Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • TURNING THE PACIFISM OF THE “DISENFRANCHISED” MOVEMENT INTO AGGRESSIVE WARFARE W

    TURNING THE PACIFISM OF THE “DISENFRANCHISED” MOVEMENT INTO AGGRESSIVE WARFARE

    Well I learned something from the debate with the new nietzscheans over the past few days. But what it has taught me is that I must take down the ‘individual disenfranchised male is superior” movement and transform it from a pacifist obscurantist justification justification of, and admission of defeat, to a rebellion that uses masculine violence to institute change. It is one thing to abandon self sacrifice for women, and quite another to abandon yourself and your people to conquest.

    So. Great. (sarcasm) I get to make more ‘friends’ by demonstrating the fallacy of their false heroism as mask for their admission of beta standing, just so that I can deprive them of the opportunity to engage in another ‘libertarian’ equivalent of seasteading (defeat), or another socialist equivalent of the commune (defeat).

    But, a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.

    One does not chat one’s self up by casting failure as heroic (that’s jewish and christian ethics for you).

    One does not chat one’s self up by chuffed-up confidence-building over beer or the digital equivalent (internet) with those who agree with you.

    Instead, One makes a plan in which he has confidence and he executes it with discipline, absent emotion, and in particular, absent of fear: (McVeigh,Kaczynski,Breivik, millions of communists, and thousands of radicalized muslim men).

    Christianity taught us to extirpate hatred from our hearts and minds. Military training taught us to extirpate impulse from our hearts and minds – and to hold formation, and execute in formation. Science taught us to extirpate imagination from our hearts and minds.

    Modernity does not require we work in great numbers, or that we even work in formation. The muslims conquered weakened Byzantium and Persia by quick strikes and retreat into the desert. The same way that muslims conquer today by quick raids and retreat into the cities, slums, suburbs and deserts.

    Our western way of war is terribly expensive, because it relies upon technology, planning, and professional warriors to defeat superior numbers through concentration of force, maneuver, and supply lines.

    But we face not military enemies who may conquer us by our FAMILIAR means, but religious enemies who have already conquered and occupied our territory: the alliance of the neo-puritans, feminists, socialists, postmodernists, into the Academy, state, media complex under the banner of democratic secular socialist humanism – but which is no more than profiteering by members of the academy, state and media, by privatizing in to their own corporation, the civilization we have built.

    Just as they force elderly from their homes through taxation and reduce us all to renters of our territory who are cast out when we can no longer perform, they seek to cast our tribe, culture, and race and transferring our nations into rental property – a process which they are currently succeeding with.

    We have been conquered. We are being exterminated. Cowards retreat. The rest of us go to war. And If you do not fight then you are by definition not worthy of survival. There is no heroism in going your own way. There is merely death and defeat of you and your people – evidence of your inferiority.

    You were born with a wealth of violence and through the shaming of women taught not to master it, not to love and care for it, not to build and improve it – so that they could conquer you and defeat you.

    Violence is a virtue. Excellence in violence may be the highest virtue. That is because violence is the determinant of all orders of mankind, and the orders of mankind determine a group’s survival.

    The hundreds of generations of men who came before you fought for your standing, only to have one or two generations abandon it for the pleasure of our women.

    Kill, fight, or perish.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-17 05:15:00 UTC

  • A HIERARCHY OF DEFINITIONS: ARISTOCRACY Rule by Aristocracy : rule by natural ar

    A HIERARCHY OF DEFINITIONS: ARISTOCRACY

    Rule by Aristocracy : rule by natural aristocracy: the best able to *rule*.

    –“The concept evolved in Ancient Greece, whereby a council of leading citizens was commonly empowered. Aristocracy was contrasted with direct democracy, in which a council of male citizens was appointed as the “senate” of a city state or other political unit.”—

    HIERARCHY

    (1) AMBITION: Hero, or Heroic man, a man who seeks to demonstrate his excellences through competition, in exchange for status for having contributed to the strength of the polity. (ambition)

    (2) DEVELOPMENT: Aristocrat : An ‘Aesthete’ (judge of and creator of excellence) in all things: aesthetics, truth, ethics, politics, and war. An individual who advocates aristocracy – includes all men of all classes who desire both rule by the best able to rule: by those who by virtue of talent and aesthetic choice are best able to rule, and persist the aesthetic excellences; and who desire to best imitate those who they desire to rule.

    (3) DEMONSTRATION: Nobility: Natural Aristocracy (the bourgeoise or managerial class that makes liberty possible, and who retains excellence, ability and power across generations)

    (4) ACHIEVEMENT: Superior or Great Man, or Virtuous Man: a man who succeeds in demonstrating his excellences through competition, and whose achievements survive in the record of history.

    (5) TRANSCENDENT: Transcendent man: an ambition to evolve to the next step in our journey to become our concept of gods.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-17 04:43:00 UTC

  • When Is External Aggression Warranted?

    [W]AR

    External aggression is warranted when a lower trust polity causes harm to a higher trust polity, and the result of aggression will be an increase in the level of non-parasitism. In other words, it tis always moral and warranted to export high trust against the will of lower trust peoples. The problem is, it can almost never be done without colonizing and ruling them, and bearing the expense of doing it. Most often it is cheaper and easier to punish them severely so that you raise the cost of their low trust behavior until they adopt high trust out of practical convenience.

  • When Is External Aggression Warranted?

    [W]AR

    External aggression is warranted when a lower trust polity causes harm to a higher trust polity, and the result of aggression will be an increase in the level of non-parasitism. In other words, it tis always moral and warranted to export high trust against the will of lower trust peoples. The problem is, it can almost never be done without colonizing and ruling them, and bearing the expense of doing it. Most often it is cheaper and easier to punish them severely so that you raise the cost of their low trust behavior until they adopt high trust out of practical convenience.

  • Another Thought on Republics: Indecision.

    [A] republic, or an oligarchy by any other name, even one ruled by law, is a notoriously indecisive form of organization. I do not see a better division of labor than the one we discovered by accident. A republic is an excellent means of producing commons. A monarchy an excellent means of conducting war. And a democracy an excellent means of fooling the people into suicide. The Optimum that I know of: 1) Monarch, Military, and Militia for the defense of people, territory, routes, and trade. 2) Independent Judiciary for the resolution of conflicts, Rule of law, Property en Toto. 3) An independent treasury for the provision of credit (issuance and repurchase of shares) 4) Houses for the Production of Commons with members drawn by lot. 5) Families for the production of generations under voluntary selection of mates. 6) Men and Women forming Militia and emergency services. 7) Private provision of public goods. We had it about right. If we had given women and the proletarians houses and maintained land and property requirements we would have created a market for commons, instead of the fallacy of majority rule (mob rule).

  • Another Thought on Republics: Indecision.

    [A] republic, or an oligarchy by any other name, even one ruled by law, is a notoriously indecisive form of organization. I do not see a better division of labor than the one we discovered by accident. A republic is an excellent means of producing commons. A monarchy an excellent means of conducting war. And a democracy an excellent means of fooling the people into suicide. The Optimum that I know of: 1) Monarch, Military, and Militia for the defense of people, territory, routes, and trade. 2) Independent Judiciary for the resolution of conflicts, Rule of law, Property en Toto. 3) An independent treasury for the provision of credit (issuance and repurchase of shares) 4) Houses for the Production of Commons with members drawn by lot. 5) Families for the production of generations under voluntary selection of mates. 6) Men and Women forming Militia and emergency services. 7) Private provision of public goods. We had it about right. If we had given women and the proletarians houses and maintained land and property requirements we would have created a market for commons, instead of the fallacy of majority rule (mob rule).

  • The Third Way (the end of history) Is The Truthful Society – Not Democracy

    [I] am not sure how Fukuyama missed it, other than it seems like all throughout his career he seeks to justify his theory of monopoly bureaucracy, and his admiration of Sinic civilization. He investigates the problems of bureaucracy under democracy – the failure to develop an independent professional bureaucracy first, and then democracy, such that patronage jobs are not given out.

    But he does not demonstrate that the public intellectual class and private companies would not create problems of the Deep State’s self maximization of self interest, the parasitism of bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy’s attempt to eliminate all competition, and it’s enforced stagnation. To create a high trust society one requires (a) a near universal militia (b) private property rights, independent judiciary (‘priesthood’) and rule of law proper (c) a natural nobility with long term interest in the territory, (d) insurers of last resort operated by professionals. One does not require a monopoly bureaucracy. It is an admission of the failure of a people to develop and maintain rule of law. One requires rule of law, law sufficiently articulated that it is inescapable (decidable), and universal standing such that the people can make use of it to control anyone acting in a public capacity in addition to private capacity. If the basis of law is articulated as the total prohibition on free riding in all its forms, including: violence, theft, fraud, free riding, conspiracy, invasion and conquest; and if we defend the informational commons from pollution (“Abusus”), by requiring proof of existence and morality in any claim of common good; and if we construct a market for the construction of commons between the classes; then the end of history is not as Fukuyama claims – the professional bureaucracy. Instead, the professional bureaucracy is yet another example of the failure of a people to develop an answer to the problem of politics, ethics, economics and the social sciences. Chinese failed first to solve the problem of politics. They created the monopoly state first, and never discovered the rule of law. And in doing so, they failed first. The end of history – at least the end of history that we can see today – is the truthful society. And democratic polities of all stripes are yet another failure to construct rule of law applicable to every living soul. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
  • The Third Way (the end of history) Is The Truthful Society – Not Democracy

    [I] am not sure how Fukuyama missed it, other than it seems like all throughout his career he seeks to justify his theory of monopoly bureaucracy, and his admiration of Sinic civilization. He investigates the problems of bureaucracy under democracy – the failure to develop an independent professional bureaucracy first, and then democracy, such that patronage jobs are not given out.

    But he does not demonstrate that the public intellectual class and private companies would not create problems of the Deep State’s self maximization of self interest, the parasitism of bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy’s attempt to eliminate all competition, and it’s enforced stagnation. To create a high trust society one requires (a) a near universal militia (b) private property rights, independent judiciary (‘priesthood’) and rule of law proper (c) a natural nobility with long term interest in the territory, (d) insurers of last resort operated by professionals. One does not require a monopoly bureaucracy. It is an admission of the failure of a people to develop and maintain rule of law. One requires rule of law, law sufficiently articulated that it is inescapable (decidable), and universal standing such that the people can make use of it to control anyone acting in a public capacity in addition to private capacity. If the basis of law is articulated as the total prohibition on free riding in all its forms, including: violence, theft, fraud, free riding, conspiracy, invasion and conquest; and if we defend the informational commons from pollution (“Abusus”), by requiring proof of existence and morality in any claim of common good; and if we construct a market for the construction of commons between the classes; then the end of history is not as Fukuyama claims – the professional bureaucracy. Instead, the professional bureaucracy is yet another example of the failure of a people to develop an answer to the problem of politics, ethics, economics and the social sciences. Chinese failed first to solve the problem of politics. They created the monopoly state first, and never discovered the rule of law. And in doing so, they failed first. The end of history – at least the end of history that we can see today – is the truthful society. And democratic polities of all stripes are yet another failure to construct rule of law applicable to every living soul. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
  • (not that I feel like beating on russia these days, but truth is truth) The west

    (not that I feel like beating on russia these days, but truth is truth)

    The west has legitimate problems with Russia:

    1) Russia’s history of murdering its own people in vast numbers, and occupying and destroying much of eastern Europe, and then engaging in both the cold war and the expansion of world communism. This history prevents Russia from making a legitimate claim to extension of its borders just as we resist german’s extension of is borders.

    2) Absence of rule of law, widespread corruption, use of propaganda and outright lying – which in Russia is heroic and in the west is the very pinnacle of immorality. The Russian sponsorship of a predatory government maintaining the poverty of the people of Ukraine and its agitation over the return of eastern Europe to christendom given its history was and is intolerable both to Westerners and to eastern europeans. The assumption that Russia would add rule of law but retain its conservatism was just fine – as long as Russia joined the west thereby uniting all european peoples and restoring christendom after its destruction by the communists. This would have achieved the long standing goal of uniting german culture and engineering with Russian resources and labor.

    3) Russian intellectuals’ fascination with the restoration of an empire responsible for genocides only surpassed by the Chinese, and the tragic victimization and impoverishment of eastern Europe, and even Germany – instead of unity of european peoples. As if power – disappearing people in the night, suppressing speech, and terrorism by secret police – rather than prosperity were somehow something to aspire to.

    4) Invasion of Ukraine breaking the postwar consensus on borders – the purpose of which was to prevent another world war. In doing so Russia confirmed both its failure to learn from its past failings, and its willingness to impose harm on ‘our people’. Putin was until then a respected politician in the west who could just have asked the west to negotiate a trade for discounted natural gas in exchange for a full crimean lease including independence on the hong kong model for 200 years – after which it would have been irrelevant. The same for the Donbas since Ukrainians despise that region because it’s the source of Russian influence on the government, source of gangsters supported by Russia, and the source of the drug trade. So Putin confirmed that Russia had learned nothing, and wishes to repeat its past crimes against humanity.

    American utopianism is absurd and the neo-conservative movement has been as disastrous as the progressive, neo-puritain, and socialist. Americans are perfectly happy to feel good about themselves by punishing brown and yellow people the world over. America has the luxury of stupidity due to wealth in part gained by their domestic utopianism.

    And sure, democracy is done for, republicanism is a luxury of wealthy europeans riding on the accumulated wave of centuries of intellectual, technical and artistic achievement. Yes, women have have used enfranchisement to incrementally destroy the west that alone liberated them, and yes, the left has used the funding provided by women through advertising and expanding education in the the academy and rent seeking that expands the state to convert us into another brazil.

    That does not mean that anything Russia desires or does is not more of the same even worse than we have experienced from her before. She rails against the nazis who were half the criminals the russians have been.

    That people want strength is a statement of their weakness.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 17:31:00 UTC

  • Democrats vs Liberals: Democrats are low IQ people who vote for free stuff. Libe

    Democrats vs Liberals:

    Democrats are low IQ people who vote for free stuff.

    Liberals are high IQ people who use free stuff to win votes.

    qotd: Shaun Moss


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 13:06:00 UTC