1 – The first question upon which all others depend is why not to suicide? One can choose cooperation with the world, conflict and competition with the world, or boycott of the world. Boycott means suicide. This choice is that of personal philosophy.
2 – The second question upon which all others depend is why engage in cooperation rather than boycott, free riding, parasitism, and predation? One can choose cooperation, predation or boycott of others. Boycott means suicide. This question is that of ethics.
3 – The third question is for the group, and one upon which all others depend is why engage in cooperation rather than boycott, or free riding, parasitism, and predation? This question is that of politics.
4 – There is only one reason for the strong not to kill, enslave, or enserf the weak and to take their land, their women and their things. And that is a condition of perfect reciprocity. For it is the only condition more rewarding and lower cost than predation. The fact that reciprocity is mutually beneficial is but an excuse the weak use to grant themselves the illusion of equality with the strong. For the strong it is only a matter of superior returns, not morality. This is the end result of the three questions of life, ethics, and politics. All others are comforting lies.
5 – One BEGS for Liberty by permission. One FORCES sovereignty at the point of a spear, tip of an arrow, blade of a sword, and barrel of a gun. That’s the difference between failed beggars for liberty and successful warriors for sovereignty.
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/48961976_10156883688982264_6386502350655193088_o_10156883688977264.jpg Marcin MoczarnyDas giiidDec 30, 2018, 2:02 PMJames Dmitro Makienko”Only weapons give us freedom” (c)Dec 30, 2018, 2:02 PMJon JonathanAlso obeying the rules for gunfighting.
1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap – life is expensive.
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you’re probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on “pucker factor” than the inherent accuracy of the gun. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. “All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket.”
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won’t work.
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don’t drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.)
19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than “4”.
25. You can’t miss fast enough to win.Dec 30, 2018, 2:05 PMJon JonathanOr in summary for both politics and fighting – it’s better to be remembered as the asshole that won than the moralist who lost.Dec 30, 2018, 2:07 PMJames Dmitro MakienkoAt the end there is only one rule. Win.Dec 30, 2018, 2:11 PMJohn Edward”Warriors for Liberty” is a good phraseDec 30, 2018, 2:13 PMJustin Odiogn”Sovereignty”*Dec 30, 2018, 2:18 PMJohn EdwardSovereigntaughDec 30, 2018, 2:24 PMJohn Edward(You say it like Cartman from South Park)Dec 30, 2018, 2:25 PMThorsten NorgateThe single best summation of your work, that you used yourself last year is RECIPROCITY OR WAR.Dec 30, 2018, 3:38 PMCurt DoolittleI think I’ll merge the two because that’s sort of puts nice closure on it. ;)Dec 30, 2018, 7:49 PMBill JoslinAnd it highlights a common misunderstanding – that being that our advocacy for reciprocity is limited to cooperative reciprocity … It’s not , reciprocating boycott and violence are also moral stancesDec 31, 2018, 6:09 PMRichard HallJames Dmitro Makienko Can I has weapon please? 😜Jan 5, 2019, 3:23 PM
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/48961976_10156883688982264_6386502350655193088_o_10156883688977264.jpg Marcin MoczarnyDas giiidDec 30, 2018, 2:02 PMJames Dmitro Makienko”Only weapons give us freedom” (c)Dec 30, 2018, 2:02 PMJon JonathanAlso obeying the rules for gunfighting.
1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap – life is expensive.
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you’re probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on “pucker factor” than the inherent accuracy of the gun. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. “All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket.”
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won’t work.
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don’t drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.)
19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than “4”.
25. You can’t miss fast enough to win.Dec 30, 2018, 2:05 PMJon JonathanOr in summary for both politics and fighting – it’s better to be remembered as the asshole that won than the moralist who lost.Dec 30, 2018, 2:07 PMLuís F. RodriguesCurt, there is a silly Futurama quote that suddenly makes sense:
“They will learn our peaceful ways! — By FORCE!” … :DDec 30, 2018, 2:11 PMJames Dmitro MakienkoAt the end there is only one rule. Win.Dec 30, 2018, 2:11 PMJohn Edward”Warriors for Liberty” is a good phraseDec 30, 2018, 2:13 PMJustin Odiogn”Sovereignty”*Dec 30, 2018, 2:18 PMJohn EdwardSovereigntaughDec 30, 2018, 2:24 PMJohn Edward(You say it like Cartman from South Park)Dec 30, 2018, 2:25 PMThorsten NorgateThe single best summation of your work, that you used yourself last year is RECIPROCITY OR WAR.Dec 30, 2018, 3:38 PM
With the current state of affairs, in the first world, a total breakdown of civility would occur through spontaneous short term, erratic street violence (riots, looting. Which congregated, then disperses to re-congregate elsewhere) inside the OODA-LOOP of authorities.
(See Toronto G20 tactics of black bloc)
From a standpoint of cybernetics, this creates a circumstance and action with in third parties. Party one: rioters, party two: law enforcement… Party one renders party two ineffective which results in party three (everyone else) to react.
Law enforcement will either up-authoritarian tactics (see kettling of Toronto G20 on day three) which makes life unbearable for party three, or if law enforcement doesn’t ramp up authority, continues to demonstrate their ineffectiveness – which party three then loses faith in law enforcement (i.e. status quo) (see Sons of Odin and block watch groups in the UK around emerging no go zones)
In other words, men of action – tradesmen, army, engineers (as Tom laid-out) will take matters into their own hands – no out of political ideology, heroism or profit, but rather to protect their loved one, their community and their property.
By establishing small territories of peace and security (neighbourhoods, two or three block radius) – other in surrounding areas will migrate too or join in their tactics. Essentially what they do is create the first two commons – monopoly of violence over an area (territory) and trust. (See “warlords” in eastern Ukraine with community courts and patrols)…
Naturally, organically, instinctively – they create the very foundation of of the changes we seek – without any affiliation, central command, ideology, thought leaders.
What we need to do is ensure they understand what it is they are doing, why they do it, and why they had to do it(property, reciprocity). This is so they don’t seek to re-establish status quo and hand over their safe zones to the old regime – we must show them WHY THEY MUST LEAD and continue to do so.
We dont need a mob, an army etc, because good men, in times of need, will stand and defend their loved ones, their kith and kin and Their property. Our societies are not filled with gun owning, would-be-revolutionaries. They are filled with dad’s, husbands, brothers – sheepdogs, who don’t want to see the commons they spend their days building and maintaining totally destroyed for ideological agendas. In the US these guys tend to be the ones who own guns – they tend to also be cautious (because they have something to lose) and tend to be the last to a fight, and the last stand if it can message to that. (Which is why the state of affairs continues unchallenged as of yet)
(I’ll take these guys over well versed, well trained, ideologues any day. Zealots chap my ass)
Talking to the Left doesn’t bring them on side because it doesn’t demonstrate value add/roi nor change their behaviour. The left is happy debating, discussing, talking, letting everyone say their piece and valuing the contribution they made out of principle rather than results, happy with instant grat and short term outcomes supporting their ideologies and ideals: “Would you look at that, the people fleeing their own shithole are happy they are in our green and pleasant lands…didn’t we do good.” And in all fairness: outcome achieved. Long term though, that way lies death.
We play the long game: the survival of our people (eugenic conquest through space and time). Arguing with the short term gamers is like listening to a spiced soy latte t-shirt commie: “Pleeeease, can’t you just see this is the better way”. Fuck that. That’s not us. We don’t need to make the case to them, we are the case.
We are largely also the current leverage holders (tradesman: rw, army: rw, engineers: rw). Why is that? Because we are those who deal in reality, as is.
So how do we red pill them that will not listen? Well, people believe what they do rather than do what they believe. We win by demonstrating, offering the opportunity for them to mimic us, and personally assisting with training each other (which is what these ongoing convs online are). Talk means nothing. But taking the young woman currently “fun timing” her way down the value ladder and showing her there is plenty to enjoy without long term cost, or the skinny soy boy cringe and showing him with a bit of effort he too can be the chad family man with ten loving kids, a hundred loving grandkids, be stacked and rich…that how we do it.
Let us recall Jesus’s statement: “I am the way and the truth and the life”. And remember we are seeking to provide what we can demonstrate to be the best way for all concerned. If the opportunity is there, then the only thing left to say is “fuck them” if they don’t take it.
(Baltimore was one of the capital cities of the continent. So was Detroit. So was Hartford. So was New Haven. What did they fail to do? Technical Universities, Financial Centers, Keep the left out of government, and price ‘minorities’ out of the urban center and into ‘the ring’ as do european countries. NYC survives because of the financial sector or it would be baltimore, hartford, new haven. Why? Look at how few people (families) pay the taxes that pay for NYC? There is a ‘village’ in NYC that pays for it all. Everyone else is just a member of the plantation. And london is worse now. )
—“So laymen adherents to Propertarianism must accept a good deal of the arguments on faith, not fully appreciating their complexity personally? What steps do you have in place for preventing the formation of a personality cult around you?”– Lisa Outhwaite
Exceptional question.
But. Um. On “faith” is not the question. They can undrestand the benefits. And if they invest in any degree of learning, like an onion, as their level of investment increases, the rigor of it and explanatory power increases. One does not have ‘faith’ in geometry. One knows of it. One uses it. It works. But how many people know why? One has faith in money because everyone else does, not because they have the faintest idea what it means or is constituted of. I mean, do you know how much I write about money, what is money and what is not? I mean, try to find a person in the banking industry (even the finance industry) that can enumerate the spectrum of money and money substitutes like I do. It’s freaking impossible.
So, first, if you notice how hard I work to make it NOT about me, that in and of itself is part of my defense against it. Just as when I manage a company I try to distribute ‘management’ as early and as thoroughly as possible and then let the ‘market’ for talent do its work.
Although, we have to understand that some personality is inevitable. Every thinker has this problem. Marx, Lenin, and the Prophets in particular, although Saul of Tarsus was the most excellent in making it NOT about him.
**So the more analytic the less dependent upon personality and the more narrative and requiring of textual interpretation the more dependent upon personality.**
So for those two reasons both INTENT and CONTENT I have some protection against personality cults.
That said it is the core leadership of the first and second generations that tend to be remembered as well. Why? I mean how many people understand ISLM (keynesian econ) or the money supply? or that populations tend to disequilibrium? Or the constitution? They don’t understand them. They do however live by them. They certainly don’t undrestand democracy or they would have none of it.
Most people cannot do statistics but they can at least understand what are good statistical arguments and bad.
Most people cannot write law, but they can, with some effort both read law, and find legal advisors.
Most people can understand the shorter Aphorisms. That is what you see ‘spreads’. This is how I expect most people to undrestand the work.
WHile it has taken me a long time to distill these ideas into a ‘cheat sheet’ (much longer than I’d thought) by writing the book I have taught myself how to do so. This ‘specification’ for the language is comprehensible if logic is comprehensible.
Most people will be overwhelmed by the constitution but it is something that can be learned.
The history is comprehensible for certain.
But EVERYONE can understand the de-financialization of the economy, the depoliticization of the polity, the end of propaganda, half truth, and deceit in the informational commons, and the ending of subsidy to the entertainment industry that is our enemy.
Because everyone can understand the benefits even if they can’t understand the logic and grammar of it.
Lastly, the hurdle for most people is NOT LEARNING the material, it is in making the choice to INVEST in learning the material, and sustaining that investment in competition with his or her frustration, misunderstandings, and disagreements while learning the material.
This is why numbers matter. Because it demonstrates by obvious environmental evidence that the material is worth the investment because of the cognitive and argumentative power it provides them. And if they know people who can do so they will find people to help them WITHOUT study.
So the more I make this a movement, and the more thought leaders we have, the more i can distribute it, the more analytic I can make it, the less dependent upon me I can, and we can, make it.
—“Intellectual paradigms must surely require a different system of qualification besides functionality?”— Lisa Outhwaite
All these tests are either additive (or not subtractive):
1 – True (not false),
2 – Excellent(not faulty),
3 – Actionable (not inactionable),
4 – Good (not-ir-reciprocal),
5 – Beautiful (not ugly).
So yes. And this is yet another EXCELLENT example of why I do not use sets or set logic, but series, supply demand, Limits, and multi-dimensionality.
No ideal types, Ideals – single dimensional tests of multi dimensional questions are just a convenient way of using aggregation for the purpose of obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit.
I suppose I should harp on the deconflation problem more often and explain why more often, but THREE POINTS TEST A LINE. A line of two points has no test of error.
In other words, contrasting by one axis (statement, comparison) is a simple game – and a game too simple for any question of substance.
Yet it is the preferred (lowest cost) method of human speech.
Which is why we rely on justification (low cost meaning) versus falsification (high cost truth).
This is why I consider all speech representable as geometry.
And it is how I approach all speech: geometrically.
