Oct 7, 2019, 10:25 AM Peterson is a therapist telling you it will all be ok if you take the buddhist strategy and retreat into changing yourself. Molyneux is a therapist feeding you information, moral confirmation, and emotional sedation. Yarvin is a storyteller explaining that what you’re sensing is wrong with the world, is indeed wrong, and why. MacDonald is an academic explaining the cause of what’s wrong and why. Duchesne is telling us why and how and why we were uniquely successful. Dutton is telling us the science of why we were right. And Doolittle (me) is a jurist telling you we were right, the solution to the restoration, and how to force it’s implementation. Learn from everyone. But the end of your Journey is Propertarianism: Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Jury, and Markets in Everything. Start with John Mark. Follow Brandon and Michael Hayes for contributions from the propertarians. Learn from the Sheepdogs. Take our course in Foundations. It’s time to return to rule. Of yourself, your polity, and the world, in self defense.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Return to Communism vs Naziism as The Basis of Argumentative Extremes
Oct 7, 2019, 10:28 AM by James Louis LaSalle As psychotically obsessed the Left is with racism, Nazis, and white supremacists, the Right should be just as obsessed with communism. To the point where we shouldn’t even acknowledge it when they say anything about racism, Nazis, or white supremacists. Ignore it completely. And don’t even be subtle about it. If a Leftist asks you if you’re a Nazi or some nonsense like that, don’t say a word about it; change the subject to the evils of communism immediately. “Are you a Nazi?” “Did you know communism was responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century?” “What? I asked you if you were a Nazi. Answer the question!” “You know, the concept of a “means of production” is a total reification fallacy. It’s the human mind that decides whether things have value or not. That’s why communism is always communal ownership of the means of production in theory and state ownership of human beings in practice. Because human beings ARE the means of production.” Leftist: Why do you keep talking about communism? I’m trying to talk to you about the evils of Nazism! Rightist: Why don’t you want to talk about the evils of communism? Are you a communist? Do you support communism? Play their game against them, and be better at it. There have been many comments from the usual quarters about the supposed illegitimacy of putting the “alt right” and “antifa” on “the same moral plane.” But mostly, Alt-right and Antifa ARE on the same moral plane, the moral plane where you use force to counter an existential threat to you and to your group. The main difference is a factual one, not a moral one, in that alt-right represents normalcy to excellence, while Antifa represents defective and inferior people. The former can, in principle, be victorious, while the latter can never be. Even if they, Antifa, communists, degenerates, win, they still lose, because it is not merely superior people against whom they rebel, but the reality of their own inadequacy; which ever remains. Once they destroy their betters, antifa will have no one left to parasitize, and they, too, shall perish. Their grasping, covetous, and insatiable appetites are just as real as their inability to satisfy them without seeking discounts at the expense of others, more capable. But they have no choice but to try, because meritocracy, accountability, and responsibility in the face of abler competitors would prove just as lethal to them as devouring those finally and completely. Without knowing it, without being able to moderate themselves, they are actually trying to straddle these extremes to the only evolutionary strategy that can sustain them, parasitism that is not severe enough to kill their only food source. But don’t expect them to realize that. And there is nothing to lose by simply wiping them out, as one would any other species of pest. (There is a moral difference between parasites and producers.)
-
Return to Communism vs Naziism as The Basis of Argumentative Extremes
Oct 7, 2019, 10:28 AM by James Louis LaSalle As psychotically obsessed the Left is with racism, Nazis, and white supremacists, the Right should be just as obsessed with communism. To the point where we shouldn’t even acknowledge it when they say anything about racism, Nazis, or white supremacists. Ignore it completely. And don’t even be subtle about it. If a Leftist asks you if you’re a Nazi or some nonsense like that, don’t say a word about it; change the subject to the evils of communism immediately. “Are you a Nazi?” “Did you know communism was responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century?” “What? I asked you if you were a Nazi. Answer the question!” “You know, the concept of a “means of production” is a total reification fallacy. It’s the human mind that decides whether things have value or not. That’s why communism is always communal ownership of the means of production in theory and state ownership of human beings in practice. Because human beings ARE the means of production.” Leftist: Why do you keep talking about communism? I’m trying to talk to you about the evils of Nazism! Rightist: Why don’t you want to talk about the evils of communism? Are you a communist? Do you support communism? Play their game against them, and be better at it. There have been many comments from the usual quarters about the supposed illegitimacy of putting the “alt right” and “antifa” on “the same moral plane.” But mostly, Alt-right and Antifa ARE on the same moral plane, the moral plane where you use force to counter an existential threat to you and to your group. The main difference is a factual one, not a moral one, in that alt-right represents normalcy to excellence, while Antifa represents defective and inferior people. The former can, in principle, be victorious, while the latter can never be. Even if they, Antifa, communists, degenerates, win, they still lose, because it is not merely superior people against whom they rebel, but the reality of their own inadequacy; which ever remains. Once they destroy their betters, antifa will have no one left to parasitize, and they, too, shall perish. Their grasping, covetous, and insatiable appetites are just as real as their inability to satisfy them without seeking discounts at the expense of others, more capable. But they have no choice but to try, because meritocracy, accountability, and responsibility in the face of abler competitors would prove just as lethal to them as devouring those finally and completely. Without knowing it, without being able to moderate themselves, they are actually trying to straddle these extremes to the only evolutionary strategy that can sustain them, parasitism that is not severe enough to kill their only food source. But don’t expect them to realize that. And there is nothing to lose by simply wiping them out, as one would any other species of pest. (There is a moral difference between parasites and producers.)
-
There Are No Critics of P – Just of Me. but Why?
Oct 7, 2019, 10:47 AM
—“In my encounters, it always seems to be criticism of you, or of your writing style, but never actually about P.”–Benjamin Ireland
Always. People don’t want to prove that they have the knowledge of the convictions in which they have courage. 😉 Part of preventing the hero, cult label, or priest attributions requires I don’t adopt the staging of hero, cult leader, or priest, and stick with king of the hill games. “Come and get me.” or “I’m coming for you.” This offends people who want a priest (F), not a king (M) And that’s partly intentional. You automatically get respect from a priest (F), but you must earn it from a king (M). This ‘never appeal to them by any means but argument, and never reward anything but argument’ is ‘disrespectful’ to the more feminine minds. Because I have to keep it about THE WORK and not ME. And anyone who has followed me long enough knows it. People desperately want leaders with agency. I desperately want to create leaders with agency. I’d undermine myself if I tried to be the cult leader people accuse me of or want. It’s about the work. You can make a P argument or not. It’s about making leaders. Not me leading. It’s about creating a movement to counter and reverse the century of lying. It’s about a constitution that is durable, and provides a market for the defense of our civilization.
-
There Are No Critics of P – Just of Me. but Why?
Oct 7, 2019, 10:47 AM
—“In my encounters, it always seems to be criticism of you, or of your writing style, but never actually about P.”–Benjamin Ireland
Always. People don’t want to prove that they have the knowledge of the convictions in which they have courage. 😉 Part of preventing the hero, cult label, or priest attributions requires I don’t adopt the staging of hero, cult leader, or priest, and stick with king of the hill games. “Come and get me.” or “I’m coming for you.” This offends people who want a priest (F), not a king (M) And that’s partly intentional. You automatically get respect from a priest (F), but you must earn it from a king (M). This ‘never appeal to them by any means but argument, and never reward anything but argument’ is ‘disrespectful’ to the more feminine minds. Because I have to keep it about THE WORK and not ME. And anyone who has followed me long enough knows it. People desperately want leaders with agency. I desperately want to create leaders with agency. I’d undermine myself if I tried to be the cult leader people accuse me of or want. It’s about the work. You can make a P argument or not. It’s about making leaders. Not me leading. It’s about creating a movement to counter and reverse the century of lying. It’s about a constitution that is durable, and provides a market for the defense of our civilization.
-
Kevin Macdonald on Reciprocity (important)
Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future amazon.com (He got there!!!!) CHAPTER 2 SECTION: Reciprocity as a Trait of I-E Culture.
—“The aristocratic individualism of the PI-Es was based on reciprocity, not despotism or kinship ties. For example, at the heart of PI-E culture was the practice of gift—giving as a reward for military accomplishment. Successful leaders were expected to reward their followers handsomely.
[79] Oath-bound contracts of reciprocal relationships were characteristic of PI-Es and this practice continued with the various I-E groups that invaded Europe. These contracts formed the basis of patron-client relationships based on reputation—leaders could expect loyal service from their followers, and followers could expect equitable rewards for their service to the leader. This is critical because these relationships are based on talent and accomplishment, not ethnicity (i.e., rewarding people on the basis of closeness of kinship) or despotic subservience (where followers are essentially unfree). Oath-bound contracts were not only typical of the aristocratic individualism of the Mannerbunde: they extended to relationships of domination and subordination between military elites and conquered peoples, providing protection in return for service. In conjunction with the previous points, this is a prescription for feudal-type societies dominated by military elites with mutual obligations to the people they dominate, but in which kinship ties between elites and the people they dominate are relatively unimportant. Breaking Down Bonds of Kinship. PI-E society developed institutions that tended to break down strong kinship bonds. David Anthony, e.g., writes that Yamnaya cultural practices related to guest-host relationships led in a direction away from kinship toward reciprocity. These reciprocal guest-host relationships “functioned as a bridge between social units (tribes, clans) that had ordinarily restricted these relationships to their kin or co-residents.”[7—1] There were thus mechanisms to provide guest- host relationships beyond kinship where everyone had mutual obligations of hospitality; in a comment illustrating the pervasiveness and longevity of these practices, Anthony notes that this was a “way to incorporate outsiders as people with clearly defined rights and protections, as it was used in the Odyssey to medieval Europe”[72-]— another indication of the persistence of I-E culture over very long periods of historical time. The Rewards of Military Success. Besides the tangible rewards for success, successful warriors were honored in poetry. Successful leaders not only gave feasts and gifts to their followers, they were celebrated in poetry—their memory lived on long after their death. Odes proclaiming the generosity of patrons were very characteristic of widely dispersed I-E cultures (Vedic, Celtic, Greek, and Germanic), indicating an origin in late Proto-Indo-European.[7-3] As Duchesne emphasizes, at a conscious level, I-E warfare was conducted principally to gain fame and glory—”The fame of a dead man’s deeds.”[7—4] Nevertheless, to the victors remained the very tangible spoils resulting from successful military campaigns. Indo-Europeanism as a Free-Market, Individualist Culture. For my purposes, it is especially important to note that the military cultures created by the I-Es were permeable—that they were based on individual accomplishment rather than kinship ties. Indeed, I-E societies recognized that kinship biases people’s perceptions and judgments. [ … ] As noted, military leaders maintained their position by military success and by bestowing gifts upon their followers, with the most talented followers obtaining the greatest gifts. A corollary of this is that followers chose successful leaders and abandoned unsuccessful leaders. The system functioned more or less as a free-market system based on merit rather than nepotism. As in all free-market systems, the fundamental principle is reciprocity, whether it is giving gifts commensurate with contribution to the exploits of the Mc’innerbund, or, in the modern world, paying employees a wage commensurate with the value they add to the company on pain of defection to another company. And just as companies compete to obtain talented employees in the modern world, I-E military leaders competed to attract a following of talented warriors. Reciprocity thus lies at the heart of societies based on individualism.”— FROM: Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future
-
Kevin Macdonald on Reciprocity (important)
Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future amazon.com (He got there!!!!) CHAPTER 2 SECTION: Reciprocity as a Trait of I-E Culture.
—“The aristocratic individualism of the PI-Es was based on reciprocity, not despotism or kinship ties. For example, at the heart of PI-E culture was the practice of gift—giving as a reward for military accomplishment. Successful leaders were expected to reward their followers handsomely.
[79] Oath-bound contracts of reciprocal relationships were characteristic of PI-Es and this practice continued with the various I-E groups that invaded Europe. These contracts formed the basis of patron-client relationships based on reputation—leaders could expect loyal service from their followers, and followers could expect equitable rewards for their service to the leader. This is critical because these relationships are based on talent and accomplishment, not ethnicity (i.e., rewarding people on the basis of closeness of kinship) or despotic subservience (where followers are essentially unfree). Oath-bound contracts were not only typical of the aristocratic individualism of the Mannerbunde: they extended to relationships of domination and subordination between military elites and conquered peoples, providing protection in return for service. In conjunction with the previous points, this is a prescription for feudal-type societies dominated by military elites with mutual obligations to the people they dominate, but in which kinship ties between elites and the people they dominate are relatively unimportant. Breaking Down Bonds of Kinship. PI-E society developed institutions that tended to break down strong kinship bonds. David Anthony, e.g., writes that Yamnaya cultural practices related to guest-host relationships led in a direction away from kinship toward reciprocity. These reciprocal guest-host relationships “functioned as a bridge between social units (tribes, clans) that had ordinarily restricted these relationships to their kin or co-residents.”[7—1] There were thus mechanisms to provide guest- host relationships beyond kinship where everyone had mutual obligations of hospitality; in a comment illustrating the pervasiveness and longevity of these practices, Anthony notes that this was a “way to incorporate outsiders as people with clearly defined rights and protections, as it was used in the Odyssey to medieval Europe”[72-]— another indication of the persistence of I-E culture over very long periods of historical time. The Rewards of Military Success. Besides the tangible rewards for success, successful warriors were honored in poetry. Successful leaders not only gave feasts and gifts to their followers, they were celebrated in poetry—their memory lived on long after their death. Odes proclaiming the generosity of patrons were very characteristic of widely dispersed I-E cultures (Vedic, Celtic, Greek, and Germanic), indicating an origin in late Proto-Indo-European.[7-3] As Duchesne emphasizes, at a conscious level, I-E warfare was conducted principally to gain fame and glory—”The fame of a dead man’s deeds.”[7—4] Nevertheless, to the victors remained the very tangible spoils resulting from successful military campaigns. Indo-Europeanism as a Free-Market, Individualist Culture. For my purposes, it is especially important to note that the military cultures created by the I-Es were permeable—that they were based on individual accomplishment rather than kinship ties. Indeed, I-E societies recognized that kinship biases people’s perceptions and judgments. [ … ] As noted, military leaders maintained their position by military success and by bestowing gifts upon their followers, with the most talented followers obtaining the greatest gifts. A corollary of this is that followers chose successful leaders and abandoned unsuccessful leaders. The system functioned more or less as a free-market system based on merit rather than nepotism. As in all free-market systems, the fundamental principle is reciprocity, whether it is giving gifts commensurate with contribution to the exploits of the Mc’innerbund, or, in the modern world, paying employees a wage commensurate with the value they add to the company on pain of defection to another company. And just as companies compete to obtain talented employees in the modern world, I-E military leaders competed to attract a following of talented warriors. Reciprocity thus lies at the heart of societies based on individualism.”— FROM: Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future
-
Masculine Gsrrm versus Female Gsrrm
Oct 7, 2019, 7:27 PM (important)(canon) The Stupid Male Trick – Male GSRRM – I don’t understand, you’re wrong. The Stupid Female Trick – Female GSRRM – I disapprove, you’re bad. The male method: Cast an accusation and cause the author to defend himself, rather than allow the falsehood to spread. The female method is to substitute disapproval for truth. The masculine method is to force the author to educate the critic on his terms rather than do the work, or rather than admit his ignorance or status simply asking the question. Either you can ask a question if you have little knowledge, you can make a criticism on the terms implied if you have more, or you can explain what you disagree with and ask why you err. If I criticize thinkers it’s after understanding their work. In most cases thinkers have only one or two fundamental insights that all their additional prose explains the application of it to a host of contexts. Most critics on the other hand have no ideas, only a field of ignorance error bias, and deceit. This is the difference between producers and rent seekers. Some of us produce ideas. The rest consume, or rent seek. Male posers are rent seekers. I have no critics that I know of that are not mere rent-seekers.
-
Masculine Gsrrm versus Female Gsrrm
Oct 7, 2019, 7:27 PM (important)(canon) The Stupid Male Trick – Male GSRRM – I don’t understand, you’re wrong. The Stupid Female Trick – Female GSRRM – I disapprove, you’re bad. The male method: Cast an accusation and cause the author to defend himself, rather than allow the falsehood to spread. The female method is to substitute disapproval for truth. The masculine method is to force the author to educate the critic on his terms rather than do the work, or rather than admit his ignorance or status simply asking the question. Either you can ask a question if you have little knowledge, you can make a criticism on the terms implied if you have more, or you can explain what you disagree with and ask why you err. If I criticize thinkers it’s after understanding their work. In most cases thinkers have only one or two fundamental insights that all their additional prose explains the application of it to a host of contexts. Most critics on the other hand have no ideas, only a field of ignorance error bias, and deceit. This is the difference between producers and rent seekers. Some of us produce ideas. The rest consume, or rent seek. Male posers are rent seekers. I have no critics that I know of that are not mere rent-seekers.
-
An Education in The Terms Proof and Truth
Oct 7, 2019, 8:02 PM Lets discuss the term ‘proof’. A mathematician creates a PROOF, not a truth. When we promise a proof is ‘true’ we mean we promise we have DEMONSTRATED a deduction is possible or necessary. The person makes the truth claim since only people can make truth claims: promises. A promise we don’t err. That’s what ‘true’ means because it’s all it can existentially mean. We use the term ideal truth meaning ‘ that most parsimonious testimony we would give if we were omnipotent and omniscient and produced a vocabulary consisting entirely of operational names.” Because only then would we be possibly free of error. But testimonial truth is only that most parsimonious description we can make in present language with present knowledge, having performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, fictionalism, and deceit. In logic when we say a proposition ‘is true’ we mean that the constant relations stated or implied in the premise or premises are not inconstant. That we don’t err. Now in law, we say proof but it means beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it must falsify all other possibilities. We cannot promise we don’t err. We can only promise we have performed due diligence. There are no non-trivial logical proofs. Or as others have said all logic is just tautology. Or stated differently, there is no possibility of closure without appeal to information external to the set. Or stated more clearly, non-tautological logical statements are meaningless without appeal to context. So there are no non-tautological, no-trivial proofs of anything other than the internal consistency of deductions from invariant constant relations (meaning mathematics of the single dimension of positional name). Instead, all epistemology regardless of context consists of the sequence: perception, free association, hypotheses, theory, (and possibly law), with each step in that series consisting of falsification by a process of elimination, by the mind (hypothesis), by actions (theory), by market (‘law’ or ‘settled science’) until sufficient new knowledge evolves to improve it’s precision. And where that falsification is performed by tests of the consistency of identity, internal consistency (logic), external correspondence, operational possibility, and if involving choice, rational choice, and if involving human interaction reciprocity, warrantied or not by due diligence in scope and parsimony. So grow the f–k up and leave your secular version of scriptural interpretation (pilpul) in the dark ages of semitic ignorance where they belong. If you can understand this you know more about truth than the upper tenth of one percent.