by John MarkSeptember 25 at 1:58 PMSome Say “the Fact that The Right Hasn’t Already Started a Physical Fight Means They Are Too Apathetic to Ever Fight”(false – Changing Circumstances Change the Risk/reward Equation) [T]he grassroots Right (individuals, families) has had somewhere to run. To the suburbs, to a red state. And hope of “maybe we can win the next election”. It makes no sense to be a martyr that accomplishes nothing when those options are available as they have been. But when there is nowhere else to run and no hope of winning elections, the risk/reward calculation changes dramatically. Faced with eternal Leftist rule in America and nowhere to run, and knowing the inevitable outcome if they don’t fight, a critical mass of the grassroots Right will fight/secede/separate. And it doesn’t take huge numbers or require normies or normiecons to act. A small percentage of the already-enraged right-wingers can bring America to its knees easily.
Form: Quote Commentary
-
Yes, Norms Are Common Property
YES, NORMS ARE COMMON PROPERTY by Martin Stepan
—“So if such a thing as via-positiva norms do exist, is it possible for there to be violations of reciprocity by not adhering to said via positive norms? Or would this just be considered to be a violation of someone’s notion of the “the good”, and therefore intangible property if they show a willingness to defend it?”—Michael Bernard
[A]s long as those norms remain someone’s demonstrated interest, you can violate reciprocity by subverting them. You can always go live somewhere else where they’ll have you, and norms will be more to your liking.
-
Yes, Norms Are Common Property
YES, NORMS ARE COMMON PROPERTY by Martin Stepan
—“So if such a thing as via-positiva norms do exist, is it possible for there to be violations of reciprocity by not adhering to said via positive norms? Or would this just be considered to be a violation of someone’s notion of the “the good”, and therefore intangible property if they show a willingness to defend it?”—Michael Bernard
[A]s long as those norms remain someone’s demonstrated interest, you can violate reciprocity by subverting them. You can always go live somewhere else where they’ll have you, and norms will be more to your liking.
-
(I hope so) 😉
—“I think Curt will be remembered in later days as Hobbes is remembered for his trenchant observations (and theoretical lucubrations) on the revolutionary scene of the the seventeenth century. Provided he writes his book.”— Chip Sills
-
(I hope so) 😉
—“I think Curt will be remembered in later days as Hobbes is remembered for his trenchant observations (and theoretical lucubrations) on the revolutionary scene of the the seventeenth century. Provided he writes his book.”— Chip Sills
-
P: We Operationalize the Series Not the Elements
P: WE OPERATIONALIZE THE SERIES (Statement) NOT THE ELEMENTS (Evidence)
—-“Your proclamation as being scientific is also interesting considering the most interesting of your formulations are extrapolations (grammar “word->word”, non-operational, but well condensed.”— Twitter
(That’s a great question. Very few people have the insight to ask it.)The Methodology:Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization. Serialization provides empirical evidence of the spectrum in a given language, even if some terms must be disambiguated. We operationalize the constant relations expressed in the SERIES, not the elements. So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous). Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement. The question is only the precision of the measures. P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have.
-
P: We Operationalize the Series Not the Elements
P: WE OPERATIONALIZE THE SERIES (Statement) NOT THE ELEMENTS (Evidence)
—-“Your proclamation as being scientific is also interesting considering the most interesting of your formulations are extrapolations (grammar “word->word”, non-operational, but well condensed.”— Twitter
(That’s a great question. Very few people have the insight to ask it.)The Methodology:Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization. Serialization provides empirical evidence of the spectrum in a given language, even if some terms must be disambiguated. We operationalize the constant relations expressed in the SERIES, not the elements. So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous). Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement. The question is only the precision of the measures. P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have.
-
The Great Failure of the 20th
—“Any ‘new right’ must recognize ancient western liberal tradition of ‘noble individualism’ & liberal education, etc. to avoid throwing it out with the bathwater of ‘egalitarian individualism’, which diverted the liberal idea to modern hedonic socialist ends.”— @demontage2000
[Y]es, but those are not terms that can be institutionally enforced. Use instead:
- Legal: Sovereignty and Reciprocity; Juridical Defense and Jury; Truth before face, Duty before self
- Political: Markets before authority.
- Aesthetic: Heroism, Excellence, Transcendence
[pullquote] This inflection and the failure to continue eugenics will be seen in history like the failure of the greeks to bring about the industrial revolution.[/pullquote]
That the foundation. There is still more. The right loves the feeling of moral righteousness as much as the left loves outrage. But that is why conservative thinkers failed. We must like the founders, but better than they, create institutions and processes that provide shared incentives, not that require shared belief. The left invented desirable denial, sophism and pseudoscience. The postwar right doubled down on moralizing, b/c they were as afraid of admitting western civ is eugenic as the left was of eugenics. It invalidated democracy as national virtue narrative, in addition to the church. This inflection and the failure to continue eugenics will be seen in history like the failure of the greeks to bring about the industrial revolution. It is the basis for all problems of humanity in the post agrarian era. Vast numbers of people and cultures are detrimental to man.
-
The Great Failure of the 20th
—“Any ‘new right’ must recognize ancient western liberal tradition of ‘noble individualism’ & liberal education, etc. to avoid throwing it out with the bathwater of ‘egalitarian individualism’, which diverted the liberal idea to modern hedonic socialist ends.”— @demontage2000
[Y]es, but those are not terms that can be institutionally enforced. Use instead:
- Legal: Sovereignty and Reciprocity; Juridical Defense and Jury; Truth before face, Duty before self
- Political: Markets before authority.
- Aesthetic: Heroism, Excellence, Transcendence
[pullquote] This inflection and the failure to continue eugenics will be seen in history like the failure of the greeks to bring about the industrial revolution.[/pullquote]
That the foundation. There is still more. The right loves the feeling of moral righteousness as much as the left loves outrage. But that is why conservative thinkers failed. We must like the founders, but better than they, create institutions and processes that provide shared incentives, not that require shared belief. The left invented desirable denial, sophism and pseudoscience. The postwar right doubled down on moralizing, b/c they were as afraid of admitting western civ is eugenic as the left was of eugenics. It invalidated democracy as national virtue narrative, in addition to the church. This inflection and the failure to continue eugenics will be seen in history like the failure of the greeks to bring about the industrial revolution. It is the basis for all problems of humanity in the post agrarian era. Vast numbers of people and cultures are detrimental to man.
-
Yarvin Version Two, Part One
—“Yarvin is intellectually above something so pedestrian as detailing an actionable solution. His IQ is too high for that. He knows that changing the way people think will change their actions more reliably than simply shouting “do this!” and being right. ….Yarvin herds his readers into intellectual movements. He created NRx out of whole cloth. Now he is going to embed NRx into the mainstream. His cultural associations foreshadow the success of his new project, and perhaps signify a specific anointment to the cause. Sure, this isn’t the revolution. This is just a learning opportunity.”— Zachary Miller
I know you’re a fan. I have equally devoted fans. But because of my method I will always and everywhere have fewer fans, because the rigor is simply too difficult and costly an investment. Yarvin took a different approach – literary rather than scientific. It’s a tried and true method. He doesn’t have an IQ any higher than mine that’s for sure. One has to choose one’s rhetorical model, and he uses narrative engagement, historical analogy, empathy and suggestion, rather than declarative testable statements independent of empathy and sympathy. Let’s see what he does. I’m betting it’s the same message and technique recommending the same solution. If he sues for separation and competition I’ll be very pleasantly surprised. If he only succeeds in creating a frame for the three dimensions of the political triangle and popularizing it that will be enough.