Jan 22, 2020, 7:31 PM
What made America great was Anglo Saxon absolutism under the promise of universal middle class. Period. What has destroyed America is Semitic undermining by the false promise of equality.
Jan 22, 2020, 7:31 PM
What made America great was Anglo Saxon absolutism under the promise of universal middle class. Period. What has destroyed America is Semitic undermining by the false promise of equality.
Freemasonry Context https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/freemasonry-context/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 19:16:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264998855726284801
Jan 23, 2020, 8:54 AM
—“Free maronry became distorted in the early 1800s. You cannot place pre 1800s masons in the same basket as post 1800s masons. In the early 1800s Free Masonry started using a ritualized form of pseudoscience. This began instructing it’s members in a less empirical method and towards a more hermetic method. Without clear categories, relativism will over time dissolve meaning (nihilism). That’s my understanding of what went wrong.”—Andrew M Gilmour
Freemasonry like many men’s organizations is an attempt to create the loyalty of military organizations in peace time, and on civic matters rather than in war on military matters. Western religion evolved from extending the rituals over death into the initiatic brotherhood of warriors where other religions evolved from more abstract supernatural demands. The high-cost of required behavior(ritual) in joining mens organizations are a means of filtering out those with low agency so that the organization is least subject to undermining by the weak. Anglo/Dutch aristocracy vs Germanic (Prussian,Austrian,German) Aristocracy vs Spanish Aristocracy vs Italian Aristocracy vs French Aristocracy vs the rest – minor aristocracies as well. All faced slightly different problems and opportunities. The Anglos relied heavily on technology sail and armies. The French on wealth sail and armies, The germans almost entirely on armies, etc. Each was more or less imprisoned by the corruption of the church. Each had a more or less mobile workforce. Each had a more or less literate workforce. Each had more or less national (communal) aspirations. Freemasonry provided a loyalty system other than family and military that was more ‘honorable’ than the corruption of the church and the court. There appears to be little meaningful difference between the pre-collapse men’s cults (Mithras, Sol Invictus) and restoration men’s cults (Freemasonry), other than freemasonry was even purer in european physicalism.
Jan 23, 2020, 8:54 AM
—“Free maronry became distorted in the early 1800s. You cannot place pre 1800s masons in the same basket as post 1800s masons. In the early 1800s Free Masonry started using a ritualized form of pseudoscience. This began instructing it’s members in a less empirical method and towards a more hermetic method. Without clear categories, relativism will over time dissolve meaning (nihilism). That’s my understanding of what went wrong.”—Andrew M Gilmour
Freemasonry like many men’s organizations is an attempt to create the loyalty of military organizations in peace time, and on civic matters rather than in war on military matters. Western religion evolved from extending the rituals over death into the initiatic brotherhood of warriors where other religions evolved from more abstract supernatural demands. The high-cost of required behavior(ritual) in joining mens organizations are a means of filtering out those with low agency so that the organization is least subject to undermining by the weak. Anglo/Dutch aristocracy vs Germanic (Prussian,Austrian,German) Aristocracy vs Spanish Aristocracy vs Italian Aristocracy vs French Aristocracy vs the rest – minor aristocracies as well. All faced slightly different problems and opportunities. The Anglos relied heavily on technology sail and armies. The French on wealth sail and armies, The germans almost entirely on armies, etc. Each was more or less imprisoned by the corruption of the church. Each had a more or less mobile workforce. Each had a more or less literate workforce. Each had more or less national (communal) aspirations. Freemasonry provided a loyalty system other than family and military that was more ‘honorable’ than the corruption of the church and the court. There appears to be little meaningful difference between the pre-collapse men’s cults (Mithras, Sol Invictus) and restoration men’s cults (Freemasonry), other than freemasonry was even purer in european physicalism.
Jan 23, 2020, 11:45 AM MUST READ by Luke Weinhagen Race + Aesthetic = Ethnicity In much the same way common biological markers are a shortcut to trust (represent a reduction in costs) common aesthetic markers as a shortcut to trust. Shared aesthetic signals “I am one of you” like shared biology does. Aesthetic, in this context, is the projection of or our kinship onto our environment and behavior. Consumption of the aesthetic produces an externalization of costs onto the development of common trust. Globalist Capitalism discounts the aesthetic. – It tears down the historic church to put up an Amazon distribution center. – It sends the work to India instead of Indiana. – It ignores full-accounting to limit trade to material value. – It denies the commonality, the community, value embodied by the aesthetic. – It dissolves the bonds that aesthetic creates and supports. Globalist Capitalism consumes our trust, and it does so at a deep discount. (because the aesthetic is not common between parties under globalism, aesthetic can not be valued into trade – globalist capitalism has to deny/prevent/ignore full-accounting) Kinship Capitalism includes the demand for full-accounting that includes the value of the aesthetic. – It prevents the destruction of our history and demands restitution when that history is damaged. – It puts the burden of extra costs on the outsider bring business into the kinship. – It demands the value of a resource be measured by the cost of its loss to the community as well as any material value – It promotes and preserves the commonality, the community, value embodied by the aesthetic. – Is secures the bonds that aesthetic creates and supports. Kinship Capitalism preserves our trust, and insures our interactions to continue to increase that trust.
Jan 23, 2020, 11:45 AM MUST READ by Luke Weinhagen Race + Aesthetic = Ethnicity In much the same way common biological markers are a shortcut to trust (represent a reduction in costs) common aesthetic markers as a shortcut to trust. Shared aesthetic signals “I am one of you” like shared biology does. Aesthetic, in this context, is the projection of or our kinship onto our environment and behavior. Consumption of the aesthetic produces an externalization of costs onto the development of common trust. Globalist Capitalism discounts the aesthetic. – It tears down the historic church to put up an Amazon distribution center. – It sends the work to India instead of Indiana. – It ignores full-accounting to limit trade to material value. – It denies the commonality, the community, value embodied by the aesthetic. – It dissolves the bonds that aesthetic creates and supports. Globalist Capitalism consumes our trust, and it does so at a deep discount. (because the aesthetic is not common between parties under globalism, aesthetic can not be valued into trade – globalist capitalism has to deny/prevent/ignore full-accounting) Kinship Capitalism includes the demand for full-accounting that includes the value of the aesthetic. – It prevents the destruction of our history and demands restitution when that history is damaged. – It puts the burden of extra costs on the outsider bring business into the kinship. – It demands the value of a resource be measured by the cost of its loss to the community as well as any material value – It promotes and preserves the commonality, the community, value embodied by the aesthetic. – Is secures the bonds that aesthetic creates and supports. Kinship Capitalism preserves our trust, and insures our interactions to continue to increase that trust.
Jan 23, 2020, 11:54 AM The first episodes of persecution of paganism in the history of the Roman Empire started late in Constantine’s reign, with his orders for the pillaging and the tearing down of pagan temples.[1][2][3] The anti-paganism policy of Constantine the Great evolved from the initial prohibition on the construction of new temples[14] and the toleration of pagan sacrifices,[15] to orders for the looting and the tearing down of the temples by the end of his reign.[1][2][3] Earlier in his reign he had prohibited the construction of new temples[14] but tolerated the practice of pagan sacrifices.[15] According to Church historians writing after his death, Constantine converted to Christianity and was baptised on his deathbed, thus making him the first Christian emperor. Constantine, though he made his allegiance clear, did not outlaw paganism; in the words of an early edict, he decreed that polytheists could “celebrate the rites of an outmoded illusion,” so long as they did not force Christians to join them.[18][19] In a letter to the King of Persia, Constantine wrote how he shunned the “abominable blood and hateful odors” of pagan sacrifices, and instead worshiped the High God “on bended knee”,[15][20] and in the new capital city he built, Constantine made sure that there were no pagan temples built.[14] Constantine would sporadically prohibit public sacrifice and close pagan temples; very little pressure, however, was put on individual pagans, and there were no pagan martyrs. When Constantine dedicated Constantinople, two Neoplatonist friends – Sopater and Praetextus – were present. A year and a half later, on Monday 11 May 330, when the festival of Saint Mocius was celebrated, the city was finally dedicated. The goddess Tyche was invited to come and live in the city, and her statue was placed in the hand of the statue of the emperor that was on top of the Column of Constantine, on the Forum with the same name. Although by now Constantine openly supported Christianity, the city still offered room to pagan religions: there were shrines for the Dioscuri and Tyche. The Acropolis, with its ancient pagan temples, was left as it was. As for worshipping the emperor, Constantine’s mausoleum gave him a Christ-like status: his tomb was set amid 12 monuments, each containing relics of one of the Apostles. Constantine had continued to engage in pagan rituals. The emperor still claimed to be a supernatural being, although the outward form of this personality cult had become Christian.[21] According to some authors, the issuing of the Edict of Milan,[22] showed that Constantine continued the policy of toleration which Galerius had established.[citation needed] He “continued to pay his public honors to the Sun”, until 325, on coins that showed him jointly with Sol Invictus, whereas his later coins showed the Chi-Rho sign.[23] In that year he had the Christian Bishops convene at the First Council of Nicaea, and from then on continued to take an active interest in the affairs of the Church. Many historians, including MacMullen, have seen the seeds of future persecution by the state in Constantine’s more belligerent utterances regarding the old religion.[1] Other historians[who?] emphasize that de facto paganism “was tolerated in the period from Constantine to Gratian. Emperors were tolerant in deed, if not always in word.”[24] Church restrictions opposing the pillaging of pagan temples by Christians were in place even while the Christians were being persecuted by the pagans. Spanish bishops in AD 305 decreed that anyone who broke idols and was killed while doing so was not formally to be counted as a martyr, as the provocation was too blatant.[25] Constantine became the first Emperor in the Christian era to persecute specific groups of Christians, the Donatists, in order to enforce religious unity.[26] Legislation against magic and private divination Constantine legislated against magic and private divination, but this may have been motivated by a fear that others could gain power through those means.[27] Despite enacting such legislation, he also enacted contradictory legislation that called for the consultation of augurs after an amphitheater had been struck by lightning in the year 320.[28] Constantine explicitly allowed public divination as well as public pagan practices to continue.[29] Constantine also issued laws confirming the rights of flamens, priests and duumvirs.[30] In 321, he legislated that the “venerable day of the sun” should be a day of rest for all citizens. This ambiguous wording is capable of being interpreted as referring to the Christian day of rest or to Sol Invictus. However, in the year 323, he issued a decree banning Christians from participating in state sacrifices.[31] He destroyed the Temple of Aphrodite in Lebanon.[32] He ordered the execution of eunuch priests in Egypt[1] because they transgressed his moral norms. According to the historian Ramsay MacMullen, Constantine desired to obliterate non-Christians but lacking the means he had to be content with robbing their temples towards the end of his reign.[33] He resorted to derogatory and contemptuous comments relating to the old religion; writing of the “true obstinacy” of the pagans, of their “misguided rites and ceremonial”, and of their “temples of lying” contrasted with “the splendours of the home of truth”.[2]
Jan 23, 2020, 11:54 AM The first episodes of persecution of paganism in the history of the Roman Empire started late in Constantine’s reign, with his orders for the pillaging and the tearing down of pagan temples.[1][2][3] The anti-paganism policy of Constantine the Great evolved from the initial prohibition on the construction of new temples[14] and the toleration of pagan sacrifices,[15] to orders for the looting and the tearing down of the temples by the end of his reign.[1][2][3] Earlier in his reign he had prohibited the construction of new temples[14] but tolerated the practice of pagan sacrifices.[15] According to Church historians writing after his death, Constantine converted to Christianity and was baptised on his deathbed, thus making him the first Christian emperor. Constantine, though he made his allegiance clear, did not outlaw paganism; in the words of an early edict, he decreed that polytheists could “celebrate the rites of an outmoded illusion,” so long as they did not force Christians to join them.[18][19] In a letter to the King of Persia, Constantine wrote how he shunned the “abominable blood and hateful odors” of pagan sacrifices, and instead worshiped the High God “on bended knee”,[15][20] and in the new capital city he built, Constantine made sure that there were no pagan temples built.[14] Constantine would sporadically prohibit public sacrifice and close pagan temples; very little pressure, however, was put on individual pagans, and there were no pagan martyrs. When Constantine dedicated Constantinople, two Neoplatonist friends – Sopater and Praetextus – were present. A year and a half later, on Monday 11 May 330, when the festival of Saint Mocius was celebrated, the city was finally dedicated. The goddess Tyche was invited to come and live in the city, and her statue was placed in the hand of the statue of the emperor that was on top of the Column of Constantine, on the Forum with the same name. Although by now Constantine openly supported Christianity, the city still offered room to pagan religions: there were shrines for the Dioscuri and Tyche. The Acropolis, with its ancient pagan temples, was left as it was. As for worshipping the emperor, Constantine’s mausoleum gave him a Christ-like status: his tomb was set amid 12 monuments, each containing relics of one of the Apostles. Constantine had continued to engage in pagan rituals. The emperor still claimed to be a supernatural being, although the outward form of this personality cult had become Christian.[21] According to some authors, the issuing of the Edict of Milan,[22] showed that Constantine continued the policy of toleration which Galerius had established.[citation needed] He “continued to pay his public honors to the Sun”, until 325, on coins that showed him jointly with Sol Invictus, whereas his later coins showed the Chi-Rho sign.[23] In that year he had the Christian Bishops convene at the First Council of Nicaea, and from then on continued to take an active interest in the affairs of the Church. Many historians, including MacMullen, have seen the seeds of future persecution by the state in Constantine’s more belligerent utterances regarding the old religion.[1] Other historians[who?] emphasize that de facto paganism “was tolerated in the period from Constantine to Gratian. Emperors were tolerant in deed, if not always in word.”[24] Church restrictions opposing the pillaging of pagan temples by Christians were in place even while the Christians were being persecuted by the pagans. Spanish bishops in AD 305 decreed that anyone who broke idols and was killed while doing so was not formally to be counted as a martyr, as the provocation was too blatant.[25] Constantine became the first Emperor in the Christian era to persecute specific groups of Christians, the Donatists, in order to enforce religious unity.[26] Legislation against magic and private divination Constantine legislated against magic and private divination, but this may have been motivated by a fear that others could gain power through those means.[27] Despite enacting such legislation, he also enacted contradictory legislation that called for the consultation of augurs after an amphitheater had been struck by lightning in the year 320.[28] Constantine explicitly allowed public divination as well as public pagan practices to continue.[29] Constantine also issued laws confirming the rights of flamens, priests and duumvirs.[30] In 321, he legislated that the “venerable day of the sun” should be a day of rest for all citizens. This ambiguous wording is capable of being interpreted as referring to the Christian day of rest or to Sol Invictus. However, in the year 323, he issued a decree banning Christians from participating in state sacrifices.[31] He destroyed the Temple of Aphrodite in Lebanon.[32] He ordered the execution of eunuch priests in Egypt[1] because they transgressed his moral norms. According to the historian Ramsay MacMullen, Constantine desired to obliterate non-Christians but lacking the means he had to be content with robbing their temples towards the end of his reign.[33] He resorted to derogatory and contemptuous comments relating to the old religion; writing of the “true obstinacy” of the pagans, of their “misguided rites and ceremonial”, and of their “temples of lying” contrasted with “the splendours of the home of truth”.[2]
Ethnocentrism Is the Optimum Group Strategy… https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/ethnocentrism-is-the-optimum-group-strategy/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:51:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264992583052296194
Jan 24, 2020, 7:45 AM
ETHNOCENTRISM IS THE OPTIMUM GROUP STRATEGY… Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy however it is in competition with the need for scale, hence the continuous conflict and decline in the tribal middle east, while slow evolution in india, faster in china, and fastest in europe. Only one civilization failed.