Jan 23, 2020, 11:45 AM MUST READ by Luke Weinhagen Race + Aesthetic = Ethnicity In much the same way common biological markers are a shortcut to trust (represent a reduction in costs) common aesthetic markers as a shortcut to trust. Shared aesthetic signals “I am one of you” like shared biology does. Aesthetic, in this context, is the projection of or our kinship onto our environment and behavior. Consumption of the aesthetic produces an externalization of costs onto the development of common trust. Globalist Capitalism discounts the aesthetic. – It tears down the historic church to put up an Amazon distribution center. – It sends the work to India instead of Indiana. – It ignores full-accounting to limit trade to material value. – It denies the commonality, the community, value embodied by the aesthetic. – It dissolves the bonds that aesthetic creates and supports. Globalist Capitalism consumes our trust, and it does so at a deep discount. (because the aesthetic is not common between parties under globalism, aesthetic can not be valued into trade – globalist capitalism has to deny/prevent/ignore full-accounting) Kinship Capitalism includes the demand for full-accounting that includes the value of the aesthetic. – It prevents the destruction of our history and demands restitution when that history is damaged. – It puts the burden of extra costs on the outsider bring business into the kinship. – It demands the value of a resource be measured by the cost of its loss to the community as well as any material value – It promotes and preserves the commonality, the community, value embodied by the aesthetic. – Is secures the bonds that aesthetic creates and supports. Kinship Capitalism preserves our trust, and insures our interactions to continue to increase that trust.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Race + Aesthetic = Ethnicity
Jan 23, 2020, 11:45 AM MUST READ by Luke Weinhagen Race + Aesthetic = Ethnicity In much the same way common biological markers are a shortcut to trust (represent a reduction in costs) common aesthetic markers as a shortcut to trust. Shared aesthetic signals “I am one of you” like shared biology does. Aesthetic, in this context, is the projection of or our kinship onto our environment and behavior. Consumption of the aesthetic produces an externalization of costs onto the development of common trust. Globalist Capitalism discounts the aesthetic. – It tears down the historic church to put up an Amazon distribution center. – It sends the work to India instead of Indiana. – It ignores full-accounting to limit trade to material value. – It denies the commonality, the community, value embodied by the aesthetic. – It dissolves the bonds that aesthetic creates and supports. Globalist Capitalism consumes our trust, and it does so at a deep discount. (because the aesthetic is not common between parties under globalism, aesthetic can not be valued into trade – globalist capitalism has to deny/prevent/ignore full-accounting) Kinship Capitalism includes the demand for full-accounting that includes the value of the aesthetic. – It prevents the destruction of our history and demands restitution when that history is damaged. – It puts the burden of extra costs on the outsider bring business into the kinship. – It demands the value of a resource be measured by the cost of its loss to the community as well as any material value – It promotes and preserves the commonality, the community, value embodied by the aesthetic. – Is secures the bonds that aesthetic creates and supports. Kinship Capitalism preserves our trust, and insures our interactions to continue to increase that trust.
-
Constantine’s Destruction of European Civilization
Jan 23, 2020, 11:54 AM The first episodes of persecution of paganism in the history of the Roman Empire started late in Constantine’s reign, with his orders for the pillaging and the tearing down of pagan temples.[1][2][3] The anti-paganism policy of Constantine the Great evolved from the initial prohibition on the construction of new temples[14] and the toleration of pagan sacrifices,[15] to orders for the looting and the tearing down of the temples by the end of his reign.[1][2][3] Earlier in his reign he had prohibited the construction of new temples[14] but tolerated the practice of pagan sacrifices.[15] According to Church historians writing after his death, Constantine converted to Christianity and was baptised on his deathbed, thus making him the first Christian emperor. Constantine, though he made his allegiance clear, did not outlaw paganism; in the words of an early edict, he decreed that polytheists could “celebrate the rites of an outmoded illusion,” so long as they did not force Christians to join them.[18][19] In a letter to the King of Persia, Constantine wrote how he shunned the “abominable blood and hateful odors” of pagan sacrifices, and instead worshiped the High God “on bended knee”,[15][20] and in the new capital city he built, Constantine made sure that there were no pagan temples built.[14] Constantine would sporadically prohibit public sacrifice and close pagan temples; very little pressure, however, was put on individual pagans, and there were no pagan martyrs. When Constantine dedicated Constantinople, two Neoplatonist friends – Sopater and Praetextus – were present. A year and a half later, on Monday 11 May 330, when the festival of Saint Mocius was celebrated, the city was finally dedicated. The goddess Tyche was invited to come and live in the city, and her statue was placed in the hand of the statue of the emperor that was on top of the Column of Constantine, on the Forum with the same name. Although by now Constantine openly supported Christianity, the city still offered room to pagan religions: there were shrines for the Dioscuri and Tyche. The Acropolis, with its ancient pagan temples, was left as it was. As for worshipping the emperor, Constantine’s mausoleum gave him a Christ-like status: his tomb was set amid 12 monuments, each containing relics of one of the Apostles. Constantine had continued to engage in pagan rituals. The emperor still claimed to be a supernatural being, although the outward form of this personality cult had become Christian.[21] According to some authors, the issuing of the Edict of Milan,[22] showed that Constantine continued the policy of toleration which Galerius had established.[citation needed] He “continued to pay his public honors to the Sun”, until 325, on coins that showed him jointly with Sol Invictus, whereas his later coins showed the Chi-Rho sign.[23] In that year he had the Christian Bishops convene at the First Council of Nicaea, and from then on continued to take an active interest in the affairs of the Church. Many historians, including MacMullen, have seen the seeds of future persecution by the state in Constantine’s more belligerent utterances regarding the old religion.[1] Other historians[who?] emphasize that de facto paganism “was tolerated in the period from Constantine to Gratian. Emperors were tolerant in deed, if not always in word.”[24] Church restrictions opposing the pillaging of pagan temples by Christians were in place even while the Christians were being persecuted by the pagans. Spanish bishops in AD 305 decreed that anyone who broke idols and was killed while doing so was not formally to be counted as a martyr, as the provocation was too blatant.[25] Constantine became the first Emperor in the Christian era to persecute specific groups of Christians, the Donatists, in order to enforce religious unity.[26] Legislation against magic and private divination Constantine legislated against magic and private divination, but this may have been motivated by a fear that others could gain power through those means.[27] Despite enacting such legislation, he also enacted contradictory legislation that called for the consultation of augurs after an amphitheater had been struck by lightning in the year 320.[28] Constantine explicitly allowed public divination as well as public pagan practices to continue.[29] Constantine also issued laws confirming the rights of flamens, priests and duumvirs.[30] In 321, he legislated that the “venerable day of the sun” should be a day of rest for all citizens. This ambiguous wording is capable of being interpreted as referring to the Christian day of rest or to Sol Invictus. However, in the year 323, he issued a decree banning Christians from participating in state sacrifices.[31] He destroyed the Temple of Aphrodite in Lebanon.[32] He ordered the execution of eunuch priests in Egypt[1] because they transgressed his moral norms. According to the historian Ramsay MacMullen, Constantine desired to obliterate non-Christians but lacking the means he had to be content with robbing their temples towards the end of his reign.[33] He resorted to derogatory and contemptuous comments relating to the old religion; writing of the “true obstinacy” of the pagans, of their “misguided rites and ceremonial”, and of their “temples of lying” contrasted with “the splendours of the home of truth”.[2]
-
Constantine’s Destruction of European Civilization
Jan 23, 2020, 11:54 AM The first episodes of persecution of paganism in the history of the Roman Empire started late in Constantine’s reign, with his orders for the pillaging and the tearing down of pagan temples.[1][2][3] The anti-paganism policy of Constantine the Great evolved from the initial prohibition on the construction of new temples[14] and the toleration of pagan sacrifices,[15] to orders for the looting and the tearing down of the temples by the end of his reign.[1][2][3] Earlier in his reign he had prohibited the construction of new temples[14] but tolerated the practice of pagan sacrifices.[15] According to Church historians writing after his death, Constantine converted to Christianity and was baptised on his deathbed, thus making him the first Christian emperor. Constantine, though he made his allegiance clear, did not outlaw paganism; in the words of an early edict, he decreed that polytheists could “celebrate the rites of an outmoded illusion,” so long as they did not force Christians to join them.[18][19] In a letter to the King of Persia, Constantine wrote how he shunned the “abominable blood and hateful odors” of pagan sacrifices, and instead worshiped the High God “on bended knee”,[15][20] and in the new capital city he built, Constantine made sure that there were no pagan temples built.[14] Constantine would sporadically prohibit public sacrifice and close pagan temples; very little pressure, however, was put on individual pagans, and there were no pagan martyrs. When Constantine dedicated Constantinople, two Neoplatonist friends – Sopater and Praetextus – were present. A year and a half later, on Monday 11 May 330, when the festival of Saint Mocius was celebrated, the city was finally dedicated. The goddess Tyche was invited to come and live in the city, and her statue was placed in the hand of the statue of the emperor that was on top of the Column of Constantine, on the Forum with the same name. Although by now Constantine openly supported Christianity, the city still offered room to pagan religions: there were shrines for the Dioscuri and Tyche. The Acropolis, with its ancient pagan temples, was left as it was. As for worshipping the emperor, Constantine’s mausoleum gave him a Christ-like status: his tomb was set amid 12 monuments, each containing relics of one of the Apostles. Constantine had continued to engage in pagan rituals. The emperor still claimed to be a supernatural being, although the outward form of this personality cult had become Christian.[21] According to some authors, the issuing of the Edict of Milan,[22] showed that Constantine continued the policy of toleration which Galerius had established.[citation needed] He “continued to pay his public honors to the Sun”, until 325, on coins that showed him jointly with Sol Invictus, whereas his later coins showed the Chi-Rho sign.[23] In that year he had the Christian Bishops convene at the First Council of Nicaea, and from then on continued to take an active interest in the affairs of the Church. Many historians, including MacMullen, have seen the seeds of future persecution by the state in Constantine’s more belligerent utterances regarding the old religion.[1] Other historians[who?] emphasize that de facto paganism “was tolerated in the period from Constantine to Gratian. Emperors were tolerant in deed, if not always in word.”[24] Church restrictions opposing the pillaging of pagan temples by Christians were in place even while the Christians were being persecuted by the pagans. Spanish bishops in AD 305 decreed that anyone who broke idols and was killed while doing so was not formally to be counted as a martyr, as the provocation was too blatant.[25] Constantine became the first Emperor in the Christian era to persecute specific groups of Christians, the Donatists, in order to enforce religious unity.[26] Legislation against magic and private divination Constantine legislated against magic and private divination, but this may have been motivated by a fear that others could gain power through those means.[27] Despite enacting such legislation, he also enacted contradictory legislation that called for the consultation of augurs after an amphitheater had been struck by lightning in the year 320.[28] Constantine explicitly allowed public divination as well as public pagan practices to continue.[29] Constantine also issued laws confirming the rights of flamens, priests and duumvirs.[30] In 321, he legislated that the “venerable day of the sun” should be a day of rest for all citizens. This ambiguous wording is capable of being interpreted as referring to the Christian day of rest or to Sol Invictus. However, in the year 323, he issued a decree banning Christians from participating in state sacrifices.[31] He destroyed the Temple of Aphrodite in Lebanon.[32] He ordered the execution of eunuch priests in Egypt[1] because they transgressed his moral norms. According to the historian Ramsay MacMullen, Constantine desired to obliterate non-Christians but lacking the means he had to be content with robbing their temples towards the end of his reign.[33] He resorted to derogatory and contemptuous comments relating to the old religion; writing of the “true obstinacy” of the pagans, of their “misguided rites and ceremonial”, and of their “temples of lying” contrasted with “the splendours of the home of truth”.[2]
-
The Standing Army Isn’t The Problem
Jan 23, 2020, 11:56 AM
So it’s not the standing army that is the problem so much as the lack of a standing militia and a standing army of professional warriors.
-
The Standing Army Isn’t The Problem
Jan 23, 2020, 11:56 AM
So it’s not the standing army that is the problem so much as the lack of a standing militia and a standing army of professional warriors.
-
I Use the Public as My Classroom
Jan 23, 2020, 12:11 PM I don’t have a classroom so I use the public as my classroom. It was an experiment. it’s been ridiculously rewarding, even if the number of overconfident ignorant young men is … tedious. We have a course going at the Institute where people singn up and get the content as I release it. It’s a drip process but it works. I use a particularly interesting teaching method (king of the hill) more suitable for men so I attract a certain audience. And so far the project is largely complete. It’s a matter of editing it down (simplification). Some people (example: Taleb) publish a book every few years, and finally get to their philosophical project. Some people publish a book every ten years. I’m sort of on the ten year plan. And if you look through history (kant etc) it takes about ten years. Duchsene took ten years. It takes time. The first book is done but I don’t want to release it first. It’s too targeted to libertarians. The second book is at 80%+. The constitution is somewhere in the 50% range. It’s getting there. I don’t see the point in lecturing until something this complicated can be published. Although we will undoubtably start this year. And I’m far better in person when teaching real time than I am on video – it’s just my nature to interact with the class. So I assume that the videos of those presentations will be more effective than the online content, the courses so far, or the book.
-
I Use the Public as My Classroom
Jan 23, 2020, 12:11 PM I don’t have a classroom so I use the public as my classroom. It was an experiment. it’s been ridiculously rewarding, even if the number of overconfident ignorant young men is … tedious. We have a course going at the Institute where people singn up and get the content as I release it. It’s a drip process but it works. I use a particularly interesting teaching method (king of the hill) more suitable for men so I attract a certain audience. And so far the project is largely complete. It’s a matter of editing it down (simplification). Some people (example: Taleb) publish a book every few years, and finally get to their philosophical project. Some people publish a book every ten years. I’m sort of on the ten year plan. And if you look through history (kant etc) it takes about ten years. Duchsene took ten years. It takes time. The first book is done but I don’t want to release it first. It’s too targeted to libertarians. The second book is at 80%+. The constitution is somewhere in the 50% range. It’s getting there. I don’t see the point in lecturing until something this complicated can be published. Although we will undoubtably start this year. And I’m far better in person when teaching real time than I am on video – it’s just my nature to interact with the class. So I assume that the videos of those presentations will be more effective than the online content, the courses so far, or the book.
-
Man up. Show up. Fight.
Jan 23, 2020, 2:47 PM The Propertarian Institute (a) I have been in the states for three years working on “the project” – and I don’t see much in the way of other options. (b) I was in Richmond. (I didn’t go to C’ville because I saw the cluster-f-k coming and ‘leadership’ told me to avoid it. (c) The only option is indeed civil war – you are welcome to argue otherwise. Man up. Show up. Fight. And stop pretending you’re other than a gutless free riding coward on the risks and labors of better men.
-
Man up. Show up. Fight.
Jan 23, 2020, 2:47 PM The Propertarian Institute (a) I have been in the states for three years working on “the project” – and I don’t see much in the way of other options. (b) I was in Richmond. (I didn’t go to C’ville because I saw the cluster-f-k coming and ‘leadership’ told me to avoid it. (c) The only option is indeed civil war – you are welcome to argue otherwise. Man up. Show up. Fight. And stop pretending you’re other than a gutless free riding coward on the risks and labors of better men.