Some Form of Lying Is Almost Always Cowardice https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/some-form-of-lying-is-almost-always-cowardice/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:41:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265699710112759808
Some Form of Lying Is Almost Always Cowardice https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/some-form-of-lying-is-almost-always-cowardice/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:41:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265699710112759808
Oct 12, 2019, 11:25 AM
“The reason people are engaging in some form of lying is almost always cowardice.”- Curt Doolittle
Leftists are scared s***less of the consequences of “everyone is not equal in ability” (facing the brutality of life without a salve of lies to give false hope of a future utopia)
Ancaps/libertarians are often heavily invested in their ideas of course, and can often be afraid of the idea that “if you don’t contribute to the commons you will not stop parasites and in fact you are a parasite upon the commons in which others invest”. (We are pointing out that they have a responsibility they didn’t think they had.)
Some/many civnats (not all – some learn very fast) are scared of the personal cost they could face in our current society for talking about inherent group racial differences (group patterns)
Some/many Christians (not all) are scared of criticism of, or losing, something they value – a belief system that provides a salve against the brutality of reality via a future hope that “everything will be made right one day”, an alternate status hierarchy (“if I pray and do good God will reward me someday and I will be higher status than people who have a lot of money or power”), and a genuine group or team where they feel safe and accepted without having to do much other than express belief in the supernatural and not be a bother (the requirement to submit to dogma rather than operate by falsification is not healthy, but “a place to belong” where you trust those around you is a great thing). Especially because they often view “being a Christian” as their primary identity, they often have a strong negative reaction to any criticism of Christianity.
These people are just “being human”. But we’re not gonna lie just to make them feel better. The left is our enemy, plain & simple. Ancaps/lolberts are learning fast as enemies flow through our open borders & as it becomes more and more obvious that there is a critical mass of humanity that cannot be persuaded/taught not to be parasites but must be stopped by force, which requires commons. The civnats are learning as the pain of losing & fear of the left’s craziness (which will escalate & escalate til at latest after TX goes blue) overpowers their fear of being too politically incorrect. The Christians as a group have no solution, no constitution, no insight to take the Right from losing to winning, the vast majority of their leaders/pastors/priests do not speak the truth on race & may never do so, but there is a brand of Christian political leader (James Fox Higgins, Daryl Kane) starting to fill the market for non-cucked Christian political speakers/leaders. (The Christian people themselves are faster and more willing to escape cuckiness than their leaders, just as with the Right as a whole.) As I often say, the grassroots Right is virtually 100% united on what we want TO STOP (via-negativa). The civnats just don’t realize it takes race realism to do it, and the right-wing Christians just have a hard time when the tendency of Christianity to be used as a tool of cuckiness both in history and now is pointed out. But both these groups in practicality want to STOP the same dysgenic/leftist/parasitic behaviours/outcomes that the rest of the grassroots Right wants to stop. Thus, we CAN agree on a constitution that primarily is about what our enemies CANNOT/MUST NOT do.
Oct 12, 2019, 11:25 AM
“The reason people are engaging in some form of lying is almost always cowardice.”- Curt Doolittle
Leftists are scared s***less of the consequences of “everyone is not equal in ability” (facing the brutality of life without a salve of lies to give false hope of a future utopia)
Ancaps/libertarians are often heavily invested in their ideas of course, and can often be afraid of the idea that “if you don’t contribute to the commons you will not stop parasites and in fact you are a parasite upon the commons in which others invest”. (We are pointing out that they have a responsibility they didn’t think they had.)
Some/many civnats (not all – some learn very fast) are scared of the personal cost they could face in our current society for talking about inherent group racial differences (group patterns)
Some/many Christians (not all) are scared of criticism of, or losing, something they value – a belief system that provides a salve against the brutality of reality via a future hope that “everything will be made right one day”, an alternate status hierarchy (“if I pray and do good God will reward me someday and I will be higher status than people who have a lot of money or power”), and a genuine group or team where they feel safe and accepted without having to do much other than express belief in the supernatural and not be a bother (the requirement to submit to dogma rather than operate by falsification is not healthy, but “a place to belong” where you trust those around you is a great thing). Especially because they often view “being a Christian” as their primary identity, they often have a strong negative reaction to any criticism of Christianity.
These people are just “being human”. But we’re not gonna lie just to make them feel better. The left is our enemy, plain & simple. Ancaps/lolberts are learning fast as enemies flow through our open borders & as it becomes more and more obvious that there is a critical mass of humanity that cannot be persuaded/taught not to be parasites but must be stopped by force, which requires commons. The civnats are learning as the pain of losing & fear of the left’s craziness (which will escalate & escalate til at latest after TX goes blue) overpowers their fear of being too politically incorrect. The Christians as a group have no solution, no constitution, no insight to take the Right from losing to winning, the vast majority of their leaders/pastors/priests do not speak the truth on race & may never do so, but there is a brand of Christian political leader (James Fox Higgins, Daryl Kane) starting to fill the market for non-cucked Christian political speakers/leaders. (The Christian people themselves are faster and more willing to escape cuckiness than their leaders, just as with the Right as a whole.) As I often say, the grassroots Right is virtually 100% united on what we want TO STOP (via-negativa). The civnats just don’t realize it takes race realism to do it, and the right-wing Christians just have a hard time when the tendency of Christianity to be used as a tool of cuckiness both in history and now is pointed out. But both these groups in practicality want to STOP the same dysgenic/leftist/parasitic behaviours/outcomes that the rest of the grassroots Right wants to stop. Thus, we CAN agree on a constitution that primarily is about what our enemies CANNOT/MUST NOT do.
King of The Hill Games Expose the Enemy’s Technique https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/king-of-the-hill-games-expose-the-enemys-technique/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:37:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265698690129367040
Oct 12, 2019, 7:51 PM
—“The most surprising thing Curt Doolittle’s king of the hill games revealed to me (and there’s been a lot of surprising things) was that Christians are just as infuriating to argue with as leftists. Say one honest unflattering thing about Christianity and they come flying out of the woodwork to smite you with fire and brimstone! Oh and the pouting and stomping their feet and the recriminations and the Bible verse quoting and condemnation… it’s too much.”— Shannon Constantine
(Shannon makes my point about abrahamism better than I can
Oct 12, 2019, 7:51 PM
—“The most surprising thing Curt Doolittle’s king of the hill games revealed to me (and there’s been a lot of surprising things) was that Christians are just as infuriating to argue with as leftists. Say one honest unflattering thing about Christianity and they come flying out of the woodwork to smite you with fire and brimstone! Oh and the pouting and stomping their feet and the recriminations and the Bible verse quoting and condemnation… it’s too much.”— Shannon Constantine
(Shannon makes my point about abrahamism better than I can
Oct 12, 2019, 8:09 PM by Bill Joslin (See what happens when we get bill in the game too???) Equivocation of equality as categorical membership with qualitative assessment ( that being the notion that all are equally valuable), results in an obscurity of ingroup distinction i.e. leads to the notion of open borders and franchise for all. We are equally members of the ingroup (categorical membership) or equally not (not a member of the ingroup)… conflation of “all men are created equally before god” with categorical membership obscures ingroup criteria and disarms any categorical assessment (that dude over in Nigeria was “created equal before god” and thus must be part of our group). this obscures calculation of membership benefit. specifically this stands as an example of creating AMBIGUITY. What is it that our group does? DISAMBIGUATE. Isonomy and categorical membership as the foundation for the notion of equally DISAMBIGUATES allowing for calculation of membership benefit and policing. Qualitative assessment as the foundation for the notion of equality affords obscurity in deciding membership benefit and policing…. which is why, after 100 years of the romantic notions (romantic r@pe of enlightenment ideas) we now have outgroups being extended ingroup benefit while skirting ingroup accountability. Truth is, notions such as equality and tolerance, in their initial application, remain critical to creating the world we would like see manifest. However, romantic age manipulations of these terms paved the way for the left to use our innovations against us, and the further regions of the right to rejects core mechanisms of what made the west great. Gotta admit – our enemies (broadly speaking – platonists) are fucking brilliant, which is why we must be more vigilant. Edit
Oct 12, 2019, 8:09 PM by Bill Joslin (See what happens when we get bill in the game too???) Equivocation of equality as categorical membership with qualitative assessment ( that being the notion that all are equally valuable), results in an obscurity of ingroup distinction i.e. leads to the notion of open borders and franchise for all. We are equally members of the ingroup (categorical membership) or equally not (not a member of the ingroup)… conflation of “all men are created equally before god” with categorical membership obscures ingroup criteria and disarms any categorical assessment (that dude over in Nigeria was “created equal before god” and thus must be part of our group). this obscures calculation of membership benefit. specifically this stands as an example of creating AMBIGUITY. What is it that our group does? DISAMBIGUATE. Isonomy and categorical membership as the foundation for the notion of equally DISAMBIGUATES allowing for calculation of membership benefit and policing. Qualitative assessment as the foundation for the notion of equality affords obscurity in deciding membership benefit and policing…. which is why, after 100 years of the romantic notions (romantic r@pe of enlightenment ideas) we now have outgroups being extended ingroup benefit while skirting ingroup accountability. Truth is, notions such as equality and tolerance, in their initial application, remain critical to creating the world we would like see manifest. However, romantic age manipulations of these terms paved the way for the left to use our innovations against us, and the further regions of the right to rejects core mechanisms of what made the west great. Gotta admit – our enemies (broadly speaking – platonists) are fucking brilliant, which is why we must be more vigilant. Edit
The Economics of Female Mate Selection https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/the-economics-of-female-mate-selection/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:16:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265693455176486913
Oct 14, 2019, 10:12 AM Women voluntarily pair with men, (a) to defend against involuntary pairing with other men; (b)to gain access to resource and defense, (c) status (market value) largely among women, (d) to capture genes, attention and resources and keep them away from other women, (e) mates will sacrifice more than all other combined except mothers for children (ie: friendship), (f) cooperation is disproportionately more productive than all other individual actions. This produces the emotional reaction of friendship: ready access to attention and care. Our emotions evolved to inform us that these are the optimum actions. Marriage is only an optimum under property. As we can see reversing in modernity. Successful people with assets stay together. Poor without them far less so. I can explain that also but it’s not very ‘nice’.