Oct 6, 2019, 9:55 AM When William Wallace defeated the english at Sterling Bridge, it was because the english assumed the Scotts would wait until they crossed and stood formation – as was custom – before the fight. Instead, Wallace waited until a defeatable number of the english crossed the bridge and then massacred them. They did not conform to the ritualization of warfare between aristocratic families and clans fighting over territories to tax at the minimum losses to the people and assets. Nor did they want to disincentive the common people from fighting. Western peoples have practiced ritualized warfare in order to domesticate our wars, pretty much forever – with the Westphalian peace that limited war to actions between states our most dominant present influence, and the false heroism of our European Civil Wars, and our current heroism by economic warfare, only slightly influencing our tradition. The supermajority of our people and our statesmen maintain a current obsession with the presumption of the continued domestication of warfare, both abroad and in the coming second American civil war. They presume we have not, by the restoration of Marxist Terrorism, and their imitators using Islamic Terrorism, observed that the Westphalian peace has ended; and our heroism in dragging mankind out of ignorance, poverty, hard labor, suffering, and disease is ignored because of slavery practiced by every civilization back into eternity, with the muslims the most avid practitioners. This coming civil war will be more like Lebanon and Syria than the American civil war, and less disorganized than the second world war. It will be region by region, neighborhood by neighborhood, house to house, in spontaneously escalating, unorganized destruction of individual lives, leaving dense urban areas favelas, the near complete loss of industrial capacity, communications, and power. Russians can lose a third of their economy and resort to farming. If Americans lose a third of their economy we will lose a third of our people. And we will certainly lose more. If it lasts six months we will never recover. I work tirelessly to provide a constitution that will resolve this civil war by peaceful means, and incrementally escalate only upon failure to resolve it by peaceful means. But one thing is certain – the left will not survive as a movement. Ever. And this country will return to rule of law, or it will be reduced to a wasteland if we fail. Edit
Form: Mini Essay
-
Domestication of Warfare Is Over. the War of All Against All Has Returned
Oct 6, 2019, 9:55 AM When William Wallace defeated the english at Sterling Bridge, it was because the english assumed the Scotts would wait until they crossed and stood formation – as was custom – before the fight. Instead, Wallace waited until a defeatable number of the english crossed the bridge and then massacred them. They did not conform to the ritualization of warfare between aristocratic families and clans fighting over territories to tax at the minimum losses to the people and assets. Nor did they want to disincentive the common people from fighting. Western peoples have practiced ritualized warfare in order to domesticate our wars, pretty much forever – with the Westphalian peace that limited war to actions between states our most dominant present influence, and the false heroism of our European Civil Wars, and our current heroism by economic warfare, only slightly influencing our tradition. The supermajority of our people and our statesmen maintain a current obsession with the presumption of the continued domestication of warfare, both abroad and in the coming second American civil war. They presume we have not, by the restoration of Marxist Terrorism, and their imitators using Islamic Terrorism, observed that the Westphalian peace has ended; and our heroism in dragging mankind out of ignorance, poverty, hard labor, suffering, and disease is ignored because of slavery practiced by every civilization back into eternity, with the muslims the most avid practitioners. This coming civil war will be more like Lebanon and Syria than the American civil war, and less disorganized than the second world war. It will be region by region, neighborhood by neighborhood, house to house, in spontaneously escalating, unorganized destruction of individual lives, leaving dense urban areas favelas, the near complete loss of industrial capacity, communications, and power. Russians can lose a third of their economy and resort to farming. If Americans lose a third of their economy we will lose a third of our people. And we will certainly lose more. If it lasts six months we will never recover. I work tirelessly to provide a constitution that will resolve this civil war by peaceful means, and incrementally escalate only upon failure to resolve it by peaceful means. But one thing is certain – the left will not survive as a movement. Ever. And this country will return to rule of law, or it will be reduced to a wasteland if we fail. Edit
-
Ending Leftism Is a Matter of Ending Parasitism by Law
Oct 6, 2019, 5:30 PM Of the choices we could make to end the current politio-demographic conflict turning into civil war includes:
(a) multi-ethnicity (genetic homogeneity, (b) multi-culturalism (cultural homogeneity), (c) democratic process (universal access to political power), (d) or political ideology (Dysgenic or Eugenic), the most obvious choice is to end leftism as a political preference, and frustrate the undermining of western civilization. And ending leftism is a matter of ending parasitism by law. The rest will follow if leftism isn’t legally possible, and is even illegal speech. The market will serve its purposes. Now, I suspect that we will end democratic process as well. And this well end mutli-culturalism. And this will end immigration. But mutli-ethincity would remain, even if by neighborhood, or city, or state, or region. My understanding is that without subsidy immigration dries up and reverses. But the urban rich and poor, suburban-rural middle will continue. By definancializing the system we restore the balance between urban-high-low vs the middle.
-
Ending Leftism Is a Matter of Ending Parasitism by Law
Oct 6, 2019, 5:30 PM Of the choices we could make to end the current politio-demographic conflict turning into civil war includes:
(a) multi-ethnicity (genetic homogeneity, (b) multi-culturalism (cultural homogeneity), (c) democratic process (universal access to political power), (d) or political ideology (Dysgenic or Eugenic), the most obvious choice is to end leftism as a political preference, and frustrate the undermining of western civilization. And ending leftism is a matter of ending parasitism by law. The rest will follow if leftism isn’t legally possible, and is even illegal speech. The market will serve its purposes. Now, I suspect that we will end democratic process as well. And this well end mutli-culturalism. And this will end immigration. But mutli-ethincity would remain, even if by neighborhood, or city, or state, or region. My understanding is that without subsidy immigration dries up and reverses. But the urban rich and poor, suburban-rural middle will continue. By definancializing the system we restore the balance between urban-high-low vs the middle.
-
And Ending Leftism Is a Matter of Ending Parasitism by Law.
Oct 6, 2019, 5:30 PM Of the choices we could make to end the current politio-demographic conflict turning into civil war includes: (a) multi-ethnicity(genetic homogeneity, (b) multi-culturalism (cultural homogeneity), (c) democratic process (universal access to political power), (d) or political ideology (Dysgenic or Eugenic), the most obvious choice is to end leftism as a political preference, and frustrate the undermining of western civilization. And ending leftism is a matter of ending parasitism by law. The rest will follow if leftism isn’t legally possible, and is even illegal speech. The market will serve its purposes. Now, I suspect that we will end democratic process as well. And this well end mutli-culturalism. And this will end immigration. But mutli-ethincity would remain, even if by neighborhood, or city, or state, or region. My understanding is that without subsidy immigration dries up and reverses. But the urban rich and poor, suburban-rural middle will continue. By definancializing the system we restore the balance between urban-high-low vs the middle.
-
And Ending Leftism Is a Matter of Ending Parasitism by Law.
Oct 6, 2019, 5:30 PM Of the choices we could make to end the current politio-demographic conflict turning into civil war includes: (a) multi-ethnicity(genetic homogeneity, (b) multi-culturalism (cultural homogeneity), (c) democratic process (universal access to political power), (d) or political ideology (Dysgenic or Eugenic), the most obvious choice is to end leftism as a political preference, and frustrate the undermining of western civilization. And ending leftism is a matter of ending parasitism by law. The rest will follow if leftism isn’t legally possible, and is even illegal speech. The market will serve its purposes. Now, I suspect that we will end democratic process as well. And this well end mutli-culturalism. And this will end immigration. But mutli-ethincity would remain, even if by neighborhood, or city, or state, or region. My understanding is that without subsidy immigration dries up and reverses. But the urban rich and poor, suburban-rural middle will continue. By definancializing the system we restore the balance between urban-high-low vs the middle.
-
Return to Communism vs Naziism as The Basis of Argumentative Extremes
Oct 7, 2019, 10:28 AM by James Louis LaSalle As psychotically obsessed the Left is with racism, Nazis, and white supremacists, the Right should be just as obsessed with communism. To the point where we shouldn’t even acknowledge it when they say anything about racism, Nazis, or white supremacists. Ignore it completely. And don’t even be subtle about it. If a Leftist asks you if you’re a Nazi or some nonsense like that, don’t say a word about it; change the subject to the evils of communism immediately. “Are you a Nazi?” “Did you know communism was responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century?” “What? I asked you if you were a Nazi. Answer the question!” “You know, the concept of a “means of production” is a total reification fallacy. It’s the human mind that decides whether things have value or not. That’s why communism is always communal ownership of the means of production in theory and state ownership of human beings in practice. Because human beings ARE the means of production.” Leftist: Why do you keep talking about communism? I’m trying to talk to you about the evils of Nazism! Rightist: Why don’t you want to talk about the evils of communism? Are you a communist? Do you support communism? Play their game against them, and be better at it. There have been many comments from the usual quarters about the supposed illegitimacy of putting the “alt right” and “antifa” on “the same moral plane.” But mostly, Alt-right and Antifa ARE on the same moral plane, the moral plane where you use force to counter an existential threat to you and to your group. The main difference is a factual one, not a moral one, in that alt-right represents normalcy to excellence, while Antifa represents defective and inferior people. The former can, in principle, be victorious, while the latter can never be. Even if they, Antifa, communists, degenerates, win, they still lose, because it is not merely superior people against whom they rebel, but the reality of their own inadequacy; which ever remains. Once they destroy their betters, antifa will have no one left to parasitize, and they, too, shall perish. Their grasping, covetous, and insatiable appetites are just as real as their inability to satisfy them without seeking discounts at the expense of others, more capable. But they have no choice but to try, because meritocracy, accountability, and responsibility in the face of abler competitors would prove just as lethal to them as devouring those finally and completely. Without knowing it, without being able to moderate themselves, they are actually trying to straddle these extremes to the only evolutionary strategy that can sustain them, parasitism that is not severe enough to kill their only food source. But don’t expect them to realize that. And there is nothing to lose by simply wiping them out, as one would any other species of pest. (There is a moral difference between parasites and producers.)
-
Return to Communism vs Naziism as The Basis of Argumentative Extremes
Oct 7, 2019, 10:28 AM by James Louis LaSalle As psychotically obsessed the Left is with racism, Nazis, and white supremacists, the Right should be just as obsessed with communism. To the point where we shouldn’t even acknowledge it when they say anything about racism, Nazis, or white supremacists. Ignore it completely. And don’t even be subtle about it. If a Leftist asks you if you’re a Nazi or some nonsense like that, don’t say a word about it; change the subject to the evils of communism immediately. “Are you a Nazi?” “Did you know communism was responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century?” “What? I asked you if you were a Nazi. Answer the question!” “You know, the concept of a “means of production” is a total reification fallacy. It’s the human mind that decides whether things have value or not. That’s why communism is always communal ownership of the means of production in theory and state ownership of human beings in practice. Because human beings ARE the means of production.” Leftist: Why do you keep talking about communism? I’m trying to talk to you about the evils of Nazism! Rightist: Why don’t you want to talk about the evils of communism? Are you a communist? Do you support communism? Play their game against them, and be better at it. There have been many comments from the usual quarters about the supposed illegitimacy of putting the “alt right” and “antifa” on “the same moral plane.” But mostly, Alt-right and Antifa ARE on the same moral plane, the moral plane where you use force to counter an existential threat to you and to your group. The main difference is a factual one, not a moral one, in that alt-right represents normalcy to excellence, while Antifa represents defective and inferior people. The former can, in principle, be victorious, while the latter can never be. Even if they, Antifa, communists, degenerates, win, they still lose, because it is not merely superior people against whom they rebel, but the reality of their own inadequacy; which ever remains. Once they destroy their betters, antifa will have no one left to parasitize, and they, too, shall perish. Their grasping, covetous, and insatiable appetites are just as real as their inability to satisfy them without seeking discounts at the expense of others, more capable. But they have no choice but to try, because meritocracy, accountability, and responsibility in the face of abler competitors would prove just as lethal to them as devouring those finally and completely. Without knowing it, without being able to moderate themselves, they are actually trying to straddle these extremes to the only evolutionary strategy that can sustain them, parasitism that is not severe enough to kill their only food source. But don’t expect them to realize that. And there is nothing to lose by simply wiping them out, as one would any other species of pest. (There is a moral difference between parasites and producers.)
-
Kevin Macdonald on Reciprocity (important)
Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future amazon.com (He got there!!!!) CHAPTER 2 SECTION: Reciprocity as a Trait of I-E Culture.
—“The aristocratic individualism of the PI-Es was based on reciprocity, not despotism or kinship ties. For example, at the heart of PI-E culture was the practice of gift—giving as a reward for military accomplishment. Successful leaders were expected to reward their followers handsomely.
[79] Oath-bound contracts of reciprocal relationships were characteristic of PI-Es and this practice continued with the various I-E groups that invaded Europe. These contracts formed the basis of patron-client relationships based on reputation—leaders could expect loyal service from their followers, and followers could expect equitable rewards for their service to the leader. This is critical because these relationships are based on talent and accomplishment, not ethnicity (i.e., rewarding people on the basis of closeness of kinship) or despotic subservience (where followers are essentially unfree). Oath-bound contracts were not only typical of the aristocratic individualism of the Mannerbunde: they extended to relationships of domination and subordination between military elites and conquered peoples, providing protection in return for service. In conjunction with the previous points, this is a prescription for feudal-type societies dominated by military elites with mutual obligations to the people they dominate, but in which kinship ties between elites and the people they dominate are relatively unimportant. Breaking Down Bonds of Kinship. PI-E society developed institutions that tended to break down strong kinship bonds. David Anthony, e.g., writes that Yamnaya cultural practices related to guest-host relationships led in a direction away from kinship toward reciprocity. These reciprocal guest-host relationships “functioned as a bridge between social units (tribes, clans) that had ordinarily restricted these relationships to their kin or co-residents.”[7—1] There were thus mechanisms to provide guest- host relationships beyond kinship where everyone had mutual obligations of hospitality; in a comment illustrating the pervasiveness and longevity of these practices, Anthony notes that this was a “way to incorporate outsiders as people with clearly defined rights and protections, as it was used in the Odyssey to medieval Europe”[72-]— another indication of the persistence of I-E culture over very long periods of historical time. The Rewards of Military Success. Besides the tangible rewards for success, successful warriors were honored in poetry. Successful leaders not only gave feasts and gifts to their followers, they were celebrated in poetry—their memory lived on long after their death. Odes proclaiming the generosity of patrons were very characteristic of widely dispersed I-E cultures (Vedic, Celtic, Greek, and Germanic), indicating an origin in late Proto-Indo-European.[7-3] As Duchesne emphasizes, at a conscious level, I-E warfare was conducted principally to gain fame and glory—”The fame of a dead man’s deeds.”[7—4] Nevertheless, to the victors remained the very tangible spoils resulting from successful military campaigns. Indo-Europeanism as a Free-Market, Individualist Culture. For my purposes, it is especially important to note that the military cultures created by the I-Es were permeable—that they were based on individual accomplishment rather than kinship ties. Indeed, I-E societies recognized that kinship biases people’s perceptions and judgments. [ … ] As noted, military leaders maintained their position by military success and by bestowing gifts upon their followers, with the most talented followers obtaining the greatest gifts. A corollary of this is that followers chose successful leaders and abandoned unsuccessful leaders. The system functioned more or less as a free-market system based on merit rather than nepotism. As in all free-market systems, the fundamental principle is reciprocity, whether it is giving gifts commensurate with contribution to the exploits of the Mc’innerbund, or, in the modern world, paying employees a wage commensurate with the value they add to the company on pain of defection to another company. And just as companies compete to obtain talented employees in the modern world, I-E military leaders competed to attract a following of talented warriors. Reciprocity thus lies at the heart of societies based on individualism.”— FROM: Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future
-
Kevin Macdonald on Reciprocity (important)
Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future amazon.com (He got there!!!!) CHAPTER 2 SECTION: Reciprocity as a Trait of I-E Culture.
—“The aristocratic individualism of the PI-Es was based on reciprocity, not despotism or kinship ties. For example, at the heart of PI-E culture was the practice of gift—giving as a reward for military accomplishment. Successful leaders were expected to reward their followers handsomely.
[79] Oath-bound contracts of reciprocal relationships were characteristic of PI-Es and this practice continued with the various I-E groups that invaded Europe. These contracts formed the basis of patron-client relationships based on reputation—leaders could expect loyal service from their followers, and followers could expect equitable rewards for their service to the leader. This is critical because these relationships are based on talent and accomplishment, not ethnicity (i.e., rewarding people on the basis of closeness of kinship) or despotic subservience (where followers are essentially unfree). Oath-bound contracts were not only typical of the aristocratic individualism of the Mannerbunde: they extended to relationships of domination and subordination between military elites and conquered peoples, providing protection in return for service. In conjunction with the previous points, this is a prescription for feudal-type societies dominated by military elites with mutual obligations to the people they dominate, but in which kinship ties between elites and the people they dominate are relatively unimportant. Breaking Down Bonds of Kinship. PI-E society developed institutions that tended to break down strong kinship bonds. David Anthony, e.g., writes that Yamnaya cultural practices related to guest-host relationships led in a direction away from kinship toward reciprocity. These reciprocal guest-host relationships “functioned as a bridge between social units (tribes, clans) that had ordinarily restricted these relationships to their kin or co-residents.”[7—1] There were thus mechanisms to provide guest- host relationships beyond kinship where everyone had mutual obligations of hospitality; in a comment illustrating the pervasiveness and longevity of these practices, Anthony notes that this was a “way to incorporate outsiders as people with clearly defined rights and protections, as it was used in the Odyssey to medieval Europe”[72-]— another indication of the persistence of I-E culture over very long periods of historical time. The Rewards of Military Success. Besides the tangible rewards for success, successful warriors were honored in poetry. Successful leaders not only gave feasts and gifts to their followers, they were celebrated in poetry—their memory lived on long after their death. Odes proclaiming the generosity of patrons were very characteristic of widely dispersed I-E cultures (Vedic, Celtic, Greek, and Germanic), indicating an origin in late Proto-Indo-European.[7-3] As Duchesne emphasizes, at a conscious level, I-E warfare was conducted principally to gain fame and glory—”The fame of a dead man’s deeds.”[7—4] Nevertheless, to the victors remained the very tangible spoils resulting from successful military campaigns. Indo-Europeanism as a Free-Market, Individualist Culture. For my purposes, it is especially important to note that the military cultures created by the I-Es were permeable—that they were based on individual accomplishment rather than kinship ties. Indeed, I-E societies recognized that kinship biases people’s perceptions and judgments. [ … ] As noted, military leaders maintained their position by military success and by bestowing gifts upon their followers, with the most talented followers obtaining the greatest gifts. A corollary of this is that followers chose successful leaders and abandoned unsuccessful leaders. The system functioned more or less as a free-market system based on merit rather than nepotism. As in all free-market systems, the fundamental principle is reciprocity, whether it is giving gifts commensurate with contribution to the exploits of the Mc’innerbund, or, in the modern world, paying employees a wage commensurate with the value they add to the company on pain of defection to another company. And just as companies compete to obtain talented employees in the modern world, I-E military leaders competed to attract a following of talented warriors. Reciprocity thus lies at the heart of societies based on individualism.”— FROM: Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future