Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • Three Coercions: Public Speech, Credit and Finance, Military and Law. If a peopl

    Three Coercions: Public Speech, Credit and Finance, Military and Law. If a people specializes in these three disciplines they can rule.

    We killed the Templars, and allowed false speech, then permitted access to rule without military service.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-28 14:16:00 UTC

  • I thought Israel’s long term position didn’t require peace but expansionary conq

    I thought Israel’s long term position didn’t require peace but expansionary conquest. I mean, why can’t Israelis rule that part of the world? 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-28 14:14:00 UTC

  • I generally attack feminism and democracy, rather than people of competing cultu

    I generally attack feminism and democracy, rather than people of competing cultures and races. The reason is that it’s our women’s voting patterns that create the vulnerability of our people to other cultures and races.

    Attack the alterable cause not the unalterable one.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-28 14:05:00 UTC

  • NOTHING SHOULD BE DEMOCRATIC. Peace is undesirable in the choice between a homel

    https://news.grabien.com/story-kerry-israel-can-either-be-jewish-or-democratic-it-cannot-beACTUALLY, NOTHING SHOULD BE DEMOCRATIC.

    Peace is undesirable in the choice between a homeland at the expense of conflict, and peace at the expense of a second failure to preserve a homeland. Jews must learn to rule – including themselves. Christians must return to rule. Democracy – the abandonment of rule – is a failed experiment. We pretend that democracy is a good rather than just the cheapest method of rule with the least consequences for the rulers. So we claim democracy as an ideological good when it is instead – when combined with fiat credit – a cheaper method of rule. And worse, not all civilizations, or peoples, have reached a level of development – either political, cultural or genetic – that is sufficient for cooperation on purely economic grounds and under democratic polities. Instead, it appears, that democracy and economic cooperation are luxury goods made possible by military and technological windfalls, and nothing more.

    If for no other reason than self-defense, those of us with the ability to rule well – meaning with a positive evolutionary outcome for man – must rule, while those who are incapable of rule – meaning producing a negative evolutionary outcome for man – must be ruled. There is no alternative except wishful thinking. And wishful thinking is found most frequently as the pavement on the road to hell.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-28 12:58:00 UTC

  • MOST PEOPLE FLEEING IMMIGRATION / RACE / TAXES New Jersey (NYC / Newark ) New Yo

    MOST PEOPLE FLEEING

    IMMIGRATION / RACE / TAXES

    New Jersey (NYC / Newark )

    New York (NYC)

    Illinois (Chicago)

    Connecticut (NYC /Hartford/Bridgeport/Danbury/New Haven / Meriden)

    Massachusetts (Boston / Springfield )

    Mississippi

    Maryland (Baltimore)

    ECONOMICS

    Ohio (Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo)

    Kansas

    West Virginia


    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-27 16:35:00 UTC

  • Why A Monopoly Economic Model? Power. Because there isn’t a need for a monopoly model.

    —“Curt , why won’t they let us have economic and cultural systems that are specific to the various cultures around the world? Why the obsession to force one system on differing people, many whom aren’t adept to a foreign survival strategy? Why not let many flowers bloom?”—Ankit Patel‎  Exactly. You know why? Where religion was the excuse for pursuing power in the past, morality the excuse for pursuing power after that, economics has been the excuse for pursuing power since marx.

  • Why A Monopoly Economic Model? Power. Because there isn’t a need for a monopoly model.

    —“Curt , why won’t they let us have economic and cultural systems that are specific to the various cultures around the world? Why the obsession to force one system on differing people, many whom aren’t adept to a foreign survival strategy? Why not let many flowers bloom?”—Ankit Patel‎  Exactly. You know why? Where religion was the excuse for pursuing power in the past, morality the excuse for pursuing power after that, economics has been the excuse for pursuing power since marx.

  • Open Borders Produce Forceful Redistribution.

    —“Property norms define superior and inferior claims. The current condition of the “unused” land is subsidized at gun point by victims of tax theft. Those victims therefore have the best objective link to its use. An open border policy is therefore the forceful redistribution of resources from those with superior property claims to those with inferior property claims.”—Jared Howe
  • Open Borders Produce Forceful Redistribution.

    —“Property norms define superior and inferior claims. The current condition of the “unused” land is subsidized at gun point by victims of tax theft. Those victims therefore have the best objective link to its use. An open border policy is therefore the forceful redistribution of resources from those with superior property claims to those with inferior property claims.”—Jared Howe
  • Application of the Rule: Any Unlimited Organization Will Swim Left.

    ( Ely Harman December 20 at 11:45pm · ) Tell me where I’m wrong. Mixed male/female institutions and spaces of any size under feminism will tend to end up female dominated, or at least dominated by feminine sensibilities, if not female persons. Why? Because in any conflict between a man and a woman the woman will always have recourse to the feminine means of coercion (rallying, shaming, gossip, reputational agression.) But the first rule of feminism is that the masculine means of coercion (violence) are illegitimate, and doubly illegitimate when used, by a man, against a woman. So, if a woman gets in my face about something, anything, and begins to resort to feminine coercion. There are only 4 ways I can respond. 1) Submit. Give her what she demands. 2) Disassociate. Leave. Cut off the interaction. 3) Retaliate in kind, with feminine coercion. 4) Resort to Violence. Well, we already said 4 is ruled out. 1) Results in female domination. 2) Cedes the territory to females. 3) Is not seen as honorable behavior for men. But even if men made the adjustment and began systematically employing feminine coercion, and successfully, then feminine sensibilities prevail (through them.) The second rule of feminism is there are no exclusively male or masculine spaces or institutions. These are to be identified and subjected to feminine coercion until they are opened up to integration. What about smaller institutions, like a household? Well, a man may preserve some sovereignty within a household if he can offer benefits and therefore potentially withold them, in part, or by disassociating entirely. If the benefits are compelling enough, and their potential loss compelling enough, that can uphold certain boundaries. But as institutions are feminized and select for and promote women and effeminate men, men must progressively either accept subordinate roles and statuses within those institutions, leave, or become effeminate. And that diminishes men’s abilities to produce and to bring home benefits with which to bargain for sovereignty even in their home life. And as the relative wealth and status of men declines in society and within institutions, so must their relative status and sovereignty at home. The process of feminization must tend to proceed, therefore, until it encounters and is reversed either by violent revolt or violent conquest. Patriarchy and matriarchy are the only options, long-term. There is no stable middle ground. Which direction we are headed depends largely on whether or not, and how much, men are using violence (including against women.) But even an established matriarchy is unstable because it cannot defend itself against an external patriarchy, (or a sufficiently broad based revolt) while a patriarchy need not allow itself to be threatened by any matriarchy.