Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • “We are another country now, an us-or-them country.”— Buchannan Exactly what w

    —“We are another country now, an us-or-them country.”— Buchannan

    Exactly what we want. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 10:28:00 UTC

  • NO: DOLLARS ARE NOT MORE INNOCENT THAN VOTES. —“Dollars are not at all like vo

    NO: DOLLARS ARE NOT MORE INNOCENT THAN VOTES.

    —“Dollars are not at all like votes. A vote may be a slight thing in a large electorate but is, nevertheless, a proactive, illiberal, gratuitous, coercive move against others but spending a dollar, by contrast, is not coercive at all; not even one iota.”– David McDonagh

    Assuming however, that rule of law limits the externalities that can be produced by the spending of that dollar to those that are productive, and that the transaction involving that dollar is reciprocally productive, fully informed, warrantied, and voluntary.

    Libertarians seem to have a problem with complete sentences despite the first principle of economic theory: the broken window’s demand for full accounting. Yet libertarians speak in incomplete sentences using not full accounting but rational justification. And they do so in order to rely upon suggestion: causing the audience to subjectively substitute that information that is not provided in the incomplete sentence. So this obvious conflict between the first principle of economics which requires full accounting, and the use of justificationary rationalism to circumvent it by means of incomplete sentences and suggestion is the reason for the failure of the program to produce intellectuals that produce meaningful results, rather than simply attracting justificationists: free riders.

    It is not market activity that creates demand for authority and then state. But the externalities to the transaction that create demand for authority and the state.

    Why? Because humans retaliate, even at high cost, against any imposition of any investment that they have made. So liberty is constructed by the suppression of any activity that causes retaliation.

    Ergo, this is why the NAP is a fraud. Because it does not specify the scope of the prohibitions one may not aggress against without encouraging retaliation (demonstrated interest), and therefore generates rather than suppresses demand for the state. Hence why the only existential semi-libertarian polities have existed in border regions under the defense of states and empires, who tolerate free riding on the commons in exchange for holding territory in the state’s name at a discount – thereby preventing other states from doing the same without invoking retaliation.

    One may not impose a cost upon that for which others have borne a cost. And that constitutes every form of capital that humans produce. And since some capital is strategic rather than productive, then that which demarcates competition between preferences is TRUTH content.

    ERGO: votes are proxy for violence. Dollars are a proxy for expenditures of time, mind, effort, and resources – usually from the proceeds of trade that created a surplus because of a division of knowledge and labor.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 10:10:00 UTC

  • YES YOU SHOULD VOTE: NO ROOM FOR VIRTUE SIGNALING IN ARISTOCRATIC LIBERTY. —Q&

    YES YOU SHOULD VOTE: NO ROOM FOR VIRTUE SIGNALING IN ARISTOCRATIC LIBERTY.

    —Q&A: “Curt: Have you always voted? What’s the greatest argument you find most appealing as to why you choose to?”—

    Yes, by and large, I’ve always voted other than when in Ukraine.

    Just because you don’t get it your way, doesn’t mean you should assist others in getting it their way by giving them a discount on it – that’s just stupid.

    The whole purpose of incremental suppression is to increase the costs of parasitism.

    So vote to increase the costs of parasitism.

    And agitate, and revolt to raise the costs further.

    Like many libertarian fallacies, the principle of not voting is counter-productive virtue-signaling in order to simply take a discount on effort- just like the opposition uses.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 09:17:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle (@curtdoolittle): @realDonaldTrump VOTE TRUMP. BUT WE WIN EITHER

    https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/795753796546727936/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=795965934540308480Retweeted Curt Doolittle (@curtdoolittle):

    @realDonaldTrump VOTE TRUMP. BUT WE WIN EITHER WAY. https://t.co/Emnp6phuAN


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 07:27:00 UTC

  • Yes, a head of state is required to negotiate with other states if for no other

    Yes, a head of state is required to negotiate with other states if for no other reason than to prevent internal factionalism.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-07 22:35:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795756712364011520

    Reply addressees: @AlHernandez21

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795755881858236416


    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/795755881858236416

  • @realDonaldTrump VOTE TRUMP. BUT WE WIN EITHER WAY

    @realDonaldTrump VOTE TRUMP. BUT WE WIN EITHER WAY. https://t.co/Emnp6phuAN


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-07 22:24:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795753796546727936

  • We win either way BTW. Either we get Trump and buy time, or we get Clinton and a

    We win either way BTW. Either we get Trump and buy time, or we get Clinton and an excuse to revolt. Win-Win Scenario.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-07 22:09:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795750163126112256

    Reply addressees: @jeffreyatucker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795375288402186245


    IN REPLY TO:

    @jeffreytucker

    Absolute devastation. The Republicans might have to rethink that electoral viability of fascism and racial revanchism. https://t.co/kzFTMPrKHR

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795375288402186245

  • (bit of a straw man) Republican’s didn’t run Trump. The People did. Against the

    (bit of a straw man) Republican’s didn’t run Trump. The People did. Against the will of the Republicans.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-07 22:09:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795750002614267904

    Reply addressees: @jeffreyatucker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795375288402186245


    IN REPLY TO:

    @jeffreytucker

    Absolute devastation. The Republicans might have to rethink that electoral viability of fascism and racial revanchism. https://t.co/kzFTMPrKHR

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795375288402186245

  • I have no clue how tomorrow will turn out. Better demand for my work if trump lo

    I have no clue how tomorrow will turn out.

    Better demand for my work if trump loses.

    Happier personally if he wins.

    Best if he loses and asks us to revolt.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-07 21:42:00 UTC

  • “Some of the West’s people are tolerant of Cosmopolitan Jewish and Anglo Puritan

    —“Some of the West’s people are tolerant of Cosmopolitan Jewish and Anglo Puritan lies because we have members of the other classes who are still fearful of the aristocratic class.

    We must drive a wedge between them and the cosmopolitans and puritans. And it seems like this global employment and immigration crisis provides us with just that opportunity.

    The separate interests of the cosmopolitans and the lower classes of the host nation are becoming apparent – and with it, the lower classes are rebelling.

    The only group I see still tolerant of and allied to the Cosmopolitans is the academic class, most of whom are Underclass or Puritans because they academy has filtered out by intent and design the Aristocracy. But these ‘Secular Priests of Falsehood’ are still too afraid and confused about how they will survive, where they’ll go, what they’ll do once the people rebel against it.

    Showing them a plan during a transition would be helpful in getting them to decouple from the anti-commons crowd, too.”—Josh Jeppson


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-07 10:54:00 UTC