—“When you meet someone for the first time treat them the best way that you can, after that treat them how they treat you”—Jose Martinez
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-16 15:01:00 UTC
Source: Facebook
-
THE DEVIL IN THE WORD ‘IS’ AND PROPERTARIANISM One ‘is’ a propertarian the way o
THE DEVIL IN THE WORD ‘IS’ AND PROPERTARIANISM
One ‘is’ a propertarian the way one is a doctor, lawyer, engineer or mathematician. It’s a discipline of law. That’s it.
Where “is = A PRACTITIONER OF A DISCIPLINE”
One ‘is’ an advocate for a social order or other.
Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR A CLASS PREFERENCE”
One ‘is’ a member of one religious habituation or other.
Where ‘is = A SET OF INDOCTRINATED COGNITIVE BIASES”
Propertarianism is rule of law: Nomocracy (NO-MO’-crah-see)
Where “is = IDENTITY (equal to).”
Propertarianism is a formal rule of law that eliminates disinformation in the commons, and particularly the means of abrahamic deception we call baiting, pilpul and critique.
Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR EXPANSION OF INVOLUNTARY WARRANTY TO SPEECH”
Curt Doolittle ‘is’ an advocate for Nomocracy, Militia, Monarchy, Ethnocentrism, Nationalism, and Shared Returns (dividends) on the Realm (state profits) for western peoples in particular, but for all peoples capable of it.
Where “is = An ADVOCATE for ARISTOCRACY”
Curt Doolittle ‘is’ an advocate for policies that produce what we would call national socialism in the original french german and italian ambitions, but by rule of law and market means unlimited by previous failures to understand money and economics as merely information and influence.
Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR NATIONAL SOCIALIST POLICIES IN THE FACE OF ONGOING AUTOMATION”
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-16 12:13:00 UTC
-
THE LIMITS TO OUR EXISTENCE by Tim Beckley-Spillane We’ve produced more objectiv
THE LIMITS TO OUR EXISTENCE
by Tim Beckley-Spillane
We’ve produced more objective truth than any other people – and with it more value than any other. In the process we’ve created incredible demand.
So we’ve demonstrated to all, including the most parasitic of all, that we have much to give, and have convinced ourselves, perhaps more than any other, that our means of productivity are inexhaustible.
They aren’t.
Our triumphs in art, science, and civilization and the universal demand created by them have made us overconfident and the gods have chosen to impose a natural limit on our ascent.
We’re now forced to choose oblivion if not godhood prematurely, or to return to the earth as a wiser people, to regain strength, to remind ourselves of the sources of our greatness, and, in time, to launch from the greater heights of our cumulative achievement free of the costs that others would gladly impose.
The production of truth, the source of our greatness, of course, requiring transcendence of our subjectivity.
Or, to express the idea in less romantic prose, we produce truth, which requires a maximal objectivity. The world is right to expect this of us. But the production of truth is costly and the benefits, though great, are limited. So we need to be discriminating in both our our expenditures and the distribution of benefits they produce, and for this, subjectivity is required.
We’re the only people on the planet expected to transcend our own subjectivity.
But we can’t afford to any longer.
—“Tim Beckley-Spillane:
Do we need to be discriminating? Yes.
Does it require subjectivity?
No. It requires reciprocity.
Excellent articulation. I just think OBJECTIVE ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
“—Bryan Nova Brey
We need to be discriminating in how we spend our resources in the production of value and in the distribution of value produced, because those resources are limited. We demonstrate subjective preferences when we make discriminations of the kind in markets. Reciprocity allows us to calculate our subjective interests. Because interests conflict, objectivity in such matters isn’t possible, is it?
A problem we’re still dealing with today is that we attempted to transcend our subjectivity and universalize our preferences. We need to content ourselves with the pursuit of that which is subjectively beneficial for us. And to the extent that our relationships with others are reciprocal, those benefits can be shared. Let me know where you disagree.
—“From what I can tell we (Propertarians) are descriptive and objective. We define law via negativa. How groups of people prescribe, subjectively and via positiva is up to market competition. Seems to be the completion of the intention of the Founding Fathers.”—Bryan Nova Brey
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-16 11:53:00 UTC
-
The federal governments in the west are the enemies of the people and until we r
The federal governments in the west are the enemies of the people and until we remove the USA from the world stage the natural order cannot return to the balance of civilizations. The USA is the house of cards that holds up the existing unnatural world order.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-16 11:43:00 UTC
-
EXAMPLE OF WHY THE 88’S ALWAYS FAIL —“Propertarianism is bullshit. It’s mental
EXAMPLE OF WHY THE 88’S ALWAYS FAIL
—“Propertarianism is bullshit. It’s mental gymnastics for above average IQ spergs. @curtdoolittle doesn’t even have a book defining it. It’ll never catch on. Nationalism, Populism, Socialism, these are already popular among Americans and don’t require new gobbledegook ideologies.”— @HonkHonkler88
We don’t do ideology. We do law. Countries are run by an operating system we call ‘law’. It’s the only way that they CAN be run. You can build all three of those ideologies, but you must do it with law. And to do it and prevent (((enemies))) you must do it with Propertarianism.
We don’t do ideology. Because we do law we do policy. People will vote for and act in favor of policy. What you mean is stupid people can’t argue law and policy. I agree. They don’t have to. They just have to fight for something that is ACTIONABLE rather than an empty word.
You have no leaders. Because you are from the bottom. The bottom never leads. So be nice to your betters who work in your interests despite your thankless ignorant overconfident empty words.
In fact, all you and those like you do, is illustrate to your betters, that maybe you deserve to disappear into the night.
(BTW: book or not, except for the very formal work on logic and grammars, the content is all online and easily understood by anyone with a high school education and access to wikipedia. We are in an era where wiki has replaced Britannica, and living documents online replaced books.)
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-16 11:41:00 UTC
-
LESSONS FROM GENGHIS KHAN The first question of outgroup politics: —“If I and
LESSONS FROM GENGHIS KHAN
The first question of outgroup politics:
—“If I and mine CAN exterminate you, then why should I and mine NOT exterminate you? At present since you are a threat, it is rational to exterminate you. Therefore we need a reason NOT to exterminate you. What is that reason”— Emissary of Genghis Khan.
THE FIRST QUESTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY?
1. Philosophy (choice) why not commit suicide?
2. Ethics (choice) why not commit murder?
3. Politics (choice) why not commit genocide?
Without first answering these questions, you cannot answer all questions upon which those answers depend.
Rather than engage in a conversation under pretext, simply ask the question “Why do I not at least TRY for murder or genocide if this means more for me and mine?”
Cooperation is only valuable until it is not.
Tolerance is only valuable until it is not.
Otherwise, genocide, and seizure of assets are superior options.
Ergo, this is the reason to ‘cooperate’ reciprocally.
ALWAYS START ANY DEBATE BY ASKING “WHY NOT END YOU FOR FUN AND PROFIT?”
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-16 11:12:00 UTC
-
“Globalist agenda is disguised as solution to’ colonizer guilt ‘ an equalizer, t
—“Globalist agenda is disguised as solution to’ colonizer guilt ‘ an equalizer, to pay penance for ancestors atrocities ,guilt by association is the White Mans albatross ,one that’s psychologically reinforced by not fighting the accusers for fear of appearing indeed racist”—Lezlee Dutton
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-16 09:54:00 UTC
-
HEATHEN VS PAGAN DISAMBIGUATION —“Curt, do you see Heathen and Pagan as concur
HEATHEN VS PAGAN DISAMBIGUATION
—“Curt, do you see Heathen and Pagan as concurrent/overlapping or do you see one preceding the other? I thought the terms were synonyms.”—Alan Robbins
ORDER IN TIME
1. Heathen (hearth / spirits / nature)
2. Pagan (family of gods / archetypes / society)
3. Christian (one god / ruler / monopoly / politics)
4. Science (man, heroes, universe, markets)
DISAMBIGUATION
The disambiguation between heathen and pagan is mine given the overlap. Pagan is a definite construction of the semitic era of organized religion. Heathen is a term that had no organized religious connotation.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-16 09:16:00 UTC
-
Wait. Did he say, “not going to get the badge today”. What was he trying for. To
Wait. Did he say, “not going to get the badge today”. What was he trying for. To beat ABB’s number?
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-16 02:10:00 UTC
-
Christianity has no weight outside of the scots irish south and a tiny bit of th
Christianity has no weight outside of the scots irish south and a tiny bit of the german interior. The catholic church destroyed christianity by failing to reform. The evangelicals reformed protestantism, and they remain the only ‘christians’. The rest of us are portfolio practitioners with protestant christianity, nature worship, germanic fairy tales and myths, and science varying in influence upon us.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-16 01:55:00 UTC