Form: Quote Commentary

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/51133950_10156949625707264_127328203

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/51133950_10156949625707264_127328203

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/51133950_10156949625707264_1273282031727411200_n_10156949625697264.jpg Nick DahlheimDamn, Bill Joslin is the King of radical disambiguationJan 29, 2019, 11:14 PMOsman KuğudağI read a statement that the Celts could not defeat the Romans until they adopted some of the Roman ways. If that is true, is it really that bad to learn from your enemy if it makes you superior?Jan 30, 2019, 3:42 AMAdam DavidThat quote is a really good condensed explanation for the tactics used by the right. At least since i’ve become politically aware. It takes a real understanding to condense information like that.Jan 30, 2019, 3:43 AMChristopher HallPlease don’t tell me propertarianism is horse shoe theory posting about tactics. Confounding tactics with intent is childish. Projecting force and inflicting loss on the enemy is how victory is achieved, there are just scales of how force is used.Jan 30, 2019, 9:06 AMCurt DoolittleWTF does that mean? Horseshoe theory suggests far right and far left are similar (authoritarian). I don’t make that argument at all. I make the argument rule of law and necessary truth, vs rule by discretion and necessary lies. And that right intolerance is eugenic, and left intolerance dysgenic. The fact that the far right has adopted the tactics of the marxist and postmodernists is simply a function of the evidence. The only answer is the organized application of violence to impose, under rule of law, our traditional order.Jan 30, 2019, 9:12 AMChristopher HallAnd I agree with how that force should be used to impose those virtues and rules. We are learning what tools we can put in our bag right now and how we can use them asymmetrically. The left has been doing this far longer so yes, the right is learning from their enemies. If you don’t know how, copy them

    Imposing rule of law and traditional order is, I would say, not in the cards right now and the force needed to impose order is an escalation we don’t have the total means of yet. At this stage agitation and other means are being used to build and counter the narrative. Many of these tactics have originated from the left in the modern sense, but a new type of hammer is still just a hammer.

    As far as the mix up is concerned, I read the first sentence as a premise for the rest which is how it flows, however previous conversations with normie types take immense issue with acting “principled” and not using any tactics to insure their own victory. The tactics we know how to use are the ones that have “immediate time horizons” and our tool bag doesn’t have many others that are long time horizons. Those that we use include networking, training and content creation for the most part.

    No offense meant Mr. Dootlittle, just don’t want to see the same moral pitfalls.Jan 30, 2019, 9:29 AMCurt Doolittleso you agree with bill then….Jan 30, 2019, 9:37 AMChristopher HallFor the most part, except I don’t agree with using another one’s means to achieve their ends as compromising our goals. Necessity dictates immediate response sometimes and if you can’t reply with a better means you use what’s available. When faced with doxing, dox the guy doing it. Censorship from big tech, boycott. Etc.

    Another big step for our side would be making our own tools for our own tool bag to achieve our ends.Jan 30, 2019, 9:43 AMBenjamin IrelandThis is basically what I was alluding to yesterday about conservatives talking out of both sides of their mouths regarding the Civil War. The truth is already on our side. We don’t need to be intellectually dishonest in order to win debates. Acquire the truth, and help spread it.Jan 30, 2019, 11:56 AMDylan KnowlesThe argument that the right hasnt been doing it right and needs to learn from the Enemy because they evolve rapidly is outright wrong. The right has known for hundreds of years how to remove enemies. The issue isnt the application of force or the tactics involved. Its the balls to act in the correct way. We suffer from either inaction or over action. People who want to sit around all day and hash and rehash and do nothing or people who lash out in all directions and only accomplish getting their name on a federal watchlist and local police radars. Utilizing left wing tactics doesnt give us any ground, it only dilutes any attempts at meaningful change.Jan 30, 2019, 6:28 PMCurt Doolittle^Failure to act as a group.Jan 30, 2019, 6:34 PMDylan KnowlesCurt Doolittle Id even go so far as to say most of these new “Right Groups” and the alt right are making learned mistakes. But god forbid you point out inaccuracies because then its “Punching Right”.Jan 30, 2019, 6:35 PMStephen ThomasThe only real method to defeat the left is to utterly (violently) destroy them. Our tolerance is their greatest ally.

    Skull PileJan 30, 2019, 6:52 PMNick Dahlheim100 millionJan 30, 2019, 6:54 PMPat RyanThe left doesn’t own monopoly on certain kinds of tactics. They just rely on them heavily.

    If an enemy charged at me with an axe, and they kept using that axe over and over again, I could say, “Those damn axes are overpowered, nerf plz”, or I could look at the axe as a weakness, study it, use it, and figure out the weakpoint.

    Spearman and swordsmen and salesmen bicker about means. It’s best to be victorymen.Jan 30, 2019, 8:07 PMDylan KnowlesTheres a difference, lets say for purpose of thought the left wing are using axes. But you own a gun. Instead of using the gun you own you think to yourself “Man, maybe I should get a axe if all these people are using them.” When you already have the means to solve the problem you dont adapt to the enemies tactics, you remove the enemy. Point blank. If I get stranded on an island of a lost tribe and I have my gun, and my 30 round magazine. And they are using bows and arrows or throwing spears at me. Im not gonna sling my weapon and pick up a spear and go toe to toe with a dozen members of the lost tribe. Im gonna flick off my safety and remove the problem. And in all reality, thats about the equivalent of our situation. The only issue we have is too many people want to pick up the proverbial spear and fight the tribe head on when we already have solutions that far outweigh the enemies means to overpower us.Jan 30, 2019, 8:12 PMChris CantrellI agree, but I am also learning that the truth is not enough. This is a reply I got for spreading truth last week…

    “No, what you are is one of these people who fishes for people to give you all kinds of “arguments” and “proof” just to wear us out. There is even a specific term for it.

    It is plain as day that Trump and his supporters are racist, that these “kids” are racist, and YOU are in denial.

    Good day, sir.”Jan 31, 2019, 6:56 AMBenjamin IrelandChris Cantrell yeah, those kind of people depress the hell out of me.Jan 31, 2019, 10:46 AMCurt DoolittleWrong Logic Chris.

    Truth is an excuse for moral men to prosecute (or punish or eliminate) those who engage in genocide, fraud and deceit.

    It is not a means of convincing those who are immoral.

    There is only one means of persuasion: the organize application of violence to deny other than truth the opportunity to survive.Jan 31, 2019, 10:50 AMDan WarrenReason for the reasonable, violence for the rest.Feb 1, 2019, 11:13 AM


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-29 23:10:00 UTC

  • “I feel like some of the far right want to turn us into being like all the other

    —“I feel like some of the far right want to turn us into being like all the other nations – yes we’ll resist them and survive, but we’ll lose much of what made us great. Propertarianism is the answer.”—Solomon Volodymyr


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-29 16:31:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1090286211032379392

  • “I feel like some of the far right want to turn us into being like all the other

    —“I feel like some of the far right want to turn us into being like all the other nations – yes we’ll resist them and survive, but we’ll lose much of what made us great. Propertarianism is the answer.”—Solomon Volodymyr


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-29 11:30:00 UTC

  • “If one’s ancestors were not able to build a homeland worth residing in, why sho

    —“If one’s ancestors were not able to build a homeland worth residing in, why should we believe that their descendants will improve ours?”—Aaron Kahland


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-29 09:16:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1090176833453207553

  • “If one’s ancestors were not able to build a homeland worth residing in, why sho

    —“If one’s ancestors were not able to build a homeland worth residing in, why should we believe that their descendants will improve ours?”—Aaron Kahland


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-29 04:16:00 UTC

  • By Eli Harman I was just reminded of an old argument of Bryan Caplan’s. One argu

    By Eli Harman

    I was just reminded of an old argument of Bryan Caplan’s.

    One argument he makes for open borders involves a hypothetical. Say one of us went to Haiti, on an aid mission or something. When they were… https://www.facebook.com/741197263/posts/10156946947927264/


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-28 20:20:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1089981629139963906

  • By Eli Harman I was just reminded of an old argument of Bryan Caplan’s. One argu

    By Eli Harman

    I was just reminded of an old argument of Bryan Caplan’s.

    One argument he makes for open borders involves a hypothetical. Say one of us went to Haiti, on an aid mission or something. When they were done and ready to come back, we tell them “no, you can’t come back. You have to stay in Haiti.” That would be a dick thing to do to one of our own, argues Bryan Kaplan, and therefore it’s a dick thing to do to Haitians too.

    The difference, of course. Is that in the one case, we are inflicting the shittiness of Haiti on one of our own, by denying their request to return. While in the other case, we are PREVENTING Haitians (who are not our ingroup) from inflicting the shittiness of Haiti on ALL of our own, by denying their request to enter. So they are not in any way, shape, or form, equivalent cases.

    This is an example of casuistry (sometimes known as “pilpul”) improperly reasoning from a specific case to a general rule, in this case a bad rule that accomplishes parasitic and destructive ends desired by Bryan Caplan for malicious reasons (Bryan Caplan is by his own admission, scared of majorities and reflexively desires to undermine and attack them. He is a majorityphobe. But Bryan Caplan’s insecurities and ethnic fragility inpose no obligations on us to cater to them.) Casuistry (“Pilpul”) is the cornerstone of their arts of deception and their parasitic group evolutionary strategies.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-28 15:20:00 UTC

  • FIXING INSTITUTIONALIZED LONELINESS by Michael Churchill You can look at lonelin

    FIXING INSTITUTIONALIZED LONELINESS

    by Michael Churchill

    You can look at loneliness in America and say it was bound to get to this point: Capitalism + mobile workforce + jobs in cities (so smart people all move away from home) + natural resistance to in-grouping by Northwestern Europeans + persecution of the productive minority (Northwestern Europeans) + the four economic changes that sparked feminism (birth control, mobility, ability of women to support themselves, technological change that liberated women from the household drudgery).

    It almost HAD to come to this point in America.

    Now we get to fix it.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-28 12:09:00 UTC

  • INTERESTING FEEDBACK FROM SOMEONE’S APPLICATION (a) professionals are taking not

    INTERESTING FEEDBACK FROM SOMEONE’S APPLICATION

    (a) professionals are taking note, and understand.

    (b) john mark is really killing it with his messaging.

    —“5- Prior to John Marks videos, my first impression of Propertarianism was merely the extension of current law concerning property into other areas of tort law – where my head is now… property is not being “extended” it is being re-defined to anything we build or feel the need to defend.

    It is an ethical system which has as a first priority honesty, as high truth environments are the most fertile for trade due to their decrease of friction.

    Friction is avoided if trades meet the fair trade criteria, this is derived from Natural Law and is called Reciprocity. Assumption is if Reciprocity is met, conflict will be avoided. If any or all aspects of reciprocity are violated violence could ins-sue, and likely would with repeat offenses.

    The system would allow state violence, to enforce the rules of trade, through the courts devised for the particular legal systems for that domain (seems to be that we would need specialists here – less politicians but a lot more lawyers/judges?).

    Science is our best model for truth telling so we extend that discipline into all domains, and create definitions and a judiciary that can properly administer justice according to the rules of trade in that domain. This leads to a new paradigm of how any defined group can trade in any operational domain.

    One key notion of the theory I see you have in place is correspondence: the definitions, rules, goals have to be able to be demonstrable, operationalized. This seems is key. I am still working it… just been a few days…”—


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-28 10:59:00 UTC

  • “Don’t get me wrong; God loves you, but he can do without you for the rest of et

    —“Don’t get me wrong; God loves you, but he can do without you for the rest of eternity.”—Adam Voight


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-27 21:01:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1089629408317632512