Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • give this a go and see if I can summarize it a bit. If what Curt Doolittle is pu

    https://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/propertarian-podcast-001—“I’ll give this a go and see if I can summarize it a bit. If what Curt Doolittle is putting forward is accurate it may not be that it’s only reactionary. An example he puts forward is Brazil, which has a huge low IQ underclass. What is the solution to that besides a multi-decade long managerial state that is able to repress reproduction? If western civilisation is the outcome of various methods of domestication that left us with higher IQ’s and small underclass, maybe the notion of the NAP is at least empirically invalid and impossible for huge swaths of the world’s population until a certain level of domestication has been reached.

    Check him out here if you’re interested. Having lived in China for over a decade, I think his commentary on China is also very apt and I’m confident you’ll learn something from listening!”— Craig Howson


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-31 02:10:00 UTC

  • Click for video: videos/10000000_970243409769198_1252280057_n_10154488152452264.

    Click for video: videos/10000000_970243409769198_1252280057_n_10154488152452264.mp4 Q&a


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-30 08:02:00 UTC

  • TO A BLACK CONSERVATIVE We speak in different languages, but the argument is the

    https://soundcloud.com/handymayhem/uncle-hotep-podcast-ep-24-hillary-and-the-alt-right-trump-nfl-and-nig-nogsLISTEN TO A BLACK CONSERVATIVE

    We speak in different languages, but the argument is the same. Like I say, the state is the enemy, not other people.

    As tribes in markets, we can cooperate despite our different needs, so long as we cannot use government or market to prey upon one another without juridical defense.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-30 01:53:00 UTC

  • “The world is a very safe place for the parasites when we don’t make it dangerou

    —“The world is a very safe place for the parasites when we don’t make it dangerous.”—Liam Eddy


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-28 08:49:00 UTC

  • (Eli:Some very good questions. Much higher idiot-density b/c less social filteri

    (Eli:Some very good questions. Much higher idiot-density b/c less social filtering. Home Of True Believers)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-28 08:05:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/769808158801989632

    Reply addressees: @MartianHoplite @SamuelStringman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/769753086005022720


    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartianHoplite

    @SamuelStringman @curtdoolittle Ok, I signed up. Let me poke around for a few days and then maybe I’ll do one.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/769753086005022720

  • COURSE, I HAVE TO COME TO THE RESCUE AND CORRECT THE LIBERTINE NARRATIVE (FRAUD)

    https://fee.org/articles/five-differences-between-the-alt-right-and-libertarians/OF COURSE, I HAVE TO COME TO THE RESCUE AND CORRECT THE LIBERTINE NARRATIVE (FRAUD) OF HISTORY.

    (Beware the thief in moral disguise)

    https://fee.org/articles/five-differences-between-the-alt-right-and-libertarians/

    1 – THE COURSE OF HISTORY

    Domesticating man and woman by the use of organized violence to suppress local parasitism that harms production by increasing transaction costs, to create markets to decrease opportunity costs, and to collect revenues for that suppression of local parasitism, decrease of transaction costs, and decrease in opportunity costs.

    This suppression of local parasitism which impedes cooperation, and the imposition of law which leaves productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange as the only possible means of survival, can be positioned optimistically as ‘civilizing man’, charitably as ‘domesticating man’, and uncharitably as the martial elite profiting from human husbandry.

    The net result of domestication is that those regions most successful at human human husbandry, domestication, or civilization – however you choose to cast it – produced the highest trust, highest economic velocity, highest innovation, and the FASTEST evolution of the standard of living in both the ancient and modern worlds. At extremely high cost to those populations who produced that rate of evolutionary innovation. High trust was a very expensive institution to develop using the incremental expansion of the common law for the purpose of preventing retaliation spirals. (feuds).

    Libertine Libertarians, practicing the non-aggression against material property (intersubjectively verifiable property) expressly prohibit mandatory payment for commons despite making use of markets (free riding) that these commons construct; Furthermore libertine libertarians expressly preserve the rights of blackmail (non productive), fraud (not fully informed), irresponsibility (non-warranty), usury (entrapment), as and even enslavement if it’s voluntarily agreed to, because libertine libertarians claim they are not responsible for the consequences (externalities, and unintended consequences) of their actions.

    For example, ancient world pagans and new world scientists, using the Non-Parasitism and Non-Retaliation rules of landed warriors innovated at a rate commensurate with the spread of literacy, and their universal ethic of earned -enfranchisement through defense of the commons.

    Jews by contrast contributed nothing to mankind’s commons in two thousand years, despite their near universal literacy – in no small part because of their voluntarism rather than non retaliationism, their dual ethics, and their specialization in crafts of privatization of commons and socialization of losses. Especially after the Templars, and the west’s first international banking system were destroyed by the Church in order to escape the Pope and his brothers’ debt.

    Why does a group that pays heavily for a commons

    2 – HARMONY VS CONFLICT (THE DECEIT: FRAMING OF HARMONY AND CONFLICT INSTEAD OF UNIVERSALISM VS FAMILISM AND TRIBALISM)

    It is better if we COOPERATE PRODUCTIVELY than if we engage in conflict that destroys capital and opportunity.

    It is not better if some of us cooperate productively and contribute to the commons, and some of us pretend to cooperate on one hand and privatize the commons or free ride upon that commons on the other. The purpose of rothbardian libertarianism is to justify parasitism on commons. The purpose of the harmony vs conflict deception is to use suggestion of equal participation in reproductive, productive, and common goods while acting unequally in the participation of reproductive, productive, and common goods. (almost all libertine libertarianism is an attempt to justify parasitic actions of the unequal, while making the moral claim that one is equal in contribution to the civic order we call political government, normative society, and commercial market. Libertine libertarianism is merely another fraud like marxism for the same purpose: theft.

    This kind of analysis is how westerners must change our high trust framework, so that we are far more analytic, and far more skeptical, about moral pretenses, which are anything but moral – they are appeals to our morality so that we can be defrauded from.

    ALL GROUPS COMPETE GENETICALLY AND ALL DEMONSTRATE KIN SELECTION. And the less domesticated peoples are always a threat to the more domesticated peoples. PERIOD.

    3 – THE DESIGNED VS SELF ORGANIZING DECEPTION

    Is a false dichotomy. The designed, vs the discover and institutional, vs the normative and adaptive The most successful groups produces three categories of institutions are those we constantly seek to improve: Law(prohibiting), Production(trading), Religion(teaching). That we cannot design law, religion, and production is patently false. We can Limit parasitism, we can advocate cooperation and knowledge, and we can engage in PRODUCTIVE exchange. If we are to say, can we design institutions much more precise than this? Well we certainly have: weights and measures, property rights, legal processes, reason and science rather than mysticism, false moralism, and predatory deceit. We can even industrialize institutions like banking, rule of law, and education. But how precise can we be with them? Well, we cannot design what we should or must do, but we can design what we should not or must not do. That is how we incrementally domesticated mankind into productivity. (We should ask libertine libertarians why they think blackmail – which is voluntary but retaliatory – is moral.)

    So regarding institutions of cooperation we cannot always say Should and must except preventatively, we can say could and can, and we can say should not and must not. so again, self organization deception is an attempt to preserve the ability to engage in parasitism while under the pretense of moral equality. Again. Libertine libertarians are just parasites.

    4 – THE DECEPTION OF FREE MOVEMENT AND FREE TRADE

    What the classical liberals discovered is that all other things being equal, protectionism in the caste of commodities caused more harm than free trade in commodities caused harm. They did not say all free trade is a good, and no group demonstrates unregulated free trade as a good. In fact the major struggle world wide remains, at every level, the problem of preventing asymmetries in negotiating power that cause externalities and indirect consequences – or in case of economic warfare – substantial externalities and indirect consequences.

    So it is true that we cannot use protection to extract prices increases through regulation, while at the same time we CAN use protection to prevent costs by externality and indirect consequences. And that is precisely what humans around the world do.

    We must understand that Rothbardian libertine libertarianism advocates parasitic existence imposing costs upon others, and is profoundly immoral in theory and practice. Wherever possible the libertine seeks to benefit from the high cost of a high trust market while externalizing all the costs that he can from his participation in the market. In other words, a rothbardian libertine libertarian advocates for fraud.

    5 – THE OPPRESSION FALLACY REVISITED: EMANCIPATION AND PROGRESS

    What occurred as a consequence of high trust english common law, was that bacon applied the rigor of that law to the sciences and invented empiricism. Upon the invention of the printing press, a thousand year dark age where the church held men in illiterate, was ended, and knowledge spread across the civilized world, leading first to the agrarian and then to the industrial revolution.

    Now that the industrial revolution was possible, we could afford to educate and employ more people – albeit slowly – until the petrochemical revolution, which provided us the energy equivalent of endless slave labor that we did not need to clothe and feed.

    So we could attempt to provide opportunity to many members of most classes who had sufficient character to participate in organized employment.

    Unfortunately, these people were met with a new ideology of socialism that stated that they had been and were oppressed and that they could rule themselves under the same kind of order that they had in their villages. These people used democracy to vote their reproductive strategy of parasitism on the productive classes.

    Unfortunately women were enfranchised and within a generation began to vote their reproductive strategy and within fifty years had voted to destroy not only rule of law, not only contract, not only the family, but the civilization itself.

    The ‘alt-right’ constitutes activists fort he New Right just as the green an anarcist and communists function for the progressive movement, and the evangelicals function for the old right. At the top of these orders are intellectuals like any other movement.

    Our intellectual base has been forming for a decade or more.

    And what terrifies the old right, the neo-con right, the libertine-libertarians, and the socialists is, that the alt right is BETTER because at ridicule and propaganda than they are for the simple reason that empirical evidence is on their side. moreover they know that conservatives cannot speak the truth: that their strategy is eugenic. Moreover they know that they have empirical evidence now that the Neocon, lIbertine libertarian, and socialist visions are both constructed as deceptions by appealing to a process of suggestion, and that all of them have been repudiated by cognitive, economic, and behavioral sciences.

    WE ARE THE NEW RIGHT.

    The alt right are fighting the pseudoscientists and liars among the sjw’s feminists, socialists, libertines, neoconservatives and the failed program of deception of the traditional conservatives.

    And instead of arguing optimistically, our defense against deception by suggestion is to prosecute any and all moral claims for possibility of fraud before we even begin to assume that a moral claim is what it pretends to be.

    The rest of us are inventing the next generation of social science, and the next generation of institutions, the next generation of law – for when we force the abandonment of monopoly majoritarian democracy – not by ideological whining – but by the organized application of violence in demand for the restitution of our natural rights.

    NO MORE LIES, PSEUDOSCIENCE, PSEUDO-RATIONALISM, PSEUDO-MORALISM.

    Thanks. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 09:19:00 UTC

  • MIKE: (And all others who are interested) THE OLD RIGHT VS NEW RIGHT The Old Rig

    MIKE: (And all others who are interested)

    THE OLD RIGHT VS NEW RIGHT

    The Old Right was “It’s Hopeful If We Are Patient”, and the New Right is “It’s Hopeless”. The hopeful Right was a resistance movement hopeful that the leftists would ‘learn’. The New Right is a hopeless movement that is resigned to the inability others to adopt the contractual order we call ‘conservatism’, but is just the traditional western aristocratic order of cooperation between classes with different abilities.

    MORAL VERSUS SCIENTIFIC

    The Old Right of American conservatism evolved from the religio-moral language set (think of Kirk), and the Jeffersonian set (constitutionalists). But the conservatives never achieved success in articulating conservatism in rational or scientific language.

    We’ve endured a hundred and fifty years of pseudoscience (Freud/psychology, marx/economics-sociology, Boaz/anthropology, Frankfurt school/culture) combined with propaganda made possible with new media on a scale never seen before, combined with post war economic windfall and the conversion of upper proletarians and lower middle class into property owners with disposable income. Between government seeking votes, the academy seeking to sell nonsense-diplomas, and the media selling commercials, and the consumer product companies selling household goods to newly liquid families, the environment for falsehood was fertile ground.

    The New Right is armed with science and evidence that Darwin and Spencer (despite Spencer’s Lamarckian error his statements remain true). The old right didn’t have this evidence and our generation does.

    But we face a problem: the reason for the west’s dramatic success is largely that we were the most eugenic order and used upward redistribution of calories for upward redistribution of reproduction, and we use some combination of winters, manorialism, taxation, late marriage, aggressive hanging, and for-profit warfare to eradicate the lower classes for thousands of years.

    We call it meritocracy, the charitable call it ‘civilizing’, the honest call it ‘domesticating’, and the pejorative term is ‘human husbandry’: culling the unproductive humans from the herd, and leaving only the productive humans behind to reproduce.

    The underclasses of course think they were oppressed. They can’t imagine that they’re uncivilized, and that by breeding they’re decivilizing. And we aren’t honest about it, because it interferes with our narrative that we were justified in using democracy (we weren’t) to seize power from the landed nobility.

    THE NEW RIGHT MOVEMENTS CORRESPOND TO CLASS STRUCTURES

    The New Right consists of multiple frames of argument that correspond to class structures. Just like neocons, libertine libertarians, and socialists on the left, the New Right consists of multiple frames of arguments that correspond to class membership:

    CLASSES:

    NEW RIGHT (Philosophy/NaturalLaw) (Unrepentant Martial/Aristocratic Class)

    – Propertarianism (That’s me)

    – Ricardo Duchesne ( the uniqueness of Western Civilization)

    THE SCIENTIFIC RIGHT (Science) (Scholarly Class)

    – HBD-Chick (familism, groupishness, genetics)

    – Jayman – Genetics, Race, class

    – Sailer – IQ, race, class, education culture

    – Nassim Taleb – Finance, Economics, and Decidability.

    – Kevin McDonald – group competitive strategies

    THE INFORMATIVE RIGHT (Information) (upper middle class)

    – Stephan Molyneux (slow conversion on his part but he’s getting there)

    – Tom Woods (even slower conversion but he’s getting there)

    – Charles Murray ( I can’t tell with charles where he is on hopeless/hopeful)

    – Thomas Sowell (was a first mover really)

    REACTION (criticism) (middle class)

    – Moldbug

    – Ramzpaul

    ALT-RIGHT (ridicule) (working class) (these folk know exactly what they’re doing by the way. They have adopted leftist ridicule and are actively manufacturing desensitization as a means of combating the flasehoods and pseudoscience of political correctness)

    – Various alt-right podcasts and web sites

    – Meme-Makers and Trolls

    THE ALT-RIGHT “OVEN MIT” CROWD (Upper Lower working)

    – 88’ers, anti-everyone’s, white nationalists, etc.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 08:12:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://www.facebook.com/jeffreytucker.official/posts/1190920210946950

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 04:20:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxpVwBzFAkw

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 01:29:00 UTC

  • (The problem with posting these things is that half the idiots who respond to th

    (The problem with posting these things is that half the idiots who respond to them think you’re serious.)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-26 16:16:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/769206885211860993

    Reply addressees: @GodEmperorNick

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/769033184621260800


    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/769033184621260800