Does the rest of the world realize that we laugh about their politics, politicians, lifestyles, and misunderstanding of America and Americans?
Americans ‘hired’ this president to be a wrecking ball – and end the parasitism of other nations on the american middle class.
The entire world is fighting him.
https://www.quora.com/Do-Americans-realise-that-nearly-the-whole-world-laughs-about-their-new-President-and-therefore-America-itself
Answered already. Answered in detail. Search for my previous post. Please do not ‘churn’ previous posts to encourage clickbait.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-libertarians-feel-about-the-Universal-Declaration-of-Human-Rights
I’m going to give you the best, most scientific answer that is currently available. You may or may not like it. But to the best of my knowledge it’s unassailable.
However, it is probably more correct to view white people as more patient and disciplined and industrious – probably due to four or more millennia of selection pressures above the 40th parallel – and therefore suppressing petty violence in exchange for expression of superior exceptional violence. But again, this may be for the simple reason that except for Han, Korean, and the Japanese, White People are the most genetically homogenous, genetically isolated, genetically domesticated, for the simple reason that they have systematically eradicated their lower classes.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-white-race-violent-naturally-or-were-they-taught-to-be
Deseamos recompensas emocionales, amistad, juegos, sexo, afecto, que nos cuiden, que formen un hogar, que nos den de comer, que nos provean con familia (una tribu propia), seguridad a largo plazo.
Los hombres acumulamos mucho más daño a lo largo de nuestra vida.
A nosotros no nos importa otra cosa sino el sexo hasta el momento en el que nos casamos, y después de eso nos importan muchas otras cosas más.
Las mujeres pueden llevar listas de miles de cosas en el pasado cercano y el presente.
Los hombres no funcionamos de esa manera. Nosotros los hombres llevamos una lista de seguimiento de ciertas cosas y con cierta distancia y a futuro. Esta es la diferencia entre hombres y mujeres.
Los hombres nos especializamos y las mujeres generalizan.
Nosotros pensamos a manera de gaveta en un gavetero. Una gaveta abierta a la vez.
Las mujeres son capaces de pensar virtualmente en forma de interrupciones incontrolables.
La mujer considera al cuidado emocional del hombre como una especie de “trabajo” o “costo” pero un hombre ve todo lo que hace distinto a vivir con algunos hombres en una cueva, a irse de cacería, y jugar con herramientas para obtener afecto, cuidado, sexo y el estatus social que otros hombres exigen de él a cambio de depositar en él su confianza.
Los hombres están al tanto que la vasta mayoría de ellos son desechables desde el punto de vista evolutivo, caso contrario ocurre con las mujeres. Estamos al tanto de que si conducimos experimentos que vayan en contra de la realidad y las mujeres nos seleccionan para afecto del tipo sexual. La reproducción depende de nuestro éxito como individuos de una manada. Los hombres estamos al tanto de nuestras oportunidades reales – y que la mayoría de nosotros no somos tan buenos. Estamos al tanto de que el costo de la especialización significa que los hombres varían mucho más en habilidad y capacidad de ser deseados que las mujeres.
Eso significa que muchos de nosotros debemos arriesgarnos de forma extraordinaria y acumular daño celular para obtener acceso a cualquier mujer, para podernos reproducir y para que nos cuiden.
La testosterona que nos hace diferentes mata a todos los hombres eventualmente. Es un veneno mágico. Un intercambio faustino con el diablo. Nosotros maduramos más lentamente, llegamos a nuestro pico después, acumulamos más daño y morimos más pronto. Nosotros estamos al tanto de esto. Por esta razón buscamos cuidarnos mucho después de cumplir cuarenta años.
Por estas razones los hombres buscan producir un orden meritocrático más diverso con tantas oportunidades para demostrar éxito al escalar la cúspide de la dominación jerárquica lo más posible. Esta es la razón por al cual la diversidad incrementa las tasas de crimen, de violencia y de tensiones políticas: los grupos son demostrablemente mejores y peores al escalar las cúspides de la dominación jerárquica en el mundo moderno. Mientras tengamos mayor riqueza, nos es más difícil ganar suficiente para mantener a una mujer y a sus hijos a cambio de sexo y afecto.
Los hombres queremos que las mujeres nos expliquen el mundo de las emociones a nosotros. Que nos expliquen las preocupaciones de otros a nosotros. Que nos den ideas de dónde y a dónde no aplicar nuestros distintos tipos de “fuerza”.
Buscamos reconocimiento de que nuestra necesidad sexual es física, en la misma magnitud y escala de la necesidad femenina de tener seguridad.
Buscamos que entiendan que estar “recordándonos las cosas” es fastidiarnos, y que fastidiarnos ha evolucionado de forma tal que las mujeres pueden entrenar a los niños. Cada vez que le recuerdas a un hombre algo, es el equivalente de decirle a una mujer “que está muy gorda para usar ese vestido”. Esto siempre es así.
Los hombres sufrimos los insultos más fácilmente que las mujeres. Pero los insultos siguen siendo insultos y siguen siendo igual de destructivos todo el tiempo.
A los hombres no se les entrena “recordándoles las cosas”.
A los hombre se les entrena con recompensas.
No es que no nos importe, no es que no podamos ver las cosas de la misma manera que las mujeres. De la misma forma que las mujeres (aunque no les guste reconocerlo o admitirlo) son ciegas a lo que nosotros vemos: A la política como un sustituto de violencia con otros hombres, para que nuestros genes puedan sobrevivir en el futuro en mejores condiciones que las del presente.
Mujeres: pensad en todas las cosas pequeñas que puedes hacer para hacer que tu hombre sea exitoso. Los hombres somos como los perros que traerán una pelota que les tires hasta que nos caigamos muertos. Pero al igual que los lobos, respondemos violentamente a órdenes o a la culpa.
Los hombres no somos sustitutos ni reemplazos de las mejores amigas de las mujeres, no ayudamos a crear nidos, no somos hijas de mayor edad, ni somos madres ni hermanas. Los hombres somos hombres. Los hombres competimos con otros hombres para obtener el estatus necesario para hacernos atractivos a otras mujeres, que nos cuidan a cambio de proveerles y trabajo.
Los hombres queremos que las mujeres limiten severamente sus urgencias de crear un nido a aquellas cosas que sean productivas y no que consuman recursos.
El consumismo femenino es una forma distinta de alcoholismo. Limita el juego de tu hombre a aquello que te provea con ganancias para él y su familia. Todo lo demás es extender su infancia. Haced lo mismo para los hijos varones que tengáis.
Hacer que los niños se queden sentados y quietos como niñitas les provoca un daño cerebral irreversible. Hacer de los niños seres tímidos y poco agresivos tiene el mismo efecto. Los hombres competimos por dominación jerárquica. Las mujeres se hacen la vida más fácil con la crianza al hacer que los niños se comporten de la manera anteriormente descrita. Tienen a un niño dócil, pero es un lisiado de por vida.
¿Que clase de hombre quieren criar las mujeres modernas?
¿Un tipo que vive sentado en su sofá jugando videojuegos, masturbándose de forma compulsiva con (((pornografía))) y viendo televisión? Si tienes un hombre así, la culpa es de la madre. Su esposa le culpará por lo mismo. Y después de cuatro generaciones tus genes se habrán dispersado y habrán desaparecido. ¿Por que? Porque los hombres fuertes derrotamos a los débiles, y los hombres débiles son producto de las mujeres débiles.
Las exigencias a los hombres que son buenas: Si duermes, te dan de comer, te visten y te folla una buena mujer. Necesitas ser fuerte, hacer buen ejercicio, competir y cooperar con otros hombres, y producir bienes a largo plazo para la familia. Fin de la historia.
Las mujeres se han apropiado de los trabajos “fáciles” en la sociedad al llevar a los hombres a roles de competencia más elevados, en donde es más dificil “integrarse” al equipo y es más difícil para que los hombres que evolucionaron para especializarse se integren a otros equipos. Esto quiere decir que hay menos oportunidades para que los hombres sean exitosos.
Ya no trabajamos en grupos que en donde nos aseguramos el uno al otro como lo hicieron los obreros de antes, los artesanos, en aquellas villas, compañías, gremios y ejércitos. Cada hombre ahora es más vulnerable que antes, y está menos “asegurado” por otros hombres. Su estrés emocional es alto pero no puede entender el por qué.
Así que ¿Que significan estas cosas? Significan que los hombres deben sentir que no pueden fallar y caer en la jerarquía de la dominación y perder su capacidad de obtener cariño, sexo y cuidado por parte de una o varias mujeres.
Generalmente hablando, cuando hay un excedente de hombres que se sienten así, las civilizaciones pasan por guerras civiles y colapsándose. Porque se requiere de un porcentaje muy ínfimo de hombres que estén dispuestos a alterar el orden establecido para derrocarlo.
Los hombres evolucionamos para escalar una escala de dominación jerárquica y las mujeres evolucionaron par asentirse atraídas al punto más alto de esa jerarquía para que puedan obtener control sobre la reproducción, provisión y entretenimiento por parte del hombre con el que están.
Poco tiene que ver el amor con todo esto.
Los hombres somos criaturas absurdamente sencillas. Simplemente no podemos ver, escuchar, oler, intuir, sentir o pensar todas las sutilezas sobre los humanos que las mujeres si pueden, así que tenemos más tiempo para dedicarle al aprender cómo funciona el mundo físico y hacemos del mundo, un mundo de hombres, nos especializamos, y competimos por nuestra capacidad de entendimiento y uso del mismo.
Cuando comienzas por el hecho de presumir que la cooperación es obligatoria, en vez de pensar que la cooperación es meramente optativa entre: depredación, cooperación y boicot. Puedes justificar al pragmatismo, las (((construcciones sociales))) y las religiones de todos los tipos.
Cuando partes de la verdad: De que tenemos la opción de que la violencia en todo momento y que la violencia siempre es preferible en todo momento, no puedes justificar al pragmatismo, la (((construcción social))) y las religiones de todo tipo.
Es por ello que las mentiras filosóficas y las mentiras Abrahámicas son tan exitosas: Por el mero hecho de que estamos intentando cooperar, pensamos que hemos puesto de lado a la violencia, y esto hace que pensemos que es “descortés” referirnos a esa opción como una alternativa viable.
Pero para el hombre para el cual la cooperación ya no es preferible, no se hacen presuposiciones, y no ha puesto de lado a la violencia como una opción, sino que busca negociar los términos bajo los cuales cooperar “podría” ser preferible al conflicto, conquista o depredación.
Con ley natural no hay presuposiciones.
A menos que las mujeres sean capaces de reproducirse con los mejores genes y obtengan apoyo del resto de los genes a cambio de sexo, entonces siempre habrá una influencia disgénica en la humanidad.
¿Por que?
Porque su descendencia es costosa y son capaces de auto engañarse de cualquier forma posible para poder llevar a cabo la pretensión de que sus pésimas elecciones no han resultado en un peso muerto parasitario para la civilización.
La monogamia evita que los hombres sean violentos pero forza la disgenia.
¿Ahora lo entendéis?
Germanization of Christianity serves as the extension of ARYAN commercial behavior (markets in everything) into all walks of life public and private.
But what requirements in exchange? Integration.
And without integration? Ostracization from the value of markets in everything.
You must integrate fully, leave, or die.
(re: criticisms that I am anti-religion)
Hey guys. Thanks for the mention, and it’s fine to disagree.
Um. I am not anti religion. (a) I treat religious texts as wisdom literature, not science or history, and as such meaningless in argument. I do not state that religion is unnecessary, or that it is bad. Only that anti-western religion is unnecessary or bad; (b) like Nietzsche I view christianity as an attack on western civilization that we have not fully saved ourselves from, but that we can reform our church to be pro-western – but the church has followed the money into the third world and abandoned us; (c) That the French and the Jewish cosmopolitans developed a new pseudoscientific set of arguments creating another false religion with which to attack the west, and that this pseudoscience is our current secular ‘cult’. (d) That by the application of (technical) natural law it is possible to make these pseudosciences illegal at the cost of making islam, unreformed christianity, judaism illegal in public speech – the same way we have made fraud illegal in the sale and distribution of goods and services; (e) that the only means of saving ourselves is the organized application of violence to impose this law, and to prosecute these liars by the organized application of violence.
Mostly this group argues against me because (1) I do not believe the 1930’s can be recreated, (2) I advocate nationalism for everyone, not just my kin, (3) I blame our people for not using violence to defend ourselves, rather than blaming others for exploiting our weaknesses. (4) I don’t have a lot of patience with stupid people – and I doubt that I ever will. And this group can attract stupid people. Not that they aren’t my kin, and are wrong, but I have nothing to say to them. (Sorry).
Cheers.
ROTHBARDIANISM? BUILD A MODEL. GO AHEAD. THINK IT THRU.
Build a model. Go ahead. Try it. You have an opinion. Prove that you’re not a fucking idiot.
What will occur if you could manage to put 1000 rothbadians in a small city on a trade route, tomorrow, what would happen? model it out.
1) it’s easy to find 1000 people to claim they are rothbardians.
2) it’s IMPOSSIBLE to find 1000 people who DEMONSTRATE they are rothbardians.
3) but lets assume for a minute that you can, by luck, get given some land along, say, the new silk road. And you want to set up a rothbardian society. How will you do that?
Here is how your conversation will start: “if some rich person (please mommy or daddy), or some nation (please king, or government) will fund (pay me to play around) a libertarian order (a place where I can keep my meagre earnings outside of a major market) I will (I fantasize) move there (away from all the creature comforts of an empire and a mixed economy) to a place only other losers like me will go to, and feel good until we fail and blame it on other people who don’t come for not having our fortitude (subsidy).
So, why do people come? What will they do? Why will they choose it over the alternatives? how will you create private defense, private, courts, private property, and how will your courts determine what private property, and what contract terms, they will rule in disputes over, and what not?
How will you prevent a nearby city, state, or empire from boycotting you via trade barriers? how will you stop organized crime? How will you stop an influx of people who prey upon nearby cities, states, empires by violence, fraud, conversion, immigration, or fiancialization, or some other scheme?
Why will WOMEN want to move there? or live there?
If you can’t get 100 libertarianis to agree to the scope of non aggression, or the definition of private property, despite 50 years of trying, how will you get them to take real life and property and commercial risks together?
In other words, how can you OPERATIONALIZE rothbardianism? How can you bring it into existence in the real world instead of the fantasy world of silly teenagers and immature young males?
I mean, if you can’t operationalize your ideas, you (anyone) is just saying that youre stupid ignorant and fantasizing over hot girs on porn sites, right? I mean what’s the difference between envisioning yourself with some hot chick, envisioning yourself as some athlete, envisioning yourself as some warrior, envisioning yourself as economicallly successful, envisioning yourself as a leader of men, envisioning yourself as a politician, a king, a despot?
I mean, if you can’t OPERATIONALIZE some objective and demonstrate that it’s at least POSSIBLE then you’re just masturbating to political porn the way young men masturbate to car porn, gun porn, chick porn. RIght?
“I’m a libertarian” is, like “I’m a Marxist” just signaling that you masturbate to political porn unless you can state some strategy for operationally constructing what it is that you desire.
I’m pretty smart and I CANNOT OPERATIONALLY CONSTRUCT A LIBERTARIAN ORDER. I CANNOT locate a candidate geographically, discover any incentives that would produce membership, discover sufficient means of organization to produce the minimum commons (rule of law, defense) discover a means of constructing sufficient comparative advantage that it is possible to attract and maintain population (particularly women). Or discover a means of preventing such a territory from being populated by raiders of nearby or remote markets who then seize power until the external markets prey upon them.
I can’t do it. Tell me how it can be done. Show me people will do so. Show me rational incentives to do so. And the answer is, that you can’t. All yo ucan do is say “i would prefer to wok on the borderland where I exchange limited regulation and taxation for much lower standard of living and much higher opportunity costs – so high that I can only survive by parasitic remote subsistence on remote markets. Why? subsistence farming by an individual is fucking hard and libertarians aren’t exactly the hardest working folk you know.
ROTHBARDIANISM IS NOTHING MORE JEWISH SEPARATIST PARASITISM sold to young ignorant men who have a touch of intelligence, but are of little associative, reproductive, commercial, military, and strategic value, precisely because there is something WRONG (undesirable) about them.
it’s just that this parasitic argument, like marxism before it and christianty before it promises the impossible to people not smart enough to falsify that vast overloading and framing that the propaganda is constructed from.
It sucks to admit you were played. That you’re not that smart. But libertarianism played a pretty good sized group of people. Not enough to make a political movement. But enough to make a cult for misfit boys.
Grow the fuck up.
Men fight. They kill. They destroy. They take. They rule. They profit from their rule. They decrease the cost of profiting from their rule. They profit more so.
If’ you’re a free riding effeminate loser unwilling to fight, kill, destroy, take, rule, profit from taht rule, and build a civilization that constantly decreases the cost of profiting from that rule then you are just a fucking whinny little bitch.
Lift. Run. Explosively Sprint. Read about war. get a weapon. And when the time comes be the first guy to sprint to an opportunity to fight, kill, destroy, take, and rule.
Otherwise youre just a child. Not a man.
Thus Endeth The Lesson.
Q: “WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?”
What is Propertarianism?
A scientific, meaning descriptive, statement of Natural Law.
What is Natural Law?
A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics.
What do you mean by ethics?
The law of cooperation and conflict resolution.
What is this law of cooperation and conflict resolution?
Reciprocity.
WHAT IS RECIPROCITY?
In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in.
In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means.
As determined by the either any change, or the total change in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality.
—“All of ethics can be reduced to [is a subset/special application of] the degree of reciprocity & the the accounting thereof.— James Augustus
WHY DOES RECIPROCITY SERVE AS NATURAL LAW?
Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions.
WHERE IS THE NAME PROPERTARIANISM FROM?
why didn’t we use Natural Law or Reciprocity, or Sovereignty, and why did we use Propertarianism?
We used propertarianism because property, like money, provides the unit of measurement – the test – of changes in state caused by our actions. Property in toto, (that which others have born costs to obtain an interest without imposing costs upon the interests of others) like money, like any standard of measure in any field, provides a perfect test of reciprocity: cooperation.
Natural Law has been ‘tainted’ by various authors, so we had to differentiate ourselves from those previous authors.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Yep. Transcendence and Sovereignty were the last pieces.
In the end, warriors make rule possible, but Judges rule. In the monopoly of soldiery officers rule, and in the market of cooperation judges rule. Judges and Officers provide the same function under positiva (military) and negativa (market) organizations.
The question is only which method judges use to rule. And there is only one scientific, logical, true, and perfectly decidable method by which judges *can* rule, and that is Reciprocity: The Natural Law of Sovereign Men.
The west has always been poly-narrative. With each class evolving its own narrative. And with each class narrative justifying its role in the natural law of sovereign men. The cult of sovereignty for the aristocracy, the cult of law for the priesthood of the aristocracy, the cult of philosophy for the middle aspirational classes, and the cult of religion for the laboring classes, and the cult of rejection, rebellion, and escape by the undesirable classes.
And in turn, there is only one method of producing Sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and sufficient surplus for subsidy, and this is via the incremental suppression of parasitisms in all its forms, producing sovereign men, and eliminating parasitic men – leaving only means of survival in markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, and production of polities. The monarchy provides the judge of last resort in war, the judiciary the judge of markets, and the officer corps the commander of the monopoly that is war.
And so, as long as the men willing and able to fight for sovereignty are trained in, and participate in, a local militia, a regional regimental system, and are trained by a national army, in exchange for rights of public speech, access to territorial and capital ownership, and participation in the choice of commons, then because of their arms and their numbers, no usurper can deprive them of sovereignty; and because of their investment and advantage from it, they will preserve their sovereignty, and because of their universal standing in courts of natural law, they will have incentive and peaceful and productive means of preserving their sovereignty, through the incremental suppression of all parasitism of which they are aware. Men must create a market for the suppression of parasitism, by in turn creating a market for cooperation, because of the market for violence that is the result of a large militia of diverse personal but homogenous collective, interests.
There is but one method of obtaining and preserving the sovereignty, necessary for the production of agency, necessary for the transcendence of man, and that is the organization of a franchise (corporation) of warriors of sufficient number, with sufficient incentives, and sufficient institutional means, that the only conditions that prevent conflict and preserve cooperation.
The advantage of this order is that we preserve our original innovation: maneuver (what we call today ooda-loops) because of the distribution of decision making to the lowest possible level of the organization: a market for heroism in battle.
We developed markets in everything, because markets adapt faster and innovate faster than all alternatives. And for a small population of people, the use of excellence(professionals) and technology (excellence), and markets (maneuver) is simply *faster* in all dimensions than all larger and slower alternatives.
He who adapts fastest and best has the advantage. Because the first and last enemy of all is TIME.
MEASUREMENTS RENDER COMMENSURABILITY
1) Numbers render countable objects commensurable
2) Measurements render relations commensurable
3) Physics renders physical causes commensurable.
4) Money renders goods and services commensurable
5) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable
6) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable.
YOUR MIND CAN’T FEEL PAIN IT CAN HOWEVER FEEL DEPRESSION – THE MIND’S VERSION OF CHRONIC PAIN.
people who work long hours, without walking or running, under information saturation, and artificial light saturation in seasonally dark climates will develop majority depressive symptoms in the population, requiring anti-depressant drugs to relieve the pain (depression is pain). Underclass workers will develop chronic pain and require opiates. In other words, we are working ourselves to death, because chronic bodily pain and depression are just two words for the same symptoms produced by the same causes. Your mind can’t feel pain from exhaustion it can only feel depression
Apr 20, 2017 12:11pm
YOU WANT A SYSTEMIC SOLUTION THAT WILL WORK?
Max 24 hour work week, preferably 4 days. Forced retirement savings, 4 hour school day, prohibition on immigration outside of research in physical sciences, tiered medical insurance, zero interest home loans, direct redistribution of liquidity to consumers, end of child support, spousal support, and marital community property, and marital credit and taxation; creation of debt-‘dole’ on the british model. removal of women from the voting pool into a separate house. mandatory service in militia (expansion of national guard’) providing both natural disaster, emergency, medical, and defense capability – with fitness requirement through the age of 60, or heavy penalties. Requirement for strict construction of law, legislation, regulation. Revocation of civil war violations of natural law. Restoration of voluntary association and dissociation. Redistribution of income taxes to the states, which then forward them to the federal government. And total revocation of the federal ability to levy taxes.
As a package it will sell. Incrementally it won’t.
America: children, totally absent a mother’s attention, housed in and driven to boredom and immobility in schools, causing them extensive developmental brain damage, who then are so desperate for stimulation they cling to consumer goods, only to find later in life that they are alone, unwanted, unuseful, and easily buried and forgotten.
America, the land where ‘decent’ and disciplined (moral) people work their assess off to pay absurd mortgage rates by borrowing from themselves (omfg), so that they can afford to move away from ‘indecent’ undisciplined (immoral) people, rather than paying trivial costs for trivial homes, where indecent people are prohibited from living.
Make industrialization of home production unprofitable. And watch what happens…..
America, the land of lonely people surrounded by consumer goods, taking opiates for physical pain and anti-depressants for mental pain.
People who work long hours, without walking or running, under information saturation, and in artificial light saturation, in seasonally dark climates, will develop majority depressive symptoms in the population.
Let me put it another way: the government is killing us.
Not a member yet? Register now
Are you a member? Login now