Feb 2, 2020, 10:24 AM (important) it is very unlikely that race can be overcome for anyone who must live in proximity to blacks and hispanics and sees the consequences. It is true that good people are in every group, and that our tribes (races) can work together to common ends if we do not force one another into continuing the demonstrated failure of integration – particularly in business, schools, and neighborhoods – and let people continue to naturally sort into communities. We have common commercial interests. We have common defense interests. But we do not have common social (normative) interests because of the harsh reality of our substantial differences in genetics, temperament, ability, culture, and history. Instead, while differences in demand for commons is the cause of our conflict – race is not the cause of our conflict but the political order in which races and mixed peoples cooperate. The current organization of the polity by winner takes all, and the possibility of obtaining political power to interfere in one another’s communities that is the problem. So, yes, the problem can be overcome. But it can only be overcome by grasping where we have common and uncommon interests. You cannot change sexual, social, economic, political, and military differences between the races and subraces, nor can you change the kinship advantage to association, residency, economic and political cooperation with people of those intersets. Our military and our markets don’t care about our color. every other aspect of life does. Hence my solution depriving us of possibility of power over one another – and the ability to determine our futures independent of what others think, by sorting into groups that are heterogeneous or homogenous. I want desperately to live in a northern european homogenous polity – and I want others of my people to do inherit that which I have inherited. I know what will happen to every other known political order and I am happy if they want to do so – that does not mean it is good or will end up as anything other than a small number of wealthy elites surrounded by urban rings of poverty, favellas and ghettos. It won’t. But these are our choices to make. They are not others’ choices to make.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Q: Where Do You Stand on Imperialism
Feb 2, 2020, 10:49 AM
—-“Where do you stand on imperialism?”—
I stand as always on empirical evidence and operational possibility. Depends on what we define as imperial. The holy roman empire or the han chinese empire, or the roman empire or the middle eastern empires? DIMENSION ONE – HOMOGENEITY VS HETEROGENEITY The holy roman (german continental) was homogenous; the chinese made theirs homogenous through slow forcible integration; the roman empire failed when insufficiently homogenous; the greek empire never could consilidate becasue it was heterogeneous; and the middle eastern empires were pretty totalitarian and continuously in termoil because they existed to resist heterogeneity. Now what about an empire of rule of law over teh english speaking or germanic speaking peoples? Well that is just a federation with a judge of last resort between that resolves differences between the princes (monarchs) of different poliites. What about an empire of rule by degree over a forcibly integrated and relatively homogenous empire of limited mobility like china? Well, that is just a way to manage primitive people by bureaucratic corporatism and corporate accountability(via positiva) rather than european sovereignty and rule of law (via negativa). What about the roman empire under roman law? Well, that is a way of suppressing parasitism and facilitating trade so that the upper classes can profit and the lower classes live better than they would otherwise. What about the middle eastern empires? Well that is little more than preventing any of the other tribes from rising up and profiting at the expense of the suppressed tribes. DIMENSION TWO – RULE VS REPLACEMENT Now, let’s ask about conquest and rule (europe); vs conquest, colonization and rule (africa); vs conquest, colonization, and integration; vs conquest, colonization and replacement? (Americas). DIMENSION THREE – INCENTIVES And whether you’re doing so in defense or for assets or for taxation and plunder. ANSWER We can make a table of what works and does’t work.
.................Homogenous <-----------Limited-----> Heterogeneous Rule |................Yes.......................No....................No |................Yes.......................Yes...................No |................N/A.......................Yes...................Yes v Replacement
And we can make a simple statement out of incentives.
Defense : Yes regardless Markets : Yes and integrate Assets:….Yes and only if you Rule Plunder:…No … only to raid to conquer. malincentives build. So that is my answer on Imperialism.
Homogeneous populations only. Rule only in exchange for returns. Exploit only to further replacement. Conquest and Genocide are the most consequential and successful entrepreneurial ventures in human history.
-
Q: Where Do You Stand on Imperialism
Feb 2, 2020, 10:49 AM
—-“Where do you stand on imperialism?”—
I stand as always on empirical evidence and operational possibility. Depends on what we define as imperial. The holy roman empire or the han chinese empire, or the roman empire or the middle eastern empires? DIMENSION ONE – HOMOGENEITY VS HETEROGENEITY The holy roman (german continental) was homogenous; the chinese made theirs homogenous through slow forcible integration; the roman empire failed when insufficiently homogenous; the greek empire never could consilidate becasue it was heterogeneous; and the middle eastern empires were pretty totalitarian and continuously in termoil because they existed to resist heterogeneity. Now what about an empire of rule of law over teh english speaking or germanic speaking peoples? Well that is just a federation with a judge of last resort between that resolves differences between the princes (monarchs) of different poliites. What about an empire of rule by degree over a forcibly integrated and relatively homogenous empire of limited mobility like china? Well, that is just a way to manage primitive people by bureaucratic corporatism and corporate accountability(via positiva) rather than european sovereignty and rule of law (via negativa). What about the roman empire under roman law? Well, that is a way of suppressing parasitism and facilitating trade so that the upper classes can profit and the lower classes live better than they would otherwise. What about the middle eastern empires? Well that is little more than preventing any of the other tribes from rising up and profiting at the expense of the suppressed tribes. DIMENSION TWO – RULE VS REPLACEMENT Now, let’s ask about conquest and rule (europe); vs conquest, colonization and rule (africa); vs conquest, colonization, and integration; vs conquest, colonization and replacement? (Americas). DIMENSION THREE – INCENTIVES And whether you’re doing so in defense or for assets or for taxation and plunder. ANSWER We can make a table of what works and does’t work.
.................Homogenous <-----------Limited-----> Heterogeneous Rule |................Yes.......................No....................No |................Yes.......................Yes...................No |................N/A.......................Yes...................Yes v Replacement
And we can make a simple statement out of incentives.
Defense : Yes regardless Markets : Yes and integrate Assets:….Yes and only if you Rule Plunder:…No … only to raid to conquer. malincentives build. So that is my answer on Imperialism.
Homogeneous populations only. Rule only in exchange for returns. Exploit only to further replacement. Conquest and Genocide are the most consequential and successful entrepreneurial ventures in human history.
-
China’s Fascism Shows Its Ends
Feb 2, 2020, 11:14 AM China’s Response to disaster vs America’s: This is the value of a Fascist State (Where fascist means Ethnonationalist, Authoritarian, State Capitalist, Mandatory Conformist.) And people prefer it. China demonstrated that Fascism won the 20th. Heterogeneous Immigration demonstrated that Democracy lost the 20th.
— REGARDING THIS ARTICLE FROM CHINA—- Huoshenshan Hospital has been completed in #Wuhan on Sunday. Only 10 days to build. 4,000+ workers. 1000s of equipment. days and nights of work. 34,000-square-meter. 1000 beds available on Monday. —-END—
—“Fascism isn’t state capitalist. it doesn’t take sides on economics, it applies pressure on markets as the situation demands. If you want to read anything about Fascist Economics, I’d recommend, The Economic Foundations of Fascism by Paul Enzig And Hitler’s Revolution by R. Tedor”– A ( Intelligent and Informed) Friend
Hitler wasn’t the only fascist – he was just the last. So yes, the state:
(a) prevents contra-autarkic arbitrage for profit and exploitation of state resources (the same thing); (b) biases production to commons by use of state financing; (c) overrides market incentives when needed. So we can fuss around with terms. But the bias in private capitalism is non interference in markets except by treating the state as just another customer, while state capitalism places higher priority on state as a customer than the market – particularly international market.
—“A fascist wouldn’t consider the state as anything as reductive as a customer. Or anything of the sort. The state is the arbiter of the people, it IS the people. “All within the state, Nothing outside the State, Nothing against the State” the state comes before all else.”—Hauptgefreitersiege @Hauptgefreiter1
This is a secular theological, or philosophical, rather than scientific or operational description. I understand the “strange’ continental obsession with restoring the theology of the church with some secular theology – from Rousseau to Kant to Marx to present – Europe is ‘stuck’. But this point of view is one of an anglo who descends from the minor aristocracy, and the puritanical, empirical, common law tradition. We can understand the continent but the continent cannot understand us. We escaped even secular theology – I just don’t know if it was good. Hugs brother. Thanks for letting me riff on your comment.
-
China’s Fascism Shows Its Ends
Feb 2, 2020, 11:14 AM China’s Response to disaster vs America’s: This is the value of a Fascist State (Where fascist means Ethnonationalist, Authoritarian, State Capitalist, Mandatory Conformist.) And people prefer it. China demonstrated that Fascism won the 20th. Heterogeneous Immigration demonstrated that Democracy lost the 20th.
— REGARDING THIS ARTICLE FROM CHINA—- Huoshenshan Hospital has been completed in #Wuhan on Sunday. Only 10 days to build. 4,000+ workers. 1000s of equipment. days and nights of work. 34,000-square-meter. 1000 beds available on Monday. —-END—
—“Fascism isn’t state capitalist. it doesn’t take sides on economics, it applies pressure on markets as the situation demands. If you want to read anything about Fascist Economics, I’d recommend, The Economic Foundations of Fascism by Paul Enzig And Hitler’s Revolution by R. Tedor”– A ( Intelligent and Informed) Friend
Hitler wasn’t the only fascist – he was just the last. So yes, the state:
(a) prevents contra-autarkic arbitrage for profit and exploitation of state resources (the same thing); (b) biases production to commons by use of state financing; (c) overrides market incentives when needed. So we can fuss around with terms. But the bias in private capitalism is non interference in markets except by treating the state as just another customer, while state capitalism places higher priority on state as a customer than the market – particularly international market.
—“A fascist wouldn’t consider the state as anything as reductive as a customer. Or anything of the sort. The state is the arbiter of the people, it IS the people. “All within the state, Nothing outside the State, Nothing against the State” the state comes before all else.”—Hauptgefreitersiege @Hauptgefreiter1
This is a secular theological, or philosophical, rather than scientific or operational description. I understand the “strange’ continental obsession with restoring the theology of the church with some secular theology – from Rousseau to Kant to Marx to present – Europe is ‘stuck’. But this point of view is one of an anglo who descends from the minor aristocracy, and the puritanical, empirical, common law tradition. We can understand the continent but the continent cannot understand us. We escaped even secular theology – I just don’t know if it was good. Hugs brother. Thanks for letting me riff on your comment.
-
It’s interesting to see the difficulties in translating propertarian terms and definitions into another language.
Feb 2, 2020, 12:47 PM
—-” It is interesting to see how there are difficulties in translating propertarian terms and definitions into another language. Can it be because the Anglo-world had evolved many of the P concepts first, and then Curt had scientifically described them? Other languages and nations were not at the same level. I think that German may be the second best language to translate P into. But in my experience concisely translating things like “agency” “commons” and “reciprocity” in Russian is fairly hard. Appears to correlate with how russian empire and then the soviet union was – no agency for people, no reciprocity, and going from no commons to all commons at the costs of millions of lives to virtually no gain”—James Dmitro Makienko
Yep.
-
It’s interesting to see the difficulties in translating propertarian terms and definitions into another language.
Feb 2, 2020, 12:47 PM
—-” It is interesting to see how there are difficulties in translating propertarian terms and definitions into another language. Can it be because the Anglo-world had evolved many of the P concepts first, and then Curt had scientifically described them? Other languages and nations were not at the same level. I think that German may be the second best language to translate P into. But in my experience concisely translating things like “agency” “commons” and “reciprocity” in Russian is fairly hard. Appears to correlate with how russian empire and then the soviet union was – no agency for people, no reciprocity, and going from no commons to all commons at the costs of millions of lives to virtually no gain”—James Dmitro Makienko
Yep.
-
Russian Language Like Many Can’t Fully Translate English Ideas
Feb 2, 2020, 6:52 PM (context: how propertarianism is difficult to translate because the anglo saxon conversion of family bias to commons bias and common ownership never occurred elsehwere.)
—“Has Russia always been that way? Or did they have a “golden age” so to speak where either the language was different, the ideas were different, or both?”—Bradley Morgan
Every language retains embellishments and scars, every literature and culture embellishments and scars, and every people’s self imiage retains embellishments and scars. Russia emerged into modernity behind the rest of christendom simply because (a) distance from the core of commerce, (b) missing out on early adaptation to returns on atlantic trade, the renaissance, the british empirical revolution, the reformation, the continental enlightenment, and (c) having the legacy of mongol conquest, and (d) a long history of serfdom – the boyars were far worse than european feudal lords, and nothing close to west germanic (anglo-scandianvian) free men. In other words, they were just more removed from the center of the european restoration after the exit of the semitic dark ages. And Russian Literature was and remains the high point of literature in Christendom. And it occurred partly – as did germany – in response to the terrors of france (napoleon’s conquests). There was nothing wrong with Russia that the first world war did not create. It had nowhere near the problems of say Italy. And was closest to following the german unification. Germany at the time included most of what we consider Poland. And german influence was across the entire holy roman empire other than France and Spain. Russia had used her new freedoms to replace the mongols and conquer all of Eurasia from the borders of eastern Europe to Canada, and if they hadn’t been stopped (wrongly) by the British they would have retaken Constantinople from the turks and reversed all the costs of the dark ages. The problems of Russia, like the problems of Germay, like the present problem in america, is the result of the jewish bolshevik seizure of power in the unstable period at the end of WW1. The Russian language is part of the slavic family of languages that is indeed indo european but went through a strange phonetic rotation, which I am not skilled enough to explain but was the result of moving the glottal sounds backward and then due to that cost, losing the soft vowels, leading to counter- intuitive pairs of consonants without interstitial vowels we expect in wester civilization. The structure of Russian language (a category iv language – meaning hard to learn) does not require word order organization like english, and still relies on many (many) suffixes that can be overwhelming. However, this means there is as great an art in manipulating the russian language to all softs of parallels and suggestions and subtle meanings as there is an art of doing the same with our huge english vocabulary. And much of russian humor is dependent upon those who are cunning with their language in this form. It is also very… beautiful … in that it’s still a heroic language, a language of people on the farm, who are dependent upon community, who will suffer anything and survive, and are very proud of their heroism of endurance . So this is why Russian literature and culture is ‘deep’ Because it is deep. As deep as americans are shallow.
-
Russian Language Like Many Can’t Fully Translate English Ideas
Feb 2, 2020, 6:52 PM (context: how propertarianism is difficult to translate because the anglo saxon conversion of family bias to commons bias and common ownership never occurred elsehwere.)
—“Has Russia always been that way? Or did they have a “golden age” so to speak where either the language was different, the ideas were different, or both?”—Bradley Morgan
Every language retains embellishments and scars, every literature and culture embellishments and scars, and every people’s self imiage retains embellishments and scars. Russia emerged into modernity behind the rest of christendom simply because (a) distance from the core of commerce, (b) missing out on early adaptation to returns on atlantic trade, the renaissance, the british empirical revolution, the reformation, the continental enlightenment, and (c) having the legacy of mongol conquest, and (d) a long history of serfdom – the boyars were far worse than european feudal lords, and nothing close to west germanic (anglo-scandianvian) free men. In other words, they were just more removed from the center of the european restoration after the exit of the semitic dark ages. And Russian Literature was and remains the high point of literature in Christendom. And it occurred partly – as did germany – in response to the terrors of france (napoleon’s conquests). There was nothing wrong with Russia that the first world war did not create. It had nowhere near the problems of say Italy. And was closest to following the german unification. Germany at the time included most of what we consider Poland. And german influence was across the entire holy roman empire other than France and Spain. Russia had used her new freedoms to replace the mongols and conquer all of Eurasia from the borders of eastern Europe to Canada, and if they hadn’t been stopped (wrongly) by the British they would have retaken Constantinople from the turks and reversed all the costs of the dark ages. The problems of Russia, like the problems of Germay, like the present problem in america, is the result of the jewish bolshevik seizure of power in the unstable period at the end of WW1. The Russian language is part of the slavic family of languages that is indeed indo european but went through a strange phonetic rotation, which I am not skilled enough to explain but was the result of moving the glottal sounds backward and then due to that cost, losing the soft vowels, leading to counter- intuitive pairs of consonants without interstitial vowels we expect in wester civilization. The structure of Russian language (a category iv language – meaning hard to learn) does not require word order organization like english, and still relies on many (many) suffixes that can be overwhelming. However, this means there is as great an art in manipulating the russian language to all softs of parallels and suggestions and subtle meanings as there is an art of doing the same with our huge english vocabulary. And much of russian humor is dependent upon those who are cunning with their language in this form. It is also very… beautiful … in that it’s still a heroic language, a language of people on the farm, who are dependent upon community, who will suffer anything and survive, and are very proud of their heroism of endurance . So this is why Russian literature and culture is ‘deep’ Because it is deep. As deep as americans are shallow.
-
Ideological Motivations, Options and Outcomes
Feb 3, 2020, 10:25 AM People who want status or attention because they are rejected by the groups they work, live, or associate with, seek some sort of means of feeling they are winning – so they find a single lever (libertarianism, leftism, a philosophical frame, or a religion) and double down on it because it is their only means of obtaining some sense of success in the world through the expression of their preferences by dominance rather than by cooperation. This is an understandable human behavior. We cannot expect people to not negotiate or advance (or bully) for obtaining resources, status, cooperation, in a world where all three are scarce. … However, regardless of our preferences and wants we can argue for reciprocity or we can argue for irreciprocity. Or we can simply act irreciprocally by conquest if negotiation does not succeed, and separation is not possible. So one can argue in concert with the physical world or not. One can argue in concert with the social world or not. One can act in concert with the social world or not. But the reverse of each of those statements cannot be said, without one being a fool, a liar, and a thief – and thereby abandoning your sovereignty and entering into a condition of war where all morality is off the table. P is a method. That method defines reciprocity. And it states the limit of that reciprocity. And beyond that reciprocity there is no moral question – only war.