Oct 5, 2019, 7:23 PM As far as I know the argument over the militia was only whether we be trained or not, and the debate as one of cost not existence. The result of which was that being armed with practice one or twice a year was enough – if affordable. It was never a question of our bearing arms.
Form: Quote Commentary
-
Oct 5, 2019, 7:23 PM As far as I know the argument over the militia was only whe
Oct 5, 2019, 7:23 PM As far as I know the argument over the militia was only whether we be trained or not, and the debate as one of cost not existence. The result of which was that being armed with practice one or twice a year was enough – if affordable. It was never a question of our bearing arms.
-
Anti-Statism. Is that Correct? I Don”t Think So.
Oct 6, 2019, 7:23 AM Hmmm … This is an angle I haven’t worked on enough, which is disambiguating the state (assets and bureaucracy), government (leadership), authority (rule of law and market polity vs authority and directed polity). Because it’s not whether we have a state or government or authority but whether we have rule of law or arbitrary rule (Rule by discretion). Plato’s vision and Sparta’s vision were different only in details. Fundamentally, in both, the majority ‘unwashed’ needed rule. The church the same. The feudal fiefs the same (true). In the monarchies the people only needed order because the middle class had begun to evolve and commerce creates order by incentives thereby eliminating the need for intervention by rulers. The enlightenment sought a majority middle class where all of us were governed by incentives in the market. The industrial revolution tried to reverse it, under Marx putting labor in position of authority rather than the market, and the vast increase in the underclasses continued that expansion. So when we say we are anti-state, or anti-governmnet this isn’t really true. it’s that we need a state and need a government, sufficient to preserve the largest middle class (market participants) possible, with the optimum common possible. And the only way to do that is rule of law and eugenics. And eugenics requires either embodiment in law, or the unfettered consequences of the market. So embodiment in the law is preferable solution because it is a moral solution that trades non-reproduction, for subsidy.
-
Oct 6, 2019, 11:33 AM —“If the Spanish Civil War was the “dress rehearsal for
Oct 6, 2019, 11:33 AM
—“If the Spanish Civil War was the “dress rehearsal for WWII,” the Syrian Civil War is the dress rehearsal for the Second American Civil War. Multiple factions, some with overlapping interests cooperating with one another, and the government is just one of the many factions.”—Alex Hill
-
Oct 6, 2019, 11:33 AM —“If the Spanish Civil War was the “dress rehearsal for
Oct 6, 2019, 11:33 AM
—“If the Spanish Civil War was the “dress rehearsal for WWII,” the Syrian Civil War is the dress rehearsal for the Second American Civil War. Multiple factions, some with overlapping interests cooperating with one another, and the government is just one of the many factions.”—Alex Hill
-
Measure of Men’s Cooperation
Oct 10, 2019, 7:41 AM by José Francisco Mayora Property is the ultimate measure of men’s capacities to cooperate in both ways: violence (as a systemic force) against parasites -free riders- enemies, and collaboration between pairs in reciprocity to reach common goals (survival, ergo sovereignty). Free ACCESS to property (through competition, without artificial, unnatural, non optimal barriers to entry) is the best testosterone booster, and the best eugenic polity by itself. “Free property”, on the other hand (Socialism, verbigratia), is a fallacy for a real man: Because all assets are earned/produced/conquered property. Instead, delusional/feminine/parasitic tendency to think resources are just given, is only feasible for women subjected to a man, in a family procreating his children (a unique, beautiful privilege indeed…) In any way transplanting this model to a public policy is an optimal way to enhance human efficiency and development. Subsidizing the weak, the coward, the lazy, the degenerate. That’s public policy nowadays, the great moral hazard of full franchise democracy. Without patriarchy all the incentives to WIN (access to property, to real status, to enjoy the goals of endeavor) are GONE. Men lose in a second a million years of acquiring evolutive assets. Socialism (or any other non natural law based way of government) only creates non cooperative PARASITISM, and by doing so, natural dysgenics and decadence.
-
Measure of Men’s Cooperation
Oct 10, 2019, 7:41 AM by José Francisco Mayora Property is the ultimate measure of men’s capacities to cooperate in both ways: violence (as a systemic force) against parasites -free riders- enemies, and collaboration between pairs in reciprocity to reach common goals (survival, ergo sovereignty). Free ACCESS to property (through competition, without artificial, unnatural, non optimal barriers to entry) is the best testosterone booster, and the best eugenic polity by itself. “Free property”, on the other hand (Socialism, verbigratia), is a fallacy for a real man: Because all assets are earned/produced/conquered property. Instead, delusional/feminine/parasitic tendency to think resources are just given, is only feasible for women subjected to a man, in a family procreating his children (a unique, beautiful privilege indeed…) In any way transplanting this model to a public policy is an optimal way to enhance human efficiency and development. Subsidizing the weak, the coward, the lazy, the degenerate. That’s public policy nowadays, the great moral hazard of full franchise democracy. Without patriarchy all the incentives to WIN (access to property, to real status, to enjoy the goals of endeavor) are GONE. Men lose in a second a million years of acquiring evolutive assets. Socialism (or any other non natural law based way of government) only creates non cooperative PARASITISM, and by doing so, natural dysgenics and decadence.
-
“we Continually Advise Against Taking Individual Action for A Reason”
Oct 11, 2019, 4:18 PM by Stephen Thomas Why do people assume any of us are going on a k— spree? We do the opposite! So yeah, I get it… a civil war is “scary”.. You know what else is “scary”? Another Dark Age! Another 500 or more years of ignorance and regression. With mankind having to scratch and claw to merely survive! Losing our heritage AGAIN to the same monsters that destroyed it before! That’s what’s “scary”. We continuously advise against individuals taking action FOR A REASON. I’m so tired of these cowards. You are far more patient with them than I.
(CD: I’m patient because I want to expose them and teach others how to expose them.)
-
“we Continually Advise Against Taking Individual Action for A Reason”
Oct 11, 2019, 4:18 PM by Stephen Thomas Why do people assume any of us are going on a k— spree? We do the opposite! So yeah, I get it… a civil war is “scary”.. You know what else is “scary”? Another Dark Age! Another 500 or more years of ignorance and regression. With mankind having to scratch and claw to merely survive! Losing our heritage AGAIN to the same monsters that destroyed it before! That’s what’s “scary”. We continuously advise against individuals taking action FOR A REASON. I’m so tired of these cowards. You are far more patient with them than I.
(CD: I’m patient because I want to expose them and teach others how to expose them.)
-
The Law Creates Trust, and We Create Observance of It
Oct 11, 2019, 4:20 PM by Luke Weinhagen “Every man a Sheriff” In a high trust group this is not a request, nor a demand, it is a description. That is the nuance I’d like to add – that it is our individual willingness to apply the law, and to self-enforce, that is the difference not just the idea (other groups see those very same laws, interpret the same ideas, as weak points to exploit). The idea of law, and its individual observance and practice, allows trust to be the prime mover. (shifting from passive to active)