(FB 1543079429 Timestamp) New tactic: “I argue that your claim is false, that you are a liar, that you lie willfully, that you lie willfully to signal virtues you do not possess, like those who signal character, wealth, or achievement they do not possess. My question is whether you are willing to die to preserve that false claim, preserve your lie, and preserve your pretense of virtue. Because I am willing to die to end your falsehoods, lies, and pretenses. And me and my brothers are willing to die the end the falsehoods lies, and pretenses of all those like you. I do not much care which choice you make. Only that you pay the price of the choice by ending your falsehood, lies and pretenses, or with your life for not doing so. And that is all that matters. Because that is what is coming. And it is coming because you are a purveyor of falsehood, lies, and pretenses. And you engage in falsehood, lie, and pretense to extinguish my civilization, my culture, my history, my futures, in an act of genocide. And the only restitution you can pay for your crimes is reciprocity. Our doing the same to you.”
Form: Argument
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1543511026 Timestamp) ALL CRITIQUE IS “LYING” – AND HERE IS WHY ( worth repeating ) ( very important piece ) ( propertarianism core ) 1 – Either we are engaged in productive, fully informed(truthful), warrantied (skin in the game), voluntary transfers (exchanges), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated investments of others (externalities), or we are not. 2 – Every forced transfer is a lost opportunity for exchange – even if an exchange of good, for norm (behavior). 3 – In other words, all demands for goods independent of exchange are simply use of threats of disassociation (boycott) as a means of extraction (rent seeking). IGNORANCE IS NOT EXCUSE FOR FAILURES OF DUE DILIGENCE The fact that one has habituated a means of deception (continental conflationary philosophy and literature) rather than habituated a means of transparency (anglo analytic deflation – ie: science and law) and therefore argues for the profoundly dishonest and immoral out of cultural habit, has nothing to do with whether one INTENDS to argue immorally – it just means one’s CULTURE is endemically immoral. Which is just an argument to ignorance. It doesn’t absolve you from the failure of due diligence for the consequences of your display, speech, or action. Reciprocity (morality) requires one do nothing (by display, word, or deed) that one cannot perform restitution for – else one is externalizing risk upon others (conducting a theft). And some costs are impossible to perform restitution for. For example, what has been the cost of the pseudosciences and pseudo-rationalisms and pseudo-histories, of the French (Derrida, Rorty, et all) and Ashkenazi (Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Adorno (et all), Mises, Rothbard, Leo Strauss) – all failures of due diligence against the immorality of their habits (cultural assumptions and argumentative grammar)? If you cannot make an operational argument in economics and politics ( that means a procedural model) that tests your theory then you do not know of what you speak. These people made Rousseauian (false) assumptions of human nature, and economic possibility – most notably because Rousseau was a profoundly immoral (irreciprocal) man, and the entirety of the french and ashkenazi, and some of the german intelligentsia, produce a reactionary movement misrepresented as ‘the enlightenment’, as always do people of armies, or of diaspora, seeking ‘liberty’ and thereby lacking the ‘sovereignty’ of the scandinavian sea-farers. They attempted to return the church’s demands upon others (appeals to the common good) counter to the british (anglo empirical) intellectual revolution (markets in everything.) In law, (conflict resolution by tests of reciprocity), and in war (conflcit prevention by tests of reciprocity), we do not make excuses for ignorance – ignorance and indiscipline (failure of due diligence) are just means of reducing costs and externalizing risk upon others. That is what these people did. They were liberated (no thanks to them) by the atlantic transport, agrarian, and industrial revolutions and made arguments that they were ‘kept down’, and politically liberated, rather than that they sexual, social, and political market value, and that with increased productivity they could not consume vastly more of everything, and create a little market value despite their lower previous market value. GRAMMARS OF TRUTH AND DECEIT Argument in the broadest sense (colloquial persuasion) is a technology like any other, consisting of a hierarchy of grammars (rules of continuous disambiguation covering the spectrum from sounds through sentences), from the intuitionistic logics through mathematics, physics, contract, testimony, fiction, and the fictionalisms (‘mythologies) through the deceits. Those grammars are either deflationary, commensurable, and testable, or they are not – and instead, like all fictions, operate by suggestion using selection, obscurantism, loading, framing, overloading. And they all make use of the trust (free association) we place in one another when listening (opening ourselves to suggestion for the purpose of communication). So one can create or criticize a model in deflationary prose, or one can create or criticize a fictionalism in conflationary (selected, obscurant, loaded, framed, overloaded) prose. That technique we call ‘critique’ is simply the modern version of ‘pilpul’ (Religious interpretation, numerology, astrology) which seeks to criticize (straw man) some solution without creating a testable model open to transparent comprehension, and thereby taking advantage of the fact that in that overloaded state you will (the human mind must) appeal to intuition by free association. In other words, you will substitute whatever you think and feel, thereby creating a sense of agreement on critique without agreement on MODEL (actions, reciprocity, and consequences.) That is a very techichical means of saying that ALL CRITIQUE IS LYING BY SUGGESTION. Either you can propose a complete alternative model or you can’t. (Think on that one a bit and be justifiably horrified.) ALL CRITIQUE IS LYING Critique is simply the technology invented in the Levant for the purpose of ‘selling’ the monotheisms to the underclasses as a revolt against the great civilizations of the ancient world – but this time in pseudo-scientific (ashkenazi marxist) and pseudo-rational (french post modern ) prose. We are all gene machines. Hence why the language of science(due diligence), and natural law (reciprocity) are so important to speech, and why literature and literary argument are always and everywhere – like most of intellectual history – attempts at some form of fraud. Cheers Curt Doolittle
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543510113 Timestamp) ZERO TOLERANCE. THE WHITE LAW IS ABSOLUTE – INCLUDING IN JUDGEMENT OF THE CHURCH. —“… but the church did [x good thing], right?”— (Regarding the prohibition on cousin marriage) Oh yeah. Sure. But the reason they did so was to break up the great aristocratic families, so that they in turn could appropriate their land incrementally and cheaply. Which led to half the capital in europe being dead assets of rent seekers against the interests of our people. So it’s not that the church was doing good. It’s that it produced a good by doing an evil. Even then, it’s the corporation under manorialism that produced the good since we were an homogenous peoples in europe along atlantic, germanic, finnic, southern, and slavic lines: the children of the Aryan Conquest of Europe. Again, deflating the church into Content Taught (ideas), Method of Teaching (sophism (ABRAHAMISM)), and Governance by Teachers (action), and Consequences (externalities) – as a governor the church consisted of men who governed reasonably well. A broken clock is right twice a day. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did good things as well, marxists, postmodernists, and feminists each contributed at least one non-bad idea. Jews and Gypsies did things that weren’t entirely destructive or evil. They church was terrible for western civilization compared to the greco-roman civilization. The church was imposed by violence upon our people via an underclass revolt started by the jews (justifiably), and as an act of war by the underclass old europeans (remains of the greek empire). Hellenic greece was european until Alexander’s conquest infected us – and him. But there is and was nothing western about the eastern empire. There was and is nothing european about the church. The uniqueness of western civilization is our natural religion, natural law, law of nature, law of men, and markets in everything that rose from them. Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Natural Law and Markets In Everything, producing truthful speech, reason, logic, empiricism, science, and now – Testimonialism (complete science). So no, I do not look at the great evil that is the semitic revolt and conquest of our people by that plague we call the abrahamic cults, as a replacement for our ancient unique order that is the envy of all humanity. I do not ‘forgive’ a dark age, the destruction of the great civilizations, and a billion deaths. I have one purpose: to rediscover, write down for eternity, that which is uniquely ours, which has dragged mankind kicking and screaming out of all it’s primitivism – including that ocean of semitic evils – and to exterminate every remnant of those evils from our people, lands, histories, and even memories – if not (with the help of the far east (our only peers)) from this earth. Is that clear enough? Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543451370 Timestamp) WHAT ABOUT SLAVERY? —“Curt; Are you opposed to slavery?”— Um. “Opposed” is an opinion. My opinion is irrelevant. My job is the Law. This is how I understand The Law: If you mean voluntary or indentured servitude in its many forms, then no, it’s within the law. It’s just a contract. In fact I would advocate for its restoration since it’s just a good way of absorbing labor and taking good care of our people who are less able. I mean, room, clothing, board, healthcare is expensive enough and paying someone to maintain a household unnecessarily isn’t good. There are plenty of people for whom household management is not a preference but a burden. If you mean civic-slavery (military service) then of course I advocate it – and I don’t think militaries can function otherwise. If you mean prisoner-slavery (putting prisoners to work on the commons) then yes, of course, I advocate as much of it as possible. On the other hand the law recommends a return to as much capital punishment as possible. But If you mean chattel slavery (what most people think of) the Law would say that it is always harmful to your people and their genome (unless you sterilize them), it is is too expensive for the meagre returns, and it violates the one law, with which we must force those able to transcend to do so, rather than leave them as undomesticated wild animals so to speak. In general, chattel slavery is bad. It’s worse if its with aliens. It’s much worse if it’s with devolutionary aliens. And it’s much, much worse if it’s common whatsoever. The externalities are some of the worst possible. Slavery was an agrarian utility that is no longer of any utility.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1543511026 Timestamp) ALL CRITIQUE IS “LYING” – AND HERE IS WHY ( worth repeating ) ( very important piece ) ( propertarianism core ) 1 – Either we are engaged in productive, fully informed(truthful), warrantied (skin in the game), voluntary transfers (exchanges), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated investments of others (externalities), or we are not. 2 – Every forced transfer is a lost opportunity for exchange – even if an exchange of good, for norm (behavior). 3 – In other words, all demands for goods independent of exchange are simply use of threats of disassociation (boycott) as a means of extraction (rent seeking). IGNORANCE IS NOT EXCUSE FOR FAILURES OF DUE DILIGENCE The fact that one has habituated a means of deception (continental conflationary philosophy and literature) rather than habituated a means of transparency (anglo analytic deflation – ie: science and law) and therefore argues for the profoundly dishonest and immoral out of cultural habit, has nothing to do with whether one INTENDS to argue immorally – it just means one’s CULTURE is endemically immoral. Which is just an argument to ignorance. It doesn’t absolve you from the failure of due diligence for the consequences of your display, speech, or action. Reciprocity (morality) requires one do nothing (by display, word, or deed) that one cannot perform restitution for – else one is externalizing risk upon others (conducting a theft). And some costs are impossible to perform restitution for. For example, what has been the cost of the pseudosciences and pseudo-rationalisms and pseudo-histories, of the French (Derrida, Rorty, et all) and Ashkenazi (Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Adorno (et all), Mises, Rothbard, Leo Strauss) – all failures of due diligence against the immorality of their habits (cultural assumptions and argumentative grammar)? If you cannot make an operational argument in economics and politics ( that means a procedural model) that tests your theory then you do not know of what you speak. These people made Rousseauian (false) assumptions of human nature, and economic possibility – most notably because Rousseau was a profoundly immoral (irreciprocal) man, and the entirety of the french and ashkenazi, and some of the german intelligentsia, produce a reactionary movement misrepresented as ‘the enlightenment’, as always do people of armies, or of diaspora, seeking ‘liberty’ and thereby lacking the ‘sovereignty’ of the scandinavian sea-farers. They attempted to return the church’s demands upon others (appeals to the common good) counter to the british (anglo empirical) intellectual revolution (markets in everything.) In law, (conflict resolution by tests of reciprocity), and in war (conflcit prevention by tests of reciprocity), we do not make excuses for ignorance – ignorance and indiscipline (failure of due diligence) are just means of reducing costs and externalizing risk upon others. That is what these people did. They were liberated (no thanks to them) by the atlantic transport, agrarian, and industrial revolutions and made arguments that they were ‘kept down’, and politically liberated, rather than that they sexual, social, and political market value, and that with increased productivity they could not consume vastly more of everything, and create a little market value despite their lower previous market value. GRAMMARS OF TRUTH AND DECEIT Argument in the broadest sense (colloquial persuasion) is a technology like any other, consisting of a hierarchy of grammars (rules of continuous disambiguation covering the spectrum from sounds through sentences), from the intuitionistic logics through mathematics, physics, contract, testimony, fiction, and the fictionalisms (‘mythologies) through the deceits. Those grammars are either deflationary, commensurable, and testable, or they are not – and instead, like all fictions, operate by suggestion using selection, obscurantism, loading, framing, overloading. And they all make use of the trust (free association) we place in one another when listening (opening ourselves to suggestion for the purpose of communication). So one can create or criticize a model in deflationary prose, or one can create or criticize a fictionalism in conflationary (selected, obscurant, loaded, framed, overloaded) prose. That technique we call ‘critique’ is simply the modern version of ‘pilpul’ (Religious interpretation, numerology, astrology) which seeks to criticize (straw man) some solution without creating a testable model open to transparent comprehension, and thereby taking advantage of the fact that in that overloaded state you will (the human mind must) appeal to intuition by free association. In other words, you will substitute whatever you think and feel, thereby creating a sense of agreement on critique without agreement on MODEL (actions, reciprocity, and consequences.) That is a very techichical means of saying that ALL CRITIQUE IS LYING BY SUGGESTION. Either you can propose a complete alternative model or you can’t. (Think on that one a bit and be justifiably horrified.) ALL CRITIQUE IS LYING Critique is simply the technology invented in the Levant for the purpose of ‘selling’ the monotheisms to the underclasses as a revolt against the great civilizations of the ancient world – but this time in pseudo-scientific (ashkenazi marxist) and pseudo-rational (french post modern ) prose. We are all gene machines. Hence why the language of science(due diligence), and natural law (reciprocity) are so important to speech, and why literature and literary argument are always and everywhere – like most of intellectual history – attempts at some form of fraud. Cheers Curt Doolittle
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543451370 Timestamp) WHAT ABOUT SLAVERY? —“Curt; Are you opposed to slavery?”— Um. “Opposed” is an opinion. My opinion is irrelevant. My job is the Law. This is how I understand The Law: If you mean voluntary or indentured servitude in its many forms, then no, it’s within the law. It’s just a contract. In fact I would advocate for its restoration since it’s just a good way of absorbing labor and taking good care of our people who are less able. I mean, room, clothing, board, healthcare is expensive enough and paying someone to maintain a household unnecessarily isn’t good. There are plenty of people for whom household management is not a preference but a burden. If you mean civic-slavery (military service) then of course I advocate it – and I don’t think militaries can function otherwise. If you mean prisoner-slavery (putting prisoners to work on the commons) then yes, of course, I advocate as much of it as possible. On the other hand the law recommends a return to as much capital punishment as possible. But If you mean chattel slavery (what most people think of) the Law would say that it is always harmful to your people and their genome (unless you sterilize them), it is is too expensive for the meagre returns, and it violates the one law, with which we must force those able to transcend to do so, rather than leave them as undomesticated wild animals so to speak. In general, chattel slavery is bad. It’s worse if its with aliens. It’s much worse if it’s with devolutionary aliens. And it’s much, much worse if it’s common whatsoever. The externalities are some of the worst possible. Slavery was an agrarian utility that is no longer of any utility.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543532315 Timestamp) TESTING THE THEORY FALSIFIES IT —“Jesus and his Philosophy are the Foundation of Western Civilization, not Christianity.”—Dan Cox They are the foundations of christianity and that is all. If that were not the case, other christian sects would produce the same categories of outputs and conditions that western peoples do. Christian communities tend to produce higher trust. That’s true. THat’s all. And for the reasons I’ve stated.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543674852 Timestamp) WHY DO WOMEN UNDERMINE THE CIVILIZATION and CULTURE, the INSTITUTIONS, and MALES? (important explanations) —“…what kind of evolutionary pressure would create a desire to undermine the ingroup. All the plausible explanations I’ve seen had to do with abusing female impulses that have evolved for entirely different purposes….”—Martin Å tÄpán Females undermine the concentration of power in alphas in order to preserve some control over their reproductive choice and access to resources and male-provisioned resources, including defense. ie: females can barter attention, effort, care, and sex if they have control of the attention economy. Which is why females are so conscious (and gay men evidencing it) of attention and approval and agreeableness. So just as females operate on a status and attention economy, they fight within that economy: disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, moralizing, undermining, and reputation destruction. And decreasing the number of females is not necessarily in their disinterest – so literally killing off other females increases remaining female market value, so that his the strategy females pursue: that of Hens. Undermining the males (‘sh-t testing’) is useful both at the level of insuring the ‘fitness’ of males in defending them, preserving their ability to choose, assisting them in outing ‘cheaters’ (which women are terrible at, and men excel at), maximizing cost of (returns on) their attention, care, and sex. The only problem here is that women still sexually select for males as if we are under those conditions of hunter gatherers. And this explains the attraction of women to more primitive (less domesticated) groups of males with lower agency despite that the female condition is dependent upon those of us with higher agency, innovation, and adaptivity. Hence the necessity of more domesticated (higher agency) males of defending the ingroup females from conquest or even exposure to, lower agency, higher aggression, males. (FWIW:Delayed marriage provides women with greater reproductive certainty, and therefore greater sortition, and greater formation of genetic castes, and therefore greater speciation – hence white people.) Males conversely, operate on the physical equivalent of the warfare economy, and so losses of males weakens the pack, and dilution of the ingroup male genes weakens male reproductive (evolutionary) persistence, as well as reverses domestication (evolution of agency). I could write on this subject for hours by just weaving through male and female behavior at all levels. And doing so only further demonstrates Acquisitionism and the need for Testimonialism and Natural Law to preserve the Western Advantage given the destructive influences of women.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544206793 Timestamp) HOW TO ARGUE WITH THE HERD: “SEPARATION DOES NOT REQUIRE SUBJUGATION” (but without separation subjugation is not only necessary, but unavoidable.) From The Other Half: —“Hi Curt, Thanks for your answer. Iâm happy to be thought an Abrahamist, Abraham being a man who defied the moral rules of his tribe in obedience to an inner voice, as the artists who gave us the Western canon have always done. You strategically left the artist out of your taxonomy in #5 above, but included him as a mystic and escapist in #7. The fact that you canât see a difference between mysticism and escapism says to me that my secular theology can encompass your materialism, but the latter can only deal with my position by reducing and trivializing it. You say youâre seeking to understand and improve the world, but I see Marxist levels of hubris and folly in the assumption that you can understand and improve it with the limited equipment youâre using viz. mathematics and economics. …. Your morality as I understand it is imposed by authority and obeyed by people who donât want the responsibility of thinking about situations that donât admit of binary answers, whereas the morality of the artist is internally generated by a part of him that is not his sociological self. This morality is what true sovereignty looks like, though few of us are capable of it at this point in our development as it involves the willingness to be in a minority of one. Hence the temptation of authoritarian answers to postmodern anomie. Ironically, your assumption that art is the arena of competing, positive moral norms is one that you share with the postmodernists, even if they prefer the term ideology to morality. ….. In contrast, Mailerâs line about the key to the universe being a metaphor and not a measure, recognises that artists are always smarter than ideologues and moralists. The line was in fact written in response to the first moon landing, a technological achievement of the kind of computing intelligence you apply to everything, and an example of how poorly materialists imagine transcendence of present problems. Launching a phallic rocket at the moon just to be the first one to do it is trivially heroic when set beside the worldâs mythologies and literatures in which the moon was a goddess who punishes transgression as Diana did Actaeonâs, though Iâm sure few people at NASA worried about the ramifications in the collective unconscious of their achievement. Americaâs subsequent hegemony and the atomisation of the body politic wonât I think be undone by propertarianism except possibly in a parodic way. A real body politic would have to be held together by a morality that comes from the inner life that you donât believe in, where we reckon with sexual difference in a way that doesnât involve subjugation.”—John Tangney “SEPARATION DOES NOT REQUIRE SUBJUGATION.” Paragraph one makes no argument it consists of straw manning and critique. to propose and argument you would have to construct one that states that Physical Fitness, Training in the Virtues (self authoring), literature, history, law, economics, science, logic, and mathematics have, must, or can produce worse outcomes than Mysticism, Occult, sophism, pseudoscience, philosophy and theology. I mean. I’ve done the work. that won’t happen. The second argument you’d have to make is that you aren’t simply covering for low, sexual, social, economic, political, and military value and simply self medicating your way out of reality. The third that you’re not using self medication, justifying it, and demanding others pay for it. A’ll I”m saying is that separation between the feminine (you) and the masculine (us) group strategies is beneficial to both, but if not beneficial can be solved by conquest, prosecution, and law. But that is better than another dark age of ignorance produced by people like yourself addicted and demonstrating addiction responses, to self medication. Achievement is superior to self medication. That is a judgement. And since I am not willing to let you spread addiction to self medication to future generations as people like you did in the past, destroying the great civilizations and bringing about a dark age of dysgeneia poverty disease and ignorance, the there are only a few choices for people like me and people like you: Extermination, Conquest and rule, Separation, or surrender. History shows that for europeans, trying to domesticate others turns out to be our end through outbreeding since the majority underclass wins. Ergo, separation. We were speciating (races) before agrarianism. Agrarianism is over. We can easily return to speciation – we can afford to. Hence, separate, prosper, and gradually speciate. I have no problem leaving you and yours (the herd) behind, while me and mine (many packs), continue to drag ourselves into the gods you need to govern you. 😉 Upon separation, all the 20th century will have done is assisted in the ‘culling’ of our remaining undomesticated demi-humans. It will advanced our evolutionary progress by two thousand years. (HOw is that for a counter-proposition of our inequality, undesirability of defective and defectors, and our disgust at cohabitation with you. 😉 Revolt, Separate, Prosper, Speciate. May the best group win.
- Cheers
BTW: my background is in fine art. In fact, I’m teaching a class on art starting next semester. And as usual it will be as good or better than the best universities. 😉
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544738721 Timestamp) CHRISTIANITY AND THE FUTURE OF OUR PEOPLE —“Curt Doolittle what is the subject for which a man who is a Christian is unable to detach himself from his superstitions for a movement to consider the matter from the scientific perspective you put forth?”—Mitchell Ryan If I understand correctly 1) abrahamic argument (lying), 2) limiting our ability to outlaw abrahamic argument (lying), 3) limiting the possibility of restoring kin “worship”(debt), and therefore our defeat of the left’s replacement if christianity with universalism (multiculturalism rather than heaven), marxist multicultural democratic socialism (rather than markets and prosperity), postmodernism’s sophism )rather than semitic supernaturalism), and feminism(rather than christian submission.) In other words, our enemy in the current world uses abrahamism today, just as our enemy used abrahamism in the ancient world – for the same ends: destruction of civilizations. Now, neither our deism (organization of the universal laws of nature), nor the church’s natural law, nor jesus’s teachings, when stated truthfully (scientifically) are false, or bad, nor will they produce other than the optimum good if stated scientifically. But we are in fact indebted to our ancestors, first and foremost and will not fall prey to the evils of abrahamic faith, and only repaying that debt with recognition (worship) and prohibiting the use of abrahamic deceit by lying, fraud, sophism, superstition, magic, false promise, straw man criticism of tripartism, and the natural hierarchy of meritocracy, and worship(thanks) to our ancestors and future generations, and the beauty of the natural world, and our rescue of mankind from the hostility of that universe, and our ascent into gods ourselves as we take dominion over the universe. Ergo, yes, if you choose, walk in jesus’ footsteps as i walk in aristotle’s, others walk in aurelius’, others walk in alexander’s, or but not those others that walk in abraham’s, or buddha’s or mohammed’s. And separate Jesus’ simple lesson from the industrialized system of semitic lies that was built around it. God is the name of man-yet-to-be. And jesus (the rebel) but one more of the philosophers of the ancient world like his peers zeno(the achiever), epicurus(the appreciative) and buddha(the denier), mohammed (the destroyer) trying to organize a resistance movement against the alienating pressures of markets, reason, truth, and law, and prosperity brought about by european man. Each of whom was speaking in the ancestral stories and strategy of his people, seeking to find love, and membership, and place in a world where the family, clan, and tribe, was no longer able to to provide insurance, material support, emotional, psychological feedback, and ‘safety in the pack’ amid the era’s globalization and endemic malthusian poverty. But the abrahamic technique of deceit produces ignorance, poverty, and dark ages, all of which prevented rather than advanced into godhood. Conversely, it is the natural law of western man that is most identical to the laws of the universe, and all of the prophets have been wrong. There is no substitute for truth, action(duty), sovereignty, reciprocity, law, markets, and the exhaustive investment in possibility those who live within them – and exhaustive persecution of those that do not. That I know of, you have no right to worship against the interests of your people. So if you can accommodate the combination of jesus as a philosopher to learn the optimum means of cooperation from, and our ancestors to worship in our ascent into godhood, and your people in our ascend into godhood then this is compatible with the continuous ascent of our people from beast to gods by our law – the natural law. Then that is one thing. But if you insist on the lies of the abrahamists and the method of lying of the abrahamists to do it, then it is incompatible with our law, and a hindrance to our people. I worship our god. I talk to our god every day. I do not know his name. I know he is the god of our people. I do not know his form. I do not know his power. I know only his counsel. I love the ritual of church and our festivals. Although I am keenly aware that they are the equivalent of costumed soviet stage plays – mere marxist covers over our traditional love of ancestors, the seasons, the harvests, and nature’s bounty. I practice christian forgiveness and charity although I am aware that it is stoicism that was absorbed by the authors of christianity into the christian religion. I recognize jesus as a philosopher who, through the efforts of his disciples rather than he himself, transformed by design, the egyptian, babylonian, and persian and jewish customary law – in the form of wisdom literature – into a survival and resistance against the Greco Roman world, and replaced the great heroes of Homer, and the trials of achilles with the story of the jews and the trials of jesus. And any man who has read both will rapidly discover that we ended up with the worst of the two, when it is merely a comparison of the strong western man (Achilles) against the weak semitic man (Jesus), with Rome playing the unconscious, unknowing, bureaucratic fool. Christianity was invented to destroy. That we find use in the christ figure is merely dressing up Jesus in the garb of our own gods Sol Invictus of the late roman empire, jupiter and zeus and Dzayus Pitar of our Prehistoric Founding gods. So where you see Jesus and God, I see but the long line of our people rotating the same one through the Aryan, Germanic, Greco, Roman, and Eastern Roman(Greeco-Anatolian-Syrian-Jewish) phases. Our european ancestors replaced combined their gods with those of the native-european stone age gods, as the old and the new. Then they reorganized those gods with their prophet Odin at the top. The people of old europe (the balkans, Greeks, Anatolians did not either have odin, or replace their gods. The Etruscans were at least exposed to the old gods, if not new, or odin. The romans conquered the Etru. But Combined their gods with the Greek. The semitic revolt made possible by the overextended, weakened, empire, was turned against Rome by the Eastern (Greek Empire), who got her revenge through christianity – it was the bosphorus that was the prize trade route between wooded and wet europe and arid dry west asia. We have but one highest god – the sun god. We just have had leaders dress him in different garb for political purposes. Lies and propaganda told by men to manipulate the ignorant, the weak, the foolish, and the stupid. Our ancestors invented the combination of horse, bronze, and wheel, contractualism, and heroism. And with that realization that they were no longer mere men, invented the sky gods as their aspiration. From them we took Sovereignty and Reciprocity (contractualism), Truth and Duty (cost of contract), The One Law of Property (Tort), and as a consequence Tripartism (fight, administer, work), Paternalism (property rights). And with that set of inventions we have in three eras done more to drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, disease, suffering, and the vicissitudes of nature, and started our journey into the stars. And men have resisted all the way. So the question is, will you remain a prisoner of the lies of the abrahamists and allow your people to disappear from this earth, or will you join your people in completing our restoration, our defeat of abrahamism both old and new, and our ascent into gods we imagined. A PAGAN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT I am a pagan if 1) I accept the laws of nature as binding on all of existence; and 2) if I treat nature as sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and 3) I treat the world as something to transform closer to an Eden in whatever ways I can before I die; and 4) if I deny the existence of a supreme being with dominion over the physical laws, and treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors as characters with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 5) if I participate with others of my society in repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of the above to my offspring. And 6) if I leave open that synchronicity appears to exist now and then, and that it may be possible that there is a scientific explanation for it, other than just humans subject to similar stimuli producing similar intuitions and therefore similar ends. As far as I know this is all that is required of me to be a Pagan. I am a christian if I have adopted the teaching of christianity: 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin. 3) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Christian. I am an Aryan if 1) I proudly display my excellences so that others seek to achieve or exceed them; 2) I seek competition to constantly test and improve myself so I do not weaken; 3) I swear to speak no insult and demand it; 4) I speak the truth and demand it; 5) I take nothing not paid for and demand it; 6) I grant sovereignty to my kin and demand it; 7) I insure my people regardless of condition, and demand it; and in doing so leave nothing but voluntary markets of cooperation between sovereign men; and to discipline, enserf, enslave, ostracize or kill those who do otherwise; 8) to not show fear or cowardice, abandon my brothers, or retreat, and 9) to die a good death in the service of my kin, my clan, my tribe and my people. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be an Aryan. I am a warrior in that 1) we will prepare for war so perfectly that none dare enter it against us. 2) Once we go to war, we do so with joy, with eagerness, and with passion, and without mercy, without constraint, and without remorse; And 3) before ending war, we shall defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of our enemy, and the memory of the slaughter lives a hundred generations. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Warrior. As far as I know, if I succeed as a Pagan, as a Christian, as an Aryan, as a Warrior, then I have transcended the animal man, and earned my place among the saints, heroes, demigods, gods, in the memories, histories, and legends of man. And that is the objective of transcendent men we call Heroes. We leave the rest for ordinary men. And we leave those unworthy behind.