New World Order = Rule by Merchants. by Bill Anderson The first step was to kill all the kings. Completed via WWII. The king is the Father of the Nation, biologically related to his subjects, the embodiment of the genetic self-interest of a nation. The moderns are very careful to propagandize monarchy as evil and wicked, because the king has the incentive to limit the opportunities of the merchant class to profit from the consumption of capital of the nation. The Merchants frame the story of America as the culmination of the defeat of kings, raising anti-monarchy to religious fervor, and sacralizing the value. Monarchy is a heresy to them. This value system led America to become the Kingslayer and kinslayer in both WWI and WWII. Little did we know that when we slew the Fathers of the nations, that we were killing our Father in our collective cultural psyche, rendering a final judgement against authoritarianism as evil, and enshrining that value system. It’s the value system of the Son in rebellion against the Father. Now we see this anti-Father value system reaching the flower of its expression : where all masculinity is toxic, where men no longer defend their borders or their breeding rights. The restoration of Men, of patriarchy (rule by fathers), requires the re-sacrilization of the Father in our value system. This requires the destruction of the mythos of the merchants, including the propaganda that the American project was noble or virtuous only because it destroyed kings. The was virtue in being explorers and conquerors, but not in leading the charge to institute rule by merchant.
Source: Original Site Post
-
—“Curt, on Ireland’s Referendum. Your Position on Abortion?”—
Well, you know, I would have said something very different before I worked on natural law, because my intuitions are pretty libertarian. But now that I have, I’m against abortion, pro birth control, pro enforced birth control, and pro sterilization. And I would rather see punishment of girls who get pregnant, and the boys that get them pregnant, than tolerate abortions – even if the data says that unwanted children produce extraordinarily bad externalities. Altruistic punishment of those who fail to suppress their impulses a good thing. Fear of failure to suppress your impulses is a good thing. Having been there myself I understand. I also understand that the option only subsidizes the problem And even though I hate the idea myself, like capital punishment some unpleasantries are what they are. Some things are not to be trifled with, and creating life is one of them. And decidable is decidable, and it’s when we lie to ourselves and each other, that we have difficulty solving problems that are in fact, always decidable. Abortion is decidable. The decision is ‘no’.
-
—“Curt, on Ireland’s Referendum. Your Position on Abortion?”—
Well, you know, I would have said something very different before I worked on natural law, because my intuitions are pretty libertarian. But now that I have, I’m against abortion, pro birth control, pro enforced birth control, and pro sterilization. And I would rather see punishment of girls who get pregnant, and the boys that get them pregnant, than tolerate abortions – even if the data says that unwanted children produce extraordinarily bad externalities. Altruistic punishment of those who fail to suppress their impulses a good thing. Fear of failure to suppress your impulses is a good thing. Having been there myself I understand. I also understand that the option only subsidizes the problem And even though I hate the idea myself, like capital punishment some unpleasantries are what they are. Some things are not to be trifled with, and creating life is one of them. And decidable is decidable, and it’s when we lie to ourselves and each other, that we have difficulty solving problems that are in fact, always decidable. Abortion is decidable. The decision is ‘no’.
-
Density Income and Taxation
Once you start thinking the equilibrium between density and the discount on opportunity, versus sparsity, and the premium on the commons, you understand that value judgements of the urban vs suburban, vs rural people. The lower density the more responsibility for commons and the more costly are opportunities. Whereas the higher density the lower responsibility for commons and the lower cost of opportunities. Hence why density determines value judgements regarding the private and common.
-
Density Income and Taxation
Once you start thinking the equilibrium between density and the discount on opportunity, versus sparsity, and the premium on the commons, you understand that value judgements of the urban vs suburban, vs rural people. The lower density the more responsibility for commons and the more costly are opportunities. Whereas the higher density the lower responsibility for commons and the lower cost of opportunities. Hence why density determines value judgements regarding the private and common.
-
Of Course They Are Germans
—“The Royal family is a bunch of Germans you brought over just before WW1. Also if you knew what European royal ancestry looked like you wouldn’t brag with it. Imo your royal family is lucky to have chins”—Rohan Mostert Um, of course they are germans. That’s a good thing. Celts have a soft streak in them that makes them weak. And photos of the present and past european royalty fare far better than the common man. I understand the effeminacy of the modern UK male, and the reversal of gender roles in the UK. So I understand the dislike of hierarchy in the feminized male. And I understand why the feminized male accepts or invites european integration and muslim immigration. Envy is a thing for women. Excellence a thing for men.
-
Of Course They Are Germans
—“The Royal family is a bunch of Germans you brought over just before WW1. Also if you knew what European royal ancestry looked like you wouldn’t brag with it. Imo your royal family is lucky to have chins”—Rohan Mostert Um, of course they are germans. That’s a good thing. Celts have a soft streak in them that makes them weak. And photos of the present and past european royalty fare far better than the common man. I understand the effeminacy of the modern UK male, and the reversal of gender roles in the UK. So I understand the dislike of hierarchy in the feminized male. And I understand why the feminized male accepts or invites european integration and muslim immigration. Envy is a thing for women. Excellence a thing for men.
-
Who Would Be Interesting to Debate?
—“Who out there is not only equipped but coming from an angle which you yourself would find most rewarding to debate?”— Nicholas Arthur Catton Well, conversationally, I’d like to talk with Zizek just because the two of us are similar in some ways but at opposite ends of the structural spectrum. I’d like to talk to debate Peterson on truth, and discuss abrahamism and platonism versus his attempt to restore stoicism. I’d like to talk with Weinstein about mathematics of measuring capital in economics, and the consequences. (he has a deep feminine streak) I’d like to debate Harris on buddhism’s vs stoicism and the consequences for society. Of course I’d like to debate Hoppe on justificationism vs falsification by each dimension including the market. But I think he would doulbe down and fail, so I think it’s something I would need to debate with a team of philosophers rather than just one individual. I’d like to debate Epstein over the restoration of the constitution. I’d like to see if I could convince Haidt that moral biases are reducible to changes in state of assets that correspond to reproductive strategies. I’ld like to debate Fukuyama on monopoly bureaucracy vs a market of competing institutions under natural law monarchy (nomocracy). ANd I’d like to address the ant vs wolf differences in our cultures. I”d like to debate Duchesne over whether the church is of european or Syrian (middle eastern) origins, and the degree of damage the church did during the abrahamic dark age – because I think he is less of an economist and I think both of us might come away better understanding. I’d like to debate Mallory and Armstrong on the european-iranian-indian divide, and whether it was in fact, a dispersal or a driving-out. I mean… I suppose I could go on all day. but that’s a list of the people whose thinking I think of so to speak….
-
Who Would Be Interesting to Debate?
—“Who out there is not only equipped but coming from an angle which you yourself would find most rewarding to debate?”— Nicholas Arthur Catton Well, conversationally, I’d like to talk with Zizek just because the two of us are similar in some ways but at opposite ends of the structural spectrum. I’d like to talk to debate Peterson on truth, and discuss abrahamism and platonism versus his attempt to restore stoicism. I’d like to talk with Weinstein about mathematics of measuring capital in economics, and the consequences. (he has a deep feminine streak) I’d like to debate Harris on buddhism’s vs stoicism and the consequences for society. Of course I’d like to debate Hoppe on justificationism vs falsification by each dimension including the market. But I think he would doulbe down and fail, so I think it’s something I would need to debate with a team of philosophers rather than just one individual. I’d like to debate Epstein over the restoration of the constitution. I’d like to see if I could convince Haidt that moral biases are reducible to changes in state of assets that correspond to reproductive strategies. I’ld like to debate Fukuyama on monopoly bureaucracy vs a market of competing institutions under natural law monarchy (nomocracy). ANd I’d like to address the ant vs wolf differences in our cultures. I”d like to debate Duchesne over whether the church is of european or Syrian (middle eastern) origins, and the degree of damage the church did during the abrahamic dark age – because I think he is less of an economist and I think both of us might come away better understanding. I’d like to debate Mallory and Armstrong on the european-iranian-indian divide, and whether it was in fact, a dispersal or a driving-out. I mean… I suppose I could go on all day. but that’s a list of the people whose thinking I think of so to speak….
-
(((They))) Are All Cognitively Female
Once you understand (((they))) are all cognitively female, everything else they do makes perfect sense. Really. Like I said, the competitive differences between human groups are reducible to a very small number of traits that express gender differences during development. Our free will is limited by these differences. We know not what we do. We just do.