Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • OPEN LETTER TO THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION A beautiful movement. I have not seen it d

    OPEN LETTER TO THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION

    A beautiful movement. I have not seen it done better. I wish I could ‘fit into’ it. Because I am a committed monarchist.

    But the church has abandoned europe in favor of the revenues of the simple people of warmer regions it evolved to govern. And our people have abandoned the church in favor of its secular expression and democratic government.

    I see no evidence of possibility for a restoration of the church, if for no other reason than the church is unwilling to reform. But more importantly, western man has evolved to the point where he can control every aspect of nature that the church claimed god held providence over.

    So just as the cult of jesus was a heresy against the roman empire’s religion, and against the bible of the european ancient world: The Iliad: the tragedy of Achilles, and just as one of your authors has correctly stated, the American Revolution and its cult of individualism was a heresy driven only by the Colonist’s attempt to circumvent payment to the crown for the cost of the indian wars. The crown’s folly was in not adding the colonies to the houses of commons, or creating a separate house of the colonies. The colonists did not want to separate. (other than the foolishly overcommitted puritans from whom I am ashamedly descended).

    There exists a growing movement that has not yet self identified itself, that seeks to restore the myths and traditions of the church by combining christian mythos, stoic virtues and discipline, using what we have discovered from cognitive science and in particular personality traits, in combination with literary analysis and myth, including the Monomyth, the Archetypes, the Plots(Trials), and the Virtues. And instead submission to deity few believe in as other than a set of general rules of the universe, and submissive prayer an anthropomorphic character, these groups are reviving a combination the methods of the most scientific religion of the ancient world (stoicism), and the teachings of christianity, to produce an empowering rather than submissive ‘religion’.

    This technique would allow the presentation of christianity as science rather than superstition. And my estimation is that it is the most likely if not only method of providing the reformation of the catholic church that failed under Vatican II, and was never attempted by the protestant churches other than the development of american evangelical protestantism. The catholic church doubled down on ‘living as did christ’. Evangelical protestantism doubled down on fundamentalism. But while these churches are surviving in the third world among the poor and ignorant, for europeans these churches are both dead – and worse, they are poisoned for the many crimes of the church over the centuries.

    So I do not expect to achieve anything other than making you aware of what I see as a successful option that has begun to take on momentum. And for you to consider it an option to investigate. The man working on the process is Dr. Jordan Peterson. But no one is working on reforming christianity to make it transform from a superstiiton to a science. And if any group can do this it will restore the value of the church.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 21:54:00 UTC

  • THE DIFFERENCES IN LEFT AND RIGHT ARGUMENTS? “In order to obscure or justify or

    THE DIFFERENCES IN LEFT AND RIGHT ARGUMENTS?

    “In order to obscure or justify or force an involuntary transfer, or prohibit the imposition of an involuntary behavioral cost, the LEFT uses…” (argumentative tactic)

    — vs.–

    “In order to prevent an involuntary transfer and impose an involuntary behavioral cost, the RIGHT uses…” (argumentative tactic)

    The left lacks agency physical, emotional, and intellectual. The right possesses agency: physical, emotional, intellectual.

    (thanks to Skye Stewart)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 19:32:00 UTC

  • (genius) by Bill Joslin The left and the libertarians, by denying the legitimacy

    (genius)

    by Bill Joslin

    The left and the libertarians, by denying the legitimacy or even presence of sovereignty in the equation, demonstrate the inability to maintain responsible use of liberty. The result being a decay of agency across the whole (lies, inability to hold a territory, inconsistent – incoherent application of law etc)

    I have been expressing this as changes in capital, but Bill Joslin has stated ***AGENCY AS CAPITAL***.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:39:00 UTC

  • HOW MUCH SUCCESS HAVE I HAD AT PUTTING THE NEED FOR VIOLENCE BACK INTO LIBERTARI

    HOW MUCH SUCCESS HAVE I HAD AT PUTTING THE NEED FOR VIOLENCE BACK INTO LIBERTARIANISM?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 09:45:00 UTC

  • SOLDIER > CRAFTSMAN > FAMILY > COMMUNITY > RULE

    SOLDIER > CRAFTSMAN > FAMILY > COMMUNITY > RULE


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 07:48:00 UTC

  • UNDERSTANDING TRUMP A *productive* Soldier, Entrepreneur, and a Monarchist (Trum

    UNDERSTANDING TRUMP

    A *productive* Soldier, Entrepreneur, and a Monarchist (Trump) trying to reform a *parasitic* Priesthood, consisting of Bureaucrats, and Supreme Soviet (US Govt) , all pretending they’re *neutral* Lawyers, limited by Judges practicing Rule of Law (Jefferson and Adam’s ambitions). The third way (jefferson/adams market govt) failed because a market government cannot make law, only negotiate binding contract – otherwise there is no method by which a judiciary and military can limit the government sufficiently to prevent the destruction of rule of law.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 07:46:00 UTC

  • ASK ME ANYTHING FROM THE POLITICS DISCORD This group is quite sophisticated so I

    https://t.co/N5foAwF3GRRECORDING: ASK ME ANYTHING FROM THE POLITICS DISCORD

    This group is quite sophisticated so I was able to address some very deep questions.

    Tripped myself up there at one point by letting a questioner get me with a false dichotomy. (In speech, I am very suggestible.) “Truth: consistent, correspondent, coherent, and limited.”

    The Correspondence Theory of Truth:

    Well we can start with ‘correspondence’ which is the simplest, dumbest test.

    We can cay correspondent and consistent.

    We can say correspondent, consistent, and coherent.

    Or we can say correspondent, consistent, coherent, and fully accounted.

    But even that isn’t quite as good as:

    “categorically consistent, logically consistent, empirically correspondent, operationally articulated (consistent), rationally chosen, and reciprocally volitionary, and fully accounted.”

    Well, you know, testimonialism is a pretty big improvement over every other articulation of ‘truth’.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-30 10:32:00 UTC

  • I SAID. THIS IS A DETERMINISTIC OUTCOME MY RECOMMENDATIONS

    https://alt-right-news.blogspot.com/2017/07/bannon-planning-to-neutralize-social.htmlLIKE I SAID. THIS IS A DETERMINISTIC OUTCOME

    MY RECOMMENDATIONS:

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/06/04/its-time-for-a-class-action-against-facebook-to-force-remedies-the-government-has-not/


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-30 10:25:00 UTC

  • ON WAR

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwnPgscg0vUFRIEDMAN ON WAR


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-30 01:17:00 UTC

  • BUILDING A “TOTEM POLE” OF ARGUMENTS BY CLASS —“Eli? The dude who talks about

    BUILDING A “TOTEM POLE” OF ARGUMENTS BY CLASS

    —“Eli? The dude who talks about executing everyone that doesn’t share his beliefs?”— Emil Suric

    Remember Eli’s audience is a different audience that expresses ideas in different terms. He is talking to people who want to revolt and fight. But if you are in his audience, by comparison to others who address his audience, we are talking miles apart.

    My point in sharing is that no matter what your audience the use of propertarian methods has a profound effect on your arguments.

    I mean, I could argue ANY position using propertarian arguments. And that means that I succeeded in developing a value neutral language of ethics and politics.

    The fact that I argue for meritocratic natural law and the elimination of deception and conflict is a CHOICE.

    I mean, he is open about speaking as “a working class man’s version of doolittle’. I sort of think of us as ‘master-blaster’ with me talking up at the intellectual level and he at the emotional and masculine level.( retaliatory morality – war.) (“it’s advantageous that it’s true, because we are at war, and we want advantages in war”)

    What I would like to do is fill in the totem pole between us so to speak.

    I see, for example, Joel speaking as a lower middle and middle class version of what I do. (optimistic moral rules,) (“Yes it’s true, but we must err heavily on the side of caution.”) My hope is that joel retains this position but that I can help him express it in increasingly sophisticated language. He is *extremely* talented so I suspect he can get there.

    I see Bill taking the middle and upper middle class position and successfully arguing for it even though using fully aristocratic language (scientific) now. (pragmatic, but forgiving, moral law ) (“true is true, but we must be practical about it.”)

    I see me, Daniel, Alexander, and James Augustus arguing the fully aristocratic position. (absolute law). (“true is true , and not only must we live with it, but it will make us and mankind better for doing so.”)

    I want at some point to attract a few people who use it for purely redistributive purposes (we will find that person among the canadians or french or germans I assume).

    I mean, if you look at my *solutions* they’re pretty ‘socialist’ in the sense that I favor pretty heavy redistribution to teammates (kin especially). And kin with the same moral-ethic bias as I do, (again, as bill has eloquently stated). I mean, my subconscious goal is to eliminate conflict by driving everyone to mutually beneficial cooperation and simply reducing the rate of reproduction of the underclasses until they incrementally disappear.

    Anyway. The point is that all the classes argue a bit differently given their perception of *risk*. And that we need people to prosecute falsehood in every class by every means.

    Then we can trade between the classes.

    Rather than conduct a warfare of propaganda and lies.

    -Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-29 16:37:00 UTC