I DIDNT UNDERSTAND THAT THE FAMILY AND TRIBE WERE MORE IMPORTANT THAN NATION AND STATE.
I actually am … Shocked.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-18 08:03:00 UTC
I DIDNT UNDERSTAND THAT THE FAMILY AND TRIBE WERE MORE IMPORTANT THAN NATION AND STATE.
I actually am … Shocked.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-18 08:03:00 UTC
WHAT HAVE WE DONE….
“This perspective on the Revolution has particular significance in the case of the aristocratic liberals because for them France, not England was the paradigmatic case for modern history. To most nineteenth-century European liberals, England and English history were the pattern for modern development. But to the aristocratic liberals, the pattern was france, and their understanding of the French Revolution must be seen in this light.England was the Other, placed opposite the common Continental destiny. Continually out of phase with the rest of Europe, sometimes running ahead and sometimes lagging behind.” – Aristocratic Liberalism p11.
“…all of Europe was seized with a hatred of itself, of its own time, of its own history: “Theory taught that tradition was worthless and that the oldest things were useless and rubbish.”
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-15 15:20:00 UTC
http://mises.org/document/6995/Why-American-History-Is-Not-What-They-Say
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-15 05:09:00 UTC
“Then out spoke brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate:
‘To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late;
And how can man die better, than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods’ “
Beautiful. Not quite enough to build a plot on tho…. ;(
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-14 17:06:00 UTC
“Libertarian Moral Diversity Denialism”
Increases in wealth under manorialism and the forcible ban on intermarriage, forced a shift from kindreds to lineages, which in turn forced a shift towards nuclear families. As a side effect there was a delay in marriage and reproduction, more assortive mating (romance), the extension of the kin ethic to all potential family members.
Property is inseparable from the nuclear family. Because property gives males control over breeding. You can add women to the economy. You either can add them to the voting pool, OR you can undermine the nuclear family and assortive mating, through child support, alimony, and redistribution. But you can’t do both and keep property rights. Property is the antithesis of the female reproductive strategy. The feminists are right, which is why the feminists and the socialists are allies. Or rather, the feminists give the socialists ethical air cover.
But if women can vote to control their reproduction and at the same time control the productivity of males through political expropriation, then you will NEVER EVER have the institution of private property. EVER.
Property was created by the application of organized violence. It put reproduction in control of the male. And eventually led to eugenic reproduction.
If there is anything that puts a stake in the heart of libertarian hyper-individualism (moral diversity denial) then that’s it.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-11 14:26:00 UTC
COUNTERING THE NOBLE SAVAGE MYTH
(QUICK LIST OF CITATIONS)
(Pinker put a stake in that postmodern vampire.)
^ Pinker, Steven. “1 A Foreign Country -Human prehistory”. The better angels of our nature : why violence has declined. New York: Viking. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-670-02295-3. “In a century that began with 9/11, Iraq, and Darfur, the claim that we are living in an unusually peaceful time may strike you as somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. I know from conversations and survey data that most people refuse to believe it.”
^ Chagnon, N.A. (1996). .Bock, G.R & Goode, J.A. (eds.), ed. Genetics of criminal and antisocial behaviour. Chichester: Wiley. pp. 202–231. ISBN 0471957194.
^ Keeley, Lawrence H. (1996): War Before Civilization New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0195119126
^ Martin, Debra L., and David W. Frayer, eds. Troubled Times: Violence and Warfare in the Past. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach, 1997
^ “The fraud of primitive authenticity”. Asian Times. 4th of July, 2006. Retrieved 16 July 2013.
^ Wade, Nicholas (2006). Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors (4th print. ed.). New York: Penguin Press. ISBN 1-59420-079-3.
^ Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, germs and steel : a short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years (5th print. ed.). London: Vintage. pp. 155–292. ISBN 0-09-930278-0.
^ Eisner, M. (2003). “Long-Term Historical Trends in Violent Crime”. Crime and Justice 30: 83–142. Retrieved 22 July 2013.
^ Lindström, Dag (2009). Body-Gendrot, S. & Spierenburg, P., ed. Violence in Europe. pp. 43–64.
^ Pinker, Steven. The better angels of our nature : why violence has declined. New York: Viking. ISBN 978-0-670-02295-3.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-05 18:26:00 UTC
http://www.propertarianism.com/2012/01/13/changes-in-identity/CHANGING IDENTITY: FROM ENGLISH TO BRITISH TO AMERICAN TO DISASPORIC – TO EXTINCT.
(Re-Post)
I made an unfortunate choice of terms when I started working on this theme. The idea I was trying to communicate was that the corporeal states that we have made with our extended family – our ‘race’ of the English people, have become the instrument of our extermination as a nation, a culture, a tradition, a people, a collection of tribes, and an extended family.
We are subjects of various corporations. We are property. Farm animals. But we are no longer a people in the sense that we have the fortress of a nation state that we use to advance the interests of our extended family.
Instead we are prisoners of the monstrous empires our family created. Those empires have become, as all empires must, corporations – organizations of financial rather than genetic interest. And that set of corporations is slowly forcing our extinction as a people in order to perpetuate the interests of the employees of the corporation itself.
At the time I used the term ‘englishman’, the loading of which I didn’t really understand. I meant that I wanted to return to my rights as an Englishman, in the ancient sense of the word. Meaning: personal sovereignty: meaning property rights to myself and my possessions.
And by sovereignty, I mean that I don’t want to be a farm animal. I am willing to sacrifice for my family. For my extended family. For my tribe. For my people. For my culture. That is always in my interest.
But I am not wiling to be farmed for the benefit of a corporation at the expense of my genetic and cultural heritage.
This is nothing more than killing off a herd to feed another herd.
Nothing more.
The state is the instrument of our extermination. What is the difference between a Death Camp and the American or British Governments except the time frame that they use to cause our extinction?
There isn’t any.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-04 05:53:00 UTC
HOW MANY GREAT BOOKS ARE THERE?
I think Adler’s list was too short, and it was an apologia for democracy. The aristocratic list I’ve been keeping is somewhere around 200, but it has a broader range of interest and it requires more books to alter the direction of the enlightenment than to confirm it with selected confirmation biases.
But lets say that the list requires 250 books, just to pick a number. And lets say that every 15 points of IQ requires a DIFFERENT book in order to communicate the basic principles to each audience. You’d need say, 5 books total, or perhaps 6 including the original idea. So, that’s a library of 1500 books.
Now, I’m talking non-fiction here. And you can add fiction to that list, and I have, and I was surprised how few survived scrutiny.
Any given person would need to read 250 books targeted to his or her reading level, and then the great literature in order to ‘taste’ every time period. (without the narrative it is very difficult to grasp the past in any meaningful way.)
Even if you only read one book a month that would only take twenty years. If you read two books a month, that would take you only ten years. If we taught reading, writing, math and basic physics through age seven, and then the great books, I’m not really sure there is a lot of wiggle room in education.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-02 03:30:00 UTC
http://universitypressaudiobooks.com/detail.php/281THE CONTINENTAL COMPETITION BETWEEN EUROPEANS AND ASIANS?
So Northern Europeans were the First Americans, and were wiped out by the First Nations who invaded from Asia? Then Europeans returned and reconquered the Asians? Now the Asians are re-invading north america and re-conquering the Northern Europeans?
Europeans arrive in 20,000 and are Exterminated by: (8,000 years)
Asians who arrive in 12,000 and are Conquered by: (10,000 years)
Europeans who arrive in 1500 who are Conquered by: (700 years)
Asians/North-Africans who arrive in 2000 conquered by ? (?)
My dear Amanda hated (and I assume still hates) white people with a passion. I kind of think that in the end, white people lose. ‘Cause technology is very useful for a small group to use to keep the hordes at bay, or to conquer the hordes. But over time, he who breeds wins, and we don’t breed much. It’s that simple.
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-26 04:34:00 UTC
CHINESE NATURAL EUGENICS – AND THE BRITISH PARALLEL
“…although just 1 percent of American high-school graduates each year have ethnic Chinese origins, surname analysis indicates that they currently include nearly 15 percent of the highest-achieving students, a performance ratio more than four times better than that of American Jews, the top-scoring white ancestry group.”
“…the enormous population growth of recent centuries had gradually caught up with and overtaken China’s exceptionally efficient agricultural system, reducing the lives of most Chinese to the brink of Malthusian starvation; and these pressures and constraints were believed to be reflected in the Chinese people. For example, Stoddard wrote: … Winnowed by ages of grim elimination in a land populated to the uttermost limits of subsistence, the Chinese race is selected as no other for survival under the fiercest conditions of economic stress. At home the average Chinese lives his whole life literally within a hand’s breadth of starvation. Accordingly, when removed to the easier environment of other lands, the Chinaman brings with him a working capacity which simply appalls his competitors.”
LIKE WE USED TO BE
Manorialism was little different from the Chinese experience. But within 150 years we have redistributed our median IQ from being equal to that of the Ashkenazim to the mean.
The puritan ethic was the natural product of needing to demonstrate fitness in order to gain access to land. And access to land meant access to reproduction.
We not only have no criteria for reproduction now. We have inverted it so that the lower the criteria the more we can reproduce. And worse, that we have eliminated the criteria for voting.
QUOTES
“During the second half of the 20th century, ideological considerations largely eliminated from American public discourse the notion that many centuries of particular circumstances might leave an indelible imprint upon a people. But with the turn of the new millennium, such analyses have once again begun appearing in respectable intellectual quarters.
“The most notable example of this would surely be A Farewell to Alms, Gregory Clark’s fascinating 2007 analysis of the deep origins of Britain’s industrial revolution, which was widely reviewed and praised throughout elite circles, with New York Times economics columnist Tyler Cowen hailing it as possibly “the next blockbuster in economics” and Berkeley economist Brad DeLong characterizing it as “brilliant.”
“Although Clark’s work focused on many different factors, the one that attracted the greatest attention was his demographic analysis of British history based upon a close examination of individual testaments. Clark discovered evidence that for centuries the wealthier British had left significantly more surviving children than their poorer compatriots, thus leading their descendents to constitute an ever larger share of each generation. Presumably, this was because they could afford to marry at a younger age, and their superior nutritional and living arrangements reduced mortality rates for themselves and their families. Indeed, the near-Malthusian poverty of much ordinary English life during this era meant that the impoverished lower classes often failed even to reproduce themselves over time, gradually being replaced by the downwardly mobile children of their financial betters. Since personal economic achievement was probably in part due to traits such as diligence, prudence, and productivity, Clark argued that these characteristics steadily became more widespread in the British population, laying the human basis for later national economic success.”
(FROM: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-social-darwinism-made-modern-china-248/)
YOU GET WHAT YOU ASK FOR
You just get all the consequences along with it.
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-25 12:01:00 UTC