(humor) Equality? Are you kidding? They’re pets that lack house-training. They should have owners, licenses, rabies and other disease shots, and be neutered like all other domesticated animals, and be subject to strict import regulations. š
Source: Original Site Post
-
They’re pets that lack house-training.
(humor) Equality? Are you kidding? They’re pets that lack house-training. They should have owners, licenses, rabies and other disease shots, and be neutered like all other domesticated animals, and be subject to strict import regulations. š
-
The Tax That Matters
The only tax I care you pay is FULL INTEGRATION.
-
The Tax That Matters
The only tax I care you pay is FULL INTEGRATION.
-
Semi Domesticated Animals
(humor) I mean, if you can’t integrate with Aristotelianism, truth telling regardless of the consequences, reciprocity in all things, duty of the commons, self sufficiency, and the absolute nuclear family, then you’re just a semi domesticated animal that doesn’t have to turn around in a circle three times before lying down. … And yes, I know that limits the definition of ‘human’ to a single ethnicity’s married couples with children. š
-
Semi Domesticated Animals
(humor) I mean, if you can’t integrate with Aristotelianism, truth telling regardless of the consequences, reciprocity in all things, duty of the commons, self sufficiency, and the absolute nuclear family, then you’re just a semi domesticated animal that doesn’t have to turn around in a circle three times before lying down. … And yes, I know that limits the definition of ‘human’ to a single ethnicity’s married couples with children. š
-
Parrots can speak. That doesn’t mean we give them legal standing, citizenship, and voting rights.
(humor) I mean, domesticated animals are fine – assuming that you can take over their dominance hierarchy and train them, keep them in a pen, control their reproduction, put them to useful work, and/or eat them. Otherwise their wild animals. you’re just frequently confused that some wild animals can use some form of language. The fact that parrots can do the same doesn’t mean we give them legal standing, citizenship, and voting rights.
-
Parrots can speak. That doesn’t mean we give them legal standing, citizenship, and voting rights.
(humor) I mean, domesticated animals are fine – assuming that you can take over their dominance hierarchy and train them, keep them in a pen, control their reproduction, put them to useful work, and/or eat them. Otherwise their wild animals. you’re just frequently confused that some wild animals can use some form of language. The fact that parrots can do the same doesn’t mean we give them legal standing, citizenship, and voting rights.
-
Ragnar Redbeard and Nietzsche: Introductions to Aristocratic Ethics of Propertarianism
—“Have you ever read Might is Right? Iām almost finished it. Iād like to know your thoughts on the topic. Can you explain how it relates to Propertarianism?”— Kelly Wilson Ragnar Redbeard (Arthur Desmond) – Might is Right Nietzche: – The Birth of Tragedy – The Geneology of Morals – Beyond Good and Evil – The Will to Power 1) The book Might is Right was written in 1890 as a derivation of Nietzsche – written in English by a Briton, with the ‘clarity’ of anglo sentiments, rather than the ‘romanticized’ prose of German sentiments. In that sense it should be taken as a more aggressive anglo restatement of Nietzsche’s works published at that time. 2) Nietzsche’s works and Redbeard’s (Arthur Desmond), were followed by the social darwinist and eugenics movements, especially (British) Herbert Spencer’s thought. They were extremely popular pre-war. (And should have remained so. That failure will haunt us for centuries.) 3) Neither Nietzsche nor Redbeard solved the problem of replacing ‘slave’ (jewish and christian) morality with aristocratic morality for the simple reason that they did not understand aristocratic morality’s origins in germanic common law. We do see that Hayek, by the late 1970’s has begun to understand but he was german again, and too ‘tepid’, where the more aggressive British Keynes and American Rawls, and the very, very, aggressive ashkenazi marxists and socialists were more successful. 4) I have, I think, in propertarianism, completed the scientific explanation of our ancient heroic morality – although I am frequently criticized for writing it so legally and dryly. Most men want something more romantic (german), or passionate (anglo), or spiritual (Italian). When in reality, it is the Russians who have begun to practice it – absence the commitment to truth and sovereignty and reciprocity. They have at least taken on the Aryan Ambition. 5) So I would say that Ragnar Redbeard is a great … let us say, Young Adult Literary introduction to aristocracy and Propertarianism, yes. Just as Nietzsche is a freshman college introduction to aristocratic ethics and Propertarianism. Where Propertarianism is a bit like the graduate school version of both. Meaning that those are both works of literary inspiration, where Propertarianism is literally ‘The Natural Law Of Reciprocity of Sovereign Peoples: The Law of Aristocratic Egalitarians.” Hope that helps Curt
-
Ragnar Redbeard and Nietzsche: Introductions to Aristocratic Ethics of Propertarianism
—“Have you ever read Might is Right? Iām almost finished it. Iād like to know your thoughts on the topic. Can you explain how it relates to Propertarianism?”— Kelly Wilson Ragnar Redbeard (Arthur Desmond) – Might is Right Nietzche: – The Birth of Tragedy – The Geneology of Morals – Beyond Good and Evil – The Will to Power 1) The book Might is Right was written in 1890 as a derivation of Nietzsche – written in English by a Briton, with the ‘clarity’ of anglo sentiments, rather than the ‘romanticized’ prose of German sentiments. In that sense it should be taken as a more aggressive anglo restatement of Nietzsche’s works published at that time. 2) Nietzsche’s works and Redbeard’s (Arthur Desmond), were followed by the social darwinist and eugenics movements, especially (British) Herbert Spencer’s thought. They were extremely popular pre-war. (And should have remained so. That failure will haunt us for centuries.) 3) Neither Nietzsche nor Redbeard solved the problem of replacing ‘slave’ (jewish and christian) morality with aristocratic morality for the simple reason that they did not understand aristocratic morality’s origins in germanic common law. We do see that Hayek, by the late 1970’s has begun to understand but he was german again, and too ‘tepid’, where the more aggressive British Keynes and American Rawls, and the very, very, aggressive ashkenazi marxists and socialists were more successful. 4) I have, I think, in propertarianism, completed the scientific explanation of our ancient heroic morality – although I am frequently criticized for writing it so legally and dryly. Most men want something more romantic (german), or passionate (anglo), or spiritual (Italian). When in reality, it is the Russians who have begun to practice it – absence the commitment to truth and sovereignty and reciprocity. They have at least taken on the Aryan Ambition. 5) So I would say that Ragnar Redbeard is a great … let us say, Young Adult Literary introduction to aristocracy and Propertarianism, yes. Just as Nietzsche is a freshman college introduction to aristocratic ethics and Propertarianism. Where Propertarianism is a bit like the graduate school version of both. Meaning that those are both works of literary inspiration, where Propertarianism is literally ‘The Natural Law Of Reciprocity of Sovereign Peoples: The Law of Aristocratic Egalitarians.” Hope that helps Curt