TRUTH BEFORE FACE (sensitive but true topic warning) (this is advanced political theory, read at your own risk) Postmodernism(Political Correctness, Denial of Cultural Racial and Class Differences) and Feminism(Denial of Gender Differences) are attempts to undermine the uniqueness of western civilization’s MALES. Males who speak Truth before Face, Truth Regardless of Status, Truth Regardless of offense; Truth regardless of the Competence Hierarchy, Truth regardless of the Dominance Hierarchy. The entirety of our way of life, Rule of Law, Sovereignty, Reciprocity and Jury and the reason, science, and technology that arose from it, are dependent upon the ond thing western men do that no other people do: and that is to report and report alone by speaking martial, empirical, testimonial, truth before face – anyone’s face – regardless of cost to self or others. This is the highest cost an individual can pay for his civilization. And institutionalizing it has only been done once: at the origins of western civilization, thousands of years ago. Why the change: women cannot bear it, that is why they are easy victims and practitioners of feminism and postmodernism. Women fight one another by undermining with words. So among women, because they have had so little time in the public sphere, truth before face has not been institutionalized. And just as women were sold christianity in the ancient world, they have been sold postmodernism and feminism in the modern world. And because they (a) spend 80% of the income (b) spend the majority of money (on unscientific non-STEM courses) in university, (c) consume 80% of tax revenues, (d) white women are the only group that defects against their males, and vote against truth before face, against meritocracy, and against defense of the commons from consumption. They have the entire Cathedral Complex (State, Academy, Media, Finance) working to cater to their denial, and doing so by degradation of men, truth before face, rule of law, and the entire western edifice that has made women’s freedom from labor and servitude possible. We spent millenia outlawing male anti-social behavior, but we have ceased outlawing female anti-social behavior, and face before truth, denial, and undermining are anti-social behaviors that must, like violence, be equally suppressed. That’s what our Natural Law did, and that’s what it must do again. It’s a test of Reciprocity: If men may not undermine by violence and force, women may not undermine by denial, gossiping, rallying, shaming, psychologizing, moralizing, ridiculing, and will limit themselves to truthful reciprocal speech, not disapproval and undermining as a substitute for truthful speech. If not then men will return the favor with their method of undermining, and then both genders lose.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Useful Idiots for The Enemy: Nap-Addicts
USEFUL IDIOTS FOR THE ENEMY: NAP-ADDICTS The NAP? Really?
- Define aggression, and aggression against what? How do you know what aggression means, and how do you know what constitutes aggression against what?
a) define aggression?
b) against what?
c) who determines it’s aggression and how? The litmus test is blackmail. Is blackmail aggression?
What is the minimum scope of property necessary for a polity to survive competition for territory and people? How do you know that?
What is the minimum scope of contributions to the production of commons (defense, common goods and services) sufficient for a polity to survive competition for territory, population, and political control? How do you know that?
Why can’t I proactively defend myself on my terms rather than wait until an opposition individual, group, organization, or state conducts violence, harm, theft, fraud, socialization of losses, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, immigration, conversion, undermining, warfare, conquest?
Once you realize you’re a useful idiot it will probably make you angry that you were a useful idiot and then you will go thru a period of hating the enemy for baiting you in to useful idiocy, but the fact remains – you are a useful idiot if you bought the NAP instead of rule of law by sovereignty and reciprocity where property consists of demonstrated interests. You and your opinion don’t matter. The market determines all of these – not you.
- Define aggression, and aggression against what? How do you know what aggression means, and how do you know what constitutes aggression against what?
-
Propertarianism Is a System of Thought Just Like Aristotelianism
PROPERTARIANISM IS A SYSTEM OF THOUGHT JUST LIKE ARISTOTELIANISM WHICH IT SEEKS TO COMPLETE Let’s disambiguate Propertarianism a bit. We use the term “Propertarianism” as a brand name. But, Propertarianism as constructed is just a methodology: an Operational Logic of the human sciences. Technically speaking propertarianism refers to the unit of measurement for demonstrated interests (expenditures) in individual action and interpersonal and group cooperation. This methodology makes use of not less than the following reformation of the aristotelian categories and their merger with the sciences: (a) physics – (realism, naturalism, entropy, operationalism) (b) vitruvianism (the grammars) – metaphysics, (c) acquisitionism – psychology, (d) compatibilism – sociology, (e) propertarianism (reciprocity) – ethics (f) testimonialism – epistemology (logic, emp, oprer.) (g) Sovereigntarianism (rule of law) – politics (h) Adaptive Velocity – group strategy (i) Transcendence (eugenics, heroism, excellence, beauty) – Aesthetics As far as I now there is no other system of thought anywhere ear complete, nor one that is value neutral, other than aristotle’s attempt. SOVEREIGNTARIANISM Sovereigntarianism is a political methodology, or what we used to call philosophy, that uses the aristotelian-propertarian paradigm and methodology. PERFECT GOVERNMENT Perfect Government is a recommended organization of governments that can – like the roman- react to stress and war, operating as a growing concern – and distributing windfalls. This government differs from the modern in that it is less optimistic of human character, and suppresses falsehood and rent seeking of all kinds, and definnacializes the polity, and depoliticizes the polity, so that people are limited to the market of voluntary cooperation to improve their lives. This government is described using a set of levers so to speak (set of choices) that vary according to market demand for government, from the most authoritarian in war, to the most redistributive under windfalls, while at the same time eliminating the ability of individuals and groups to accumulate rents and corruption (calcification) that always and everywhere brings down a polities from the village to the empire.
- Propertarianism > Methodology
- Sovereigntarianism > Socio-legal methodology
- Perfect Government > Economic-political-military methodology.
As far as I know there is no program as large, or as complete, or as scientific as Propertarianism in human history and the best we have so far is the set of empirical disciplines that have been as much a tragedy as a benefit to us. Because empiricism = correspondence it does not equal causality. Operationalism equals causality. Thanks. I hope this helps newbs.
-
Propertarianism Is a System of Thought Just Like Aristotelianism
PROPERTARIANISM IS A SYSTEM OF THOUGHT JUST LIKE ARISTOTELIANISM WHICH IT SEEKS TO COMPLETE Let’s disambiguate Propertarianism a bit. We use the term “Propertarianism” as a brand name. But, Propertarianism as constructed is just a methodology: an Operational Logic of the human sciences. Technically speaking propertarianism refers to the unit of measurement for demonstrated interests (expenditures) in individual action and interpersonal and group cooperation. This methodology makes use of not less than the following reformation of the aristotelian categories and their merger with the sciences: (a) physics – (realism, naturalism, entropy, operationalism) (b) vitruvianism (the grammars) – metaphysics, (c) acquisitionism – psychology, (d) compatibilism – sociology, (e) propertarianism (reciprocity) – ethics (f) testimonialism – epistemology (logic, emp, oprer.) (g) Sovereigntarianism (rule of law) – politics (h) Adaptive Velocity – group strategy (i) Transcendence (eugenics, heroism, excellence, beauty) – Aesthetics As far as I now there is no other system of thought anywhere ear complete, nor one that is value neutral, other than aristotle’s attempt. SOVEREIGNTARIANISM Sovereigntarianism is a political methodology, or what we used to call philosophy, that uses the aristotelian-propertarian paradigm and methodology. PERFECT GOVERNMENT Perfect Government is a recommended organization of governments that can – like the roman- react to stress and war, operating as a growing concern – and distributing windfalls. This government differs from the modern in that it is less optimistic of human character, and suppresses falsehood and rent seeking of all kinds, and definnacializes the polity, and depoliticizes the polity, so that people are limited to the market of voluntary cooperation to improve their lives. This government is described using a set of levers so to speak (set of choices) that vary according to market demand for government, from the most authoritarian in war, to the most redistributive under windfalls, while at the same time eliminating the ability of individuals and groups to accumulate rents and corruption (calcification) that always and everywhere brings down a polities from the village to the empire.
- Propertarianism > Methodology
- Sovereigntarianism > Socio-legal methodology
- Perfect Government > Economic-political-military methodology.
As far as I know there is no program as large, or as complete, or as scientific as Propertarianism in human history and the best we have so far is the set of empirical disciplines that have been as much a tragedy as a benefit to us. Because empiricism = correspondence it does not equal causality. Operationalism equals causality. Thanks. I hope this helps newbs.
-
Never Trust a Thinker. only Determine the Truth or Falsehood of His Theories.
—“I just don’t trust him.”—Arnold Brunson
You should never trust a thinker. You should only determine the truth or falsehood of his theories. If you cannot determine that truth or falsehood of his statements two things are occurring: either you lack the knowledge and ability, or the thinker is uninterested in bearing the expense of teaching you sufficient knowledge that you, with your ability, are able to determine the truth or falsehood of the statement. You must trust a person who has made you a promise, but you falsify an argument. There is no trust involved except in yourself, and your ability to comprehend that argument. What you mean is that a person does not share your emotional reactions to statements, or agree with your frame of reference. But at every standard deviation of ability we are incompatible, and at every two standard deviations we are incomprehensible to one another. I don’t pander, which is what you want: someone you feel comfortable controlling you. Instead, I practice the aristocratic strategy of seeking for men who can rise above needing control. So, I don’t want your trust. I want you to have sufficient agency so that you don’t need to. Because if you need to trust, then you lack the agency to determine the truth or falsehood yourself. My goal is only to give you that agency. I will only ‘lead’ as a last resort, for having to fail to manufacture by my work, leaders better than I at leading. That’s the goal of western civilization: men who develop agency sufficient to insure one another and police the private and common. We created the only civilization that industrialized the development of agency regardless of rank. Every other did not – although the chinese did try at least for the bureaucratic class. So understand my arguments or don’t. But don’t trust me. It means you have failed – and so have I. And if you must trust, you deserve the fate those you trust deliver unto you – which so far, it appears, you have chosen poorly.
-
Never Trust a Thinker. only Determine the Truth or Falsehood of His Theories.
—“I just don’t trust him.”—Arnold Brunson
You should never trust a thinker. You should only determine the truth or falsehood of his theories. If you cannot determine that truth or falsehood of his statements two things are occurring: either you lack the knowledge and ability, or the thinker is uninterested in bearing the expense of teaching you sufficient knowledge that you, with your ability, are able to determine the truth or falsehood of the statement. You must trust a person who has made you a promise, but you falsify an argument. There is no trust involved except in yourself, and your ability to comprehend that argument. What you mean is that a person does not share your emotional reactions to statements, or agree with your frame of reference. But at every standard deviation of ability we are incompatible, and at every two standard deviations we are incomprehensible to one another. I don’t pander, which is what you want: someone you feel comfortable controlling you. Instead, I practice the aristocratic strategy of seeking for men who can rise above needing control. So, I don’t want your trust. I want you to have sufficient agency so that you don’t need to. Because if you need to trust, then you lack the agency to determine the truth or falsehood yourself. My goal is only to give you that agency. I will only ‘lead’ as a last resort, for having to fail to manufacture by my work, leaders better than I at leading. That’s the goal of western civilization: men who develop agency sufficient to insure one another and police the private and common. We created the only civilization that industrialized the development of agency regardless of rank. Every other did not – although the chinese did try at least for the bureaucratic class. So understand my arguments or don’t. But don’t trust me. It means you have failed – and so have I. And if you must trust, you deserve the fate those you trust deliver unto you – which so far, it appears, you have chosen poorly.
-
Equilibrating Gender Cognitive Load: Tribes
EQUILIBRATING GENDER COGNITIVE LOAD: TRIBES
—“I’ve thought of who’s the most clearsighted of all. Is it married mothers with many children? Or is it some male category?”— atalay oral @baetsailray
WOMEN grow rational increasingly with each child, and my … educated guess .. is that female cognitive load evolved for five to six children, which his how many can survive at once in most conditions. Male nervous systems evolved to include the tribe, territory, and resources, of which females are a resource. So we deal with collections. Female nervous systems evolved to include her offspring: individuals. Until she ‘average’s a ‘tribe’ like males, she is not able to produce intuitive averages similar to males: TRIBE.
-
Equilibrating Gender Cognitive Load: Tribes
EQUILIBRATING GENDER COGNITIVE LOAD: TRIBES
—“I’ve thought of who’s the most clearsighted of all. Is it married mothers with many children? Or is it some male category?”— atalay oral @baetsailray
WOMEN grow rational increasingly with each child, and my … educated guess .. is that female cognitive load evolved for five to six children, which his how many can survive at once in most conditions. Male nervous systems evolved to include the tribe, territory, and resources, of which females are a resource. So we deal with collections. Female nervous systems evolved to include her offspring: individuals. Until she ‘average’s a ‘tribe’ like males, she is not able to produce intuitive averages similar to males: TRIBE.
-
Acceleration?
ACCELERATION? 2 things are happening simultaneously: 1) large numbers of additional nonwhites flow into the U.S. every year (70% of whom vote left & buy into anti-white commie narrative), and 2) more whites are getting redpilled to various degrees (harder to tell in what numbers). When we redpill whites, we’re mostly converting civnats (already Trump voters) and some centrists. Just making white men & their wives (the only demographic that votes majority right, & the only demographic that ever will) more based. This is absolutely essential because we need critical mass consensus on the grassroots Right around “no more nonwhite immigration”. However, we’re not really adding more Trump voters (just redpilling the current ones further). At least not nearly as fast as our enemy is importing leftist voters. Thus electoral politics in America is dead for the Right. It’s over. The system needs radical overhaul anyway. Good riddance, and the perfect opportunity to do so is coming. Thus the only question is, “What is the fastest way to get a critical mass of Trump voters to say ‘no more nonwhite immigration, period!’ – Trump winning in 2020, or losing? I could see an argument either way. If he wins, the race-realism-resistant magapedes will have their learning process delayed 4 more years. We’d likely avoid total censorship & the left will keep going nuts so that will help, but the resistance to race realism – the most important thing they must learn – could be even stronger (“See! We can still win elections! Go Candace Owens!”) If he loses, they will have to come to grips with why (nonwhites vote 70% left, even TX is going purple soon blue) 4 years sooner. Yes, the left will censor massively but that will work in our favor and even the mainstream Rush, Hannity etc will have to openly face the demographic reality of the Right winning no more elections. So I lean toward “let’s get this over with” but if Trump were to win in 2020 I won’t be upset. Either way we’re going to win. Because the acceleration will happen regardless, the demographic reality is coming regardless, and no matter what the timing of the acceleration, all acceleration benefits us because our enemies have no ability to project force to the extent necessary to control the grassroots Right once the grassroots Right has no more incentive to cooperate. Again, acceleration only helps us. Some of the anti-accelerationists are making the “later timing is better” argument. I don’t really have a problem with that. But some anti-accelerationists are hoping persuasion will work as an ultimate strategy and that somehow a real conflict can be avoided. (They’re just afraid. Or they haven’t done their homework on the scenario, 4G warfare etc. & thus they don’t understand that our enemy has no chance.) I do have a problem with that, because it’s delusional. The conflict is coming. Acceleration will come to a head. We are on a collision course with history. Just embrace it.
-
Acceleration?
ACCELERATION? 2 things are happening simultaneously: 1) large numbers of additional nonwhites flow into the U.S. every year (70% of whom vote left & buy into anti-white commie narrative), and 2) more whites are getting redpilled to various degrees (harder to tell in what numbers). When we redpill whites, we’re mostly converting civnats (already Trump voters) and some centrists. Just making white men & their wives (the only demographic that votes majority right, & the only demographic that ever will) more based. This is absolutely essential because we need critical mass consensus on the grassroots Right around “no more nonwhite immigration”. However, we’re not really adding more Trump voters (just redpilling the current ones further). At least not nearly as fast as our enemy is importing leftist voters. Thus electoral politics in America is dead for the Right. It’s over. The system needs radical overhaul anyway. Good riddance, and the perfect opportunity to do so is coming. Thus the only question is, “What is the fastest way to get a critical mass of Trump voters to say ‘no more nonwhite immigration, period!’ – Trump winning in 2020, or losing? I could see an argument either way. If he wins, the race-realism-resistant magapedes will have their learning process delayed 4 more years. We’d likely avoid total censorship & the left will keep going nuts so that will help, but the resistance to race realism – the most important thing they must learn – could be even stronger (“See! We can still win elections! Go Candace Owens!”) If he loses, they will have to come to grips with why (nonwhites vote 70% left, even TX is going purple soon blue) 4 years sooner. Yes, the left will censor massively but that will work in our favor and even the mainstream Rush, Hannity etc will have to openly face the demographic reality of the Right winning no more elections. So I lean toward “let’s get this over with” but if Trump were to win in 2020 I won’t be upset. Either way we’re going to win. Because the acceleration will happen regardless, the demographic reality is coming regardless, and no matter what the timing of the acceleration, all acceleration benefits us because our enemies have no ability to project force to the extent necessary to control the grassroots Right once the grassroots Right has no more incentive to cooperate. Again, acceleration only helps us. Some of the anti-accelerationists are making the “later timing is better” argument. I don’t really have a problem with that. But some anti-accelerationists are hoping persuasion will work as an ultimate strategy and that somehow a real conflict can be avoided. (They’re just afraid. Or they haven’t done their homework on the scenario, 4G warfare etc. & thus they don’t understand that our enemy has no chance.) I do have a problem with that, because it’s delusional. The conflict is coming. Acceleration will come to a head. We are on a collision course with history. Just embrace it.