Form: Outline

  • GLOBALISM(COMMUNISM) VS NATIONALISM(FASCISM) 1) MARX, COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, GLOB

    GLOBALISM(COMMUNISM) VS NATIONALISM(FASCISM)

    1) MARX, COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, GLOBALISM – We don’t need to debunk marx, that’s been done for decades. Marx created a fairy story.

    (a) Man was not oppressed, but incrementally domesticated by his betters, like every other domesticated animal. Societies advanced best and fastest who most culled the underclasses (European Bipartite Manorialism, and East Asian Rice Farming) and culling the underclass is the cheapest, fastest, most secure means of improving the standard of life of the citizenry.

    (b) labor has little or no value since it is the organization of production that creates the value, and labor is a fungible low value cost easily and continuously replaced by machines, computers, and now artificial intelligences.

    (c) the underclass cannot organize production, or govern, or lead because they lack the ABILITIES to do so (dunning kruger, distribution of intelligence).

    (d) all non-market social orders maximize rent seeking at the expense of the laboring, working, middle, and professional classes, while all market orders suppress rent seeking through competition.

    (e) the problem we face is immigration of the underclasses, downward redistribution of reproduction to the lower and underclasses, subsidies that encourage this process, and the continuous destruction of the middle class majority produced by centuries of manorialism (hanging, disease, and wars), culling those underclasses,

    (f) the political problem we face is financialization of the economy in addition to bureaucratic rents, (both of which are fixable by market means.

    (g) Marx-Boas-Freud-Cantor-Adorno(et al) proposed an underclass monopoly, while Mises, Friedman, Rand, Rothbard, a Middle Class, while Foucault, Derrida, Rorty a Priestly-Feminine Upper Middle, while Friedan, Firestone, Dworkin a Feminist, and Strauss-Neocons a Political/Military upper class monopoly. The left proposes MONOPOLIES (a herd) and the right proposes MARKETS (packs).

    —VERSUS—

    2) FASCISM, NAZIISM, NATIONALISM – Naziism like all Fascism was providing an alternative to (Bolshevik) World Communism. It was the most successful implementation of the original French Proposition. Peterson knows this just as any scholar knows this.

    We are still fighting this warfare of Nationalism (A Market of Polities) and Globalism ( Monopoly Polity). and we have just complete a century of that test.

    (a) Each attempt by the globalists has failed, and (b) each attempt by the nationalists has eventually succeeded. We are currently in the last phase, under which we will restore nationalism worldwide and return to state-capitalism (fasicsm) most of which will be ethnocentric, and some which will not – and will devolve in to indian, muslim, african, and south american poverty.

    Rousseau (Feminine Subjective) + Schopenhauer, Hegel et al (Conflationists) + Kant (Masculine Analytic)

    -vs-

    Marx, Cantor, Freud, Adorno (Working and Underclasses) – FAILED

    -vs-

    Mises, Friedman, Rand, Rothbard, (Middle Classes) – FAILED

    -vs-

    Foucault, Derrida, Rorty (Priestly-Feminine Upper Middle) – FAILING RIGHT NOW

    -vs-

    Friedan, Firestone, Dworkin (Feminists) – FAILING RIGHT NOW

    -vs-

    Strauss-Neocons (Political/Military-Masculine – Upper) FAILED

    The gradual attack on Aristocratic Civilization from the bottom up.

    -The Counter-Revolution Against Anglo Legal-Empiricism, and German Rational-Science-

    Utopian Promise upon Achieving Monopoly Consensus + Straw Man + Pilpul and Critique


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-13 17:27:00 UTC

  • False Promise upon Consensus + Straw Man + Pilpul and Critique: Marx, Cantor, Fr

    False Promise upon Consensus + Straw Man + Pilpul and Critique: Marx, Cantor, Freud, Adorno (Working) -vs- Mises, Rand, Rothbard (Middle) -vs- Strauss-Neocons (Political/Military-Masculine) -vs- Foucault, Derrida, Rorty (Priestly-Feminine) -vs- (insert feminist authors here)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-13 12:45:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062325655780708352

    Reply addressees: @StirlingFinn @TrueDilTom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062272797139861504


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062272797139861504

  • THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT 1) We lack agency. Our genes provide intuitionistic decidab

    THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT

    1) We lack agency. Our genes provide intuitionistic decidability. That intuitionistic decidability in matters of cooperation can be expressed on a spectrum from psychotic and solipsistic to ‘normie’ to analytic and autistic. This spectrum describes the differences in male and female brain structures (see Baron Cohen.). We assume we are making choices but we are not. We are merely following instinct. In this distribution the male and female brains produce biases that reflect their caloric and reproductive demands, with female the herd,r,offspring, and male,k,pack and this measurement shows up in all aspects of life from METHOD OF SPEECH, content of gossip, chatter, and banter, selection of terms, means of argument, value judgements, personality profile differences, job selection, time allocation, consumer product purchases, voting records.

    However, given the industrial technological era, and the independence of females from demand for male income we are seeing demand for ‘fulfillment’ (divergence) in not only gender preferences (toward the extremes) but in class and reproductive preferences (insurance from risk, vs achievement liberty). The more equal the more we diverge in demand for fulfillment of our reproductive strategies. At present we have those of us who prefer to separate from those of you.

    We experience you as ‘disgusting’ whereas you see fear we see disgust. This is because you are setting off our ‘harm to the tribe’ response. This is also genetic on our end. Truth, Loyalty, Purity are all anti-disgust demands.

    So in our perception of the world, you are not fully human, but simply semi-domesticated animals that can speak. We do not say this but it is how we perceive you. So we prefer to satisfy our disgust response they way you want to satisfy your fear of being left behind response, and separate from you.

    The alternative is warfare. Which is frankly more desirable but less profitable.

    2) Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy, nationalism the optimum means of protecting it, nomocracy and markets in everything, the optimum means of political order to achieving it, and soft eugenics (regulating underclass rates of reproduction) a necessity of defeating regression to the mean, such that demographics correspond to states of development rather than regress the standards of living, because together they produce rates of adaptation faster than all possible alternatives.

    The mediocre seek safety in the herd and speech and defense from the pack. The exceptional seek achievement and action – and to leave its dead weight behind.

    We can afford to speciate by reproductive strategy. You and yours are welcome to speciate by your preferred means, if me and mine are by our preferred means. That is reciprocity. If we cannot agree to reciprocity, then defeat, conquest, enserfment, enslavement, and extermination are preferable to loss.

    The Herd seeks equality, proportionality, and the Pack hierarchy and reciprocity. These are genetic and therefore intuitionistic and pre-cognitive expressions of fitness for social orders.

    So we can Revolt, Separate, Prosper (or not), and Speciate or we can war. The coming civil war is not over race – it is over our new found wealth sufficient to speciate. Or in historical terms, we continue the conflict between masculine indo-european-asian and feminine anatolian-semitic-afro-asiatic.

    This means that we have the opportunity to exit the unfit from our order, and the undesirable from yours.

    Or we have the opportunity to have the bloodiest conflict in human history – and one that it is very hard to imagine the ‘right’ will not win.

    The people who talk, teach, and preach, vs the people who act, produce, and invent.

    If this isn’t acceptable to your and yours, then enemies you choose to be.

    So, this is why we must separate.

    We don’t need to agree.

    It’s just going to happen.

    So the question is only how unpleasant it will be.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-13 10:27:00 UTC

  • THE COMPLETE PROGRAM The Cult of Nature (Religion) The Cult of our People (Mytho

    THE COMPLETE PROGRAM
    The Cult of Nature (Religion)
    The Cult of our People (Mythology)
    The Cult of the Militia (Physical)
    The Cult of Stoicism (Emotional)
    The Cult of the Law (Intellectual)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 15:12:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062000126149959681

  • THE COMPLETE PROGRAM The Cult of Nature (Religion) The Cult of our Folk (Mytholo

    THE COMPLETE PROGRAM

    The Cult of Nature (Religion)

    The Cult of our Folk (Mythology)

    The Cult of the Militia (Physical)

    The Cult of Stoicism (Emotional)

    The Cult of the Law (Intellectual)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 10:11:00 UTC

  • THE RIGHT- Hard Right (Aristocratic, Martial, Judicial[prosecutorial]) … Middl

    -THE RIGHT-
    Hard Right (Aristocratic, Martial, Judicial[prosecutorial])
    … Middle Right (Commercial, Reciprocal, Legal[contractual])
    … … Soft Right (Priestly, Moral, Religious[adherent])


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-11 16:56:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1061663981071425543

  • OUR SOLUTION – AND OUR LIMITED FUNCTION IN IT. 1) We are the JUDGES of the NATUR

    OUR SOLUTION – AND OUR LIMITED FUNCTION IN IT.

    1) We are the JUDGES of the NATURAL LAW – the JUDGES of our polity. “Those Who State Limits.”

    2) There are warriors, artists, scientists, engineers, craftsman, doctors, and mothers. Their jobs are ‘what shall we do and ‘how shall we do it’. Our job in the division of labor – a division of unequal knowledge and function – but equal duty and responsibility.

    3) Signals alone will drive excellence out of what we shall do, if natural law is imposed upon them since the GOOD and EXCELLENT are the only means possible available to them.

    4) Our men will build valhalla because we leave them no other choice. Our men will make immortality because we leave them no other choice. Our men will reach the stars because we leave them no other choice. We do not need instruct them to do so because we leave them no other choice.

    5) As judges we must prosecute violators of the natural law. No matter who, where, and when they may be.

    6) Our way is War: to eliminate that which is bad – leaving those with less agency to produce only that which is good. We parent mankind by this means alone. Not by telling them what to do. But by telling them what not to do, and leaving them to discover all possible means of doing what else they may do?

    It is for the lesser people – all who have failed – to anchor their people in an era by stating that which they must or should do other than avoid or defeat that which is false or bad.

    The uniqueness of western civilization is sovereignty reciprocity truth, duty, and the law – producing markets of the good by eliminating the bad, and thereby continuously calculating our transformation into gods – omniscient and omnipotent – by the fastest means possible: trial and error.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-11 09:08:00 UTC

  • Why? Why Are We Winning? We Are No Longer Hopeful that The Rest Can Be Made Honorable

    1) Their advantage was lie and cheat and deceive– and we weren’t aware 2) Then their advantage was lie and cheat and deceive– and we we didn’t stop and punish them 3) Then their advantage was lie and cheat and deceive– and we didn’t deceive them back. 4) Now we are – and they are crumbling Winning is fun. We are no longer converting, but conquering.

  • WHY? WHY ARE WE WINNING? WE ARE NO LONGER HOPEFUL THAT THE REST CAN BE MADE HONO

    WHY? WHY ARE WE WINNING? WE ARE NO LONGER HOPEFUL THAT THE REST CAN BE MADE HONORABLE

    1) Their advantage was lie and cheat and deceive– and we weren’t aware

    2) Then their advantage was lie and cheat and deceive– and we we didn’t stop and punish them

    3) Then their advantage was lie and cheat and deceive– and we didn’t deceive them back.

    4) Now we are – and they are crumbling

    Winning is fun. We are no longer converting, but conquering.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 09:07:00 UTC

  • Geography and Ethics

    GEOGRAPHY and ETHICS

    FORESTLANDS: Aristocratic Ethics: What will someone not retaliate against even if we agree to it?(rulers/teleological ethics:outcomes) The ethics of warriors who must hold territory. This is a very high cost strategy because while professional warrior aristocracy is militarily superior, smaller numbers mean threats must be constantly suppressed when small, as soon as identified. (Profiting from the domestication of man) BORDERLANDS: Cosmopolitan(Jewish) Ethics: What will someone consent to Regardless of future resentment and retaliation? (borderland/subculture/deontological ethics:rules) The ethics of diasporic, migrating traders, or herding peoples who can prey upon the locals who hold territory. This is a very low cost (parasitic) ethics that avoids all contribution to the host commons, but requires preserving the ability to exit (migrate). It is the raider strategy by systemic and verbal rather than physical means. STEPPELANDS: Russian(Orthodox) Ethics: What can I get away with now by negotiation and subterfuge, and hold by force later? (steppe raiders) The ethics of steppe people surrounded by competitors, always hostile and unpredictable. This is a difficult and expensive but only possible strategy, when one is surrounded by hostile opportunity seekers. While seemingly expansive, it’s actually a fearful one – aggression as the only possible means of controlling defensive positions across open territory. FERTILE CRESCENT LAND: (Profit from the subjugation of man) (cyrus was lost). RIVERLANDS: Chinese Ethics: What can I get away with now, but over time make impossible to change later? The ethics of long term ruling bureaucratic class. Sun Tzu strategy, and Confucian hyper familism. This is an exceptionally cost-effective strategy if one possesses a territorial resource (heartland), and can fortify that heartland. Riverlands strategy defends against Steppland and Desertland strategies. (Profiting from the domestication of man) DESERTLANDS: Muslim Ethics: (I am still working on this one because I don’t get that it’s causal, but opportunistic.) What can I justify now in order to make this minor advance now? And thereby accumulate wins by wearing down opponents over long periods. The ethics of opportunism. As far as I can tell islam is just an excuse for justifying opportunism. We can consider this the combination of religion and justifying opportunism – a long term very successful strategy becuase it’s very low cost. HOSTILELANDS: African Ethics (pre-christian). Africa is akin to the Desertlands because of the sheer number of competitors, the hostility of the disease gradient, the plethora of wildlife, combined with the primitiveness of the available technologies. This is the only possible strategy until one or more core states can evolve, and create sufficient stability in some regions. (this is occurring now). CIVILIZATIONS NOT STATES It is a mistake (always), to consider conflicts within states over local power (capital allocation), as of the same consequence as conflicts between civilizations over borders. Because the former is a kinship conflict over priorities, while the latter is a genetic conflict over group evolutionary strategies.