c. 1300, “pack of animals,” possibly related to Middle English rablen “to gabble, speak in a rapid, confused manner,” probably imitative of hurry, noise, and confusion (compare Middle Dutch rabbelen, Low German rabbeln “to chatter”). Meaning “tumultuous crowd of vulgar, noisy people” is from late 14c.; applied contemptuously to the common or low part of any populace from 1550s.
(someone used the term and I realized I didn’t know its origin)
Notice how someone (sophisticated with world experience yet entirely empirical) like Michael comments and how other people (unsophisticated, without worldly experience, and entirely sentimental or anecdotal) comment. I ought to do a study of categories of comments just to show people how wise, smart, ignorant, and stupid people comment on a ignorant-wise, stupid-smart grid just to illustrate by pattern recognition what different people think like and act like.
Christians were always the ally of the left – there reason for the war against the south, the reason for immigration, the reason for ‘civil rights’. The christians only moved to the ‘right’ once they understood that the state wanted to become the new religion in the franco-jewish-soviet model. Christianity is not nationalist, is not particularist, is not masculine, is not heroic, is not militaristic, expansionary, truthful, sovereign. It’s antithetical to the west: a purely semitic cult. It was the church’s necessity of accommodating the aristocracy that made our people survive christianity and made the claims of something other than destruction of our people possible.
They are not members of the libertarian or right. Instead, libertarians and the right give ‘nod’ to christians the way men give ‘nod’ to women, and value christianity the way men value women. But Christians are not ‘men’ , nor ‘european’ but simply semitic (female strategy) of resistance, undermining, and dysgenia.
CAN OUR PEOPLE SURVIVE WHILE ACCOMMODATING CHRISTIANITY? (NO)
by Daniel Gurpide
Is it possible to accommodate Christianity once the veil of ignorance has been torn asunder? Is it possible to teach the five core tenets which constitute the ‘optimum group strategy’, discard the rest of the claptrap, and still call that Christianity? Theoretically, yes; in practice, it is as easy as to reinsert a Champagne cork back into the bottle.
Nowhere are the effects caused by the pursuit of the tenets of Jewish-Christian egalitarianism more existentially dramatic—because it threatens the very survival of the communities concerned—than in the demographic suicide now being committed by the West. The West faces massive Third World immigration, and high fertility rates combined with below-replacement white birth rates. As Lothrop Stoddard feared, a rising tide of colour is swamping the West; and it is guilt about the Third World which is the primary cause of mass immigration into Western lands. Comparison with Japan repays attention, for this Far Eastern country experiences the same economic conditioning as Europe or the United States, but has managed to control migratory fluxes remarkably well.
Christianity is a derivative, a heresy, from Judaism, but it teaches Europe precisely the opposite lesson as far as ethnocentrism is concerned. In Christianity, European peoples cannot—as a people—have a relation with God: this is for the Jewish people alone. European people can have a relation with God only as individuals. Judaism is a religion for survival in a multicultural society. It is a religion for governing the behaviour of a Jewish minority in the presence of a non-Jewish majority. Christianity, on the other hand, is a religion for governing the behaviour of Christians in a homogeneous Christian society. In a multicultural society it becomes suicidal.
The original meaning of the Latin word religio—from religare, to tie fast—was never used until Constantinian times to describe the ‘superstitio nova ac malefica’ represented by Christianity and has nothing to do with the metaphysical or fideistic concepts introduced by monotheism. It is simply what binds together the members of a political and ethno-cultural community. As such, religion has two aspects: the myth—the representation that we choose to have of our own past, and more generally of the universe, in relation to the future, the destiny that we want to create; and the rite—the evocation and celebration of our being together with the intention of provoking a general mobilisation of spirits.
Historical consciousness is also part of human agency. It is time to choose!
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52868911_10156993334852264_5977739970813624320_o_10156993334842264.jpg BOOK(S) STATUS
(Gary is shaming me a bit – rightfully)
There is no single-author program on this scale other than aristotle’s. While many authors have come to the same conclusions, only Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx, and Heidegger attempted it with any degree of success. And it is this difference between the multi-author programs of the anglo world and the single author programs of the continental world that explain the difference between anglo scientific (specialization/market) and continental literary (synthesis/monopoly).
IF WE WERE NOT BEING INVADED by design to destroy our people via the kalergi plan they way other people have been destroyed by the semites, then I would be able to whittle away at these books like Hayek and put them out when ready. But the demographic pressure is forcing me to go against my intuition and nature. So it is what it is.Alba RisingWhy make it readable for normies? Let it be as concise and truthful as possible. Like a work of science. It’s up to everyone else (i.e. us) to help it permeate wider culture.Feb 17, 2019, 10:58 AMCurt DoolittleYOu talk as if that isn’t the hard part/Feb 17, 2019, 10:59 AMAlba RisingWe’re up to it!Feb 17, 2019, 11:00 AMPhilip SaundersWrite a doorstopper like The Wealth of Nations or Being and Time. A great mountain attracts the best climbers. Don’t water down the impact by spreading it over multiple small books of posts. You need to make a single blockbuster for maximum impact.Feb 17, 2019, 11:03 AMMartin ŠtěpánI really hope it’s not like Hegel. I’m just about to finish Phenomenology of Spirit and, well, I don’t get it.Feb 17, 2019, 11:07 AMCurt DoolittleIt’s like reading a novel and seeing the allegory except the novel is about psychology.Feb 17, 2019, 11:09 AMCurt DoolittleMost men write a series of books. Being in Time is only 589pp altogether. My first draft was almost three times that – which makes it impossible to edit, print, distribute, and sell.Feb 17, 2019, 11:10 AMMartin ŠtěpánI should have probably looked into the definitions being used because to me, it’s reading word salad.Feb 17, 2019, 11:11 AMCurt Doolittle(it’s just ‘silly german prose’ which is better than ‘silly bullshit french prose’)Feb 17, 2019, 11:11 AMCurt DoolittleThe books are clearly my voice and style. The difference is that I go through and ‘cut down’ the repetition, make the terms consistent, and fill in the ‘leaps of reason’, and try to organize as layers of an onion. I can do it but I get very tired after just a few hours of it.Feb 17, 2019, 11:12 AMPhilip SaundersWell if that’s the case fair enough. I just mean don’t piddle out with a 114 page Kindle download like many people seem to do these days.Feb 17, 2019, 11:13 AMCurt DoolittleThe courses are an attempt to cut the book so that I don’t have to provide background on every fucking thing, just write declaratively.Feb 17, 2019, 11:13 AMCurt Doolittleum… no. I can write 114 pages in a couple of days without much effort. At this point about ten to twenty pages a day (not close to rothbard’s 25). The problem is that my work evolved over time and I have to make it consistent and remove things I repeat often. So it’s just basically ‘editing’.Feb 17, 2019, 11:14 AMYiannis KontinopoulosWhy attempt to cut down the repetition? Repetitive stanzas make things memorable, and that’s how we got nice things like the IliadFeb 17, 2019, 11:28 AMCurt Doolittleif you read reviews of theoretical works it is one of the principle complaintsFeb 17, 2019, 11:31 AMYiannis KontinopoulosI know just kidding 😄Feb 17, 2019, 11:32 AMCurt DoolittleYiannis Kontinopoulos dick. lolzFeb 17, 2019, 11:32 AMAhmed RedaCAN’T WAITFeb 17, 2019, 11:46 AMCurt Doolittleyeah. and you’ll get it. you’ll go thru it, and you will say “i knew all of this already…” lolFeb 17, 2019, 12:08 PMAhmed Redaand I must spread the word about it…:’DFeb 17, 2019, 3:56 PMBill JoslinGary is awesome and holding you to account as it should be…. Fair warning – absence of citations in the book might result in a “personal visit” by Gary (afaics – he don’t mess around)Feb 17, 2019, 8:55 PMBill JoslinCurt Doolittle we got itFeb 17, 2019, 8:57 PMBill Joslin(f#ck normies – we’ll turn them into titans- we are already)Feb 17, 2019, 8:58 PMGary KnightI understand what you’re up against but we must be hardest most on our friends and those most capable.
If not you – who?
Finish the courses and then tackle citations.
It might not be you who completes the academic project.
You might just be a footnote in Propertarianism.
😏😉Feb 18, 2019, 2:11 AMBOOK(S) STATUS
(Gary is shaming me a bit – rightfully)
There is no single-author program on this scale other than aristotle’s. While many authors have come to the same conclusions, only Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx, and Heidegger attempted it with any degree of success. And it is this difference between the multi-author programs of the anglo world and the single author programs of the continental world that explain the difference between anglo scientific (specialization/market) and continental literary (synthesis/monopoly).
IF WE WERE NOT BEING INVADED by design to destroy our people via the kalergi plan they way other people have been destroyed by the semites, then I would be able to whittle away at these books like Hayek and put them out when ready. But the demographic pressure is forcing me to go against my intuition and nature. So it is what it is.
(CD: This form say what a thing does rather than what rationalization is made. this is science.)
To summarize an ethological and evolutionary exposition and vindication of Section 57 of Nietzsche’s “Antichrist”:
1. Humans exist in a natural caste system of priest, warrior and worker.
2. Modern leftism takes Christianity’s “moral or ontological equality of all men before God” and turns it into an actual equality of potential of all men, and the priestly socialists teach the workers to rebel against the warrior.
3. Nietzsche concludes that he hates socialism and left-anarchism, and that these ideological forces arise from Christianity.
It reminds me of how one certain tribe tends to mobilize less intelligent races against masters in revenge against them…
That’s like saying you need encyclopedia britannica instead of wikipedia. P consists of topics just like an encyclopedia. Instead of being in alpha order it’s in dependency order from metaphysics (the grammars) thru group strategy.
THE SUMMARY (OVERVIEW)
https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/
– The Overview (argument)
– The Topic by Topic “Short Courses”
– The categorical index for topics in the sidebar.
– The search engine for exploration.
– The reading list as a bibliography.
– The glossary of terms.
There is no “P for Dummies” nor is one possible.
So consider the current content an IQ test.
If you can’t, then you can’t, so it won’t matter. 😉
The problem with the book is that it is still two books the first of which is over 800pp.
So I will publish the tome when it is ready. But if you can’t pass the P IQ test with the existing material – the book isn’t gonna help you.
The law exists so that those with material interests (power) preserve the value of cooperation by forcing people into, and limiting them to, the market, and denying them non-market means (within the limits of cost and ability).
Propertarianism explains how to use this law (logic) to suppress those forms of parasitism that are currently not, because we lacked a means of doing so. In particular (and I have only come to understand this myself over the past few years) it suppresses baiting into moral hazard, which is the general technique of exploitation that is in use. (including your sophism above).
P it’s purely empirical. “people do this”, “this is why”, “self interest of those with interests”, “where almost all but the marginal cases have interests.”
You can build any political order with P that you want precisely because it is an algorithmic logic (grammar), as long as you do it truthfully.
To falsify P would require you falsify rational choice, reciprocity, and self interest. To state you would prefer to built some other form of government no matter how honest or dishonest, productive or parasitic, would still be explicable in P, and peoples’ behavior under it would still be universally expliable with P, because P is not a philosophy (should) but a science (is). It is the science and logic of what we call the psychological, linguistic, social sciences, and political sciences.
Now you can ‘bitch’ about the fact that I use this logic to advocate for rule of law – the most parsimonious expression of that science – because you like or do not like that particular world (because it would crush ‘creativity in dishonesty’) which means ‘witty people’ have no more utility in their manipulation of others in order to obtain self image, social status, and various forms of influence. But that is the point altogether.
P is simply ‘true’. What you do it it is a matter of your (power-group’s) preferences. I prefer to crush the abrahamic deceits (baiting into moral hazard by sophisms, pseudosciences, supernaturalisms, and deceits) and to use this to save my people from their lies. Maybe you prefer otherwise.
But I am fairly sure that the mainstream will prefer my argument and policy recommendations over the alternatives and this lowers their resistance to its implementation relative to your alternatives.
Again. Please don’t try to be smarter. You aren’t in the first place (even close) and P is quite a superpower – just like reason, empiricism, and science were superpowers before it.
The more I use P, the better I get at it, the more I understand the revolution in human thought and experience that would be brought about is as great as the previous revolutions provided by western thought (reason, empiricism, science).
