Source: Facebook

  • THE CUSTOMERS OF EACH CLASS A Warrior or Soldier seeks no customer: he needs non

    THE CUSTOMERS OF EACH CLASS

    A Warrior or Soldier seeks no customer: he needs none.

    A Judge or Sheriff seeks to eliminate the need for customers: cooperation.

    A Merchant or Craftsman, seeks to create them for moral reasons: reciprocity.

    A Banker of Financier seeks to create them for questionable reasons: rent seeking.

    A Priest, Public Intellectual, or Politician seeks to create them for immoral reasons: parasitism.

    Truth follows this hierarchy.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-21 17:05:00 UTC

  • “Have you ever seen a demonstrable example of equality in your entire life? Can

    —“Have you ever seen a demonstrable example of equality in your entire life? Can it be glimpsed in any dog show or classroom? In any ping pong game or chess match? Of course not. It is a philosophical abstraction, something nowhere to be found in nature.”—- ?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-21 17:00:00 UTC

  • RAGNAR REDBEARD AND NIETZCHE: INTRODUCTIONS TO ARISTOCRATIC ETHICS OF PROPERTARI

    RAGNAR REDBEARD AND NIETZCHE: INTRODUCTIONS TO ARISTOCRATIC ETHICS OF PROPERTARIANISM

    —“Have you ever read Might is Right? I’m almost finished it. I’d like to know your thoughts on the topic. Can you explain how it relates to Propertarianism?”— Kelly Wilson

    Ragnar Redbeard (Arthur Desmond)

    – Might is Right

    Nietzche:

    – The Birth of Tragedy

    – The Geneology of Morals

    – Beyond Good and Evil

    – The Will to Power

    1) The book Might is Right was written in 1890 as a derivation of Nietzsche – written in English by a Briton, with the ‘clarity’ of anglo sentiments, rather than the ‘romanticized’ prose of German sentiments. In that sense it should be taken as a more aggressive anglo restatement of Nietzsche’s works published at that time.

    2) Nietzsche’s works and Redbeard’s (Arthur Desmond), were followed by the social darwinist and eugenics movements, especially (British) Herbert Spencer’s thought. They were extremely popular pre-war. (And should have remained so. That failure will haunt us for centuries.)

    3) Neither Nietzsche nor Redbeard solved the problem of replacing ‘slave’ (jewish and christian) morality with aristocratic morality for the simple reason that they did not understand aristocratic morality’s origins in germanic common law. We do see that Hayek, by the late 1970’s has begun to understand but he was german again, and too ‘tepid’, where the more aggressive British Keynes and American Rawls, and the very, very, aggressive ashkenazi marxists and socialists were more successful.

    4) I have, I think, in propertarianism, completed the scientific explanation of our ancient heroic morality – although I am frequently criticized for writing it so legally and dryly. Most men want something more romantic (german), or passionate (anglo), or spiritual (Italian). When in reality, it is the Russians who have begun to practice it – absence the commitment to truth and sovereignty and reciprocity. They have at least taken on the Aryan Ambition.

    5) So I would say that Ragnar Redbeard is a great … let us say, Young Adult Literary introduction to aristocracy and Propertarianism, yes. Just as Nietzsche is a freshman college introduction to aristocratic ethics and Propertarianism. Where Propertarianism is a bit like the graduate school version of both. Meaning that those are both works of literary inspiration, where Propertarianism is literally ‘The Natural Law Of Reciprocity of Sovereign Peoples: The Law of Aristocratic Egalitarians.”

    Hope that helps

    Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-21 16:24:00 UTC

  • (humor) I mean, domesticated animals are fine – assuming that you can take over

    (humor) I mean, domesticated animals are fine – assuming that you can take over their dominance hierarchy and train them, keep them in a pen, control their reproduction, put them to useful work, and/or eat them. Otherwise their wild animals. you’re just frequently confused that some wild animals can use some form of language. The fact that parrots can do the same doesn’t mean we give them legal standing, citizenship, and voting rights.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-21 16:02:00 UTC

  • (humor) I mean, if you can’t integrate with Aristotelianism, truth telling regar

    (humor)

    I mean, if you can’t integrate with Aristotelianism, truth telling regardless of the consequences, reciprocity in all things, duty of the commons, self sufficiency, and the absolute nuclear family, then you’re just a semi domesticated animal that doesn’t have to turn around in a circle three times before lying down. … And yes, I know that limits the definition of ‘human’ to a single ethnicity’s married couples with children. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-21 15:58:00 UTC

  • The only tax I care you pay is FULL INTEGRATION

    The only tax I care you pay is FULL INTEGRATION.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-21 15:47:00 UTC

  • (humor) Equality? Are you kidding? They’re pets that lack house-training. They s

    (humor)

    Equality? Are you kidding? They’re pets that lack house-training. They should have owners, licenses, rabies and other disease shots, and be neutered like all other domesticated animals, and be subject to strict import regulations. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-21 15:45:00 UTC

  • FINISHING UP THE SINGLE MOTHERHOOD TOPIC I wanted to use the single motherhood s

    FINISHING UP THE SINGLE MOTHERHOOD TOPIC

    I wanted to use the single motherhood subject to test how many people rely on how little data, vs how few people went out and did more than cursory data collection.

    As a sensitive (controversial) topic with high causal density it’s an example of a ‘hard problem’.

    1 – The data that fathers make better single parents is because single fathers are more likely to cohabitate with a woman and provide a full family.

    2 – The casual problem driving externalities from single mother households is poverty, and the disproportionate number of them in the non-white underclasses which means poverty is continuous for genetic reasons.

    3 – The social problem is CULTURE, in that mothers from GOOD backgrounds (Cultures, Traditions, Classes) seem to produce (largely) healthy offspring free of externalities

    Now, it took quite a bit of discussion for the arguments to come out.

    As I understand it, this is the set of incentives;

    0 – In general, people are unprepared for marriage, in large part because they begin working too late, are poorly socialized, are terribly selfish because of it, have been too frustrated and made physically unfit by the education process, and are too desirous of spending money – essentially developmentally delayed and frustrated for it. Worse, they have no institutional incentives to produce a family that will somehow care for them in later life, too much taxation and interest to afford children and must pay ridiculous prices for housing for the simple reason that they cannot segregate their neighborhoods by other than housing price. In other words, you cannot live cheaply with good people, if we cannot separate by character, culture, and tribe.

    1 – Divorce provides too many incentives for the woman, and too many harms to the man. This creates a dysfunctional marriage.

    2 – In general, the work of a woman’s adapting to a male in the household (nest), and providing him with sufficient attention while children are young, that he will remain engaged, is greater than most women will spare, unless the male provides so much income that she doesn’t need to work.

    3 – Over-control, Overprotection and Guilt – sense of being out of control. The Physical, Mental and Emotional exhaustion that exacerbates the feeling of being out of control.

    4 – Tendency to replace children, especially male children, with the friendship one gets from a mate. This puts extraordinary burden on the child that manifests later in life. There is a reason for Alexander, Napoleon, and Hitler: mothers under duress.

    As such, again, the problem is cultural. We extend adolescence (infantilize) instead of prepare for adulthood. Families wouldn’t break if there were (a) lower or zero home interest (b) far greater tax reduction per child, (c) we brought capital to people, rather than people to capital, so that intergenerational families could provide support, thereby reducing the cost of childrearing (family production) (d) we didn’t provide incentives to divorce.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-21 15:39:00 UTC

  • Every penny that goes to an immigrant doesn’t go to a the millions of elderly. E

    Every penny that goes to an immigrant doesn’t go to a the millions of elderly. Every job that goes to an immigrant and not to a child, only increases the sense of entitlement.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-21 15:21:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-21 15:12:00 UTC