the urheimat. But (b) her feminist (matriarchy) theory I’m pretty sure went out the window. (c) it is true that in very primitive (early) societies households consisted of women and their men ‘rotated’ to fuck what they could. In this sense it was matrilineal. But that’s because YOUR MOTHER IS ALL YOU KNOW IS TRUE in a consanguineous band. It’s once you have property and divide up property and women that you get paternalism. Why? Because PROPERTY AND EXcluSIVITY IS KNOWABLE. (mostly). There aren’t any consanguineous bands left. Why? They can’t survive and compete without property.
Theme: Property
-
Um without Property Mother Is Knowable, with Property Father Is Knowable.
Father=Property=Civilization —“So was Gimbutas, the woman behind the Kurgan hypothesis, which postulated that the Proto-Indo-Europeans originated on the East European steppe. She said that the Old Europeans were peaceful, matriarchal goddess-worshippers while the Proto-Indo-Europeans were warlike, patriarchal nomads in an attempt to construe their invasion as a negative event, and yet the opposite ensued and people were glad that they got rid of the degeneracy of the previous population. She wanted things to be a certain way and it backfired.”—Alexander Zavialov Well, (a) yes it’s gimbutas that ‘discovered’ the urheimat. But (b) her feminist (matriarchy) theory I’m pretty sure went out the window. (c) it is true that in very primitive (early) societies households consisted of women and their men ‘rotated’ to fuck what they could. In this sense it was matrilineal. But that’s because YOUR MOTHER IS ALL YOU KNOW IS TRUE in a consanguineous band. It’s once you have property and divide up property and women that you get paternalism. Why? Because PROPERTY AND EXcluSIVITY IS KNOWABLE. (mostly). There aren’t any consanguineous bands left. Why? They can’t survive and compete without property.
-
UM WITHOUT PROPERTY MOTHER IS KNOWABLE, WITH PROPERTY FATHER IS KNOWABLE. Father
UM WITHOUT PROPERTY MOTHER IS KNOWABLE, WITH PROPERTY FATHER IS KNOWABLE.
Father=Property=Civilization
—“So was Gimbutas, the woman behind the Kurgan hypothesis, which postulated that the Proto-Indo-Europeans originated on the East European steppe. She said that the Old Europeans were peaceful, matriarchal goddess-worshippers while the Proto-Indo-Europeans were warlike, patriarchal nomads in an attempt to construe their invasion as a negative event, and yet the opposite ensued and people were glad that they got rid of the degeneracy of the previous population. She wanted things to be a certain way and it backfired.”—Alexander Zavialov
Well, (a) yes it’s gimbutas that ‘discovered’ the urheimat. But (b) her feminist (matriarchy) theory I’m pretty sure went out the window. (c) it is true that in very primitive (early) societies households consisted of women and their men ‘rotated’ to fuck what they could. In this sense it was matrilineal. But that’s because YOUR MOTHER IS ALL YOU KNOW IS TRUE in a consanguineous band.
It’s once you have property and divide up property and women that you get paternalism. Why? Because PROPERTY AND EXcluSIVITY IS KNOWABLE. (mostly).
There aren’t any consanguineous bands left. Why? They can’t survive and compete without property.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 10:44:00 UTC
-
The Overconfidence Of The Contemporary Populace
Usually people who want to debate aren’t knowledgeable enough, intelligent enough, or intellectually honest enough to bother with, but given a moderator I’ll try. —“Are Property Regimes Ponzi Schemes?”– Property isn’t a ponzi scheme (it’s not false) however it will (often) increasingly lead to the concentration of wealth, until it no longer can, unless certain safeguards are put in place (natural law). The reason for this concentration of wealth is that we tolerate financial rents today like we tolerated land rents of yesterday. The problem has been prohibiting rents. We can actually prevent rents today. But that means the price of such prevention is working while younger and older, direct redistribution of liquidity, the ending of consumer intersets, very strict nationalism to prevent immigration, and a requirement that women produce more than replacement rate children. So as always problems can be fixed if you’re a scientist, but not if you’re merely a rationalist, or a purveyor of moralistic fairy tales.
-
The Overconfidence Of The Contemporary Populace
Usually people who want to debate aren’t knowledgeable enough, intelligent enough, or intellectually honest enough to bother with, but given a moderator I’ll try. —“Are Property Regimes Ponzi Schemes?”– Property isn’t a ponzi scheme (it’s not false) however it will (often) increasingly lead to the concentration of wealth, until it no longer can, unless certain safeguards are put in place (natural law). The reason for this concentration of wealth is that we tolerate financial rents today like we tolerated land rents of yesterday. The problem has been prohibiting rents. We can actually prevent rents today. But that means the price of such prevention is working while younger and older, direct redistribution of liquidity, the ending of consumer intersets, very strict nationalism to prevent immigration, and a requirement that women produce more than replacement rate children. So as always problems can be fixed if you’re a scientist, but not if you’re merely a rationalist, or a purveyor of moralistic fairy tales.
-
Marriage Is Just a Limited Liability Organization
End community property, alimony, child support, welfare, and end all taxation until one’s retirement is fully funded. At that point marriage is just a limited liability organization. Education loses value after grade six, so mix apprenticeship(work) with two hours of classes, which include accounting, statistics, basic economics and or the sciences and mathematics on the other. and logic and rhetoric.
-
Marriage Is Just a Limited Liability Organization
End community property, alimony, child support, welfare, and end all taxation until one’s retirement is fully funded. At that point marriage is just a limited liability organization. Education loses value after grade six, so mix apprenticeship(work) with two hours of classes, which include accounting, statistics, basic economics and or the sciences and mathematics on the other. and logic and rhetoric.
-
End community property, alimony, child support, welfare, and end all taxation un
End community property, alimony, child support, welfare, and end all taxation until one’s retirement is fully funded. At that point marriage is just a limited liability organization. Education loses value after grade six, so mix apprenticeship(work) with two hours of classes, which include accounting, statistics, basic economics and or the sciences and mathematics on the other. and logic and rhetoric.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 15:05:00 UTC
-
While We Can Cheat a Little Here and There, the Logic of Economics Is Pretty Obvious.
1) Every definition of capitalism vs socialism that I know of, and as far as I know, the very definition of the terms, is that of ownership. So as we say ‘word games’ are just that, and nothing more. 2) interest is necessary for the purpose of intertemporal measurement of theories of production distribution and trade. It is possible to argue that under fiat currency interest on consumption does not fulfill this function, and that we should, if possible, seek to eliminate interest on end point (consumer) consumption. However without interest we cannot know if we created or destroyed capital (time). 3) Marxists are wrong with the labor theory of value – labor (transformation) is effectively valueless, and it is the organization of production with or without labor that provides the multiples, and only voluntary exchange in the market that determines whether such hypothesized value was created.. 4) Socialist are wrong that (a) competitive production distribution and trade can be organized such that it supports any given scheme of production, (b) that people will do more than devote the minimum time and effort to production distribution and trade (c) that black markets will replace bad decisions, (d) that corruption is a given and funded by socialist means of production, (e) that any and all such attempts must of logical necessity fail. 5) Social democrats have finally realized that the result of their organizations is the loss of intertemporal incentive and therefore population necessary to preserve intertemporal transfers. 6) Keynesians have finally realized that their inflation effectively loses all productivity gains, and that the austrian predictions were correct that each attempt to suppress a correction only exacerbates the consequent corrections. 7) All monetarists have learned that the presumption of an infinite ability to inflate and therefore eliminate debt is only as true as trading partners tolerance for the calculability of contracts, and the predictability of networks of sustainable specialization and trade. So, you know, I consider pretty much everyone an idiot at this point and that while we can cheat a little here and there because of the vast amount of noise in any economy, the logic of economics is pretty obvious.
-
While We Can Cheat a Little Here and There, the Logic of Economics Is Pretty Obvious.
1) Every definition of capitalism vs socialism that I know of, and as far as I know, the very definition of the terms, is that of ownership. So as we say ‘word games’ are just that, and nothing more. 2) interest is necessary for the purpose of intertemporal measurement of theories of production distribution and trade. It is possible to argue that under fiat currency interest on consumption does not fulfill this function, and that we should, if possible, seek to eliminate interest on end point (consumer) consumption. However without interest we cannot know if we created or destroyed capital (time). 3) Marxists are wrong with the labor theory of value – labor (transformation) is effectively valueless, and it is the organization of production with or without labor that provides the multiples, and only voluntary exchange in the market that determines whether such hypothesized value was created.. 4) Socialist are wrong that (a) competitive production distribution and trade can be organized such that it supports any given scheme of production, (b) that people will do more than devote the minimum time and effort to production distribution and trade (c) that black markets will replace bad decisions, (d) that corruption is a given and funded by socialist means of production, (e) that any and all such attempts must of logical necessity fail. 5) Social democrats have finally realized that the result of their organizations is the loss of intertemporal incentive and therefore population necessary to preserve intertemporal transfers. 6) Keynesians have finally realized that their inflation effectively loses all productivity gains, and that the austrian predictions were correct that each attempt to suppress a correction only exacerbates the consequent corrections. 7) All monetarists have learned that the presumption of an infinite ability to inflate and therefore eliminate debt is only as true as trading partners tolerance for the calculability of contracts, and the predictability of networks of sustainable specialization and trade. So, you know, I consider pretty much everyone an idiot at this point and that while we can cheat a little here and there because of the vast amount of noise in any economy, the logic of economics is pretty obvious.