Form: Argument

  • CHRISTIANITY OR COMMUNISM? SAME METHOD. We can make the alternate argument – tha

    CHRISTIANITY OR COMMUNISM? SAME METHOD.

    We can make the alternate argument – that christianity was imposed just as authoritarian communism was imposed – and for the same reasons (power).

    And that the west survived christianity (communism version one) just as it has nearly survived marxism-neo-marxism-postmodernism-feminism (communism version two).

    It’s rather obvious that the christian destruction of the ancient world mirrors the marxist-postmodernist destruction of the modern world – using the very same techniques and strategies, including destruction of churches (temples), taking over the university (new religion), taking over the government administration, and taking over production of proppaganda, by appealing to the underclass.

    False promises of xianity in the ancient world by supernatural means and of marxism-socialism-postmodernism-feminism of the modern world by pseudoscientific and sophomoric means.

    When the entire purpose was overthrowing realism, markets, and aristocracy, by a non-productive class from within.

    It’s rather obvious that the restoration of aristotle, and the early abandonment of the church, and the increasing restoration of the aristocracy dragged the west out of the dark ages, with christianity once again being a drag on reform just as christians are a drag on my reforms and restorations of aristotelianism and continued expurgation of semitic thought and behavior from the west.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-24 23:54:36 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/104747058876766352

  • AUTHORITARIAN SUPERNATUAL, DEIST TRADITIONAL, AND SECULAR RATIONAL CHRISTIANITY

    AUTHORITARIAN SUPERNATUAL, DEIST TRADITIONAL, AND SECULAR RATIONAL CHRISTIANITY ARE COMPATIBLE UNDER P-LAW

    That religion (even if not supernatural) of some sort is necessary, That christianity produces good behavior, and that Christian ethics are compatible with and an extension of natural law (reciprocity), and that christian forbearance is what makes christan polities successful in transformation into middle class majorities and market civilization capable of democratic process, is all truthful and true.

    The great question is whether fundamentalist christians will inhibit the next reformation of christian religion, into one that is scientific, rational, and legal – or whether christians will hold onto their requirement for magical thinking.

    My view is that if we express our law in scientific, rational, and operatinal terms, that people will continue to divide into fundamentalist-supernatural (emotional), deist-rational (rational), and legal-scientific (empirical) christians regardless of whether they have the feminine (emotional), neutral (rational) or masculine (legal-scientific) minds.

    We know these minds are genetically determined. We know that we seek information structured for our brains to experience.

    This (law) is the only solution – a compromise – I know of, that satisfies the wants of everyone, which comes at the cost of annoying empiricists and supernaturalists alike because they want monopolies that conform to their method of thought.

    But the european way of life has always been trifunctinoalism mediated by law, and my solution creates again, the european tradition, of trifunctionalism mediated by law.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-24 23:51:37 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/104747047137691952

  • If your argument is (a) put forth a viable solution (we have one), and (b) copy

    If your argument is (a) put forth a viable solution (we have one), and (b) copy BLM/Antifa in demanding a political solution yes that needs funding – and time. And the enemy is better at both.

    Reply addressees: @_Indirection

  • photos_and_videos/MobileUploads_lTr6tULrvg/109741711_339272857470874_47864309782

    photos_and_videos/MobileUploads_lTr6tULrvg/109741711_339272857470874_47864309782

    photos_and_videos/MobileUploads_lTr6tULrvg/109741711_339272857470874_478643097822134118_n_339272854137541.jpg John mark did in no way repudiate propertarianism- just the opposite. He said so in his final post on Patreon that’s still up.

    Instead we both repudiated the dissident right as hopeless chimps – and that our 18 month effort to make those subhuman animals into a political movement couldn’t succeed. Just like every other attempt failed by everyone else.

    No matter what we do, what our goals what our solutions or what our tactics if the chimps don’t get schoolyard brawls to watch vicariously from behind the safety of your basement keyboards they’ll just do all they know how to do – and that’s fling ape feces at everyone who tries.

    So we gave up on them. Too dumb. And so we shift back to policy, patriots, normiecons, 2A, militia, and take advantage of the fact that chimps’ve given us media legitimacy by hating us. Which is the only strategic value they (cowards) can provide. 😉

    And yes I really enjoy disrespecting the mouth breathers. I’d rather pander to the enemy and insult them while appealing to men who shut up, and show up for a war we can win on our terms while the morons hand victory to the enemy playing constantly into their hands, traps, and baiting.

    Which we obviously didn’t. And they were too stupid to get it. 😉

    And yes, John mark videos are on the Propertarian institute channel on YouTube.

    (Secret: John is to P Institute as Pam the CBS Executive was to Craig Ferguson’s Late Night. Marketers are easily hired. But in our case monetization has to pay fir them. At 100k, we only hit 1/2 the necessary market to do that. And the institute can’t get in a position where we are dependent on donors capable of funding that kind of production quality. So when you find out your marketing strategy is largely pulling in the attention of enemies, and only 1% quality people, then it’s a simple business decision: Shift to more substantive content, patriots, 2A, and adults who will spread our policy advice, and distance ourselves from the illiterate sh-t flinging white chimps.

    I feel a lot more relaxed now that we’ve done that. I started an intellectual movement. It’s worked and it’s working. But it will work better when counter signaling the dissident right chimps, addressing adults, and feeding the militias and activists content.

    Right wing Chimps are … tiring.John mark did in no way repudiate propertarianism- just the opposite. He said so in his final post on Patreon that’s still up.

    Instead we both repudiated the dissident right as hopeless chimps – and that our 18 month effort to make those subhuman animals into a political movement couldn’t succeed. Just like every other attempt failed by everyone else.

    No matter what we do, what our goals what our solutions or what our tactics if the chimps don’t get schoolyard brawls to watch vicariously from behind the safety of your basement keyboards they’ll just do all they know how to do – and that’s fling ape feces at everyone who tries.

    So we gave up on them. Too dumb. And so we shift back to policy, patriots, normiecons, 2A, militia, and take advantage of the fact that chimps’ve given us media legitimacy by hating us. Which is the only strategic value they (cowards) can provide. 😉

    And yes I really enjoy disrespecting the mouth breathers. I’d rather pander to the enemy and insult them while appealing to men who shut up, and show up for a war we can win on our terms while the morons hand victory to the enemy playing constantly into their hands, traps, and baiting.

    Which we obviously didn’t. And they were too stupid to get it. 😉

    And yes, John mark videos are on the Propertarian institute channel on YouTube.

    (Secret: John is to P Institute as Pam the CBS Executive was to Craig Ferguson’s Late Night. Marketers are easily hired. But in our case monetization has to pay fir them. At 100k, we only hit 1/2 the necessary market to do that. And the institute can’t get in a position where we are dependent on donors capable of funding that kind of production quality. So when you find out your marketing strategy is largely pulling in the attention of enemies, and only 1% quality people, then it’s a simple business decision: Shift to more substantive content, patriots, 2A, and adults who will spread our policy advice, and distance ourselves from the illiterate sh-t flinging white chimps.

    I feel a lot more relaxed now that we’ve done that. I started an intellectual movement. It’s worked and it’s working. But it will work better when counter signaling the dissident right chimps, addressing adults, and feeding the militias and activists content.

    Right wing Chimps are … tiring.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-07-27 14:06:00 UTC

  • Q&A: Position on Feminism and Patriarchy?

      (Note: Impulsive boys demand certainty – patient men understand human determinism)

    —“Where does P stand on feminism and patriarchy”—

    1) “FEMINISM” Feminism: the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.” EQUALITY IN THE LAW: The only equality is in our necessary equality before the law, in matters of dispute resolution. This is the only equality that does and must exist. OTHERWISE INEQUALITY “Males and females divide the reproductive, sensory, perceptive, cognitive, advocacy, and labor of a civilization by population and time, with females in the shorter term and between individuals, and males in the longer term between polities.” This division of labor is rather obvious because men generally allow women to control their female relative’s reproduction, and men’s reproduction is limited by the pool of available females in the polity, and the male polity’s ability to maintain a quality stock of females, who will happily defect to other men or polities (hypergamy) if it’s in their individual advantage, regardless of the cost to the polity (males). CONSEQUENCES We demonstrate inequality in our abilities, preference, and interests, and this inequality of ability, preference, and interests favors empathy, consumption, the interpersonal, and social among females, versus empiricism, capitalization, the economic, political, and military among males – and the more liberty we have to express those inequalities in our abilities, interests, and preferences the more we bias to pursue them. The evolutionary and competitive value of adversarial competition is demonstrably a majority male bias, reinforced by loyalty at the cost of adaptability to different groups.. The evolutionary and competitive value of consensus-seeking internally to any group is demonstrably a majority female bias – though lacking any loyalty, but grater individual adaptability to different groups. Men and women coddle women for evolutionary reasons. And Women drive down adversarial competition in all organizations so that they can tolerate participation. This is why women drive down the competitive advantage of innovative and capitalizing organizations, and drive up the uncompetitive costs of accommodation and consumption. This is why any industry women enter into and become a majority declines in innovation, income, and associated prestige. It’s why women are generally put in charge of organizations where the men can’t agree on a direction (holding place), are or in organizations in decline (provide cover), or are purely symbolic (appearances). And so few women (though they do exist) are at the top. In the military, in any non-administrative, non-medical role – women drive down adversarial competition, largely put men at risk in combat, in jobs better done by men, have more job opportunities elsewhere, and so consume resources and jobs for men without those opportunities, and are wasting prime reproductive value. (period). CONCLUSION Forced integration prevents market from doing its job of teaching us the truth. The market solves these problems just fine if we let the market solve them. Forced integration of the sexes has been as damaging as forced integration of the races. Equality under the law is the only necessary or desirable equality. 2) “PATRIARCHY” Patriarchy: a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. Or, a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.” My position is well documented, that there is value in a ‘house’ for any class with divergent interests, and that military, economic(biz, industry, capital), labor(salaried, hourly), and reproductive (female) houses force exchanges between the classes. So we identify the political problem of enfranchising both labor and women without providing them with separate houses, so that the classes can negotiate trades, rather than parties which race to the bottom. And that these differences are common sense and there is little evidence that constitutional monarchies hiring a professional cabinet, with voters limited to veto of appropriations, aren’t better than democracies – which as always, crash and burn. In our constitution, we lay out the options for government given the demographics and economy and the polity can choose.

  • Q&A: Position on Feminism and Patriarchy?

      (Note: Impulsive boys demand certainty – patient men understand human determinism)

    —“Where does P stand on feminism and patriarchy”—

    1) “FEMINISM” Feminism: the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.” EQUALITY IN THE LAW: The only equality is in our necessary equality before the law, in matters of dispute resolution. This is the only equality that does and must exist. OTHERWISE INEQUALITY “Males and females divide the reproductive, sensory, perceptive, cognitive, advocacy, and labor of a civilization by population and time, with females in the shorter term and between individuals, and males in the longer term between polities.” This division of labor is rather obvious because men generally allow women to control their female relative’s reproduction, and men’s reproduction is limited by the pool of available females in the polity, and the male polity’s ability to maintain a quality stock of females, who will happily defect to other men or polities (hypergamy) if it’s in their individual advantage, regardless of the cost to the polity (males). CONSEQUENCES We demonstrate inequality in our abilities, preference, and interests, and this inequality of ability, preference, and interests favors empathy, consumption, the interpersonal, and social among females, versus empiricism, capitalization, the economic, political, and military among males – and the more liberty we have to express those inequalities in our abilities, interests, and preferences the more we bias to pursue them. The evolutionary and competitive value of adversarial competition is demonstrably a majority male bias, reinforced by loyalty at the cost of adaptability to different groups.. The evolutionary and competitive value of consensus-seeking internally to any group is demonstrably a majority female bias – though lacking any loyalty, but grater individual adaptability to different groups. Men and women coddle women for evolutionary reasons. And Women drive down adversarial competition in all organizations so that they can tolerate participation. This is why women drive down the competitive advantage of innovative and capitalizing organizations, and drive up the uncompetitive costs of accommodation and consumption. This is why any industry women enter into and become a majority declines in innovation, income, and associated prestige. It’s why women are generally put in charge of organizations where the men can’t agree on a direction (holding place), are or in organizations in decline (provide cover), or are purely symbolic (appearances). And so few women (though they do exist) are at the top. In the military, in any non-administrative, non-medical role – women drive down adversarial competition, largely put men at risk in combat, in jobs better done by men, have more job opportunities elsewhere, and so consume resources and jobs for men without those opportunities, and are wasting prime reproductive value. (period). CONCLUSION Forced integration prevents market from doing its job of teaching us the truth. The market solves these problems just fine if we let the market solve them. Forced integration of the sexes has been as damaging as forced integration of the races. Equality under the law is the only necessary or desirable equality. 2) “PATRIARCHY” Patriarchy: a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. Or, a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.” My position is well documented, that there is value in a ‘house’ for any class with divergent interests, and that military, economic(biz, industry, capital), labor(salaried, hourly), and reproductive (female) houses force exchanges between the classes. So we identify the political problem of enfranchising both labor and women without providing them with separate houses, so that the classes can negotiate trades, rather than parties which race to the bottom. And that these differences are common sense and there is little evidence that constitutional monarchies hiring a professional cabinet, with voters limited to veto of appropriations, aren’t better than democracies – which as always, crash and burn. In our constitution, we lay out the options for government given the demographics and economy and the polity can choose.

  • Clarity on Government

    —“Can you make your point crystal clear then? Amid excess verbiage, I have distilled out a set of arguments that 1) China’s form of government won the 20th century and 2) that form of government is Nazism and 3) is a desirable model to emulate”—AlcoholFrei15

    Rome invented good Govt. China good bureaucratic. France restored it in National Socialism. Germany practiced it. Now China does. This form of government is the world-historical norm. Ideology separates bad from good. “Hurt” states practice hostile ideology. ‘Ideology makes bad’. Communism is impossible. capitalism is impossible. Mixed economy state capitalism is the historical and necessarily competitive norm. Rule of law or reciprocity with universal standing solves the problem of mixed economy state capitalism, by providing a market for policing it. That leaves the west facing the big lies: (a) preventing falsehood in discourse and undermining from within(truthful speech) (b) willingness to tolerate redistributive policy(ethnocentrism, homogeneity), and (c) preventing regression to the mean (eugenics). I don’t lie about it. We solve those problems. The only way to solve them and maintain the limited benefits of scale is (a) rule of law by strictly constructed rule of law (crosses all boundaries), (b) loose military federation, (c) of diverse states that customize their polities for their needs. And if we don’t we’ll have another bloody war that ends up with one brand of ideological left or right nazi or another. So how do we solve the problems of the present? No more lies. The Truth is Enough. Rule of Law of Reciprocity, Truthful Speech, and; Let 1000 Nations Bloom.

  • Clarity on Government

    —“Can you make your point crystal clear then? Amid excess verbiage, I have distilled out a set of arguments that 1) China’s form of government won the 20th century and 2) that form of government is Nazism and 3) is a desirable model to emulate”—AlcoholFrei15

    Rome invented good Govt. China good bureaucratic. France restored it in National Socialism. Germany practiced it. Now China does. This form of government is the world-historical norm. Ideology separates bad from good. “Hurt” states practice hostile ideology. ‘Ideology makes bad’. Communism is impossible. capitalism is impossible. Mixed economy state capitalism is the historical and necessarily competitive norm. Rule of law or reciprocity with universal standing solves the problem of mixed economy state capitalism, by providing a market for policing it. That leaves the west facing the big lies: (a) preventing falsehood in discourse and undermining from within(truthful speech) (b) willingness to tolerate redistributive policy(ethnocentrism, homogeneity), and (c) preventing regression to the mean (eugenics). I don’t lie about it. We solve those problems. The only way to solve them and maintain the limited benefits of scale is (a) rule of law by strictly constructed rule of law (crosses all boundaries), (b) loose military federation, (c) of diverse states that customize their polities for their needs. And if we don’t we’ll have another bloody war that ends up with one brand of ideological left or right nazi or another. So how do we solve the problems of the present? No more lies. The Truth is Enough. Rule of Law of Reciprocity, Truthful Speech, and; Let 1000 Nations Bloom.

  • How does that right exist? What evidence is there that it exists? A Right requir

    How does that right exist? What evidence is there that it exists? A Right requires a means of enforcement. Who enforces it – and does anyone?

    Rights don’t exist. We must make them. We make them by forming norms, laws, institutions to create and enforce them.

    And they’re RARE.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-07-25 16:04:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1287056034629124098

    Reply addressees: @clickKunst @IamBradC @JulieBorowski

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1287024071092314113

  • How does that right exist? What evidence is there that it exists? A Right requir

    How does that right exist? What evidence is there that it exists? A Right requires a means of enforcement. Who enforces it – and does anyone?

    Rights don’t exist. We must make them. We make them by forming norms, laws, institutions to create and enforce them.

    And they’re RARE.

    Reply addressees: @clickKunst @IamBradC @JulieBorowski