HOW ARE WE SLAVES? – Inability to Exit – Inability to secede – Involuntary association – Mandatory civil service – Non-Dischargeable Debts – Alimony and Child Support – Property Taxes rather than fees (farming humans) – Income taxes without determination of their use. – Deprivation of rights of suit in defense of private and commons – Deprivation of rights of juridical defense prior to harm. – Deprivation of driver’s licenses for non-driving offenses. – Punishment for non-property crimes – Prohibition on voluntary servitude.
Category: Politics, Power, and Governance
-
How are we slaves? This is how.
HOW ARE WE SLAVES? – Inability to Exit – Inability to secede – Involuntary association – Mandatory civil service – Non-Dischargeable Debts – Alimony and Child Support – Property Taxes rather than fees (farming humans) – Income taxes without determination of their use. – Deprivation of rights of suit in defense of private and commons – Deprivation of rights of juridical defense prior to harm. – Deprivation of driver’s licenses for non-driving offenses. – Punishment for non-property crimes – Prohibition on voluntary servitude.
-
Um. Fascists? No.
THERE ARE NO SERIOUS FASCIST PHILOSOPHERS FOR THE SAME REASON THERE ARE NO PHILOSOPHERS OF HOPLITE WARFARE (a fun one) **Fascism** is a ‘**military’ strategy** for Marshaling all economic, political, and cultural resources for the purpose of opposing **Bolshevism, Communism, Socialism**, and totalitarianism by the conduct of **military, economic and cultural warfare**.
Just as Napoleonic **Total War** is a strategy for marshaling all national resources for the conduct of military warfare prior to the industrial revolution, when economic warfare was relatively ineffective. Just as today we use **economic warfare **almost exclusively to contain Russian expansion into southern Europe, eastern Europe and the Baltic, and as we did use to constrain Iran into constraining its expansion into Iraq, Syria and Israel. Ergo: 1. MILITARY: Nationalization of resources for military war: Napoleon **Total War** (State Credit under Nation States), Physical warfare was appropriate for the era. 2. ECONOMIC: Nationalization of resource for military, economic and cultural war: **Fascism**, or **Economic Warfare, **by the construction of an autarkic (self dependent) economy. The combination of physical, economic and cultural warfare was appropriate for the era. 3. FINANCIAL: Nationalization of federal trade policy to cause economic collapse: I don’t have a word for it but operationally it would be called “**Financial Warfare**”., by depriving competitors of access to the world markets and financial system. (which destroys economic velocity, political authority, and social stability). Financial warfare is appropriate for the era. 4. CULTURAL : the Frankfurt school of Marxism was perhaps the most effective form of warfare developed in the twentieth century. The objective is to destroy a civilization from within by sewing discord and internal conflict. It has taken many decades but combined with vast underclass immigration it has been almost successful in destroying the American Rule of Law experiment. PHILOSOPHERS? In this sense, it is no longer necessary for us to develop philosophers for the purpose of Military Total War (state credit), Economic Total War (Fiat Money), or Financial Total War (International Financial System) It is however, necessary (and I am one of them) to develop philosophers to counter the combination of false history, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and propaganda, using academy, state, media complex, to conduct cultural warfare. So no. There are no Fascist philosophers per se, for the same reason there are no philosophers of Napoleonic (or hoplite) warfare. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute -
Um. Fascists? No.
THERE ARE NO SERIOUS FASCIST PHILOSOPHERS FOR THE SAME REASON THERE ARE NO PHILOSOPHERS OF HOPLITE WARFARE (a fun one) **Fascism** is a ‘**military’ strategy** for Marshaling all economic, political, and cultural resources for the purpose of opposing **Bolshevism, Communism, Socialism**, and totalitarianism by the conduct of **military, economic and cultural warfare**.
Just as Napoleonic **Total War** is a strategy for marshaling all national resources for the conduct of military warfare prior to the industrial revolution, when economic warfare was relatively ineffective. Just as today we use **economic warfare **almost exclusively to contain Russian expansion into southern Europe, eastern Europe and the Baltic, and as we did use to constrain Iran into constraining its expansion into Iraq, Syria and Israel. Ergo: 1. MILITARY: Nationalization of resources for military war: Napoleon **Total War** (State Credit under Nation States), Physical warfare was appropriate for the era. 2. ECONOMIC: Nationalization of resource for military, economic and cultural war: **Fascism**, or **Economic Warfare, **by the construction of an autarkic (self dependent) economy. The combination of physical, economic and cultural warfare was appropriate for the era. 3. FINANCIAL: Nationalization of federal trade policy to cause economic collapse: I don’t have a word for it but operationally it would be called “**Financial Warfare**”., by depriving competitors of access to the world markets and financial system. (which destroys economic velocity, political authority, and social stability). Financial warfare is appropriate for the era. 4. CULTURAL : the Frankfurt school of Marxism was perhaps the most effective form of warfare developed in the twentieth century. The objective is to destroy a civilization from within by sewing discord and internal conflict. It has taken many decades but combined with vast underclass immigration it has been almost successful in destroying the American Rule of Law experiment. PHILOSOPHERS? In this sense, it is no longer necessary for us to develop philosophers for the purpose of Military Total War (state credit), Economic Total War (Fiat Money), or Financial Total War (International Financial System) It is however, necessary (and I am one of them) to develop philosophers to counter the combination of false history, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and propaganda, using academy, state, media complex, to conduct cultural warfare. So no. There are no Fascist philosophers per se, for the same reason there are no philosophers of Napoleonic (or hoplite) warfare. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute -
Ending the Masquerades of Christianity and Democracy
I think what we are seeing is the end to Aryanism masquerading as Christian universalism masquerading as democratic consumer capitalism, advanced under east coast puritanism, jeffersonian conservatism, jewish neoconservatism, jewish libertarianis, jewish socialism. And that we are returning to ‘what works for my people’ world wide. The jews are doing fine by way of white armies. 🙂 Just as whites have done fine by way of underclass armies.
-
Ending the Masquerades of Christianity and Democracy
I think what we are seeing is the end to Aryanism masquerading as Christian universalism masquerading as democratic consumer capitalism, advanced under east coast puritanism, jeffersonian conservatism, jewish neoconservatism, jewish libertarianis, jewish socialism. And that we are returning to ‘what works for my people’ world wide. The jews are doing fine by way of white armies. 🙂 Just as whites have done fine by way of underclass armies.
-
On The Old vs New Molyneux 😉
Stephan ( and all of us ) are moving to the right for the simple reason that the libertarian assertion that the nature of man is identical to the libertarian personality and our moral bias merely yearning to be free, is as false as is the progressive assertion that the nature of humans is altruistic (maternal). Like almost all in social science, it turns out that despite a century and a half of pseudoscience, the evidence is in: that man is rational and chooses between moral or immoral because of the incentives at the time. The conservatives were right. Man is merely rational/ So conservatives work to limit incentives to the productive, and prohibit the unproductive. Immigration was just the last straw. But for the past sixty years the central issue has been whether the individual(progressive and libertine) or family (conservative) should be the central object of policy. And the jury is in: while law must be designed for the individual actor, policy must be designed for longer time preference: the family, tribe, and nation. When the industrial revolution hit us, the great wealth that was created, inspired us to the falsehood that we had transcended our limits and the limits of nature. But we had only moved the window of possibility to cover larger populations. That does not mean that there are no limits to production and consumption. THE CONSERVATIVE (ARISTOCRATIC) MODEL: MARKETS IN EVERYTHING – A market for goods and services (the Market) – A market for reproduction (Marriage) – A market for enfranchisement (Defense and Emergency) – A market for commons (one house of government per class conducting exchanges) – A market for polities (competing small states and voluntary exit) In other words, there are no free rides – especially on the cost of creating the norms and institutions that we call property rights that can exist only when insured by reciprocal defense. The market was not natural in any sense – the evidence is that the market was constructed by the suppression of violence. Accelerated by the suppression of fraud. And now requires the suppression of falsehood, so that we can suppress the government itself: conspiracy. Sorry, but the world is moving right. For good reason. Anything else is suicidal to family, tribe, nation, and race. The cosmopolitan era has ended. Its pseudoscience pseudo-rationalism and pseudo-moralism, and conflationary argument is over. Libertinism ended along with neoconservatism and socialism. The experiment failed. We are unequal. We are competitors. We compete through cooperating because it is the least-bad form of competition that produces the most beneficial externalities. And only markets in everything make a condition of liberty possible. Hayek was right. Liberty is the condition produced by the rigid identification and enforcement of natural, judge discovered, common law that evolves to prevent and resolve conflict and retaliation spirals so that we may maintain the disproportionate value of cooperating on production, despite the constant incentive to engage in murder, violence, harm, damage, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by externality, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, conspiracy, rent seeking, monopoly seeking, statism, conversion-religion-disinformation, displacement-immigration, colonialism-conquest and war. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute PS: MORAL BIASES Moral overweigthing: Masculinism (islam) Moral balance: conservative bias (paterna/eugenicl) Moral bias: libertarian (brother/partner/ally) Moral blindness: progressive (maternal) Moral antagonist: Socialist, feminist, postmodernist, Libertine, Neocon – the weaponization of maternalism under democracy. (judaism) Just how it is. Conservatives are right. -
On The Old vs New Molyneux 😉
Stephan ( and all of us ) are moving to the right for the simple reason that the libertarian assertion that the nature of man is identical to the libertarian personality and our moral bias merely yearning to be free, is as false as is the progressive assertion that the nature of humans is altruistic (maternal). Like almost all in social science, it turns out that despite a century and a half of pseudoscience, the evidence is in: that man is rational and chooses between moral or immoral because of the incentives at the time. The conservatives were right. Man is merely rational/ So conservatives work to limit incentives to the productive, and prohibit the unproductive. Immigration was just the last straw. But for the past sixty years the central issue has been whether the individual(progressive and libertine) or family (conservative) should be the central object of policy. And the jury is in: while law must be designed for the individual actor, policy must be designed for longer time preference: the family, tribe, and nation. When the industrial revolution hit us, the great wealth that was created, inspired us to the falsehood that we had transcended our limits and the limits of nature. But we had only moved the window of possibility to cover larger populations. That does not mean that there are no limits to production and consumption. THE CONSERVATIVE (ARISTOCRATIC) MODEL: MARKETS IN EVERYTHING – A market for goods and services (the Market) – A market for reproduction (Marriage) – A market for enfranchisement (Defense and Emergency) – A market for commons (one house of government per class conducting exchanges) – A market for polities (competing small states and voluntary exit) In other words, there are no free rides – especially on the cost of creating the norms and institutions that we call property rights that can exist only when insured by reciprocal defense. The market was not natural in any sense – the evidence is that the market was constructed by the suppression of violence. Accelerated by the suppression of fraud. And now requires the suppression of falsehood, so that we can suppress the government itself: conspiracy. Sorry, but the world is moving right. For good reason. Anything else is suicidal to family, tribe, nation, and race. The cosmopolitan era has ended. Its pseudoscience pseudo-rationalism and pseudo-moralism, and conflationary argument is over. Libertinism ended along with neoconservatism and socialism. The experiment failed. We are unequal. We are competitors. We compete through cooperating because it is the least-bad form of competition that produces the most beneficial externalities. And only markets in everything make a condition of liberty possible. Hayek was right. Liberty is the condition produced by the rigid identification and enforcement of natural, judge discovered, common law that evolves to prevent and resolve conflict and retaliation spirals so that we may maintain the disproportionate value of cooperating on production, despite the constant incentive to engage in murder, violence, harm, damage, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by externality, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, conspiracy, rent seeking, monopoly seeking, statism, conversion-religion-disinformation, displacement-immigration, colonialism-conquest and war. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute PS: MORAL BIASES Moral overweigthing: Masculinism (islam) Moral balance: conservative bias (paterna/eugenicl) Moral bias: libertarian (brother/partner/ally) Moral blindness: progressive (maternal) Moral antagonist: Socialist, feminist, postmodernist, Libertine, Neocon – the weaponization of maternalism under democracy. (judaism) Just how it is. Conservatives are right. -
Liberty? Let me help you…. Only if you Rule.
You possess Liberty when you rule – else you have but permission. The purpose of rule is to prevent others from ruling – so that you possess Liberty in fact not permission. But this condition can only survive if you have numbers sufficient to deny competitors the ability to rule. But to work together in numbers we require means of cooperating and means of dispute resolution. But these means cannot allow for discretion or we would no longer possess Liberty. To solve this problem we cooperate using productive fully informed warrantied voluntary exchange. To resolve differences we use rule of natural, judge-discovered common law. So we create a condition of Liberty by creating a condition of sovereignty, by cooperating via fully informed warrantied productive voluntary exchange, and resolving disputes by natural judge discovered common law under which we demand contribution to their defense and restitution for offense. And punish, enslave, remove, or kill those who do attempt to create any condition other than Liberty.
-
Liberty? Let me help you…. Only if you Rule.
You possess Liberty when you rule – else you have but permission. The purpose of rule is to prevent others from ruling – so that you possess Liberty in fact not permission. But this condition can only survive if you have numbers sufficient to deny competitors the ability to rule. But to work together in numbers we require means of cooperating and means of dispute resolution. But these means cannot allow for discretion or we would no longer possess Liberty. To solve this problem we cooperate using productive fully informed warrantied voluntary exchange. To resolve differences we use rule of natural, judge-discovered common law. So we create a condition of Liberty by creating a condition of sovereignty, by cooperating via fully informed warrantied productive voluntary exchange, and resolving disputes by natural judge discovered common law under which we demand contribution to their defense and restitution for offense. And punish, enslave, remove, or kill those who do attempt to create any condition other than Liberty.