Source: Facebook

  • THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH WE CAN REVOLT (worth repeating)

    THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH WE CAN REVOLT

    (worth repeating)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 08:50:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS OUR ANSWER TO CHRISTIANITY? —“How hard do we have to push on Christian

    WHAT IS OUR ANSWER TO CHRISTIANITY?

    —“How hard do we have to push on Christianity, and what is the best approach?”—

    I think christianity has committed suicide. There is no need to battle it. We need a vehicle for ‘traditionalists’ that achieves the same experience as christianity does. Traditionalists do not grasp that the feeling that they experience: submission to the pack response, is achievable in every religion, and has nothing at all to do with the content of it. What they do grasp is that there is something special about germanicized christianity. What they don’t get is that christianity is an excuse for what are pre-christian sentiments: Aryanism. And that those sentiments that are Christian are actually ‘bad’.

    So our objectives are:

    1) Provide a superior alternative (I think I have that figured out)

    2) Usurp Jesus’s teachings in rational language but that is all.

    3) Stay on message of truth (in other words, force them to double down or join us)

    4) Buy up churches as investments in infrastructure.

    5) Evolve into a replacement for the church/academy/school/banking complexes.

    6) Build out militias from these churches (armories).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 08:29:00 UTC

  • “And you’ll be doing that from the Ukraine on your Facebook account, correct? Te

    —“And you’ll be doing that from the Ukraine on your Facebook account, correct? Tell us again how propertarianism is *the* answer to all our problems.”—

    Straw man. I didn’t say it was. I said that either we propose incremental, institutional solutions and a plan of transition, and demand it by violence, or we are just asking the left to double down and marshall against us by further controlling the discourse. The only reason the past few years have been possible is because they didn’t regulate right-speech. But as you see, (like bitcoin can be regulated) it is entirely possible to regulate right speech under false pretenses.

    I consistently make the same criticism: the only solution is a solution demanded by violence that overthrows the system that makes our oppression possible. There is no answer in the alt-right. It’s a good tactic while you have ‘permission’ to ridicule on the same terms as the left. But in the end, their profession is ridicule and gossip and rallying and shaming. And our profession is violence. Or we have no profession at all.

    We need the equivalent of a ‘cuck’ term for people who engage in these various rhetorical fallacies.

    I mean, only a pussy makes the right’s equivalent of rallying and shaming arguments, right? It’s pussy-argument.

    Either you can man up and fight, or you can man up and argue, or you’re just a fucking pussy. Right?

    Simple.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 07:48:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism is the answer to Marxism – and its complete refutation

    Propertarianism is the answer to Marxism – and its complete refutation.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 06:21:00 UTC

  • IS THE PROBLEM REALLY DEMOCRACY? HERE IS YOUR ANSWER: The problem is not DEMOCRA

    IS THE PROBLEM REALLY DEMOCRACY? HERE IS YOUR ANSWER:

    The problem is not DEMOCRACY (the choice of leadership) but the combination of:

    1) DISCRETIONARY RULE, where leaders can legislate (issue commands) anything that the public will allow them to, rather than RULE OF LAW, under NATURAL LAW, where (like our trial-run original constitution) they can only construct otherwise legal contracts between members of the polity on their behalf. Much legislation is not (objectively) LEGAL in the sense that it violates NATURAL LAW: the preservation of the incentive to cooperate by the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities.

    And 2) UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT rather than demonstrated ability earning enfranchisement. But unlike Plato and Socrates, recommend, it’s not EDUCATION that demonstrates wisdom, but ACHIEVEMENT in life. Why? Because the reason we no longer possess RULE OF LAW, and are the victims of DISCRETIONARY RULE is the fault of the academy’s teaching of social pseudoscience for 140 years. So conversely, how do we know we are in fact ‘educating’ rather than ‘deceiving’? I am not the first philosophy to suggest that the 20th century will be remembered as an era of pseudoscience and the refutation of democracy – because of the failure of the academy. So the reason our ancestors required PROPERTY(demonstrated ability) and military service (warranty or ‘skin in the game’) was that together they DEMONSTRATED knowledge and investment, they didn’t ‘imagine’ that they were knowledgeable, because they had an education, or ‘imagine’ people were moral – they wanted empirical EVIDENCE OF IT. For a criticism of the university systems see either Sowell’s work on education and intellectuals, or See Kaplan’s work on the fallacy of the rational voter, and his work on Universities: there is very little evidence that universities do anything more than filter by workload. They teach almost nothing that produces outcomes other than fitness for workloads.

    3) MONOPOLY MAJORITARIANISM. All MONOPOLIES are ‘bad’ because they prohibit innovation, and they allow us to violate the Natural Law of Cooperation. Yet majoritarian democracy produces a monopoly. There is no reason why Seattle must choose between a Monorail and a Train, when they can choose both and let the best solution win. The excuse is efficiency. But this is a deception. Instead, the competition will force voters to pay for that which is most likely to succeed not what they themselves want at the expense of others – and that is more efficient. The purpose of majoritarian democracy is to legitimize authority – to rubber stamp the oligarchy’s choices. Majoritarian democracy is possible for the selection of priorities among people with common interests (farmers), where resources are scarce. But markets (contracts) are the solution to heterogeneous polities with disparate or competing interests (like ours today), where expenditures of resources are plentiful (surpluses are possible) must be constrained in order to prevent expansion of debt. So instead of single house majoritarian democracy, our ancestors created houses for each class, so that classes could construct exchanges, rather than rule over one another. They created a MARKET for the construction of COMMONS between the classes, just as they had created a market for the consumption of goods and services: cities. Just as they had created a market for leadership by voting. Just as they had created a market for dispute resolution that we call the ‘independent judiciary’ under ‘rule of law’. So you see, democracy can function as a market if and only if we restore market institutions, instead of market-violating institutions: multiple houses of government (families, businesses, territories, monarchy-as-vote-of-last-resort-by-veto, and then we can have democracy. Otherwise democracy is just a means by which to fraudulently legitimize the formation of tyranny by monopoly.

    Why this is so difficult? Because the academy teaches pseudoscience, not social science.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 06:12:00 UTC

  • “We need a coalition of competence at the provincial level, and they need to get

    —“We need a coalition of competence at the provincial level, and they need to get a spatula and clean the incompetence out of ottowa.’–O’neil

    Canada: you are f–ked. Told ‘ya. Game over.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-29 17:40:00 UTC

  • UKRAINE CAN BECOME A REGIONAL SUPERPOWER

    https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/saakashvili-says-ukraine-can-become-european-superpower.html?utm_source=traqli&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=traqli_dailyYES, UKRAINE CAN BECOME A REGIONAL SUPERPOWER.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-29 15:37:00 UTC

  • I live my life by what is in front of me. I argue politics by the data since it

    I live my life by what is in front of me. I argue politics by the data since it CAN’T be in front of me. To do otherwise would be to apply specific cases to general rules, or general rules to specific cases, and both of those are illogical.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-29 13:08:00 UTC

  • Sure we’re all naked apes flinging verbal feces as elaborate signaling rituals.B

    Sure we’re all naked apes flinging verbal feces as elaborate signaling rituals.But I still try to fling better verbal feces than anyone else


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-29 12:29:00 UTC

  • THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF OUR ENSLAVEMENT –“In 61 AD, Suetonius Paulinus led his ar

    THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF OUR ENSLAVEMENT

    –“In 61 AD, Suetonius Paulinus led his army across the Menai Strait and massacred the druids and burnt their sacred groves.”–

    They exterminated one of the worlds oldest religions: ancestor worship.

    Why? Because the druids controlled the gold trade in Britain and Ireland.

    —“On Friday, October 13th, 1307, King Philip IV of France, in league with Pope Clement V ordered all Templars to be rounded up and thrown in prison.”—

    They exterminated our second independent financial order.

    Why? Because Philip was in debt to the Templars, and the pope was his relative. Unfortunately, neither Philip nor Clement understood banking. There were no reserves in the bank of the Templars, and no money gained by their destruction – only their lands.

    In 1694, by granting the construction of a private ‘bank of england’ the crown effectively privatized the income from the expansion of the economy, creating rule-by-credit without the juridical or market defenses of the people. In 1913, the American government did the same.

    Why? A fraud made possible by a misunderstanding of the properties and function of fiat money: fiat money consists of fractional shares in the economy. It is not money. We use it as a money substitute in all walks of life. But fiat money is a form of stock that we use as money, not a form of commodity money (real money) whatsoever. It costs nothing to produce it, yet it is easily used to extract money from the population without returning to the population the profits generated from he sale of these new shares of stock (interest).

    In the archaic past hard money (real money, commodity money, and bank notes) required transportation. Digital money and credit money (account registrations of promises of future payments) requires no transportation.

    HOW DO WE ‘FIX’ THIS?

    Distribute liquidity directly to the people by debit cards.

    Dilute and undilute the money supply for fiscal policy (infrastructure investments).

    Preserve the fed as insurer of last resort, and regulator of overnight interest rates.

    Manage interest rates against ‘real’ productivity increases (not immigration increases) through monetary policy.

    Manage employment through fiscal policy.

    Sieze all ill appropriated proceeds back to 1694 in the UK, and 1913 in the USA. (Including Soros’s violation of the requirement for productivity.)

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-29 09:29:00 UTC