The problem with gold is (a) there is too little of it, (b) and as such it is too volitile for long term pricing. (c) and it is too open to manipulation. The problem with the fiat money system is only (a) we don’t have enough types of money, (b) we pay interest on borrowing from ourselves to create long term capital (housing, cars, appliances), which makes no damned sense at all, (c) we distribute liquidity through the financial sector and credit rather than just directly to consumers (citizens), and therefore cause the entire economy to reorganize and suffer the shocks, rather than simply having consumers correct the shock by shifting of consumption and debt. Libertarians are pretty much always wrong, because they’re always only half right, and they’re half right not because they’re moral, but because they want to enable private sector rents rather than public sector rents, instead of eliminating rents altogether. No man has any right to appreciation of a currency at the expense of others’ reduction of consumption or production. There is just no way to claim that. But it’s exactly the purpose of (((libertarian))) dogma: restoration of “the rents of the pale.”
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Problem with The Gold Standard (luddism)
The problem with gold is (a) there is too little of it, (b) and as such it is too volitile for long term pricing. (c) and it is too open to manipulation. The problem with the fiat money system is only (a) we don’t have enough types of money, (b) we pay interest on borrowing from ourselves to create long term capital (housing, cars, appliances), which makes no damned sense at all, (c) we distribute liquidity through the financial sector and credit rather than just directly to consumers (citizens), and therefore cause the entire economy to reorganize and suffer the shocks, rather than simply having consumers correct the shock by shifting of consumption and debt. Libertarians are pretty much always wrong, because they’re always only half right, and they’re half right not because they’re moral, but because they want to enable private sector rents rather than public sector rents, instead of eliminating rents altogether. No man has any right to appreciation of a currency at the expense of others’ reduction of consumption or production. There is just no way to claim that. But it’s exactly the purpose of (((libertarian))) dogma: restoration of “the rents of the pale.”
-
The New Right Is the Scientific Right
CONSERVATIVES (ARISTOCRACY) WERE FROZEN IN ANCIENT ARGUMENT THE NEW RIGHT IS THE SCIENTIFIC RIGHT Conservatives were stuck with a moral, religious, traditional set of arguments without themselves understanding why our civilization had ‘sped faster than the rest’. Worse, they bought into the lie just as libertarians bought into the lie of an aristocracy (sovereignty) of everyone. THE NEW RIGHT = SCIENTIFIC RIGHT. The alt right uses ridicule, but by and large the new right differs from the old right in that we now have DATA and we have it from a century of failures with the falsehoods of classical liberalism, and the falsehoods of marxist-postmodernism. My work is just going back to our roots: impose the law with violence and incrementally suppress all transgressions of it. Men will naturally insure kin, so create nation states, or at least small local polities in the Swiss model with federal governments providing only reciprocal decidability over inter-state conflicts, and acting as insurer of last resort.
-
The New Right Is the Scientific Right
CONSERVATIVES (ARISTOCRACY) WERE FROZEN IN ANCIENT ARGUMENT THE NEW RIGHT IS THE SCIENTIFIC RIGHT Conservatives were stuck with a moral, religious, traditional set of arguments without themselves understanding why our civilization had ‘sped faster than the rest’. Worse, they bought into the lie just as libertarians bought into the lie of an aristocracy (sovereignty) of everyone. THE NEW RIGHT = SCIENTIFIC RIGHT. The alt right uses ridicule, but by and large the new right differs from the old right in that we now have DATA and we have it from a century of failures with the falsehoods of classical liberalism, and the falsehoods of marxist-postmodernism. My work is just going back to our roots: impose the law with violence and incrementally suppress all transgressions of it. Men will naturally insure kin, so create nation states, or at least small local polities in the Swiss model with federal governments providing only reciprocal decidability over inter-state conflicts, and acting as insurer of last resort.
-
Warriors and Tongue Waggers Liber-Tine/tarian-Ism Is Dead – It Was Always a Lie
Libertarians (libertines) and ancaps are statistically irrelevant. Predisposed to tongue wagging and not to violence necessary to impose rule of law. So the issue here is that libertinism (rothbardianism, ancapism) is dead. And that classical liberalism is largely dead. And that all that can be learned from the failures of the past 350 years, is that markets-in-everything mean that we should have given additional houses to additional classes as they became participatory, and preserved the houses as a market for commons between the classes, and likewise prohibited the production of law (legislation), only contract between the classes under usual contractual terms. We had the perfect government with the Scandianvian and germanic monarchies under sovereignty (rule of law of reciprocity, universal standing, and universal applicability), with the monarch as the judge of last resort, and able to dispense with bureaucracies or the government at a whim. THIS MEANS LIBERTARIANISM IN ALL FORMS WAS ALWAYS A LIE…… Both anglo (classical liberal) and jewish (libertine) were both lies. There is only one law and only one means of imposing it: the organized violence of enough men that the state cannot withstand their revolt.
-
Warriors and Tongue Waggers Liber-Tine/tarian-Ism Is Dead – It Was Always a Lie
Libertarians (libertines) and ancaps are statistically irrelevant. Predisposed to tongue wagging and not to violence necessary to impose rule of law. So the issue here is that libertinism (rothbardianism, ancapism) is dead. And that classical liberalism is largely dead. And that all that can be learned from the failures of the past 350 years, is that markets-in-everything mean that we should have given additional houses to additional classes as they became participatory, and preserved the houses as a market for commons between the classes, and likewise prohibited the production of law (legislation), only contract between the classes under usual contractual terms. We had the perfect government with the Scandianvian and germanic monarchies under sovereignty (rule of law of reciprocity, universal standing, and universal applicability), with the monarch as the judge of last resort, and able to dispense with bureaucracies or the government at a whim. THIS MEANS LIBERTARIANISM IN ALL FORMS WAS ALWAYS A LIE…… Both anglo (classical liberal) and jewish (libertine) were both lies. There is only one law and only one means of imposing it: the organized violence of enough men that the state cannot withstand their revolt.
-
Why Was the Empire Lost?
Well, it was lost by fighting a pair of unnecessary wars in which Germany was in the right, and thereby hollowing out Europe of it’s ancient cultural origins. Doing so collapsed the empire. And the people did not immediately replace a global imperial government with a local national one. As such Britain as much as France, drove marxist imperialism just as hard as the soviets. The problem was not gutting the government OR working with the USA to restore the British empire. One or the other. But in typical British fashion, just as the french lost their civilization at the loss of the monarchy, just as the Spanish civilization died at their loss of empire, and British lost theirs – and became as useless as the french and Spanish. Between 1830 and 1914 the British broke from germanic civilization and became Diasporics in every possible sense.
-
Why Was the Empire Lost?
Well, it was lost by fighting a pair of unnecessary wars in which Germany was in the right, and thereby hollowing out Europe of it’s ancient cultural origins. Doing so collapsed the empire. And the people did not immediately replace a global imperial government with a local national one. As such Britain as much as France, drove marxist imperialism just as hard as the soviets. The problem was not gutting the government OR working with the USA to restore the British empire. One or the other. But in typical British fashion, just as the french lost their civilization at the loss of the monarchy, just as the Spanish civilization died at their loss of empire, and British lost theirs – and became as useless as the french and Spanish. Between 1830 and 1914 the British broke from germanic civilization and became Diasporics in every possible sense.
-
The Market Is a Consequence of Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, and The Independent Judiciary Common of The Common (tort) Law.
We create a market by creating sovereignty. we expand the market by incremental suppression of impositions of costs upon the investments made by others. We create private, corporate, and common assets. And we suppress impositions against them. The central problem of sovereignty is reduction of the lower classes that cannot survive in the CURRENT market order. In other words, we must genetically improve our distributions as we improve our productivity.
-
The Market Is a Consequence of Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, and The Independent Judiciary Common of The Common (tort) Law.
We create a market by creating sovereignty. we expand the market by incremental suppression of impositions of costs upon the investments made by others. We create private, corporate, and common assets. And we suppress impositions against them. The central problem of sovereignty is reduction of the lower classes that cannot survive in the CURRENT market order. In other words, we must genetically improve our distributions as we improve our productivity.