A world without truth is only a postmodern dream until the aristocracy (market meritocracy) is eradicated and we are once again reduced to authoritarian monopoly, and the poverty that ensues. And power is held by people who exploit the poor, rather than those who eliminate poverty but cannot eliminate voluntary reproduction beyond one’s means.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-23 10:59:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
—“It’s obvious now the clerics of the Church and clerics of Islam are operating in complementary fashion against their common enemy: the sovereignty and agency of western man.
Whereas sovereign man desires to keep his agency and sovereignty for himself, and to lift every one of these thieving murderous cleric fraudsters atop a pike.
Which he will have to do, at least metaphorically.
There is money to be made.
Confiscate and reallocate their money.”— William L. Benge
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-22 15:17:24 UTC
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
The people that matter are thought leaders, organizing leaders (marketers), and direct-action leaders (fighting). When those three packs align, and you have an opportunity for action to seize, then you have revolution.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-22 12:20:55 UTC
The people that matter are thought leaders, organizing leaders (marketers), and direct-action leaders (fighting). When those three packs align, and you have an opportunity for action to seize, then you have revolution.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-22 08:20:00 UTC
—“What’s your position on mixing?”— Which question are you asking me? As a jurist of natural law? As a public intellectual practicing political economy seeking political solutions to optimum flourishing? Or as an anglo northern european man seeking the intersets of my people? Or as a man who loves his kinfolk first and foremost? As a jurist of natural law it is a question for a polity to choose mixing or not, since underclass mixing seems to be as beneficial as working, middle, and upper class race mixing is counter-productive. And as such the optimum conditions for all are to create many states, that produce commons that reflect the interests of the people who live in them. Nationalism is in the interests of all people. As a public intellectual it’s clearly superior politically and economically to create homogenous nation states. For my people as for all other peoples. As a northern european, I prefer others of my kin don’t mix, and I want my people and civilization to survive, and prosper. Just as I do for all other peoples. As an individual, am certain that I don’t choose to mix (and I have tried). But as such I won’t choose for all other peoples. DEMONSTRATED PREFERENCE But I dont just talk about it – I demonstrated that I prefer to live in a traditional, religious, homogenous country. Although, I would prefer to live in old new england, or old england, or old normandy, old netherlands, or maybe old denmark if I could – since those are the origins of my people. But due to conquest by french, cosmopolitans, and marxists, I cannot do so. RECIPROCITY But I will not force the choice for others. Only prevent others from making the choice for me and those that agree with me. Any man who will work to help me make a nation for me and mine, I will by reciprocity help to make a nation for he and his. Any man who seeks to stop me and mine from creating a nation that provides the optimum for our kin interests is an enemy and I will work against him at the cost of my life and his. NATURAL LAW ON INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION Under natural law, heterogeneity is not a choice that is open to restitution (repair) and therefore involuntary imposition is against the law of nature and of men, and as such must be prosecuted, and the only restitution for genocide is genocide – a consequence for which western politicians should tremble and fear. All men who fight for nationalism are our brothers in arms. All others are merely obstacles to be ended. Revolt. Separate. Prosper. Speciate. CRITICISM OF THE MAN IN THE MIRROR You have simple answers if you’re a simple person with simple responsibilities, particularly if you are only vaguely responsible for yourself. Those of us who are more sophisticated, more able, with wider affect, and broader responsibilities, who work to take responsibilities for tribe, nation, race, and mankind have more sophisticated answers. Don’t equate us other than in our interests. In my world I work for in the intersets of the common moral people, and against the interests of parasites and fools. ***Is that clear enough (you f-cking idiot). WN is trash because only fucking morons are stupid enough to take the short obvious, selfish, moron-route to political change.***
—“What’s your position on mixing?”— Which question are you asking me? As a jurist of natural law? As a public intellectual practicing political economy seeking political solutions to optimum flourishing? Or as an anglo northern european man seeking the intersets of my people? Or as a man who loves his kinfolk first and foremost? As a jurist of natural law it is a question for a polity to choose mixing or not, since underclass mixing seems to be as beneficial as working, middle, and upper class race mixing is counter-productive. And as such the optimum conditions for all are to create many states, that produce commons that reflect the interests of the people who live in them. Nationalism is in the interests of all people. As a public intellectual it’s clearly superior politically and economically to create homogenous nation states. For my people as for all other peoples. As a northern european, I prefer others of my kin don’t mix, and I want my people and civilization to survive, and prosper. Just as I do for all other peoples. As an individual, am certain that I don’t choose to mix (and I have tried). But as such I won’t choose for all other peoples. DEMONSTRATED PREFERENCE But I dont just talk about it – I demonstrated that I prefer to live in a traditional, religious, homogenous country. Although, I would prefer to live in old new england, or old england, or old normandy, old netherlands, or maybe old denmark if I could – since those are the origins of my people. But due to conquest by french, cosmopolitans, and marxists, I cannot do so. RECIPROCITY But I will not force the choice for others. Only prevent others from making the choice for me and those that agree with me. Any man who will work to help me make a nation for me and mine, I will by reciprocity help to make a nation for he and his. Any man who seeks to stop me and mine from creating a nation that provides the optimum for our kin interests is an enemy and I will work against him at the cost of my life and his. NATURAL LAW ON INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION Under natural law, heterogeneity is not a choice that is open to restitution (repair) and therefore involuntary imposition is against the law of nature and of men, and as such must be prosecuted, and the only restitution for genocide is genocide – a consequence for which western politicians should tremble and fear. All men who fight for nationalism are our brothers in arms. All others are merely obstacles to be ended. Revolt. Separate. Prosper. Speciate. CRITICISM OF THE MAN IN THE MIRROR You have simple answers if you’re a simple person with simple responsibilities, particularly if you are only vaguely responsible for yourself. Those of us who are more sophisticated, more able, with wider affect, and broader responsibilities, who work to take responsibilities for tribe, nation, race, and mankind have more sophisticated answers. Don’t equate us other than in our interests. In my world I work for in the intersets of the common moral people, and against the interests of parasites and fools. ***Is that clear enough (you f-cking idiot). WN is trash because only fucking morons are stupid enough to take the short obvious, selfish, moron-route to political change.***
Men form packs. The more diverse we are, the more packs with different narrative. It is not rational to ask them to form herds. The narrative they use is irrelevant. The goals they achieve by those narratives must only coincide. As such, the market for pack cooperation need only agree upon POSSIBLE ends, not upon preferred ends or means. Packs (“Units” in military prose) are the optimum order.
Men form packs. The more diverse we are, the more packs with different narrative. It is not rational to ask them to form herds. The narrative they use is irrelevant. The goals they achieve by those narratives must only coincide. As such, the market for pack cooperation need only agree upon POSSIBLE ends, not upon preferred ends or means. Packs (“Units” in military prose) are the optimum order.