Source: Original Site Post

  • Sovereignty (Natural Law) vs Submission (Theology)

    —“…The concept of “obeying the commandments gives ultimate freedom” was the biggest oxymoron to me for most of my life. I have my merits, it should be good enough… Maybe this is just my inner /r, I have found a level of peace as I accepted my place in the machinery of life.”—Anne Summers

    [I]t gives people an easy way of avoiding conflict over status and position so that they can work in harmony by simple rules. We just use sovereignty in western civ (scientific and legal) and take accountability for our actions, and supernaturalists use an excuse NOT to take accountability for their actions. In other words, sovereignty for the strong, and submission for the weak.

  • Sovereignty (Natural Law) vs Submission (Theology)

    —“…The concept of “obeying the commandments gives ultimate freedom” was the biggest oxymoron to me for most of my life. I have my merits, it should be good enough… Maybe this is just my inner /r, I have found a level of peace as I accepted my place in the machinery of life.”—Anne Summers

    [I]t gives people an easy way of avoiding conflict over status and position so that they can work in harmony by simple rules. We just use sovereignty in western civ (scientific and legal) and take accountability for our actions, and supernaturalists use an excuse NOT to take accountability for their actions. In other words, sovereignty for the strong, and submission for the weak.

  • Women using P Against GSRRM

    Feb 13, 2020, 2:38 PM by James Dmitro Makienko [M]y wife is an aspie, and she is in a fashion industry, which is rife with GSRRM. She tried everything, until she “read Doolittle” (c) and learned some P-concepts. Mainly she uses a meta-term “manipulation” as a catch-all for GSRRM and other feminine cognition shit they use. She calls them out on manipulation. They usually respond with more GSRRM. Then she says “you are using ORRGSM+M(manipulation) to manipulate me into going against my interests, and I am not falling for it”. Then they try it again. She repeats herself and adds “and since you use manipulation, instead of logic and reason, you are a bad person, with a dark agenda, who is trying to take me for a fool, but I am not falling for it”. She keeps repeating it until manipulators run away – when you expose them they run out of options they can use. She also read up on dark triad traits on manipulative behaviors of sociopaths and narcissists and found things like “Framing” – (“if you are a good girl/christian/X you will do Y and go against your interests to serve my interests”) which are also used with GSRRM. Calmly exposing manipulative tactics with a precisely defined technical term works for her to disarm those who use GSRRM.

  • Women using P Against GSRRM

    Feb 13, 2020, 2:38 PM by James Dmitro Makienko [M]y wife is an aspie, and she is in a fashion industry, which is rife with GSRRM. She tried everything, until she “read Doolittle” (c) and learned some P-concepts. Mainly she uses a meta-term “manipulation” as a catch-all for GSRRM and other feminine cognition shit they use. She calls them out on manipulation. They usually respond with more GSRRM. Then she says “you are using ORRGSM+M(manipulation) to manipulate me into going against my interests, and I am not falling for it”. Then they try it again. She repeats herself and adds “and since you use manipulation, instead of logic and reason, you are a bad person, with a dark agenda, who is trying to take me for a fool, but I am not falling for it”. She keeps repeating it until manipulators run away – when you expose them they run out of options they can use. She also read up on dark triad traits on manipulative behaviors of sociopaths and narcissists and found things like “Framing” – (“if you are a good girl/christian/X you will do Y and go against your interests to serve my interests”) which are also used with GSRRM. Calmly exposing manipulative tactics with a precisely defined technical term works for her to disarm those who use GSRRM.

  • Is Propertarianism a Completion of the Hegelian Project?

    Feb 13, 2020, 3:42 PM IS PROPERTARIANISM A COMPLETION OF THE HEGELIAN PROJECT? by Ryan Drummond [I] often see P as a…completion, almost, of Hegel’s work, without the room for logical error (and the dirty path to Marxism opening as a result). His model, as you’ll see, touches on many truths. Only it is nowhere near as advanced as P, grammatically or scientifically. Basically, Hegel made an effort to come to what might be considered a “total” understanding of philosophy and existence – much like yourself. Only he wrote using all resources available to him in the late 1700’s/early 1800’s. So a lot of his understandings are premature, not scientifically accurate, and lie in the realm of honest speculation etc. He had the concept that through logic, nature and human consciousness, God could be considered real but not definable. That we could know of it, but not know It. So he called God, or the universal absolute, “The Idea”. This “Idea”, he said, could be realised through dialectic…and as dialectic occurs both in the natural realm and within the human psyche, it would be our inevitable path to eventually reach it. This is where the problems come in – because he wrote of dialectic in such wishy-washy prose, and used language that hardly anyone could decipher accurately enough to take consistent meaning from, there were basically two schools born from his ideas, both offering an “Idea” that could be seemingly supported by varying ‘interpretations’ of his work, whereby an ideal could be theoretically reached. One path was through what we would now call Marxism, I suppose, where equality reigns supreme…dysgenia through eugenic ideals (The false, yet morally appeasing way at odds with natural law but not at odds with human consciousness). During Hegel’s time advocates of this kind of philosophy, later to be characterised by Marx, were known as young Hegelians. It was another example of the young generation wanting to usurp the old guard. The other path, to me at least, appears to be very much like P – Eugenia through eugenic ideals (the true, yet sometimes morally disturbing way – not at odds with natural law, but often found to be at odds with human consciousness and what we see, at our earthly level, to be right or wrong). Advocates of this school were the ‘gammon’ of the day, so to speak: Old Hegelians. So from Hegelian philosophy we ended up with the two behemoths we see at war today, really – Marxism/The Left/Dysgenia proper, and it’s nemesis Fascism/The Right/Eugenia proper. Had he written his philosophy as concisely as P, I don’t believe that there would have been room for Marxism to ever exist within it’s bounds, and gain a foothold in the minds of the population. P is ‘essentially’ Old Hegelianism + Accurate terminology + Scientific Justification + So much more. Had he done the job he set out to do properly (I believe he always intended his work to be interpreted the Right way, so to speak), we wouldn’t have found ourselves in the mess we are in today. Your work basically completes his initial goal, only doesn’t use wishy-washy, unknowable language, but language of almost mathematical precision and meaning. You finish the job he started. You’ve created the total philosophy I believe he envisaged in some way. But creating it and applying it are two different things. Especially from the position we are in now. He often wrote of the French Revolution that humanity had taken a bright dawn and turned it into a dusk. If he witnessed a dusk, then we must exist in the early hours of the morning. It’s cold and dark. But if we can overcome the hurdles in front of us, we will push humanity to Godhood. We will realise The Idea. We can beat the red queen, or get so damn close to it we can be proud of our efforts. I hope that clarifies a little where I get the connections to Hegelian philosophy from. That, and he was addicted to using trinities to explain everything. You do the same thing, really, through P, only do it all more accurately. If Old Hegelian philosophy was the child, P is the man it could be considered to grow up to become.

  • Is Propertarianism a Completion of the Hegelian Project?

    Feb 13, 2020, 3:42 PM IS PROPERTARIANISM A COMPLETION OF THE HEGELIAN PROJECT? by Ryan Drummond [I] often see P as a…completion, almost, of Hegel’s work, without the room for logical error (and the dirty path to Marxism opening as a result). His model, as you’ll see, touches on many truths. Only it is nowhere near as advanced as P, grammatically or scientifically. Basically, Hegel made an effort to come to what might be considered a “total” understanding of philosophy and existence – much like yourself. Only he wrote using all resources available to him in the late 1700’s/early 1800’s. So a lot of his understandings are premature, not scientifically accurate, and lie in the realm of honest speculation etc. He had the concept that through logic, nature and human consciousness, God could be considered real but not definable. That we could know of it, but not know It. So he called God, or the universal absolute, “The Idea”. This “Idea”, he said, could be realised through dialectic…and as dialectic occurs both in the natural realm and within the human psyche, it would be our inevitable path to eventually reach it. This is where the problems come in – because he wrote of dialectic in such wishy-washy prose, and used language that hardly anyone could decipher accurately enough to take consistent meaning from, there were basically two schools born from his ideas, both offering an “Idea” that could be seemingly supported by varying ‘interpretations’ of his work, whereby an ideal could be theoretically reached. One path was through what we would now call Marxism, I suppose, where equality reigns supreme…dysgenia through eugenic ideals (The false, yet morally appeasing way at odds with natural law but not at odds with human consciousness). During Hegel’s time advocates of this kind of philosophy, later to be characterised by Marx, were known as young Hegelians. It was another example of the young generation wanting to usurp the old guard. The other path, to me at least, appears to be very much like P – Eugenia through eugenic ideals (the true, yet sometimes morally disturbing way – not at odds with natural law, but often found to be at odds with human consciousness and what we see, at our earthly level, to be right or wrong). Advocates of this school were the ‘gammon’ of the day, so to speak: Old Hegelians. So from Hegelian philosophy we ended up with the two behemoths we see at war today, really – Marxism/The Left/Dysgenia proper, and it’s nemesis Fascism/The Right/Eugenia proper. Had he written his philosophy as concisely as P, I don’t believe that there would have been room for Marxism to ever exist within it’s bounds, and gain a foothold in the minds of the population. P is ‘essentially’ Old Hegelianism + Accurate terminology + Scientific Justification + So much more. Had he done the job he set out to do properly (I believe he always intended his work to be interpreted the Right way, so to speak), we wouldn’t have found ourselves in the mess we are in today. Your work basically completes his initial goal, only doesn’t use wishy-washy, unknowable language, but language of almost mathematical precision and meaning. You finish the job he started. You’ve created the total philosophy I believe he envisaged in some way. But creating it and applying it are two different things. Especially from the position we are in now. He often wrote of the French Revolution that humanity had taken a bright dawn and turned it into a dusk. If he witnessed a dusk, then we must exist in the early hours of the morning. It’s cold and dark. But if we can overcome the hurdles in front of us, we will push humanity to Godhood. We will realise The Idea. We can beat the red queen, or get so damn close to it we can be proud of our efforts. I hope that clarifies a little where I get the connections to Hegelian philosophy from. That, and he was addicted to using trinities to explain everything. You do the same thing, really, through P, only do it all more accurately. If Old Hegelian philosophy was the child, P is the man it could be considered to grow up to become.

  • “What is your opinion on anarcho-capitalism?”

    [T]he origins of Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalism (a sophism) and Mises’ wing of Austrian economics( praxeology as a pseudoscience), are in the ethics Jews of the Pale and Russia – evasion of payment for the commons, and licensing of profit from baiting into hazard (usury, alcohol, prostitution, slave trading, gambling, organized crime), investing assets from criminal activity into rent-seeking (non productive parasitic returns) and specializing in use of the state against the people (tax collection, money changing), and slowly migrating into mixed criminal, black market, grey market, and open market industries – the same pattern we saw with other non-northern European immigrants in the states, this by this method the Jews by undermining and the Muslims by invasion and raiding seek to devolve the west into low trust tribalism, face before truth, ignorance, and poverty of the middle east. While Rothbardian ghetto ethics are positioned as in the favor of entrepreneurs this is false – it’s in the interest of rent-seekers (rent-seeking is an economic term referring to obtaining profits without contributing the production) – and this is against the interests of entrepreneurs, professionals, managers, clerical workers, craftsmen, laborers, mothers, children, the elderly, and the dependent due to defect or infirmary – all of whom benefit from the multipliers produced by commons over their ability to individually produce income – which s So Rothbardian Ghetto ethics, like Misesian Separatist exploitative economics, favor exploitation of the people through non violent means, including specialization of the technique of Baiting (seducing) into Hazard, where baiting into hazard consists in: “Using False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard, Advocated by Pilpul, Defended by Critique, Escaping Liability and Warranty, by Pretense of Plausible Deniability, Despite Deliberate Avoidance of Due Diligence, And Deliberate Evasion of Warranty, Deliberate Escape From Liability, Given the Asymmetry of Knowledge, the Presence of Malincentives by both Agent(s) and Victim(s) – And Pursued for the Purpose of Attention, Reward (profit), Influence(power), Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict, Generating Demand for Authority to Control by the Hazard Maker.” And Mises entire economic theory is designed for the sole purpose of preserving rights to voluntary usury on one hand and rights to monetary appreciation on the other – both of which violate the western requirement for productivity (production of a common) in exchange for profits. So while we praise ourselves for individualism and democracy, neither of these is good or true – they are sophistries (lies). Instead, the long tradition of western ethics and morality consists in the use of rule of law of tort (forbidding trespass) as a system of measurement for the production of commons: reciprocal gain. It is not individualistic other than individually demonstrated interest (expense) is a means of suppression of inter-personal, inter-social, inter-political parasitism. We restate this rule of law of reciprocity as a positive just as all civilizations state their laws as positive aspirations. But these positive aspirations are merely inversions on negative prohibitions to provide positive moral incentive rather than negative moral threat. The unique advantage of western civilization is the production of commons, by the requirement for reciprocity in display, word (truth), and deed (action). This produces markets in everything, maximizes the production of commons(for all parties) producing meritocracy at the cost of limiting the reproduction of the unproductive underclasses, and thereby ensuring continuous improvement from genetics to institutions to technology to arts. This western ethic requires the inverse of the Semitic (Jewish Muslim) ethic. Our western ethic is in individual sovereignty upon demonstration of contribution to the commons – by oath against lying, stealing, and cowardice, and demonstrated in military contribution (a militia). Sovereignty leaves only reciprocity as a possible means of survival – where reciprocity consists of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others, by externality, where demonstrated interests consist of cost born by action or inaction. But Rothbard’s Ghetto (separatist) ethics and Mises’ Usurious (separatist) economics are presented to westerners by suggestion using its half-truth as equal to western sovereignty and reciprocity – for whom baiting into hazard is prohibited so deeply in our languages, thoughts, norms traditions, and ethics, we are not even conscious of its existence. And as we see in Ukraine today under the ‘oligarchs’ and in Russia, prior to Putin’s seizure of assets from the oligarchs, the societies are run by a small number of large organized crime families and the people suffer in poverty corruption from an absentee political and justice system under the oligarch’s control. We tend to put moral weight behind capitalism and democracy, but the exceptionalism of the western world in the ancient and modern worlds and the reason we survived the Christian attempt to destroy our civilization, is due to our rule of law, the empiricism we must practice to adjudicate differences under our rule of law, the application of that empiricism by externality to all human knowledge, and the markets that result from the suppression of ignorance, error, bias, fraud, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, corruption, immigration, and conversion. The function of a Germanic-Christian Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, or a Germanic-Christian Republic under the European traditional rule of law of reciprocity that we know as property (tort, trespass), is to centralize rents seeking in the state as profits for producing property rights in our courts, in exchange for suppressing local transaction costs – and corruptions – of all kinds. This is how and why states produce economic velocity. Just as the Abrahamic religions used false promise of life after death to undermining the old world aristocracies, and through Judaism to undermine, Christianity to weaken, and Islam to conquer and destroy the ancient world, in the modern world we are faced with a mere transformation of the false promise of supernatural returns under deception by theological sophistry, to the false promise of supernormal returns under deception by pseudoscientific sophistry by marxism to undermine market cooperation between the classes, socialism to undermine market cooperation via the government, feminism to undermine market cooperation between the genders, and postmodernism to undermine truth and reciprocity as the means of resolving disputes and preventing parasitism in the market for Truth, knowledge, information, opportunity. Lies all lies. Nothing but lies.

  • “What is your opinion on anarcho-capitalism?”

    [T]he origins of Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalism (a sophism) and Mises’ wing of Austrian economics( praxeology as a pseudoscience), are in the ethics Jews of the Pale and Russia – evasion of payment for the commons, and licensing of profit from baiting into hazard (usury, alcohol, prostitution, slave trading, gambling, organized crime), investing assets from criminal activity into rent-seeking (non productive parasitic returns) and specializing in use of the state against the people (tax collection, money changing), and slowly migrating into mixed criminal, black market, grey market, and open market industries – the same pattern we saw with other non-northern European immigrants in the states, this by this method the Jews by undermining and the Muslims by invasion and raiding seek to devolve the west into low trust tribalism, face before truth, ignorance, and poverty of the middle east. While Rothbardian ghetto ethics are positioned as in the favor of entrepreneurs this is false – it’s in the interest of rent-seekers (rent-seeking is an economic term referring to obtaining profits without contributing the production) – and this is against the interests of entrepreneurs, professionals, managers, clerical workers, craftsmen, laborers, mothers, children, the elderly, and the dependent due to defect or infirmary – all of whom benefit from the multipliers produced by commons over their ability to individually produce income – which s So Rothbardian Ghetto ethics, like Misesian Separatist exploitative economics, favor exploitation of the people through non violent means, including specialization of the technique of Baiting (seducing) into Hazard, where baiting into hazard consists in: “Using False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard, Advocated by Pilpul, Defended by Critique, Escaping Liability and Warranty, by Pretense of Plausible Deniability, Despite Deliberate Avoidance of Due Diligence, And Deliberate Evasion of Warranty, Deliberate Escape From Liability, Given the Asymmetry of Knowledge, the Presence of Malincentives by both Agent(s) and Victim(s) – And Pursued for the Purpose of Attention, Reward (profit), Influence(power), Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict, Generating Demand for Authority to Control by the Hazard Maker.” And Mises entire economic theory is designed for the sole purpose of preserving rights to voluntary usury on one hand and rights to monetary appreciation on the other – both of which violate the western requirement for productivity (production of a common) in exchange for profits. So while we praise ourselves for individualism and democracy, neither of these is good or true – they are sophistries (lies). Instead, the long tradition of western ethics and morality consists in the use of rule of law of tort (forbidding trespass) as a system of measurement for the production of commons: reciprocal gain. It is not individualistic other than individually demonstrated interest (expense) is a means of suppression of inter-personal, inter-social, inter-political parasitism. We restate this rule of law of reciprocity as a positive just as all civilizations state their laws as positive aspirations. But these positive aspirations are merely inversions on negative prohibitions to provide positive moral incentive rather than negative moral threat. The unique advantage of western civilization is the production of commons, by the requirement for reciprocity in display, word (truth), and deed (action). This produces markets in everything, maximizes the production of commons(for all parties) producing meritocracy at the cost of limiting the reproduction of the unproductive underclasses, and thereby ensuring continuous improvement from genetics to institutions to technology to arts. This western ethic requires the inverse of the Semitic (Jewish Muslim) ethic. Our western ethic is in individual sovereignty upon demonstration of contribution to the commons – by oath against lying, stealing, and cowardice, and demonstrated in military contribution (a militia). Sovereignty leaves only reciprocity as a possible means of survival – where reciprocity consists of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others, by externality, where demonstrated interests consist of cost born by action or inaction. But Rothbard’s Ghetto (separatist) ethics and Mises’ Usurious (separatist) economics are presented to westerners by suggestion using its half-truth as equal to western sovereignty and reciprocity – for whom baiting into hazard is prohibited so deeply in our languages, thoughts, norms traditions, and ethics, we are not even conscious of its existence. And as we see in Ukraine today under the ‘oligarchs’ and in Russia, prior to Putin’s seizure of assets from the oligarchs, the societies are run by a small number of large organized crime families and the people suffer in poverty corruption from an absentee political and justice system under the oligarch’s control. We tend to put moral weight behind capitalism and democracy, but the exceptionalism of the western world in the ancient and modern worlds and the reason we survived the Christian attempt to destroy our civilization, is due to our rule of law, the empiricism we must practice to adjudicate differences under our rule of law, the application of that empiricism by externality to all human knowledge, and the markets that result from the suppression of ignorance, error, bias, fraud, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, corruption, immigration, and conversion. The function of a Germanic-Christian Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, or a Germanic-Christian Republic under the European traditional rule of law of reciprocity that we know as property (tort, trespass), is to centralize rents seeking in the state as profits for producing property rights in our courts, in exchange for suppressing local transaction costs – and corruptions – of all kinds. This is how and why states produce economic velocity. Just as the Abrahamic religions used false promise of life after death to undermining the old world aristocracies, and through Judaism to undermine, Christianity to weaken, and Islam to conquer and destroy the ancient world, in the modern world we are faced with a mere transformation of the false promise of supernatural returns under deception by theological sophistry, to the false promise of supernormal returns under deception by pseudoscientific sophistry by marxism to undermine market cooperation between the classes, socialism to undermine market cooperation via the government, feminism to undermine market cooperation between the genders, and postmodernism to undermine truth and reciprocity as the means of resolving disputes and preventing parasitism in the market for Truth, knowledge, information, opportunity. Lies all lies. Nothing but lies.

  • An Awkward Relationship with Xianty.

    by @ClownBa73413423 [C]urt has an awkward relationship with Xianty. He understands it has some good qualities and Americans don’t want to give up their investment in the religion; but it can leave people vulnerable to pilpul and weaken them. He seeks reform of Xianty to reconcile with the needs of the polity to act like Caesar/Aristotle when appropriate and to act like Jesus when appropriate. So he doesn’t want to destroy it, he wants reform. So he dances between praising and critiquing.

  • An Awkward Relationship with Xianty.

    by @ClownBa73413423 [C]urt has an awkward relationship with Xianty. He understands it has some good qualities and Americans don’t want to give up their investment in the religion; but it can leave people vulnerable to pilpul and weaken them. He seeks reform of Xianty to reconcile with the needs of the polity to act like Caesar/Aristotle when appropriate and to act like Jesus when appropriate. So he doesn’t want to destroy it, he wants reform. So he dances between praising and critiquing.