—“Do you know how I can tell you’re almost done with Propertarianism? Because now I can undrestand it.”—- A Friend Down Under.
made me laugh….
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-30 21:09:00 UTC
Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response
-
“Do you know how I can tell you’re almost done with Propertarianism? Because now
-
agreed. loved it. left it
agreed. loved it. left it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-30 19:37:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079461390337916928
Reply addressees: @octal
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079447401361039360
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079447401361039360
-
yep
yep
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-30 18:24:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079443173846470656
Reply addressees: @SPQRIUS
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079440373179731968
IN REPLY TO:
@SPQRIUS
@curtdoolittle upward mobilization (50s/60s), whites moving to the burbs (60s/70s), outsourcing manufacturing jobsto the 2nd and 3rd worlds (80s/90s) , Keeping cities poor with low IQ anti-Western immigration, service jobs (90s,00s,10s).
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079440373179731968
-
i dont understand
i dont understand
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-30 18:06:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079438715066437632
Reply addressees: @StirlingFinn @JohnMarkSays @Imperius__13 @TrueDilTom @TheOldOrder1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079226108791349250
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079226108791349250
-
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-30 14:45:00 UTC
-
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/48961976_10156883688982264_638650235
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/48961976_10156883688982264_6386502350655193088_o_10156883688977264.jpg Marcin MoczarnyDas giiidDec 30, 2018, 2:02 PMJames Dmitro Makienko”Only weapons give us freedom” (c)Dec 30, 2018, 2:02 PMJon JonathanAlso obeying the rules for gunfighting.
1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap – life is expensive.
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you’re probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on “pucker factor” than the inherent accuracy of the gun. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. “All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket.”
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won’t work.
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don’t drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.)
19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than “4”.
25. You can’t miss fast enough to win.Dec 30, 2018, 2:05 PMJon JonathanOr in summary for both politics and fighting – it’s better to be remembered as the asshole that won than the moralist who lost.Dec 30, 2018, 2:07 PMJames Dmitro MakienkoAt the end there is only one rule. Win.Dec 30, 2018, 2:11 PMJohn Edward”Warriors for Liberty” is a good phraseDec 30, 2018, 2:13 PMJustin Odiogn”Sovereignty”*Dec 30, 2018, 2:18 PMJohn EdwardSovereigntaughDec 30, 2018, 2:24 PMJohn Edward(You say it like Cartman from South Park)Dec 30, 2018, 2:25 PMThorsten NorgateThe single best summation of your work, that you used yourself last year is RECIPROCITY OR WAR.Dec 30, 2018, 3:38 PMCurt DoolittleI think I’ll merge the two because that’s sort of puts nice closure on it. ;)Dec 30, 2018, 7:49 PMBill JoslinAnd it highlights a common misunderstanding – that being that our advocacy for reciprocity is limited to cooperative reciprocity … It’s not , reciprocating boycott and violence are also moral stancesDec 31, 2018, 6:09 PMRichard HallJames Dmitro Makienko Can I has weapon please? 😜Jan 5, 2019, 3:23 PM
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-30 13:50:00 UTC
-
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/48961976_10156883688982264_638650235
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/48961976_10156883688982264_6386502350655193088_o_10156883688977264.jpg Marcin MoczarnyDas giiidDec 30, 2018, 2:02 PMJames Dmitro Makienko”Only weapons give us freedom” (c)Dec 30, 2018, 2:02 PMJon JonathanAlso obeying the rules for gunfighting.
1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap – life is expensive.
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you’re probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on “pucker factor” than the inherent accuracy of the gun. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. “All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket.”
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won’t work.
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don’t drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.)
19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than “4”.
25. You can’t miss fast enough to win.Dec 30, 2018, 2:05 PMJon JonathanOr in summary for both politics and fighting – it’s better to be remembered as the asshole that won than the moralist who lost.Dec 30, 2018, 2:07 PMLuís F. RodriguesCurt, there is a silly Futurama quote that suddenly makes sense:
“They will learn our peaceful ways! — By FORCE!” … :DDec 30, 2018, 2:11 PMJames Dmitro MakienkoAt the end there is only one rule. Win.Dec 30, 2018, 2:11 PMJohn Edward”Warriors for Liberty” is a good phraseDec 30, 2018, 2:13 PMJustin Odiogn”Sovereignty”*Dec 30, 2018, 2:18 PMJohn EdwardSovereigntaughDec 30, 2018, 2:24 PMJohn Edward(You say it like Cartman from South Park)Dec 30, 2018, 2:25 PMThorsten NorgateThe single best summation of your work, that you used yourself last year is RECIPROCITY OR WAR.Dec 30, 2018, 3:38 PM
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-30 13:50:00 UTC
-
“So laymen adherents to Propertarianism must accept a good deal of the arguments
—“So laymen adherents to Propertarianism must accept a good deal of the arguments on faith, not fully appreciating their complexity personally? What steps do you have in place for preventing the formation of a personality cult around you?”– Lisa Outhwaite
Exceptional question.
But. Um. On “faith” is not the question. They can undrestand the benefits. And if they invest in any degree of learning, like an onion, as their level of investment increases, the rigor of it and explanatory power increases. One does not have ‘faith’ in geometry. One knows of it. One uses it. It works. But how many people know why? One has faith in money because everyone else does, not because they have the faintest idea what it means or is constituted of. I mean, do you know how much I write about money, what is money and what is not? I mean, try to find a person in the banking industry (even the finance industry) that can enumerate the spectrum of money and money substitutes like I do. It’s freaking impossible.
So, first, if you notice how hard I work to make it NOT about me, that in and of itself is part of my defense against it. Just as when I manage a company I try to distribute ‘management’ as early and as thoroughly as possible and then let the ‘market’ for talent do its work.
Although, we have to understand that some personality is inevitable. Every thinker has this problem. Marx, Lenin, and the Prophets in particular, although Saul of Tarsus was the most excellent in making it NOT about him.
**So the more analytic the less dependent upon personality and the more narrative and requiring of textual interpretation the more dependent upon personality.**
So for those two reasons both INTENT and CONTENT I have some protection against personality cults.
That said it is the core leadership of the first and second generations that tend to be remembered as well. Why? I mean how many people understand ISLM (keynesian econ) or the money supply? or that populations tend to disequilibrium? Or the constitution? They don’t understand them. They do however live by them. They certainly don’t undrestand democracy or they would have none of it.
Most people cannot do statistics but they can at least understand what are good statistical arguments and bad.
Most people cannot write law, but they can, with some effort both read law, and find legal advisors.
Most people can understand the shorter Aphorisms. That is what you see ‘spreads’. This is how I expect most people to undrestand the work.
WHile it has taken me a long time to distill these ideas into a ‘cheat sheet’ (much longer than I’d thought) by writing the book I have taught myself how to do so. This ‘specification’ for the language is comprehensible if logic is comprehensible.
Most people will be overwhelmed by the constitution but it is something that can be learned.
The history is comprehensible for certain.
But EVERYONE can understand the de-financialization of the economy, the depoliticization of the polity, the end of propaganda, half truth, and deceit in the informational commons, and the ending of subsidy to the entertainment industry that is our enemy.
Because everyone can understand the benefits even if they can’t understand the logic and grammar of it.
Lastly, the hurdle for most people is NOT LEARNING the material, it is in making the choice to INVEST in learning the material, and sustaining that investment in competition with his or her frustration, misunderstandings, and disagreements while learning the material.
This is why numbers matter. Because it demonstrates by obvious environmental evidence that the material is worth the investment because of the cognitive and argumentative power it provides them. And if they know people who can do so they will find people to help them WITHOUT study.
So the more I make this a movement, and the more thought leaders we have, the more i can distribute it, the more analytic I can make it, the less dependent upon me I can, and we can, make it.
Thanks for the good question.
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-30 12:16:00 UTC
-
by Gary Knight Thinking on JBP and sovereign individualism. It’s interesting tha
by Gary Knight
Thinking on JBP and sovereign individualism.
It’s interesting that he often cites ancient genetic causes for hierarchy as a defence against SJW complaints regarding patriarchy and capitalism.
He correctly identifies the depth of hierarchy and inequality in ancient biological programming that goes right back to our most remote ancestors.
E.g. Dominance hierarchies in lobsters.
What’s frustrating is he doesn’t apply the same analogy to Western Dominance.
He attributes the Christian ethic as the source of the classical liberal / enlightenment values that birthed individualism as the source of Western Success (although he doesn’t say ‘Western success’ explicitly.
It seems apparent in my readings about indo-Europeans that the West developed sovereignty mostly as a bi-product of distributive power which was an accident of geography – sufficient rivers, fertile land, hills, crags and natural barriers to break up the European landscape into defensible City states which led cultural development away from centralised monopoly governments that formed in the Middle East, Egypt etc.
I think Peterson flaw is he gives to much credit to Christianity in his arguments for promoting the sovereign individual and fails to see the ancient source code for this cultural feature.
In a sense he feels the words of Abrahamism gifted us new programming for regarding the individual as sacred when it seems we had in us from our martial ethic and domestication allowed the extension of sovereignty down the classes as we had more people capable of the agency to hold the idea.
Which is why Christian Africa doesn’t have individualism and market success – software can’t take root in hardware that can’t process it.
——-
If I was to use a loose metaphor I feel like Western Sovereignty is like a European plant species that was kept tame my the conditions in which it rooted.
But once conditions changed and it had its shot it just spread across the earth and dominated – but first it had to be hardened by time and circumstance.
Eg The plant species Lantana species is a potted flower in the UK.
Once it was exported to Australia it thrived in the sunlight and grew rampant, choking out competitors.
I see Western Sovereignty the same.
Shaped my marital conflict over distributive geography and then once the conditions changes it became hyper-fertile and encompassed the world.
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-30 08:54:00 UTC
-
a) i don’t think it was a terrible film. Both Dredd and Demolition Man were exce
a) i don’t think it was a terrible film. Both Dredd and Demolition Man were exceptional period pieces sort of bookending the Die Hard era. (Which at the time was freaking awesome.) (b) dredd is an urban western. Not much to say. (c) every man a sheriff and judge is Propertarian.
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-29 23:11:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079152946846281728
Reply addressees: @TheOldOrder1 @JohnMarkSays
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079148970054688768
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079148970054688768