. . .

—“Curt, I’m a bit surprised to see you answer that journalist the way you did. I would have expected you to be highly sparse with information, particularly pertaining to the purpose, economics, and success of the event. But what most surprised me is that you would post it on social media.”— A Friend

This is a great conversation to have among libertarians and the right. It is a great illustration of the value of Propertarianism. And it is a great illustration of why the alt right and the right in general fail.

You remember the Tiger woods debacle? What would have happened if he had said, “Yes, I’m tiger woods, I’m great a t what I do, I am an athlete, and I’m proud to be an athelte. Women like athletes. Women all but throw themselves at me. And I love them all, I want to be with them all, and I probably shouldn’t have gotten married because after all, this is who I am. I am an athlete and that is all.” And then made a series of television commercials showing him trying to play golf or whatever and being constantly distracted by attractive women. The strategy is this: take everything off the table by saying it yourself.

A journalist, like a lawyer, prosecutor,or judge, is looking for information hiding, conspiracy, deception and fraud. They are not looking to understand. Their technique is to ask a lot of people similar questions, triangulate, and construct a narrative of immoral conspiracy. You cannot control a narrative. One crack and you’ve simply provided what the prosecutor seeks: incentives.

The way you defeat opponents in life, commerce, media, and court, is (a) to have moral objectives and to state them, (b) to speak as much of the truth as you can manage. (c) to repeat your message over and over again.

Well what is true? The event was a success. The people had fun. The panel was pleased with us. It advanced our strategic interests. It proved we can fill a room. It proved that Megan can run a conference if we want to scale. And it taught us about the costs and unpredictability of volunteers vs commercial interests, and paid speakers. I succeeded in getting the panel to answer the meaningful questions – although I couldn’t summarize it completely, and we needed a longer Q&A period. Eli learned that you need to prepare a presentation. Megan learned that a successful event is a non-event, and that you don’t need to run a show, just create an environment for conversation, bonding, and friendship development. I knew absolutely nothing about the venue, money, or anything else other than the few tidbits that Megan told me in the weeks before the event.

Conservatives and libertarians are just as big a set of liars as progressives. Hence why truth is the best weapon. But that is in part because most conservatives and libertarians don’t know they’re lying – or justify it.

Conservatism is a purely eugenic movement using a meritocratic hierarchy of self self-support (work), commons support (militia), family support, business support, region or corporation support (nobility), and political support (leadership). White privilege is a psychologism of white superiority. Multiculturalism is an attack on aristocratic civilization by those lacking merit. Left consensus is driven largely by fear of being left behind, and prohibiting alphas from getting ahead. Masculine aristocratic, feminine communist – there is no mystery to our intuitions: they are simply reproductive strategies.

And so I see conservatives and alt righters as trying to get away with something by using ridicule of others and group bodning rather than advocating for separatism. In other words, I see the alt right as effeminate and infantile, rather than adult and serious. Serious people make serious arguments. A serious argument is one that is operationally possible.

My ambition is to restore a constitution of natural law, to legislate truthfulness in the commons, and to devolve the government such that tribes of all sorts can produce commons in their individual interests. I believe this can only be accomplished – not because of the population’s unwillingess to adopt a different government – but because of the state and deep state, media, and academy that defends that deep state and totalitarian universalism.

This will allow western civilization to continue and in no small part by separating natural aristocracy (conservatives) from the remaining peoples who cannot compete in a natural meritocratic aristocracy: bad people, bad families, bad businesses, bad government, and bad militia. But the price will be secession of territory – at least, until the leftist governments fail – which they all will, because they all must.

What I see among the alt right, and libertarians is a bunch of childish LARPing, by using the internet as a massively multiplayer online game. I saw the alt-right go down in flames out of the same childish larping: the loneliness and desire for community by people who want keg parties and have no military or political objective, and no possible solution to offer the world. I play into the LARPing as a means of testing messages. In the full knowledge that the relationship between religion and the right is long time horizons (low time preference). And that such calculations have hereto for been matters of intuition not reason and calculation.

But that is what my work provides: a language of the long term: capital, not experience. yet I am fully aware of the deep desire for intuitionism among the right and libertarians.

So how about we just state the truth. And make a revolution, instead of a fraternity. And leave the romantics out of the picture. And search for people who will conduct that revolution.

And how about we use journalist’s attacks as means of staying on message: Separate or revolt and separate. It’s a simply choice. Monopoly is just conquest by left of right. And if it is conquest then the only answer is to fight.