( senior citizen torture: teaching my octogenarian mother how to operate her new car – including, that if she presses a button near the radio, and says “wipers on or wipers off” and the same for the lights the voice recognition will turn them on for her. She tries repeatedly and I say “hmm… must have trouble interpreting your voice. Try louder.” She catches on. I nearly lose consciousness from laughing so hard. She calls me lots of unkind names. I walk her to her condo, put her groceries away. Start laughing again. She gives me the finger. lolz…. I have to eventually learn that humans are not just pets, and that it isn’t nice to put tape on the cat’s feet either….. )
Source: Original Site Post
-
(humor)
-
Read What Is Clearly the Superior Canon
—“read the book of …. “—
[N]o. Read Aesop’s Fables, Grimm’s Tales, The Carolingian and Arthurian Legends, and Nibelungenlied, the Volsunga saga, and the Poetic Edda, the Greek Myths, The Iliad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, The Life of Alexander, The Republic of Plato, The Works of Aristotle, The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, The Prince by Machiavelli, …. There is no comparison on earth. Silly children’s stories of the world’s underclass carry no lessons for men.
-
The Lesson of “The Art of War”
[I]t is an essay in the amoral (not immoral). We spend so much time in moral mind, we leave ourselves open to defeat. So, he retrains us to think objectively rather than morally. It is not a book about war. It is a book by which we restore agency, lost in the training of our norms.
-
Revolution: Strategy and Tactics
Conditions. ( … )
-
Revolution: Strategy and Tactics
Conditions. ( … )
-
Propertarian Government?
(FB Timestamp) PROPERTARIAN GOVERNMENT LIBERTY, RULE OF LAW, AND THE OPTIONS FOR GOVERNANCE: PRODUCTION OF COMMONS [L]iberty as far as I know refers to the condition produced by rule of law rather than rule by man. The principal problem with rule of law has been the means of decidability as to the scope of the law. This is why libertarianism failed – it does not define the scope of the law objectively and empirically rather than subjectively and preferentially. In the west this refers to reciprocity both between members, between members and the government, and between governments(international). However, commons must be produced since it is by commons the west outpaced (rapidly) the rest, in the bronze, iron and finally steel ages. We invented the corporation precisely because we have been practicing it for thousands of years – particularly since 700ad under bipartite manorialism (the agrarian corporation). Once the question of the limit of law is defined as reciprocity, the only question then refers to who and how the polity decides to choose which commons to produce that is in the interest of everyone in the hierarchy. A judge of last resort can choose the commons (monarchy). The monarch can choose the commons and then have another ‘house’ approve or not the appropriation of funds. Or a house can choose the commons and the people approve the appropriations, and the monarch (judge of last resort) hold veto. Or the people can choose the commons and then approve the appropriations for those commons, with a house, monarch, or judiciary veto those commons and appropriations. History appears to suggest that monarchs that must obtain permission from industry and the public in order to appropriate the necessary funds, produces the superior set of outcomes. And this is the lesson of the 20th century, and the reason for the systemic failure of democracy – even in the west. Not that we needed to repeat the lesson since it has been known since the ancient era, that democracy was the worst of all possible options. But because democracy coincided with the returns on the second industrial revolution (germany), from which our 20th century wealth arose, the state, academy, media complex has claimed this was due to democracy rather than democracy has brought that wealth to an end through redistribution of reproduction, destroying what that industrial revolution depended upon: the ‘white’ laboring, working, and middle classes – which are the only high trust such classes in the world outside of japan and korea. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
How Germany Made Use of Second Mover Advantage:
BRITAIN VS GERMANY (how germany made use of second mover advantage: england betamax, germany vhs) By Aaron Kahland [I]’ll start by addressing education. Let’s take the metric of universities. Germany had more than ten before 16th century concluded whilst England’s third university was first founded in 1824 and Oxbridge were largely confined to theology and law. The protestant reformation led to compulsory education in Germany well before it was commonplace in England. The pietist movement in Germany led to the concept of ‘Bildung’ or a general education in the humanities which led to a revival of the study of the Classics. By the 19th century, whilst the Britons were busying themselves with superficial comparisons between Victorian and Roman periods, Germans were discovering places like Troy. By 1933, Germany had more Nobel Prize winners than all English speakers on the planet combined. But that is actually a poor metric considering that Germany invented the modern university and it became the model for the rest of the world and, importantly, the United States. I want to emphasize that i am not entirely convinced that the general education of the average German was better than that of the average Briton. Perhaps it was, perhaps it was not – I really don’t know. A good indicator might be book sales and what books were being sold in the 19th century. However, I would argue that by the 19th century, the upper 5% of Germans were better educated than Britons – and this is reflected in the fact that the Second Industrial Revolution occurred not in Britain but Germany. Whilst Britain was the origin of the Scientific Revolution – the Germans scholars absolutely embraced it and built their deucational institutions using the scientific method as a foundation. In fact I might argue that German philosophy was a response / reaction to that tremendous pace of scientific advance. By the 19th century in both France and Britain – Germany became synonymous with science and France had entirely given up hope of ever competing. It came to be understood, in Europe, that there was something peculiar about German civilization that provided it a technological advantage over others. It was this second Industrial Revolution – the fact that Germany now completely dominated electrics, machine tools, chemicals, pharmaceuticals that, in my view, was the cause of this civilizational conflict. By the late 19th Century the British ruling classes were determined to build a global Empire that would be run by a global English-speaking elite – the Rhodes Scholarship was established precisely for the purpose of selecting this elite on merit. Germany however, was the obstacle to achieving this because of her scientific advancement. (I baited Aaron Kahland into this post. He didn’t bite. So I just outright asked him. This is the result. lol -hugs )
-
Propertarian Government?
(FB Timestamp) PROPERTARIAN GOVERNMENT LIBERTY, RULE OF LAW, AND THE OPTIONS FOR GOVERNANCE: PRODUCTION OF COMMONS [L]iberty as far as I know refers to the condition produced by rule of law rather than rule by man. The principal problem with rule of law has been the means of decidability as to the scope of the law. This is why libertarianism failed – it does not define the scope of the law objectively and empirically rather than subjectively and preferentially. In the west this refers to reciprocity both between members, between members and the government, and between governments(international). However, commons must be produced since it is by commons the west outpaced (rapidly) the rest, in the bronze, iron and finally steel ages. We invented the corporation precisely because we have been practicing it for thousands of years – particularly since 700ad under bipartite manorialism (the agrarian corporation). Once the question of the limit of law is defined as reciprocity, the only question then refers to who and how the polity decides to choose which commons to produce that is in the interest of everyone in the hierarchy. A judge of last resort can choose the commons (monarchy). The monarch can choose the commons and then have another ‘house’ approve or not the appropriation of funds. Or a house can choose the commons and the people approve the appropriations, and the monarch (judge of last resort) hold veto. Or the people can choose the commons and then approve the appropriations for those commons, with a house, monarch, or judiciary veto those commons and appropriations. History appears to suggest that monarchs that must obtain permission from industry and the public in order to appropriate the necessary funds, produces the superior set of outcomes. And this is the lesson of the 20th century, and the reason for the systemic failure of democracy – even in the west. Not that we needed to repeat the lesson since it has been known since the ancient era, that democracy was the worst of all possible options. But because democracy coincided with the returns on the second industrial revolution (germany), from which our 20th century wealth arose, the state, academy, media complex has claimed this was due to democracy rather than democracy has brought that wealth to an end through redistribution of reproduction, destroying what that industrial revolution depended upon: the ‘white’ laboring, working, and middle classes – which are the only high trust such classes in the world outside of japan and korea. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Western Heroism and Semitic Submission – the Masculine versus The Feminine Across 3500 Years of History
WESTERN HEROISM and SEMITIC SUBMISSION – THE MASCULINE VERSUS THE FEMININE ACROSS 3500 YEARS OF HISTORY (thanks to whomever asked me to comment) [I]t’s a very simple difference. Agency vs Submission. Heathens (Pagans in the pejorative) in western civilization are imagined heroes in competition with the spirits(dead), non-humans(green man, primitive man), demigods(powerful but mortal), and gods (powerful and immortal), and can, by effort and cunning outwit them – or – negotiate (bribe) them. This is a universal artifact of the conquest and replacement of european peoples by the westward expansion of the indo-europeans (Yaman, Corded ware et al) and their Militaristic, Expansionist, Sky Worshipping, Metalsmithing, business of profiting from the domestication of animal man, with horse, bronze, wheel and their very visible power over nature. It is a religion of agency not submission. Demand for a “religion of empires” increases with the distribution of peoples under rule, and the group strategies of those people under rule, and the compatibilities of those group’s strategies under such a universal rule. The semitic methodology of INVERTING the aristocratic (western) ethos by converting the bible of greco roman civilization (iliad of homer) which occupied the vast majority of writings in the greco roman period, with a ‘hero’ of ‘submission and resistance’ was an interesting strategy by which the vast underclasses of the old european (byzantine), and greco-anatolian, syrian levantine world could create a resistance movement by the cultural destruction of their superiors, Just as the Marxists (Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Adorno et al, Rothbard, and the neocons) repeated 1700 years later (monopoly marxism of private property, monopoly marxism of common property, monopoly marxism of identity-property (culture)). The Semitic method of undermining was as successful in the Modern world (undermining colonialism) as it was in the ancient world (undermining colonialism). False promise of salvation after death. False promise of economic salvation. False promise of cultural (identity) salvation. The method of using sophism (false promise + sophism (Pilpul) + Straw Manning (Critique) is in fact a successful method of undermining a civilization that is overwhelmed by overextension, and profiting from overextension through commerce, and the dependence of commerce at international scales on trust. Christianity succeeded because trade collapsed in europe after (a) undermining by jewish-christian vanguard, (b) enforcement by byzantine (old world, greek) defeat of rome, and (c) collapse of world trade under arab-muslim expansion, (d) and the eventual consumption of all capital of the great civilizations of the ancient world, and the destruction of all those civilizations as a consequence. So, as trade and knowledge increased, europeans gradually (expectedly) extracted themselves from Semitic superstition, the church’s’ monopoly on information and literacy, the 50% of dead capital in europe under the church. and the corruption of the church as a monopoly federal government selling false receipts of salvation the way the current academy sells false diplomas. Given that the remains of Christianity are what leave us vulnerable to Semiticism (abrahamic monotheism, marxism-socialism-postmodernism-feminism, and the use of false promise, sophism, straw-manning, and the discount on disapproval, shaming, ridicule, moralizing, rallying as a substitute for truthful (scientific, rational) argument. It is only logical that the aristocratic right in Europe (using literary philosophy, moralism, and history) and aristocratic right in the States (using law and, economics, and science) should produce arguments to restore our native religion of the hearth to one that is heroic and expansionary rather than submissive and assisting in our surrender. Nothing in human behavior or history is difficult. It’s all simple. Once you understand that nearly all use of language is simply means of lying in order to obtain discounts on the acquisition of the power to alter the probability of outcomes in one’s favor. And all we do is search for narratives to echo (script). Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine https://arktos.com/2018/10/31/alain-de-benoist-paganism-and-the-neo-christian-west/
-
How Germany Made Use of Second Mover Advantage:
BRITAIN VS GERMANY (how germany made use of second mover advantage: england betamax, germany vhs) By Aaron Kahland [I]’ll start by addressing education. Let’s take the metric of universities. Germany had more than ten before 16th century concluded whilst England’s third university was first founded in 1824 and Oxbridge were largely confined to theology and law. The protestant reformation led to compulsory education in Germany well before it was commonplace in England. The pietist movement in Germany led to the concept of ‘Bildung’ or a general education in the humanities which led to a revival of the study of the Classics. By the 19th century, whilst the Britons were busying themselves with superficial comparisons between Victorian and Roman periods, Germans were discovering places like Troy. By 1933, Germany had more Nobel Prize winners than all English speakers on the planet combined. But that is actually a poor metric considering that Germany invented the modern university and it became the model for the rest of the world and, importantly, the United States. I want to emphasize that i am not entirely convinced that the general education of the average German was better than that of the average Briton. Perhaps it was, perhaps it was not – I really don’t know. A good indicator might be book sales and what books were being sold in the 19th century. However, I would argue that by the 19th century, the upper 5% of Germans were better educated than Britons – and this is reflected in the fact that the Second Industrial Revolution occurred not in Britain but Germany. Whilst Britain was the origin of the Scientific Revolution – the Germans scholars absolutely embraced it and built their deucational institutions using the scientific method as a foundation. In fact I might argue that German philosophy was a response / reaction to that tremendous pace of scientific advance. By the 19th century in both France and Britain – Germany became synonymous with science and France had entirely given up hope of ever competing. It came to be understood, in Europe, that there was something peculiar about German civilization that provided it a technological advantage over others. It was this second Industrial Revolution – the fact that Germany now completely dominated electrics, machine tools, chemicals, pharmaceuticals that, in my view, was the cause of this civilizational conflict. By the late 19th Century the British ruling classes were determined to build a global Empire that would be run by a global English-speaking elite – the Rhodes Scholarship was established precisely for the purpose of selecting this elite on merit. Germany however, was the obstacle to achieving this because of her scientific advancement. (I baited Aaron Kahland into this post. He didn’t bite. So I just outright asked him. This is the result. lol -hugs )